Month: September, 2012
COSATU came back to its family
worker | September 25, 2012 | 8:27 pm | Action | Comments closed

Johannesburg, South Africa, September 19th, 2012

At the 11th National Congress of COSATU that took place in Johannesburg, South Africa on 17-20th September 2012, during a robust debate for the WFTU and the ITUC, the working class and the International class-oriented trade union movement achieved a great victory that shifted the international trade union arena.

The delegates decided that COSATU shall affiliate with the WFTU.

The debate was vivid and substantial with ideological and trade union arguments.

Before the resolution the delegates were addressed by two speeches delivered by the General Secretary of WFTU, comrade George Mavrikos and the General Secretary of ITUC, Mrs Sharan Burrow.

Great militant South African trade unionists, cadres of the heroic South African Communist Party (SACP) decisively supported the need for COSATU to become a member of WFTU and join its class-oriented brothers and sisters in the whole world.

The WFTU salutes this decision, thanks the delegates and all the militants that struggled these last seven years to prepare the momentum for this important resolution.

With this resolution, which is a first positive step, COSATU comes back to its family, to its big family that struggles against the capitalist exploitation and the imperialist barbarity. From today our struggles, the struggles of the international class-oriented movement will be stronger.

The Secretariat

TEL. (+30) 2109214417, (+30) 2109236700, FAX (+30) 210 9214517  E-MAILS : ,

Reactionaries try to impose Oct. 7 a Venezuelan dictatorship like they tried April 11, 2003
worker | September 25, 2012 | 8:50 am | Action | Comments closed

By Arthur Shaw

The presidential election in Venezuela will take place Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012. The election pits President Hugo Chavez for re-election against the reactionary Henrique Capriles as the challenger.

Almost all of the polls show that Chavez will win by at least a double-digit margin. Chavez has maintain a double digit lead in polls conducted by 15 established polling firms — some liberal firms and others reactionary firms — for at least six months. Some of the 15 firms have been in business for over 30 years.

Capriles has three polling firms producing good numbers for him. Only one of the three firms is considered established and reputable. The other two firms appeared from nowhere during 2012.

If Capriles loses as the vast majority of the polls predict, reactionaries led by Capriles are plotting to incite insurrection, sabotage, and arson, while falsely claiming Chavez rigged the election and it was Capriles who actually won.

People close to the reactionary campaign of Capriles have boasted for months that there will be an insurrection in Venezuela if Capriles loses. Most who heard and read about these reactionary and treacherous claims believed that the bourgeois-led opposition backing Capriles would never carry out the plot against the government and the Constitution.

This plot and the carrying out of this plot are both treason.

Now, it looks like the reactionaries behind Capriles really intend to commit treason on Oct. 7, the election day.

What convinced a lot of people that Capriles and his crackpot reactionaries are for real about the proposed insurrection was a meeting that took place Sept. 12, 2012, at the Caracas home of Richard Mardo, a prominent opposition politician. Many top leaders of the bourgeois-led opposition and the bourgeois media in Venezuela were present, as well as some key people in and around the Capriles’ campaign. Capriles himself was not there.


Also in attendance were diplomatic representatives of five states:

The diplomats were:

Paolo Serpi, the ambassador of Italy to Venezuela

Antonio Perez-Hernandez, the ambassador of Spain to Venezuela

Luiz Raygada Souza-Ferriera, the ambassador of Peru to Venezuela

James Derham, Charge d’ affairs of the USA to Venezuela

Pietro Parolin, Papal Nuncio to Venezuela

At least, a quarter of the opposition politicians in attendance, fearing the possibility of long prison terms for insurrection and treason, promptly leaked the news about the meeting to the Venezuelan government.

At the Sept. 12 meeting, Richard Mardo, the host of the gathering, said he doesn’t trust the National Electoral Council which administers elections in Venezuela. Using currently unpublished opinion polls and polls that, in the future, will be conducted on Oct. 7, Mardo said he “knows” that Capriles will win of Oct. 7 by a small margin, but the Electoral Council will doctor the results so it will look like Chavez won by a big margin. According to Mardo and others in attendance who agreed with Mardo, there are armed civilian groups ready to fight both the security forces of the Venezuelan government and Chavez’ civilian followers.

Although Mardo and his vocal accomplices didn’t mention the insurrectionary roles of reactionary local police officers serving under opposition mayors and US mercenaries exported to Venezuela by the imperialist regime in Washington, it is likely that these local police officers and US mercenaries have been assigned major counter-revolutionary roles.

