Notes from Organization Of American States Combined Reports on Communist Subversion

Notes from Organization Of American States Combined Reports on Communist Subversion

 

Link to Original Document: Internet Archive

Key Quotes:

Full Notes

 

Since the great majority of the citizens of the Americas believe in the ideals of national independence and individual liberty, and reject intervention and dictatorship, the Communists can strengthen themselves, and even come into power, only through a program of deceit that assumes many and varied forms. Only thus can Communist subversion triumph.

Only by fraud and deception can the Communists hope to gain even momentary acceptance by the peoples of the Americas.

They camouflage their true objectives by supporting all popular causes and posing as the champions of human freedom and dignity. Their immediate goal is to promote and sustain disorder; to impede progress by frustrating land and social reforms, and by sabotaging programs for economic development like the Alliance for Progress and efforts toward an effective Latin-American “common market.” In short, to discredit and debilitate any scheme that shows promise of
success.

As pointed out by the Consultative Committee, the Communist assault in the Western Hemisphere manifests itself in five major ways: (a) Subversive activities (agitation, strikes, guerrilla warfare, etc.), which in some countries have reached the point of open
insurrection;
(6) Acts of sabotage and sympathetic terrorism, carried out by small, but perfectly trained and equipped groups, following pre-established plans and intended to create a climate conducive to general insurrection
(c) Infiltration into governmental spheres, including the armed forces, which endangers institutional stability itself;
(d) Penetration into information agencies and media (press, radio, and television) with personnel especially trained in Communist propaganda; and
(e) Growing participation in the educational field, particularly at the university level, seeking, among other things, to rapprochement workers, not for the purposes of trade union improvement but only to develop their own subversive activities.
It bears repeating that the Communists do not necessarily plan to succeed next week, although they would like to, but they are dedicated to constant, sustained subversion over “any” number of years.

The reports which follow, prepared by the Organization of American States, by Latin Americans themselves, expose the international Communist movement for what it really is: a movement based on fraud and deceit, on violence and terror—a movement which, while it claims to be revolutionary and progressive, is the embodiment of .everything reactionary and retrogressive.

the purpose of this offensive is “the destruction of democratic institutions and the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships at the service of extracontinental powers.” Here the incongruity lies in the fact that citizens of free countries of this hemisphere tolerate, or are inclined to tolerate and support, known Communists.

With respect to the magnitude of the Communist danger, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs declared that Communist subversion constitutes “one of the most subtle and dangerous forms of intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.” Nevertheless, prominent persons in the hemisphere underestimate, or persist in underestimating, the Communist danger, maintaining that it is easy to control since the number of Communists in the hemisphere is still small. *

a. Evolution of the direction of the international Communist Movement
To provide a better understanding of the objectives pursued by international communism and of its methods and modes of action, it is important to make a synthesis of the evolution that has occurred in the direction of the movement.
The forms and tactics employed have been many and varied, but it is interesting to point out that communism inexorably adheres to four fundamental principles: maintenance of the objective, economy of forces, sustained action, and the firm will to win.

In order to create more confusion in the thinking of the free world, international communism falsely preaches a policy of “peaceful coexistence,” just as it deceitfully distorts the traditional concepts of peace and democracy, or exploits the just aspirations of slowly developing nations for welfare and progress, inflaming their equally just nationalist, anti-colonialist, and anti-imperialist sentiments.

the structure of the democratic countries taken as a whole is not monolithic, in the same sense as that of the Communist world, whose unity of command has so far shown no rifts. Irrespective of whether the ideological dispute between the principal members of the Communist world is fictitious or real, the important thing is that any such dispute does not substantially affect the tactic of deceiving and upsetting the free world.

B. Brief References to the World Situation of Communism

One characteristic deception is the incorporation of Communists in genuine national movements for political, social, economic, and cultural reform, in order eventually to take control of them. Thesis a Communist tactic designed to seduce and win over most, if not all, of public opinion. Thus, it tries to overcome any popular resistance to the systematic diversion of those national movements toward the international Communist line dictated from abroad.

The psychological tactic of deceit—applied in the areas of just aspirations for national independence, self-determination, democracy, economic progress, cultural improvement, and social justice—is what in some cases in Asia, Africa, [and America has deformed legitimate popular movements in respect to electoral policies, differences, and revolutionary or trade-union struggles. This is exactly what happened in Cuba in the just and heroic phase of the revolution, and what is happening or can happen in other countries of America.

Groups, classes, regions, and nations— conscious or unconscious of the aforementioned psychological attitude, more sentimental than rational, that takes hold in the disorderly and shapeless popular mind—put forth claims that international communism always tries to cement and coordinate according to specific strategic methods in support of its policy of world supremacy, which is aimed toward the prior destruction of all the postulates of democracy.

the policy of democratic revolution, a policy of constructive progress instead of the destruction of values, has to travel a rougher road. This is due to the fact that the feelings of rebellion among the despairing and discouraged sectors of the countries’ populations are frequently based on the prevailing indifference to national problems and on a lack of faith in the political, social, and economic values of Western civilization.

International communism takes advantage of this state of mind, which is widespread in Latin America, and also in certain sectors of the United States, to develop its psychological campaign. It seeks to infiltrate and seize control of political parties by making use of demagogic opportunism; of labor groups by taking advantage of the absence of trade-union traditions; of groups of rural workers by making false promises; and of student groups by taking advantage of the idealism and enthusiasm characteristic of youth.

C. Incidence of the International Communist Movement in THE American Hemisphere

Always preserving its centralized direction, the international Communist movement plots its strategy and its tactics in accordance with the resolutions approved at the numerous congresses, meetings, and conferences of the Communist Party and its related bodies.

At its second congress (1920), the Third International established 21 conditions for affiliation of the Communist Parties of the entire world, including those in the Americas, thereby establishing their international character. According to the second of these conditions

Every organization desiring to join the Communist International shall be bound systematically and regularly to remove from all the responsible posts in the labor movement (party organization, editorship, labor unions, parliamentary factions, cooperatives, municipalities, etc.) all reformists and followers of the center and to have them replaced by Communists. * * *

The third condition stated that:
The class struggle in almost every country of Europe and America is entering the phase of civil war. Under such conditions the Communists can have no. confidence in bourgeois laws. They should create everywhere a parallel illegal apparatus, which at the decisive moment should be of assistance to the party to do its duty toward the revolution. In every country where, in consequence of martial law or of other exceptional laws, the Communists are unable to carry on their work legally, a combination of legal and illegal work is absolutely necessary.

And in the seventh condition it was stated that Parties desirous of joining the Communist International must recognize the necessity of a complete and absolute rupture with reformism and the policy of the “centrists,” and must advocate this rupture amongst the widest circles of the party membership without which condition a consistent Communist policy is impossible. The Communist International demands unconditionally and peremptorily that such rupture be brought about with the least possible delay.

The Seventh Congress of the Third International (1935), definitively establishing the thesis of Dimitrov, based on the intensive use of intellectuals, led to the creation of popular fronts to participate in the various kinds of electoral battles in the various countries.^ In its application to Latin America this thesis of the popular front was most successful in the labor groups.

when the integration of the aforementioned popular fronts was consolidated under the inspiration and directives of international communism, Moscow created front or facade organizations * and installed the Cominform as the coordination and information office •of the Communist Parties as well as an instrument of propaganda and reinforcement in the so-called cold war.

Since then the popular fronts and the local affiliates of the inter- national front organizations have manifested themselves through Communist participation in the electoral campaigns in democratic countries; in opposition groups; in countries where dictatorships exist in popular movements on behalf of various causes, and revolutionary movements that have been chiefly anti-imperialist in purpose; in infiltration in labor unions, particularly with a view to promoting strikes; in utilization and winning over of student and young people’s groups, especially through the exploitation of nationalistic ideas; in systematic propaganda about the U.S.S.R. by all possible means, designed principally to awaken enthusiasm for international communism and stir up hatred for the democratic system; and in false campaigns in favor of free trade and pacifism.

1. The meeting of South American Communist Parties, convened
by the Cominform and held in Montevideo in 1950: Its objective was to examine the situation in the area concerned, for the purpose of implementing the appropriate strategy and coordinating the struggles in the regional areas involved.

Its declared purposes were to accelerate the gradual destruction of the forces of capitalism, democratic systems, and private enterprise, and to weaken and impair the standing of international capitalism and the enemies of the U.S.S.R.

Taking into account the strategic position of the Caribbean area, in 1952 Moscow worked out a plan for Communist operations in that area. The features of this plan were as follows:
(a) Its realistic approach, since it took advantage of all conditions that would be favorable to its activities, such as the critical situation of the Latin American economy in the postwar period; economic, social, and cultural underdevelopment; class and racial differences; autocratic governemnts; the continued existence of foreign colonies; and, in general, all of the factors that foster latent discontent among the masses.

(b) Its prudence in transforming the Communist Parties into disguised instruments of what is really Red action, by creating organizations and movements that apparently have no connection with Communist leadership (fronts for anti-imperialism, anti- colonialism, national liberation, peace, etc.)

(c) Its flexibility in utilizing a great variety of methods involving action that is sometimes “peaceful” and other times revolutionary, and ceaseless psychological action.

The results of these resolutions in the American Hemisphere have been as follows: the appointment of a greater number of Latin American representatives in international front organizations; meetings of the Communist Parties for the purpose of “exchanging experiences” and “forming new cadres”; change in operational tactics to avoid committing the Communist Parties to activities that are opposed to peaceful coexistence, and instead, carrying out revolutionary operations through agents who have infiltrated into non- Communist organizations; and intensification of psychological action through a cultural and artistic offensive among the higher social classes.

D. Conclusions

4. In the leadership of the American Communist Parties, the tactic presently employed is that of keeping the principal leaders concealed and using as a front person whose notoriety as Communists lessens their effectiveness. This tactic enables them to infiltrate agents into key positions in the political, economic, and social organizations of the American countries. This is an element of grave danger to the independence and democratic systems of these nations.

5. Since 1945 international communism has made very wide use of “frontism,” based on front (or facade) organizations to promote action that will favor its aims. This action tends chiefly toward the creation of “fronts” that may cover various fields, such as “peace front,” “labor front,” or “student front,” their outstanding characteristic being that they are regarded as non-Communist.

6. Communism exploits the logical desire of the peoples to seek solutions for their problems—problems that are evident and that, furthermore, stand in urgent need of solution. Through the tactics of deceit, communism takes advantage of social realities so that when the moment arrives in which governments are approaching solutions in the national interest, it creates obstacles to any measures which, precisely because they are suitable, would deprive it of its battle cry.

7. Communism adapts to the environment and creates conflicts or intensifies existing situations, seeking party members and “fellow travelers” (these latter being more numerous, influential, and listened to than the declared Communists).

8. Communism employs various strategies and trickeries, it uses legal and illegal procedures; it remains silent and conceals the truth; it acts alone, or jointly with any ally who may help achieve its purpose. Its final objective is to dominate the world.

9. Communist strategy has found a new route of approach, taking advantage of the peoples’ yearning for independence and desire for peace, and of neutralism and the existence of neutralist blocs, whether or not these are developed under the direction of international communism, in order to attempt to reduce the potential of the free world.

 

III. DECEIT—BASIC TO COMMUNIST OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
A. Deceit in Communist Objectives

1. THE GREAT DECEIT OF COMMUNISM

The Communists’ greatest deceit is in the way they mask their true objectives.

National Communist Parties in our hemisphere publicly profess ideals that are accepted by most people. Their statements constantly affirm Communist intentions to achieve power through peaceful means, to provide land to the peasants and homes for the workers, and to establish a government by the people.

2. COMMUNIST OBJECTIVE: TRIUMPH THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
After the 1960 meeting of 81 Communist and Labor Parties of the world in Moscow, Birushchev declared, on January 6, 1961:
The unity of the ranks of every Communist Party and the unity of all Communist Parties constitutes the united international Communist movement directed at the achievement of our common goal: the triumph of communism throughout the world.

In referring to the same meeting, M. A. Suslov, a member of the Presidium of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.K., declared on January 18, 1961:
After this historic meeting, the ways of the international Communist movement became still clearer, the means of our common struggle still more reliable and true, our ranks still closer and our great goal—communism—still nearer.
Thus, Khrushchev and Suslov with blatant clarity affirmed that communism is aggressive. In so doing they have repeated the theme proclaimed by Communist leaders since the 1917 October revolution and which as long ago as 1922 Stalin himself had defined in unmistakable terms as “the amalgamation of the toilers of the whole world into a single world Socialist Soviet Republic.”

3. DOMINATION OF THE SOVIET COMMUNIST PARTY OVER COMMUNIST PARTIES IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

As has been noted, the major meetings of the world Communist movement since 1917 have been held in Moscow and have been staged and dominated by the Communist Party of the U.S.S.E.

The Second Congress of the Third Communist International, in the 16th of its 21 conditions, provided that the decisions of the Communist International would be binding on all parties belonging to it. This condition has meant in practice that every Communist Party must unreservedly support the U.S.S.R. The clearest verification of such support is to be found in the radical shifts that Communist Parties have had to make in the course of the years to adjust to the change m Soviet foreign policy. These readjustments have taken place irrespective of whether the world Communist movement called itself the Comintern, the Cominform or, as at present, had no formal name. In this way, the conduct of the Communists has shown the falseness of the argument that the national Communist Parties are autonomous, as well as of the idea that they adhere to the principles of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. only because, like the Marxist-Leninists

4. THE TRIUMPH OF COMMUNISM IS FATAL TO NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.

the national government and exercise power with Soviet military aid. In no country have the Communists, once they have gained power, permitted demonstrations of opposition to Soviet-directed policy, or any other form of national independence. The countries dominated by the Communists have transformed their political, economic, and social institutions to adjust them to the Soviet model.

B. Deceit in Communist Methods
1. Communists’ need for deceit
Always operating as a subversive minority in free nations, and pursuing basic objectives incompatible with national independence, the Communists try to capture the strength of their fellow citizens through wide use of deceit.

The Communist Parties of the world acknowledged no ethical restraints on their methods. Thus, in 1920 Lenin declared:

At the basis of Communist morality lies the struggle for the consolidation and consummation of communism. That also is the basis of Communist training, education, and tuition.

statements made by Matyas Kakosi, Deputy Premier of Hungary in 1952 and by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1948, both emphasize that the Communists deliberately deferred statements of their final aims during their struggle to obtain power.

A few days later, on December 20, 1961, Castro made it perfectly clear that his reasons for having deceived the Cuban people were essentially the same as the reasons for which Czech Communists and Hungarian Communists had deceived the Czech and Hungarian peoples. Castro told the National Congress of the Schools of Revolutionary Instruction:
Of course, if we stood on Turquino Peak at the time when we were “cuatro gatos,” and said, we are Marxist-Leninists—from the top of Turquino Peak we might possibly have been unable to descend to the plain below.
Communist subversive activities range from the narrowly covert (such as espionage), to hidden participation in legal organizations (such as labor unions), _ to open activity as an avowed Communist Party. All these activities are characterized by deceit in varying degree as to their ultimate objective—or as to their methods, or both. Therefore, they are not always easy to identify.

3. USE OF WORDS
(a) Nationalism

The Communists recognize that the love of national independence
is a powerful political force and they seek to identify themselves with it. They permit, in the areas under their domination, expressions of “national feelings,” in limited forms, as in the use of national costumes, songs, and languages.

(6) “Peaceful coexistence”

peaceful coexistence” is merely a modern name for the constant Communist attack against free nations, in which they employ all means short of general war.

(c) Democracy

As shown in the ideas quoted, Khrushchev identifies democracy with dictatorship; and Castro shows how this works—by selection instead of election, selection by the Communist Party instead of election by the people. Democratic centralism thus practiced is by no means democratic, but it certainly is centralized. It is the Communists’ disguise for Communist dictatorship.

(d) Dictatorship
Lenin repeatedly endorsed dictatorship.

The Communists have no quarrel with dictatorship, provided they can control it through the Communist Party.
True to the Communist tactics of deceit, and well aware of the Western Hemisphere’s aversion to dictatorship, Castro declared in a speech made on April 22, 1959, in Central Park, New York City, that his revolution practiced the democratic principles of “humanism,” which meant “neither dictatorships of men, nor dictatorships of castes, nor oligarchy of classes: government of the people without dictatorships and without oligarchy.

4. USE OF PEOPLE
(a) Workers
The Communists frequently make use of labor organizations and
foment strikes, not to improve the workers’ welfare but to achieve Communist domination over the workers’ organizations.

(6) Students
The Communists make special efforts to use students, cynically
trying to exploit their vitality, idealism, and capacity for leadership. In most student organizations the independent students far outnumber the Communists and have succeeded in maintaining control. But in some organizations the Communist minorities have taken advantage of divisions and apathy on the part of the majority to acquire positions from which they can dominate them.
One of the favorite tactics of the Communist Party is to use students to organize demonstrations on behalf of persons or positions that suit Moscow’s objectives. The Communists call these demonstrations spontaneous. But everyone sees that they use the same slogans, occur at the same time in different countries, and generally follow shortly after an exhortation in Pravda.

(c) The so-called reactionaries
The Communists not only use leaders of students’ and workers’
groups but also collaborate with those whom they publicly call reactionaries.

5. COMMUNIST USE OF PROMISES
(a) Prosperity
The Communists try to extend their power by making false promises. They tout their economic system as the only truly scientific and efficient system capable of assuring material prosperity, personal security, and social equality to the common man.

The Communists promise a better life for the common man but the record shows that they have not been able to produce it. They strip the people of their civil liberties and rights under the pretext that the temporary sacrifice of personal freedom is essential to the achievement of the common welfare. They are unable to establish social equality because their system of totalitarian control makes it imperative that the vast state bureaucracy become a privileged oligarchy. They have failed to achieve material prosperity for the masses of the people because the insatiably power-hungry apparatus of the state places military and industrial requirements ahead of the needs of the individual.

(b) Land
Perhaps the most tragic deceit practiced by the Communists is the
false promise they make in response to man’s natural desire to own his own land. The Communists promise that their revolution will make this hope come true.

