Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Sudan: ICC Holds First Darfur Trial

Landmark Case of ‘Janjaweed’ Militia Leader Opens April 5

Permanent premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the Netherlands.
© 2018 Marina Riera/Human Rights Watch

(The Hague) – The International Criminal Court’s trial of Ali Kosheib, or Kushayb, will open on April 5, 2022, and offers the first opportunity to see a leader face prosecution for massive crimes committed in Darfur nearly 20 years ago, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch issued a question-and-answer document and a video ahead of the trial.

“Kosheib’s trial is a long-awaited chance for victims and communities terrorized by the notorious Janjaweed militia and government forces in Darfur to see a leader held to account,” said Elise Keppler, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “In the face of steep odds and no other credible options, the ICC is serving as the crucial court of last resort for Darfuris.”

The video focuses on the significance of the trial and on what else is needed by the Sudanese authorities for justice for atrocities committed in Darfur. The question-and-answer document covers:
Background on the accused, the Janjaweed militia group, and the conflict in Darfur,
How the trial will proceed and the participation of victims in the proceedings,
The significance of the trial and efforts to make it accessible to local communities,
Needed steps by Sudanese authorities to surrender former president Omar al-Bashir and three other fugitives, and
The current situation in Darfur and Sudan, including continued abuses.

“For all these years, those implicated in serious crimes and other abuses in Darfur and Sudan have largely suffered no consequences – and in some instances, have even been rewarded,” Keppler said. “Would-be abusers should take note that they can end up in court even if it is slow going. Now, Sudanese authorities should surrender the remaining fugitives, including former president Omar al-Bashir, so victims have the opportunity to also see them held to account.”

First ICC Trial on Darfur Crimes: Ali Mohammed Ali, Known as Ali Kosheib or Kushayb, Janjaweed Leader

Questions and Answers

Who is Ali Kosheib (also spelled “Kushayb”)?
What are the charges Kosheib faces at the ICC?
How did Kosheib come into ICC custody?
Why is Ali Kosheib’s upcoming trial and verdict significant?
Who else is sought by the ICC on alleged crimes committed in Darfur?
Why hasn’t Sudan turned over the other suspects to the ICC? And what more does it need to do?
When will Kosheib’s trial begin and what will it involve?
Will the victims be able to participate in the trial or receive reparations?
What are Kosheib’s rights as a defendant and will Kosheib be at the trial?
What are the penalties in the event that Kosheib is convicted?
How will victims and local communities be able to follow the trial in Sudan?
How did the ICC become involved in crimes in Darfur?
What is the current situation in Darfur?
What is the current situation in Sudan?

1.Who is Ali Kosheib (also spelled “Kushayb”)?

Ali Kosheib, or Kushayb, is the nom de guerre of Ali Mohammed Ali, identified by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as Ali Mohammed Ali Abd–Al-Rahman. Kosheib is believed to have been the principal leader of the Janjaweed militias in the Wadi Saleh area of West Darfur. He also held commanding positions in Sudanese government auxiliary forces, the Popular Defense Forces and Central Reserve Police.

In early 2003, the Janjaweed worked alongside the Sudanese government forces during its armed conflict with rebel groups to carry out a systematic campaign of “ethnic cleansing.” The campaign targeted civilians from African Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups, from which the members of the rebel groups were drawn. Attacking from the air and land, Sudanese government forces and allied militias killed, raped, and forcibly displaced more than 2 million people from their homes and land. The Sudanese government recruited, armed, and trained the Janjaweed forces.

Kosheib is implicated as a key leader in attacks on villages around Mukjar, Bindisi, and Garsila in 2003-2004. Kosheib is also implicated in leading or participating in deadly attacks on ethnic Salamat communities in Central Darfur in April 2013.
2. What are the charges Kosheib faces at the ICC?

Ali Kosheib is charged with 31 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in in 2003 and 2004 in four villages, Kodoom, Bindisi, Mukjar, and Deleig, in West Darfur. Murder, attempted murder, pillaging, rape, torture, intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, forcible transfer, destruction of property, outrages upon personal dignity, persecution, and cruel and other inhumane treatment are among the charges. Kosheib is charged both with directing attacks, and also mobilizing, recruiting, arming, and providing supplies to Janjaweed militia under his command.
ICC Darfur Trial Questions and Answers


Human Rights Watch identified Kosheib more than 15 years ago as an individual who should be investigated by the ICC for his alleged crimes in Darfur.

The International Criminal Court issued the first arrest warrant for Ali Kosheib on April 27, 2007. A second warrant, issued in 2018, was made public in 2020. These warrants included just over 50 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The charges were consolidated into 31 charges ahead of what is known as the confirmation of charges hearings, which took place in May 2021. Following those hearings, ICC judges confirmed all charges and sent the case for trial.
3. How did Kosheib come into ICC custody?

Ali Kosheib voluntarily surrendered to the ICC in the Central African Republic. On June 9, 2020, the ICC announced he was in court custody.

The court indicated that the Central African Republic, Chad, France, the Netherlands, and the United Nations-African Union hybrid peacekeeping forces provided cooperation and assistance in his surrender. Kosheib’s first appearance before the ICC was on June 15, 2020.
4. Why is Ali Kosheib’s upcoming trial and verdict significant?

This trial is the first time a leader will be held to account for serious crimes allegedly committed in Darfur, albeit 18 years after the crimes began. The trial is a rare, long-awaited chance for the victims and communities the Janjaweed terrorized to see an alleged leader face justice. The trial is also the first by the ICC on crimes committed by state forces and allied militias in Darfur, and shows that those who commit crimes can still face justice, even over a decade later.

One Darfuri man who works with Darfuri refugees and internally displaced people said about the Kosheib trial: “We appreciate the role of the ICC, not in a vindictive way, but for justice, for people all over the world, to know that no one is above justice, and for every dictator who wishes to exterminate and kill his people or his neighbors to know he will face the law.”

Darfuris and activists in Sudan and across Africa have long campaigned for the surrender of Kosheib and other ICC suspects. Local communities and displaced Darfuris in Sudan demonstrated in support of Kosheib facing justice and held vigils for victims of attacks for which he is allegedly responsible.

A Khartoum-based activist who works with Darfuri victims told Human Rights Watch, “When we sat down with the victims [in the past two years in Darfur], we asked them what they need and they said, ‘We need justice.’… We cannot express our feeling, how happy we are that … justice is being prevailed.”
5. Who else is sought by the ICC on alleged crimes committed in Darfur?

