After Corbyn What Next for the Left – Should Socialists Stay In the Labour Party?

The Labour Left Alliance Seems Determined to Repeat Every Mistake of the British Left in a Flickering Replay of the Past 50 Years I have been ‘Suspended’ for Dissent

Meeting at the Free Speech Centre at the Rialto during Labour's conference last September

The victory of Keir Starmer represents a massive political defeat for the Left. Anyone who believes it is just a passing episode or that we can bed down and live with him is fooling themselves. Starmer is a class enemy as surely is Boris Johnson.

Starmer is no ‘unity’ candidate. He is the candidate of a hard Right out for blood. When they say ‘anti-Semitism’ what they mean is what Joe McCarthy meant when he said ‘communism’. ‘Anti-Semitism is the new Communism’. Except there is no one around to do what Joseph Welch, the army prosecutor did, when he asked McCarthy ‘Do you have you left no sense of decency?"

Starmer is first out of the box to welcome my expulsion

Starmer is the man who prosecuted Julian Assange. He is the man who prosecuted women for making false allegations when their assailants were acquitted of rape, thus putting them through a second trauma. He is the man who protected Metropolitan Police officers who killed Ian Tomlinson. He is the man who was first to welcome my own expulsion. His membership of the shadowy Trilateral Commission, alongside war criminal Henry Kissinger and the late Jeffrey Epstein says all you need to know.

There will be a new and far more extensive witchhunt. According to Siobhan McDonagh anti-capitalism is anti-Semitic, presumably because being a Jew and a capitalist are synonymous! As the Zionist leaders stated 3 days ago:

Keir Starmer has already achieved in four days more than his predecessor in four years in addressing antisemitism within the Labour Party.

The clear and obvious question that poses itself is this: 

One good effect of Coronavirus is that the poisonous Jewish Chronicle has gone bust!

Is there a place inside the Labour Party for socialists?

There is no easy answer to this. One of the most remarkable things about the Corbyn phenomenon is how little it is understood by the Marxist left. This was why it came as much of a shock to the Left as the Right when Corbyn nearly won the 2017 General Election. My blog was one of the very few to have predicted it.

As the election campaign wore on I became convinced we would lose. My final article for Weekly Worker, Expect the Worst, Hope for the Best summed up my mood.  On the eve of poll, in Open Letter to Seamus Milne, I wrote that we were heading for ‘disaster’. 

Ed Miliband and friend

The Corbyn Phenomenon represented a mass upsurge against both the legacy of New Labour and the effects of 5 years of austerity. Ed Miliband’s austerity-lite policies offered no alternative. Anyone who remembers the Edstone and the mugs with Immigration Controls on them knew that he was no socialist. Yet he was still too left for Blair who spoke of how a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”.

Despite trying to suppress the debate, the LLA's Facebook pages are filled with people saying they are going to resign from the Labour Party

Cameron won a small majority in the 2015 election due to the collapse in the Lib Dem vote, which allowed the Tories to gain a small majority with just 36.9% of the vote. This produced a popular reaction and wave of disillusionment which led to Corbyn’s election.

New Labour had become convinced that the way to permanently defeat the left was to open the leadership vote to every single member rather than having the trade union barons fix things.

Their solution was an American-style primary system whereby anyone, on payment of a fee, could vote. Blair and his acolytes had always wanted Labour to become another party of  capitalism like the American Democrats. Their assumption was that the Left would always be unpopular.

But the best laid plans of men and mice can go awry. Corbyn needed to gain 15% of the parliamentary Party, about 35 nominations. Many MPs, including the self-style ‘moron’ Margaret Beckett, ‘lent’ him their nomination in order that it could be shown that it was a genuine contest rather than a beauty contest between Corbyn and his opponents who all represented a continuation of New Labour. 

My own son, then aged 13 and thousands of others bombarded Labour MPs on social media with the demand that they lend Corbyn their nomination. The rest is history.  From 200-1 outsider Corbyn won by 60%.

