Showing posts sorted by date for query blogspot. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query blogspot. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, March 16, 2026

France begins landmark trial over Islamic State genocide of Yazidis

A French court on Monday began a landmark trial examining the Islamic State (IS) group’s campaign against the Yazidi religious minority in northern Iraq. It is the first time France has prosecuted a suspect for genocide linked to the attacks on the community in Iraq and Syria.


Issued on: 16/03/2026 - RFI

Many Yazidis fled their homes after attacks by the Islamic State group targeting the minority community in Iraq. PHOTO/AHMAD AL-RUBAYE

The accused is a French jihadist presumed dead but still being tried in absentia for his alleged role in enslaving and abusing Yazidi women and children.

Sabri Essid, born in Toulouse in 1984, joined the Islamic State group in Syria in early 2014. Investigators say he first worked as a bodyguard to a senior IS leader before becoming a member of the Amniyat, the organisation’s internal security and intelligence branch.

He faces charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and complicity in those crimes committed in Syria between August 2014 and 2016.

Four Yazidi women and their seven children have been identified as victims in the case.

Essid is presumed to have died in Syria in 2018. Because there is no official confirmation of his death, French courts say they can still try him in absentia in case he reappears in Syria or Iraq. The trial is scheduled to run until Friday.

Survivors speak out

The four Yazidi women described captivity marked by deprivation and repeated violence.

Investigators say they were deprived of water, food, medical care and freedom, and spoke of repeated rapes carried out with “violence and brutality”. They said Essid treated them “like sexual merchandise”.

“It is important to understand that an unspeakable horror fell upon these women,” said lawyer ClĂ©mence Bectarte, who represents three of the women and is a member of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), an international rights group.

Bectarte told RFI the women had been held by multiple Islamic State fighters during their captivity.

“When I started working with these four women, there was frustration. They had been detained, bought, raped and enslaved by sometimes 10 or 15 members of Daesh,” Bectarte said, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State group.

“This trial concerns just one of their tormentors. Of course it is nothing compared with what a trial could have been that delivered justice for all the crimes they suffered. But for each of them it is very important to name the crimes, to recognise them and to ensure their voices are heard through a process of justice."

The women are now focused on the future of their children, Bectarte added.

Recognising genocide


The Islamic State group targeted the Yazidis, a religious minority mainly living in northern Iraq, during its expansion in 2014.

Thousands of Yazidi men were killed while women and girls were abducted and enslaved.

More than 5,000 people were killed and more than 400,000 were displaced from their homes. Thousands of Yazidi women and children are still missing or believed to be held captive.

In May 2021, Karim Khan, who led a United Nations investigation into the atrocities, said investigators had found “clear and convincing evidence that genocide was committed by IS against the Yazidis as a religious group”.

The UN inquiry also identified 1,444 suspected perpetrators of the genocide, including 18 senior Islamic State leaders and the French national Sabri Essid.
National courts step in

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has not opened an investigation into the crimes because the most senior Islamic State leaders involved were nationals of countries that are not parties to the court.

In the absence of a case before the ICC, national courts have become the main path to justice for Yazidi victims.

Germany delivered the first conviction for genocide against the Yazidis in November 2021, when a court in Frankfurt found an IS member known as Taha Al J guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Trials have also taken place in Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium. In Brussels late last year, a court convicted Sammy Djedou, born to a Belgian mother and Ivorian father and also presumed dead, of genocide against the Yazidis.

For many years France mainly prosecuted citizens who joined the Islamic State group under terrorism charges rather than genocide or crimes against humanity.

Bectarte said that changed after years of legal advocacy.

“In 2017 we began a long effort with the FIDH to explain the importance of also prosecuting crimes against humanity and genocide when there were indications and evidence that French nationals had been involved, particularly in the sexual enslavement of Yazidis,” she told RFI.

Investigations also showed that the persecution of Yazidis formed part of a broader policy organised by the Islamic State group.

“What really emerges from these cases is how much the genocide committed against the Yazidis resulted from a policy put in place, planned and dictated by Islamic State even before or at the moment it captured Mount Sinjar in August 2014,” Bectarte said.
Path to jihad

Essid’s involvement in jihadist networks dates back years before he joined the Islamic State

As a teenager he developed an interest in religion and later became radicalised under the influence of Fabien Clain, one of the men who claimed responsibility for the November 2015 Paris attacks.

In 2006 Essid was arrested in Syria while trying to reach Iraq to fight US forces alongside another future IS member, Thomas Barnouin. He was returned to France and sentenced in 2009 to five years in prison, including one suspended year, for criminal association linked to preparing a terrorist act.

After his release he worked as a crane operator.

Essid later became close to Mohamed Merah, who carried out the 2012 attacks in Toulouse and Montauban. The two men became step-brothers when Essid’s father married Merah’s mother.

Despite being under surveillance by French intelligence services, Essid travelled to Syria in February 2014 with his family.

Investigators say he later appeared in an IS propaganda video released on 10 March 2015.

In the video, his 11-year-old stepson shoots a 19-year-old hostage presented as an Israeli agent. Essid can be heard threatening Israelis and referring to the attack on the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris.

Investigators say the video was also used to intimidate Yazidi women held captive by Essid. Some later recognised him in the footage and identified him as one of their abusers.

French woman faces genocide trial over enslavement of Yazidi girl

There are several conflicting accounts of Essid’s death.

Islamic State records captured by US forces list him as a “martyr” in January 2018. His wife said he died on 4 February 2018 after being executed by former IS members who had defected. Another propaganda account said he died after stepping on a mine.

Because none of these claims has been officially confirmed, French courts still consider him a fugitive and have proceeded with the genocide trial.

Next year, a 36-year-old French woman who returned from Syria is due to be tried on terrorism charges and for complicity in crimes against humanity. Sonia Mejri will also become the first French woman tried for genocide in Paris after an appeal challenging the case was rejected. She is accused of enslaving a Yazidi teenager in 2015.

Bectarte said investigations have also changed how some women linked to Islamic State are viewed.

“For a time, the women and family members of French nationals who joined Daesh were seen primarily as victims,” she said.

“But as investigations progressed, particularly through testimony from Yazidi survivors, it became clear that in some cases women had also played a role in the whole system.”

For the Yazidi community, the trials represent part of a broader search for justice after years of persecution that reached its worst point between 2014 and 2016.