Four other people, including former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, are facing ICC charges. All are fugitives of the court:
Former President Omar al-Bashir faces five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war crimes, and three counts of genocide. He is currently in Sudanese custody and standing trial alongside other former officials for his alleged role in the 1989 coup against Sudan’s last elected government. In December 2019, al-Bashir was given a two-year custodial sentence for a corruption-related conviction.
Ahmed Haroun, former state minister for humanitarian affairs and former governor of Southern Kordofan state, is sought on 20 counts of crimes against humanity and 22 counts of war crimes. He is in Sudanese custody but has not been charged with any crimes under Sudanese law as far as Human Rights Watch has been able to determine.
Abdulraheem Mohammed Hussein, former defense minister, is sought on seven counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes. He is in Sudanese custody and is also facing domestic charges in relation to his alleged role in the 1989 coup.
Abdallah Banda Abakaer, leader of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement in Darfur, is charged with three counts of war crimes related to an attack on the African Union base in Darfur. Banda had initially voluntarily appeared before the court in 2010. The judges confirmed charges against him in 2011 and committed him to trial. The judges issued a warrant to assure his presence at the trial in 2014, and he has been at large since. The trial will not begin until he voluntarily appears or is surrendered to the court.

Two other Sudanese rebel leaders were charged with crimes related to the attack on an African Union base, but one of them, Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, died, and the ICC judges declined to confirm charges against the other, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda.

Human Rights Watch found that Sudanese government forces and allied militias committed crimes against humanity and war crimes, but due to the limitations of its research did not reach a conclusion on whether the crimes met the intent required for the crime of genocide. Human Rights Watch also found that rebel groups are also implicated in serious crimes including attacks on civilians, killings, abductions, and looting.
6. Why hasn’t Sudan turned over the other suspects to the ICC? And what more does it need to do?

The ICC needs greater cooperation from Sudanese authorities. Sudanese authorities need to transfer the ICC’s other suspects, including former president Omar al-Bashir, to the ICC without further delay. One Darfuri activist told Human Rights Watch in March 2022: “The Kosheib trial is a good step. But achieving full justice in Darfur relies on the surrender of Omar al-Bashir, Ahmed Haroun and Abdulraheem Mohammed Hussein and others.”

The cooperation required from Sudanese authorities includes both executing arrest warrants and responding positively to requests from the ICC prosecutor. The ICC needs access to documents, archives, crime scenes, witnesses, and other evidence relevant to Darfur cases, as well as the ability to travel to all parts of Sudan and work independently.

Though Sudan is not a party to the ICC, the UN Security Council Resolution 1593, which referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC, requires the government of Sudan to cooperate with the court.

Under former president al-Bashir, Sudan blatantly withheld cooperation with the ICC, and the ICC referred several instances of noncooperation to the Security Council, including the government’s failure to enforce arrest warrants against Ali Kosheib and Ahmad Haroun.

Sudan’s transitional government, which took office in 2019, promised to cooperate with the ICC and the transitional government welcomed former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to Sudan for the first time in October 2020. The authorities also signed a cooperation agreement with the ICC on the Kosheib case in February 2021.

In June 2021, the Council of Ministers approved the transfer of the three people in Sudanese custody to the ICC, but it is yet to happen. In October 2021, just prior to the coup by military leaders that ousted the transitional government, the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, who took up his position in June 2021, visited Sudan and discussed cooperation.

Khan returned to Sudan in December 2021, at which time Sudanese authorities indicated that a memorandum of understanding relating to cooperation signed between the Sudanese government and the ICC prior to the coup remained in effect.

Khan emphasized in a January briefing to the UN Security Council that Sudan’s accelerated cooperation with the ICC is the “only viable path to ensuring long-delayed justice for the survivors of crimes against humanity in Darfur.”
7. When will Kosheib’s trial begin and what will it involve?

The trial is scheduled to start on April 5, 2022 and should begin with a reading of the charges to the accused and opening statements from the Office of the Prosecutor and then the Defense. This will be followed by the presentation of evidence, especially questioning of witnesses. There is no preset length for the trial, but trials of this nature tend to last at least a couple of years.
8. Will the victims be able to participate in the trial or receive reparations?

The ICC has an innovative system of victim participation, which allows victims of alleged crimes to make their views and concerns known to the judges in the trial through their legal representatives. This is separate from any role as witnesses. Victim participation is one way to enhance the ICC’s resonance in affected communities.

On October 19, 2021, the Trial Chamber issued a decision allowing 151 victims to participate in the pretrial and confirmation of charges phases of the proceedings. In a decision on January 14, 2022, ICC judges authorized 142 victims to participate in the trial phase of the proceedings. These include 130 of the same victims who participated in the earlier phases of the proceedings (decisions related to the other 21 victims are pending based on available information), and 12 new victims.

The representatives can make an opening statement, oral submissions, present arguments on the merits, question witnesses, and present evidence at the trial. In the event of conviction, victims also may apply to the court for reparations, which may be individual or collective, symbolic or monetary, and are determined on a case-by-case basis.
9. What are Kosheib’s rights as a defendant and will Kosheib be at the trial?

Ali Kosheib is entitled to a fair and expeditious trial, conducted impartially, as provided under articles 66 and 67 of the ICC’s founding Rome Statute and international fair trial standards. They include the following protections:
Adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense;
Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;
A lawyer of his own choosing;
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty; and
Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Kosheib will be required to be in the courtroom during the duration of the trial in accordance with article 63 the Rome Statute.
10. What are the penalties in the event that Kosheib is convicted?

Penalties in the event of conviction are imprisonment for a maximum term of 30 years or for life in accordance with article 77 of the Rome Statute. Additional penalties include “forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime.” The death penalty – which Human Rights Watch opposes due to its inherent cruelty – is not an available punishment at the ICC.
11. How will victims and local communities be able to follow the trial in Sudan?

Outreach by the ICC about the trial to the communities most affected by the crimes will be important to maximize the ICC’s accessibility and impact locally.

The ICC is planning a series of outreach events before the trial’s opening, although the court has been forced to limit some of its activities, due to the more difficult logistical and security environment caused by the October 2021 coup.

Events are slated to include hybrid information sessions with diaspora, media, and civil society based in Khartoum, and security permitting, in Nyala, the capital of South Darfur, and with community leaders living in internally displaced camps in Darfur. Participants will receive information and have the chance to see videos about the trial, and to ask questions to ICC staff, likely through a virtual connection from The Hague.