When it became clear that Corbyn would win the flack began. At first there was a demand to stop the contest! We were told there were thousands of Trotskyist infiltrators. British Trotskyism would have difficulty filling a modest sized church hall. The whole point of having registered supporters was in order to allow non-Labour Party members to vote. It seems that they were the wrong kind!

Then began the attacks. John Mann accused Corbyn of having ignored child abuse in Islington care homes as MP. In fact the Leader of the Council at the time was Margaret Hodge who was a party to a deliberate cover up by the Council.

The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign began with an article in August 2015 in the Daily Mail accusing Corbyn of having consorted with a holocaust denier, Paul Eisen. Soon after the now bankrupt Jewish Chronicle took over with a series of questions to Corbyn. Of course it didn’t want answers.

The LLA's refusal to discuss what is on the mind of its supporters is the height of unreality

We had the spectacle of the right-wing press and their Labour collaborators suddenly becoming interested in the fight against anti-Semitism. Of course all other forms of racism were kosher. The Sun and Mail even hired Katie Hopkins (‘refugees are cockroaches’).

Despite numerous warnings and articles by not only me but Asa Winstanley in Electronic Intifada (How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis) and Jonathan Cook (Anti-Semitism. Orchestrated Offensive against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK) Corbyn was determined to appease his accusers. He even  accepted that to deny you are anti-Semitic is in itself anti-Semitic! Forgetting that he too had been so accused. Even when Jews were the victims of the anti-Semitism witchhunt he did not question it. The rest is history.

Daniel Platts of the SC seeks to exclude Chris Williamson from playing any part in relation to the LLA

Last February Chris Williamson MP was suspended after the vilest distortion of what he had said:

“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I have got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion… we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic… We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other party.”

Yet what did the ‘i’ and other papers do? They omitted any reference to the ‘scourge’ of anti-Semitism. In order to prove ‘anti-Semitism’ the mass media and the Zionists had to twist and distort everthing we said.

Alan Pearson of the OG supports my suspension

According to the Alan Pearson of the Organisation Committee, the Labour Party 'is a byword for antisemitism' - it is no accident that Pearson strongly supports my suspension since he goes along with a Zionist narrative

It was at this point, the very last stop on the journey, that Jeremy Corbyn should have spoken up and declared, unequivocally, that Chris was no anti-Semite.  And when a Labour Party Panel ruled that he should be reinstated Tom Watson raised a petition of right-wing Lords and MPs demanding resuspension, which was later ruled unlawful by the High Court.

This was literally last chance saloon yet Corbyn remained silent, throwing Williamson under the bus. In so doing he ensured that he would never become Prime Minister. Arguably the point of no return had occurred at the 2018 Labour Party conference when he was responsible for the defeat of Open Selection.

In response I wrote that this was the end of the Corbyn Project. Are these the Dying Days of Corbyn’s Leadership? And so it proved. The question is where we go from here.

Chris Williamson in Brighton at the meeting that the Zionists pulled out all the stops to prevent happening

Labour Left Alliance – Can It Fill the Gap

Around July last year, the Labour Left Alliance was launched by Labour Against the Witchhunt, the LRC and Red Labour with a statement which has now been signed by over 2,000 supporters. The conference took place in the context of a campaign by the Zionists to ban any all opposition.  ‘Israeli democracy’ had come to Britain.

In Brighton in the preceding summer the Zionists had made fevered attempts to stop Chris Williamson speaking. 3 venues were harassed or abused before we held a large open air meeting in Regency Square. You will note that the local Argus report pictures the dozen Zionists as being larger than over 150 people! For a full report see here.

Our reaction in Brighton LLA was to organise a Free Speech Centre in Brighton’s Rialto to ensure that the Zionists could not ban us.

For 2 days we put on a variety of events. There was Jackie Walker’s The Witchhunt, Chris Williamson, the LRC and even a book launch for Pluto’s Bad News for Labour which Waterstones cancelled at the last minute after receiving a volley of abuse and threats from the very people that Keir Starmer has got into bed with. As one of the 5 distinguished academics, Birkbeck’s Justin Schlosberg said this was book burning.  As Heinrich Heine predicted, they first burn books and then they burn people.

