Home

  • Workers’ Voice newspaper: March-April edition

    Workers’ Voice newspaper: March-April edition

    The U.S.-Israel war on Iran is a major escalation in the Middle East that has dangerous implications for working people everywhere. The brutality of the imperialist assault internationally is paired with the attack on civil liberties by the Trump regime inside the U.S. This includes the continued operations of ICE and Border Patrol, the threats to the 2026 mid-term elections, environmental rollbacks that deeply impact the Black community, and unchecked police brutality.

    Our editorial in this issue warns us: “There is a great danger of underestimating the determination of the U.S. corporate elite to drive through this effort. We cannot rely on court rulings or upcoming elections to save us. We must organize now, not only for mass demonstrations and community networks against ICE violence, but to find our way to building a new working-class party through which we can organize our political defense on every plane and on every day.”

    In this issue we also have articles on the Epstein files and the ruling class, the San Francisco teachers’ strike, and a review of the new album by U2.

    The March–April 2026 edition of our newspaper is available in print and online as a pdf. Read the latest issue of our newspaper today with a free pdf download! As always, we appreciate any donations to help with the cost of printing.

    Click on the image to read the paper or message us to get a hard copy:

  • Border Patrol raids spread fear in California’s Central Valley

    Border Patrol raids spread fear in California’s Central Valley

    {:en}

    By Jose Monterojo

    From Jan. 7 through Jan. 10, immigration agents carried out a series of unexpected raids in Californias Central Valley, in an operation dubbed Operation Return to Sender.” In Bakersfield, Calif., undercover agents in marked and unmarked vehicles confronted farm workers in front of a gas station and a shopping center, asking for their documents and arresting dozens of those without citizenship papers.

    In order to justify their actions in the Central Valley, the Border Patrol stated that they had arrested immigrants with serious criminal records. As bystanders noted, however, immigration agents apprehended anyone who looked like a farmworker. Far from being a case of enhancing community security, these raids racially profiled Latino farmworkers to spread fear across the community.

    News of these raids spread rapidly through the immigrant and Latino community. In the days following the raids, agricultural companies stated that up to 75% of their total workforce did not show up to work. Many children also didnt attend school. People also reported seeing Border Patrol officers in Fresno and Madera, also in the Central Valley. The BP said they would expand raids to Fresno and Sacramento. The Border Patrol claims the right to conduct warrantless searches throughout any territory that lies within 100 miles of a U.S. border, including its coasts and international airports.

    In response, immigrant rights organizers mobilized about 1000 people in Bakersfield. Activists decried the racist arrests as illegal since they were based on nothing but the color of workersskin and their work attire. They also discussed the importance of the immigrant community understanding their democratic rights.

    These raids by the Border Control foreshadowed the more extensive raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that have taken place nationwide since Trump took office. On Feb. 1, ICE announced that it had arrested 7400 immigrants nationwide in the days following Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration. Ice has claimed that these were targeted campaigns” against undocumented migrants with serious criminals records, such as murder, rape, sex trafficking or belonging to gangs. However, NBC News, for example, found that of the close to 1200 arrests made on Sunday, Jan. 26—mainly in Chicago—only 613 (almost 52%) were considered “criminal arrests.”

    These raids are Donald Trumps way of signaling that he will live up to his plans to deport undocumented workers en masse without any regard for due process or legality. The Biden administration arrested about 450 people per day in 2023 and about 310.7 per day last year, according to an ICE report. But they are now happening in the context of sweeping changes in immigration policy from the new regime.

    Trumps new executive orders on immigration include declaring a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, sending of 1500 troops to the border, deporting migrants who came legally under programs authorized by Biden, eliminating birthright citizenship (currently halted by the courts), and raiding sanctuary spaces such as schools, hospitals, and churches.

    Sanctuary city policies are very limited in the protections they afford undocumented workers. While they can complicate federal agentsdeportation raids in places like San Francisco, Oakland, or Los Angeles, they cannot stop these agents from doing so, as demonstrated last week in Newark, N.J.

    Moreover, Eric Adams, mayor of New York City—one of the key immigrant cities in the U.S.—stated recently that he would comply with Trumps federal agents to arrest those with criminal records. While he upholds New York Citys sanctuary city status, he also plays into Trumps anti-immigrant policies by accepting the racist framework in which Trump plans to carry out these raids: that they are meant to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens, even though evidence demonstrates that immigrants are less likely than the general citizen population to commit crimes.

    We cannot depend on the goodwill of Democrats at any level of government to stand up for immigrant rights. We need to build a broad, independent mass movement for immigrant rights that unites all pro-immigrant forces, such as immigrant organizations, unions, religious groups, student forces, legal teams, etc. Such a wide coalition would need to focus on the strategy of mass action—that is, of taking to the streets, organizing labor actions, and blocking deportations through collective struggle wherever they occur.

    End deportations! Close all the detention centers! Democratic rights for all undocumented workers! Citizenship for all!

    Photo: Protest in Fresno, Calif.

  • Solidarity with the Mapuche community Lof Pailako in Argentina

    Solidarity with the Mapuche community Lof Pailako in Argentina

    By PARTIDO SOCIALISTA DE LOS TRABAJADORES UNIFICADO

    (Unified Socialist Workers Party, Argentina)

    On Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025, a large operation was carried out by the Federal Police and the Gendarmerie to evict the Mapuche community of Lof Pailako from the Los Alerces National Park, either “peacefully” or by force. Faced with the alternative possibility that resisting the eviction would provoke fierce repression against the community, including the elderly and children, its members chose to leave the park, which was occupied by the police forces and placed at the disposal of the National Parks Administration[1].

    This is a new attack against the Mapuche people, who have inhabited the Andean Patagonia for centuries (in what are now the territories of Argentina and Chile). Specifically, the Lof Pailako community has inhabited what is now the National Park for at least five generations, according to anthropological studies conducted by specialists from CONICET [National Scientific and Technical Research Council] and prestigious foreign universities. In other words, long before the creation of the current National Park (between 1937 and 1945).

    After the creation of the modern Argentine state, when the Argentine bourgeoisie wanted to extend its dominion over the entire province of Buenos Aires, especially over the Pampas and Patagonia, the indigenous peoples of these regions began to be attacked and expelled from their ancestral lands. An example of this was the hypocritically named “Campaign of the Desert,” led by General Julio Argentino Roca, which culminated in 1879. Most in-depth studies have described this campaign as genocide and ethnocide, a continuation of those carried out by the Spanish colonizers in other regions[2]. All this was done to facilitate the installation of new landowners. A similar process took place in Chile.

    In Patagonia, the most affected were the Tehuelche or Aonek’enk (southern) peoples. Among them were the Mapuche, who were confined to small communities scattered in territories to which they had no “legal title”. Their situation worsened with the creation of the National Park Service, whose lands included these territories. The Mapuche began to be branded as “usurpers.”

    Moira Millán, a Mapuche weichafe (warrior or fighter), said: “We are the Palestinians of Patagonia. It is a place where there are many geopolitical and economic interests that are strategic, and there is a people, the Mapuche people” (documentary Palaiko: Cosmovisión en Resistencia)[3].

    In terms of economic interests, it is currently evident that Andean Patagonia has immense wealth in hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and minerals, it also has internationally renowned tourist attractions suitable for the development of luxury real estate projects, and a large reserve of fresh water in its glaciers and lakes. It is a “very appetizing morsel” for the big foreign and national bourgeoisie, who are always trying to get their hands on it. This is the same analysis presented by Laura Taffetani, of the Argentine Lawyers’ Association: this court order for eviction “has to do with the extractivist and plundering model that has been going on, and the communities are an obstacle to business, to mining”. This organization had filed several appeals for legal protection before the Federal Court of Esquel, the Court of Appeals of Comodoro Rivadavia and the Supreme Court. All were rejected.

    The eviction

    This eviction action was carried out by order of the federal judge of Trelew, Guido Otranto (the same one who left the murder of Santiago Maldonado unresolved in 2017). Then, as we have seen, it was confirmed by all the higher judicial rulings.

    The current context is Javier Milei’s Decree 1083/2024, which “declares the end of the state of emergency regarding the possession and ownership of lands traditionally occupied by indigenous communities, as established in Law 26,160”. This 2006 law “froze” the situation of indigenous territories. It was extended in 2009, 2013, and 2017, until Milei’s decree expired, allowing the eviction of indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, as has just happened to the Lof Pailako community, in more than 300 court cases.

    In this context, the hypocrisy of the Argentine bourgeoisie, its institutions and its media is disgusting. Take, for example, the statements of the governor of Chubut, Ignacio Torres, who, since taking office at the end of 2023, has said: “The law must be enforced and criminals must not be allowed to take what does not belong to them”. Or that of presidential spokesman Manuel Adorni, who said it was “the expulsion of usurpers from lands that belong to all Argentines.

    It is a disgusting hypocrisy, because it is the same national and provincial governments (of all colors) that look the other way and do nothing when the British millionaire Joe Lewis appropriates Lago Escondido, in Río Negro, and with a private army prevents the free circulation of the public access road, despite the fact that there has been a court order against him to release it for 9 years[4]. They are also the ones who have allowed the Canadian mining company Barrick Gold to contaminate the water and soil with cyanide[5]. Likewise they have allowed the government of San Juan to expropriate private lands and give them to the company[6].

    For these servile agents of the big national and foreign bourgeoisie, the Mapuche are “criminals” and “usurpers,” while the real thieves [in white gloves] and usurpers, such as Joe Lewis and Barrick Gold, are “investors” who are given every legal advantage and have their backs covered (as with the RIGI recently approved by Congress)[7] in exchange for probably very good commissions for the services provided.

    This leads them to even more repugnant attitudes, such as the racist denial of the existence of indigenous peoples and their ancestral rights (something that is even included in subsection 17 of article 75 of the National Constitution, which recognizes the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of indigenous peoples).

    For example, Ignacio Torres, governor of Chubut, Cristian Larsen, president of the National Park Service, and the mayor of Esquel, Matías Taccetta, participated in the eviction. The national government’s security minister, Patricia Bullrich, even led the operation[8].

    On the other hand, numerous human rights, environmental and indigenous organizations expressed their solidarity with the Mapuche and demanded that the eviction not take place. The FIT-U, PTS, PO, IS, and PSTU deputies of Chubut and at the national level did the same.*

    Important solidarity came from Brazil, following a campaign by the Brazilian PSTU [Unified Socialist Workers Party], the CSP-Conlutas, the Luta Popular organization, and numerous indigenous communities from that country.

    A regime at the service of semi-colonial capitalism

    What happened to the community of Lof Pailako is a new demonstration of the true character of the political regime established by the Constitution of 1853 and its subsequent amendments. Its institutions (national government, provincial governments, parliament, judiciary at all levels, police forces, etc.) are no longer the expression of national sovereignty or the “will of the people.” They have been transformed into semi-colonial institutions at the service of imperialist plunder and its national partners.

    At this moment, we want to express our solidarity with the community of Lof Pailako and with all the Mapuche people. At the same time, we support their struggle for the right to have their own territories in order to exist as a people according to their ancestral traditions. We demand that these territories be handed over to them, even if they “belong” to private owners or national parks.

    But it has become very clear that neither Argentine capitalism, which is subject to imperialism, and the large national corporations associated with it, nor the current political regime will grant them this right. Therefore, the proposal that the solution will come through dialogue and agreement with the governments is a dead end that always ends in evictions like that of the community of Parque los Alerces.

    The indigenous peoples of Patagonia also have a fundamental weapon: many of their descendants are oil, mining and fishing workers. Therefore, the way forward is to unite their demands with those of the labor movement in a common struggle.

    This is a struggle that should culminate in a workers’ and people’s revolution that leads to a socialist Argentina, building a country that is the opposite of the current one (without the plundering multinationals) and the institutions that serve them. Only a workers’ popular government will be able to guarantee these rights to the indigenous peoples and their full autonomous integration into this new, fairer, and more egalitarian country.

    FIT-U (Workers’ Left Front-Unity), PTS (Socialist Workers’ Party), PO (Workers’ Party), IS (Socialist Left), PSTU (Unified Socialist Workers Party).

    Sources
    [1] https://www.infobae.com/politica/2025/01/09/desalojo-en-chubut-los-mapuches-abandonaron-el-parque-los-alerces-y-el-estado-recupero-las-tierras-usurpadas/
    [2] https://journals.openedition.org/alhim/103
    [3] https://www.instagram.com/chimera.arte/reel/DCy04NVRNIm/”
    [4] https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/lago-escondido-la-justicia-de-rio-negro-fallo-a-favor-de-joe-lewis-y-se-cerrara-el-camino-corto-que-nid01092023/
    [5]https://elpais.com/internacional/2015/09/25/actualidad/1443206825_026909.html
    [6] https://www.perfil.com/noticias/politica/el-gobierno-de-san-juan-le-entrego-un-terreno-a-barrick-gold-y-sus-duenos-reclaman-fueron-en-contra-de-las-sentencias-judiciales.phtml
    [7] https://litci.org/es/argentina-el-regimen-de-incentivo-a-las-grandes-inversiones-rigi-es-una-mesa-servida-para-el-imperialismo/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser
    [8] https://canal12web.com/localidades/chubut/patricia-bullrich-presente-en-el-operativo-de-desalojo-en-el-parque-nacional-los-alerces/

  • Where is Mercosur heading?