The ICC is preparing videos and radio programs that will include interviews with key players in the trial and “public service messages” about it. These programs, and video and audio summaries of the trial, will be broadcast by Radio Dabanga in Darfur, networks of radio and TV stations based in Sudan, and several radio stations that are accessible to refugee communities in eastern Chad.

The Outreach Unit has a WhatsApp group for media, which journalists can access by emailing Outreachhq@icc-cpi.int and a drop box folder for updated information on the trial in addition to information posted on the ICC’s website.

Due to competing resource and logistical demands along with security considerations, the ICC is not organizing a local delegation to travel from Sudan to attend the opening in The Hague, but such a delegation, which might include local activists, community leaders, and media, might be considered at later points in the trial.

Longer term, the ICC intends to set up screening and listening clubs to ensure continued accessibility to the proceedings. There will be regular discussions and updates regarding the trial in camps for displaced people, local communities living elsewhere in Darfur, and in refugee camps in eastern Chad, with the opportunity to ask questions. The Outreach Unit has indicated that it will also plan to resume staff outreach visits to Sudan and Chad as soon as practicable.
12. How did the ICC become involved in crimes in Darfur?

The ICC opened an investigation into the situation Darfur crimes in 2005 following a referral by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1593. As Sudan is not an ICC member, the referral was needed for the ICC to investigate crimes committed in Darfur. This was the first such referral by the UN Security Council.

The council has referred only one other situation to the ICC to date: the situation in Libya. Despite a vital need for other referrals given the gravity of crimes committed in countries that have yet to join the ICC, such as regarding crimes in Syria and Myanmar, the council has failed to act due to political considerations.
13. What is the current situation in Darfur?

Serious crimes in Darfur by government and government-allied forces have persisted over the years, fueled by massive impunity, including rewarding some of those implicated in crimes.

As recently as 2016, forces continued to attack Darfuris by air and ground, and crimes between 2010 and 2015 included significant killings of civilians, and rape and assault of women and girls. Two counterinsurgency campaigns in Darfur between 2014 and 2015, led by the government’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), included repeated attacks on villages, burning and looting of homes, beatings, rapes, and executions of villagers. The RSF has included some former members of the Janjaweed, which also increasingly has become referred to simply as government-backed militias. Some of the RSF attacks were conducted with the support of the Sudanese Armed Forces and government-backed militias.

An extended ceasefire that began in 2017 helped reduced violence, but government forces and their proxy militias continued to carry out some attacks against civilians. Abuses again intensified in 2019, largely by local armed groups, in some cases implicating state security forces, in the wake of the withdrawal of a hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force and again with the October 2021 coup.

While various factors, often localized ones, have played a role in the recent uptick in violence, the failure of the authorities over the last two years to provide meaningful civilian protection and justice for past and ongoing abuses has contributed to the escalation in violence and civilian harm. West Darfur in particular has experienced several serious bouts of violence since the beginning of 2021, with hundreds of people killed, tens of thousands displaced, and significant civilian property destroyed.
14. What is the current situation in Sudan?

Sudan’s first year of a three-year transition to democratic rule following the dramatic ouster of President Omar al-Bashir in 2019 was marked by a failing economy, political tensions, and continuing popular protests in support of quicker and more far-reaching justice and reforms. The Covid-19 pandemic compounded these problems. The government introduced some reforms but has not yet carried out most of the institutional and law reforms called for in the August 2019 constitutional charter. The second year of the pandemic was marred by political instability that slowed the pace of rights and rule of law reforms, and a dire economic situation that compounded public discontent.

On October 25, 2021, the military leaders of the transitional government carried out a coup, arresting civilian officials and dissolving the transitional government. Protesters took to the streets rejecting the coup, and security forces responded violently with lethal force, detaining protesters and political leaders, as well cutting off internet for almost three weeks.

On November 21, a deal was signed between the then-reinstated prime minister Dr. Abdalla Hamdok and the military, allowing the prime minister to be released from house arrest and to form a new technocratic government. Protesters and other political groups have rejected the deal. Hamdok resigned in January 2022. The security forces have continued to detain protesters, political opponents, and others in Khartoum and beyond.

Security forces in Sudan have repeatedly attacked or otherwise used excessive force, including lethal force, against peaceful demonstrators in Khartoum. Calls from regional and international officials for the military to halt the crackdown have not been heeded.

The current situation threatens the important, though limited, gains of the transition government on accountability, including cooperation with the ICC. While military leaders have not reversed early commitments, the current climate of crackdown and lack of accountability remains a threat to victims of crimes in Darfur and across Sudan.






Brookfield Considers Bidding for PAG-Owned AirPower

(Bloomberg) -- Brookfield Asset Management is considering bidding for AirPower Technologies Ltd., a Chinese industrial gases producer owned by buyout firm PAG, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Toronto-based firm has held talks for some or all of AirPower’s assets with PAG, said the people, who asked not to be identified as the information is private. PAG is seeking a minimum valuation of about $10 billion for the gases producer, the people said. Valuation could even go up to $15 billion based on this year’s projected earnings, one of the people said.

PAG created AirPower through merging Baosteel Gases and Yingde Gases Group Co., which it took private in 2017 in a $2.6 billion deal. The buyout firm filed for a Hong Kong initial public offering for AirPower in August with Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. as joint sponsors. While the IPO application lapsed earlier this year, PAG may still go for a listing for AirPower, one of the people.

Considerations are at an early stage and Brookfield could decide against any bid, the people said. Other suitors could emerge and PAG might decide to keep the asset as well, they added. Representatives for Brookfield and PAG declined to comment.

Brookfield is making a push into private equity and infrastructure investments in China after primarily investing in real estate and wind and solar farms in the past eight years. The firm bought a majority stake in Oaktree Capital in 2020 and hired ex-Blackstone Group Inc. senior managing director Alex Yang to head its private-equity and infrastructure businesses in China.

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Brookfield Asset Management - Wikipedia

The company was founded in 1899 as the São Paulo Tramway, Light and Power Company by William Mackenzie and Frederick Stark Pearson. It operated in the construction and management of electricity and transport infrastructure in Brazil.