This story was adapted from the original version in French by Anne Bernas and Laura Martel


Saturday, March 14, 2026

The Growing Problems of Operation Epic Fury


Costly and Depleting


The big drain on military resources has begun. A war apparently already won (and not), against an adversary supposedly without means to fight back, its air force and navy destroyed, its missile capabilities blunted, is now drawing the clumsy colossus of American power into the Middle East with embarrassing effect. The Middle East, where US President Donald Trump promised the “forever wars” would end, promises an end to his beginning.

The ledger of losses keeps rising with giddying pace. The US casualty list, for now, remains manageably low, but the military purse is being raided with manic relish. Operation Epic Fury cost US taxpayers $11.3 billion in munitions over the first six days, an estimate that excludes operating and maintenance costs of the engaged military force or the damage inflicted by Iran. The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) claims that the first 100 hours of the war cost $3.7 billion, approximating to $891.4 million each day.

Strain is also being placed on inventories. The US prides itself on deluxe, high brand killing and extermination of targets, using chic weaponry and dull doctrine. Expensive homicidal measures do have to be eventually accounted for. According to reporting from Bloomberg, “as the conflict extends toward a third week, the US war effort is showing unexpected signs of strain against an adversary whose military budget is smaller than the GDP of Vermont – but which has an arsenal of missiles and drones unlike anything the US has ever faced.”

Critical munitions are being depleted. With the campaign barely 100 hours old, 168 Tomahawk cruise missiles had been fired. (Each unit costs a mighty $3.6 million.) This is a staggering figure when compared to the rate of procurement: the previous five years had seen the production of 322 Tomahawks. According to a source quoted in the Financial Times, “The navy will be feeling this expenditure for several years.”

While the Pentagon gloats at reducing Iranian strikes by 80% or more, Tehran has gotten more economical with its targeting, successfully striking military and energy infrastructure across the Middle East with telling effect. Ballistic missiles have hit the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, destroying two AN/GSC-52B SATCOM terminals. A costly AN/FPS-132 early warning radar in Qatar – a facility estimated to cost some $1.1 billion – was successfully struck by a ballistic missile.

The AN/TPY-2 radar facilities used by the lauded yet hideously expensive Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system have also been struck in Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Air Base, Al Ruwais in the UAE, Al Dhafra Air Base in proximity to Abu Dhabi and Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base. A sense of how important that facility is to the operation of the battery is provided by N.R. Jenzen, a munitions specialist of Armament Research: “The AN/TPY-2 radar is essentially the heart of the THAAD battery, enabling the launch of interceptor missiles and contributing to a networked air defence picture.” Knocking out the radar blinds the system.

The outstanding feature of many of the strikes is their relative cheapness to the interceptor missiles used to destroy them. “The round’s we’re firing – Patriot rounds, THAAD rounds … these weapon systems, each around is millions of dollars,” laments Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. “The math on this doesn’t work.” Shahed-136 one-way drones, each one costing $35,000, have played a starring role in upsetting “the math”. CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper has also noted that the majority of wounded US personnel – some 140 troops – have been injured in “one-way strikes.”

This has compelled the Pentagon to pay greater attention to its own Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS), which is now seeing service in some instances against Iranian attacks. But the department is also set to seek more cash, expecting to ask $50 billion in additional funding from Congress. Given the sheer unpopularity of the war, some lawmakers have reservations. “You’ve got to be able to provide us with more information as […] justification,” insists Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “Don’t just take it for granted that the Congress’s role is basically to write the cheque.”

US military power is now being drawn from other theatres of interest to feed the Moloch of war. In a recent cabinet meeting, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung confirmed that Washington might relocate air defence material to the Middle East. Multiple launchers of the THAAD system have been or are in the process of being moved to Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, roughly 70km south of Seoul, with the interceptor missiles destined for the Middle East.

This shifting of pieces has not been without consequence. The THAAD batteries had been sent to South Korea in 2017 to assure it against threats from its nuclear-armed neighbour to the north. Depriving them of projectiles has gotten tongues wagging about increasing vulnerability. Besides, the ostensible security provided by US power for its allies and partners has been shown to be something of a dud, as Iran’s attacks on the Gulf states has so convincingly demonstrated.

Concern from Taiwan about such moves was registered in an interview by Chen Kuan-ting, a legislator and member of the country’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. As US military assets and resources could not “be deployed in two places at the same time”, it was a case of priorities. And those priorities, it was implied, should lie in Asia. “Deploying the main military assets in Asia and confronting the US’s primary competitor here is more in line with US interests.” That may well be what he hopes for, but it is clear that Washington is battling through the another malady Trump had once campaigned against: the debilitating entanglement of a foreign war with ill-defined objectives involving a resourceful, obstinate foe.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

 The US and Israel Have No Plan: Because Collapse Is the Plan

I don’t think it’s controversial any longer to proclaim that the ruling class of the US and Israel (USrael™) are idiot psychopaths (idiopaths™). Some around the globe have noticed the two administrations sinking all of us into a possible global economic meltdown / possible nuclear war / probable really shitty 2026 don’t seem to have a “plan” or “strategy” or “inkling” for what happens next. Even the lawmakers who attended a closed-door briefing about the administration’s Persian Incursion exited the room completely baffled as to A) the reasons for this war, B) the plan for this war, and C) the plan for what comes after said war.

The reason these witless millionaire lawmakers don’t understand the true causes of this horrific invasion of Iran is because they either don’t understand or choose to ignore the petrodollar and it’s role in dollar hegemony and then dollar hegemony’s role in making sure the US oligarchs can print enough money to own whole islands where they can sexually abuse minors with abandon. (I discussed the real reasons for the attack on Iran in a recent column here.)

However, the reason our 72% male 78% white Congress can’t get a clear answer from the Trump administration as to what comes next if the USrael™ idiopaths “succeed” in Iran is quite simply because it doesn’t matter to those making the decisions. The idiopaths don’t care. Collapsing the state apparatus is the goal. Asking them what comes next is like asking an arsonist what he’s going to build after he burns down the house. Chances are his response would be nothing more than a bewildered look akin to when you ask your dog for advice on a variable-rate mortgage.