    Where is Mercosur heading?

    By ALEJANDRO ITURBE

    A new Mercosur summit was held in Montevideo in the first week of December. The main item on the agenda was the signing of a free trade agreement with the European Union (EU). This issue still has to be approved by the EU bodies, where there is a division among the member countries, which has been holding up the agreement for many years. Another issue was the proposal by Argentine President Javier Milei to amend Mercosur’s basic agreement to allow member countries to sign bilateral free trade agreements with countries outside the bloc. What is Mercosur and how will this summit affect its dynamics?

    Mercosur was created in 1991 and became fully operational in 1994. It currently has Argentina, Bolivia (which will join in 2025), Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay as full members. Venezuela had joined in 2012, but its participation was “suspended” in 2017[1]. Other South American countries have the status of ‘associates’ (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru): they can attend meetings without voting rights and without being obliged to abide by its decisions.

    Mercosur is essentially a regional free trade agreement that allows “the free movement of goods, services and factors of production between countries through the elimination of customs duties and non-tariff restrictions on the movement of goods…”[2]. It also facilitated investment by companies from one member country in another member country of the bloc.

    At the same time, Mercosur was supposed to establish “a common external tariff and the adoption of a common trade policy with third countries or groups of countries…” (as it is now trying to do with the EU). This is the constitutive clause that Milei wants to remove or modify.

    Subsequently, the bloc adopted agreements allowing for the free movement of persons within its territory, with the simple presentation of a national document, as well as temporary and permanent residence in another country (and the right to work), with simple procedures for obtaining them. The first and subsequent Mercosur agreements are binding on the member countries (which must give them the status of national legislation).

    Mercosur had set itself more ambitious goals: “the coordination of macroeconomic and sectoral policies among member countries: foreign trade, agricultural, industrial, fiscal, monetary, exchange and capital policies…”. There was also talk of creating supranational institutions such as the EU, with the creation of a single currency and a single central bank (along the lines of the eurozone). No progress was ever made on this path and it remained ‘frozen’ at the level we have analyzed.

    Some facts

    According to the World Bank, the five Mercosur countries had a total nominal GDP of $2.916 trillion (of which Brazil accounts for 73%, Argentina for 21.3%, Uruguay for 2.6%, Bolivia for 1.6% and Paraguay for 1.5%). Mercosur’s total GDP would rank eighth on the World Bank’s list, very close to that of France and well above that of major countries such as Italy and Canada.

    At the same time, Mercosur is the world’s largest producer of food; it has large reserves of fuel (oil and gas) and is a major producer of electricity; it has abundant mineral reserves (e.g. lithium) and huge freshwater resources (in addition to the many rivers that cross it, its territory contains the gigantic Guarani aquifer). It is also home to the largest area of the Amazon rainforest, the largest tropical forest in the world. Because of its size as a ‘market’ and its immense natural wealth, Mercosur is a ‘very appetising morsel’ for the world’s major economic powers”.

    In addition to trade between member countries, in 2021 Mercosur had a trade exchange (sum of exports and imports) with the “rest of the world” of almost 600 billion dollars, according to its official website[3]. Exports accounted for 57% of this figure and imports for 43%: a favourable trade balance (of around 84 billion dollars).
    The main exports were metalliferous minerals, oilseeds and oleaginous fruits, fuels and vegetable and mineral oils. The main imports were reactors, boilers, machinery, mechanical appliances and equipment, and electrical machinery, equipment and materials. In other words, it exported food, fuel and raw materials and imported manufactured goods.

    Semi-colonial integration

    The creation of Mercosur was part of a policy of imperialist capitalism in the 1990s called ‘globalization’. Free trade agreements reduced or eliminated tariffs and liberalized the movement and establishment of capital.

    The signatory governments presented Mercosur as an integration that would strengthen the autonomy of their countries and of the bloc as a whole in the face of imperialism, on the way to “national liberation”. It was a big lie: this integration was at the service of the interests of the big international and national companies (including the landowners), which could thus reduce their costs and plan their investments on a larger market scale, i.e. it was a functional integration of subordination to the imperialist powers (especially the USA).

    In the global division of labour established in the 1990s, Mercosur’s role, as we have seen, is that of supplier and exporter of food, fuel and raw materials (especially minerals). At the same time, the favourable trade balances have been used to pay the interest on the foreign debt contracted by these countries in previous decades.

    Internal inequalities

    Brazil has been the country that has benefited most from the existence of Mercosur. On the one hand, it is a major exporter of food and minerals outside the bloc. On the other hand, its greater industrial development allowed it to become the “regional headquarters” of large industrial companies and their “export platform” to the bloc and South America (especially in the automobile sector). In this framework, while remaining subordinate to imperialism, it established relations of subjugation and exploitation towards the weaker countries. In Paraguay, it appropriated the energy produced by Itaipu[4] and promoted an “invasion” of Brazilian settlers who bought up more and more land and settled in the soya-producing region (the so-called “brasilguayos”)[5]. In Bolivia, Petrobras acquired great power in the exploitation and processing of Bolivian oil and gas, which it then imported into Brazil at “gift prices”[6].

    Relations with Argentina (Mercosur’s second largest economy) are much more contradictory. Large industrial companies, especially in the metal-mechanical sector, considered Argentina as a ‘regional’ area integrated into the Brazilian market. Many companies in this sector have established their regional headquarters in Brazil. Argentina retained part of the automotive industry (increasingly specialised in pick-up trucks). In this sector, however, the balance of trade between the two countries has always favoured Brazil. At the same time, Brazilian companies began to buy Argentine companies: this was the case with Petrobras, the Camargo Correa construction group[7] and the JBS meat processing group[8]. At the same time, Argentina has higher productivity than Brazil in the grain, by-products and other food sectors. With these exports, it has achieved a better balance in the trade balance between the two countries, as it was at one point very deficient in the industrial sector.

    Brazil is Argentina’s most important trading partner. Integration and trade flows are set to increase. Petrobras signed an agreement with YPF to invest in the Vaca Muerta mega-field in Patagonia[9]. At the same time, at the recent G20 summit, Argentina’s Economy Minister Luis Caputo signed an agreement with Brazil’s Mines and Energy Minister Alexandre Silveira to export gas from the field to Brazil[10]. For the time being, exports will be made through the gas pipeline that crosses Bolivia. However, there is a project to build a gas pipeline directly between the two countries[11]. This is a new factor that would tend to further balance the trade between the two countries.

    Paraguay and Uruguay are looking for their “place in the sun”

    In Mercosur, the two smaller countries have been sandwiched between Brazil and Argentina and their more developed economies. In this context, their bourgeoisies had to find some space for their businesses.

    Paraguay began with an agrarian economy, with very little industrial development, which traditionally revolved around Argentina, to which many Paraguayans had emigrated. In the agricultural sector, with a large number of small farmers, a process of concentration of large landowners began, both in the production of soya and in the exploitation of tropical plants (such as palm hearts). In both cases, the presence of foreign landowners increased.

    The construction of the Itaipú dam allowed some businesses to develop, but once it was operational, its high energy production was subordinated to Brazil. On the other hand, with the creation of Mercosur and the free movement of people across the border, some industries (cigarettes, clothing and the assembly of electronic products) greatly increased their production, which was then smuggled to neighbouring countries, especially Brazil, which is trying to combat this, so far without success.
    The economy of Ciudad del Este (the second largest in the country) and its region depends on this circuit[12].

    At the same time, many Brazilian companies have begun to set up in Paraguay (especially in Ciudad del Este) “because of the lower taxes they pay and the cheaper labour and energy”[13]. Currently, 12,000 Paraguayan workers (a very high number for the country) are employed in a system of maquilas whose production is “exported” to Brazil. This fact increases Paraguay’s dependence on Brazil, which we have already mentioned. Finally, the Paraguayan government has proposed to YPF and Tecpetrol that the pipeline that would bring gas from Vaca Muerta to Brazil should pass through Paraguay[14]. In this context, the Paraguayan government strongly defends the existence of Mercosur on its current basis.

    The case of Uruguay is different. During the first half of the twentieth century, this country achieved stable economic development (with a certain amount of industry) around the export of wool, in which it had specialised. This prosperity came to an end in the 1950s when synthetic fibres replaced wool and the country entered a long economic, social and political crisis. In this context, the Uruguayan bourgeoisie sought an alternative in the tourism of the middle classes and bourgeois sectors in Argentina, and in the boost to trade and construction that this brought to various cities in the country.

    Later, another factor was added: faced with the crisis and bankruptcy of the Argentine banking system and its chronic financial instability, a sector of Argentines turned to Uruguayan banking as a “safe financial haven”[15]. Some even moved there permanently and/or permanently to avoid paying taxes in Argentina.

    The crisis that began in the 1950s reduced Uruguayan industry to the production of food, beverages and tobacco (and construction linked to tourism and trade). In this context, a section of the Uruguayan bourgeoisie sought to establish new industries in the country. This was achieved through an agreement with the Finnish company Botnia and others from Europe, and the installation of a pulp processing plant in 2007 in the town of Fray Bentos, on the Uruguay River that separates it from Gualeguaychú (Argentina). It also promoted a reforestation plan in the nearby region. This led to a major political and diplomatic conflict with Argentina over the pollution of the river that the plantations would cause and the failure to respect previous agreements on the use of the river between the two countries. The strongest expression of this conflict was with the people of Gualeguaychú, who went so far as to block the international bridge linking the two banks. There were also internal conflicts in Uruguay, both with the bourgeois sectors that lived off Argentine tourism and even with the trade union center.

    The construction of the second ‘pulp mill’ on the Uruguay River was suspended and is being built in Montes de Plata (Colonia Department) with Swedish-Finnish and Chilean capital. Finally, the third and largest ‘pastera’ in the country has just been inaugurated in Pueblo Centenario – Paso de los Toros (Durazno) with Finnish capital. It was the largest investment in the country’s history (3.47 billion dollars) and will have its own railway line to transport its production to the port of Montevideo. Once this plant is in full production and joins the two previous ones, cellulose exports will become the country’s main foreign sales item, surpassing the traditional exports of meat and soy[16]. Ironically, the exchange rate differences (and the lower prices of food, fuel and hotels in Argentina) have reversed the flow of tourists: it was very cheap for Uruguayans to go to Argentina to eat and spend a few days there, in very large numbers in 2023 (an average of 60,000 people per week). The rise in Argentine prices in dollars has considerably reduced this flow in 2024, as many Uruguayans now opt to go to Brazil[17].

    The truth is that a section of the Uruguayan bourgeoisie has always criticized the obstacles imposed by Mercosur’s constitutive clauses on bilateral free trade agreements between its members and other countries. At the summit in Asunción last June, Lacalle Pou said: ‘We have to move forward [with these agreements]. If the partners are not willing to move forward as quickly as possible, we should move forward at different speeds'[18]. At the same time, he criticized Argentine President Javier Milei (who holds a similar position on this issue) for not attending the Asunción summit.

    The failure of the FTAA and the signing of free trade agreements

    Before Mercosur, other South American countries had signed similar agreements, such as the Andean Pact between Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in 1969. This was later transformed into the Pacific Alliance in 2011-2012 (Bolivia left and Mexico joined). There have also been trade agreements between Central American and Caribbean countries. Or more general agreements such as LAFTA (Latin American Free Trade Agreement), initiated in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ), which was signed by Canada, the USA and Mexico in 1992, deserves special mention.

    Here, U.S. imperialism was directly involved. The big loser of this agreement was Mexico, whose domestic industry was drastically reduced and turned into maquilas for U.S. companies (especially in the north of the country). Traditional maize-based agriculture was also reduced, bombarded by subsidized production in the USA.

    At the same time, at the 1994 Summit of the Americas, U.S. imperialism launched the proposal to create the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) ‘from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego’. This agreement never materialized. Hugo Chávez, then president of Venezuela, was strongly opposed to it and was supported by Argentina’s Néstor Kirchner. At the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, both called for a mobilization and rally under the slogan ‘No to the FTAA’. The presidents of Brazil and Uruguay, although they did not call for a mobilization, questioned the agreement at that summit. At the same time, agricultural producers in the U.S. also opposed the agreement because it could mean the end of the large subsidies they receive from the U.S. government.