In the Communist system prevailing in Cuba a “people’s farm” means the same thing as what Communists in other countries call a sovjos, that is, that the land does not belong to the man who works it.
However, that may be, the important fact is that the Communists seek by every means to turn aside the rural workers from the constructive plans that are being prepared or carried out through democratic channels in the campaign for an equitable agrarian reform, in order to involve them in a hateful class conflict. Thus, they place agrarian reform at the service of international Communist agitation instead of placing at the service of the genuine interests of rural workers, as true democrats do, the sufficient technicians and resources for an effective rational exploitation of the land for the benefit of man.

6. COMMUNIST USE OF VIOLENCE
Obviously, violence plays an important role among Communist tactics and is by no means regarded by the Communists as inconsistent with peaceful coexistence.

The Venezuelan Communists have requested aid from abroad against the Government of Venezuela. OnApril10,1962, the official organ of the Communist Party of the United States, the Daily Worker, published a letter from the Secretary for International Relations of the Communist Party of Venezuela, requesting the fraternal support of the Communist and Workers’ Parties against “the policy of the Betancourt-Copei government of servile betrayal in favor of imperialism. * * *” There is no reason why the Venezuelan Communists should have any scruples about asking the U.S. Communists for help, since both are foreign agents of the same boss.

7. COMMUNIST OPPOSITION TO CONSTRTTCTIVE REFORMS
Jealously attempting to monopolize for themselves all credit for any socially constructive measures, the Communists aggressively practice a “dog-in-the-manger” policy regarding any constructive measures proposed by others.

C. Conclusions
The Communist technique of deceit uses and abuses words and robs them of their legitimate meaning, replacing it with a Marxist-Leninist interpretation. The seduction which such words exercise over the popular mind furthers the purposes of Communist aggression against the Western World.

Democracy must itself not play the Communist game of misuse of words. In this respect, it should avoid applying the epithet “Communist” to persons who, with good intentions and not influenced by disruptive ideas, ask for reforms that are necessary or oppose procedures that, to serve personal interests, run counter to the interests of the community.

The Committee is convinced that the peoples of America, when they know the objectives, methods, and procedures of communism as these are exposed to the light of the truth, cannot tolerate known Communists, accept the existence of a national Communist Party, or much less allow communism to achieve its goal of world domination.

IV. REPLY OF DEMOCEATIC SOCIETY
Throughout the course of this work various aspects of the inter- national Communist movement were exposed and analyzed, including its development and the deceitfulness of its purposes and methods. Men in general, and particularly those who endure its tensions, will have asked themselves to what its development is due, in view of its destructive purpose and the falsity of its acts.
The Committee is firmly convinced that the Communist advance is due mainly to the lack of information regarding its true aims; to the fact that it takes possession of legitimate aspirations of the people, distorting these to its benefit, as has been said; and to the lack of faith in the institutions and leaders of democracy on the part of certain discouraged sectors.

the concept of caste prevailing in the selection of leaders of the Communist movement, which thus becomes autocratic and oligarchic, is quite well known. This excludes every possibility that it would give acceptance to the free play of democratic institutions that characterizes our society, in which every man may succeed in acquiring significance and representation in line with his aptitudes and qualifications. It is for this reason that communism considers our democratic electoral systems decadent and replaces them with the preeminence of a single despotic and cruel party.

The deeply human basis on which the development of culture and science in the democratic countries rests permits the purest and freest creations of the mind and spirit. Must this be changed because subjugation to the state and to the party, the sole sources capable of creations such as those advocated by communism, is better?

Finally, it should be pointed out that the committee is fully aware of the negative effect which two well-known factors have, or can have, on efforts to form a united front against communism in various countries. These factors are: what has become known as “McCarthy- ism,” that is, a deformation of the action that was advocated by the late Senator Joseph McCarthy of the United States; and the existence of persons and organizations who make a “business” of anti-Communist sentiment and action. Both elements, working at the official and the private level, and conscious or not of the damage they are doing, follow a hard line of action against persons, organizations, or governments, accusing them indiscriminately of being Communist. Besides frequently causing unjust injury to the persons, organizations, and governments accused, this line of action provides free propaganda for communism and, what is still more serious, detracts from the solution of the real problems facing the people.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Modern democratic society has, without ceasing, adopted systems of life in order that its peoples might enjoy greater well-being, receiving the benefits of technology while developing greater and greater respect for human rights and fundamental liberties. In this democratic revolution all sectors are actively participating (governments, intellectuals, students, workers, the rural population, business- men, the armed forces, and churches), and this revolution reaches into every field of complex modern society as a consequence of the many- faceted activities of man.

International communism therefore has no right to arrogate to itself
any claim to having initiated this social revolution, belonging as it does to the people, who with great effort and sacrifice are forging a better world. For example, the standards set by the Catholic Church for reforming the social order and the condition of workers are clearly revolutionary.’ In particular, the programs of the Alliance for Progress, both in concept and scope, embody a profound economic and social revolution.
This is the background of the revolutionary change that the Communists are exploiting. They are the vultures of this process of modernization. They believe that the unstable conditions that emerge during the course of this process of modernization are vulnerable to subversion, sabotage, and even guerrilla warfare. Despite their doctrine of “historic inevitability” they know that they have only a limited time in which to gain power in the underdeveloped areas.

They recognize that their opportunities to gain power diminish in proportion to the speed with which progress becomes evident and social problems find proper solution. Hence, their great emphasis on subverting existing institutions, and exploiting, the tensions, strains, and conflicts of interest that necessarily accompany so radical a change in the social system.

4. When the problem of the preservation and defense of democracy against the threat of subversive action by international communism was presented for the first time at the Conference of Bogota (1948), the American Republics resolved
1. To reaffirm their decision to maintain and further an effective social and economic policy for the purpose of raising the standard of living of their peoples; and their conviction that only under a system founded upon a guarantee of the essential freedoms and rights of the individual is it possible to attain this goal.
2. To condemn the methods of every system tending to suppress political and civil rights and liberties, and in particular the action of international communism or any other totalitarian doctrine.
3. To adopt, within their respective territories and in accordance with their respective constitutional provisions, the measures necessary to eradicate and prevent activities, directed, assisted, or instigated by foreign governments, organizations, or individuals tending to over- throw their institutions by violence, to foment disorder in their domestic political life, or to disturb, by means of pressure, subversive propaganda, threats, or by any other means, the free and sovereign right of their peoples to govern themselves in accordance with their democratic aspirations.
4. To proceed with a full exchange of information concerning any
of the aforementioned activities that are carried on within their _
respective jurisdictions.
5. The fourth meeting of consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
(Washington, 1951), convoked specifically because “the growing threat of international Communist aggression has demonstrated the urgent necessity that the free nations of the world determine the most effective methods for preserving their freedom and independence,” and “the need for adopting measures to insure the economic, political, and military defense of this hemisphere is urgent and of common interest to the American Republics,” resolved:
(1) To recommend to the governments of the American States-
la) That, mindful of their unity of pm-pose and taking account of the contents of Resolution VI of the second meeting of consultation in Havana and Resolution XXXII of the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogota, each American republic examine its respective laws and regulations and adopt such changes as it may consider necessary to assure
that the subversive activities of the agents of international communism directed against any of them, may be adequately prevented and punished;
(b) That, in accordance with their respective constitutional provisions they enact measures necessary to regulate in the countries of America transit across international boundaries of those foreigners who there is reason to expect will attempt to carry out subversive acts against the defense of the American Continent; and
(c) That, in the application of this resolution, they bear in mind the necessity of guaranteeing and defending by the most efficacious means the rights of the human person as well as their firm determination to preserve and defend the basic democratic institutions of the peoples of the American republics.

For the purpose of facilitating the fulfilment of the objectives of this resolution, it was recommended that the Pan American Union prepare technical studies on certain aspects of subversive action.

6. In the “Declaration of Solidarity for the Preservation of the Political Integrity of the American States Against the Intervention of International Communism,” the 10th Inter-American Conference (Caracas, 1954), again insisted on the need to adopt and carry out measures to counteract the subversive activities of the international Communist movement, recommending that the American governments, without prejudice to such other measures as they might con- sider desirable, should give special attention to the following steps for the purpose of counteracting such activities within their respective jurisdictions:
(a) Measures to require disclosure of the identity, activities, and sources of funds of those who are spreading propaganda of the international Communist movement or who travel in the interests of that movement, and of those who act as its agents or in its behalf; and
(b) The exchange of information among governments to assist in fulfilling the purpose of the resolutions adopted by the inter-American conferences and meetings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs regarding international communism.

owing to the methods employed by international communism, the lack of cooperation of one state can render inoperative the measures adopted by a contiguous state; and when several states fail to cooperate, the system for defense against subversion as a whole becomes ineffective. The interdependence of the measures to counteract subversive action is such that if any government fails to apply them, the system is weakened and is entire effectiveness is undermined. This is the impression one receives from surveying the American scene over the past few years.

the Committee wishes to add that the subversive action of international communism here supposes the performance of acts directed, assisted, or instigated by foreign powers or governments, and that therefore, they constitute grave acts against the public order and the security of the state, especially when the “,gent carrying out the subversive action is a national or citizen of that state. Under the laws of all the countries of the world, and the international instruments governing the matter, the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental liberties is subject to the limitations and restrictions that the state is expressly authorized to impose for reasons of internal security or other reasons that are considered vital to the welfare of the nation. It can be easily under- stood, therefore, what a legal and political mistake it would be to tolerate subversive activity or fail to combat it adequately, out of fear that human rights and fundamental liberties would not be respected.

The above recommendations and considerations, therefore, are completely consistent with the aim, already expressed in Resolution VIII repeatedly quoted, that in applying the measures referred to, the states should bear in mind “the necessity of guaranteeing and defending by the most efficacious means the rights of the human person as well as their firm determination to preserve and defend the
basic democratic institutions of the peoples of the American Republics.” On this point, the above-mentioned Pan American Union report states that in its conclusions care was taken to guard “against the possibility that such ways and means be used to obstruct or sup- press genuinely democratic expressions of opinion, activities, or political aspirations, completely foreign to international communism.”

PAPER PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ENTRUSTED WITH THE STUDY OF THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS FOR SUBVERSIVE PURPOSES, THE FLOW OF SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA AND THE UTILIZATION OF CUBA AS A BASE FOR TRAINING IN SUBVERSIVE TECHNIQUES

The specific recommendations the Committee suggests in this study do not refer to any particular country. They include the adoption of certain measures that, in the abstract and without prejudice to other measures that may be better adapted to circumstances within each country, are considered technically necessary to counter- act, at least in part, the subversive activity that international communism is carrying out in the Western Hemisphere, especially through Cuba.
It also presents them with complete awareness that the Governments and peoples of the Americas have the right, the capacity, and the interest to confront the subversive action of international communism, and that if these recommendations are adopted, they will be applied taking into account the statements made in the initial general report, chapter V.A. 9, 10, and 11.
(e) The appendix to this study illustrates, with specific cases, the techniques of subversive activity employed by communism in America and to which reference is made herein.

The world is virtually at war—an atypical kind of war, which is being waged by international communism and suffered by the democracies. In this sense it is undeniable that the Marxist dialectic has changed the saying of Clausewitz that “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” to the assertion that “peace is only the continuation of war by other means.”
In a speech delivered January 6, 1961, Khrushchev pointed out three kinds of war: “world wars, local wars, and wars of liberation or popular insurrections.” He said that this classification made it “necessary to devise tactics that are correct for each of these types of wars.”

What Khrushchev describes as a ”war of liberation’ or “popular uprising” is really hidden aggression: subversion.

Exploiting the desire of the democracies to avoid war, particularly under present circumstances, in which arms of great _ destructive power might be used, the design of Communist expansion finds in subversion the least costly way of acquiring peoples and territories without exaggerated risk.
Subversion, the techniques of which vary from simple infiltration to violent intervention, is conceived, developed, and perfected by the leaders of communism, who utilize it to carry forward their world revolution. Its aim is to replace the political, economic, and social order existing in a country by a new order, which presupposes the complete physical and moral control of the people.

B. SOME TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED

1. Recruitment and training

In 1900, Lenin wrote: “We must train men and women who will dedicate not only their free afternoons to the revolution, but their entire lives.”
I. J. Peters, in his Organization Manual of the Communist Party, explaining what Lenin meant by a professional revolutionary, said that such a person is a highly skilled comrade, trained in the theory and practice of revolution, tested in battle, who gives his whole life to the struggle for the interests of his own class. A professional of the revolution, he said, is ready to go wherever and whenever the party orders him and, if the class struggle requires it, he must leave his family for months or even years.

2. Infiltration
Through this technique, activists are infiltrated into previously selected organizations and institutions in order, progressively and methodically, to gain absolute direction and control of them. To do this, the activist studies the problems of the group and takes advantage of those that are sources of agitation, exploiting them in such a way as to gain the group’s adherence to party interests. In other words, the activist avails himself of all circumstances enabling him to attract non-Communists in the vicinity.

3. Psychological impregnation
The individual action of the activists is complemented by well
planned and developed psychological action. An effort is made to attract and convert indifferent people by exploiting the contradictions present in every organized society and the justified longings to resolve them. For this purpose, attractive material, easily accessible to the masses, is drawn up or prepared.

4. Dislocation

Dislocation The object of dislocation is to weaken the social structure. Just as with psychological impregnation, dislocation skillfully exploits existing contradictions, student or labor conflicts, religious or social differences, and so forth for the purpose of creating disorder and provoking violence.
…People’s discontent and justified aspirations are taken advantage of by the Communists to serve as a useful, and in some cases, highly effective means of creating disorder and driving the authorities to rigorous law enforcement and the consequent use of police measures. Freedom to congregate, the right to strike, and other liberties granted by democracy are abused; laws are labeled as antidemocratic or dictatorial, and the authorities are criticized and attacked as being solely responsible for the situation. With disorder thus stirred up, all kinds of arms are employed and offenses are perpetrated against individuals and also against public and private property, thereby inciting violent action on the part of the police, which serves the Communists’ ulterior ends.

In a parallel way, by means of the propaganda available to them, they undertake a campaign to misrepresent and discredit the government, the authorities, and all non-Communist individuals of any influence in society.

Finally, an effort is made to hinder or paralyze the development of trade and the national economy; to put to the test lawful means of internal security and to invent new actions to frustrate them; in short, to create uncertainty and chaos, in order to demonstrate the inefficiency of the power controlling the situation through lawful procedures. A propitious atmosphere is thereby created for total subversion.

5. Process of militarization

Through a process of proper organization, a military apparatus of growing complexity is created. First, action or shock teams are created. These are small in number and are usually used for hand fighting, sabotage, or acts of terrorism.

II. Cuba as a Base for Subversion in America

A. CUBA AS A TRAINING CENTER

The different media of information often describe subversive activities in different American countries and point to Cuba as center for training in the techniques of Communist subversion.

1. Training centers
There can be no doubt that the creation and maintenance of a Communist government in Cuba facilitates to an extraordinary degree the subversive action of international communism in America. This is true not only with respect to the spread of the Communist ideology, but also—what is more dangerous—because it constitutes a center quite nearby for training agents of every kind whose function it is to develop subversion in the countries of the hemisphere.

The fellowship program announced by Fidel Castro in his speech of June 9, 1961, which included the granting of 1,000 fellowships for students of the various American countries, gives an idea of how, from its very first years, the Cuban Communist regime gave primary importance to the indoctrination and training of American youths in Communist techniques.

2. Organizations devoted to the spread of subversion in America
In addition to the training centers, there are in Cuba some organizations whose purpose it is to carry subversion to America. There is
knowledge that the following are functioning:

3. Congresses and meetings
Concurrently with the systematic preparation of Communist
subversive agents a series of meetings, conferences, congresses, and so on are being held in Cuba, attended by the Communist elements of America and by sympathizers, the real purpose of which is to discuss plans, fix objectives, and issue directives that must be observed by the different groups, with respect to Communist subversive action of every form.
These congresses, conferences and meetings bring together persons linked to the different fields of human activity: workers, students, intellectuals, athletes, etc.

If.. Conclusions
It is clear that Cuba is being used as a base for training in communism and its spread in America.

That activity of international communism, and particularly on the
part of the Cuban Government, is greatly facilitated by the lack of suitable measures, and of cooperation among the American countries, to check the constant and heavy stream of travelers to and from Cuba. The importance of this problem makes it necessary to devote a special section to it.

B. CONTROL OF TRAVEL
1. General considerations
The nations that maintain normal and friendly relations recognize
that it is desirable and even necessary to facilitate travel by their nationals across their borders as a means of strengthening cultural and economic ties, becoming better known, and becoming qualified and ready to support one another in the solution of their problems.

These facilities are used by communism so that its agents may circulate freely and, in this way, introduce propaganda and move the money needed in planning, encouraging, and carrying on subversion. It has already been pointed out in this connection that it is of public knowledge that many individuals of antinational and communistic tendencies travel to Cuba for various reasons connected with sub- version. Cuba is also utilized as the point of departure for trips to the Communist countries of Europe or Asia for the same reasons.

III. Transmission of Subversive Propaganda

A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Considering the primary importance of propaganda or publicity in the lives of nations, and the development it has now attained, it is advisable to point out that this means of so directly influencing the people is very effectively used by international communism.

Obviously, the international Communist movement is constantly endeavoring to increase its propaganda. That increase and the danger represented by such propaganda can be measured, in part, by the number of organizations that are at its service; the circulation of newspapers and magazines, books, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, and, in general, all kinds of publications presenting Communist ideology; the number of radio broadcasts and showings of motion pictures; the organization of an attendance at festivals, congresses, meetings, lectures, and so on; the establishment and operation of training and indoctrination schools; trips to or from the Communist countries; and so on.
The degree of this danger can also be measured by the resources that international communism invests to maintain the propaganda apparatus in the Western countries. But what best gives a true measure of it is the fact that the Communists themselves consider propaganda as one of the essential means of prime importance to the success of their political action.
The aim of this propaganda is to provoke social and economic chaos, weaken the governments, and bring the masses of the people into a prerevolutionary situation from which the Communists can launch their attack on the seats of power. Each Communist Party, through its agitation and propaganda section, sows hate, doubt, and confusion, which carry with them the seeds of political and economic decay. Through these agitation and propaganda sections, the members receive, from the international headquarters or from the executive or central committee in their respective countries, precise instructions on the general topics they should develop. Then they adapt them to the local or national situation and exploit them, making use of all known media of dissemination of information.

The tactics frequently change, but the objective remains un- changing: To dissolve or undo the democratic system in order to replace it with the dictatorship of the Communist Party.