Some normal people — who don’t understand the sinister, soulless aims of the US imperial rulers — like to mention that the US hasn’t won a war since WWII. They like to say, “Every war the US has entered into over the past 50 years has been a disaster for us.” Unfortunately, that’s not true. It’s not true because “normal” people with feelings and souls and payment plans and moral cores can’t comprehend what counts as “winning” for the piping hot bags of douche who run the USraeli™ empire.

The clearest examples are Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Despite the breathless protestations of our various administrations at the time, the goals with the invasion of Iraq, invasion of Libya, and invasion of Syria were never to help the poor, suffering people in those countries. (Shock.) Our ruling psychopaths didn’t ever care about the women or the children or the innocents or the elderly or the pets. They didn’t give a shit. In fact, psychopaths are incapable of giving a shit about others.

The actual goal was to turn those nations into unstable, feeble, incapacitated, failed states. Once in that condition, they A) don’t pose a risk to Israel and B) don’t have the strength or ability to pump oil outside the petrodollar and align with other countries outside USrael’s™ sphere of influence.

  • Libya ended up with a lawless state featuring such exciting tourist attractions as open-air slave markets and violent warlords.
  • In the years following the 2003 Iraq invasion, Iraqis celebrated with extreme instability, sectarian fighting, and efforts to establish a government amidst violent insurgency.
  • Following the fall of the Assad government in Syria, the country has been led by a US-installed rebranded Al Qaeda asshole. The national sport is extreme poverty, and the national flower is ethnic cleansing.

For the people of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, it’s an absolute horror movie. And yet, Americans no longer hear our politicians or our mainstream media announcing that the people of [fill in the blank] need our help. Not any longer. They apparently only needed USraeli™ “help” when there was a risk to the petrodollar. With the safety of the petrodollar secure, USraeli™ freedom bombs are no longer necessary.

USrael™ has no plan for an imaginary post-war Iran because the arsonist does not seek to rebuild the house. Cancer does not ask how to bring the host back to life. The US imperial aim is merely… hell. Hell on earth. No more stability. No more society. No more infrastructure. Essentially no more state. And for the US and Israel, this means no more resistance, no more threat, no more competition to the petrodollar. No more Iranian alliance with China.

Collapse is the plan.

But it increasingly seems that it won’t work. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Libya. Iran is not Syria.

Iran is a powerful and ancient society of 90 million people. Those who understand Iran far better than I do say Iranians will fight to the end. The US will not fight to the end because the majority of Americans don’t even know why we’re fighting at all. In fact, polling shows most Americans think Trump went to war with Iran to distract from the Epstein files.

Lee Camp is an American comedian, writer, podcaster, news journalist and news commentator. Read other articles by Lee, or visit Lee's website.

 Operation Epic Folly


If America attacks … Iranians will unite, forgetting their differences with their government, and they will fiercely and tenaciously defend their country.

— Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate1

The only thing truly epic about the current U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is the chasm between the facts on the ground and the media spectacle put forth by President Trump and his fawning aides.

Folly is the best term to capture the reality of a president who until very recently presented himself as uniquely qualified to bring peace to the world via his “Art of the Deal” genius, then turned on a dime to endlessly repeat that the U.S. would inflict maximum damage and suffering on Iran, a country he had said would be a particularly bad place to try and carry out regime change, not to mention a policy he claimed to have rejected no matter where it might be recommended, wisdom he allegedly learned from the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

After steady coaching from Benjamin Netanyahu, however, he changed his mind, becoming convinced that a quick decapitation of Iran’s leadership would lead Iran’s suffering masses to topple the mullahs and install an American-friendly government. He claimed that Iran’s clerical regime would fall in 48 hours.

That prediction failed so fast it didn’t even allow time for a G.W. Bush style “Mission Accomplished” declaration to whet the appetite for the inevitable anti-climax of disintegration and civil war a few months later. In this as in so many other areas Trump is a prodigy, failing almost as fast as he can dream up fresh lunacies to aggravate the world with. As the Ugly American, he’s way overqualified.

Since February 28 we have been treated to desperate, ever-changing, and contradictory attempts to justify the unjustifiable initiation of war, and an equally desperate, ever-changing, and contradictory attempt to define its objectives and limits, something that has proven impossible for an administration that was counting on ending the war with a single massive blow. Hence the ever-lengthening list of childish inventions: “bring the Iranians back to the negotiating table,” “obliterate the Iran nuclear program,” “liberate the people,” “strike a deal Venezuelan style,” “complete regime change,” etc. etc. None of it has anything to do with reality.

For Trump and his henchmen, where reality is not merely tinged with fantasy but subsumed by it, “nothing is impossible” is a necessary watchword. For them, thoughtlessness is a virtue, as shown by Trump’s nonchalance in admitting that they hadn’t found a replacement yet for the murdered Iranian head of state because the U.S.-Israeli attacks were so successful that all the potential replacements had also been killed. No need for woke nonsense like knowing what you’re doing.

With gas prices soaring and Americans already coming home in body bags, an obviously desperate Trump yearns to declare victory and withdraw, but he cannot do so, because the Iranian government is still very much in place. Lacking an exit strategy, his war doctrine is “flexible,” by necessity, since he has no idea how he fell into the current trap, let alone how to get out of it. Ever the narcissist, however, he gives himself an “A” for effort, assessing the initial phase of the U.S. war as a 15 on a scale of 10.

In other words, we’re watching another reality TV episode, full of kitsch and cliches, with Pete Hegseth comparing the mass killing to a football game. Iranian leaders knew the first few “plays,” said the war secretary, because they had been scripted before the war started, but once the “game” was underway they didn’t “know what plays to call, let alone how to get in the huddle.” Filled with adolescent pride at unleashing massive waves of lethality, he claimed the U.S. was “fighting to win,” even as Trump showed eagerness to negotiate a way out, an option that Tehran flatly rejected.

Badly conceived, sloppily improvised, and based on the repetition of past errors and disasters, the Trump and Bibi war moves from tragedy to farce and back again, only this time on a vaster scale and with potentially far graver consequences.2

It’s difficult to recall a greater folly.

ENDNOTES:

  • 1
    Quoted from David Barsamian (with Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian, Nahid Mozaffari), Targeting Iran, (City Lights, 2007).
  • 2
    See Maciek Wisniewski, “Operation Epic Farce,” La Jornada (Spanish), March 7, 2026.

Michael K. Smith is the author of Portraits of Empire. He co-blogs with Frank Scott at www.legalienate.blogspot.comRead other articles by Michael.