    Faced with the difficulties of making the FTAA a reality, U.S. imperialism took a different turn: it concluded regional or bilateral agreements with its direct participation. The most important of these was the DR-CAFTA (Free Trade Agreement between the U.S., Central American countries and the Dominican Republic), signed in 2003/2004, which had to be ratified by the national parliaments.

    In Costa Rica, there was a very strong mobilization against the FTA[19]. This forced the government of Óscar Arias to postpone ratification. In this situation, he called a referendum on 7 October 2007, in which he obtained a slight majority (51.62% in favour and 48.38% against). Finally, in 2009, Costa Rica ratified its participation in DR-CAFTA.

    Mercosur, the BRICS and the Silk Roads

    Since the restoration of capitalism and the gigantic imperialist investments that have poured in (especially since 1990), China has undergone a spectacular industrial development. It became the “factory of the world” and the second largest capitalist economic power in terms of GDP, which the IWL describes as imperialist. It became a ‘key player’ in world trade.

    This was strongly reflected in Latin America and Mercosur. By 2021, China had become Latin America’s second largest trading partner and was on its way to becoming the first[20]. In that year, imports and exports were in balance. Bourgeois economists call this ‘complementary economies’: Latin America exports food and raw materials (mainly minerals) and China exports finished industrial products, or parts of them.

    China began to seek greater autonomy in its international trade, since world trade still functions around a banking system dominated by the dollar-euro pole. To this end, China pushed for the formation of the BRICS group (an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) between 2006 and 2009. In 2024 it was expanded to include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries, including Malaysia, Thailand and Turkey, are ‘associated’ and interested in becoming full members in the future. In this sense, the group is made up of countries with three of the ten largest GDPs in the world (in 2022, the group’s members will account for 25.7% of the world’s total)[21].

    The group has created its own financial institutions, such as the New Development Bank, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement and the BRICS salary system. However, it has never been able to move towards much deeper integration (along the lines of the European Union) or to create a common currency such as the euro. There are many reasons and contradictions hindering this progress towards the ‘de-dollarisation’ of world trade[22].

    At this point, it is necessary to mention the modern Silk Road: an international trade agreement that facilitates the transport of goods to and from China. In 2020, in Latin America, this agreement included Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. In other words, several Mercosur countries[23].

    On the basis of this agreement, China has built a “physical chain” of ports and infrastructure, financed by its government and managed by Chinese companies with special privileges. In Latin America, the Chinese project has for several years sought to construct several ports of this type. But so far it has only succeeded in Chancay, Peru (70 km from Lima), which has become the most important port in the South American Pacific. It is operated by Cosco Shipping Port, the leading Chinese shipping company. The project to build a similar mega-port in Tierra del Fuego (Argentina) has been ruled out for the time being due to the strong pressure of U.S. imperialism and the IMF on the Argentinean governments[24].

    Chinese investment in Mercosur

    In addition to the great weight of the Mercosur countries in foreign trade outside the bloc, China has also begun to make increasing investments in some of them.

    In the case of Argentina, these are aimed at securing supplies of agricultural and livestock products and their derivatives. Secondly, it began to make minority investments in the oil and mining sectors (especially lithium). It also began to operate in the downstream processing of lithium for use in the manufacture of batteries for electric cars. It has partnered with a new branch of YPF (the large state-owned oil company) called YPF Litio SA or Y-TEC (which was already involved in one of the lithium extraction projects)[25].

    In order for Y-TEC to be involved in the entire lithium value chain (extraction, enrichment and battery production), an agreement was made for Chinese instructors to train engineers and workers to build and start up these factories[26], some of which are already operational and supplying batteries for use in vehicles[27]. This was complemented by the project of a Chinese company (Gotion High Tech) to build terminal plants in Argentina to manufacture electric buses and lithium batteries, in partnership with Y-TEC and a private Argentine company, for export to Mercosur and Latin America[28]. We will see later what happened to this project under the government of Javier Milei.

    In Brazil, the Chinese company BYD bought the large factory in Camaçari-Bahia (closed by Ford at the beginning of 2021) to produce electric cars[29]. It also opened the first Brazilian battery factory for electric cars[30]. At the same time, Chinese companies have been investing in the energy production and distribution sector in Brazil, taking advantage of the process of dismantling and privatising the state-owned Eletrobras[31]. Recently, the Chinese state-owned Nonferrous Trade Co. Ltd. bought the Pitinga mine in the Amazon for 340 million dollars, becoming the owner of the largest tin reserves in Brazil[32].

    All this explains why, after the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Lula and Xi held an official meeting in Brasilia to “promote the development strategies of both countries, as well as regional and international issues of common interest” and to sign numerous trade agreements between the two countries. Xi Jinping again proposed to Lula that Brazil join the Silk Road trade agreement, which Brazil has not yet done[33].

    The agreement with the EU and its contradictions

    As we have said, the main point discussed at the summit was the signing of the bases of a free trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union (EU), which still has to be approved by the EU bodies before it can enter into force. This agreement has been under discussion for more than 20 years. In fact, between 2016 and 2019 it seemed that it would become a reality, but it was blocked by the division between EU member countries into two blocs: one led by Germany (in favour) and the other by France (against)[34].

    In this agreement, the most developed EU countries obtain major advantages for selling their industrial products in Mercosur and for investing in subsidiaries in these countries. As a result, Germany leads the bloc in its approval. In France, the main opposition to the agreement comes from agricultural producers, especially those involved in cattle and poultry farming.

    Now they are firmly opposed to the EU-Mercosur agreement, fearing that it will lead to an “invasion” of beef and chicken at much lower prices and that this will be the “coup de grâce”[35]. They received the solidarity of the large supermarket chain Carrefour, which announced that it would no longer buy meat from Mercosur countries to supply its supermarkets in France. In Brazil, this led to a conflict with the country’s major meat producers (JBS and Marfrig), which suspended the sale of meat and its derivatives to the company’s entire extensive chain of stores in the country[36]. Argentine meat producers threatened to do the same in their country. In the end, Carrefour backed down and sent a letter to the Brazilian government asking for an “apology” for the “confusion caused”[37]. In this context, it remains to be seen how the crisis between the two main EU countries will be resolved in the vote on the ratification of the agreement in their bodies.

    In Mercosur, the main beneficiaries of the agreement would be, first and foremost, beef producers and exporters. Currently, the “cream” of meat exports from the countries of the bloc to the EU is the so-called “Hilton Quota”, a total of 100,000 tons of imports of high quality and high price meat, which the EU allows to different countries, with tariffs of 20%. In Mercosur: Argentina has 30,000 tons of this quota; Brazil, 10,000; Uruguay, 6,300; and Paraguay, 1,000. The new agreement would eliminate tariffs, increase the quota and include the import of a similar quota of “meat on the bone” from the EU. At the same time, as we have already seen, it would allow a large import of poultry meat (which would benefit Brazil in particular).

    Nevertheless, Argentinean and Uruguayan beef exporters say that the agreement has “little taste”. Although it could mean an increase in income of $600 million for Mercosur countries, the main beneficiary would end up being Brazil (due to the inclusion of lower quality cuts and poultry). At the same time, the agreement on meat imports will not be fully implemented for another five years[38].

    The oscillation of the Argentine government

    At the Montevideo Summit, Argentine President Javier Milei argued that it was necessary to modify the basic Mercosur agreement to allow member countries to sign bilateral free trade agreements with other countries outside the bloc without having to apply the “common external tariff”. He stated that under the current conditions, Mercosur is “a prison” for its members. He added that because of this obstacle, in the last two decades its members, with the exception of Brazil, have been harmed and their economies have gone backwards, unlike Chile and Peru, which have grown a lot[39]. A few days later, he announced that his government would promote the signing of a free trade agreement between Argentina and the United States[40].

    It is interesting to note the oscillations of the Argentine government towards Mercosur in recent years. Sergio Massa, the main figure of the previous Peronist government, had promoted ever greater Argentine integration with Mercosur and especially with Brazil. In January 2023, in the face of the great weakening of the Argentine currency (the peso), he announced a project to create a common currency between the two countries[41].

    After defeating Massa in the 2023 presidential elections and taking office in December of that year, Milei initiated a policy of the opposite, weakening political relations with Brazil to the extreme: after Lula’s party supported Sergio Massa in the last Argentine elections. Milei said that Lula was “a corrupt communist”[42]. Let us recall that Milei did not participate in the last Mercosur summit in Asuncion last June (he sent his foreign minister).

    This is where reality came into play: Brazil is Argentina’s most important trading partner. In addition to the traditional export of Argentine agricultural products, there is now the export of gas from the Vaca Muerta mega-field, in which Petrobras plans to invest heavily[43].

    Other Brazilian companies are also investing in Argentina: in a northern province, the construction of the Formosa Biosiderúrgica plant for the production of so-called “green pig iron”[44] is nearing completion. The plant was built and is owned by Modulax Siderurgia, a recently created industrial group based in Minas Gerais[45]. This is why Milei, on behalf of the large economic groups that support his government, went to the recent G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro to rebuild relations with Lula and sign trade agreements with his government (what the Argentine media called a “pragmatic turn”)[46]. And now he has attended the Mercosur summit.

    In this context, although he “clarified that it is not Argentina’s will to leave or dissolve Mercosur”, he wants “permission to get out of jail” and to be able to sign a bilateral FTA with the United States.

    Milei’s reasons

    U.S. imperialism has been hegemonic in the semi-colonial subordination of Argentina since the late 1950s. Currently, its main tool in this sense is the payment of the foreign debt and the economic plans imposed and supervised by the IMF. In terms of direct investment, it has since invested heavily in key sectors of the Argentine economy such as automobiles (Ford), oil (Exxon) and others (meat processing plants and laboratories).

    At present, there is no “wave” of U.S. investments in Argentina. Those that are coming are concentrated in Vaca Muerta (directly through Chevron, or associated with the Techint-Rocca group, which controls YPF, and Pan American Energy of the Bridas-Bulgheroni group). Also in other related projects (such as the liquefied natural gas plant to be built in Punta Colorada-Río Negro, camouflaged within the Petronas group of Malaysia).

    In the Argentine Parliament, the Milei government has already managed to push through the RIGI (Large Investment Incentive Regime), which grants large tax and customs advantages to all imperialist investments[47]. Why then is it pushing for a specific FTA with the USA? We believe that it has to do, first of all, with a legal aspect: the RIGI is only a law and therefore could be repealed by another law, while an FTA, once ratified, acquires constitutional rank and therefore is much more difficult to reverse.

    At the same time, an FTA between Argentina and the United States seems destined in the immediate future to benefit Elon Musk, who has established a strong personal relationship with Milei. After his clash with the Brazilian government and justice[48], Musk seems to have chosen Argentina as a platform to expand his business in South America. First, in the field of telematics: Milei wants to sell him the state-owned company ARSAT (satellites and communications)[49].

    Secondly, Musk has announced that he will install the first Tesla factory (electric vehicles) in South America in the city of Zarate[50]. From there it would compete with the Chinese company BYD (installed in Brazil). In this context, it could take over Y-TEC and its projects for the production of electric batteries: Horacio Marín (member of the Techint-Rocca group and current president of YPF) has already announced that he intends to sell it[51]. In other words, with this FTA, there would be a bingo for Elon Musk’s business: huge profits in Argentina and, at the same time, free access for his products to the Mercosur countries (including Brazil). It is possible that Milei’s expectation is that, after Musk, several other investments of Yankee imperialism will arrive.

    Uruguay’s Lacalle Pou had also expressed his willingness to make agreements outside Mercosur. However, unlike Milei, his goal was not a free trade agreement with the U.S., but with China. Our hypothesis is that Lacalle Pou’s proposal was aimed at having China build a mega-port in Montevideo as part of the “physical chain” of the Silk Road, and that this would be the gateway for trade with Mercosur.

    What kind of integration do our countries need?

    We have seen that Mercosur has been an integration that, far from strengthening the autonomy and independence of its members, has been at the service of the interests of large international and national corporations (including landowners). The main beneficiaries have been U.S. imperialism and its European allies, Canada, Japan and Australia. More recently, China, as a strong emerging capitalist power, has been included as another “major external actor”.

    The nature of the agreement with the EU confirms this content of Mercosur. Its current crisis with Argentina is due to the fact that the Milei government wants this subordination and surrender to be done directly with U.S. imperialism, without the mediation or supervision of other countries (Brazil).

    The countries that are part of Mercosur gained their independence from Spain or Portugal (Brazil) in the first decades of the 19th century. Subsequently, in the 21st century, they became semi-colonies of imperialism: they maintain their formal independence, but in substance they are subordinated to the imperialist powers (especially the USA). This is a subordination that increases more and more through various political, economic and financial (foreign debt and IMF supervision) and also military (U.S. bases in the countries and joint military exercises led by the U.S. 4th Fleet).