The Venezuelan Government has already captured one of the US mercenaries.

James Derham, presumed to be CIA case officer because insurrections are CIA turf and because a mere charge d’ affairs is not supposed to represent a state where diplomatic attendance is mostly at the ambassadorial level. Derham represented the bourgeois regime in Washington which for decades has been obsessive about dropping bombs and shooting missiles at people.This imperialist regime’s most insane and bestial attack is called “shock and awe” in which the US imperialists in March 2003 dropped 5000 bombs and missiles on cities, towns, and villages of Iraq in only 48 hours. It was later discovered that the Washington regime’s accusations against Iraq were lies. About 36,000 people in Iraq were slaughtered in 48 hours, a colossal violation of human rights. The purpose of Derham’s presence the Sept. 12 meeting in Caracas was to intimidate the democratic government of Venezuela into submitting to Washington’s demands which will be delivered through the bourgeois-led opposition in Venezuela on or soon after Oct. 7, election day.

Most of the people who snitched said the Spanish and Italian ambassadors looked incredulous as they sat in the Sept. 12 meeting at Mardo’s home. Evidently the Spanish and Italian ambassadors couldn’t believe the crackpots (including US charge d’ affairs) who spoke at the meeting. Spain and Italy are two big capitalist countries in extreme financial distress and they are therefore desperate for any kind of assistance from US imperialists. The bourgeois regimes in Spain and Italy have recently been helpful to US imperialists, assisting in attacks on Arab countries in the Middle East. Now, the US imperialists want Spain and Italy’s help in Latin America.

It’s possible that the Venezuelan intelligence may have urged the Peruvian ambassador to attend the meeting.

One would think that the Papal Nuncio would have better political and diplomatic taste than to attend a meeting in which participants brazenly discussed insurrection and treason in a country to which the Nuncio — an expert on divne beings — is accredited. Perhaps the Holy See also needs a cash handout from US imperialists.


The state in Venezuela is still a bourgeois regime. But state power is passing from the bourgeoisie to the working class. Less than 40% of state power has so far passed to working class. The content of the state rests on which class chiefly exercises power and for which class power is chiefly exercised.

To quell the proposed insurrection with ease, the state should chiefly exercise power in favor of the working class, even though it not yet the working class that chiefly exercises power.

The key thing is to protect the working class and poor communities of Caracas from the violence of the reactionaries. It also makes sense to protect downtown or parts of the central city from the insane reactionaries.

On Oct. 7, the State should deploy its massive forces, increased to something like 200,000 troops, so that the major fighting takes place in rich or, at least, affluent communities of Caracas.

It is unlikely that the cowardly crackpots of the reactionary movement will use combat against armed revolutionary forces as a major tactic. It’s more likely that the crackpots will resort to sabotage, arson and random murder of civilians.

So, the State can push the reactionary crackpots where they will be blowing up and burning down rich communities which, after all, more or less support the crackpots.

Given this predicament, the crackpots may decide to forego their sabotage and arson.

The same strategy can be used in other cities.

In other words, force the unworthy rich and affluent residents to evacuate to the working class and poor communities where the rich and affluent will find not only safety but also
shelter and victuals until crackpots give up the rampage.

Fomer US Pres. Jimmy Carter, the head of the Carter Center in Atlanta which monitors elections all over the world and has observed to date over 90 elections — including two elections in Venezuela — said Friday Sept. 21, 2012, that “Venezuela has the best electoral system in the world.”

What is the WFTU?
worker | September 19, 2012 | 8:05 pm | Action | Comments closed

• The World Federation of Trade Unions was founded in Paris on October 3, 1945. It is the oldest international trade union organization and founder of the International Labour Organization (ILO)

• It follows the line of the class-oriented trade union movement and it struggles against capitalism and imperialism for a society without exploitation of man by man.

• Currently it has 80 million members in 120 countries. Its structure, its organization, its leadership consists of: Ö World Trade Union Congress ÖPresidential Council ÖSecretariat.

• From 1945 until 1953 it was based in Paris, France.

In 1953-1956 the headquarters were in Vienna, Austria.

In 1956-2005 the headquarters were in Prague, Czechoslovakia.

From January 2006 until today it is headquartered in Athens, Greece.

• It has a regional office in each continent and also a Trade Unions International (TUI) in all major sectors.