In 1904, the Rio de Janeiro Tramway, Light and Power Company was founded by Mackenzie's group.[8]

In 1912, Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company was incorporated in Toronto as a public company to develop hydro-electric power operations and other utility services in Brazil, becoming a holding company for São Paulo Tramway Co. and Rio de Janeiro Tramway Co.[9] In 1916, Great Lakes Power Company was incorporated to provide hydro-electric power in Sault Ste. Marie and the Algoma District in Ontario.[10]

In 1959, Edper Investments, founded by brothers Peter and Edward Bronfman, acquired Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company for $15 million. In 1966, Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company changed its name to Brazilian Light and Power Company, and again in 1969, changed its name to Brascan Limited.[9] Brascan is a portmanteau of "Brasil" and "Canada".[11]

During the 1970s, the company began to sell its Brazilian interests, and invested more heavily in industries such as a real estate, timber and mining.[12]

In 1979, the last of the company's Brazilian assets were transferred to Brazilian ownership (Eletropaulo and Light S.A.), the company meanwhile having diversified to other areas.[9] The company provided electricity and tram services in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and the Brazilian side after a later restructuring still operates as Light S.A., short for Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd.[13]

In 2002, Bruce Flatt was appointed CEO of Brascan.[14] In 2005, after 37 years, Brascan Corp. was renamed to Brookfield Asset Management Inc.[15] Between 2013 and 2018, the company and its subsidiaries invested approximately $10 billion in Brazilian energy, infrastructure and real estate developments, including its acquisition of oil pipelines from energy companies such as Petroleo Brasileiro SA.[16]

By 2018, Brookfield's major public subsidiaries included Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, Brookfield Renewable Partners, Brookfield Property Partners, and Brookfield Business Partners.[17] In August 2018, Brookfield purchased Westinghouse Electric Company, a manufacturer of large nuclear reactors, out of bankruptcy for $4.6 billion.[18]

On March 13, 2019, Brookfield Asset Management announced that it had agreed to buy most of Oaktree Capital Management for about $4.7 billion, creating one of the world's largest alternative money managers.[19] On 31 July 2019 the sale of Vodafone New Zealand Limited to a consortium comprising Infratil Limited and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. was settled.[20]

In a deal in October 2019, Brookfield bought The Leela Palaces, Hotels and Resorts, an Indian luxury hotel chain located in New Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, Udaipur, in a US$530 million settlement, marking the entry of Brookfield in India's hospitality market.[21][22][23]

In 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Brookfield's CEO Bruce Flatt assessed that the economic fallout was "much more manageable" than previous meltdowns.[24]

In October 2020, Mark Carney, departing Governor of the Bank of England, became a vice-chair of Brookfield, leading the firm's environmental, social and governance (ESG) and impact fund investment strategy


WHO OWNED ZOCALLO PARK DURING THE OCCUPY 

MOVEMENT?

BROOKFIELD MANAGEMENT


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc

Published: First published in mid-1917 in pamphlet form, Petrograd. Published according to the manuscript and verified with the text of the pamphlet. Source: ...























Imperialism and the development myth


How rich countries dominate in the twenty-first century


Author: Sam King

"Over a hundred years since the beginning of modern imperialism, the former colonial world is still prevented from joining the club of imperialist powers. The gap between rich and poor countries is not narrowing but growing. China is usually presented as challenging the dominance of the United States and other rich countries. However, imperialist domination over the most sophisticated aspects of the labour process gives the rich countries and their corporations control over the global labour process as a whole – including in China. Third World producers are forced to specialise in the opposite types of work – in relatively simple and low-end labour, for which major price markups and large profits are rarely possible. This is the kernel of unequal exchange in world trade. The imperialist system develops two types of capital – monopoly and non-monopoly capital – and two types of societies – rich, monopoly, imperialist societies and poor, non-monopoly, ‘Third World’ societies. China’s ascendance to become the most powerful Third World country in no way threatens to topple continuing imperialist dominance. Most contemporary Marxist writing has not been focused on global income polarisation and imperialist exploitation of the poor countries. For this reason, it has been unable to explain how exactly the same countries continuously reproduce their dominance. However, the actual conditions of the neoliberal world economy have made explicit how this happens through the labour process itself. In doing so it has also shown how Marx’s labour theory of value can be concretely applied to the conditions of monopoly capital today.Show Less


eISBN: 9781526159021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526159021

Online Publication Date: 24 Aug 2021


Imperialism and the development myth – How rich countries dominate in the twenty-first century | manchesterhive

Saudi Arabia hosts Yemen talks, focus on truce with absent Houthis

By Aziz El Yaakoubi 
© Reuters/STRINGER FILE PHOTO: 
Smoke billows from a Saudi Aramco's petroleum storage facility after an attack in Jeddah

By Aziz El Yaakoubi

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia hosted allied factions from Yemen's war on Tuesday as the U.N. tries to secure a truce aimed at allowing fuel ships and some flights into Houthi-held areas during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, sources familiar with matter said.

The Iran-alligned Houthi movement fighting the military coalition led by Riyadh said it will not attend the talks, but in a statement it described the U.N. initiative as positive. Ramadan begins this weekend.

The plan drafted by U.N. special envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg is also backed by the United States and other Western powers, the two sources said.

Grundberg's spokeswoman Ismini Palla declined to comment on details of the proposal, saying that the ceasefire was aimed at giving the Yemenis a much-needed break from violence.

"The Envoy continues his discussions with all sides and calls on all to engage constructively to reach urgently a truce," she said in a statement.

Riyadh's consultations are being held under the aegis of the Riyadh-based Gulf Cooperation Council and expected to take more than a week. The Houthis said they would only attend talks in a neutral country.

The proposal calls for a month-long ceasefire in exchange for allowing fuel ships to dock at Houthi-held Hodeidah port and a small number of commercial flights to operate from Sanaa airport, the sources said.

As of March 27, four fuel ships were waiting off Hodeidah port, including a tanker stuck in the coalition holding area for nearly three months, U.N. data showed. Easing the blockade would alleviate a dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

The Saudi government and the coalition, which intervened in Yemen in 2015 after the Houthis ousted the Saudi-backed government from the capital Sanaa, did not respond to requests for comment.

PRISONER SWAP

The U.N. and the United States have since last year been trying to secure a permanent truce but differences over sequencing have thwarted efforts to end the seven-year war that has killed tens of thousands of people and ravaged Yemen.

The Houthis want the Saudi-led coalition to lift restrictions on sea ports and Sanaa airport first while the alliance, which controls Yemen's seas and air space, wants a simultaneous deal.