In the wake of this successful defiance of the Zionists the LLA held a meeting on the final day of the conference. I spoke at what was clearly a polarised meeting. It was clear that there were differences between LAW and the LRC as to where the LLA were going. The LRC and Red Labour later pulled out. I made two points. 

Firstly the LLA had very little time to get organised. It was clear an election was round the corner. Secondly knowing that Labour stood little chance of victory, the LLA must become an organisational bridge between the Left inside and outside the Labour Party.

Phil Pope fending off criticism

Chair Phil Pope equates political criticism with 'he did seem to be attacking the SC'

At the beginning of February 2020 I became the Brighton and Hove delegate to the LLA’s Organisation Committee nationally. My first proposal was that Chris Williamson MP should be invited to speak to the Conference on 22^nd February. I made the proposal twice. When I first raised it on 9^th February Lee Rock, the National Organiser opposed it. No one else commented and there was just 1 ‘like’. I raised it again on 12^th February. No one either supported or opposed it. A decision was taken not to invite Chris as ‘punishment’ for his standing at the election as a Socialist Independent. I still don’t know how or when this was decided.

Secretary Tina Werkmann defends my suspension by reference to LAW where I proposed the expulsion of Pete Gregson and Socialist Fight - she conveniently 'forgets' that the decision to expel was taken by All Members Meeting - not an unelected Steering Committee - Gregson defended linking up to a holocaust denier - a slightly different offence

I went to the AGM in Sheffield on February 22^nd. About 130 supporters attended, however it was extremely badly organised. On the surface it seemed fine but the decisions it took and the way debate was structured were disastrous. The morning was devoted to motions and general discussion. We had the absurdity of a pro-Brexit resolution being passed with one speaker for and one against. This is not serious politics. Instead of prioritising 2-3 issues and debating them fully we had a whole series of policies approved on the nod.

The afternoon was devoted to the Constitution. This was even worse. I moved an amendment on behalf of BH arguing that the LLA

‘needs to be a bridge between socialists inside and outside the Labour Party. It is essential that the LLA abandons the sectarian traditions of the Left which has contributed to the ongoing weakness of the socialist left.

The Conference Arrangements Committee instead of giving delegates a clear choice between different proposals decided instead to salami slice every proposal and stage the debate in sections. It meant no one had any idea of what the final constitution looked like, which was a dog’s dinner. 

For example whilst the Constitution included policies that should be debated separately, it also said nothing about the powers of the different bodies (such as the power to open a bank account or spend money) and did not specify who was sovereign.

The Constitution does not have any provision for disciplinary action (somewhat important in view of my suspension!).  And for an organisation which is claiming to be socialist it has no mention of socialism (or even capitalism) anywhere!

One member of the Organising Committee comparing their actions to Jon Lansman

On 21^st March I submitted a discussion discussion paper to the Organisation Committee [OG]. It began:

The history of the Left in Britain is a history of failure. Our past is littered with failed organisations and the husks of what were once considered bright ideas...

There needs to be a debate on the left as a whole as to our relationship to the Labour Party, what is possible for socialists within it and how best we build the Left.

I warned at the end that ‘To fail to reconsider sacred nostrums is the characteristic of a sect and sects have a habit of dying off.’

Reaction to my suspension from one member of the OG

The reaction of another member of the OG compares the situation unfavourably to Momentum!

Being naive I had hoped to stir up some discussion of where the LLA was going. Instead it went down like a lead balloon.  Lee Rock, the National Organiser, responded alleging various mistakes and calling me dishonest no less than 4 times. I responded to Lee’s paper two days later and Lee this time replied with an 11 page paper.

For those who are interested I have supplied the links. I followed this up, not with another response to Lee but a series of 9 proposals as Lee had repeatedly asked me to do.  I proposed that

1.     The LLA becomes a membership organisation as well as a federal organisation of affiliated branches....

2.     That the LLA has as its perspective both organising the socialist left inside the Labour Party and acting as a bridging organisation to those members who have resigned or been expelled.