    That is why we have said that for these countries, as for Latin America as a whole, the task is to achieve a second independence from imperialism. This is a task that implies a series of measures to advance in breaking the subordination in each of the fields in which it is expressed: political, economic-financial and military[52]. This is a great struggle that, for profound reasons, must be waged in a unified manner at the level of the entire continent.

    But unlike the first Latin American independence, it will not be led by the national bourgeoisies (which have become agents of subordination to imperialism). The Second Independence can only be led by the working class as the “caudillo” of all the popular and oppressed masses. The struggle for the Second Independence becomes part of a larger process that encompasses it: the workers’ and socialist revolution on a continental scale and its own tasks. Far from being a step forward on this road, Mercosur, despite its rhetoric, takes us in the opposite direction.

    Sources

    [1] https://www.mercosur.int/suspension-de-venezuela-en-el-mercosur/

    [2] https://www.mercocsur.int/quienes-somos/objetivos-del-mercosur/

    [3] https://www.mercosur.int/durante-2021-aumento-el-intercambio-comercial-del-mercosur-con-el-mundo-y-con-los-paises-del-bloque-entre-si/#:~:text=El%20intercambio%20comercial%20del%20MERCOSUR%20con%20el%20mundo%5B1%5D%20en,el%2043%25%20del%20intercambio%20comercial.

    [4] https://litci.org/es/paraguay-lula-y-bolsonaro-una-misma-politica-para-itaipu/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser

    [5]https://www.bbc.com/mundo/economia/2010/09/100917_brasil_elecciones_paraguay_agricultores_soja_jrg

    [6] https://www.lanacion.com.ar/el-mundo/bolivia-el-gobierno-no-logra-aun-un-acuerdo-con-petrobras-nid853519/

    [7] En 2005, este grupo adquirió Loma Negra (la más importante productora argentina de cemento) y el ramal ferroviario que esta empresa poseía. Ahora, para resolver su crisis financiera se la venderá a otro grupo brasileño. Ver https://www.ambito.com/negocios/loma-negra-esta-venta-y-la-comprara-otro-grupo-brasileno-n5991999

    [8] Debido al escándalo de corrupción conocido como Lava Jato, la JBS debió vender sus plantas en Argentina, Paraguay y Uruguay al grupo brasileño Minerva. https://www.lavoz.com.ar/negocios/el-frigorifico-brasileno-jbs-vendio-sus-operaciones-en-argentina/

    [9] https://www.iprofesional.com/economia/414326-ypf-petrobras-preparan-mega-inversion-vaca-muerta

    [10] https://www.infobae.com/movant/2024/11/20/argentina-firmo-un-acuerdo-con-brasil-para-exportar-gas-de-vaca-muerta/

    [11] https://www.infobae.com/economia/2020/01/22/proponen-construir-un-gasoducto-para-que-la-produccion-de-gas-de-vaca-muerta-pueda-llegar-a-brasil/

    [12] https://insightcrime.org/es/noticias/paraguay-depende-contrabando-brasil-combate/

    [13] https://www.cronista.com/financial-times/Empresas-brasilenas-se-mudan-a-Paraguay-por-sus-bajos-costos-20170411-0026.html

    [14] https://vacamuertanews.com/actualidad/paraguay-quiere-construir-un-gasoducto-que-lleve-el-gas-de-vaca-muerta-a-brasil.htm

    [15] https://www.clarin.com/economia/economia/argentinos-depositados-uruguay-cerca-3-000-millones-dolares_0_ez0YUnxG.html?srsltid=AfmBOopc0Awp7gQyhSSBmTAySpDRcBtBqjOFMAJXRGaSK7CT2EPKBKpy

    [16] https://eleconomista.com.ar/internacional/empieza-producir-tercera-mayor-planta-celulosa-uruguay-relegara-carne-soja-n61490

    [17] https://america-retail.com/paises/uruguay/la-caida-del-turismo-hacia-argentina-impulsa-otros-destinos-para-uruguayos/#:~:text=Los%20datos%20recientes%20revelan%20que,fue%20de%202.931.676%20viajeros.

    [18] https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2024/07/08/luis-lacalle-pou-hablo-en-la-cumbre-del-mercosur-si-es-tan-importante-deberiamos-estar-aca-todos-los-presidentes/

    [19]https://litci.org/es/artigo426/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser

    [20] Comercio entre China y América Latina fue récord en 2021 | BAE Negocios

    [21] https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/que-son-los-brics-el-bloque-de-paises-a-los-que-ingresara-la-argentina-en-2024/

    [22] https://www.dw.com/es/cu%C3%A1n-viable-es-que-los-brics-tengan-su-propia-moneda-com%C3%BAn/a-70950743

    [23] https://egade.tec.mx/es/egade-ideas/investigacion/se-unira-america-latina-la-nueva-ruta-de-la-seda#:~:text=Grupo%20de%20pa%C3%ADses%20miembros%3A%20Emiratos,%2C%20Panam%C3%A1%2C%20Per%C3%BA%2C%20Venezuela.

    [24] Puerto chino en Tierra del Fuego: negocios bajo la presión de la Casa Blanca – La Licuadora (lalicuadoratdf.com.ar)

    [25] YPF incursiona en el negocio del litio con una nueva empresa (ambito.com)

    [26] La UNLP capacita al personal y se prepara para poner en marcha la Planta de Baterías de Litio – Huella Minera

    [27] Este lunes debuta en La Plata el primer micro con baterías de litio (datadiario.com)

    [28] Empresa china fabricará buses eléctricos y baterías en Argentina | TN

    [29] BYD vai produzir carros elétricos na Bahia na fábrica fechada pela Ford (estadao.com.br)

    [30] BYD inaugura primeira fábrica de baterias de lítio no Brasil – CanalEnergia

    [31] Privatização da Eletrobras: veja perguntas e respostas | Economia | G1 (globo.com)

    [32] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/una-estatal-china-compra-una-minera-brasile%C3%B1a-con-un-gigantesco-yacimiento-de-uranio/88373056

    [33] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/esp/zxxx/202411/t20241120_11529720.html

    [34] https://www.dw.com/es/mercosur-y-la-ue-recorrido-y-alcance-de-un-acuerdo-hist%C3%B3rico/a-70985228

    [35] https://bichosdecampo.com/argentina-preocupa-por-su-carne-de-vaca-pero-el-verdadero-cuco-es-brasil-explica-benoit-devault-periodista-de-la-france-agricole-sobre-los-temores-galos-frente-al-acuerdo-con-el-mercosur/

    [36] https://www.lavoz.com.ar/noticias/agencias/carrefour-rechaza-carne-sudamericana-y-enfrenta-represalias-de-brasil/

    [37] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/el-ceo-de-carrefour-pide-disculpas-a-brasil-por-la-%22confusi%C3%B3n%22-tras-el-boicot-a-la-carne/88337035

    [38] https://bichosdecampo.com/mientras-los-ganaderos-franceses-lucen-aterrados-por-una-invasion-sudamericana-aqui-los-exportadores-de-carne-se-quedaron-con-gusto-a-poco/

    [39] https://www.lapoliticaonline.com/politica/milei-dijo-que-el-mercosur-es-una-prision-y-defendio-un-acuerdo-con-estados-unidos/

    [40] https://www.iprofesional.com/politica/418793-javier-milei-anuncio-que-impulsara-un-tratado-de-libre-comercio-con-estados-unidos-en-2025

    [41] https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/massa-confirmo-que-argentina-y-brasil-trabajan-en-un-proyecto-para-crear-una-moneda-comun

    [42] https://elpais.com/argentina/2024-06-28/milei-redobla-sus-ataques-contra-lula.html

    [43] https://www.infobae.com/movant/2024/11/20/argentina-firmo-un-acuerdo-con-brasil-para-exportar-gas-de-vaca-muerta/

    [44] https://www.eldestapeweb.com/informacion-general/desarrollo-sustentable/formosa-dio-un-importante-avance-en-el-proyecto-que-revolucionara-la-industria-2024121415012

    [45] http://modulax.com.br/es/unidades-de-negocio/siderurgia/

    [46] https://litci.org/es/g20-muchos-problemas-pocas-soluciones/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser

    [47] https://litci.org/es/argentina-el-regimen-de-incentivo-a-las-grandes-inversiones-rigi-es-una-mesa-servida-para-el-imperialismo/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser

    [48] https://accion.coop/las-ultimas/suspenden-a-la-red-x-en-brasil/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Trafico&utm_term=Texto&utm_content=NonBrand&keyword=&gad_source=5&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9K_hmYy0igMVB0VIAB3r5QB8EAAYAiAAEgId0_D_BwE

    [49] https://www.pagina12.com.ar/777794-el-gobierno-le-pone-a-arsat-el-cartel-de-remate

    [50] https://ar.motor1.com/news/716583/zarate-fabrica-tesla-argentina/

    [51] https://periferia.com.ar/politica-cientifica/el-nuevo-presidente-de-ypf-planea-desprenderse-de-y-tec/#:~:text=Horacio%20Mar%C3%ADn%20no%20quiere%20a,YPF%20Luz%20e%20YPF%20Agro.

    [52] https://litci.org/es/debate-lograr-la-segunda-independencia-latinoamericana/?utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=browser

  • Trump’s rise to office: Here comes the raw deal

    Trump’s rise to office: Here comes the raw deal

    By JOHN KIRKLAND

    Donald Trump was sworn in on Monday, Jan. 20 (Martin Luther King Day), in a ceremony attended by Washington’s elite, a contingent of tech oligarchs—including Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Musk—and former presidents. In his inaugural address, Trump proclaimed that “the Golden Age of America begins right now. From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world.”

    Referencing the assassination attempt against him in Pennsylvania, Trump professed that he had been “saved by God to Make America Great Again” and proclaimed Jan. 20, 2025, as “Liberation Day.”

    Trump gave a prepared address that seemed slightly more coherent than most of his campaign speeches. The address reiterated a variety of points from his campaign that are designed to pull in and solidify the disparate components of the MAGA coalition.

    For the billionaires and other capitalists who have joined the MAGA camp, Trump promised to eviscerate business and environmental regulations while lowering corporate taxes. Federal departments and social programs would be made much leaner, while money would continue to flow to military, space, oil and mining, and tech industries. A beefed-up military is portrayed as a method to “keep the peace” and wrangle foreign concessions, perhaps with some saber-rattling in places like Panama. In the meantime, any protests would be mitigated and law and order would be maintained.

    Trump promised to gut the so-called “deep state” and has appointed a “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), a presidential advisory commission led by billionaire Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Musk, who spent $277 million to elect Trump, is expected to play an outsized role in the administration. In the period following the election, the tech oligarchy has moved more firmly into the Trump camp. Musk was joined in his support for Trump by Jeff Bezos (Amazon/Washington Post), Mark Zuckerberg (META), and APPLE CEO Tim Cook, who donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

    The tech oligarchs are joined by PayPal CEO Peter Thiel, who has been a longtime advocate for rightist and libertarian ideas. Theil is a patron of the incoming Vice President JD Vance. Zuckerberg, in a concession to Trump, has promised to ease or eliminate fact checking on Facebook. The Washington Post killed a cartoon by satirist Ann Telnaes depicting the tech billionaires prostrating themselves before Trump. Telnaes subsequently resigned.

    For less well-heeled citizens, including disoriented middle-class and some working-class people who voted for him, Trump offered a hollow pledge to wipe out the “radical and corrupt establishment” that “has extracted power and wealth from our citizens.” At the same time, as he has done in his campaign talks, he attempted to shift the blame for the country’s economic and social problems away from the wealthy “establishment” and onto the backs of scapegoats. As a remedy, he promised measures that would increase the dangers faced by immigrants, facilitate discrimination against trans people, and place the entire world in additional peril from climate change.

    Trump has promised a lot to his base, but it is unlikely that he will be able to deliver. Many of the problems we face are rooted in the multiple crises of the capitalist system itself. Capitalism faces interlocking economic, climate, and political challenges that are not solvable in the interests of working-class people without taking action against the very system that drives them.

    Immigration: mass deportations

    Trump has signed a huge series of executive orders in his short time in the White House. These include declaring “a national emergency at our southern border” and promising to return “millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.” He promised to return to a “remain in Mexico” policy and a halt to the so-called “catch and release” program of the Biden administration. He attacked immigrants who lack legal documents as “dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions.” He said he would send troops to the southern border to stop the “invasion of our country.”

    Trump affirmed that the system of mass deportation would be put in place almost immediately. His new administration has set in motion the possibility of opening churches, hospitals, and schools to raids by federal officials. Trump and his team have threatened the deportation of millions of men, women, and children, although the administration has refused to cite concrete numbers. There are an estimated 11 million to 15 million undocumented workers in the country, mainly centered in agriculture, construction, and the food service and hospitality sector. Mass deportation of workers from these sectors, especially in the context of a labor shortage, will be damaging to the economy.