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

 

The Delusion of Safety “Here”


“It’s not meant to be happening here.”

Louise Starkey, an Australian influencer in Dubai posted those words to the internet in response to Iranian missiles hitting the United Arab Emirates. The adverb says everything. Life is forever nice “here” because all the crimes we commit “there” are denied a response and whitewashed out of the news “here.”

The phrase, which Starkey erased in response to a tsunami of indignant criticism, aptly sums up the dominant attitude in the Global North, where misfortune is happenstance and the organized brutality undergirding economic life merely makes for an “interesting proposition” in an academic seminar, if even that.

The “here” makes clear that there are places that can be bombarded, like Palestine and Venezuela, and other places no, like the United Arab Emirates, an oil and gas tax shelter for the fabulously wealthy. The fact that a missile can explode “here” shows that the rules are changing. The new reality to which all of us have fallen heir is that everywhere is subject to bombardment at a moment’s notice. Not just “there,” but everywhere.

What the influencer demonstrated was not ignorance but a sense of reality and a “common sense” grasped intuitively by everyone, but rarely articulated, and virtually never with such directness. But they are the same ingredients at work in the odd reaction of the majority of European governments to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, though each one has its particular nuance. German Prime Minister Friedrich Merz questioned international law and said “now is not the time to teach a lesson” to the United States. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed doubts and declined to join in the U.S.-Israeli attacks. French President Emmanuel Macron suggested extending the French nuclear umbrella over Europe. But all three speak with one voice in saying that they would take “measures to defend our interests and those of our allies” in the face of Iran’s “reckless attacks.”

Amazing. The problem is “there” rather than “here.” One would never guess that Israel and the U.S. started the current war; that the secular state the U.S. periodically claims Iran needs was already created by the Iranian people, but then overthrown by U.S. coup in 1953 after Iran had the nerve to nationalize its own oil; or that Iran was extremely accommodating in negotiations with the U.S. up to the final minute in February, making every effort to avoid war.

And what to make of president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who demanded of Tehran a credible transition, a definitive termination of nuclear and ballistic programs, and an end to destabilizing activities in the region, just hours after the Iranian head of state had been assassinated by U.S.-Israeli air strikes?

Incredible.

Let’s review some facts. Without provocation, and with complete contempt for Iranian sovereignty, the U.S. and Israel bombed the country, blaming Tehran for the attacks and denying it had any right to retaliate. This kind of framing makes Orwellian double-think seem quite rational, and it’s certainly understandable that even the regime’s critics are uniting behind the government’s war effort. No matter how much Iranian women may need to be liberated, they can’t sign on to an effort that blew up dozens of little girls attending elementary school in Minab on the first day of war.

In any case, much as we like to blame Trump for everything, we’ve seen this movie before. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 by the neo-cons Trump has so criticized had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people (Operation Iraqi Liberation was considered as a name for U.S. invasion policy, but the acronym OIL threatened insurmountable public relations problems), nor was it the done in a jiffy operation it was advertised as being. Weapons of mass destruction never turned up because they had never existed, which was obvious at the time.

Iraq was devastated almost beyond repair, which ended up enhancing Iranian influence in the region, ironically enough, given unrelenting U.S. hostility towards Iran since its revolution in 1979.

Unlike Trump today, President George W. Bush at least felt the need to send Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council to make the case for war, because obtaining UN approval was considered important. Though Bush ended up settling for support from the likes of Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar, and Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, he looked hard for more. He ran into a dignified “No” in Berlin, Paris, and other capitals.

Flash forward a quarter century and Trump, without seeking any European support, has garnered quite a bit in spite of himself. Only Spain has refused the U.S. use of its airbases to attack Iran, which appears to be strengthening Prime Minister Sanchez with the electorate. He can use the help, as there are still plenty of Spanish “patriots” who support Trump. Meanwhile, the Danish social democrats, who rebounded in the polls after standing firm in the face of U.S. threats to Greenland, will vote soon. Let’s hope they create some momentum for sanity in Europe, where it’s in short supply.

After all, though it has dropped from the radar, the threat to Greenland has not gone away. The only reason it hasn’t been attacked already is that Israel doesn’t really care about it. But that could change, which Copenhagen seems to recognize, but not Brussels or Berlin. The latter still think that being “here” affords protection from the consequences of our actions “there.” It doesn’t.

In today’s world, there is no more “here” and “there,” only a shared everywhere. In that universal space economic relations are fragile, everyone is vulnerable, and mastering the technology of violence is not difficult.

We’re all at risk here.

SOURCE:

Beñat Zaldua, “It Can Also Happen ‘Here'”, La Jornada (Spanish), March 7, 2026

Michael K. Smith is the author of Portraits of Empire. He co-blogs with Frank Scott at www.legalienate.blogspot.comRead other articles by Michael.

Monday, March 09, 2026

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Thousands march for women's rights and against Mideast war

Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in cities across the world Sunday to mark International Women's Day and, in some cases, denounce the war in the Middle East.



Issued on: 08/03/2026 - RFI


'Hysterical: woman with an opinion,' read one sign as thousands marched for women's rights Sunday © Alex MARTIN / AFP
\\

From Rio in Brazil to cities across France, Spain and other European countries, demonstrators marched to demand women's rights across a range of issues.

In France, rape survivor Gisele Pelicot led a women's rights march in Paris, one of several demonstrations in French cities.
In Spain thousands of people came out in cities across the country to denounce violence against women © Thomas COEX / AFP


Thousands also marched in cities across Spain to protest gender-based violence and call for an end to the war in the Middle East.

The Paris march was one of some 150 demonstrations held to mark International Women's Day in France, with events taking place in other cities including Bordeaux, Lille, and Marseille.

"We won't give up," Pelicot, 73, told the crowd as she joined thousands in the French capital marching for women's rights, economic equality, and an end to sexual violence.

'
It's not an isolated case, it's the patriarchy': protesters marched in Madrid © Thomas COEX / AFP


Pelicot became a global symbol in the fight against sexual violence after she waived her right to anonymity during the 2024 trial of her ex-husband and dozens of strangers who raped her while she was unconscious.

Last week, she received the Order of Civil Merit from Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez in Madrid.

'No to war'


Spanish protesters were denouncing both violence against women and the war in the Middle East sparked by last weekend's US-Israeli strikes.