B. SUBJECTS OF THE PROPAGANDA

The subjects of the Communist propaganda in America vary from country to country and from region to region, according to circum- stances. Nevertheless, this variation is more one of form than of substance, since in all cases the particular approach is in accordance with the general program of Communist propaganda for America planned from abroad.

C. INSTRUMENTS OF PROPAGANDA

1. Diplomatic and consular missions

The informational activity carried on by countries through their
diplomatic and consular missions is well known and accepted. How- ever, the use of these missions for purposes of political and ideological propaganda as a means of favoring subversion is relatively new.

2. Trade and technical assistance missions
Just as in the case of their diplomatic and consular missions, the
Communists make use of their trade and technical assistance missions that have been established in certain American countries as one more instrument for spreading their subversive propaganda. Through these missions, the countries of the Communist bloc introduce techniques for sabotage, agitation, and propaganda in various countries.

3. Binational centers and associations for friendship or culture
Since 1945, international communism has employed a great profusion of front organizations to promote actions favoring its efforts and as a means of infiltrating democratic society. Among these we may mention the binational centers and associations for friendship or culture, which currently make a practice of organizing activities such as film festivals, artistic performances of various kinds, trips, lectures, congresses of writers and intellectuals, and so on, all of
which serve the ends of Communist propaganda.

B. Printed propaganda
Printed propaganda is one of the media most often utilized by the
Communists to spread their doctrine and carry on their subversive activities. _ For these purposes they make use of both foreign and local publications.

(a) Foreign publications
This kind of propaganda is spread through news services, mail,
travelers, diplomatic, consular, and commercial missions, and by clandestine means.
The introduction of these publications by travelers is another method commonly used by the Communists to disseminate their propaganda. While it is difficult for ordinary travelers to transport large amounts of propaganda of this sort, this is not true of those who travel under the protection of official or diplomatic passports, and this is an important channel for the entry of subversive propaganda.

D. CONCLUSIONS
The Communist propaganda from Cuba and the Sino-Soviet bloc is constantly increasing and radiates to all the countries of the Western Hemisphere, taking maximum advantage of all means of dissemination. Essentially, the aim of this propaganda is to destroy the foundations of democracy, fomenting and exploiting for its own benefit the social, religious, political, economic, and racial problems that exist, to a greater or lesser degree, in the American countries.

Communist propaganda constitutes a form of subversive action that is just as dangerous to the internal security of the American nations as any other form subversion takes, and, likewise, represents a serious threat to the peace and security of America.

It must be recognized that, so far, there is no real awareness in the American countries of the danger to their security that lies in adopting a passive attitude toward the activity of Communist propaganda.

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

This Committee submits the following recommendations (on action to be taken by the governments) for consideration by the Committee of the Council:

In general, that each American country should have the agencies needed to enable it to plan, direct, and carry on the psychological action (propaganda and counterpropaganda) to counteract, weaken, or cancel out the Communist propaganda that is carried on through any medium.

IV. Transfer of Funds to the American Republics for Subversive Purposes

a. general considerations

It is an indisputable fact that Communist or pro-Communist groups in the American countries must necessarily have a large amount of money to carry on their subversive activities.
If it is considered that these groups, in addition to being a minority in their respective countries, are mainly composed of individuals of limited economic resources, it may be concluded that they do not have the means for financing themselves.

Financial aid for the subversive purposes of communism is very difficult to verify, owing to the secretive and disguised manner in which it is practiced. Nevertheless, according to information supplied by some American countries and news that has appeared in news organs of proved seriousness it can be affirmed that it is the present Cuban Government that is responsible for providing, directly or indirectly, a large portion of the financial support received by the Communist Parties in the other American Republics.

Cuba, when the Castro-Communist government was first installed in Havana, gave its moral, material, and financial support to a series of invasions, organized within its territory, into different countries in the Caribbean region. Since 1959 this form of activity was sus- pended through fear that these flagrant acts of intervention would give rise to a collective inter-American action. This did not mean that Castro-Communist interference in the affairs of the Americas had ceased to exist; on the contrary, her subversive activity was intensified in many other ways, among them, through abundant and continual financial aid.

B. OBTAINING OP FUNDS

The American Communist Parties, in order to obtain the necessary funds for their subversive purposes, have two main sources available: the collection of funds in their respective countries and the receipt of funds coming from abroad.

2. Funds received from abroad

These funds constitute the major part of the income of the Communist Parties. The instrument most frequently used to receive and distribute such funds is the Communist diplomatic mission in those countries with which their countries maintain relations. They receive the quantities assigned to the national Communist groups and those of the other countries, and from their respective headquarters they distribute financial aid to the addressees through their agents, the postal service, and the banks.

Mention should also be made here of transfers of funds intended for imaginary or real business concerns, which are utilized in subversive Communist activity once they have been brought into the country.

C. CONCLUSIONS
The movement of funds from Communist countries to the American Republics for use in subversive activities is extremely difficult to control, not only because of the different methods used to carry it out, but owing to the facilities that exist for making transfers of money.

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) To inspect Communist entities and persons, as well as Communist suspects, in the different countries in order to determine the origin of the funds that permit them to develop Communist subversive activities.
(2) To control contraband, particularly of narcotics, which, as is known, is one of the most effective means employed by communism to obtain funds.
(3) To consider the possibility that experts in the matter, within the respective legal systems of the American countries, might study the means that would make it possible to control the entry of money or securities that it is believed are intended to serve the ends of Communist subversion.
(4) To exercise strict control over the national procedures used by Communists to obtain funds, as pointed out in this chapter.

v. General Recommendations

2. That the American Governments be asked to devote particular attention to their intelligence services, creating or improving them, in order that they may have the means that will enable them to plan, coordinate and carry out effective action against Communist sub- version; and, likewise, to organize, equip and train their security forces so that they may be in proper condition to repress the subversive activities of international communism.

VI. Final Consideration
Since the time of its initial general report, the Committee has observed that the establishment of a beachhead on American territory, achieved by the Communist offensive, “poses a threat of the utmost gravity to the security of the hemisphere.” The events that have taken place since that time, particularly the military strengthening of Cuba by the Soviet Union, by greatly increasing the capacity of the Cuban Government to send arms into neighboring countries and to intensify other subversive activities, render the threat to hemispheric security much more serious, a threat that assumes an urgent character with respect to the security of the countries of the Caribbean region. This has become evident, sometimes in a dramatic manner, in the recent wave of terrorism, sabotage, and other subversive activities that Castro communism has unleashed in some of the Latin American countries.

The degree of develop- ment attained by the political-military apparatus that has been established in Cuba is rendering the system of security against subversion increasingly inadequate and ineffective, based solely on the isolated measures that each country might adopt. Holding this conviction, the Committee has wished to assume responsibility for expressing it, in view of the present state of events, in order that the American governments may effectively confront the subversive action of Castro communism.

COMBINED REPORTS ON COMMITNIST SUBVERSION

III. Communist Activities in the Western Hemisphere
A. GENERAL PANORAMA
1. Present situation
The Special Consultative Committee on Security is of the opinion that, since the date of its last report (February 8, 1963), the subversive activities of international communism in the American states have continued to such an alarming degree that measures must be taken immediately to end this danger to the peace and security of the hemisphere.

2. Principal manifestations
The present line of conduct being followed by the Communists in
carrying out their strategic plan for achieving their ultimate objectives primarily takes the form of
(a) Subversive activities (agitation, strikes, guerrilla warfare, et cetera), which in some countries have reached the point of open insurrection;
(6) Acts of sabotage and systematic terrorism, carried out by small, but perfectly trained and equipped groups, following pre-established plans and intended to create a climate conduce to general insurrection;
(c) Infiltration into governmental spheres, including the armed forces, which endangers institutional stability itself;
(d) Penetration into information agencies and media (press, radio, and television) with personnel especially trained in Communist propaganda; and
(e) Growing participation in the educational field, particularly at the university level, seeking, among other things, to create a rapprochement between professional people, students, and workers, not for purposes of trade union improvement but only to develop their own subversive activities.

freedom of the press is a basic principle in democratic countries. In defense of that principle, then, it is important to point out that organs of the press must exercise strict vigilance to make certain that this freedom is not used by communism for the purpose of destroying it.
Similar observation and vigilance are recommended for the other information media, since they are essential in the development of the propaganda activity of Communist imperialism.

5. The problem in the universities

This aspect deserves special consideration, in view of the important role of the university in preparing the leaders of a country.
The Special Consultative Committee on Security believes that the degree to which communism has infiltrated various university institutions in the American States is of the utmost seriousness. This is being done mainly in the following ways:
By attempting to gain teaching and administrative control of the universities;
By appointing Communist or pro-Communist professors for activities connected with teaching;
By using university funds for Communist propaganda activities;
By organizing university federations, associations, or committees, fostered and directed by Communists, or by taking advantage of existing ones; and
By promoting public functions, lectures, demonstrations, etc., in support of Communist regimes and leaders and the ideas advanced by them.

6. International communism and Castroism

Subversive activities in the American Hemisphere are typical of
international communism, although in some instances it waves the flag of the Castro regime in Cuba, presenting it as if it were a regional or an American movement. Actually, Castroism is nothing more than a collateral movement that obeys extracontinental instructions and directives and is used principally for the purpose of confusing public opinion.

7. “Coexistence”

The Special Consultative Committee on Security believes that in the fight against Communist activities throughout the hemisphere it is of basic importance that the American people not allow themselves to be deceived by the frequent use of the word “coexistence.”

It repeats that in no case is it possible to accept “coexistence,” particularly so long as there persists a policy of intervention and aggression on the part of Communist imperialism. It is evident that at the same time the Soviet leaders speak of “coexistence,” they are actively pursuing their efforts to substitute Communist dictatorship for the institutional order in our countries. Nor is it possible to accept conformity with the philosophical and ideological principles of communism, which are totally foreign to and incompatible with American ideals.

B. CONSIDERATIONS

In summary, it is necessary to stress the need

(1) To keep close watch on the development of Communist action in the universities and other educational centers.
(2) To pass suitable legislation for keeping Communists out of Government agencies and the Armed Forces.
(3) To conduct a suitable information campaign on the methods and techniques of deceit employed by Communist propaganda, particularly in connection with its use of the pre- tended example of the Castro revolution and of the terms “nationalism” and “coexistence.”
(4) To seek the cooperation of information organs in the task of combating and counteracting Communist propaganda.

APPENDIX I

DESIRABILITY OF STRENGTHENING INTER-AMERICAN COORDINATION AIMED AT THE MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

I. Object of the Study

It is important for the purposes of this study to recall that communism, owing to its international character, does not act in an isolated manner in each country, but involves a network, regulated and conducted from a central point, which is revealed through connections that go beyond national boundaries. Consequently, any action taken locally by the governments against Communist subversion cannot be made more effective until there is close collaboration and cooperation among them.
It is of interest to note that in an attempt to protect themselves against the activities of organized crime, the various American countries cooperate with the International Police organization, “Interpol,” created to combat such activities. However, in the fight against communism—whose subversive activity is equally or more dangerous—the American countries have not yet adopted a coordinated action,

II. International Cooperation and Coordination

A. MEANS

In the fight against inter- national communism, the specific agencies are the security and intelligence services, which are generally regulated and coordinated by a central organ in charge of the overall action. Consequently, it is logical that these are the agencies that should cooperate with one another at an international level.

Unfortunately, these specialized agencies have not yet been created in some countries, while in others their structure and operation are deficient, thereby hampering seriously effective coordination among states.

B. METHODS
Some of the methods for achieving international cooperation in anti-Communist action are the following: bilateral, multilateral, and overall coordination.

The overall method assumes the participation of all the countries affected by the same problem, and in the case of the Americas this includes all the countries of the hemisphere. Generally, when this method is adopted it is advisable, in view of the number of entities that must be coordinated, to centralize the functions of the system under the direction of one organ that coordinates the technical and specialized services of each country.
In order to have a better understanding of the importance of this procedure, it should be remembered that communism succeeds in the world because, among other reasons, it is based on a centralized action, its strategy and tactics resulting from decisions taken at various congresses, meetings, and conferences that give rise to the directives that channel its activities.

An enemy that conducts itself in this manner can only be effectively combated by a coordinated front, in an overall manner, ranging from an exchange of information to planned joint action. Such a front has not yet been presented in the Americas owing to several factors, among which mention can be made of the countries’ zeal for their autonomy and their natural nationalistic sentiment.
At the present time action against the Communist danger cannot be delayed, and it is therefore necessary for the American countries to confront it and, as they have done in the case of socioeconomic and cultural problems, create the technical organ that is capable of providing overall coordination to anti-Communist action in the hemisphere.

III. The Organization of American States and the Communist Problem

The Organization of American States was created as the expression of a feeling of continental solidarity, in the understanding that the welfare of all the countries, as well as their contribution to the progress and the civilization of the world, would increasingly require “intensive continental cooperation” in order, as the Charter of the Organization states, “* * * to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and their independence.”

V. The Organization of American States and Cooperation Among the Member States

The present status of cooperation among the American States in their fight against international communism is as follows:
1. The Organization of American States, at various inter- American conferences and meetings of consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, has repeatedly made recommendations regarding the need for an exchange of information among the governments, as well as the need for them to furnish such information to the Council of the Organization.
2. There is some cooperation, both bilateral and multilateral, among certain governments.
3. It is desirable that such cooperation be extended to include all of the American countries.
4. Certain obstacles have been present, and still exist, to pre- vent a greater measure of cooperation up to now; but it is believed that these can be overcome by setting up a system for cooperation and coordination within the institutional framework of the Organization of American States.
5. The proper organizations in the various countries for establishing the necessary cooperation are the security and intelligence agencies specializing in anti-Communist action.

Application of Measures to the Present Government of Cuba

The said report establishes among its conclusions that “the Republic of Venezuela has been the target of a series of actions sponsored and directed by the Government of Cuba, openly intended to subvert Venezuelan institutions and to overthrow the democratic Government of Venezuela through terrorism, sabotage, assault, and guerrilla warfare,” and
That the aforementioned acts, like all acts of intervention and aggression, conflict with the principles and aims of the Inter-American system.

APPENDIX II
THE SINO-SOVIET CONFLICT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE AMERICAS
CONTENTS
I. Object of the study.
II. Summary of background facts.
III. The Chinese Communists in America. A. Their general activities.
B. Influence of the conflict on certain Communist Parties in the Americas.
C. Considerations.
IV. Reflections on the effect of the conflict on international Communist
particularly subversive activities.
V. General conclusion.

I. Object of the Study

The development of the conflict, which has been commented on fully in various publications, has created a climate of optimism in certain parts of the West, including the Americas, that is promoting the advance of communism.

II. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND FACTS

Russia recognizes that violent revolutions may be inevitable in certain situations, but at the same time it maintains that the revolutionary objectives may be achieved at less cost and with less risk if other tactics are used. To that end, it is skillfully exploiting so-called peaceful coexistence, along with constant agitation and infiltration in all spheres of activity of each country, as well as making constant efforts to strengthen the ranks of the Communist Parties and their effectiveness.

This does not by any means prevent the Soviet Union from carrying out its own clandestine campaign of violence in many countries to supplement the subversive activity being carried on by the “local” Communists in those countries.

For its part, China maintains that violence is the most effective, immediate procedure for establishing communism in the world, and, consequently, it urges the application of all the tactics of Communist struggle in accordance with that principle.

The specific criticism that Communist China aims at the policy of the Soviet Union may be summed up in two accusations:
(a) “Soviet flexibility” will, in the long run, deprive the Communists of the trust and determination needed for an effective revolutionary work; and
(b) Soviet policy oscillates dangerously and erratically between risky maneuvers and shameful withdrawals before the determination of the West.

President John F. Kennedy, in referring to the dispute between China and the Soviet Union, stated as follows:
“What comfort can we take from the increasing strains and tensions within the Communist bloc? Here hope must be tempered with caution. For the Soviet-Chinese disagreement is over means, not ends. A dispute over how to bury the West is no grounds for Western rejoicing.”

III. The Chinese Communists in America

A. THEIR GENERAL ACTIVITIES

In recent years, the Chinese Communists have been intensifying their independent operations in Latin America, gradually eliminating or replacing those efforts that had been initiated in cooperation with Moscow.

in 1963-64, Communist China has made progress in its efforts to increase trade with various countries. It has held trade fairs in several of them, and has set up commercial representatives in others. In this way it has even succeeded in establishing official relations with Latin American countries.

B. INFLUENCE OF THE CONFLICT ON CERTAIN COMMUNIST PARTIES IN THE AMERICAS

Support for the position of Communist China has grown within the Argentine Communist Party and, even though its sympathizers are not numerous there are various groups who favor it, among them:
Communist youth groups, who are considered very important, not because of their total number, but because they constitute the party’s reserve.
Infiltrated Trotskyites who support the Chinese policy in the present ideological dispute and are attempting to win over other dissident groups, in order to rise to higher positions within the party.

Venezuela

The Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV), which now has three divergent currents of opinion, began the policy it is now following at the end of 1960 when the Chinese-Soviet differences had just begun to affect other parties. The policy of armed conflict, which is being carried out through the National Liberation Front at the political level and the Armed Forces of National Liberation at the combat level, was adopted by the party at its third congress in 196L
Like certain other parties (the Indonesian and Vietnamese, for example), the PCV is concerned lest a widening of the Chinese-Soviet rift injure its revolutionary prospects, its local alliances, and its internal unity. Dedicated since 1961 to violent conflict, the PCV and its principal ally, the Revolutionary Leftist Movement (MIR) did not experience any serious internal problems until it became obvious that there was very little likelihood that their efforts to overthrow the Government would succeed.

the fundamental method of conducting the revolution in Venezuela continues to be armed conflict. The members of the party should be prepared to resume armed conflict whenever the conditions are favorable. This may be in “15daysor15years.” In the meantime, the bands of guerrillas in the rural areas will be reinforced, and their lines of communication improved.

It is significant that the PCV—the only party in Latin America that has refused to take a position on the Sino-Soviet dispute and that follows closely the attitude of the Castro Communists—has not thus far revealed any open internal splits or expulsions. Of equal importance is the evidence that the dissension and factional currents noted within the PCV and the MIR are caused by the urgent need to adopt new policies in view of the defeats suffered at the hands of the Venezuelan people and Government. Lastly, the case of Venezuela demonstrates that it would be an oversimplification to conclude that the pro-Soviet elements exclude armed conflict as an appropriate course of action, and that the pro-Chinese are dedicated to a policy of immediate armed action everywhere and at any time.