    During the campaign Trump vilified migrants and asylum seekers, accusing immigrants from Latin America of being criminals, rapists, and murderers. He made the astounding and false claim that Haitian immigrants eat the family pets of neighbors, a racist slander similar to those made in the 1970s and ’80s about Vietnamese immigrants accused of eating dogs and cats.

    The House of Representatives recently passed the Laken Riley Act, which requires putative detention measures against immigrant workers accused of certain crimes. The bill was passed with bipartisan support from some Democrats. The Senate version of the bill was amended to require detention for immigrants accused of assaulting a police officer. This amendment was passed with broad bipartisan support. The government is expected to build mass internment camps for the detention of immigrants. Trump also declared that he would be designating drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” He said he would use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to use “federal and state law enforcement” to eliminate “foreign” gangs in the U.S.

    Immigration represents one possible fissure in Trump’s coalition of billionaires and the far right. While the far right is salivating for a robust program of deportation, representing a sort of ethnic cleansing program, the fiscal cost of such a program may be prohibitive. Also, it’s clear that broad sectors of U.S. society do not support such an inhumane and reactionary program. Through the construction of broad, mass opposition, workers and the oppressed can put a stop to this policy.

    Musk gives a Nazi salute while speaking at the Jan. 20 inauguration.

    In December, the immigration debate blew up inside the Trump camp with far-right activists attacking Elon Musk on the issue of H-1B visas, a mechanism through which tech companies employ lower-paid IT workers. The controversy erupted when MAGA influencer Laura Loomer attacked Trump appointee Sriram Krishnan, who Trump tapped to advise him on issues related to artificial intelligence. Krisnan is an advocate for immigration through H-1B visas. Elon Musk replied to critics by posting on X, “The reason I’m in America along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla and hundreds of other companies that made America strong is because of H1B. Take a big step back and F*** YOURSELF in the face. I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend.”

    Additionally, Musk has claimed that there is a shortage of qualified U.S.-born tech workers in contradiction to claims made by Loomer and others on the right that U.S. citizens are displaced by workers from overseas. Musk posted on X that, “”There is a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America…If you force the world’s best talent to play for the other side, America will LOSE.” According to CBS News, “…labor market data suggests that American tech workers aren’t in short supply, and critics of the H-1B program say it displaces Americans in favor of foreign-born employees hired at lower salaries.”

    CBS continued writing, “Tech companies have also laid off hundreds of employees in recent years while continuing to sponsor new H-1B visas. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute found that the top 30 companies hiring the most H-1B workers hired 34,000 new H-1B employees in 2022 but laid off at least 85,000 workers that year and in early 2023.” Trump has weighed in on Musk’s side in this debate, sparking a reaction from Steve Bannon who accused Musk of trying to build “techno-feudalism on a global scale.” Bannon also called for the deportation of H-1B holders on a mass scale and termed the program a :”total scam” that allows the tech sector to exploit cheaper labor.

    A Workers Voice article, Trump and right-wing allies wrangle over H-1B immigrant program states, “H-1Bs have been a godsend for the tech industry for two reasons. One is that it has allowed the industry to expand at a rate faster than the U.S. economy can add new domestic technology workers. Secondly, it has created a vast underclass of tech workers who are exploited at a higher rate than citizens and permanent residents, since they are often tied to a single job and switching jobs while keeping an H1-B is much more difficult.”

    Defending the working class means fighting for immigrants’ rights and against the artificial divisions imposed upon the world by the capitalists. We are against all deportations, and for guaranteeing full civil rights to immigrant workers, including the right to change jobs, to quit their job, to unionize, to vote, and to have easy access to citizenship.

    Tariffs and China

    Trump said he would direct his cabinet to “defeat record inflation and rapidly bring down costs.” In blatant contradiction to this boast, however, was his pledge to place high tariffs on goods from other countries. This is a centerpiece of his program despite the warnings by many economists that such measures would likely raise inflation, since the cost of tariffs are generally passed on to consumers.

    During the campaign, Trump raised the possibility of 60% tariffs on China and additional high tariffs on countries like Mexico and Canada. In one of his first executive orders on taking office, Trump seemed to back away from the immediate imposition of tariffs. According to the New York Times, “The executive order will direct federal agencies to examine unfair trade and currency practices and to assess whether foreign governments have complied with terms of the two trade deals Mr. Trump signed in his first presidency. It will also require the government to assess the feasibility of creating an ‘External Revenue Service. to collect tariffs and duties.”

    Another possible approach by the administration would be to impose restrictions on investment in key Chinese industries and high-tech exports to China. Stopping China’s development of artificial intelligence technology has been a key policy of the Biden administration and will likely continue under Trump. In his final days in office, Biden placed new export controls on China that restrict supplies of the advanced computer chips used to develop AI.

    U.S. China policy in recent years is defined by the inter-imperialist competition between the U.S., which is still the strongest imperialist power and a rising competitor, China. China is competing directly with the U.S. for resources, markets, and geopolitical advantage in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The point of Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and Biden’s economic policies has been to prepare the U.S. to compete with China on a world scale.

    One of Trump’s executive orders delays the enforcement of the ban on TikTok for 75 days. The recent law is trying to force the sale of the platform to a U.S. owner. Trump had originally called for a ban on the platform because of its supposed control by the “Chinese Communist Party.” There is no small irony in the fact that TikTok users are now flocking to RedNote (Xiaohongshu), an app named after Mao’s “Little Red Book” of quotations.

    Trump erroneously claimed in his speech that China controls the Panama Canal and said that his administration would return the canal to U.S. control. He has refused to rule out the use of military force to gain control of the Canal, as well as Greenland.

    A flurry of executive orders

    The first executive order (EO) that Trump signed on Jan. 20 was a full pardon for 1500 Jan. 6, 2021, rioters. He also commuted the sentences of more than a dozen members of the far-right Oath Keepers—including their leader, Stewart Rhodes. Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys, who was serving 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy, was given a full pardon, along with three other top leaders of the fascist group. Meanwhile, in the streets of DC, the Proud Boys marched behind a Trump banner, chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” “Fuck Joe Biden!” and “Fuck antifa!

    Additionally, Elon Musk, during his Inauguration Day speech to a number of MAGA faithful, appeared to give a “Roman” salute—often associated with Hitlerism. Musk, who was raised in apartheid South Africa, is well known for his far-right sympathies. He recently endorsed the fascistic Alternative for Germany (AfD) and has supported freedom for jailed British neo-Nazi, Tommy Robinson. The pro-Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL), excused Musk’s gesture as “awkward.”

    One of the most egregious EOs is an attempt to end birthright citizenship—guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. According to the Washington Post, “Trump’s order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which grants citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil, a change legal scholars say is illegal and will be quickly challenged in the courts. The birthright order was part of a burst of immigration-related directives aimed at undoing Biden administration policies and wielding obscure presidential powers to launch a broad crackdown along the border and across immigrant communities.” The ACLU in New Hampshire and Massachusetts announced that it is filing a suit on behalf of parents whose children would be affected by Trump’s order; several state administrations have also joined a lawsuit.

    He also attacked transgender people with an EO titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” According to The Advocate, “It directs federal agencies to rewrite policies and remove references to gender identity. Passports, social security records, and other government-issued identification documents will now be required to reflect only an individual’s sex assigned at birth. Schools, shelters, and workplaces that receive federal funding will no longer be required to accommodate transgender individuals’ gender identities. In prisons and detention centers, the order directs that transgender women be housed with men, regardless of their safety or lived identity.”

    Climate change measures rolled back

    Trump promised in his inaugural address that he would promote a policy of “drill, baby, drill,” while ending electric vehicle subsidies and the “Green New Deal” (which in reality was never put into operation). One of Trump’s first acts in the White House was to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords—just as he did during his first administration.

    Even though the United States is producing more oil than at any time in history, and more than any other country, Trump insists that he will declare a “national energy emergency,” which would enhance his powers to override environmental protections. He has stated his intention to streamline government regulations that may “impose undue burdens” on the mining, drilling, and processing of fossil fuels. He would also open up additional federal lands and waters to oil drilling, while putting an end to leasing areas for wind turbines.

    Trump also pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization (citing the WHO’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic), and ended all government DEI programs.

    Finally, in a slap in the face to Indigenous people, he switched the name of Alaska’s Mount Denali (in the language of the Koyukon Athabascan people “Denali” means “The Great One”) back to Mount McKinley. (President McKinley was strongly in favor of tariffs. He presided over the U.S. victory in the inter-imperialist Spanish-American war, in which the U.S. took over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines as colonies, while occupying Cuba with troops.).

    This dovetailed with the chauvinist version of U.S. history (what used to be called “manifest destiny”) that Trump presented in his inaugural address. He asserted that the United States has been built by “Americans who pushed thousands of miles through a rugged land of untamed wilderness.” This mythology conveniently ignores the genocide of Indigenous peoples who had lived in North America for thousands of years, the harnessing of slave labor to clear and farm the fields, and the wars of the 1840s in which the U.S. stole half of Mexico’s territory. In a similar vein, Trump also seeks to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

     Iran and Israel policy

    One surprise is the Trump team’s apparent participation in arranging a ceasefire in Gaza that is practically word-for-word the same as one previously proposed by Biden and rejected by the Netanyahu regime. Biden could have made this deal months ago and saved thousands of lives. Obtaining a permanent halt to Israel’s attacks was even within Biden’s ability early on, if his administration had simply cut off aid to Israel. But as a supporter of Zionism, Biden refused to do that. Despite the temporary ceasefire, Israeli troops remain in Gaza. In the meantime, troops and armed settlers are engaged in a murderous pogrom against Palestinians in Jenin and other towns in the occupied West Bank. The threat remains that the Gaza agreement could disintegrate.

    Trump’s policy towards Israel will be similar to that of the Biden administration in many respects; he has never been a friend of the Palestinians. In fact, Trump made comments in 2024 that Israel should “finish what they started” and “get it over with fast.” Among his first acts in the White House, Trump rescinded the sanctions that the Biden administration placed against Israeli settlers in the West Bank who had been implicated in acts of violence.

    During his first administration, Trump was very tolerant of the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and no point has he criticized Israel’s current genocidal war on the Palestinians. He did, however, criticize the publicity coming from the war, saying, “And the other thing is I hate, they put out tapes all the time. Every night, they’re releasing tapes of a building falling down. They shouldn’t be releasing tapes like that. They’re doing, that’s why they’re losing the PR war. They, Israel is absolutely losing the PR war.”

    Although Trump campaigned as a “peace” candidate, he has been most bellicose in his rhetoric against Iran. Trump is likely to impose punishing sanctions on Iran to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear program. The Iranian regime is weakened by dissent at home, a poor economy, and the military reverses they have suffered at the hands of the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iranian-allied forces in Lebanon and Syria. What is unknowable is whether Trump would back an Israeli military attack on Iran.

    In October 2024, Trump rejected U.S. support for regime change and stated, “I would like to see Iran be very successful. The only thing is, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” What this means concretely is unclear. In his first term, Trump withdrew from the multilateral 2015 Iran nuclear agreement referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Instead, he opted for a campaign of “maximum pressure,” reinstating sanctions that had been lifted when Iran met requirements of the JCPOA. Any sort of deal Trump makes with Iran will likely face opposition from Iran hawks in his own party and from Democrats. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has already stated that “Israel will not be bound by any deal with Iran and will continue to defend itself.”

    Farewell, Genocide Joe

    Biden’s final speech in office warned that an oligarchy of the wealthy and a “tech-industrial complex” is a threat to U.S. democracy: “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” Biden should know; he has spent his political career in service to those very elites.

    Biden and the Democrats help facilitate the rise of Trumpism. Biden’s “concern” for democratic rights might be laudable if he and his party had not spent the last 15 months slandering opponents of Israel’s U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza. The bipartisan attacks on free speech on campus, under the guise of stopping antisemitism, are a huge threat to all of our rights.

    In his last days in office, Biden issued a record number of pardons. He pardoned more than 8000 people, including his son Hunter—who faced 17 years on a tax evasion conviction and 25 for a federal gun offense—five other family members, and some current and former government and military officials whom Trump has pledged to prosecute. The pardons include 6500 people formerly convicted under federal marijuana laws. In one surprising move, Biden commuted the sentence of longtime political prisoner, Leonard Peltier. The conditions of Peltier’s release call for house arrest, not complete freedom of movement.

    Biden’s departure marks the end of a terrible presidency. Biden’s legacy will forever be stained by his complicity in Israel’s genocide.