The Houthis on Saturday announced a unilateral move to suspend cross border attacks and ground offensive operations in Yemen for three days.

In recent months, the group has intensified missile and drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities, causing a huge fire at fuel storage tanks on Friday. The coalition retaliated on Sunday with air strikes on Hodeidah and Sanaa, where eight people were killed including five women and two children.

Both sides are discussing a prisoner swap which could see hundreds of detainees freed, including 16 Saudis and a brother of Yemen's president.

(This story was refiled to replace rebel-held with Houthi-held in first paragraph)

(Reporting by Aziz El Yaakoubi; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel)

Inflation Named as Top U.S. Problem by Most Americans Since 1985

(Bloomberg) -- The share of Americans who rate inflation as the top issue facing the country is at the highest in nearly 40 years, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday.

About one in five Americans, or 17%, surveyed March 1-18 cited inflation as the nation’s most important problem. That’s up from 10% in February, and compares with 4% who pointed to fuel prices in particular.

U.S. consumer prices are rising at the fastest pace in four decades, outpacing wage gains and fanned further by Russia’s war in Ukraine. Gas prices are near record highs -- well over $4 a gallon nationwide -- especially straining lower-income families.

Among those polled -- a little over 1,000 U.S. adults -- 22% say the government is the top problem outside of the economy, while 9% cited the war in Ukraine. The share citing the coronavirus fell to the lowest level since the pandemic began.

Similar to a University of Michigan survey -- which showed U.S. consumer sentiment remained at a decade low in March -- inflation concerns diverge sharply from a political perspective. Nearly 80% of Republicans are worried about inflation, more than double the proportion of Democrats, according to Gallup.

Still, the overall share rating inflation as the biggest problem in the U.S. is far below the 52% proportion recorded in the early 1980s. Consumer prices increased as much as 14.8% back then on annual basis, compared to 7.9% in February.

Looking ahead, the poll found Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the economy: 75% said conditions are getting worse, about tied with the most negative it’s been since April 2020.

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Islamic prayer for Chechen soldiers in Ukraine

by Vladimir Rozanskij


Civil servants obliged by the Caucasian republic's authorities to attend religious ceremonies for local soldiers engaged in Ukraine. 

Chechen Imam in Nice: Islam forbids wars of invasion.

The subject of the fallen, and their funeral, is forbidden in Chechnya, as in the rest of Russia.



Moscow (AsiaNews) - In the central mosque of Grozny "Heart of Chechnya" special prayer meetings are being held "for the preservation of life and health" of the special forces deployed in Ukraine. Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov has deployed them in support of the Russian 'special military operation'. Some of the participants confessed to Kavkaz.Realii that attendance had been imposed as compulsory, gathering in the place of worship many public administration workers under threat of dismissal.

The 'Tahajjud Namaz' is a voluntary night prayer, which is not part of the five obligatory daily Islamic prayers, and is believed to be more precious to Allah because of this. It is usually recited at home, and there are no large gatherings in the mosque like those in Grozny. The crowd of worshippers was summoned at 1:30 a.m. with social messages, specifying that special transport was provided and no excuses were allowed: "Those who cannot come for various reasons, write a letter of resignation and then stay at home".

In the end, there were too many people gathered, and not all of them were able to enter the mosque, joining the prayer from the street. One woman recounted that "the men prayed inside, while we women were forced to do the entire Tahajjud in the courtyard, in three degrees below zero". The prayer was also broadcast on the local Instagram channel, in which members of Kadyrov's family can be seen praying on the second floor of the mosque.

The religious administration of Chechen Muslims has announced that night prayers will be held regularly in all mosques in the republic, "if Allah permits". Kadyrov himself issued a message in the Chechen language in which he recalled that participation in the war in Ukraine 'is an obligation for all Muslims, since the adversary offends the Most High, religion and the prophet', while death in this conflict 'will be as sacred as that of the martyrs of the prophet Mohammed'. The president also added that "the news of the great prayer of the people has greatly inspired our fighters, they themselves said that thanks to it they remained alive, without wounds and under the protection of Allah".

However, the Chechen imam of the French city of Nice, Ramzan Magomadov, pointed out that Islam forbids wars of invasion of other territories, "and here we are dealing with a war of occupation by Russia, it has nothing to do with Allah". Chechens living in Ukraine, on the other hand, are standing 'together with the infidels to defend their homeland from foreign aggression', while Chechens in the Caucasus and other countries should simply remain outside this conflict. 'A Muslim living in Russia should prefer prison, rather than participating in an invasion and facing certain death.

An Islamic preacher from the Kurčaloev province in Chechnya, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Kavkaz.Realii that 'the main characteristic of a Muslim's prayer must be sincerity, so the obligation to be present in the mosque makes the prayer completely ineffective and will not be heard by Allah'. It would not even apply to asking for positive gifts such as family unity or success at work, "let alone asking for aid for the military in this way". Especially since the invocation of the Tahajjud, the 'Douâa', is not said aloud like regular prayers, 'and no one can check who you are actually praying for', the preacher explains.

Journalists have tried to ask for the reactions of the relatives of the many Chechen soldiers killed, but no one has had the courage to respond, since the subject of the dead, and their funeral, is absolutely forbidden by the local authorities, who have so far officially recognised only 199 soldiers who died in the fighting in Ukraine.
GOOD NEWS
Russia Finally Rules Out Using Nuclear Weapons Over Ukraine War

BY BRENDAN COLE ON 3/29/22 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Russia is not considering turning to nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine, and reiterated Moscow's stance that the use of such capabilities would only follow a "threat for existence."

In an interview in English with PBS, Peskov was asked to clarify comments from former President Dmitry Medvedev, who has listed scenarios in which Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if it faced an existential threat.

Russia has around 6,000 nuclear warheads and Medvedev said Russia's nuclear doctrine did not require an adversary to use such weapons first.

Medvedev's words follow a nuclear warning by President Vladimir Putin that his nuclear forces had been put on "high alert" following the invasion he ordered on 24 February. Last week, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg condemned Russia's "nuclear sabre-rattling."

Peskov said "we have no doubt" Russia would achieve "all the objectives of our special military operation in Ukraine'' referring to the official Russian description of the war, "but any outcome of the operation, of course, is not a reason for usage of a nuclear weapon."