Despite urging me to make concrete proposals my paper seemed to produce a personal crisis in Lee. He exploded, resigning and sending abusive messages. It was as if I was threatening his whole personality.

The dead cat strategy of the Tories has been adopted by the Steering Committee to avoid discussion

The Steering Committee which met on April 1^st decided, with no warning, to suspend me as a way of persuading Lee to retract his resignation, which he appears to have done (the membership not being informed of these things I can’t be certain). I responded alleging that Lee’s ‘resignation’ had been contrived with Tina, the Secretary. In order to forestall proper discussion of my proposals they had engage in a ‘dead cat strategy’ with Lee’s resignation.

Instead of deciding to discuss my proposals the SC referred them to the next conference which is in 6+ months time, if ever.

Lee Rock asks what has changed since February 22.  Err, Coronavirus lockdown. Election of Keir Starmer.  What more is needed?

The obvious point to make is we can’t wait. Thousands of people are resigning from the Labour Party now.  Any organisation worth its salt would be dealing with the problem NOW not in the distant future. If the LLA refuses to deal with what is the most serious issue facing us now then it is irrelevant. 

I responded to the SC on 4^th April but the main points were that:

1.     The SC had no power to suspended anyone, least of all a member of the body that appointed it (OG). That is such an obvious point that it really needs no explanation.

2.     The OG itself, being a network or federation, cannot suspend anyone. All they can do is ask the group they represent to send someone else.

3.     Since there is no membership, everyone is a supporter by virtue of signing the original statement, how can anyone be suspended or expelled anyway?

The nominal Chair, Phil Pope has responded by denying that suspension is a disciplinary action! Despite which I have been removed from not only the OG Facebook and WhatsApp groups but ALSO the LLA’s own Organisation and Discussion Facebook Groups by Daniel Platts, even though admission to these is by virtue of signing the statement not membership of the OG. 

In short the very constitution that these mini-dictators have been swearing loyalty to has been jettisoned at a moment’s notice!

It is clear that the LLA has nowhere to go and no strategy. While Starmer gets his act together do we just sit passively by whilst thousands of people exit the Labour Party or do we try to organise them? We seem to be saying, because of an ideological fetish, that if you aren’t in the Labour Party then you are irrelevant.

It is clear that the LLA has nowhere to go and no strategy for getting there. While Starmer gets his act together do we sit passively by whilst thousands of people exit the Labour Party or do we try to include them? We seem to be saying, because of an ideological fetish, that if you aren’t in the Labour Party then you are irrelevant and not wanted. 

The LLA is now a place where members feel free to tell other members that they don't belong - its called 'comradeship'

LACK OF A DEMOCRATIC CULTURE

What though is the underlying problem? How has it come about that submitting a discussion document ends up with my being suspended on trumped-up charges? Why is it that an organisation, whose founding statement states it ‘organises democratically and transparently’ and which ‘campaigns for a disciplinary process in the Labour Party which is wholly based on natural justice and due process’ suspends someone without them being either present or informed of what is happening and which simply disregards its own constitution? Is democracy only for the Labour Party?

In the internal correspondence following my submission of the document, I sent an email to Lee Rock of 23^rd March in which I wrote that the way the Committee was operating was ‘the antithesis of a healthy democratic culture.’ Another member Peter B made the same point writing that the LLA ‘requires a culture of open discussion and debate, which as ever should be conducted in a comradely manner.’

On the socialist left there is a long history of a  Command and Control Culture, going under the name of ‘democratic centralism’ which in practice is anything but democratic though it is certainly centralist.

One member of the OG, Peter Flack confessed to have being a full-time organiser for the Socialist Labour League/WRP, perhaps the most revolting organisation on the left, if it can even be called left. It was an organisation headed by one Gerry Healey, which engaged in systematic abuse of members, including rape and violence against members. Corin Redgrave, brother of Vanessa, infamously stated re Healey’s ‘accomplishments’ that “If this is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists.’