    Resistance and independence

    While attendance numbers at the recent People’s March indicate a certain level of demoralization, the advent of the new Trump regime makes resistance, unity, and solidarity a necessity. Contrasted to eight years ago, when the Women’s March drew 500,000 to DC and an equal number in protests across the country, this past weekend’s mobilizations only brought a fraction of those numbers into the streets. The opening salvos of Trump’s anti-people agenda—gutting environmental laws, attacking immigrants, LGBT people, and women—makes the construction of a fightback an urgent task. It should also be clear that no one, even his supporters, will be immune from the Trumjpist onslaught.

    The lessons of the 2024 election are that workers and oppressed people cannot put any confidence in bourgeois politicians or the courts. The Democrats are not an ally of the working class, and voting for them only diverts us from the necessity of building our own political instrument—a new party based in the working class, its mass organizations, the unions, and organizations of the specially oppressed.

    Our power is in the streets! Time and again throughout history, it was the mass action of the working class and oppressed that made real change. No gain we enjoy from Social Security to civil rights to environmental protection was ever handed down by a benevolent ruling class; these changes were wrenched from their hands by the action of the masses.

  • Jan. 25 online forums: 1) Taking on Amazon! 2) Syria after Assad

    Jan. 25 online forums: 1) Taking on Amazon! 2) Syria after Assad

      How workers are organizing in warehousing and logistics internationally

    Sat., Jan. 25, 1 p.m. ET, 10 a.m. Pacific

    Link: tinyurl.com/Amazon-forum

    Join us for a live online meeting. Hear and discuss the different ways that workers at Amazon are organizing. What comes next in the struggle by workers in logistics and warehousing? How are Amazon workers organizing in other countries? Hear from Amazon and UPS workers as they share their experiences.

    These workers will speak:

    Asa: Amazon Labor Union, IBT Local 1

    Magda: Amazon Workers International, from Poland

    Mary: Member, Carolina Amazonians United (CAUSE)

    Evren: UPS Teamster and Workers’ Voice

    Hosted by Workers’ Voice Industrial Workers Committee

    Contact: Ernie, 203-707-1157

    Photo: CBS / Getty Images 

    Link: tinyurl.com/Amazon-forum

    ******

    … And after the Amazon forum, we recommend attending this forum on Syria, sponsored by Marxmail — 

    The Syrian Democratic Revolution: Two months after the Fall of Assad

    Saturday Jan. 25, 3:30 p.m. ET / 12:30 p.m. Pacific

    Register here:

    https://forms.gle/vtGghHjXBAjqjBKDA

    A Marxmail online forum — At the beginning of December, a local military offensive by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and others sparked a nationwide uprising in Syria. How did it happen? Where is the Syrian revolution going? What are its global implications? Please join us for this important discussion. We are happy to announce the following four excellent speakers.

      • Ramah Kudaimi is a Syrian-American activist in DC and former member of the National Committee of the War Resisters League

      • Chris Slee is a member of Socialist Alliance in Australia. He writes for Green Left and links.org.au and has written pamphlets on Cuba, China and the Tamil struggle in Sri Lanka

      • Michael Pröbsting, the editor www.thecommunists.net and a longtime activist in solidarity work with the Syrian Revolution and the Palestinian liberation was recently sentenced by the Austrian government to 6 months probation for supporting the armed Palestinian resistance. He has published in academic journals and authored 10 books.

      • Michael Karadjis blogs at https://theirantiimperialismandours.com/. Active in progressive and socialist politics since high school, he has been involved in Palestine solidarity since the early 1980s, and Syria solidarity since 2011. He teaches Social Sciences and International Development at Western Sydney University and has written extensively on Balkan and Middle East issues for a number of publications.

  • Leonard Peltier granted clemency after 49 years 

    Leonard Peltier granted clemency after 49 years 

    By AVA FAHEY

    In the final hours of his presidency, President Joe Biden granted executive clemency to Indigenous elder and American Indian Movement activist Leonard Peltier. Peltier has spent the past half-century serving two consecutive life sentences for the 1975 Pine Ridge Reservation shootout that ended in the deaths of two FBI agents (you can read Workers’ Action’s longer article about the Peltier case and defense movement here). He has always maintained his innocence.

    Peltier has not been granted a pardon, which would officially declare his innocence and release him into unconditional freedom. Instead, the White House, whose statement continues to treat Peltier as guilty of the murders, has elected to commute the remainder of Peltier’s sentences to home imprisonment, or house arrest. 

    Although Peltier did not receive the unconditional pardon he deserves, the news is certainly a welcome surprise. Peltier’s appeals for clemency and compassionate release have been repeatedly denied since he first became eligible for parole in the 1990s, having most recently been denied in June 2024 despite his poor health. Undeterred by an international movement calling for Peltier’s freedom, every president up to now has declined to use their executive power to pardon or grant clemency to Peltier. This is widely believed to be influenced by an FBI vendetta against Peltier; in fact, outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray sent Biden a strongly worded letter expressly discouraging him from commuting Peltier’s sentence. 

    President Biden signed the order granting Peltier clemency, but he deserves no credit for Peltier’s imminent freedom. It was the relentless, decades-long organizing of Indigenous activists and allies around Peltier’s release that has finally paid off. As the NDN Collective’s press release states, it was Peltier’s defense movement that exposed the prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional violations that resulted in Peltier’s unjust conviction, and beyond that supported Peltier in his half-century of confinement. This victory belongs to Peltier, his defense team, and his supporters alone.  

    Peltier is scheduled to be released from federal prison next month, on Feb. 18. It is believed that in the coming weeks Peltier will return to the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, where he was raised, and will live in a home purchased for him by the NDN Collective. According to the Collective’s founder, Nick Tilsen, Peltier will “live out the rest of his days surrounded by loved ones, healing, and reconnecting with his land and culture.” Said Leonard Peltier himself: “It’s finally over—I’m going home. I want to show the world I”m a good person with a good heart. I want to help the people, just like my grandmother taught me.” 

    Image: Peltier’s painting “Down But Not Out.”  See: https://www.leonardpeltiermatters.com/Down_not_Out.html 

  • A political perspective on Bob Dylan and his times

    A political perspective on Bob Dylan and his times

    {:en}

    By DEAN COHEN

    A personal memory

    It’s the early summer of 1965, and I’m standing in my bedroom. I’ve got my brand new electric guitar strapped on and my trusty transistor radio is on my dresser tuned to WORC, our favorite local rock and roll station in Worcester, Mass. I’m trying to use my newly learned chords (three to be exact—E7, A, and B7) to play along with the songs I’ve been hearing on the radio—the Kinks, Stones, Beatles (of course), and my favorites, the Yardbirds and the Animals.  Suddenly, two pistol shots ring out of the tiny speaker, a snare drum rimshot followed by that kick drum boom. My head turns to the radio as the organ and piano follow the drum intro forcing me to immediately sit on the edge of my bed and LISTEN for the next six minutes!

    Now, I’ve always been a LYRICS guy, trying to paint a picture in my head as the singer sings the words. The barroom scene from Lloyd Price’s “Stagger Lee,” for instance. Stag “shot the poor boy so bad, ‘till the bullet went through Billy and broke the bartender’s glass.” ( Not too hard to paint THAT picture, I’d seen enough Westerns).

    But who WAS the “Mystery Tramp?”  The “Diplomat?”  “Napoleon in Rags?”  And what about “Miss Lonely?” The singer seemed not only to be asking her “How does it feel,”,he seemed to be asking me as well.

    The six minutes went by like a freight train, and the disk jockey informed us that we had just heard the latest release, “Like a Rolling Stone,” from Bob Dylan. DYLAN? Bob Dylan? Oh, yeah. He had that record out earlier in the year. “Subterranean Homesick Blues,”, cut that reminded me of Chuck Berry’s “Too Much Monkey Business.” And didn’t he write that song “Blowin’ in the Wind” a couple of years ago that my mom liked so much? Later that summer, I heard Dylan’s next release “Positively 4th Street,” and I remember thinking, “I don’t know who he’s mad at, but I’m glad it ain’t me, babe!”

    “A Complete Unknown” — not a complete letdown

    Movie buffs and Bob Dylan fans received a much anticipated Christmas gift on Dec. 25 with the official release of  “A Complete Unknown,” a film dealing with Bob Dylan’s rise from complete obscurity to his famous appearance at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival. That being said, Christmas gifts can either be everything we could have hoped for, (an official Red Rider 200-shot air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time, for instance), or fall short of expectations. And, depending on your viewpoint, this gift was both.

    Recently, Donna and I went to see the Dylan biopic, and I’m happy to report that we didn’t hate it. We didn’t LOVE it, but, truth be told, I dug it. Sure, it was a typical Hollywood biopic, and, as such, had its share of mistakes, omissions, and screwed up timelines. It was definitely better than some, but not as good as others; “Reds” (Warren Beatty’s portrayal of revolutionary journalist and pioneering communist John Reed), and “Ray” (with Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles) come to mind.

    But Timothee Chalamet was outstanding as Dylan, as was Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez. Edward Norton played a great Pete Seeger, and Dan Fogler was very good as Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman. As a matter of fact, the entire cast shone. Elle Fanning’s portrayal as “Sylvie Russo,” a fictionalized Suze Rotolo, was also outstanding.

    A couple of things that really bugged me, however, were shown to have taken place during the climactic scene where Dylan appears on stage, Fender Stratocaster in hand, fronting the electric band. The ENTIRE crowd is shown loudly booing and even throwing bottles and festival programs at the musicians. While some programs were thrown on the stage, the truth was that, at most, about half the crowd was displeased with the performance and booed, with the other half cheering loudly. (That Fender Strat, by the way, was found abandoned on a private plane and recently sold for just under a million bucks! As baseball’s Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.”)

    The infamous fistfight that occurred between Dylan manager Grossman and “old guard” musicologist Alan Lomax was shown as taking place during Dylan’s electric set. However, that incident actually took place two days before following Lomax’s condescending introduction of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band, an integrated group from Chicago that Albert Grossman had decided to take on as clients. It was the Butterfield Band’s exciting set and the resulting fisticuffs that convinced Dylan that he needed to go electric that weekend.

    And then, there was the virtual nonexistence of the “Mayor of MacDougal Street,” Dave Van Ronk—but more about Dave and Suze Rotolo later.

    American folk  music — a background

    A most glaring omission in the film—and, frankly, one that I expected—was the entire context of the folk music boom in the U.S., its left-wing background, its effect on Dylan’s development as a musician and songwriter, and his effect on it. 

    Folk music has been around for as long as there have been, well, folks to sing music. The folks who came over to the Americas brought their music with them from the “old country.” Those different musical traditions mixed and mingled with each other.  They changed and developed as the country and the people mixed and mingled and changed and developed into the music of the hills, the fields, the plains, the prairies, and the cities.

    Hill music begat bluegrass, bluegrass begat country. Field hollers and work songs begat the blues, and the blues begat jazz; in short, there was a whole lotta begatin’ goin’ on. Blues legend Robert Johnson was just as at home singing country tunes along with “Crossroad Blues,” “Hellhound on My Trail,” or pop tunes like “Yes Sir, That’s My Baby, No Sir, I Don’t Mean Maybe.” Country music’s first ‘superstar,” Jimmy Rogers, the Singing Brakeman, could sing the blues with the best of ’em and his signature “Blue Yodel” was the inspiration for Howlin’ Wolf’s classic howl. By means of mixin’ and minglin’, a uniquely American music was developing.

    Folk music turns left

    Folk music had long included a large amount of social commentary. Whatever was bothering the folks, they tended to sing about. But folk music began to take on a distinctly left slant during the Great Depression and much of that came from the Communist Party with the advent of the Popular Front.  As the CP began recruiting more members from the Appalachian coalfields, the Southern cotton and tobacco fields, and the farms of the Southwest, CP organizers began to hear more and more of the music of those areas. Some of the best practitioners of the music like Josh White, Huddie Ledbetter (Leadbelly), Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee, and, of course, Woody Guthrie were influenced by the left.

    Woody and Pete

    Woody was born Woodrow Wilson Guthrie to a middle-class family in Okemah, Okla., on July 14, 1912. His father, Charles, was a fairly well-off businessman and land owner. Charlie was also a stone racist, who took part in the kidnapping and lynching of a Black couple, Laura and L.D. Nelson, the year after Woody’s birth. It was an incident that Woody never shied away from and he wrote a few songs about it. He also referred to his father as a Klan member. 