C. CONSIDERATIONS
The study of the effect of the Sino-Soviet conflict, especially among the members of the Communist Parties mentioned, leads us to the following considerations
1. The majority of the top leaders of the Communist Parties in the Latin American countries continue to favor the Soviet position.
2. The efforts of the pro-Chinese Communists to seize the leadership of the Communist political forces have been most successful in Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil.
3. Division and damage to unity within the Communist Parties have been most evident when the party leaders have taken sides in the dispute.
4. The Chinese argument that the violent revolutionary struggle is still the only realistic way to overthrow existing regimes has been widely accepted among young Communists and intellectuals.
5. The most convincing Chinese Communist arguments relating to the best means of preparing the groundwork for establishing the “dictatorship of the proletariat” are being used in a long- range effort within and against the Communist Parties to discredit and eliminate the pro-Soviet leaders of the Communist movement in Latin America and, ultimately, obtain the support of those parties for the Chinese viewpoint in the international movement.

In effect, the Soviet line, by opposing the Chinese Communist line in favor of the use of force, would appear to imply that Russia has renounced the use of force, whereas the truth is that Russian communism continues its efforts toward world domination regardless of methods. This is an aspect that favors communism politically, since in countries not politically and legally constituted so as to cope with the present world situation, Russia finds that its well-known policy of “united fronts” facilitates penetration.

We must consider that, in general, in Latin America there exists a socioeconomic situation whose deficiencies form substantially one of the basic aspects of the problem. The result of this situation is that there is a large mass of discontented people ready to accept any apparent solution of their problems, including the Communist solution, often presented in a “sugar coated” form, with a claim of obtaining better living conditions on the basis of an elementary, though erroneous, rationalization that any change will bring these people more favor- able living conditions. Considering both the Chinese and Russian formulas for obtaining solutions, the apparent road selected by Russia may be longer for them and, consequently, the Chinese line has already won over groups of opinion and action, as stated in the preceding chapter.

It is believed that this power struggle will create new factors of disturbance, especially in labor circles, where both groups will continue a competition characterized by revolutionary action, each one trying to demonstrate that it is capable of obtaining greater benefits and creating labor problems that, in the last analysis, have nothing to do with the workers and their true needs.

V. General Conclusion

in Latin America, the Special Consultative Committee on Security deems it advisable to state as a general conclusion that the dispute between China and the Soviet Union has not diminished the subversive activities of international communism in the Americas, but that, on the contrary, it has, and does, constitute, in many countries, a greater incentive for the use of methods of violence.

Activist Data from “Another Politics: Talking across Today’s Transformative Movements”

Another Politics: Talking Across Today’s Transformative Movements

Radical Organizations and Projects Cited

The Abolitionist: https://abolitionistpaper.wordpress.com
Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition: http://al-awda.org
Anarchists Against the Wall: http://awalls.org
Arab Resource and Organizing Center: http://araborganizing.org
Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante: http://www.asse-solidarite. qc.ca
Black Orchid Collective: http://blackorchidcollective.wordpress.com
Bloquez l’empire / Block the Empire: http://blocktheempire.blogspot.ca
Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions: www.bdsmovement.net
Bring the Ruckus: http://bringtheruckus.org
Californians United for a Responsible Budget: http://curbprisonspending.org
Canadian Union of Postal Workers: www.cupw.ca
Catalyst Project: http://collectiveliberation.org
Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid: www.caiaweb.org
Coalition of Immokalee Workers: www.ciw-online.org
Colours of Resistance: www.coloursofresistance.org
Common Cause: www.linchpin.ca
Common Ground Collective: www.commongroundrelief.org
Common Struggle: commonstruggle.org
Courage to Resist: www.couragetoresist.org
Critical Resistance: http://criticalresistance.org
Decarcerate PA: http://decarceratepa.info
Direct Action to Stop the War: https://bayareadirectaction.wordpress.com
El Kilombo Intergaláctico: www.elkilombo.org
End the Prison Industrial Complex: http://epic.noblogs.org
Experimental Community Education of the Twin Cities: www.excotc.org
First of May Anarchist Alliance: http://m1aa.org
Food Not Bombs: www.foodnotbombs.net
Heads Up Collective: http://collectiveliberation.org/resources/heads-up-collective
Idle No More: http://idlenomore.ca
INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence: http://incite-national.org
Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement: http://ipsm.ca
Industrial Workers of the World: www.iww.org
Institute for Anarchist Studies: www.anarchist-studies.org
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network: www.ijsn.net
International Solidarity Movement: http://palsolidarity.org
Iraq Veterans Against the War: www.ivaw.org
LA Garment Workers Center: http://garmentworkercenter.org
Left Turn: www.leftturn.org
Make/Shift: www.makeshiftmag.com
Miami Autonomy and Solidarity: http://miamiautonomyandsolidarity.word-press.com
Montréal-Nord Républik: http://montrealnordrepublik.blogspot.ca
Mujeres Unidas Y Activas: www.mujeresunidas.net
No One Is Illegal: www.nooneisillegal.org
Occupy Our Homes: http://occupyourhomes.org
Occupy Sandy: www.occupysandy.org
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty: www.ocap.ca
Organization for a Free Society: www.afreesociety.org
Peoples’ Global Action: www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp
Pittsburgh Organizing Group: www.steelcityrevolt.org
Project South: www.projectsouth.org
Public Interest Research Groups (Canada): www.pirg.ca
Purple Thistle Centre: www.purplethistle.ca
Queers for Economic Justice: www.q4ej.org
Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism: http://quitpalestine.org
Regeneración Childcare: http://childcarenyc.org
Repeal Coalition: www.repealcoalition.org
Rising Tide North America: www.risingtidenorthamerica.org
Rock Dove Collective: www.rockdovecollective.org
San Francisco Community Land Trust: www.sfclt.org
Seattle Solidarity Network: www.seattlesolidarity.net
Solidarity Across Borders: www.solidarityacrossborders.org
Solidarity and Defense: http://solidarityanddefense.blogspot.com
Strike Debt: http://strikedebt.org
Students for a Democratic Society (new): www.newsds.org
Student/Farmworker Alliance: www.sfalliance.org
Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty: http://sudburycap.com
Sylvia Rivera Law Project: http://srlp.org
Tadamon!: www.tadamon.ca
Take Back the Land: www.takebacktheland.org
2640: www.redemmas.org/2640
United Students Against Sweatshops: http://usas.org
Upping the Anti: http://uppingtheanti.org
War Resisters Support Campaign: www.resisters.ca
Women’s Health and Justice Initiative: www.whji.org
Workers Solidarity Alliance: http://workersolidarity.org
Young Workers United: www.youngworkersunited.org

Biographies of Interviewees

Sarita Ahooja is a grassroots anti-capitalist organizer in Montreal. Over the past two decades she has been active in self-determination liberation struggles including Indigenous solidarity, anti-police brutality, and migrant justice movements. She is a founding member of La convergence des luttes anti-capitalistes, No One is Illegal-Montreal, and Solidarity Across Borders.

Ashanti Alston is an anarchist activist, speaker, writer, former member of the Black Panther Party (BPP) and the Black Liberation Army (BLA), and former political prisoner. He joined the BPP while still in high school, starting a chapter in Plainfield, New Jersey, and later going underground with the BLA. In 1974, he was involved in a Connecticut “bank expropriation,” and was captured and imprisoned for more than twelve years. Ashanti has worked as an organizer with Estacion Libre to support the Zapatistas, Critical Resistance, and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. Today, he is active in the National Jericho Movement and Anarchist People of Color organizing. He lives with his wife Viviane Saleh-Hanna and two children, Biko and Yasmeen, in Providence, Rhode Island.

Clare Bayard was raised in a military family and came up in queer and feminist activism as a teenager. Clare got involved in anarchist organizing in the late 1990s, working locally on issues of homelessness and displacement, and internationally against war and global capitalism. Through the Catalyst Project, the War Resisters League, and the War Resisters International network, Clare organizes for demilitarization and racial justice, with a particular focus on migrant justice, Palestine self-determination, and G.I. resistance.

Jill Chettiar spent many of her formative years working as an organizer in Vancouver. She is currently working in public health research, parenting two young daughters, and going to school full time.

Rosana Cruz is the associate director of V.O.T.E., a grassroots membership- based organization of formerly incarcerated persons that builds political and economic power with the people most impacted by the criminal justice system in New Orleans. Previously, Rosana worked for a diverse range of community organizations, including Safe Streets/Strong Communities, the National Immigration Law Center, the New Orleans Worker Center for Racial Justice, Hispanic Apostolate, the Lesbian and Gay Community Center of New Orleans, People’s Youth Freedom School, and the Southern Regional Office of Amnesty International in Atlanta.

Mike D is an organizer with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty in Toronto.

Rayan El-Amine is a former editor and founding member of Left Turn Magazine and a former San Francisco Bay Area Arab community organizer. He currently resides in Lebanon, where he works at American University of Beirut and teaches at Lebanese American University.

Francesca Fiorentini is an independent journalist and comedian based in Argentina. A former coeditor ofLeft Turn Magazine and WIN, the magazine of the War Resisters League, she is presently a regular contributor and member of the online anti-militarist publication War Times. She is also the creator of the YouTube comedy vlog Laugh to Not Cry.

Mary Foster is a community organizer in Montreal who has worked with initiatives such as Block the Empire, Iraq Solidarity Project, Solidarity Across Borders, Tadamon!, and the People’s Commission Network.

Harjit Singh Gill is a South Asian American activist living in Oakland and a board member of the Institute for Anarchist Studies. He holds advanced degrees in humanities and social work. His work focuses on providing clinical support for low-income people in the Bay Area and is informed by a commitment to anti-imperialist, feminist, and queer-positive perspectives toward collective liberation. Harjit is a Unitarian Universalist, and is deeply committed to a vegan and straight-edge lifestyle.

Tatiana Gomez has been active on labor and migration issues for over ten years. Currently, she is a community-based lawyer in Montreal.

Harjap Grewal organizes in Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories, working within movements against immigration controls, in solidarity with Indigenous struggles, for environmental justice, and to promote anti-capitalist resistance. While he has been a part of various spaces and communities, his work has pre- dominantly been with the No One Is Illegal-Vancouver collective.

Stephanie Guilloud is the codirector at Project South: Institute for the Elimination of Poverty and Genocide, based in Atlanta, Georgia. An organizer with over seventeen years of experience, Stephanie was a lead local organizer in the Seattle World Trade Organization shutdown in 1999 and edited and designed Voices from the WTO, an anthology of first-hand narratives from the participants in the historic demonstrations. Her essays have been published in Letters from Young Activists (Nation Books) and The Revolution Will Not be Funded (South End Press). Since 2005, she has served on the board of Southerners On New Ground (SONG), a multiracial queer organization building power for racial and economic justice.

Rachel Herzing is a member of Critical Resistance, a national grassroots organization dedicated to abolishing the prison industrial complex.

Helen Hudson is a queer Black anti-authoritarian organizer living in Montreal. For close to two decades, she has been actively involved in immigration struggles; prisoner justice; queer, trans, and feminist struggles; and student organizing. She spent four years working as the coordinator of QPIRG Concordia, an activist resource center at Concordia University that serves as a central hub for student and community activists in Montreal. A former board member of the Institute for Anarchist Studies, Helen currently is a member of the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair collective and the Certain Days: Freedom for Political Prisoner Calendar collective. She is also a mother and a nurse.

Pauline Hwang was active in youth, immigrant, worker, tenant, and Indigenous solidarity organizing for many years. She has more recently focused on meditation, traditional Chinese medicine, and creativity. Pauline intends to bridge radical organizing with personal and community healing, and be part of a revolution that connects us back to our bodies, our ancestors, the Earth, and each other.

Rahula Janowski grew up white and working class in a rural New England community. She came of age politically in the 1990s in the West Coast anarchist community/movement. She lives in queer, radical left community in San Francisco, where she engages in political work including taking arrest at direct actions against war, supporting the development of younger white anti-racist activists and organizers, Palestine solidarity work, and organizing with other parents (most of whom know she is an anarchist) in her child’s school.

Tynan Jarrett is a Montreal-based community organizer and activist. His work has revolved primarily around queer and trans youth, and political prisoners. Some projects he has been involved in include the Trans Health Network, a coalition of groups working for better access to health care services for trans- gender, transsexual, and gender-variant people in Montreal and Quebec, and the Certain Days: Freedom for Political Prisoners Calendar.

Sharmeen Khan became an activist with socialist and activist media organizations in Regina, Saskatchewan. She has organized in women’s centers, transit justice organizations, and community radio stations in Victoria and Vancouver. She moved to Toronto in 2005 where she finished a masters degree in communication and culture and worked in community radio and the PIRG circuit. She currently works at CUPE 3903, is on the board of the Media Co-op, and edits Upping the Anti: A Journal of Theory and Action.

Brooke Lehman has been active as an educator and organizer in New York City since the mid-1980s. She was a founding member of the Direct Action Network and of Bluestockings Bookstore. Brooke is currently the codirector of the Watershed Center, an educational center in upstate New York, where she leads seminars and retreats on designing healthy democratic organizations. She also serves as a faculty member of the Institute for Social Ecology, and as a board member for smartMeme and the Yansa Foundation.

RJ Maccani, based in New York City, has played many different roles in the struggle for a better world over the past fifteen years. As a cofounder and organizer with the Challenging Male Supremacy Project and a leadership team member for generationFIVE, his work focuses on building transformative jus- tice responses to violence against women, queer and trans people, and children. RJ is a generative somatics practitioner and pays the bills as coleader and com- munity programs producer for the Foundry Theatre.

Andréa Maria began organizing with Montreal’s Anti-Capitalist Convergence more than a decade ago, then worked as an ally to migrant justice struggles with No One Is Illegal-Montreal. Since then, she has worked with a range of anti-authoritarian collectives, international solidarity projects, and anti-poverty organizations in both Montreal and Toronto. Now a journalist, she continues to be student of resistance movements, learning about politics, strategy, and tactics from many angles and many sides.

Pilar Maschi is a survivor, former prisoner, mother, anarchist, and prison industrial complex abolitionist. Formerly the national membership and leader- ship development director of Critical Resistance, Pilar is currently a member of All of Us or None and Anarchist People of Color. She is also an alumna of the New Voices fellowship program and a founding member of Community in Unity. She lives in New York City.

Sonya Z. Mehta is a recent graduate of the City University of New York School of Law. She was first an organizer, then codirector, at Young Workers United San Francisco, a workers’ center of young and immigrant service-sector workers and students. YWU passed the first paid sick leave law in the country, improved conditions at work, won $4.5 million in backpay for employment law violations, and built community solidarity and leadership.

Amy Miller is a media maker and social justice organizer based in Montreal. She directed the featurette documentary Myths for Profit: Canada’s Role in Industries of War and Peace, which was screened extensively across Canada and at festivals. She has worked with The Dominion and the Media Co-op as both a writer and editor. She continues to focus on developing critical documentaries for transformative social change.

Rafael a. Mutis Garcia is an immigrant from Colombia living in the United States. He has worked in community and academic settings across the United States in defense of poor communities of color, immigrant communities, women, and LGBTQ folks, as well as in Nicaragua, Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. A popular educator between 1994–2006 in the Escuela Popular Norteña, an organizer with Critical Resistance NYC between 2003–2008, and with Anarchist People of Color since 2003, currently Rafael does food justice work through the Morning Glory Garden in the Bronx. He is completing a doctorate in earth and environmental sciences focusing on geography at the CUNY Graduate Center. His research is an ethnobotany project with Afro and Indigenous communities in Colombia.

Michelle O’Brien is an organizer and scholar living in Brooklyn. Much of her fifteen years of social justice activism has been within the U.S. communities hardest hit by HIV and AIDS. She writes on revolutionary strategy, the politics of social services, and the nonprofit industrial complex. Currently, Michelle organizes with Power for Rank and File Employees in the Social Services, a project to support union struggles at New York City’s nonprofit social service agencies. She is a graduate student in sociology at New York University.

Adriana Paz is a Bolivian born and raised community organizer, social researcher and popular educator with over ten years of experience working on social justice, labor and (im)migrant rights. She has a background as a community radio broadcaster, columnist for Latin American newspapers, and contributor to online magazines in Canada. Adriana is founding member and organizer of Justicia for Migrant Workers in B.C., a grassroots national organization advocating for migrant farm workers’ social, economic, and labor rights. She has participated in research studies and written about migrant farmworkers on the borders of Bolivia/Argentina, Mexico, and Canada. She just completed her Masters degree at the University of British Columbia, focusing on transnational labor migration and transnational organizing models for migrant farmworkers in North America.

Lydia Pelot-Hobbs is a facilitator, organizer, writer, and activist-scholar living between New York City and New Orleans. She was originally politicized through the Unitarian Universalist youth movement as a teenager. Over the past ten years, Lydia has been involved in organizing against prisons and policing, supporting affordable housing struggles in New Orleans, and strengthening solidarity economies. She is also a cofounder of the Anti-Oppression Resource and Training Alliance (AORTA).

Leila Pourtavaf has organized with a number of Montreal-based migrant justice and radical queer groups including No One Is Illegal, Solidarity Across Borders, the Anti-Capitalist Asspirates, and Qteam. She is currently pursuing a doctorate in history at the University of Toronto.

Paula Ximena Rojas-Urrutia has twenty-one years of experience working as a community organizer. Born in Chile and raised in Houston, she spent thirteen years as an organizer in Brooklyn. Her experiences working for social justice nonprofit organizations led her to cofound various community organizations focused on issues affecting young and adult women of color, including Sista II Sista, Pachamama, and Community Birthing Project. Paula’s organizing work and life experience have drawn her to work at the intersections of welfare injustice and women of color, midwifery and local grassroots organizing. In addition, she has supported and amplified local work, as a national board member and trainer for INCITE! She is currently living in Austin, Tejas, continuing to work collectively with other women of color to model a more just and loving world. She is a doula, apprentice midwife, self-defense teacher, mother of two, and an advisor to Mamas of Color Rising.