"We have a security concept that very clearly states that only when there is a threat for existence of the state in our country," Peskov said, "we can use and we will actually use nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat or the existence of our country."

"Let's keep these two things separate," Peskov said, "I mean, existence of the state and special military operation in Ukraine, they have nothing to do with each other."

Peskov said Putin's comments about Russia's nuclear capabilities was a "warning different states not to interfere in the affairs between Ukraine and Russia."

When interviewer Ryan Chilcote said Putin's comments suggested Russia would turn to nuclear weapons if a third party got involved, Peskov replied, "No, I don't think so, but he was quite bold in saying that, do not interfere."

"If you do that, we will have all the possibilities to prevent that and to punish all those who are going to interfere."

When Chilcote called on Peskov to rule out nuclear weapon use given that it the war in Ukraine would ever threaten the existence of Russia, the Kremlin spokesman said, "no one is thinking about using, even about the idea of using a nuclear weapon."

When asked about President Joe Biden's warning to Putin against "going on one single inch of NATO territory," and whether Russia would look at sending forces into an alliance member, Peskov said, "If it is not a reciprocal act, so if they don't make us do that, we cannot think about that."

The Kremlin spokesman also described as "quite alarming" Biden's description of Putin as a "butcher" and that it was "impossible" for him to remain in power—which prompted an insistence from the White House that he was not calling for regime change.

However, on Monday Biden said he would not apologize for saying Putin "cannot remain in power." At a press briefing, Biden said although he is "not walking anything back" in terms of what he said, the statement reflects a personal belief, not a policy change.

The Kremlin spokesman added: "First of all, it is [a] personal insult. And one can hardly imagine a place for personal insult in rhetorics [sic] of a political leader," he said, "so, we're really sorry about that.

"And his statement involves whether Putin should not or should be in power in Russia. Of course, it is completely unacceptable. It is not for the United States' president to decide who is going to be and who is the president of the Russian Federation," Peskov said.

Newsweek has contacted the White House and the Kremlin for comment.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov moderates Russian President Vladimir Putin's annual press conference at the Manezh exhibition hall in central Moscow on December 23, 2021. Peskov has told PBS that no one in Russia is considering using nuclear weapons.
NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/GETTY IMAGES
WHAT DOD BOSSES WANTED
Canada has decided to buy 5th-Gen F-35 Lightning II – sources

By TOC On Mar 29, 2022

OTTAWA, ($1=1.25 Canadian Dollars) — The Canadian government has made its final decision on the purchase of fighter jets, which has been dragging on for years. Canada’s preferred F-35 Lightning II, learned BulgarianMilitary.com, citing savunmasanayist.com.


According to sources speaking to the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, Canada made its choice in favor of the F-35 as part of its $19 billion fighter jet purchase plan. An official announcement is expected very soon.

Thus, Canada’s adventure of purchasing fighter jets, which lasted for about 6 years, will result in Lockheed Martin. Deliveries of the new warplanes are expected to begin in 2025 if negotiations are successful.

If the negotiations are not successful, Canada’s second choice will be Swedish Saab, the manufacturer of the Gripen warplanes.

Canada is expected to procure a total of 88 F-35s with a budget of $15 billion. Canada is also acting as an international partner in the F-35 program. The partners of the program include the USA, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark, and Canada.

Photo credit: SAAB

Canada has been known to buy the F-35 for many years, but when Prime Minister Trudeau took office in 2015, he promised not to buy the F-35 because it was “too expensive”, but had to change his position over the years.

Plans to purchase new warplanes, which started in 2010, could only end in 2022. It is now almost certain that Canada will replace its obsolete F-18 fighter jets with F-35s.
Canada rejected F-18 SH

As we reported on December 2 2021, Canada has given up on the acquisition of the Boeing F / A-18 Super Hornet, according to an official statement from the government in Ottawa.

The Government of Canada announced that the following evaluation of the proposals submitted, two bidders remain eligible under the Future Fighter Capability Project competitive procurement process,” the statement from Public Services and Procurement Canada reads.
Photo credit: Boeing

Canada needs to replace its existing CF-18 Hornet air fleet. The decision to abandon the F / A-18 Super Hornet is quite surprising given the repeated requests for what Canadian society would receive if a Boeing product was chosen.

There is no clear reason why Ottawa refused to acquire the Super Hornets. Boeing has tried in recent years to give a clear perspective on the benefits of Canadian society. The company was expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada and invest billions of US dollars in the Canadian economy. Separately, Boeing compared the price of an hour’s flight between their fighter jet and that of Lockheed Martin’s competitors. According to Boeing, the value of the Super Hornet is approximately $ 18,000 for fiscal 2020, compared to $ 33,600 for the F-35A.

***

Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news
Peru's Castillo survives impeachment vote just eight months into his term

Peru lawmakers who sought to remove President Pedro Castillo had noted that he is the subject of three preliminary investigations into possible corruption, which under Peruvian law cannot proceed until he is out of office.
“We only found comments without any corroboration, speculation, imaginary links,” Castillo said of the accusations while reading a speech before lawmakers hours before the vote. (AFP)

Pedro Castillo, Peru’s embattled president, has avoided joining the South American nation’s list of impeached leaders as opposition lawmakers failed to get enough votes to remove him from office eight months into his term.

Castillo, a political neophyte who shook the country when he defeated the political elite to become president, survived his second impeachment attempt on Monday night.

He characterised the accusations against him as speculation and argued that none could be substantiated.

“We only found comments without any corroboration, speculation, imaginary links,” Castillo said of the accusations while reading a speech before lawmakers hours before the vote.

The votes of at least 87 of the 130 lawmakers were needed to remove the president.

55 voted in favour, 54 against and 19 abstained.

The lawmakers seeking to remove Castillo had noted he is the subject of three preliminary investigations into possible corruption, which under Peruvian law cannot proceed until he is out of office.

There is also a separate accusation from a would-be collaborator who alleged he is part of a criminal group that receives money in exchange for public works.

"I am subject to democratic due process... (and) I will always squarely face the nation," Castillo said at the opening of his hearing on Monday.

It is already the second time in his eight months as Peru's leader that Castillo has faced an impeachment process in a country with a recent history of ousting its presidents.

'Invalid accusations'


The opposition accuses the former rural school teacher of moral incapacity and tolerating alleged corruption in his inner circle.

He has also come under fire for his repeated ministerial crises that have seen him forced into naming four cabinets already.