    He grew up exposed to the blues, and to country and folk tunes of the region, and by his early teens he had become a good guitarist and harmonica player. By the early 1930s, a series of tragedies had befallen the family, and with the Dep

    Woodie Guthrie

    ression and the dustbowl deepening, Woody split for LA with thousands of other migrant “Okies.” He found work singing and spinning folksy tales on radio station KFVD with singing partner Maxine “Lefty Lou” Crissman. The pair became very well known throughout the region, and a KFVD newscaster introduced Woody to the Communist Party, then just beginning its Popular Front period. It was an association that was to last the better part of the next two decades. He began writing a regular column of folksy observations and humor, “Woody Sez,” for the Daily Worker and the CP’s West Coast paper, The Peoples Daily World. Woody’s wanderin’ ways got the best of him and by 1940, he cut out for the Big Apple. It was in New York that Woody was to meet Pete Seeger, and the two men would go on to deeply influence each other’s lives.

    Pete Seeger was born in New York City, May 3, 1919, to a deeply religious family. His father, Charles, was a Harvard-educated musicologist and pacifist, and it was through Charles that young Peter developed his love for a wide range of musical styles. But it was his love of American folk and blues, as well as world music, that would stay with him for the rest of his life. Through his father, he met Alan Lomax, a folk music archivist working for the Library of Congress. 

    Pete joined the Young Communist League (YCL) in 1937 where he met other folk musically inclined young activists like Cisco Houston, Millard Lampell, Lee Hayes, and Beth Lomax Hawes (Alan Lomax’s sister), and after his arrival in New York, Woody. They all formed the Almanac Singers, the seminal political folk group.

    With the rise of the CIO, folk music once again became an effective tool in organizing drives and union rallies, a practice used by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) two decades earlier. And the Almanacs were right in the thick of it. They traveled the country, and there was hardly a union struggle, strike, or rally that they didn’t sing for.

    But a lot of the left wing of the folk music scene, unfortunately, tended to follow the Stalinist Party line—with all the resulting twists, turns, and excesses. With the advent of the Stalin-Hitler Pact, songs proclaimed that American boys would not be fighting in any wars to protect British and U.S. imperialism. After the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, however, American boys would definitely be joining the fight against fascism. And, of course, during party gatherings there would be the obligatory singing of “Earl Browder is our leader; we shall not be moved.”

    Following World War II, the CP-line sing-along had its last hurrah with the short-lived Henry Wallace Progressive Party movement. At PP rallies you could hear “Wallace is our leader, we shall not be moved!” But after Wallace’s disastrous showing in the presidential election of 1948, the party-line sing-along began to decline, and fast. 

    With Pete going into the Army and Woody joining the Merchant Marine, the Almanacs broke up during the War. Following the Wallace campaign, Seeger and fellow former Almanac Lee Hayes teamed up with Ronnie Gilbert and Fred Hellerman to form the Weavers. 

    Folk goes mainstream — and meets the witch hunters

    From our vantage point today, it is hard to realize just exactly how huge the Weavers were during the early ’50s. Following their formation, there were a couple of “dry” years, but in 1950 they scored a residency at the Village Vanguard and a record contract with Decca Records. What followed was the Weavers becoming the hottest musical act in the country. Their first release on Decca, a cover of Leadbelly’s “Good Night Irene” backed with “Tzena, Tzena,Tzena,” became a double-sided hit, with “Irene” going to No. 1 on the Billboard charts for 13 weeks! That was  followed by a stream of hit records like “On Top of Old Smokie,” “Kisses Sweeter Than Wine,” “Michael Row The Boat Ashore,” “The Midnight Special,” and of course, “Wimoweh” (which was to become a huge hit a decade later for the Tokens doo-wop group as “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”). The Weavers seemed unstoppable, until they ran headlong into the Red Scare witch hunt. 

    Pete had joined the CP in 1942, but had quit the Party by 1949. But in 1953, Seeger and Hayes were “outed” as communists by the red-baiting entertainment rag Red Channels. Under such tremendous pressure, the Weavers broke up. Decca not only dropped the Weavers, but the label deleted the group’s entire catalog. The year 1955 saw Hayes and Seeger hauled before  the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). Hayes pled the Fifth Amendment, but Seeger tried to plead the First (upholding the right to free speech). It didn’t work for the Hollywood 10, and it didn’t work for Pete. He was handed a 10-year sentence for contempt and spent the next six years fighting the charge. It was finally thrown out on a technicality in 1961, an event shown in “A Complete Unknown.”

    December 1955 saw the Weavers reunite for a packed concert at Carnegie Hall, but Seeger’s solo gigs at college campuses were much more satisfying and he walked away from the group in 1958. By that time, the Folk Music scene was booming. In 1959, George Wein, founder of the already well-known Newport Jazz Festival, founded the Newport Folk Festival. The original board of directors included Albert Grossman, Pete Seeger, Alan Lomax, Oscar Brand, and Theodor Bikel—and later, Peter Yarrow representing the “youth.” 

    The Folk Festival had its share of serious problems. While being built on a façade of working-class solidarity and racial and gender diversity, that diversity was clearly lacking at the top. The initial board members were all older white men. And a kind of racism developed in the showcasing of Black performers. For example, Texas Blues guitarist and singer Sam “Lightnin’” Hopkins was booked for the 1964 and 1965 festivals. When “Lightnin’” played his gigs in his home state, he would appear wearing a stylish mohair suit and Stetson hat, and playing an electric guitar. But at Newport that look was just not gonna cut it! In order to appear on the Newport stage, off came the mohair suit and Stetson, to be replaced by a more suitable pair of overalls and straw hat. The electric guitar was, of course replaced with a more “authentic” acoustic one. It was a “gentle” racism, but racism none the less.

     Young people across the country, concerned with the growing threat of the Cold War and nuclear annihilation, yet energized by the civil rights movement, were having folk music jam sessions they called “hootenannies.” They gathered together in city parks, college campuses, crowded lofts, and basement coffee houses, flailing away on banjoes and strumming guitars, playing their versions of their favorite old tunes. The folk revival provided them that same sense of community and connection to the past that the music always had.  

    And folk music was becoming big business, too. Corporate or “commercial” folk music groups, like the Kingston Trio, the Limeliters, the Chad Mitchell Trio, and the New Christy Minstrels began cranking out huge hit records. Old tunes like “Tom Dooley” and “Michael Row Your Boat Ashore” topped the charts and produced big profits for the record labels and song publishers (at the expense, of course, of the original songwriters). But the hits also served to drive the revival to new heights. There were areas in almost every big city where the “folkies” would gather—and nowhere more so than in New York’s Greenwich Village and Washington Square Park. And Greenwich Village had its outsized hero, its own Paul Bunyan, the Mayor of MacDougal Street, Dave Van Ronk.

    Teri Thal and Dave Van Ronk at their home in Greenwich Village, 1963 (Photo: Ann Charters)

    The Mayor of MacDougal Street

    New York-born Dave Van Ronk was drawn to music at a young age. By the time he was 16, he had left home and was living full time in the Village. Initially playing a tenor banjola (a cross between a banjo and a mandolin), he was first attracted to older jazz styles. When he found it difficult to hang with the jazzers on gigs, he moved to guitar and gravitated to the blues styles of Reverend Gary Davis, Furry Lewis, and Mississippi John Hurt. He became an expert in various finger-picking styles and was soon recognized as one of the top players in the Village. He quickly became a mentor to nearly every young, aspiring folk or blues musician who appeared on the Greenwich Village scene.  This included a young Bob Dylan. 

    During one particular time when Dave needed to make a few bucks, he obtained seaman’s papers from the National Maritime Union. Working as a mess hand on tankers, he shipped out for a year before returning to gigs in the Village. This served to enhance his status in the Greenwich Village scene. He was even approached by Albert Grossman to take part in a folk music “super group” that Grossman was planning, with Village regulars Mary Travers and Peter Yarrow. Dave’s solo gigs were becoming more regular, and he turned Grossman down. Grossman then turned to another Village regular, Noel Paul Stookey. As Peter, Paul and Mary, the rest was history, although it might have been Peter, DAVE and Mary! You can’t make this stuff up!

    Van Ronk was also attracted to left politics. Through older members of New York’s Libertarian League, he became attracted to anarchism and by his late teens had joined the IWW. From there he joined the Socialist Party’s youth wing, the Young Peoples Socialist League (YPSL). From the YPSL, it was onto the Socialist Youth League (SYL), a group associated with the remnants of Max Shachtman’s Independent Socialist League. The Young Socialist League merged with others to form the Young Socialist Alliance and Dave became a YSA member. The YSA supported the political positions of the Socialist Workers Party, and went on to play a huge roll in the development of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

    Van Ronk joined the SWP, but left the party in 1964 with a split that became the Workers League (WL)—now the sectarian Socialist Equality Party. It’s doubtful that Dave was ever active with the WL or even agreed with the issues that produced the split. It was more likely his irascible, contrarian nature and independent streak that caused his break from the SWP.  Outspoken as he was, he never shied away from expressing his views. According to his widow, Terri Thal (who served as Bob Dylan’s first manager), Van Ronk considered himself a Trotskyist until the day he died following a long battle with cancer in 2002.

    As stated above, Van Ronk became an important mentor to Bob Dylan, and introduced young Bob to many of the most important figures on the Village scene. None, however, was more important than a self-described “red diaper baby,” Suze Rotolo.  

    Suze

    Album cover shows Bob Dylan and Suze Rotolo in New York City.

    Susan Elizabeth (Suze) Rotolo was born in New York in 1943 to Joachim (Pete) and Mary Rotolo, both active members of the Communist Party USA. Pete had been active as a shop steward in the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union at Morganthaler Linotype in Brooklyn, and Mary worked as a writer and journalist. During the Spanish Civil War, Mary had worked in Spain for the International Brigades. In 1958, Susan’s father, Pete died of a heart attack.

    Although Suze and her older sister Carla rejected their parents’ Stalinism, they both took up Pete and Mary’s devotion to the cause of racial justice and equality and nuclear disarmament. By the early ’60s, Suze was working full time for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and also working closely with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Carla was also around the Village folk scene. She worked as an assistant for archivist and Newport Folk Festival board member Alan Lomax, and at times, would join Dave Van Ronk and Dylan onstage singing harmonies. It was during this period that Carla Rotolo and Van Ronk introduced Suze to Bob Dylan.

    Dylan was completely smitten with Suze. It wasn’t only her beauty. He was attracted to her activism and her parents’ background as union activists. Suze’s mother, Mary, hated him. Despised him. DETESTED him. She didn’t trust him and didn’t want him around her daughter, but there wasn’t much that Mary could do about it. For the rest of her life, Mary would only refer to Dylan as “the twerp.”

    Suze Rotolo’s influence on Dylan caused him to write some of his most famous songs of social commentary like “Masters of War” and “The Times They Are A-Changin’” and also some of his best love songs like “Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright” and “Boots of Spanish Leather.” 

    Interestingly enough, however, it was her introducing Bob to the works of surrealist poets and authors like William Blake, and especially Arthur Rimbaud, that began to draw him away from the “protest” songs. He began to write songs with surreal imagery, like ”Gates of Eden” and “It’s Alright, Ma, I’m Only Bleeding.” Songs like “My Back Pages” and “Maggie’s Farm” were to proclaim his independence and exit from the folk music field. Rotolo died in 2011 following her battle with lung cancer. Her memoir, “A Freewheelin’ Time,” and Dave Van Ronk’s “The Mayor of MacDougal Street” both make great reading for anyone interested in those times.

    To wrap up

    The film works best, despite its flaws, by accurately depicting the tenor of the times in the Greenwich Village scene of the early to mid-1960s. But it didn’t delve deeply enough into Dylan’s relationship with Suze Rotolo/Sylvie Russo, and the end of that relationship following her return from six months in Italy with her mother and Dylan’s relationship with Joan Baez. 

    Also accurately depicted, in my opinion, was the profound change that came over Dylan in response to increasing fame. That fame increased exponentially with the release of each album. To protect himself, Dylan cloaked himself in a persona that was, in equal measure, condescension, suspicion, and cutting humor and put downs—what Chicago Blues guitarist and Dylan collaborator Mike Bloomfield (portrayed in the film by Eli Brown) described as “character armor.” Personally, I think that Bloomfield and Van Ronk each deserve their own biopics, but that’s just me.

    I hope that you all have found interest in this. I know I’ve left out some important information, like the rise and influence of Black gospel music and its importance to the development of folk music, blues and rock n’ roll (think Sister Rosetta Tharpe). But perhaps that’s for another time. For now, I’ll leave you with the words of the great jazz poet and singer, Jon Hendricks:

    “I wrote the shortest jazz poem ever heard.

    Nothin’ ’bout huggin’, kissin’. One word.

    LISTEN!”

  • Pittsburghers launch second run at divesting from Israel

    Pittsburghers launch second run at divesting from Israel

    By CARLOS SAPIR

    Long lines to get into bars are a common scene on New Years Eve in Pittsburgh. This year, the regular throng of people looking to party were joined by equally enthusiastic Pittsburghers collecting signatures for a ballot measure initiative that would see the city of 303,000 divest from entities—such as Israel—engaging in military occupation, apartheid, and genocide, as well as divestment from and the discontinuation of city contracts with entities that do business with them.