The SWP was also convulsed when the organisation tried to cover up allegations of rape and abuse by former Secretary Martin Smith. Although it was not on the scale of the WRP it was symptomatic of an underlying culture that had developed in the two largest so-called revolutionary organisations. A daughter of a friend, who worked at the SWP HQ, was summarily dismissed when she expressed her support for the women who had been raped. An article on the Socialist Unity website makes disturbing reading.

I am sure that Peter did not support Healey’s activities and probably was unaware of them. However he was a full-timer in an organisation which more resembled the mafia than a socialist organisation. It is no coincidence that Peter has been to the fore in opposing discussion and supporting summary justice.

Why do I raise this?  Because what was common to both the WRP and SWP was a lack of any democratic culture or accountability. What the behaviour of the majority on the OG represents is a continuation of this tradition and a total disregard not only for its own (inadequate) constitution but for the most basic of democratic norms.

Tony Greenstein 

US Plots Conquest of Venezuela in Wake of Chavez' Death

US State Department Paper

Leopoldo Lopez

Following my post Hugo Chavez RIP– Death of a Revolutionary Nationalist and Socialist Leader on the death of Hugo Chavez and the reaction of US President Obama, who promised to support ‘democracy’ in Venezuela (eradication of poverty and corruption is never democratic and certainly not a challenge to free-market policies) whilst not having a word to say in condolences, we have seen a mass outpouring of national grief.

Of course the BBC has concentrated on the reactions of the US supported opposition who would like to get their mits on the oil wealth of Venezuela, but then the BBC has always been a faithful supporter of US foreign policy.

John P Holdren

The article below suggests that the US is actively plotting to use the death of Hugo Chavez in order to conquer by coup Venezuela.  We should not be surprised at these reports.  The ‘war against drugs’ in Central America has long been used as a way of supporting death squads and wiping out peasant leaders and reversing land reform.

Tony Greenstein

US Plots Conquest of Venezuela in Wake of Chavez' Death

By Tony Cartalucci

March 07, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -   (LD) - US corporate-financier funded think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), declared in its "post-Chávez checklist for US policymakers,"   that the US must move quickly to reorganize Venezuela according to US interests. Upon its checklist were "key demands":

John M Deutch

The ouster of narco-kingpins who now hold senior posts in government
The respect for a constitutional succession
The adoption of meaningful electoral reforms to ensure a fair campaign environment and a transparent vote count in expected presidential elections; and
The dismantling of Iranian and Hezbollah networks in Venezuela

In reality, AEI is talking about dismantling entirely the obstacles that have prevented the US and the corporate-financier interests that direct it, from installing a client regime and extracting entirely Venezuela's wealth while obstructing, even dismantling the progress and geopolitical influence achieved by the late President Hugo Chavez throughout South America and beyond.

John P Holdren

The AEI "checklist" continues by stating:

Now is the time for US diplomats to begin a quiet dialogue with key regional powers to explain the high cost of Chávez’s criminal regime, including the impact of chavista complicity with narcotraffickers who sow mayhem in Colombia, Central America, and Mexico. Perhaps then we can convince regional leaders to show solidarity with Venezuelan democrats who want to restore a commitment to the rule of law and to rebuild an economy that can be an engine for growth in South America.

Of course, by "Venezuelan democrats," AEI means Wall Street-backed  proxies like Henrique Capriles Radonski and his Primero Justicia (Justice First) political front, two entities the Western media is already gearing up to support ahead of anticipated elections.

Radonski

West Has Positioned Proxies to Strip Venezuela to the Bones After Chavez' Passing

Primero Justicia (Justice First) was co-founded by Leopoldo Lopez and Julio Borges, who like Radonski, have been backed for nearly a decade by the US State Department. Primero Justicia and the network of foreign-funded NGOs that support it have been recipients of both direct and indirect foreign support for at least just as long.