Joshua Kahn Russell is an organizer working to bridge movements for eco- logical balance and racial justice. He is a strategy, organizing, and nonviolent direct action trainer with the Ruckus Society, and coauthor of Organizing Cools the Planet (PM Press). You can keep up with him at www.praxismakesperfect.org.

Sophie Schoen is a community organizer based in Montreal. She was an active member of Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante from 2003 to 2008.

Mac Scott is an anarchist who does legal work in Toronto (go figure). He is also a member of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and No One Is Illegal- Toronto. When he’s not fighting against the man, he enjoys his collective house, his family, beer, and bad suits, not necessarily in that order.

Jaggi Singh is a community organizer and anarchist based in Montreal whose work focuses on indigenous solidarity, migrant justice and anti-capitalist struggles, as well as community-based popular education. He has helped to initiate and continues to be active with several local campaigns, initiatives, and groups, including the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, No One Is Illegal, Solidarity Across Borders, the Indigenous Solidarity Committee, and the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair.

David Solnit has been a mass direct action organizer for over three decades in global justice, anti-war, environmental justice, climate justice, and solidarity movements in North America, including the mass direct action shutdowns of the Seattle WTO in 1999 and the San Francisco Financial District on March 30, 2003, the day after the United States invaded Iraq. He is a trainer, an arts organizer, a puppeteer, and editor/coauthor of Globalize Liberation (City Lights), Army of None (Seven Stories), and The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle (AK Press). He lives in San Francisco.

Mick Sweetman is the managing editor of The Dialog newspaper at George Brown College and a labor and community journalist. His articles and photos have also been published in Alternet, Basics, Canadian Dimension, Clamor, Industrial Worker, Linchpin, Media Co-op, rabble.ca, and ZNet. He calls Toronto home and is unabashedly a supporter of Toronto FC.

James Tracy is the coauthor of Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times (Melville House Publishers). Based in San Francisco, he is a longtime organizer active in housing and economic justice work.

Harsha Walia is a South Asian activist and writer currently based in Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories. For the past decade she has been active in migrant justice, anti-racist, feminist, Palestine solidarity, Indigenous sovereignty, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-poverty movements. She is involved in No One Is Illegal, Radical Desis, Defenders of the Land, Women’s Committee for Missing and Murdered Women, and works as a frontline anti- violence worker and legal advocate in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. She is also a writer, with work in numerous publications and anthologies. Her most recent book is Undoing Border Imperialism (AK Press).

Marika Warner is a black/mixed race actor, writer, and anarchist based in Toronto. She has been active with anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-poverty organizations in Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Toronto. Most of her organizing work has focused on violence against women and prison abolition.

Jennifer Whitney has been a healthcare worker and organizer in New Orleans, since the levees broke and flooded the city in 2005. Prior to that, she worked with global justice coalitions in Seattle, Prague, Quebec City, Cancun, Edinburgh, Mexico City, and elsewhere to disrupt summit meetings of transnational power brokers, and also to help bring about effective, creative alternatives. She is a coauthor of We Are Everywhere, has published extensively on Latin American social movements, and continues to write about and work at the intersection of health, justice, art, dignity, ecology, and liberation.

Ora Wise cofounded the Palestine Education Project and coproduced Slingshot Hip Hop, a grassroots documentary about hip-hop in Palestine which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2008. Ora is the youth education director at an independent synagogue in Brooklyn and is the curriculum specialist for Detroit Future Media, an intensive program that trains people to use media for a more just, creative, and collaborative city. Ora maintains the- bigceci.wordpress.com, a space dedicated to elevating our consciousness about what we eat by sharing stories and resources, supporting the creation of alternatives to the industrial food system, and indulging in the sensuality and wisdom of the culinary arts.

 

Author Chris Dixon’s Presentation on the Project

In the interview he describes himself as a “deprofessionalized academic”. He describes this as meaning he got a PhD not as someone who wanted to stay within the academic field, but to support the movements he was a participant in.

Lax Ethica: Philip N. Howard, Disinformation and Socialist Academic Networks

Lax Ethica

 
A Historical Account, Data Analysis, Network Ethnography & Theoretic Exegesis
that
Demonstrates
Dr. Philip N. Howard  
– Director of the Oxford Internet Institute –
Disseminates Disinformation
to Further the Ambitions of the Bolivarian Socialist Movement
and
Demonstrates his Participation in
The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity (REDH),
a Counter-Intelligence Operation
Developed and Managed by the Venezuelan and Cuban Intelligence Services


Abstract:

This article presents the case that Dr. Philip N. Howard has a history of fundamentally fraudulent research designed to politically polarize, misinform and misdirect his audience.

After providing an account of how the Director of the Oxford Internet Institute, Philip N. Howard, violated the spirit and letter of the American Sociological Associations code of professional ethics by: (1) refusing to update self-published research (2) by publishing and promoting articles from multiple investigations whose research design was without merit (3) providing testimony to government bodies whose effect was to misdirect or misinform.

Content analysis based on the messaging effects of these publications leads to a hypothesis that Philip N. Howard is a Socialist – a close reading of Philip N. Howard’s academic work and network ethnography proves that this is true and, furthermore, that he is likely a member of a trans-national network of alter-globalization academics promoted by the Hugo Chavez founded, Cuban and Venezuelan Intelligence Services’ managed “Networks of Intellectuals”. 

Keywords: Disinformation, Political Manipulation, Fraud, Subversive Academic Networks, Sao Paulo Forum 

***

After Dr. Philip N. Howard and I were both quoted in the New York Times about Facebook’s participation in the Social Science One investigation into Social Media and Democracy, I decided to visit the website of the Oxford’s Internet Institute (OII) and review their publications. Upon reading The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulationwhich Howard co-authored with Samantha Bradshaw I noticed four significant errors in their findings – described below – based on my investigation of Venezuela’s social media behavior over the past two years in partnership with Universidad Pontifica Bolivariana (UPB).

As this report was self-published, correctable in under five minutes with Adobe Acrobat Pro and as according to the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics Section 12.4 Subsection E it is considered best practice to update research in light of new data I sent OII an email with notification of their errors along with appropriate documentation on September 29th– three days after the Inventory’s publication.

My initial contact was ignored, but after repeated follow ups I received a response, briefly corresponded with Dr. Howard and was then informed that he would not update the document, not answer questions I had casting doubt on his research methodology, and was informed that he would not solicit UPB’s expert opinion for their 2020 Inventory and that he was instructing his subordinates at the OII to ignore all future requests from me. I was shocked by such behavior.

At first I graciously believed this was a result of mere narcissistic negligence – which is random in its effect. But given that this was verbatim the same behavior I’d witnessed when asking certain questions of American media producers that were currently or previously had worked for Venezuela’s state media company I was suspicions.

After investigating Dr. Philip N. Howard’s academic work, press mentions, and professional associations I now understand the reason he wanted to foreclose the inclusion of counterfactual data to his claims is likely a result of his Socialist political convictions manifesting in a desire to misdirect attention from Venezuela’s online and in-real-life political propaganda activities and – most especially – the Leon Trotsky-inspired “network of networks” founded by Hugo Chavez in 2005 to help develop a new Socialist Internationale by providing assistance, amongst other means, to subversive professors – a policy which Venezuela’s ally Cuba has engaged in since 1963.

First I’ll illustrate Dr. Howard’s public history of correcting trivial research errors.

After this I document several significant errors found in his research whose baseless findings have made their way into the press. After this trend is established, I examine Dr. Howard’s testimony to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Service to show his engagement in misdirection and that the submission of his expert opinion the U.K. Parliament was  disinformation.

Content analysis is then used to illustrate that the general thrust of Dr. Howard’s research project has been to mirror the political positions of Socialist and Communist Parties associated with the Alter-Globalization/International Socialism Project mentioned above.

Following this I document the evidence showing Dr. Philip Howard’s engagement with Communist and Communist-sympathizing actors and his use of Marxian theoretical frameworks within his published research. In close, I demonstrate what appears to be the effects of participation in the Cuban and Venezuelan Government sponsored Network of Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity and summarize the results of this exercise in ethnographic and process mapping.

 Philip N. Howard’s History of Correcting and Ignoring Research Errors

To err is human, to correct mistakes is divine – so when Philip N. Howard amends his article Zuckerberg Goes to Russia as the Global Network Initiative Turns 4 on the blog for Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policyhe is aligning himself with best academic practices. The same is true for the three articles (123) of Philip N. Howard has posted on the Pacific Standard website, and the error he describes in a Tweet on December 9th, 2018. And yet there exists several other research articles and testaments of his which remain unexpiated and that, when placed together indicate his research project’s alignment with the Bolivarian goals.

Case Study: Fake Research Contra Donald Trump 

Mother Jones published an article entitled Trump Supporters Spread the Majority of Phony News on Social Media based on Philip Howard’s research, as did several other news outlets.

In an Opinion article by Erik Wemple for The Washington Post titled Study bashes Trumpites for promoting ‘junk’ news. But what’s that?, Erik Wemple also points out an issue related to categorization which invalidated Philip N. Howard’s research findings.

Elizabeth Harrington at The Washington Free Beacon in an article titled The Oxford Study Saying Trump Supporters Share More Fake News Is Fake Newspoints out a second categorization error that complicates, if not nullifies, the findings of Philip N. Howard’s study.

Both of these journalists, however, overlooked two even larger issues that categorically invalidates the study that this Mother Jones article was based on.

(1) During the period under Oxford’s investigation SparkToro estimated at least 61% of Donald Trump’s Twitter followers were false accounts – which nowhere within the methodology is it stated that this was even accounted for.

(2) According to research from the University of Cambridge, bots retweet much more content than do real humans. Again – nowhere within the methodology is it stated that this was accounted for.

(3) According the findings section of the report a variant of the k-core reduction was used to reduce the data-set to 13,477 users, yet on page 6 of the online supplement it states that the k-core consisted of 12,413 users. Questions about this discrepancy sent to the Oxford Internet Institute went unanswered.

In other words, ironically enough, the researcher who claims to be the authority on “exposing the role of bots and trolls” doesn’t even account for the fact that bots were producing the majority of the content analyzed in his own dataset.

That such an research was published at all ought to surprise anyone familiar with the Twitter ecosystem. Indeed Philip N. Howard seems to admit that this line of research was fundamentally erroneous in a Tweet on February 1st– four days before Mother Jones and several other outlets announced to the world that Donald Trump fake-news sharing fools.

And yet despite these public criticisms and the larger research design flaws – the article remain published and the outlets which cover it remain uncorrected.

Case Study: Fake Research Contra Jair Bolsonaro

WhatsApp fake news during Brazil election ‘favoured Bolsonaro’ was published in The Guardian and features original research by Daniel Avelarwhich features a quote by former Oxford Internet Institute researcher Caio Machado.

Machado’s own research was covered in the New York Time article Disinformation Spreads on WhatsApp Ahead of Brazilian Election and was based on one of two research articles in which he is listed as the coauthor of with Philip N. Howard:  A Study of Misinformation in WhatsApp groups with a focus on the Brazilian Presidential Electionsand News and Political Information Consumption in Brazil: Mapping the First Round of the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Election on Twitter.

After reading the two articles published by OII, I sent a request for more information about the WhatsApp investigation on November 25th, as I has no interest in the Twitter study as I population studies on that platform are essentially invalid, in contrast to what OII claims – which will be discussed later.

The questions that I asked OII were as follows:

  • Are the privatized data-set available for researchers to review?
  • Is there a publicly available data repository for review by researchers that contains JUST the 99,988 media files, the 50,795 Original URLS, the 38,800 coded links or even just 200 coded images/videos?
  • Since URLs were coded on a domain and sub domain level, is there a codebook available to review that shows the classification of domains?
  • In the sampling and methods section, it’s stated that 200 images/videos were randomly chosen for coding but there the method for randomization is not described.

All these questions stem from a desire to see if their findings could be duplicated. This is important as replicability is a key component of Science, and the inability to do this in the materials science, data science and social sciences has caused some to describe the current capacity of research teams not to repeat experiments and get the same findings of others as a replicability crisis.

That I received no response from OII is suspicious enough in itself, however after doing cursory research into Caio Machado it’s all the more so. Sao Paulo, Brazil – where Machado went to law school – has long been a center of socialist activity. Indeed it hosted the first iteration of a pan-Latin American conference of social movements, Communist and Socialist parties conceived of by Fidel Castro and Lula Brazil to help steer pan-Latin American integration called the Sao Paulo Forum. By itself Caio Machado having gone to law school in Sao Paulo, Brazil means nothing – but in light of the fact that he retweeted content from an account claiming to be the embodiment of the spirit of Communist Cultural Critic Mark Fisher and that he has – it appears – attended a lecture featuring Liberation Theologist Enrique Dussel it appears that there could be a possibility for unreported bias. I emailed Caio Machado, who responded to my introduction, but then decided not to respond to my question about the nature of his relationship to Liberation Theologist Enrique Dussel – pictured above receiving an award from Hugo Chavez from the magazine Humanidad en Red no 0– the magazine of the Red de Intelectuals y Artistas en Defensa de la Humanidad (REDH).

It’s possible that I’m incorrect in my assessment that the WhatsApp research that Oxford Internet Institute published is indeed valid – however given the omissions from their methodological description, their unwillingness to answer basic research design questions, to share data and that one of their researchers to answer a question related to a potential conflict of interest I’m highly suspicions of its legitimacy in light of all of the other issues related to Philip N Howard’s research. 

Case Study: Fake Research Pro Venezuela

Philip N. Howard’s research falsely claims that Venezuela’s propaganda activities are far less active and complex then they actually are. Here are, in short, the sections that they get wrong.

Organizational Form and Preference:

The number of citizens and influencers listed on OII’s report is listed as blank – as if no one was engaged in propaganda on behalf of the Venezuelan government. However ABC International has published reports about citizens receiving money for citizen engagements on social media and it’s well known that Danny Glover, Oliver Stone and Roger Waters – and others – have received all gifts and payment for engaging in propaganda on Venezuela’s behalf.

Messaging and Valence:

TeleSUR’s official page shares memes which encourage violence against fascists (a substitute for American politicians, law enforcement, and those whose policies don’t align with Venezuela’s goals). A variety of Jewish groups have published about TeleSUR’s antisemitism and that of their contractors while Venezuela’s other government’s other pages share content meant to appeal to anti-Semites, or that present false, politically polarizing quotes from politicians, and deepfake nudes and images meant to drive hatred towards police.

Communication Strategies:

The OII reports that Venezuela isn’t using mass reporting to take down undesirable content. I provided them with a case study wherein that happened to me for my publications on these topics.

The OII report states that Venezuela isn’t using data driven strategies, however even if one hasn’t engaged in the research or collected data from interviews as UPB has – it’s an on its face absurd proposition that a media network with, which OII admits, multiple centers of activity and its own news network wouldn’t use data to monitor and manage their efforts.

Harassment and Threats of Violence:

While this is a category not included in Oxford’s report, thus something that I did not submit evidence of, had it been included I would have provided examples of digital harassment and threats of violence against me.

Philip N. Howard’s Political Testimony & Lax Ethica

Besides research with design flaws that renders its conclusions invalid, Philip N. Howard has also provided testimony to the British Crown and the United States Senate Intelligence Committee that had the effect of misdirecting politicians from multi-generational irregular, information warfare campaigns to focus exclusively on online activity equivalent with, more or less, to targeted spam campaigns.

Philip N. Howard’s False Research Attempts to Discredit the Brexit Results

In the article Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court Philip N. Howard is quoted therein saying:

“Given the scale of the online advertising achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend.”

This statement was extracted from a report that he presented to the High Court of Justice, Queens’s Bench Division titled: Impact of Unlawful Overspending on Digital Advertising by Vote Leave and BeLeave campaigns in the 2016 EU Referendum, which can be viewed by clicking the title.

A website called Order-Order published critical commentary on Philip N. Howard’s findings linked to two Twitter accounts of professionals in the field of statistics and data-journalism that debunked Howard’s testimony.

John Burn-Murdoch, a data-visualization journalist for The Financial Times has a Twitter thread on Philip N. Howard’s poor research methodology.

Anthony B. Masters of the Royal Statistical Society also has a Twitter thread on Philip N. Howard’s poor research methodology.

Their arguments against Philip N. Howard’s research findings are as follows:

  • The base is too high: the entire electorate was 46.5m.His basic argument is: 80m Facebook users saw the ads
  • 10% click-through rate is much higher than is typically found for Facebook display advertising. Wordstream (US)says less than 1% — that may be based on impressions, not users. Average conversion is 9.2%, but politics is not a standard industry.
  • Howard’s section on conversion says that 10% click through, 10% believe and “a further 10% of that number can then be expected to do something.” This step is merged or omitted in the calculation.
  • Finally, the citation given is Howard’s own bookNew Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen says: “Banner ads on political topics generally had a 1 percent click-through rate”. This means that the citation contradicts the statement given in the Court submission.

In other words what Philip N. Howard submitted fundamentally flawed and invalid data to the politicians deciding legal issues related to Brexit.

Philip N. Howard Misleads and Misdirects the Senate Intelligence Committee

On August 1stof 2018, Philip N. Howard presented testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In his comments to the panel Philip N. Howard states that “The time for industry self-regulation has passed.” a position which echoes his 2014 editorials for the nationalization of Facebook.

At 1 hour, 19 minutes and 15 seconds into the hearing Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri asks Philip N. Howard “Of the other countries you’ve looked at who should we [the political body in charge of making decisions related to politics] be looking at after Russia that are likely impacting our [American] daily conversation.

Philip N. Howard responds: “Well in our research we look at Turkey, China, Hungary and Iran.”

This is a noteworthy in that it is a non-answer to the question – the way it’s framed Philip N. Howard is merely stating countries that the Oxford Internet Institute has investigated.

Senator Blunt, picking up on this, moves on to another interlocutor.

At 1 hour, 34 minutes and 28 seconds, Senator Joe Manchin again brings up the question asks Philip N Howard directly:

  • Which country poses the greatest threat to our democracy using social media platforms?
  • Which countries are making strides to do the same?

Philip N. Howard, again, does not answer the question. Instead he engages in another meandering digression before being Senator Joe Manchin gets him back on topic – at which point Philip N. Howard says – China has the greatest capacity. This, again, is not the question asked of him and, tellingly, despite having done all of this research at no point does he provide any explanation as to what makes one country more of a threat then another.