• Throughout its course so far, the WFTU played a main role in the struggles against apartheid, against racism, the struggle against colonialism, against the policy of the governments of U.S., NATO, Israel and its allies; against the barbarism of capitalism. It was at the forefront in the conquest of all labor and union rights.

Basic principles

• Democratic functioning – elections for all bodies at all levels.

• Internationalist orientation – International solidarity, internationalism.

• Struggle for peace and friendship between peoples – against imperialist wars.

• To defense the right of every people, every working class to decide for themselves about their present and future.

• The country’s natural resources belong to the people and workers in the country. The WFTU is opposed to privatization.

• Unity of the working class – Partnership with the poor peasants, the landless, the intellectuals.

• Involve young people, women and migrant workers in life, action and administration of trade unions.

• Priority to health and safety issues for workers, quality of life and the environment in general.

• Top priority inside transnational corporations and the organization of international coordination and working-class solidarity.

• To hit careerism, elitism, bureaucracy, the purchase of consciences – corruption.

• The right of all workers to public and free healthcare, education and social security. Continuous improvement of living standards, wages and pensions.

• The WFTU as a class-oriented trade union organization reinforces criticism, self-criticism and comradely emulation among leaders and members.

• It struggles for trade union and democratic freedoms. It is against state violence, authoritarianism and persecution of trade unionists. It is against the neo-fascism and racism.

• It organizes trade union seminars and training.

The WFTU has permanent representatives at the international organizations

United Nations: New York, UNESCO: Paris, FAO: Rome, International Labour Organization: Geneva. It struggles through these bodies, always defending the interests of workers and it highlights the monopoly that exists within these organizations.

Recently, the WFTU held the 16th World Trade Union Congress in Athens, attended by 828 delegates from 101 countries. 105 delegates took the floor and major decisions were voted on all current demands of workers.

The Conference elected the new 40-member Presidential Council by secret ballot.

You can also join forces with the big fighting family of the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Affiliates of WFTU can become the National Trade Union Confederations and the National Sectoral Trade Union Organizations.

WWAD? (What would Alfred do?) (If elected?)
worker | September 19, 2012 | 8:02 pm | Action | Comments closed

September 19, 2012 (Houston TX, USA) – My father, Alfred Molison Jr., is a candidate for Texas State Representative, District 131. My mother, G.C. Molison is a candidate for State Board of Education, District 6.

Dad is currently in the Houston Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital in the DeBakey wing tonight. He checked in late Monday evening, They gave mom his clothes to take home. The night before, dad had fallen outside their home and couldn’t get up until an ambulance came and medical people helped him into the house. He refused to go to the hospital until the next evening.

I asked him what he would like to say to the public. He said, “Vote for me. I’ll work to get the people what they need rather than what big business wants.” Dad also wished that everyone, not just veterans, had easy access to excellent healthcare like he receives at the VA. Many if not most Americans don’t have access to free medical care or medicines. Many people go bankrupt attempting to pay for medical care for themselves or loved ones.


What exactly is going on? Why is he being given an iv drip and being forced to stay overnight? What will his doctor tell us tomorrow?

Mom and I visited with dad for a couple of hours before I had to drive her back home and get back to my wife, who’s also sick. While we were at the VA hospital mom did most of the talking. Dad said a few good and clear headed things. He seems to be doing fine.

So why did one person, perhaps violating protocol, say Dad had three months to live? Why are they doing so many tests if he’s supposed to be released tomorrow?

Mom and Dad mentioned that during the great depression a few relatives got in the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and WPA (Works Progress Administration). Dad remembered that they did lots of skilled and unskilled work projects in and around New Orleans. Mom remembered how proud they were of Dave Weston, her cousin who served in the CCC and had a uniform.

Dad remembered that Huey P. Long built teaching hospitals throughout Louisiana, that treated all people, regardless of income. Charity Hospital in New Orleans was considered an excellent place of health care. It was also a place that paid a living wage to employees and was even an entry to the middle class for lots of people. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government offered the City of New Orleans money and support to rebuild Charity Hospital. The city (illegitimate) fathers refused the money and help.

Mom and dad both think that the government should provide more direct jobs as opposed to waiting for the wealthy and big corporations to trickle down all over us.

Contact: Campaign Manager
Alfred Molison III

An electoral-season note to my liberal friends
worker | September 18, 2012 | 9:15 pm | Action | Comments closed

By Zoltan Zigedy


Well into the silly season, the heat is turned up on the Left to fall in line and support the Democratic Party. On one hand, the independent Left is diminished by not being “in the game.” On the other hand, the Left is still excoriated for having been “in the game” with Nader during the Gore-Bush Presidential race of 2000.