The impeachment proceeding "does not contain a single element that validly supports" the accusation of moral incapacity, said Castillo.

If he is removed, Castillo's Vice President Dina Boluarte would assume the mantle.

Impeachment proceedings in Peru

It is the sixth time since 2017 that Congress has opened impeachment proceedings against a sitting president.

Impeachment proceedings are relatively common in Peru because its constitution allows for one to be brought against a president based on the subjective issue of political rather than legal wrongdoing.

And given the Peruvian president rarely has a majority in Congress, a disgruntled opposition is often in a position of strength regarding the future of the top elected official in the land.

It has created so much political instability that Peru even had three separate presidents within the space of one week in November 2020.

Castillo has received support from fellow leftist governments in Latin America while the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights criticised the charge of moral incapacity saying that there was "no objective definition" of it.

Castillo's rating is at 66 percent, although that is not as bad as the 70 percent rejection rating of Congress, according to pollsters Ipsos.



Marxism against Marxism


 
MARCH 25, 2022

Facebook

Well, it’s that time once again for ‘Marxism vs. Anarchism’ debates, and the further polarising of the left. This essay queries the necessity of this approach.

It does so not least in light of the inevitable construction of a strawmen to tear down for the benefit of the party rank and file. It’s totally fine to pick on Proudhon as if any anarchist is wont (a) to quote him chapter and verse or (b) identify as a Proudhonist.

Taking Stalin as representative of the entire Marxist tradition, to cherrypick his authoritarian excesses and ignore the Marxist critique of the commodity form is, on the contrary, absolutely opportunistic and disingenuous. No one with a shred of honesty would go there.

Attending the sorts of conspicuous double standards associated with these polarised debates is the assumption that anarchists automatically assume the correctness of every pronouncement from an anarchist figurehead. Such assumptions arguably say more about the person making the claims than their targets.

Projection is, after all, a thing, the basis for the apparent pretence that the shortcomings of anarchism (of which there are many) excuse those of Leninism (of which there are many). Maybe the real difference is that anarchists are capable of disavowing the shortcomings of a Proudhon, where Leninists are apparently incapable of hearing criticism at all.

Maybe that’s why orthodox Marxists dodge Brinton’s The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control as though it’s a worker who doesn’t feel like fighting to defend rights and advance interests limits them to a trade union consciousness.

If you think for yourself or doubt the judgement of the self-appointed vanguard of the working class, the petit-bourgeois deviationists win (nothing bourgeois about this sort of ‘if you think for yourself, the communists win’ with-us-or-against-us-type logic).

The fact of the matter is that one doesn’t even need to be an anarchist to critique Leninism. A dialectical approach to the entire issue of left politics is (or should be) capable of recognising and dealing with a plurality of perspectives. If Marxism cannot be heterodox, it surely has more in common with revealed religion than a means of critical understanding and emancipation from the injustice and insanity of class and social hierarchies.

Marx’s dialectics were based on the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model — a fundamentally honest mode of enquiry insofar as it sought to account for more side of an idea than the preferred and come to rational, soundly empirical conclusions having done so.

The alternative was idealism, the attempt to make shit up as you go and force reality to fit your thought experiments. Organised religion and laissez-faire capitalism are perfect examples; god and money are just claims on reality, performatively embedded within social relations and shielded from criticism by cultishness and pressure to conform ideologically.

Cultish idealists conflate being criticised and being attacked and play the victim to avoid being held accountable for faulty reasoning. If you say bad things about US foreign policy, the terrorists win. Doubting the majesty of the Lockean assumption that not exploiting land for profit is as good as wasting it is downright treasonous.

Idealism and its thought experiments and magical thinking were necessarily binary—reality is A, and anything that departs from A is deviant and evil. As research into moral panics and panic-driven scapegoating by Marxists like Stuart Hall demonstrates, however, deviance is a matter of who has hegemonic power to control popular understandings of deviance, not characteristics of anyone so labelled.

Throughout the history of Marxism and Communism, ‘Othering’ (or the construction of an exclusionary, ‘Self vs. Other’ binary) has been deployed as an ideological mechanism of ‘deviance production,’ demonisation of critics and dissidents and social control.

Marx was not lying when he said a spectre was haunting Europe; the Othering of Communism was all about neutralising popular threats to the autocratic class hierarchies inherent to capitalist social relations and the commodity form.
As if to demonstrate his own bourgeois proclivities, Stalin used Othering of Trotskyists in exemplary fashion, using the (completely mysterious) assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 as a pretext for a crackdown on ‘counter-revolutionary, petit-bourgeois Trotskyist terrorists.’

If you say bad things about totalitarianism, the enemies of the revolution win. Such was the fundamental binary logic of the Moscow Show Trials.

We find binary logic turning up in other places to justify idealist teleology and magical thinking in the name of the revolution. Not least of these was Engels’ invocation of the ‘Scientific vs. Utopian Socialist’ binary.

‘Scientific socialism’ was of course predicated on claims regarding ‘iron laws of capitalist development’ which, in the Russian context, allegedly necessitated industrialisation and the development of an urban proletariat who could then struggle for socialism.

As Silvia Federici and others have demonstrated, however, the notion that capitalism ‘burst asunder’ the fetters of feudalism by virtue of its superior modal power is belied by the violence associated with the rise of mercantilism preceding the industrial revolution.

The three centuries of the European Witch Hunts suppressed peasant revolts and political tendencies based around the commons and created a suitably repressive environment for enclosure and ‘primitive accumulation.’

All that was solid melted into the air with the aid of ruling class terror and crimes against humanity like stake burnings and predatory colonialism. In the colonies, witch hunts were again deployed as tools of social control. In Marx’s own words, through the Opium Wars in China, British colonists forced the ‘barbarians’ obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate’ (The Communist Manifesto).

Where their proclivities for Othering are concerned, it would also seem that spectres haunt Marxism—petit-bourgeois reactionary Trotskyist dissidents, obstinate barbarians inured to the ‘Asiatic Mode of Production’ who won’t allow all that is solid melt to into air without the intervention of gunpowder, utopian socialists.

Such spectres are impossible without a teleological, idealist binary to underwrite the production of deviance. Where in
socialist thinking can we find a binary dualism other than that associated with ‘Science vs. Utopianism’ dualism.

Where is the incontrovertible proof that Marxist historiography—indeed, any approach to history—is a hard science? That anyone who doubts the scientific basis of Marxism is a Utopian? That this is one belief on which Trotskyists and Stalinists agree would appear to offer some insight into the degeneration of alleged proletarian dictatorships into totalitarian nightmares.