Demonstrations took place in Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Granada, Bilbao, and San Sebastian, among other cities.

Women marched in the Chilean capital © RODRIGO ARANGUA / AFP


Madrid hosted two demonstrations in the centre of the Spanish capital, one for transgender rights and the other for the legalisation and regulation of prostitution.

Slogans written on placards at the protests included "No to war" and "Anti-fascist feminists against imperialist war".

Alexa Rubio, a 30-year-old Mexican living in Spain, cited pay and harassment as some of the most urgent issues.
Thousands marched in Rio, Brazil © Pablo PORCIUNCULA / AFP


"And in my country, gender-based violence, because women are being killed for being women," she told AFP.

Yolanda Diaz, Spain's second deputy prime minister, spoke out against the war in the Middle East at a Madrid rally.

"It is within our power to stop the war, to stop the barbarity, and to win rights," she said.

"We proclaim ourselves in defence of peace, in defence of the Iranian people, in defence of Iranian women," she added, referring to the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Sanchez, Spain's socialist prime minister, has drawn the ire of the US administration for refusing the use of Spain's military bases for strikes against Iran.

In Latin America, women marched in cities in Brazil, Chile and Mexico and other countries.

"When one woman advances, we all advance," said Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum in a speech.

(AFP)

Pelicot joins Paris march as rallies across world mark International Women's Day

IN PICTURES


Gisèle Pelicot joined tens of thousands of protesters in the French capital on Sunday as women across the world marked International Women's Day with rallies for equal rights, female empowerment and an end to gender-based discrimination. Many events also denounced the war in the Middle East sparked by US-Israeli strikes.


Issued on: 08/03/2026
By: FRANCE 24

Women dance during a demonstration marking International Women's Day in Madrid on March 8, 2026. © Thomas Coex, AFP

Officially recognised by the United Nations in 1977, International Women’s Day is commemorated in different ways and to varying degrees in places around the world. Protests are usually political, rooted in women’s efforts to improve their rights as workers
.
South Korean activists gathered a day ahead of International Women's Day in Seoul, on March 7, with banners reading "Complete the revolution of light". © Ahn Young-joon, AP

2026 marks the 115th year of International Women's Day. This years' theme is “Give to Gain”, with a focus on fundraising for organisations focused on women's issues and less tangible forms of giving such as teaching peers, celebrating women and “challenging discrimination”.

Women's rights activists on Sunday rallied in Karachi, Pakistan and shouted slogans during a protest in Istanbul, Turkey. In China and Russia, vendors sold flowers wrapped in pink and local workers in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, lifted fists and umbrellas as they celebrated.

Local workers take part in International Women's Day celebrations in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. © Heng Sinith, AP

International Women’s Day is a global celebration – and a call to action – marked by demonstrations, mostly of women, around the world, ranging from combative protests to charity runs. Some celebrate the economic, social and political achievements of women, while others urge governments to guarantee equal pay, access to health care, justice for victims of gender-based violence and education for girls.



It is an official holiday in more than 20 countries, including Burkina Faso, Ukraine, Russia and Cuba, the only one in the Americas. In the United States, March is celebrated as Women’s History Month.

Women's right activists rally in Karachi, Pakistan. © Ali Raza, AP


As in other aspects of life, social media plays an important role during International Women’s Day, particularly by amplifying attention to demonstrations held in countries with repressive governments toward women and dissent in general.

Roughly 20,000 people attended a march for International Women’s Day in Berlin. German news agency dpa reported Sunday that the crowd was double the amount police had expected. Speakers at the event decried violence against women in Germany, as well as gender discrimination.
Protesters march in Berlin under the motto "feminist, in solidarity, unionised". © Christian Mang, Reuters


In Brazil, Sunday’s marches for International Women’s Day served as a rallying cry against gender-based violence, fuelled by the latest case to outrage the country involving the alleged gang rape of a 17-year-old girl in Copacabana.

The case in Rio de Janeiro’s famed, beachside neighbourhood took place in January, but gained national traction this week when four suspects handed themselves over to authorities.

READ MORETackling domestic violence: ‘If you ask the right questions at the right time, you will save lives’

At least 15 protests were planned across the country, with organisers calling for the defense of women’s lives and an end to femicide.
Women on stilts, from the collective Gigantes na Luta, hold plastic sunflowers in the air during a march in Rio de Janeiro. © Pilar Olivares, Reuters


Globally, a woman or girl is killed every 10 minutes by a family member or partner, according to UN figures, and the number of women being exposed to conflict has significantly jumped over the past decade.

A woman holds a banner reading "Feminists against imperialist war" at a protest in Chile's Santiago, echoing condemnation of the Middle East conflict at rallies around the world. © Rodrigo Arangua, AFP


Some say commemorating International Women’s Day is now more important than ever, as women have lost gains made in the last century, among them the 2022 decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn a nationwide right to abortion, which ended constitutional protections that had been in place nearly 50 years.

The US decision on abortion has reverberated across Europe’s political landscape, forcing the issue back into public debate in some countries at a time when far-right nationalist parties are gaining influence.

Members of the feminist group "Les Rosies" hold their fist in the air at a rally in Paris
. © Kenzo Tribouillard, AFP


In Paris, more than a hundred thousands people joined a rally attended by Gisèle Pelicot, whose ex-husband was jailed last year for drugging and raping her and allowing other men to rape her while she was unconscious over nearly a decade.

Pelicot became an international symbol of resilience after waiving her anonymity and declaring that shame belonged with her abusers, not with her.
Gisèle Pelicot (centre) pictured at the Paris march marking International Women's Day. © Thibault Camus, AP


(FRANCE 24 with AP)


SOCIALIST ORIGINS OF IWD

Friday, January 30, 2026

REST IN POWER

Michael Parenti: An Appreciation

… for nearly two decades, every evening in the week, the dean of American newscasters, Walter Cronkite, would end his CBS television news show with the statement: “And that’s the way it is.” On the eve of his retirement in 1980, Cronkite admitted that isn’t the way it is: “My lips have been kind of buttoned up for almost twenty years…. CBS doesn’t really believe in commentary,” he charged.

— Quoted in Inventing Reality, Michael Parenti, p. 7.