    Officially, to get on the ballot, the campaign needs to submit 12,500 valid signatures. In practice, they need closer to twice that amount. This is the second attempt to get Pittsburgh to divest from genocide and war, following a similar attempt in the summer to get ballot access for the past November election.

    Formed in the wake of a pro-Palestine encampment at the University of Pittsburgh, the first attempt at divestment got off to a late–if energetic–start, beginning their campaign nearly halfway through the allotted public petitioning period. Despite ultimately crossing the 12,500 limit with room to spare, the campaign—then named No War Crimes On Our Dime—had to confront a pro-Israel legal team that challenged 10,000 of the roughly 15,000 signatures collected. With the campaign facing possible legal fines in the event that the challenges were heard and upheld, campaign organizers retreated, resolving to return better prepared and better organized for the next petitioning period.

    The campaign has been also slightly rebranded, now going by the catchier slogan of Not On Our Dime,” and organizers have set plans in motion to collect 25,000 signatures by the February deadline.

    Participants in the campaign are quick to point out how the whole process is littered with anti-democratic obstacles, details which are also shared with people considering signing the petition. Petitions must be signed in person and with a pen, and even minor spelling errors or stray marks on petition sheets can be cause for throwing out entire pages of signatures. Water damage is another serious concern: with a very wet climate and temperatures ranging from 5° to 40° F (-15° to 4° C), both rain and snow can quickly ruin petition sheets, and campaign organizers have had to quickly innovate ways to keep petition sheets dry while petitioning outside. The temperature itself is also an obstacle, reducing the amount of outdoor foot traffic and at times even freezing the pen ink that must be used to sign the petitions.

    Even the official bar for ballot access—12,500 signatures—is itself a demonstration of the contempt that Pittsburghs government has for public democracy: While 12,500 signatures are required for a ballot measure, nominal ballot access for elections that are dominated by the capitalist party machines require only a minuscule fraction of this level of support. Candidates for city mayor—a post that has been solidly dominated by Democrats since 1934 and firmly entrenched in capitalist machine politics even before then—only need to collect 250 signatures for ballot access, less than what the current campaign is collecting on a daily basis. Cheekily, campaign organizers have minted a mayors club” consisting of anyone who collects over 250 signatures for the ballot measure, a lofty individual goal that has nevertheless been reached by several organizers as the campaign enters its third week.

    While city government officials and Zionist local publications like the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle have slandered the ballot measure as being antisemitic and impossible to implement, the response from regular Pittsburghers could not be more different. While getting people to slow down in sub-freezing temperatures long enough to sign a petition can be difficult, people engaged in petitioning have reported that of the people who stop long enough to listen to what is being asked of them, a solid majority express enthusiastic support. This has included vocal, if not unanimous, support from Pittsburghs large Jewish community, with many petition-signers sharing stories about how their personal upbringing as Jews brought them into opposition to the atrocities that Israel is committing with U.S. backing. Squirrel Hill, one of the citys most Jewish neighborhoods, is one of the most active spots for petitioning. While campaign organizers do not keep a formal tally of participantsbackgrounds, informal estimates suggest that about a third of the campaigns organizers are themselves Jewish, participating at a rate that is roughly double the proportion of Jewish people in the Greater Pittsburgh area.

    People signing the petition have also defied media cliches about support for Palestine more broadly; the campaign has reported high response rates from elderly people, as well as from self-professed Trump voters. At least one cliché, however, has continued to hold: the tested-and-true support for Palestine in the Queer community—born from a shared experience and understanding of oppression, with drag shows, Rocky Horror screenings, and other LGBTQ+ community events—provides large amounts of signatures.

    In petition-collection training sessions, organizers point out that in addition to being serious about the goal of getting the city to divest from genocide, a secondary goal of the campaign is to engage people politically and raise consciousness around Palestine, imperialism, and the anti-democratic outlook of the bourgeois parties that dominate U.S. politics. Many of those who sign the petition confess to having felt completely alone and disoriented in the face of U.S. corporate media and politicianscontinued embrace of lockstep pro-Israel rhetoric even in the face of clear evidence of genocidal intent and practice pronounced by the highest courts of the UN. One conversation at a time, this facade of manufactured consent is being shattered by Not On Our Dime, with people realizing that they are not alone, but rather part of a majority who are outraged by what is happening.

    With a little over a month of petitioning time left, Pittsburghers in solidarity with Palestine still have a lot of work left to do and show no signs of stopping. If you are a Pittsburgh resident who has yet to sign or get involved, you can find more information about upcoming canvasses and trainings close to you at https://notonourdimepgh.com/ . Residents of Pennsylvania who are not registered to vote inside Pittsburghs city limits can also help volunteer as petition circulators, and the campaign is also accepting donations to cover the costs of materials and anticipated legal expenses.

    Photo: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

  • Gaza cease-fire: A partial Palestinian victory after unimaginable loss

    Gaza cease-fire: A partial Palestinian victory after unimaginable loss

    By FABIO BOSCO 

    On Jan. 15, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed al-Thani announced a comprehensive ceasefire agreement between the State of Israel and the Hamas-led Palestinian resistance as of Jan. 19. Even while the agreement was being negotiated, Israel continued to bombard Gaza.
    In addition to the cessation of hostilities, the agreement provides for the exchange of prisoners, including Palestinian political prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza except for a 700-meter border strip, the entry of ample humanitarian aid, the free movement of Palestinians inside Gaza, a reconstruction plan, and the extension of the Palestinian Authority government to Gaza backed by military forces from Arab countries. The agreement would be implemented in three phases and would be overseen by the United States, Egypt and Qatar.

    The Israeli government had other plans for Gaza: strangling Palestinian resistance, permanent military occupation, expulsion of the Palestinian population from northern Gaza and its replacement by Zionist colonies. But these objectives were met by the heroic resistance of the Palestinians and their allies.

    The Palestinian people survived 15 months of genocide consciously implemented by the Zionists through bombing, bullets, hunger, cold and the destruction of all health services. At least 65,000 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, 70% women and children, and another 800 in the West Bank, where thousands were arrested. In addition, 70% of all buildings, including schools and hospitals, were destroyed. The heroic Palestinian resistance, weakened, recruited new members and carried out attacks against Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

    The Palestinian resistance deepened the Israeli economic crisis with the consequent exodus of capital and hundreds of thousands of liberal Zionists. In addition, there is a conflict between the State of Israel and the orthodox Haredi population that refuses to participate in military conscription. Finally, the humiliating situation of Israeli prisoners in Gaza mobilized relatives and friends and won the sympathy of the majority of their population. Externally, the growing international isolation and loss of support among the people, particularly among the youth and the Jewish community in the United States, hampers the Zionist project as a whole.

    Whoever pays the band  gets to choose the music.

    But none of this seemed to bother Netanyahu and his far-right cabinet. Until his main sponsor, the United States, through Trump’s emissary, on the night of Jan. 11 reported the new president’s position in favor of an immediate ceasefire, given Israel’s stalemate against the resistance and its failure to establish an effective military occupation in Gaza or southern Lebanon. The Israeli press reported that this was an imposition, and it is unknown whether a green light was negotiated for other Zionist objectives such as annexation of the West Bank. Presumably, Trump wants to implement this ceasefire agreement so that he can continue to enact the Abraham Accords,” which seeks to normalize Israel’s relations in the Middle East starting with Saudi Arabia, which was initiated in his first administration bur indefinitely put on hold by the Gaza war.

    The fact is that the State of Israel depends on U.S. funding, arms, and diplomatic support to maintain its existence, and it would be unwise to argue with Trump.

    In addition to U.S. imperialism, other imperialist countries that support Israel also benefit from this agreement, such as the Europeans who deliver arms, Russia, which exports oil, and China, which is the Zionists’ main trading partner. European imperialism expects a reduction in the wave of popular mobilizations against support for Israeli genocide, and China will be able to reestablish its trade routes in the Red Sea, which had been blocked by the Yemeni Houthis in solidarity with Palestine.

    Among the Arab countries, Egypt will benefit from the normalization of maritime traffic in the Suez Canal and from the revenues provided by the control of the Rafah border post. Qatar asserts itself, once again, as the most popular Arab regime among the Palestinians along with the Houthis. And the rest can resume the shameful normalization agreements with the State of Israel, without facing massive popular fury.

    A new Middle East?

    President Joe Biden, the tireless purveyor of weapons for genocide in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, announced that his administration was responsible for the cease-fire because it had created a new Middle East, and that the weakening of Hezbollah and the fall of Bashar al-Assad forced the resistance to concede.
    Hamas had already accepted the ceasefire agreement announced by Joe Biden in June 2024, with nearly identical terms to the present agreement. In other words, the real obstacle to the cease-fire was Netanyahu, who was able to continue the genocide thanks to the financing, arming and diplomatic protection provided by Biden’s own government, and with the support or approval of other imperialist countries.

    As for Lebanon, there was indeed a breakthrough for the U.S. through the election of General Joseph Aoun and the appointment of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister, both supported by the US and Saudi Arabia. But they are still far from their actual goal of disarming Hezbollah.

    In Syria, both the United States and Israel for years maintained the status quo that kept Bashar al-Assad’s regime intact. The Assad family protected the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights for 50 years and was distancing itself from the Iranian regime. In addition, it kept several members of the Palestinian resistance in the infamous Sednaya prisons and in the Palestinian wing.” The only countries that helped, in one way or another, in the military and popular offensive that led to the fall of Assad were Turkey, Qatar and the Ukrainian secret service that provided drone technology for military purposes. But the decisive factor was the hatred of the Syrian population against Assad, which took away his social base, and allowed the triumph of the combined action of the military offensive led by HTS from Idlib, and the popular uprising in the south and greater Damascus.

    The new Syrian regime seeks the capitalist reconstruction of the country in collaboration with all the imperialist countries and regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in addition to the neighboring countries. That is why it limits itself to diplomatic protests against the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. But among the Syrian population, sympathy for the Palestinian cause has always been and remains in the majority. In the medium term this will turn against the Israeli occupation, in one form or another, if there isn’t a bloodthirsty dictatorship protecting the Zionists.

    Aware of this reality, the State of Israel bombed 800 Syrian military and intelligence targets, in the largest air operation in the history of the Zionist state, and it wants to promote a conference for the partition of Syria into three states: a Druze state in the south, a Kurdish state in the northeast and a Syrian Arab Damascus. Of course, this plan depends on the United States putting it into action.
    Finally, the Iranian question: The Iranian regime is prioritizing an agreement with Western imperialism based on the resumption of the nuclear agreement in exchange for the end of heavy economic sanctions. At the same time, it signs a mutual support agreement with Russian imperialism to protect against a possible imperialist military aggression by Israel, whose government is ready to attack nuclear, military, or oil installations. Once again, these attacks would depend entirely on US support.

    A partial victory, but the struggle must be continued

    In this regional and international scenario, we can affirm that the end of the genocide is a partial achievement of the Palestinians. It is no coincidence that the announcement of the truce has been greeted with expressions of joy throughout Palestine. The Palestinian people, once again, by their heroic resistance, are preventing Israel from imposing all its objectives, despite its overwhelming military superiority.

    But this is not true peace. We are facing a very volatile situation, in the midst of an indescribable humanitarian catastrophe, where it is not even given that Israel will comply with the terms of the agreement. This cease-fire does not mean an end to the violence of genocidal Zionism. There will be no peace without the end of Israel’s occupation and until there is a free Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

    We cannot let this truce make us forget the genocide committed by Israel with the support of all the imperialist governments. We must continue to demand that the Zionist criminals be arrested as ordered by the International Criminal Court and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    The partial victory will only be maintained and expanded with the strengthening of Palestinian resistance, through popular mobilization with armed self-defense in coordination with the international solidarity of the working class and youth in Arab countries and around the world, to overthrow authoritarian Arab regimes as was done in Syria and paralyze the military machine in the imperialist countries.

    Photo: Palestinians in Gaza celebrate the announcement of an agreement for a ceasefire. (Reuters)

  • Workers’ Action newspaper: January – February edition!

    Workers’ Action newspaper: January – February edition!
    60 years since the assassination of Malcolm X. Immigrants, queer people, women, oppressed communities, labor and social movements prepare their defense against the incoming Trump administration and government repression. Israel intensified the genocide in Gaza in the weeks leading up to the January cease fire. Read the socialist viewpoint in the current edition of  Workers’ Action/Acción Obrera.

    The January – February 2025 edition of our newspaper is now available in print and online as a pdf. Read the latest issue of our newspaper today with a free pdf download! As always, we appreciate any donations to help with the cost of printing.

    Click on the image to read the paper or message us to get a hard copy.