Specious arguments pile on top of specious arguments for why the spurned progressive, liberal, and labor voter should reward those who have disregarded their interests and broken their campaign promises. The arguments come in every size and shape, but always from self-described “friends” and “committed leftists.” Oddly enough, they feel no compunction to explain why their past admonitions or their previous enthusiasms produced no real change in the political landscape when Democrats took power.

They smugly ask if independent-thinking leftists actually believe that there are no differences between the two parties. Only an idiot would respond defensively to this deceptive, distracting tact. Of course there are differences, just as there are differences between Pepsi and Coke. But the relevant question is: Are there any differences that matter, any differences that — in the dynamics of two-party governing– will effectively alter the plight of the majority of the US population for the better?

If the Democrats hold the Presidency, there is every reason to believe that they will do no more than they did when they had the rare dominance of all three governing branches. Indeed there is every reason to believe that Obama would relish compromising with the Republican agenda, an approach that he previously embraced even when he had no reason to do so.

On the other hand, should the Republicans gain the Presidency, the Democrats will, as they have in the past, show much more eagerness to demonstrate differences with Republicans and more vigorously attack Republican initiatives. They will offer a more leftward agenda since there is no danger of having to implement progressive policies. And they will embrace the Left insofar as it will mount the sharpest and most coherent attack on Republican policies, while doing so in a loud and demonstrative way.

A Democratic Party out of power is a belligerent, feisty party that will even spread some cash around to support left and progressive causes. Of course, that financial link secures a certain loyalty that perhaps explains the
enthusiasm shown for the Democrats by many of our progressive brothers and sisters in every election cycle.

For decades, we have been warned of the dangers wrought by Republican victories: an unfriendly supreme court, an attack on welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, war mongering and aggression, etc. Yet despite the handing of power back and forth for nearly forty years, the dangers have continued to deepen—the US has suffered a constant rightward drift since the middle of the Carter administration. Apparently, the “Vote Democratic” argument is only an argument about the pace of that drift.

But the greatest victims of the Democratic Party love-fest are truth and honesty. Take Paul Krugman, for example. His soap box in The New York Times has served to excoriate the Obama administration for doing far too little to bring the US economy back from the grip of crisis. On many occasions, he has warned of the dangers of closing the stimulus program and embracing austerity, policies that he acknowledges Obama has endorsed. Reviewers of his new book note the dominant theme of political inaction and the dangers that ensue.

Yet Krugman holds his nose and delivers a ringing endorsement of Obama’s economic policies in a recent column: “But is the mess really getting cleaned up [by the Administration]? The answer, I would argue, is yes… So, as I said, the odds are that barring major mistakes, the next four years will be much better than the past four years… So Bill Clinton basically had it right: For all the pain America has suffered on his watch, Barack Obama can fairly claim to have helped the country get through a very bad patch, from which it is starting to emerge.”

Following the lead of the old huckster, Bill Clinton, Krugman dutifully salutes the President with approval of the Administration’s economic program contrary to his often-voiced disparagement. Krugman gets kudos for loyalty to the Party, but shame for despoiling honesty. If the next four years “will be much better” under Obama’s stewardship, then why should we take Krugman’s constant dire warnings at all seriously?

Democratic partisans will cry foul. For them, criticizing Krugman’s waffling is another example of left “purity.” But truth and honesty do not allow for shadings or gradations. The people deserve better. And they want better, as opinion polls consistently show.

The corruption of politics in the US is neither an aberration nor an accident. Instead it is the logical evolution of a political system in the era of state-monopoly capitalism operating freely and without the counter force of a strong, independent working class movement. The process of that evolution is revealing.

Looking Back

It is easy to forget that not so long ago there were currents and trends in the Democratic Party that represented more than the authority of markets, the interests of corporations, and the enthusiastic approval of military adventure. That is not to say that the Democratic Party was not a bourgeois party, a party of capitalism. It is and always has been. But there was a time when the party’s course was disputed terrain; a variety of interests wrestled for its direction.

The Democratic Party’s defeat in the 1980 election was presaged by an enormous fund-raising advantage by the Republicans. The Republican Party as a whole raised $130.3 million in the 1979-80 period over the Democrats’ meager $23 million. Perhaps more than any other factor in the Reagan victory, this glaring inequity cast the mold for the future Democratic course. In addition, organized labor’s decline and the falling electoral participation of poor and working people spurred new rightist trends in the Party.