Image: US State Department document (archived) http://www.scribd.com/doc/109310143/Ven-Us-State-Dept-138014 illustrating the role National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-funded NGOs play in supporting US-backed opposition figures in Venezuela. The US regularly fails to transparently list who is included in extensive funding NED provides opposition groups in Venezeula, so documents like this give a rare glimpse into the names and dynamics actually involved. As was suspected, NED money is going into networks providing support for current presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski.  In this particular document, NED-funded Sumate's legal trouble is described in relation to its attempted defense of Radonski. At the time this document was written, Radonski was in jail pending trial for his role in facilitating the 2002 US-backed failed coup against President Hugo Chavez. The document may still be online at the US State Department's official website here. 

Paul Volker

All three co-founders are US educated - Radonski having attended New York's Columbia University (Spanish), Julio Borges attending Boston College and Oxford (Spanish), and Leopoldo Lopez who attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (KSG) , of which he is considered an alumni of.

The Harvard Kennedy School, which hosts the notorious Belfer Center, includes the following faculty and alumni of  Lopez, co-founder of the current US-backed opposition in Venezuela:

John P. Holdren, Samantha Power, Lawrence Summers, Robert Zoellick, (all as faculty), as well as Ban Ki-Moon ('84), Paul Volcker ('51), Robert Kagan ('91), Bill O'Reilly ('96), Klaus Schwab ('67), and literally hundreds of senators, ambassadors, and administrators of Wall Street and London's current global spanning international order. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (KSG) is clearly one of several universities that form the foundation of both creating corporate-financier driven globalist-international policy, as well as cultivating legions of administrators to execute it.

To understand fully the implications of Lopez' education it helps to understand the leadership and principles guiding Harvard's mission statements, best exemplified by KSG' Belfer Center, which to this day, lends its public support  to Lopez and his Primero Justicia opposition party.

Image: John P. Holdren (bearded, left), an advocate for population reduction through forced sterilization overseen by a "planetary regime," is just one of many "colorful" characters to be found within the halls of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government from which Primero Justicia co-founder Leopoldo Lopez of Venezuela graduated. To this day, KSG provides forums in support of US-backed opposition bids at seizing power in Venezuela.

Named after Robert Belfer of the Belco Petroleum Corporation and later, director of the failed Enron Corporation, the Belfer Center describes itself as being "the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School's research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy." Robert Belfer still sits in as an International Council Member. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/about/international-council.html

Belfer's director, Graham Allison provides an example of self-serving corporatism steering US policy. He was a founder of the Trilateral Commission, a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a consultant to the RAND Corporation, Director of the Getty Oil Company, Natixis, Loomis Sayles, Hansberger, Taubman Centers, Inc., and Belco Oil and Gas, as well as a member of the advisory boards of Chase Bank, Chemical Bank, Hydro-Quebec, and the shady International Energy Corporation, all according to his official Belfer Center bio.

Other questionable personalities involved as Belfer alumnus are Goldman Sachs, CFR member, and former-World Bank president Robert Zoellick. Sitting on the board of directors is CFR member and former Goldman Sachs consultant, Ashton Carter. There is also former director of Citigroup and Raytheon, former Director of Central Intelligence and CFR member John Deutch, who required a pardon by Clinton to avoid prosecution over a breach of security while fumbling his duties at the CIA. Meanwhile, Nathaniel Rothschild  of Atticus Capital and RIT Capital Partners, Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve, and former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff   all serve as Belfer Center's "advisers."

Michael Chertoff

Last but not least, there is John P. Holdren, also a Council on Foreign Relations member, science adviser to both President Clinton and President Obama, and co-author with Paul Ehrilich, of the now notorious "Ecoscience."   When Holdren isn't brand-building for "Climate Disruption," he is dreaming of a Malthusian fueled totalitarian global government that forcibly sterilizes the world's population. He feared, erroneously, that overpopulation would be the end of humanity. He claimed in his hubris filled, fact deficient book, "The No Growth Society,"   that by the year 2040, the United States would have a dangerously unsustainable population of 280 million he called "much too many." The current US population is over 300 million, and despite reckless leadership and policies, it is still sustainable.