Michael Parenti joins a pitifully small number of US intellectuals who, when facing death, could say that they never bent a knee to the official religion of anti-Communism. Like W.E.B. DuBois, Herbert Aptheker, Phillip Foner, Paul Robeson, Victor Perlo, WZ Foster, Claudia Jones, and damn few others, he willingly paid the price of principle: the denial of a well-deserved, comfortable career as a public intellectual. Instead, he faced insurmountable barriers to mainstream influence that were placed before him by an unforgiving ruling class. Nonetheless, he was one of the most important Marxist thinkers of his generation.

Michael Parenti died on January 24, 2026. From a working-class family, Parenti found his way to academia, attaining a PhD from Yale University. From his early academic employment during the sixties, he combined civil rights and anti-war activism with his Marxism to earn an unspoken blacklisting that denied him a platform for dissent.

Nonetheless, Parenti committed himself to publication, lecturing, and seizing every opportunity for public engagement. His writing was prolific, ranging over explaining Marxist theory, revealing unpleasant truths, peeling away hypocrisy, deepening history, and reinvestigating “established” truths. He did this without the support and resources afforded by university tenure.

He published over two dozen books, writing effectively, without patronizing the reader or burdening the reader with look-at-me academic jargon or pretension. Reading Parenti was truly a delicious pleasure.

Perhaps his best-known books were Democracy for the Few, a no-holds-barred account of the hollowness of bourgeois democracy and Inventing Reality, an exposĂ© of the inherent biases and the partisanship of the mass media. The book is a scathing study that predates the far more widely known and cited Manufacturing Consent of Herman and Chomsky, while making many of the same points in Parenti’s transparent style.

His Blackshirts and Reds exposed and condemned the harm of knee-jerk anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism, placing fascism in the anti-Communist current.

But perhaps the best insight into Parenti’s intense, passionate, engaging practice of Marxist analysis are the many video lectures made available by Parenti’s circle of dedicated admirers on YouTube, DVDs, or CDs. They reveal a witty, wry, entertaining personality cruelly denied access to the university classroom.

Parenti was not afraid of Communism. Indeed, he embraced the Communist world view, defending its legacy without hesitation. He saw the world through the lens of class, weighing events by their impact on working people.

I never met Michael Parenti. He wrote to me many years ago, asking if he could nominate one of my articles for Project Censored. I have long-forgotten the article, but still feel honored by the warm gesture.

Michael Parenti lives!

Greg Godels writes on current events, political economy, and the Communist movement from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. Read other articles by Greg, or visit Greg's website.


Michael Parenti, 1933-2026


Fighting against the current is always preferable to being swept away by it. —


Michael Parenti, The Terrorism Trap - September 11 and Beyond



With the death of Michael Parenti, we have lost one of the greatest dissident voices in American history.

Parenti earned a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University in 1962, and taught at a number of colleges and universities, never attaining a tenured position because he was “red-baited out of my college-teaching profession and left to survive on my writing and public speaking,” as he put it in his wonderful book Contrary Notions – The Michael Parenti Reader.[1] Unfortunately, this is rather common establishment treatment for those who not only write about politics and injustice, but stand up for the victims, which Parenti routinely did, and at considerable personal cost. In addition to being run out of his profession, he was arrested and beaten bloody for participating in an anti-war rally in the Vietnam years, then taken to jail instead of a hospital.

Booted out of academia, Parenti was forced to earn a living by writing and speaking, an extremely arduous path under the best of circumstances, and virtually impossible as a socialist working from the heart of the capitalist empire. But Parenti somehow managed it.

A prolific author, he published over 20 books and hundreds of articles on a wide range of historical and political themes, commentary so insightful and elegantly expressed that it was translated into many languages and spread around the world. To this day, his speeches, interviews, and articles are eagerly sought out on the Internet by a large, appreciative audience seeking a way out of never-ending capitalist horror. In the end, Parenti may well have reached a larger audience working independently and producing his enormous array of anti-capitalist analyses than he ever could have as a tenured professor in a university.

Though reflexively labeled an “extremist” by capitalist apologists, Parenti never aspired to anything worthy of that label. As he himself put it in his book,  Dirty Truths: “Those of us designated as ‘extreme leftists’ actually want rather moderate and civil things: a clean environment, a fair tax structure, use of social production for social needs, expansion of public sector production, serious cuts in a bloated military budget, affordable housing, decently paying jobs, equal justice for all, and the like.” Such desires can be construed as ‘extreme,’ he explained, “only in the sense of being extremely at odds with the dominant interests of the status quo. In the face of such gross injustice and class privilege, considerations of social justice and betterment take on the appearance of ‘extreme’ measures.” [2]

His bread-and-butter publication was Democracy For The Few, a much-recommended university textbook that went through nine editions. Offering a wonderfully thorough critique of American capitalism as a unified social system (not merely an economic model), the book brilliantly dissected the contradiction between elitist and democratic values, relentlessly exposing the realities of class power and powerlessness. Declining to merely denounce what he disliked, Parenti carefully considered arguments underpinning capitalist legitimacy and repeatedly demonstrated their utter lack of rational substance.

Taking the novel approach of actually covering capitalist realities instead of  covering them up, Parenti delivered a masterful treatment of all the major themes of systemic exploitation: the grotesquely lopsided distribution of wealth; corporate propaganda masquerading as objective journalism; self-serving mythology about the U.S. “Founding Fathers”; the subjugation and pitiless exploitation of labor, the amelioration of capitalist abuses with social democratic advances (the New Deal), and the constant threat to reverse them; the socialization of risk and the privatization of profit; counterrevolution abroad and the maintenance of a global system of power; ecological catastrophe and the attack on social programs; institutionalized injustice pretending to be law; political repression and police state tactics; the international dimension of class struggle; elections as public relations extravaganzas; the buying of Congress; the president as Commander in Chief of world empire; the partisan courts, and suggestions on how to overcome capitalism with real democracy.

A devastating blow to capitalist ideology, the book encouraged a crisis of conscience in Parenti’s readers that must have torpedoed the shallow careerist notions of many a university student. No honest reader of Democracy For The Few could ever hope to take life quite so unseriously again.