Going into the 1984 election, the Democratic Party found itself torn between three ideological currents. While all agreed that an answer to the successful extreme right victory in 1980 was critical, factions differed on how to respond. These differences were fought out in the primaries.

Walter Mondale represented old-school Cold War liberalism. While drifting to the right to accommodate Reaganism, Mondale claimed to uphold New Deal values, though without offering any new social programs. He drew support from the entrenched leadership of the New Deal coalition: labor, minorities and liberals.

A new trend emerged around the candidacy of Gary Hart. Appealing to the well-off middle strata that moved into the Democratic Party in large numbers after the Nixon debacle, Hart proposed a “third way” (prescient of the Blair/Clinton developments to come) between traditional liberalism and the Reagan/Thatcher rightist turn. Hart and his ilk saw themselves as social liberals and fiscal conservatives, combining lifestyle tolerance with corporate friendliness and market-based policies. This third way promised to retain the cultural veneer of liberalism while gutting its Keynesian, welfare-state directed policies that supported and bolstered the well-being of workers and the poor. A not inconsequential bonus was that business-friendly policies would draw greater campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy.

Some in the Party recognized the rightward drift of the old guard and viewed the launching of the new Reagan-lite model with alarm. Jesse Jackson, in a letter to former progressive flag-bearer, George McGovern, wrote: “Too many Democrats have gone along with Republicans on every Reagan policy.” In response, Jackson launched a national primary campaign to win the Democrats away from the right turn that he correctly anticipated. With a base in the long-neglected African-American community, Jackson reached out to labor and other progressive constituencies.

Despite deeply embedded racism and Democratic Party sabotage, Jackson waged an impressive campaign garnering almost 20% of the vote and winning 5 primaries, all without substantial funding and Party support.

Nonetheless, Mondale won the nomination and went on to lose overwhelmingly to Ronald Reagan.

Ignoring the strong showing of the progressive Left, the Democratic leadership moved forward with what The Nation magazine previously dubbed “Reaganism with a human face” (6-26-1982).

The new direction for the Democratic Party was sealed with the creation of a wide-ranging policy statement in August of 1986. Entitled “New Choices in a Changing America,” the slick, comprehensive document gave the imprimatur of the Party leadership to the path of economic conservatism, market-based policies, and limited government action. The Democratic leadership had heard the gospel of Reagan and found a way to call it their own. The answer to unemployment, poverty, and declining living standards was partnership with the private sector, rising worker productivity, and clearing the regulatory barriers to growth. While conceding that the working class and the poor had seen their living standards devastated since 1970 (including six years of Reaganism), the Democrats chose to march hand-in-hand with the Reaganauts.

Writing in September of 1986 (People’s Daily World), Si Gerson, the Communist Party’s long respected and experienced electoral expert, wrote:

Certain right-wing factions, supported largely by big money people, are particularly unhappy about the results [progressive wins in Senatorial primaries] and, above all, by the rising popular movement for peace and the increasing militancy of labor and its allies… They want the Democratic Party leadership’s rightward drift to be set in concrete… They have… codified it in a 71-page statement released last week by the Democratic Policy Commission. Entitled “New Choices in a Changing America,” the statement on basic questions simply parrots Reagan—even on points he has begun to mute somewhat… The underlying theory of the document is that the country has gone to the right and if the Democratic Party is to win the Senate in 1986 and the White House in 1988 it too must go to the right.
Gerson was correct to recognize this effort by the Democratic Party leadership to turn their party into a carbon-copy of Reagan’s party. He recalled a previous warning by a venerated figure among Democrats:

Perhaps the clearest answer to this manifesto was delivered months ago by someone who can hardly be called a left-wing Democrat. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the historian who was a fixture in the Roosevelt New Deal, branded as “Reaganite fellow-travelers” those who say “me-too” to Reagan policies. Writing in the New York Times of July 6, Schlesinger said: “Today me-tooism is an infection within the Democratic Party. It finds expression in quasi-Reaganite formations like the Democratic Leadership Council and the Coalition for a Democratic Majority… One can only add that for the Democrats’ me-tooism is a recipe for disaster,”

Unfortunately, ”Me-tooism,” the strategy of shadowing the Republican Party and maintaining a position ever-so-slightly closer to the center, won the day and remains the approach of Democratic Party leaders to this day.