One could argue that Lopez' education is in his past, independent of his current political activities, however, the interests driving the agenda of the Belfer Center are demonstrably still backing his Primero Justicia party's bid for seizing power in Venezuela. Lopez, Radonski, and Borges are to this day still receiving substantial funding and support through NGO networks funded directly by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, and is clearly favored by the Western press. Furthermore, the CFR , Heritage Foundation, and other corporate-financier driven think-tanks have all come out in support of Radonski and Primero Justicia, in their bid to "restore democracy" American-style in Venezuela.

With Chavez' passing, the names of these opposition figures will become mainstays of Western reporting ahead of anticipated elections the West is eager to have held - elections the West is well positioned to manipulate in favor of Lopez, Radonski, and Borges.

Whatever one may have thought about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his policies, he nationalized his nation's oil, forcing out foreign multinational corporations, diversified his exports to reduce dependency on Western markets (with US exports at a 9 year low), and had openly opposed corporate-financier neo-imperialism across the globe. He was an obstruction to Western hegemony - an obstruction that has provoked overt, depraved jubilation from his opponents upon his death.

And while many critics are quick to claim President Chavez' policies are a "failure," it would be helpful to remember that the US, on record, has arrayed its vast resources both overtly and covertly against the Venezuelan people over the years to ensure that any system outside the West's sphere of influence inevitably fails.

Dark Days Ahead

 Dark days indeed lay ahead for Venezuela, with the AEI "checklist" foreshadowing an "uprising," stating:

As Venezuelan democrats wage that struggle against chavismo, regional leaders must make clear that Syria-style repression will never be tolerated in the Americas. We should defend the right of Venezuelans to struggle democratically to reclaim control of their country and its future. Only Washington can make clear to Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Cuban leaders that, yes, the United States does mind if they try to sustain an undemocratic and hostile regime in Venezuela. Any attempt to suppress their self-determination with Chinese cash, Russian arms, Iranian terrorists, or Cuban thuggery will be met with a coordinated regional response.

US military contractors and special forces had been caught operating in and around Venezuela.  Just as there were warning signs in Syria years before the 2011 conflict began, the US' intentions of provoking bloodshed and regime change in Venezuela stretch back as far as 2002. Just as Syria is now facing a Western-engineered proxy war, Venezuela will too, with the AEI already declaring US plans to wage a Syria-style proxy war in South America.

The AEI also reminds readers of the West's faux-human rights, "economic development," and "democracy promotion" racket Hugo Chavez had ejected from Venezuela and displaced across parts of South America, and the West's desire to reestablish it:

US development agencies should work with friends in the region to form a task force of private sector representatives, economists, and engineers to work with Venezuelans to identify the economic reforms, infrastructure investments, security assistance, and humanitarian aid that will be required to stabilize and rebuild that country. Of course, the expectation will be that all the costs of these activities will be borne by an oil sector restored to productivity and profitability.

Finally, we need to work with like-minded nations to reinvigorate regional organizations committed to democracy, human rights, anti-drug cooperation, and hemispheric solidarity, which have been neutered by Chávez’s destructive agenda.

 As the US openly funds, arms, and backs Al Qaeda in Syria, conducts global renditions, operates an international archipelago of torture dungeons, and is only now wrapping up a decade of subjugation and mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan that is still claiming lives and jeopardizing the future of millions to this day, it is difficult to discern just who the AEI's target audience is. It is most likely those who can read between the lines - the corporate-financier vultures waiting for the right moment to strip Venezuela to the bone.

The fate of Venezuela lies in its people's hands. Covert destabilization must be faced by the Venezuelan people, while the alternative media must do its best to unravel the lies already being spun ahead of long-planned operations in "post-Chavez Venezuela." For the rest of us, we must  identify the corporate-financier interests  driving this agenda, - interests we most likely patronize on a daily basis, and both boycott and permanently replace them to erode the unwarranted influence they have used, and will continue to use against the Venezuelan people, as well as people across the globe.