Possessed of a biting sense of humor, Parenti mocked as preposterous the notion that private vices yield public benefits, the classic formulation supposedly justifying capitalism. “We have been asked to believe,” he wrote in Profit Pathology, “that in the paradise of laissez-faire capitalism, the most avaricious individuals, in pursuit of the most irresponsible self-serving ends, can ride bronco across a wide open free market, unbridled and unrestrained, while miraculously producing optimal outcomes beneficial for all of society.”[3] Even as a fairy tale, this would seem overly fantastic, yet it is readily believed by many of those at the alleged pinnacle of intellectual achievement, who polish their sterling credentials.

Parenti’s ironic barbs were the frosting on the cake of a comprehensive analysis that exposed establishment thinkers as the charlatans they were. In fact, his relentlessly probing mind sometimes put him ahead of even the best of his fellow dissident thinkers. Two years before Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent, for example, Parenti published his own critique of the mass media, Inventing Reality, a superbly lucid skewering of capitalist dogmas that is still sadly relevant forty years after publication.

Noting the knee-jerk rejection of any criticism of capitalism at all, Parenti called out the mass media’s sheer defensiveness for its complete lack of substantive engagement. “ . . . it can be observed that people who never complain about the one-sidedness of their mainstream political education are the first to complain of the one-sidedness of any challenge to it,” he wrote. “Far from seeking a diversity of views, they defend themselves from the first exposure to such diversity, preferring to leave their conventional political opinions unchallenged.”[4] The reason, of course, is that disciplined not-thinking when thinking is called for paves the way for capitalist career success.

Eagerly zeroing in on the ideological slant to political commentary under American capitalism, Parenti objected to its Alice-In-Wonderland-like insistence on reverse causation. “In the news media, slums are caused by people who live in them and not by real estate speculators, fast-buck developers, tax-evading investors, and rent-gouging landlords.” Somehow, what stands in need of reform is not the system, but the people victimized by it. As Parenti explained the capitalist logic: “Poverty is a problem of the poor, who need to be taught better values and a more middle-class lifestyle.” [5]

A similarly perverse logic was applied in describing Third World nations as “undeveloped” and “poor,” as though the condition were incidental to being embedded in a capitalist economy, rather than a logical consequence of that fact. In reality, argued Parenti, such nations “are overexploited and the source of great wealth, their resources and cheap labor serving to enrich investors. Only their people remain poor.”[6]

Inventing Reality also called out tricks of labeling attempting to manipulate our perceptions of which governments should be considered good and which evil, without offering a rational analysis of their respective achievements. Salvador Allende’s democratically elected socialist government, for example, was referred to in the U.S. media as the “Allende regime,” while Pinochet’s blood-drenched dictatorship was the “Chilean government” in the years following the 1973 U.S.-instigated coup.[7]

In what Parenti called “an inversion of reality equal to any Orwellian doublethink,” the unprovoked U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 was described as a liberation of the island. “U.S. Marines and the 82nd Airborne Division were portrayed (in the press) as rescuers and helpers, while Cuban teachers, doctors, and construction workers (on the island in solidarity with the Grenadian people) were seen as agents of terrorism,” he wrote.[8]

Parenti was especially effective in criticizing the mass media’s wildly inaccurate references to Marxism. Though not a declared Marxist himself, he felt obligated to at least try to offer a fair appraisal of Marxism’s intentions and performance, rather than parrot absurd capitalist stereotypes and vulgar smears just to get ahead. “The revolutionary and Marxist left,” he said, “is committed to using a country’s resources and labor for the purpose of eliminating poverty and illiteracy and serving the social needs of the populace rather than the profit needs of rich investors,” ideals the Left was not content to leave confined to academic seminars: “These are not only the theoretical goals of socialism but the actual accomplishments of revolutionaries in power.”[9]

Parenti argued that the establishment’s inability to engage with socialist critique was based on the prior assumption that capitalism is the only “natural” and therefore valid economic system, making argument apparently superfluous. “The press views any attempt to alter the capitalist economy as an attempt to dismantle all economic arrangements,” Parenti wrote. What might be harmful to capitalist class interests is treated as harmful to all of society itself. Likewise, any attempt to transform the capitalist social order is portrayed as an attack on all social order and an invitation to chaos.”[10]

The “there is no alternative” axiom conveniently prevents reflection on capitalism’s glaring flaws. “The press’s systemic class function is to purge popular consciousness of any awareness of the disturbingly inequitable, exploitative, repressive, and violent consequences of capitalist rule at home and abroad,” Parenti observed.[11] This is accomplished with generous doses of distortion and fabrication, which dull the mind and stifle curiosity. “Political orthodoxy, like custom itself, is a mental sedative,” Parenti observed, “while political deviancy, is an irritant. Devoid of the supportive background assumptions of the dominant belief system, the deviant view sounds just too improbable and too controversial to be treated as news, while the orthodox view appears as an objective representation of reality itself.”[12]

A key feature of orthodoxy’s upside-down perspective is the belief that capital creates, rather than is created (by workers), a notion that emerged from a prolonged process of capital accumulation. In Land of Idols, Parenti points out that the word “manufacturer” used to refer to the worker, the person who made things by hand. Today, the term refers to the owner, who expropriates both the labor that makes products and the name referring to those who have labored. Thus, industrial corporations are called “producers” and agricultural firms “growers,” though in reality they produce and grow nothing.[13] “The real producers are those who apply their brains, brawn, and talents to the creation of goods and services,” explained Parenti. Corporations produce profits, and should be known as “organizational devices for the expropriation of labor and for the accumulation of capital, a bullseye description of their parasitic actual function.[14]

This expropriation – on a massive scale – is the cause of mass poverty. “When large surpluses are accumulated by the few, then want and deprivation will be endured by the many who have created the surplus,” wrote Parenti in Dirty Truths. Historical evidence of the process abounds: “Slaveholders lived in luxury and opulence because slaves toiled from dawn to dusk creating the slaveholder’s wealth while consuming but a meager portion for subsistence. Lords and ladies lived in great castles amidst splendid finery with tables laden with food because there were servants and serfs laboring endless hours to sustain them in the style to which they were accustomed.”

Since the process is not all that different today, Parenti asked, “Do the big shareholders, who spend their time boating, traveling, partying, attending charity balls, or running for public office create the fortunes that accumulate from their investments? In reality, class systems of accumulation are zero-sum.”

Capitalism’s insatiable drive to accumulate for the few displaces production to satisfy community needs: “The ultimate purpose of the free market is to create not use value but exchange value, not useful things but profitable ones. The goal is not to produce goods and services for human needs per se but to make money for the investor. Money harnesses labor in order to convert itself into goods and services that will bring in still more money. Capital annexes living labor in order to create more capital.”[15]

A large part of that capital is then dedicated to inducing mass conformity to a system very much not in the interest of those whose needs are being displaced. Parenti emphasized that advertising, for example, directs our critical faculties away from the capitalist system and its commodities and towards ourselves: “Many commercials characterize people as loudmouthed imbeciles whose problems are solved when they encounter the right medication, cosmetic, cleanser, or gadget. In this way industry confines the social imagination and cultural experience of millions, teaching people to define their needs and lifestyles according to the dictates of the commodity market.”[16]

Presented with consumption norms depicted in ads, Parenti observed, people discover “that they are not doing right for baby’s needs or hubby or wifey’s desires; that they are failing in their careers because of poor appearance, sloppy dress, or bad breath; that they are not treating their complexion, hair, or nails properly; that they suffer unnecessary cold misery and headache pains; that they don’t know how to make the tastiest coffee, pie, pudding, or chicken dinner; nor, if left to their own devices, would they be able to clean their floors, sinks, and toilets correctly or tend to their lawns, gardens, appliances, and automobiles.”

In short, they learn that they are not citizens of a democracy but defective consumers. What is to be done? “In order to live well and live properly consumers need corporate producers to guide them,” Parenti explained. “Consumers are taught personal incompetence and dependence on mass market producers.”[17]

Hallelujah. What follows from the fact that incompetence and dependence are now social necessities? Parenti drew attention to the advertisers’ end game: an “individual” shorn of all organic ties to others, pathetically trying to compensate for this staggering loss by obeying the dictates of limitless consumption: “Just as the mass market replaced family and community as provider of goods and services, so now corporations replace parents, grandparents, midwives, neighbors, craftspeople, and oneself in knowing what is best. Big business enhances its legitimacy and social hegemony by portraying itself as society’s Grand Provider.”[18]

At the time Parenti wrote Inventing Reality, the U.S. mass media portrayed such degradation as an enviable monopoly of the West, while also insisting that the U.S.’s chief ideological rival at the time (the USSR) was a dungeon state run by “demonic henchmen of a satanic ideology,” to quote the late Alan Watts.

Parenti was always a good antidote to slam-dunking on the highly caricatured Communist state. For example, in response to the widely touted claim that U.S. workers were far better off than their Soviet counterparts, Parenti pointed out that this rested on an initial, quite inaccurate assumption that Soviet workers were slaves, entitled to nothing. “Far from lacking in benefits and rights,” he corrected, “Soviet workers have a guaranteed right to a job; relatively generous disability, maternity, retirement, and vacation benefits; an earlier retirement age than American workers (60 for men, 55 for women); free medical care; free education and job training; and subsidized housing and education.”

Though staunchly anti-capitalist himself, Parenti was open-minded enough to concede that which group was “better off” depended on one’s values: “If measured by the availability of durable-use consumer goods such as cars, telephones, lawnmowers, and dishwashers, the Soviet worker’s standard of living is lower than the American coworker’s. If measured by the benefits and guarantees mentioned above, Soviet workers enjoy more humane and secure working and living conditions than their American counterparts.”[19]

A fair evaluation, and for that very reason, one that was absolutely unavailable to mass audiences in the United States, who were relentlessly propagandized to believe that the Soviet Union was a “shithole” country, to use more recent billionaire vocabulary.

Completely out of the picture, not just in the mass media but across the political spectrum, was even a brief reference to the actual challenges and achievements of the USSR, a clarifying context that Parenti, but few others, provided:

“Sorely lacking within the U.S. Left is any rational evaluation of the Soviet Union, a nation that endured a protracted civil war and a multinational foreign invasion in the very first years of its existence, and that two decades later threw back and destroyed the Nazi beast at enormous cost to itself. In the three decades after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviets made industrial advances equal to what capitalism took a century to accomplish – while feeding and schooling their children rather than working them fourteen hours a day as capitalist industrialists still do in many parts of the world. And the Soviet Union, along with Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, and Cuba, provided vital assistance to national liberation movements in countries around the world, including Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in South Africa.” [20]

After the collapse of the USSR, Parenti strongly dissented from the chorus proclaiming Marxism dead. While he conceded that Marx’s predictions about the historical role of the proletariat and revolution were wrong, and offered his own thorough critique of Soviet society, he proclaimed Marx’s analysis of capitalism more relevant than ever. “Marx predicted that an expanding capitalism would bring greater wealth for the few and growing misery and economic purgatory for the many. That is exactly what is happening – on a global scale,” he wrote. Or as he noted in The Terrorism Trap shortly after 911, “The number of people living in utter destitution without hope of relief is growing at a faster rate than the world’s population. So poverty spreads as wealth accumulates.”[21]

Decades of anti-labor policy later we can see that Parenti was right to view the capitalist-orchestrated demise of the USSR with foreboding: “The goal of U.S. global policy is the Third Worldization of the entire world including Europe and North America, a world in which capital rules supreme with no labor unions to speak of; no prosperous, literate, well-organized working class with rising expectations; no pension funds or medical plans or environmental, consumer, and occupational protections, or any of the other insufferable things that cut into profits.”[22]

Though he went to great lengths to criticize all that was wrong with capitalism, Parenti was not guilty of failing to state clearly what he wanted to replace it. In Profit Pathology, he said: “Our goal should be an egalitarian, communitarian, environmentally conscious socialism, with a variety of productive forms, offering economic security, political democracy, and vital protection for the ecological system that sustains us.”

And he identified the kind of popular response that would be necessary to bring it about: “What is needed . . . . is widespread organizing not only around particular issues but for a movement that can project the great necessity for democratic change, a movement ready to embrace new alternatives, including public ownership of major corporations and worker control of production. With time and struggle, we might hope that people will become increasingly intolerant of the growing injustices of the reactionary and inequitable free market system and will move toward a profoundly democratic solution. Perhaps then the day will come, as it came in social orders of the past, when those who seem invincible will be shaken from their pinnacles.”[23]

Few have pointed the way forward with more clarity than Michael Parenti.  We will miss him.

Michael K. Smith is the author of Portraits of Empire. He co-blogs with Frank Scott at www.legalienate.blogspot.comRead other articles by Michael.