The state will wither away, except when Stalin feels like denouncing his critics as counter-revolutionary terrorists, and Trotsky his as petit-bourgeois deviationists in the pay of White Guardists operating out of Paris.

Similarly, the commodity form and the class-based social relations attached to it can be socialist because ‘socialism is nothing but state capitalism made to benefit the whole people’ (Lenin). Anyone who says otherwise is a hopeless Utopian.
The fact is that the alleged scientific foundation of nineteenth-century ‘iron laws of capitalist development’ dogma is a prior assumption; if you cast doubt on the claims to the contrary, the utopian deviationists win. The proof for ‘Scientific socialism’ thus rests on the same kind of deviance production that made possible Stalin’s persecution of Trotskyists dissidents in the 1920s and 30s.

As this fact tends to indicate, the same mechanism girds vanguardism as such against criticism—not least where it alleges underlying ‘laws of history’ comparable to laws of physics.

The beauty of these (unevidenced) claims, rooted in the naturalistic fallacy no less than Lockean ‘natural rights’ discourse, is that they require a secular, socialist priesthood to interpret them for the stupid masses. For their part, the latter are understood to be capable only of a ‘trade union consciousness’ (Lenin).

In his commentary on ‘Smug Politics,’ Jeff Sparrow argues that within a democracy, all votes were supposed to count equally. There were no ‘experts’ in the ballot box — and nor should there be. Yet in their (entirely justified) support for science, it became easy for progressives to equate technical expertise with political expertise — to imply that social issues had already been scientifically settled — and that anyone who disagreed was, by definition, an illiterate or a fool. The assertion of political expertise was another ironic mode, a form of compensation for disempowerment. If progressives couldn’t influence society, that was the fault of society — or, more exactly, the people who were too stupid and too venal to appreciate the objective correctness of progressive ideas (Trigger Warnings).

The same criticisms might be said to apply to orthodox Marxist discourse built on ‘Scientific vs Utopian Socialism’ binaries. The technical expertise in Marxist ideology is conflated with technical expertise in history, and those who fail to adequately conform to, or otherwise express doubt in, this equation, is, by definition, an illiterate or a fool—a Utopian, in other words.
If doubt and conformity are Utopian, deviationist prejudices, then we can learn nothing from the Soviet experience, other than a failure to adequately apply correct policy. The same logic holds that the climate emergency is a regulatory issue, a broken system in need of fixing, and not a hegemonic extractivist modality working exactly as intended for the transnational fossil corporate oligarchy.

To this latter mentality, property rights and ‘free gifts of nature’ (as the basis for primitive accumulation) are God-given; Genesis even grants humans dominion over the Earth. To its defenders, this is by no means an issue of root causes; only a dirty communist would challenge property rights as natural as the rising and setting of the sun.

If property rights are anything but natural, then so too perhaps is vanguardism.

Inded, as Marx himself pointed out, however, the working class is perfectly capable of making its own history, though patently not under conditions of our own choosing. If history is perfectly understandable to anyone who bothers looks at it, then the working class must not need the delegated politics (Sparrow) of the workers vanguard and its secular priesthood.

Perhaps this goes some way towards accounting for the binary logic at the heart of ‘Marxism vs. Anarchism’ debates. Polarising debates in this manner assumes that the two are mutually exclusive; Othering of critics as ‘Utopians,’ ‘dilettantes’ and ‘deviationists’ spares orthodox Marxism the trouble of critical self-reflection and dialectical analysis of past mistakes.
This would appear to be particularly true where acknowledging the mistake of divorcing means from outcomes is concerned. If it is a terminal fault of capitalism to perpetrate the myth that altruistic ends can be had from self-serving means (as per ‘trickle-down’ ideology, for example), then adopting this myth to counter it is patently self-defeating.

The original slogan of the First International, after all, was ‘the emancipation of the working class will be carried out by the workers themselves.’

This did not mean the delegated politics of electoral parties operating in the name of labour; it did not mean the delegated politics of vanguard parties operating in the name of the working class. It meant the mass of the workers (and by now, to be sure, unpaid, invisibilised and unrecognised care workers in the domestic sphere) acting for themselves, directly and collectively.

It meant developing new ways of thinking and relating to one another, building the material facts of a future grounded in class and social solidarity in the present—decolonising the self and the class as the groundwork for future emancipation from wage and debt slavery.

It meant learning to do what was right rather than what one was told to believe and standing in front of freedom and defending it for all, instead of hiding behind it like a coward. Hiding behind freedom could, after all, manifest equally as the freedom of capitalists to exploit, or the freedom of a Stalin to oppress.

In light of the continued insistence of orthodox Marxists to abandon dialectical marriage of opposites for polarised ‘Marxism vs. Anarchism’ binaries, perhaps there is more to be said for socialist reconstruction, based on a reconnecting of emancipatory means to emancipatory outcomes, than the ongoing assertion of nineteenth-century pseudoscience amidst the exodus of many amongst the working class to populist reaction and fascism.

Perhaps it makes sense for Marxists to worry less about the class composition of the Kronstadt garrison in 1921, and more about that of the Bolshevik Party in 1921 amidst the blowing out of the Moscovite bureaucracy. much less to say the class composition of a Marxist conference at an elite Australian university in 2022).

If the naturalistic fallacy expressed in ‘natural rights’ discourse engenders the arrogant aristocratic mentality of those who feel themselves ‘born to rule,’ then the naturalistic fallacy as expressed in ‘Scientific vs. Utopian Socialism’ discourse can hardly differ in outcomes.

Polarised ‘Marxism vs. Anarchism’ debates need not even acknowledge this argument, if anyone who acknowledges it can simply be dismissed as a ‘Utopian’ within ideologically pure echo chambers.

It was no less than the Marxist Paul Mattick who argued that ‘Marxism is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie.’ If he was a Utopian, then Marxism itself is Utopian. If he wasn’t a Utopian, then the binary should be abandoned—along with the avoidant attitude of orthodox Marxists towards the contradiction between their prior assumptions about the scientific basis of Marxism and its consequences historically.

Ben Debney is a PhD candidate in history at Western Sydney University, Bankstown. He is the author of The Oldest Trick in the Book: Panic-Driven Scapegoating in History and Recurring Patterns of Persecution (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).