Notably, the Left mounted a noble effort in 1988, again behind the primary candidacy of Jesse Jackson. The campaign charged ahead, winning primaries and caucuses and surprising the old guard. But when the campaign began to draw significant and militant labor support, a stealth campaign of slander and racial fear diminished the outcome. Nonetheless, Jackson and the Left captured nearly seven million votes.

Like the quixotic Progressive Party campaign of 1948, the Jackson campaign was smothered by the effort of a Democratic Party resolute in following a path blazed by the extreme right and scandalizing the opposition with red- and race-baiting. Through fear and intimidation, Democratic leaders denied the emergence of a viable left bloc, a counter force to the domination of monopoly capital.


With the victory of corporate Democrats—fiscally conservative, socially liberal—the problem of fund-raising has been solved. In the 2008 election, corporate Democrats actually raised more than their corporate Republican counterparts. In this election cycle, they may well fall behind the Republicans. But they will never know again the vast inequity of 1980. Their fealty to monopoly capital ensures some measure of campaign-fund parity.

At the same time, the dominance of corporate Democrats and the Democratic Party leadership’s comfort with this relationship, denies any insurgency within the Party, not that rebellion would be countenanced in any case. Those who continue to argue for “inside/outside” strategies will continue to find themselves outside—neither “in the game” nor with a coherent political strategy.

The only viable force capable of changing this regular exercise in futility is the labor movement or some subset of it. Organized labor has the resources and apparatus to launch a new, independent political vehicle that would neither be beholden to corporate power nor restrained by false friends. Necessarily, labor must stop throwing these resources at the feet of the Democratic Party; labor leaders must reject their current vassalage to Democratic Party officials. It’s a tough challenge to work for these changes, but one far more worthy than hustling for political swindlers.

In the mean time, don’t bother asking, I’m enthusiastically voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. She was arrested recently trying to stop home foreclosures in Philadelphia. And your candidate?

Zoltan Zigedy

Three phony obstacles face the Hugo Chavez campaign
worker | September 9, 2012 | 6:42 pm | Action | Comments closed

By Arthur Shaw

A typical bourgeois propagandist or, in other words, a reporter working for the bourgeois media expresses the standard reactionary line on the presidential race between Hugo Chavez and Henrique Capriles set for Oct. 7 as election day.

“In this last month of campaign, the red people [Hugo Chavez’ campaign] encounter three big obstacles that are going to make their life impossible. The first obstacle is the ghost of a young Hugo Chávez of previous elections who undoubtedly led his revolutionary project. The second one is his own administration which is famous by its corruption, inefficiency, deterioration, outrage and persecution. The last obstacle is the opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski who is making an impeccable campaign by visiting 160 villages in less than 50 days so far,” a capitalist journalist writes.

So — according to the lying cappie [capitalist] press — the Chavez’ campaign encounters three big obstacles.

1. A ghost

2. An infamous administration

3. Capriles impeccable campaign

As for the first obstacle, the need of the cappie [capitalist] media to conjure a “ghost” shows the degree of desperation this media feels. Even more striking is that this media summons the ghost of its opponent — Hugo Chavez — for assistance in the reactionary campaign.

As for the second obstacle, the most famous and most important part of the Chavez Administration are the “Missions” — a group of social programs in health care, education, housing, nutrition, employment, etc that have been very successful. Indeed, the Missions are been so successful that the Capriles campaign promises to keep the Missions even if Capriles wins. So, if the Missions are infamous for “corruption, inefficiency, deterioration, outrage and persecution,” why would Capriles and his reactionaries want to keep the Missions which were introduced and developed administratively by Hugo Chavez?

As for the third obstacle — that is, Capriles “impeccable campaign,” why has this “impeccable campaign” stayed, in double-digits, behind Chavez in opinion polls conducted by almost all reactionary as well as liberal pollsters from March to August of this year? With almost all of the twelve pollsters that covered the Venezuelan presidential race from March to August, the Chavez’ lead over Capriles hasn’t fallen below 10 points.

The alleged Capriles “impeccable campaign” is counting on the issuance of series of rigged polls during the last month of the campaign by fraudulent, fly-by-night, and obscure “pollsterrs” to negate the status of a “mathematically irreversibly” lead enjoyed by Chavez.

Not even the lying cappie press can endorse such a transparent fraud by Capriles and his US imperialist backers.

Does Lenin’s Imperialism Need a Makeover?
worker | September 9, 2012 | 6:39 pm | Action | Comments closed

– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at: