by Husayn Al-Kurdi

Michael Parenti is one of the most prominent educators, authors and speakers on the 
Left today. He has recently published Dirty Truths (City Lights San Francisco 1996, 
ISBN 0-87286-317-4, 282 pages, $14.95) and Against Empire (City Lights 1995, ISBN 
0-87286-298-4, 224 pages, $12.95). Many of his books, audio and video tapes are 
available from People's Video/Audio, PO Box 99514, Seattle WA 98199. I interviewed the 
personable, plain speaking Italian-American activist in his Berkeley, California home. 
Parenti, who was born in 1933, was both expansive and hospitable as we discussed 
themes in his recent writings and speeches.

We hear over and over that "Marxism died in the 80s". I have a different view, as I am 
sure you do too on that subject ...

Marxism has been pronounced dead since the turn of the century. In the American 
academy, it was repeatedly pronounced dead. In 1915, Lenin pointed out that there are 
all sorts of scribes and publicists who have announced that Marxism was dead. It was 
pronounced dead in the 30s, and again after World War II. 

In the forty years of my experience in the social sciences, there has been a constant 
polemic against Marxism in the academic and professional journals, even in a lot of 
the so-called "leftist" publications. There are constant sideswipes and references to 
the "obsolete", "incorrect", "simplistic", "reductionist", "economistic" nature of 
Marxism. They have taken the term "economistic" and applied it to mean any concern 
with economic questions, any idea that economic and class questions are central or 
crucial. If you believe that, you supposedly are "economistic". In the 60s through the 
80s, many on the left were bashing communism and Marxism: Chomsky, Stanley Aronowitz, 
the little crowd that gathered around Paul Piccone and Telos and resurrected Gramsci 
(they had no interest in Gramsci but saw him as a possibly suitable foil to "de-class" 
Marx), Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau and others too numerous to mention.

In a book I recently finished writing, entitled Blackshirts and Reds, I call them the 
"ABC" theorists, "Anything But Class". They'll tell you that culture is important, 
group identity politics is important, personal psychology is important-- anything but 
class. They have no idea that class is not just another social characteristic but an 
interrelationship between the few who own the means of production and the many who 
have to work for the few. 

It's ironic that they announce that Marxism and class issues are dead at the very time 
when class power is augmenting itself, intensifying and showing a greater brutality 
than ever. In fact, in Dirty Truths I have an article on that ("Rollback") which links 
the present global capitalist offensive with the collapse of existing socialist and 
communist countries. For years, the ruling bourgeoisie was in competition with 
existing socialism. Capitalists often made concessions to the working class out of 
fear that they would lose the allegiance of workers, out of fear that conflicts would 
move from incremental bread-and-butter issues to ones in which the legitimacy of the 
system itself was at stake. One of the specters that haunted the capitalist world was 
communism. With the Soviet Union and the other communist countries overthrown, with 
the other great communist power (China) moving toward a comprador business class 
state, global capital has much less to worry about. 

I don't believe I'm a Marxist. I'm a reality person. I see these things not because I 
have been initiated into some kind of cult or priesthood. People say "That's Marxist" 
when they read or hear me. I don't know if it's Marxist, it's reality. Reality is 
"Marxist". There are these powerful forces collecting wealth and power at the expense 
of the rest of the world. This is not to have a "Marxist" view, it is to see reality.

After the overthrow of communism, you could detect a querulous note arising in 
conservative publications. It went like this: if we get the free market moving all 
through eastern Europe, why must we still put up with collectivistic human services 
and liberalistic regulations here in the West? Well, they don't have to put up with 
it, so they're pulling out all the stops now. They're saying "This is it. You got 
nowhere else to go. You better be grateful for what we're giving you and just take 
it." Their goal is to go back to 1893, to an unregulated capitalism that allows them 
to do whatever they want to the work force, to consumers, to the environment and to 
the general public in order to maximize their profits at the highest possible rate, to 
plunder the public treasury for their own enrichment.

It was after the Russian Revolution that the working class in this country began to 
win some gains, in the 1920s a little bit and in the 1930s, much more--when there was 
a communist movement that played a crucial role in organizing labor. There are no 
competing communist countries out there to worry about anymore, and so they're 
clamping down. That's why so many of us got so excited by the Zapatistas, maybe 
totally out of proportion. We were of the opinion that liberation struggles were a 
thing of the past. With the collapse of communism, they could get no more funds or 
guns. There now was no East Germany or Bulgaria or the Soviet Union. To see a movement 
like the Zapatistas emerge is heartening. Though poorly armed and very small, they 
give us hope. There's such an enthusiasm for the Zapatistas because there is a feeling 
that liberation movements are still possible.

What's your attitude to the so-called "overpopulation crisis"?

I don't think that population is an irrelevant question to the problem of hunger and 
ecological disaster, but I don't think it's the central question. The presumption of 
capitalism is that social capital is infinitely expendable, that the air, water, and 
land are things which they can use any way they want. Oil, minerals, forests, the fish 
of the sea-- it's all out there to be grabbed without limit.

People used to be concerned that we didn't have enough food to feed all the people in 
the world. In fact, we could probably feed about twice as many. Energy and fuel 
scarcity aren't the problem either. The problem is that the earth has a limited 
capacity to absorb the heat, effluent, and waste that come from energy consumption. 
Long before we run out of oil or coal or solar energy (which we'd never run out of if 
it was ever developed), we will run out of fresh air, clean water and a survivable 
environment. Engels wrote that you can do what you want to nature, but nature will 
have her revenge. 

Population is a factor. The poor have a lot of children because they are poor and 
children become a source of social security and all that. In East Germany and Russia, 
the birth rate is dropping below the death rate for the first time since World War II 
and that's because of the raw free market "paradise" that has been inflicted upon 
those countries.

What actual accomplishments have led Boris Yeltsin to be hailed as a "savior of 

His accomplishments are formidable. He has destroyed the public economy. He is loyal 
to the concept of total privatization and corporate investment. He used force and 
violence in 1993 to kill over a thousand people who were defending parliament. He 
jailed thousands of dissidents. He's outlawed about 14 different left-wing newspapers. 
He's crippled the labor unions and suppressed much of the left. He wiped out the 
popularly elected provincial councils. He's re-written the constitution to give the 
President practically dictatorial powers. So he is loved by the White House and the 
U.S. corporate media and hailed as a "great democrat". 

How does debt and financing fit into the imperialist assault on a nation's capacity 
for self-determination?

Ultimately, the capitalist doesn't really want to control the worker, he just wants to 
control the wealth the worker produces. The capitalist doesn't even want to own 
everything, he just wants to hold a note on things and extract the money from it. 
Finance capital's ultimate goal is not to go into a country to build or develop it; 
it's goal is to make money. The essence of capitalism is to transform nature into 
commodities and commodities into capital. In regard to the third world and eastern 
Europe, capital investment in fact thwarts the development of these countries. Many 
third world nations have become much poorer in the last thirty years because of the 
western investment that's gone into them.

The western investors go in and control the land, labor, resources and markets of a 
country. You have countries in Africa that have more trade with western countries than 
with each other. In the last five years, the same thing has happened in eastern 
Europe. In eastern Europe and Russia, they've destroyed the industrial base. They've 
turned them into third world countries in just five years. It's really maldevelopment, 
forced underdevelopment.

What is "low-intensity imperialism"?

It's a low-profile imperialism. You don't go in with Colonel Blimp and your flag and 
your armies anymore. It combines "low-intensity warfare" with imperialism. You arm the 
locals and have them do all the dirty work and the killing. You keep it at a low level 
but prolong it and make it clear to the people who are resisting that you will never 
stop because there's no public opinion in the U.S. opposing it, at least no mass 
opinion as there was with Vietnam. And there's no opinion because there's no 
visibility. The media and government can bury the story because U.S. lives are not 
being lost.

The imperialists have reversed the "war of the flea". The guerrilla war was based on 
the ability to hold out, never beating the opponent militarily but wearing him out, 
making him give up politically, as happened to France in Algeria and the U.S. in 
Vietnam. The Salvadoran guerrillas, for example, just wore out. They fought for twenty 
years. Now it is the interventionist nation that can hold out indefinitely, wearing 
out the rebels and the population that supports them. 

How do the Peace Corps and similar organizations fit into the imperialist picture?

There are all sorts of "aid" agencies--the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID and 
so on. They go into countries not to encourage development of the common people, not 
to support their political organization or their ability to resist capitalist 
penetration. The Peace Corps is the ultimate ethnocentric arrogance. It says "You 
people don't know how to live. We'll show you how to cook your food and build your 
roads." These people could build their own roads, but they don't have their own 
capital. They could fish but they don't have the boats. They could farm but they don't 
have their own land. 

The poor aren't the problem--they're just the symptom. The problem are the rich who 
get rich off other people's poverty. I get rich when I crowd you off the best land and 
make you poor. I get rich when I get you to come back on this land and work for a few 
pennies a day. The problem with poverty is wealth. The poor are created by those who 
expropriate their land and their labor. 

Who and what are GATT and NAFTA good for and who are they not good for?

GATT and NAFTA are hailed as international free trade agreements when in fact they 
have very little to do with trade. They are free investment agreements. What they do 
is break down any defenses that sovereign democratic powers of various countries have 
built up in response to demands of their respective publics, defenses against the 
abuses of capital. Standards protecting workers, consumers and the environment are 
declared to be in restraint of trade or "unfair competition". They're trying to undo 
Canada's health program, saying it's "unfair competition" because employers in the 
United States have to pay for worker's healthcare and Canadian employers don't because 
they have public healthcare. Therefore, they have to get rid of it. I wouldn't mind an 
equalization of standards if it was UP. Why not say that you, Guatemala, have unfair 
competition because you pay your workers 20 cents an hour while we have to pay our 
workers $10 an hour. Therefore you have to raise your wages.!
  However, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't ratchet upward, only downward--in 
favor of capital and against labor and the environment.

You have long contended that Fascism is not necessarily the clowns in the suits with 
the swastikas...

Fascism can take many forms. People think of "extremists" as Klansmen, skinheads and 
the militia, but I argue that the "extremists" are already in power, and ready to use 
state power in very fascistic ways. Even within the construct of democratic 
institutions, you can have unaccountable fascistic forces operating. The CIA alone 
could provide many examples of that.

You say that TAXPAYERS are victimized by imperialism.

Yes, for instance U.S. interests in countries like the Philippines, have an investment 
of several billion dollars but the U.S. has spent twice that amount in aid, military 
bases, military campaigns, and building up infrastructure in the Philippines. If you 
spend $6 billion to protect a $3 billion investment, this causes some confused people 
who don't have a class analysis to say that this is irrational and stupid, that the 
empire costs more than it's worth. But it doesn't, because the people who enjoy the $3 
billion investment aren't the same ones who pay the $6 billion. The $6 billion is paid 
by taxpayers and we get nothing for it except the exportation of our jobs and the loss 
of our tax dollars.

What are some of the few Hollywood films worth watching?

They're so few. These people won't deal with real life. They're gimmicky films, "the 
boy who could fly", Robin Williams as a 12-year old boy in a 40-year old man's body. 
Stupid, contrived themes. Lots of films that are fascist in spirit, with the 
willingness to kill and the glorification of a kind of total macho brutality. Il 
Postino and Dead Man Walking are good recent films, maybe one or two others. Matewan, 
Salt of the Earth, some others from the past. But Matewan played in only about a 
hundred theaters while Rambo played in thousands. 

We hear people use the word "we" rather indiscriminately in political talk. "We" 
bombed Iraq, "we" did this and that to Vietnam and Central America...

Just about everybody on the left is in that bad habit of saying "we" do these things. 
I'm urging people to stop saying "we" because it presumes a community of interests 
that isn't there. I don't even say the United States did this or that. It's a 
particular narrow ruling interest in the country. I say "U.S. policymakers" or "ruling 
class interests". "We" aren't doing anything, "we" aren't bombing Iraq. You don't see 
the American people out there demanding a war, saying "Let's invade Panama" or "Let's 
attack Iraq". "We" didn't demand those things. 

(Husayn Al-Kurdi is a widely published writer, speaker and video producer. He is 
currently chief editor of the Portland Free Press, president of News International and 
Senior Editor for News International Press Service, and executive director of the Ace 
R. Hayes Memorial Foundation. Al-Kurdi is active in the Kurdish national liberation 
movement and in anti-Imperialist causes generally. He considers his focus to be "the 
liberation of the oppressed".)


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to