There are many potential reasons why Howard could have had such difficulty in answering a direct question, however the real reason was he wanted to waste the time of the Senators present and misdirect attention from the greater threat to American democracy – the 17 year long quantitative political programto develop a trans-national, socialist-oriented political party in the United States by Venezuela and Cuba in coordination with the Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity (REDH) that help steer it’s development by acting as promoters, authorities and gatekeepers – the Network which Philip N. Howard is himself a part of – as well as their witting or unwitting assistants and financiers.

I’ll now explain first how the above-analyzed social science research findings are in fact anti-Truth, pro-Socialist propaganda and then demonstrate how Philip N. Howard’s career trajectory and academic writing demonstrates his communist political commitments and connections to REDH.

Oxford Internet Institute Research Mirrors Socialist Party Positions

The above graphic organizer shows a side-by-side comparison of research published by the Oxford Internet Institute with Philip N. Howard as the Primary Investigator and the political positions promoted by the Socialist Worker Party (U.K), the Democratic Socialists of America, the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) and the Brazilian Workers Party (Brazil). Content analysis shows that both the Oxford Internet Institute under Philip N. Howard’s direction and the Socialist parties networked with Venezuela are promoting electoral invalidation of Brexit as well as the elections of Trump and Bolsonaro. I’ve already covered the latter two investigations, and will cover the issue of Brexit after the following two oversvations.

While in these particular articles here neither Oxford or the socialist parties explicitly reference each the other – it is interesting to note is that in the article Bot Use in the Presidential Election that the U.S. Marxist – Leninist Organization quotes Howard and the Oxford Internet Institute extensively.

Also worthy of note is that in the top right image which has the “Another Europe is Possible” banner that this has been a Socialist Worker organizing slogan since at least 2004, as evident from these Indymedia protest photos.

Given all this, and what will subsequentially be depicted, we can correct President Rodrigo Duterte’s claim that Oxford is for “stupid people”– with Oxford is for Cunning Crypto-Communist Professors.

Who Funds Philip N. Howard at Oxford?

Philip N. Howard’s funding comes from pro-Bolivarian Revolution sources.

The four institutional supporters for Oxford Internet Institute’s 2019 Inventory are the European Research Council, Hewlette Foundation, Luminate and the Adessium Foundation. Ascribing broad intentions to large funding councils can be highly problematic so I’ll focus on two facts that relate to the factual constellation developed herein.

Luminate is a subsection of the Pierre Omidyar Foundation, which also funds the strongly left-biased news-outlet The Intercept.  The founder of The Intercept, Glen Greenwald, has documented connections to Trevor Fitzgibbon – who Venezuela has used for Public Relations – since at least 2009 when both participated in developing the second edition of the Voices of a People’s History of the United States Project. Notably Zinn is listed as one of the strategy developers for the REDH project. Fitzgibbon – who did PR for Julian Assange before and after he was granted Ecuadorian citizenship by President Rafael Correa, one a reliable ally of the Bolivarian project – also helped Greenwald get his big break by doing PR for Edward Snowden and arranging his safe travels to Russia.

 Another project that the European Research Council funded is titled A Global Movement for Environmental Justice: The EJAtlas.

The ETJAtlas is large, searchable data base of environmental conflict. According to the authors, it is:

“informed, based on and co-designed together with global environmental justice organizations; many of which had been building their own repositories of knowledge on such ecological conflicts over the past 30 years in some cases. These include the Observatory of mining conflicts of Latin America (OCMAL), Oilwatch, World Rainforest Movement, FIOCRUZ and the Brazilian network of Environmental Justice; GAIA; and the Centro di Documentazione sui Conflitti Ambientali (CDCA), as well as other sourcewe can say that a further aim of the EJAtlas is to support and contribute to the cohesiveness and self-awareness of an emerging globalizing movement for environmental justice (Martinez-Alier et al. 2016). An exercise that falls under what the historian Vijay Prashad describes as a socialist writing project — one intended to produce a confident community of struggle and to empower opposition to the status quo through the sharing of narratives that highlight the agency of those struggling to create better worlds.”

The project itself is fascinating en toto, but in relation to discussion I want to focus solely on three things.

First is the project’s avowedly socialist orientation.

Second is the use of Manuel Castells as an orienting figure – the introductory sentence invokes his scholarship with the statement: “The environmental movement may be “the most comprehensive and influential movement of our time” (Castells 1997: 67), representing for the ‘post-industrial’ age what the workers’ movement was for the industrial period.”

And third that of the authors is Joan Martinez-Alier – a political ecologist who’s given many speeches for the Latin American Council of Social Sciences, blogged for Venezuela’s Chavista website Apporea, and wrote in his report The Environmentalism of the Poor submitted for readership by U.N. that “Eco-Zapatism was overdue in Mexico”. In an article featured on the website of Venezuelan state media outlet TeleSUR, Joan Martinez-Alier’s work forms the basis for numerous ecological movements and the claims made by Delcy Rodriguez, Vice President of Venezuela, that the United States must abide by the Paris Climate Agreement.

Given that Philip N. Howard has written a book on Manuel Castells, this is appropriate theme on which to begin development.

Philip N Howard’s Intellectual and Professional Trajectory
Engagement with The Zapatista Uprising

In Pax Technica Philip N. Howard describes in brief his journey to the heart of a Marxist insurgency.

“In 1995 I traveled to Chiapas, Mexico, to meet with the Zapatista insurgents. I wanted to learn about their motivations and their struggle, and to understand why they were having such an unusual impact on international politics.”

Why did he go there?

“My first investigations took me to Chiapas to meet with the Zapatistas and learn about their internet strategies in 1994.”

While he describes little about his Mexico experiences in Pax Technica, he later wrote an article with Thomas Homer-Dixon that is, in short, a justification of the Marxist revolutionary movement. He also gives an interpretation of the events there that are quite at odds with the wider literature on the Zapatistas. He says, again in Pax Technica, that:

“The stories of the Zapatistas and the Arab Spring are not about nationalist fervor inspiring political revolution. They are not about religious fundamentalism. These movements were not particularly Marxist, Maoist, or populist. They had leaders, but employed comparatively flat organizations of informal teams…”

This is an unusual claims as it is so at odds with the specialist literature on the subject. Reading The Communist Roots of Zapatismo and the Zapatista Uprisingby Christopher Gunderson ,The Zapatista “Social Netwar” in Mexicoby Rand, Zapatista: Reinventing Revolution in MexicobyLuis Lorenzano or Todd Wolfson’s From the Zapatistas to Indymediayou’d learn that“Zapatismo emerged dialectically, through a series of confrontations, and was/is a fluid response to material conditions of struggle in Mexico” which originated from a group of six urban openly Marxist revolutionaries, including the now famous spokesperson for the organization Subcomandante Marcos, whose real name is Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicenteand who was a professor in the Sciences and Art for Design Department at UAM that praises Fidel Castroand that assigned his students a reading list that included Karl Marx, Louis Althusser, and Mao Tse-tung. You’d learn that in the 1980s he and his fellow cadre-members moved into the mountains of Chiapas to organize the local Mayan community with the goal of leading an armed uprising that would cause the country to rally to their side so they capture state power.

So why does Howard say that the Zapatistas are not Communists given all this and that the 23 de Enero community in Caracas – the neighborhood that George Ciccariello-Maher claims is the “most radical” –includes an EZLN flag in their movement of movements? Why does Howard make this claim when, as you can see on the bottom right, that Subcomandante Marcos uses Communist icons on flags when he gives public speeches?

I couldn’t say for sure, but all things considered I’d speculate it’s to create the perception of distance from these Marxist revolutionaries. Being an openly communist professor can lead one to increased vigilance being conferred upon their academic work in light of ethical Professional Codes of Ethics and Standards. After all – those who want to overturn all existent rules and laws to suit their whims and those of their comrades are likely to do so in their intellectual work as well. Because of this much of the organizing occurs through email lists – a la the Zapatistas, Social Forum, and IndyMedia – and partnership within the “network of networks” isn’t openly avowed but understood through reference to common symbols, ideas, and connection to other comrade professors.

Indymedia Centers

Emerging in part from the intermingling of myriad NGO activists and academics via encounters curated by the Zapatistas, the Independent Media Centers were born just before the Battle in Seattle. Conceived of as a combination between Alternative Press and vector of cyber-subversion antagonistic to the capitalist paradigm – police record attest to its success toward those ends.

Josh Wolf, a contributor to Indymedia, was jailed for 11 monthsfor refusing to turn over unedited video footage connected to an arson case. An Indymedia user was arrested for leaving a comment implying he was going harass a judge who’d just sent animal rights activists to jail after his personal information was posted on Indymedia. The German government shut down the Indymedia website and banned it as an extremist organization. Police in Bristol raided Indymedia and forced it to close down, as did the police in Greece for the Athens Indymedia.

According to Joshua D. Atkinson in Alternative Media and Politics of Resistance: A Communication Perspective this is not to be considered exceptional but the rule as:

“Past research has demonstrated that Indymedia.org, The Nation and a variety of zines sere as primary sources for information about resistance and social justice for Radical Participatory activities (e.g., Armstrong, 1982; Atkinson & Dougherty, 2006; Atton 2002a; 20040 Downing 2003a; 2003b). These are not the only alternative media titles used by Radical Participatory activists as other titles, like the anarchist news website Inforshop.org, have emerged from additional research projects (e.g., Atton, 2003).”

In New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen Philip N. Howard describes his visiting the headquarters of these organizations more than once:

“Near the convention, Francie is getting ready at the Independent Media Center (IMC). She is twenty-three, petite, and dressed in black and green army fatigues bought at a secondhand store. Francie is angry at her country, disgusted by its blind faith in an environmentally unsustainable economy. Francie believes in a carbon tax that would discourage polluters and create a revenue stream for research into green technologies. She doesn’t believe that the mainstream media do justice to environmental issues, so she has volunteered with the IMC…”

While there is nothing wrong with this by itself, put into the evidentiary constellation that this article is develops this becomes another indicator – weak by itself but more significant in light of everything else – of Philip N. Howard’s in-group membership with a covert, coordinated, subversive network.

The Thought of the Marxist Manuel Castells

In the book Castells and the Media: Theory and Media Philip N. Howard claims that the person in the title, Manuel Castells is “one of the most important contemporary social scientists.” More than that, per Howard’s opening dedication, he is “inspiring”.

As a public intellectual with almost 50 years of teaching and publishing behind him so there is a lot one could say about his work.

For our purposes, I only have two issues to focus on:

  • The general orientation of Castells’ research
  • The networks in which Castells operates

The first point is quickly answered: Castells’ is a Marxist. In “Networks in Manuel Castells’ Theory of the Network SocietyAri-Veikko Anttiroiko argues that “‘network’ in Castells’ social theory is not an analytical concept but rather a powerful metaphor that served to capture his idea of the new social morphology of late capitalism.” His career began as a Marxist analyst of the city and as technology developed, he incorporated these new forms of discourse into his work to give the appearance of novelty to his analysis.

As for the networks in which Manuel Castells engages with, he is a political theorist associated with the Sao Paulo Forum, the Association for Progressive Communications and CLACSO– a social sciences organization whose conferences have previously been promoted and covered by Venezuela’s state media. He’s also published open letters via Cuba’s Network in Defense of Humanity.

Taking online graduate level courses with Manuel Castells and a number of other leftist activists and intellectuals such as Juan Carlos Monedero and Pablo Iglesias – two of the founders of Spain’s PODEMOS Party that received over 8.8 million Euros in funding from the governments of Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro Moros for consulting and production work – is possible via CLACSO’s online platform.

Their co-appearances at CLACSO events isn’t the only time that the Director of TeleSUR, Patricia Villegas, and Manuel Castells have had the opportunity to network. They both also gave presentations at the X Encuentro Internacional de Investigadores y Estudiosos de la Información y la Comunicación (ICOM) in Havana, Cuba 2019.

Castells has also been featured in El Telegrafo, an Ecuadorian newspaper, and cited by its director Orlando Perez, who transitioned to becoming an executive at TeleSUR English following the discovery of irregularities during his tenure at El Telegrafo and the departure of his patron, ex-President Rafael Correa due to anti-corruption legal proceedings.

The Orinoco Tribute, a media outlet managed by the former consul general of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Chicago, Jesus Rodriguez-Espinoza, – the same Jesus Rodriguez-Espinoza who accepted pledges from members of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization to support the Bolivarian Revolution– also publishes calls to study the work of Manuel Castells.

Given all this and Manuel Castells long and intimate association with Uruguay’s FrenteAmplista network, it helps explain why this country was not included within Oxford Internet Institute’s 2019 Global Disinformation Inventory.

The Center for Communication and Civic Engagement & Lance Bennett

According to Philip N. Howard’s CV, when he was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication doing research on electoral issuesat the University of Washington the directorof the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement, Lance Bennet, was also on the planning committee for the Northwest Social Forum. The video promoting it, from which the above screenshot comes, is quaint given its low production quality and deceptive given the fact that shorty before the launch of this Movement of Movements in Caracas Hugo Chavez announced at the World Forum of Intellectuals and Artiststhat he would be using the billions of dollars of the oil revenues the governments received to fund a “network of networks”.

Reading the book that Philip N. Howard edited with Andrew Chadwick, Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics,you would learn that had the event not been cancelled it would have been the second Social Forum in the U.S. following the Boston Social Forum– an event extensively promoted by the Venezuela Information Officeand attended, like the aforementioned Caracas event, by Danny Glover.

While it’s interesting to note that when Lance Bennett arrived at Yalefor graduate school it was at a time when Black Panther Party activism was high and talk of general strike was in the air – this says nothing per se about the nature of Bennet’s academics. It is, however, noteworthy to point out that Omar González, Cuba’s former Vice-Minister of Culture, is someone that thinks Lance Bennet’s works is important and a useful theoretical basis for Communist Party praxis.

George Soros’s Central European University

From 2013-2015 Philip N. Howard was the founding Professor for the School of Public Policy and the Director of the Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University – which was founded and funded by George Soros. George Soros though that this particular department was so worthy that he even recorded a minute long promotional video for the Public Policy Department. My evocation of Soros here is meant to highlight only three points:

The importance of the first one will become apparent in the section below titled “Philip N. Howard’s Covert Support of Arab and US Communist Insurrections”. The importance of the second point will be made apparent by referencing the header images – many of which include the raised fist symbols used by those associated with the Bolivarian Socialist Movement. The third point will come into play in light of the section “Philip N. Howard supports Black Lives Matter-related Intellectuals”.

Discourse with Rebecca MacKinnon

One of the “campaigners for internet freedom” that Philip N. Howard highlights and praises in Pax Technica is Rebecca MacKinnon.

A member and director of a number of advocacy groups that educate, agitate and organize under the banner of human rights not codified in U.S. or international law. The U.S. State Department recently formed an Unalienable Rights Commission to act as a counterbalance to the explosive growth of such organizations, and a cursory review of Rebecca MacKinnon’s presentations demonstrate that she is exemplary of those activists that mobilizes misunderstandings of law and human rights discourse for dubious or malignant purposes.

As is evidenced from the above, Rebecca MacKinnon’s book Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedomuses classic socialist iconography. Lest I be deemed guilty of merely judging a book by its cover, it is also worth pointing out that part five of the book is titled “What is to be Done?” – an allusion to the Vladimir Illich Lenin book with the same title.

That Rebecca MacKinnon makes this obvious reference to Lenin is interesting for a number of  reasons. For the purposes of brevity I’ll limit my comments to calling attention to the fact that in What is to be Done? Lenin diverges from the classical Marxian conception of seizure of state power and describes the need for a covert, professional revolutionary cadre – a Vanguard Party.

In his article Lenin and the Concept of the Professional Revolutionary, published in the History of Political Thought, Robert Mayer explicates that while this vanguard party – what Gramsci referred to as the Modern Prince – is Lenin’s main concerns there is another intermediary social group between the Party and the Masses. These are the activists, artists, and intellectuals that are covertly connected to or loosely associated with the party and are either consciously subservient or are generally deferential to it – a Network.

In short, to put Lenin’s dual-power conception of politics in general terms – the Vanguard Party is the Revolutionary-Government-In-Waiting, and the Network is their steering committee.

Within this context, this makes a several facts pulled from Rebecca MacKinnon’s academic/activist biography take on an interesting light – and thus Philip N. Howard’s citation of her.

(1) The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) summit that Philip N. Howard describes Rebecca MacKinnon as speaking refers to in the above quote was targeted for institutional capture by the European Social Forum, the European partner of the Sao Paulo Forum – an organization founded by Cuba’s Communist Party and Brazil’s Workers party and now supported by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

While there is no online list of members or supporters of the now defunct European Social Forum, content analysis of Rebecca MacKinnon’s messaging, her being on the Advisory Board of organizations whose members include those associated with the Sao Paulo Forums and coverage of her book in journals about leftist social movements – provides provisional proof that she was a part of this cadre.

(2) Rebecca MacKinnon worked at CNN at the same time as Andres Izarra – Venezuela’s former Minister of Communication and Information and the ex-president of TeleSUR. Shortly after Izarra left, so too did she. I don’t know if the two of them ever did interact

(3) Rebecca MacKinnon gave a presentation at RightsCon in Manila in 2015 and FitzGibbon Media, Venezuela’s public relations firm, was also present there. 

(4) Rebecca MacKinnon’s partner in the founding of Global Voices– a journalistic organization that would later play a minor role, along with Julian Assange of Wikileaks, in the Arab Spring – was Ethan Zuckerman and he too had a run in with Andres Izarra. In a blog post entitled Opening Sessions at the Aljazeera Forum, Ethan Zuckerman describes attending an Al Jazeera conference where Izarra was on a panel.

(5) Ethan Zuckerman – who is known to Granma, the newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party – has written a number of quantitative media analysis articles about the Ferguson, Missouri political unrest that was promoted by George Soros, Venezuela’s media contractorsRebel Diaz, Venezuela’s public relations firm FitzGibbon Media, Venezuela’s political allies Code Pink – as evidenced via the documentary Whose Streets?and Danny Glover. In addition to writings on his blog, in a chapter of the book Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice Ethan Zuckerman also describes how Global Voices helped promote the activity there in the media.

 Marek Toszynski

Another internet activist/organization that Philip N. Howard believes deserving of praise is Marek Toszynski, one of the founders of Tactical Tech.

In addition to being a member of this democracy advocacy NGO, Marek is also a writer for the New Internationalist– a “new left” periodical that describes advocating for Venezuela in their 2019 annual reportand, as is evident from the above magazine cover, uses variations of the Sao Paulo Forum slogan “Another World is Possible” as an orientation point for their editorial vision.

I’ll forego similar analysis as I did to the above, but as I believe it’s noteworthy I will say that it’s deserving of being pointed out that the second co-founder of Tactical Tech is an artist whose recent exhibition could perhaps be described as AgitProp art against Facebook, Stephanie Hankey, and that she is also an academic working at Oxford’s Internet Institute.

What Does Philip N. Howard Promote?

Philip N. Howard supports the de-platforming of Steve Bannon.

While looking through Philip N. Howard’s Twitter account I noticed that he expressed disdain at Steve Bannon addressing the Oxford Union.

More than expressing some kind of rationale with his positions, he breaks form from the polite Canadian stereotype and says that it’s a mistake to allow him on the “platform” as he “chokes public discourse” – and is a “poison.”

This is noteworthy for two reasons.

Rather than saying that Steve Bannon “shouldn’t be allowed an audience” or “a soap box to stand on” or some other variation of the phrases – Philip N. Howard chooses a term that has been widely adopted by Socialist parties and Antifa activists: platform.

While Philip N. Howard doesn’t out and out call Steve Bannon a fascist – his message is the same as that worded by the Communist Party of Canada and the Hugo Chavez Front of Toronto – the city and country where Philip N. Howard received his Bachelor of Arts degree.

Avowed socialist Owen Jones tweeted a similar stance against Bannon and the Canary, a recently founded “social justice” oriented UK news outlet that has published an article about how sad it is that propaganda funded by Venezuela was banned from YouTube and that also promotes Philip N. Howard’s research, also published an article claiming that Bannon is a fascist and thus does not deserve the right to speak at Oxford.

None of this reflects directly upon Philip N. Howard’s scholarship – but the affinities are worthy of being pointed out. 

Philip N. Howard’s Covert Support of Arab and US Communist Insurrections

In the article A State Department 2.0 Response to the Arab Spring Philip N. Howard capitalized on the media’s general interest and specialist ignorance to advocate for State Department policy positions that sought to create sympathies for those engaged in the effort to overthrow the Egyptian government. In his own words he writes:

“We need the State Department to do some 21st century thinking.  Egypt’s elites are defecting, and taking their networks of support away from Mubarak. The protests in Egypt are about social networks that are beyond Mubarak’s reach.  Don’t worry about who is next, worry about which networks need recognition, support, and encouragement. The State Department 2.0 strategy needs to bet on networks of civil society participants in Tunis, Cairo, and the other regional capitals now in crisis. Think in terms of networks, not individual power brokers and traditional political actors. Even the Muslim Brotherhood may be best thought of as a network organization…”

Putting aside the issues of the demands and their legitimacy given by the aggrieved it’s worth point out that nowhere within this article does Howard identify any of the actual actors involved. “The network” as an ideal is all that’s referred to and only by reading other sources, such as the article The Revolutionary Socialists in Post-‘Arab Spring’ Egypt does one learn that many of those initial calls put out to engage in protest were those of Socialists. Ahmed Salah, the “mastermind of the revolution” and the son of a Socialist Labor Party activist is not mentioned at all.

There is, similarly no mention of the role of Julian Assange. Considering groups such as Amnesty International hailed as the catalyst for the Arab Spring, that there is no mention of the fact that it was the World Social Forum that helped propel Assange from lone hacker to networked political actor and that Howard praises Assange’s work in Pax Technica this seems curious.

There’s another compelling omission in Philip N. Howard’s book Democracy’s Fourth Wave?: Digital Media and the Arab Spring – the lack of relationship between poets and revolutionaries.

In Chapter 7 of Translating Egypt’s Revolution: The Soul of Tahirwe learn that performance poets played a significant role in promoting the initial events in Egypt. A cursory look into Egypt’s history shows that this is not the first time such artists played a would be significant political role. In The Artist as ProphetChris Hedges open his article on the importance of emotions as a guiding force in politics with a quote from an Egyptian general on how they managed to surprised the Israelis in the 1973 war he states: “Instead of reading the intelligence reports, you should have read our poets.” Were such a connection unique to Egypt then this might be plausibly explained plausibly as a mere oversight – but it’s less so when one considers the actors that have inspired and the activities promoted by Bolivarian Revolutionary Actors.

José Martí is Cuban poet long praised by Castro and other leftists as a guiding light for their cause. Olga Luzardo was a poet and militant that helped found the Communist Party in Venezuela. Subcomandante Marcos, the leader of the EZLN who now goes by the name Subcomandante Galeano – someone that Howard would presumably be familiar with having engaged in field research in Chiapas, is a poetas well. Eduardo Galeano, one of the main inspirations and co-conspirators of Bolivarian Movement, is also a poet. So too is Jesus Santrich, one of the current leaders of the FARC. Alice Lovelace, the National Lead Organizer for the United States Social Forum in Atlanta – an event which was, as I go into more detail below, promoted by Venezuelan intelligence – was a poet. Public poetry readings, rap performances and artistic workshop demonstrations and marches all have been hallmarks of the carnivalesque atmosphere encouraged by the Social Forums and all of which are connected to an inter-generational effort at achieving fundamental political change. With this focus on granular details and a comparative context in mind a concrete political strategy comes into view – activities to mobilize emotionally charged, highly expressive individuals into what Manuel Castells calls Networks of Outrage and Hope and what Gustav LeBon calls The Crowd. Strange, then, that this is elided from Howard’s account.

The limited network ethnographic fields which Philip N. Howard’s selects isn’t limited to this singular article. In Pax Technica he similarly described Occupy Wall Street as a “spontaneous” network movement. There Howard states the following:

“People sometimes say that the internet doesn’t “cause” democracy. Or “it’s the people, not the mobile phones.” But people and their technology are often impossible to separate. Try to imagine your life without your mobile phone or your internet connection. Or try to tell the story of the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, or any recent international social movement without mentioning digital media. You’ll find yourself with an incomplete story. Many of the people involved with these movements are eager to talk about the devices and media that are their tools of resistance. Their technology and their story go together.”

despite the fact the extensive documentary evidence shows that this was not some “spontaneous” uprising but a political spectacle that was long planned by groups connected to Venezuela such as the Workers World Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation and Crimethinc. (documented here and here) as well as poets and performance artists.

His lack of apparent awareness on the matter is all the more unusual considering that Natalia Buier and Tamara Steger were engaged in research about Occupy Wall Street at Central European University at the same time that Philip N. Howard was there.

Had Philip N. Howard spoken to professor Béla Greskovits during his time at Central European University about Janina Alexandra Mangold’s Master’s thesis The Transnational Diffusion of the Occupy Movement to Germanyor to someone that remembered when two of the people claiming to be co-founders of Occupy Wall Street, Noah Fischer and Maria Byckgave a presentation at Central European University he would have realized this. Had he reached out to Zoltán Glück

who’s a Central European University graduate now working on a PhD in Anthropology with a focus on Critical Theory that’s published a number of articles on Occupy Wall Street it would be in his network ethnography. Were Philip N. Howard have taken the time to talk to Daniel Bochsler, a Central European University professor and attendee of a three day workshop entitled The Transnational Dimension of Protest: From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street organized by World Social Forum scholar and organizer Donatella della Porta could have disabused Howard of this notion. Anil Duman, a Central European University Econmics professor and supporter of Occupy the Economy could have done the same. Julia Buxton, a Central European University professor in the Political Sciences department that is an longtime expert on Venezuela – as evidenced by her giving presentations at Socialist Worker events over a decade ago and being published in the New Left Review, which is now based in Quito, Ecuador a few short blocks from the English language offices of Venezuela’s state media outlet TeleSUR – would have told Philip N. Howard the same. Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick, a founding member of the Action Network– a digital tool for organizing people online that’s published research on the processes involved in World Social Forum and that worked under Philip N Howard at the Central European University could have told him that “It’s not just about the technology, it’s about the IRL human networks”.

Philip N. Howard and Black Lives Matter Supporters

That Philip N. Howard would retweet Charlton McIlwain’s new book Black Software – which covers the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement means nothing by itself. Investigation of aspects of the BLM project is entirely valid, and yet in the greater context of the theoretical underpinnings of Howard’s research projects and the networks he is connected to this is highly significant.

The connections between Cuban-Venezuelan intelligence and the founding of Black Lives Matters is under-reported in the academic and popular press, but begins in earnest following Hurricane Katrina. Sekou M. Franklin provides an account of Venezuela’s financial assistance via the Common Grounds Collective and People’s Hurricane Relief Fund in the chapter African Americans, Transnational Contention, and Cross National Politics in the United States and Venezuela. The condensed version of the story is that oil money started to flow to current and former Black Panther Party members such as Malcolm Suber and Malik Rahim to engage in community assistance projects and so too did black-transnational political agitators from Venezueula such as Jesus “Chucho” Garcia– who has since had his diplomatic credentials revoked. The rationale why was never publicized, but it’s likely because of his advocacy on behalf of the Pan-Africanist movement.

Alicia Garza and Opal Tometti, two of the founders of Black Lives Matter, attended the United States Social Forum in 2007 – the U.S. iteration of Sao Paulo Forum. In the ChapterFrankfurt versus Atlantain Political Translation: How Social Movement Democracies Survivethe author Nicole Doerr describes the United States Social Forum as follows: The Coalition now included job centers as well as student organizations, labor, immigrant organizations, North American indigenous people and black and Latino church-based organizations, many of them lead by women and female or queer-identified leaders.” A few years after this, in 2011 Garza, became the Chairperson of the Right to the City Steering Committee – another Social Forum front and a few years after this Tometti would personally receive an award from Nicholas Maduro. Also worth noting is that recently Philip N. Howard’s director at the CCCE, Lance Bennet, gave a talk with Opal Tometion using technology to mobilize people for protests.

Philip N. Howard: Academic Socialist Steganographist

Steganography is the practice of concealing messages or other content within another message or image in order to avoid detection. In addition to looking at the subjects that interest Philip N. Howard, the research designs errors that he makes in his investigations, the impact they have on public discourse and governmental debate, the activists he chooses not to include and exclude in his ethnographic analysis, his professional associations, the activists he promotes and the people that promote him – one can find evidence of Socialist bias within the theoretical framework he employs.

While one could argue that the unnecessary-to-the-discussion-at-hand citation of Frankfurt School’s Marxists like Adorno and Horkheimer, as Philip N Howard does in Digitizing the Social Contract: Producing American Political Culture in the Age of New Media, constitutes a tell as to his politico-epistemological orientation– this is insufficient evidence. So too is his unnecessary-to-the-discussion-at-hand citation of publications printed by the radical Zed Bookscollective and his familiarity with Marx’s personal history that he cites in his book New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen.

That Philip N. Howard cites Why Not Create a Shadow Government?by Michael Albert – who’s listed on TeleSUR’s websiteas a staff member – in the same article is more notable by itself, all the more so as in Howard’s in-text citation of him and in his listing of him in the References section the author is incorrectly attributed to “Alpert, M” rather than “Albert, Michael”. Without diverting at length into Freudian theories of repression and self-preservation, it’s worth wondering if this is an unconscious disassociation on the part of Howard as a means of intellectual self-preservation. Why is that? I’ll proffer two reasons why.

First is that it obfuscates the schools of thought informing Howard’s article. The first seven pages of results of Howard’s citation on Google does not detect the original article. Going to the website of the magazine listed as the publisher it is discoverable – that is if you know the correct name of the author.

Once someone goes to the ZCommunications landing page, as one needs to do to find the original source, you will learn that their slogan isThe Spirit of Resistance Lives.

ZMagazine, from whence the Albert article came is a “radical print and online periodical”. The Rebels with a Causemovie poster portion of this section’s header image was chosen because the film features Todd Gitlin, who has reviewed Howard’s book New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen– a fact reflected on his CV.

ZVideo, according to their write up, is a way to distribute this particular school of thought’s talks and classes that has “proven more accessible.” The speakers and subjects included in their library  are “Noam Chomsky’s [who has a] humor[ous] and casual speaking style, the dynamism of Hugo Chavez, and the atmosphere of an evening session at the World Social Forum in Mumbai, India.”

ZNet is a “community of people committed to social change” and includes people such as Boaventura de Sousa Santos– one of the founders of the World Social Forum; Medea Benjamin– whose advocacy on behalf of Venezuela has granted her audience with Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro and who used to work with Deborah James, the former director of the Venezuela Information Office, someone interviewed as part of Lance Bennett’s Global Citizen Project; Greg Wilpert– who founder of VenezuelaAnalysis and the first Executive Director of TeleSUR English; Mark Weisbrot– who works at Center for Economic and Policy Research; Bill Fletcher– who had a TV show on TeleSUR English called Global African, and many more.

Marisol Sandoval, a Lecturer at the Department of Culture and Creative Industries at City University London writing in A Critical Contribution to the Foundations of Alternative Media Studies – posted in the City, University of London Institutional Repository –  agrees with me. She claims that there is “another type of alternative media that aims at establishing a counter-public sphere” and that “Examples for such a type of media are The New Internationalist, Z Magazine, Rethinking Marxism, Historical Materialism or Monthly Review.”

Secondly rationale is that it obfuscates the specific context which informs Philip N. Howard’s closing contentions. In the article Michael Albert is referred to as a “political hypermedia consultant” and not as the main proponent of Participatory Economics, or ParEcon, which is a form of anarchist economics. In the context of Albert’s larger body of work, he’s not just advocating some political marketing ploy but is using new language to describe V.I. Lenin’s Dual Power political structure – something much debated but groups such as the International Marxist Tendency.

Since I can imagine a reader protesting that this analysis in combination with the above network ethnography is not sufficient evidence to make my case there is, thankfully more that verifies my hypothesis.

In the article Automation, Big Data, and Politics: A Research Review, published in IJOC, Philip N. Howard argues that:

“the time is right to match dedication to critical theoryof algorithmic communication with a dedication to empirical research through audit studies, network ethnography, and investigation of the political economy of algorithmic production.”

How does he know this?

“We review[ed] the great variety of critical scholarship on algorithms, automation, and big data in areas of contemporary life…”

Philip N. Howard then expands on the lines of research he describes in that article in Creativity and Critique: Gap Analysis of Support for Critical Research on Big Data.

Anyone familiar with the Frankfurt School on reading the words I’ve bolded and put in italics and that Philip N. Howard includes in the keywords for the article should immediately pick up on what they reference. For those not familiar with compound components of critical theory one could download the Oxford Dictionary of Critical Theory, which has entries that explain “even the most complex of theoretical discourses, such as Marxism.” To keep things succinct, however, I’ll provide a brief explanation as it relates just to this case.

In Introduction: Critical Scholarship, Practice and Education by Harald Bauder and Salvatore Engel Di Mauro states that:

“The term “critical” refers to a tradition of critical theory. An often cited representative of this tradition is the so-­called Frankfurt School. This “school” consisted of a network of researchers affiliated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which operated from 1923 to 1933, moved to New York during the Nazi regime, but reopened in Frankfurt in 1950. Although the label “Frankfurt School” is problematic and inexact, it does permit associating some basic ideas with the notion of “critical”.

And on page 4 the authors continue that: “Another important figure in critical scholarship is Karl Marx”

In the article The Problem with “Critical” Studies by Joseph Heath – professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto – Heath describes reading a number of books for a prize and noticing a number of “profoundly cringe-inducing” patterns in them:

“the ambition for “critical social science” was to have, not just social science guided by normative commitments, but for those normative commitments to be made explicit. The biggest problem with the books I read is that they almost invariably failed on the second half of this.”

Indeed, this is the assessment Jolene Zepcevski’s puts forward in her review of Philip N. Howard – Why ‘Pax Technica’ Is A Good Book with a Bad Argument.

Despite the opening claim that the book will analyze ICT policy, all it really does is advance a number of normative commitments that are socialist in nature. This is evident not only in his choice of framing the evolution of options which net technologies present to social groups – evolving from Mancur Olson’s Logic of Collective Action, to Lance Bennett’s Logic of Collective Action– but also in the wider, transnational framework which he uses.

After Philip N. Howard provides a bafflegab definition for the term Pax Technica  he states on page 147 that in this new arrangement of world power:

“In the pax technica, the core and the periphery are not territorially assigned but socially and technologically constructed.”

The concept of core and periphery emerges from World Systems Research and is strongly associated with the theorist who popularized it within the social sciences, the Marxist Immanuel Wallerstein.

Explaining all of the components of the theory and the reasons why this variant of dependency theory didn’t get the goods it’s promoters promised developing countries would fill a series of books – so here I’ll just point out that those who abided by its principles often frequently sought to apply solutions for problems based on pre-existing political commitments and thereby worsened them. There’s numerous examples of this in Pax Technica, but as it would require extensive exegesis I’ll instead point to Philip N Howard’s Political Communication, Computational Propaganda, and Autonomous Agents. There he makes an appeal to human rights that aren’t codified into law and writes that:

“social media sites and proprietary device networks can change their terms of service at any time without informing visitors, turning any speech or activity on the site into a criminal act. For Sandvig and others, this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process, which requires proper notice to the public of what constitutes criminal behavior”.

For anyone that has a basic understanding of law, there is a significant difference between the Terms of Service on a private social media platform and state and federal legal regulations.

No matter what one may say about the growth of the importance of social media in the general population’s consumption of news media – a person being kicked off Twitter or Instagram for violation of Terms of Service is worlds apart from government agents swarming a facility used to print material, confiscating the equipment and preventing them from publishing and circulating materials. These types of appeals to abstract rights abound in Philip N. Howard and helps explain why he has advocated for the Nationalization of Facebook on Slate – a policy position which is also promoted by the Communists Paul Mason and Lewis Bassett.

Philip N. Howard – Liberation Technologist

Lest this seem like an distorted reading of the Philip N. Howard’s theoretical framework it’s worth pointing out that he closes Pax Technicain praise of what he calls liberation technologies.

Whereas Liberation Theology is the importation and use of Marxist concepts absent from Christian doctrinefor the pursuit of geopolitical goals, liberation technology is a term widely used within the crypto-anarchistand cyber-communistcommunities to describe how the newest iteration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) will be used in order to bring about the revolution.

While the modern conception is typically rooted in the speculated capabilities of present, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and People’s Commissar for Education and Culture Georg Lukas anticipated this in his notion of totality, as described in History and Class Consciousness.

Advocates of Liberation Theology and Liberation Technology share a similar worldview. Whereas the former sees the eschaton– the end of history – as emerging from mass conversion to “true” Christianity, at the end of an AK-47 if need be, the latter sees it as emerging from “true” non-mediated social relations, at the expense of breaking all existent laws, customs and social mores if need be.

For Liberation Theologists Colombia’s National Liberation Army, the ELN, is representative of such an ideologically-aligned organization. Their engagement in kidnapping, drug-trafficking, assassinations etc. is excusable as it is “God’s work”.

For Liberation Technologists Wikileaks and Anonymous, aka organizations engaged in terrorism-related activities are representative of such an ideologically-aligned organization. Indeed the Tor network, developed by Liberation Technologist Roger Dingledine, has helped facilitate drug trafficking and the financing of terrorism.

While the merits of apps such as Tsunamic Democraticand other platforms aimed at uniting disparate interest groups for political protest and organization are open for debate – it is certainly clear by the above analysis of Philip N. Howard’s published academic work and the existent case-history of “liberation technology” that advocacy of such positions using such terms is akin to how “Hands Off Venezuela” is equivalent to “Viva Socialism!”.

Philip N Howard – Audience Reception

Lest my interpretation of Philip N. Howard’s oeuvre seem to improperly highlight certain elements of his work, I’ve decided to highlight below some of how other researchers interpret his work.

The following section exhibits how Philip N. Howard’s work has been interpreted by other experts in the field and provides network ethnographic descriptions of the individuals and organizations that have cited his work which help prove, along with all of the other evidence, Philip N. Howard’s membership in the REDH network.

Philip N Howard – Perceived as akin to Paulo Freire, Marxist Pedagogue

In Radical Pockets of Digital Democracy: Deleuzian Grandeur? Luke J. Heemsbergena lecturer at Deakin University and writer of WikiLeaks apologiaclaims that Philip N. Howard’s four year Network Ethnography match the views of Paulo Freire.

Paulo Freire, along with Marx, Gramsci and General Zamora, are some of the most revered thought-leaders amongst those advocating 21stcentury socialism.

While not reflective of Philip N. Howard per se, it is nevertheless interesting to note that Dr. John Asimakopoulos, a sociology professor at CUNY-Bronx who identifies as an organic intellectual– an allusion to the Marxist Antonio Gramsci – decided to advertise his book The Next Great Transformation from Kleptocracy Capitalism to Libertarian Socialism through Counter Ideology, Societal Education, & Direct Action, which has a forward by Marxist educator Peter McLaren, in the brochure for the APSA Politics After the Digital Revolution Conference– an event at which  Philip N. Howard gave a presentation.

Other academics, that have wrote long format reviews of Howard, Evgeny Morozov, for instance, identifies as a Marxist and Todd Gitlin has been named as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Robinson Salazar Péreza, a Mexican Critical Theorist and Social Scientist, also promotes Howard, in the context of documents which explicitly references the Network of Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity (REDH).

 Philip N. Howard – Perceived as akin to Cristian Fuchs, Marxist Cultural Theorist

Another person with whom Philip N. Howard is frequently associated with is Christian Fuchs.

The author of books such as Social Media: A Critical Guideand Reading Marx in the Age of Digital Capitalism– after signing up to his Triple C (Communication, Capitalism, Critique) email list I learned that the email server that he uses is the same one used by the ELN (as you can see from the above) and the FARC (as you can tell by looking here).

In Data Journalism and the Regeneration of News by Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young, part of a series called Disruptions put out by Routledge press, the authors similar cite Philip N Howard in the same context as Christian Fuchs.

In Rethinking Ideology in the Age of Global Discontent: Bridging Divides a book edited by by Barrie AxfordDidem Buhari-GulmezSeckin Baris Gulmez Fuchs and Howard are again placed side by side – not in contrast, but complementarily.

In Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy Siva Vaidhyanathan, who also authored the book The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System similarly seems to think that the avowed Marxist Fuchs and Philip N. Howard have similar views.

Philip N. Howard’s Research Promoted by Methods and Organizations Connected to Cuban-Venezuelan Intelligence Agencies

As Wikipedia is an interesting place to determine an author’s reception I decided to search there for instances of Philip N. Howard’s name.

The first citation I examined was made by a Wikipedia user without a page named CWDrea whose only contributions was three edits made to the Arab Spring page.

The content of those edits were to make the claim that the Arab Spring protests were completely non-violent – an empirically false claim attested to by numerous journalists, activists and government authorities present at the events – as well as to include a citation of Philip N. Howard’s article ICT’s and the Fuzzy Causes of the Arab Spring.

A second citation of Philip N. Howard came from a student in a 2016 Columbia University Course called Order and Violence taught by Christopher Blattman.

When I looked at Blattman’s Curriculum Vitae, I learned that he’s a research fellow at the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

Joseph Stiglitz, Mark Weisbrot and Danny Glover are all members of the CEPR advisory board and all have close connections with the Venezuelan government.

The CEPR has published a number of research articles that are, according to Clifton Ross and the numerous others subject area experts he cites in his article Pandering to the Imperial Left: The New CEPR Report “crude piece[s] of gringo-chavista whitewashing aimed at gaining sympathy for “the cause”.

This isn’t surprising when one looks at the people involved in the organization. One of its board members is “Danny Glover, who received over 18 million dollars from Hugo Chavez. Joseph Stiglitz, a long-time Bolivarian Revolution defender and advocate of state-centric economic behavior is also a board member of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, as is Venezuela crisis denier Mark Weisbrot and Warden Bellow, a founding member and promoter of the Sao Paulo Forum. Mark Levinson, who is a lifelong advocate of Democratic Socialism is also on the board as is Deborah James – the former executive director of the Venezuela Information Office and a participant in Lance Bennett’s Global Voices project. Eileen Applebaum, who’s cited by TeleSUR here, is also a member.

After Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa fled the country for definitive charges of corruption and the rumors that Venezuela’s ally the FARC-EP had helped fund his campaign, three of the executive leaders of Center for Economic Policy and Research were among the signatories of a public warning about the dangers of Ecuador “returning to neoliberalism”.

Who thought fit to share this public declaration of anti-neoliberalism? Cuba’s Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity.

This, notably, wasn’t the only Sao Paulo Forum associated intellectual to promote Philip N. Howard.

David Evan Harris, a Sao Paulo University graduate whose first writings are about the benefits of ALBA also promotes Philip N. Howard. Two of his articles appear within the syllabus for the Social Movements & Social Mediacourse he teachers. I could certainly find more evidence in the academic world that proves my point of Dr. Howard’s connections REDH, but I’ll stop for now to summarize and close my case.

Given all these overlaps in “elective” affinities it’s perhaps no surprise that Philip N. Howard’s research was cited in an editorial hosted on TeleSUR – El neoliberalismo millenial y la campaña de Bolsonaro, or The Neoliberal Millenia and Bolsonaro’s Campaignand by the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Malaysia.

I find this latter research-article especially revealing as it implies that the popular rejection of Evo Morales from Bolivia supported by law enforcement officers and the military due to his corrupt patronage networks and anti-democratic activities is marred as “less justified” because of Twitter bots. Like the Communists in the Chiapas, Egypt and Occupy, here again Howard presents a false picture of faceless movements. Because of this poor theoretical underpinning and reliance upon categorically invalid forms of quantitative social science he fails to investigate the much more telling facts of the matter such as disinformation networks connected to news outlets, the extensive circulation online of deepfake nudes within Pro-Nicholas Marudo Facebook groups intended to humiliate Jeanine Añez and Fabiana Rosales de Guaidó, evidence that photos claiming to be protest violence by police that are staged with makeup and actors or are from different times and locations, or going into the issues I mentioned earlier about Venezuela’s online and in real life activity. Indeed, the bullets of messages in an information warfare often comprise equally of what is not there as what is.

Philip N. Howard: Conclusion

All of the above evidence indicates that Philip N. Howard is a member of the Cuban and Venezuelan Intelligence sponsored Network of Intellectuals and that one of the activities that is required of him in exchange for professional support is for him to use his credentials as an expert to deceive the Public and to provide fraudulent or misleading testimony to government bodies perceived as enemies to REDH.

The sum rationale for this argument developed into the following propositions:

  1. Someone that had previously corrected errors in his publications, but refuses do so as it relates to research that misdirects attention from Venezuela
  2. Someone who’s faulty research findings is part of a project to invalidate the Brexit vote
  3. Someone who’s faulty research findings is part of a project to invalidate the election of U.S. president Donald Trump
  4. Someone who’s faulty research findings is part of a project to invalidate the election of Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro
  5. Someone whose first instance of field-research was covering a Communist insurgency (Zapatistas) in Mexico that exploited individual activists, academics and NGOs for political ends along netwar lines
  6. Someone who engaged in embedded investigation with an organization (Indymedia) formed in the wake of the Zapatista conflict to replicate their model worldwide
  7. Someone whose supervisor at the University of Washington helped organize the NorthWest Social Forum – a political organization promoted by and directly connected to Venezuelan intelligence
  8. Someone who helped found an academic program funded and promoted by George Soros, which was populated by multiple academics associated with the World Social Forum and Occupy Wall Street
  9. Someone who receives grant money from organizations that also support avowedly socialist academic projects
  10. Someone whose public political positions related to Steve Bannon are the same as the Canadian Communist Party, the Hands Off Venezuela network, and the British Socialist Workers Party
  11. Someone who – like numerous other socialist parties and academics not open as to their party affiliation – advocates for the nationalization of Facebook
  12. Someone who has published a monograph about one of the main Marxist sociologists that has multiple, active connections to the São Paulo Forum, the PSUV and the Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity
  13. Someone that promotes the research of Black Lives Matters/Black Liberation Movement associated sociological research
  14. Someone whose published academic uses cryptic allusions to Communist schools of thought in their theoretical framework and avows to being a Critical Theorist
  15. Someone who promotes the Liberation Technology school of thought, which is a variation of the socialist Liberation Theology movement
  16. Someone that promotes other artists and intellectuals whose activism and political positions align with the goals of Cuban and Venezuelan Intelligence Services
  17. Someone whose published academic work is promoted via methods typical of Cuba and Venezuela’s Network of Intellectuals and Artists
  18. Someone whose published academic work is promoted by actors associated with Cuba and Venezuela’s Network of Intellectuals and Artists
  19. Someone who refuses to answer questions about their research and their political connections despite such behavior violating the spirit and letter of the appropriate academic professional code of ethics
  20. Someone whose speech acts provided to the US and UK government can be described, respectably, as misdirection and disinformation

is an enchufado scholar, that is a scholar that is “plugged in” to provide services and material support to the regime of Nicolas Maduro in exchange for the receipt of benefits and funding.

After all, it certainly appears that the effect of Howard’s academic publishing and testimony is to spread disinformation and encourage misdirection on behalf of the Socialist network which has helped make Philip N. Howard appear to be an expert in a field of ICT and not just a partisan political advocate in an Oxford robe.

Notes from the Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico

I’m very greatful to making this book publicly available for download.

The Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico was prepared for the U.S. Army and written by David Ronfeldt, John Arquilla, Graham E. Fuller and Melissa Fuller.

The book covers the EZLN organization and netwar, a concept developed for the purpose of understanding the nature of conflict in the information age.

Made possible by developments in media technology, ICT and the growth of transnational NGOs – it is a force-multiplier and an irregular form of warfare.

I’ve pasted some of the notes that I’ve copied from the text below, along with the organizational structure of the Zapatistas.

 

“segmented, polycentric, ideologically integrated network” (SPIN): 

During the 1980s, Chiapas became a crossroads for NGO activists, Roman Catholic liberation-theology priests, Protestant evangelists, Guatemalan refugees, guerrillas from Central America, and criminals trafficking in narcotics and weapons. 

How, then, did network designs come to define the Zapatista move- ment? They evolved out of the movement’s three layers, each of which is discussed below: 

  • At the social base of the EZLN are the indigenas—indigenous peoples—from several Mayan language and ethnic groups. This layer, the most “tribal,” engages ideals and objectives that are very egalitarian, communitarian, and consultative.
  • The next layer is found in the EZLN’s leadership—those top leaders, mostly from educated middle-class Ladino backgrounds, who have little or no Indian ancestry and who infiltrated into Chiapas in order to create a guerrilla army. This was the most hierarchical layer—at least initially—in that the leadership as- pired to organize hierarchical command structures for waging guerrilla warfare in and beyond Chiapas.
  • The top layer—top from a netwar perspective—consists of the myriad local (Mexican) and transnational (mostly American and Canadian) NGOs who rallied to the Zapatista cause. This is the most networked layer from an information-age perspective.
  • The social netwar qualities of the Zapatista movement depend mainly on the top layer, that of the NGOs. Without it, the EZLN would probably have settled into a mode of organization and behavior more like a classic insurgency or ethnic conflict. 

the key economic factor—land—is not really about economics from an indigenous viewpoint. 

land matters intensely to Indians because it is the physical basis for community—for having a sense of community and for being able to endure as a community. Without land, an indigenous people cannot dwell together; their community is culturally dead. Outsiders (including Marxists) often view the Indian struggle for land in economic class terms, evoking images of “landless peasants.” But for Indians, the truly important dimensions of the land issue are about community and culture. 

Mexico’s economic liberalization policies of the 1980s and early 1990s created an agricultural crisis for the peasants, for it brought the termination of subsidies and credits and eliminated agencies regulating agricultural policies. 

Although the state’s population is only 4 percent of the national total, 25 percent of all land disputes in Mexico are in Chiapas; and 30 percent of all petitions for land presented to the federal government come from Chiapas 

As their economic and thus their cultural and social woes mounted from the 1970s onward, the restless indigenas formed new peasant organizations that were independent of the federal and state governments and of the ruling political party, the Institutional Revolu- tionary Party (PRI). A vibrant set of indigenous organizations emerged, the most important being the Unión de Ejidos-Quiptic Ta Lecubtesel, the Unión de Uniones 

The Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas in the central highlands, headed by Samuel Ruíz (known in some circles as the “Red Bishop”), became a key player in the mobilization and politi- cization of the indigenas, notably with the organization of the land- mark Indigenous Encounter in 1974 that stirred many Mayans to en- gage in the kinds of organizing noted above. 

Ruíz would describe Salinas-style neo- liberalism and the poverty it spawned as being “totally contrary to the will of God.” While his diocese denies having ever funded the EZLN, it acknowledges the justice of its cause. 

Its 1983 statutes called for creat- ing the EZLN by name; that year, key FLN leaders moved into the Chiapas jungle to accomplish this, at a time when liberation theology was vibrant, some tiny cadres associated with other guerrilla groups already existed, hopes were rising that revolution would triumph in Central America and spread into Mexico via Chiapas, and peasant organizations like ARIC existed that might be infiltrated. The FLN leadership aimed to establish a powerful center of operations in Chiapas, while also creating a nationwide infrastructure of armed cells. 

The indigenas disapproved of hierarchical command structures. They wanted flat, decentralized designs that emphasized consultation at the community level. Indeed, their key social concepts are about community and harmony—the community is supposed to be the center of all social activity, and its institutions are supposed to maintain harmony among family members, residents of the village, and the spiritual and material worlds. Decisionmaking is essentially communal, and the key positions of power in a village belong to a larger council, under the notion that many people make better deci- sions than just one 

In this design, the purpose of power and authority is to serve the community, not to command it—so one who does not know how to serve cannot know how to govern. Marcos would learn this and later point out that he could not give an order—his order would simply not exist—if it had not been authorized by an assembly or a commit- tee representing the indigenas. While elements of hierarchy are found in these indigenous structures, the Mexican federal and state structures in the region are terribly hierarchical by comparison and are thus viewed as alien impositions. 

As recruitment and organization advanced—and to assure they kept advancing—the EZLN’s founders adapted their principles to those of the indigenas.14 The EZLN did not copy their organizational forms, but it did begin to resemble them. 

Marcos soon clarified that 

Armed struggle has to take place where the people are, and we faced the choice of continuing with a traditional guerrilla structure, or masificando and putting the strategic leadership in the hands of the people. Our army became scandalously Indian, and there was a certain amount of clashing while we made the adjustment from our orthodox way of seeing the world in terms of “bourgeois and prole- tarians” to the community’s collective democratic conceptions, and their world view. 

Some of the activist NGOs were more radical and militant than others, and some were more affected by old ideologies than others. But, altogether, most were in basic agreement that they were not interested in seeking political power or in helping other actors seek power. Rather, they wanted to foster a form of democracy in which civil-society actors would be strong enough to counterbalance state and market actors and could play central roles in making public- policy decisions that affect civil society (see Frederick, 1993a). This relatively new ideological stance, a by-product of the information revolution, was barely emerging on the eve of the EZLN insurrection, but we surmise that it had enough momentum among activists to help give coherence to the swarm that would rush into Mexico, seeking to help pacify as well as protect the EZLN. 

a surge in transnational networking gained momentum following the First Continental Encounter of Indigenous Peoples in 1990 in Ecuador, and after the formation of the Continental Coordinating Commission of Indigenous Nations and Organizations (CONIC) at a meeting in 1991 in Panama. 

Alison Brysk: “We see ourselves as a human rights organization in the broadest sense, and that was certainly our first track of contact with indige- nous rights. But we’ve moved more into ecology . . . clearly it works better.”23 

the UN- sponsored Conference on the Environment and Development—the “Earth Summit”—in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 put NGOs on the map as global activists.  Though the conference mainly assembled govern- ment officials and representatives of international governmental organizations (IGOs), one to two thousand NGO representatives were invited, and more showed up. The key event for them was less the official conference than the NGO Global Forum that was orga- nized parallel to the conference to enable NGOs to debate issues and adopt policy positions independently of governments 

During these conferences, one infrastructure-building NGO proved particularly crucial: the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). It, along with its affiliates (e.g., Peacenet in the United States, Alternex in Brazil) operates the set of Internet-linked computer net- works most used by activists, and thus it played growing roles in facilitating communications by e-mail and fax among the NGOs, and in enabling them to send reports and press releases to officials, journalists, other interested parties, and publics around the world 

The key umbrella networking organization was the innovative, multilayered Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), which spanned a range of peace, human-rights, and church organizations. 

It is difficult to say how influential the NGOs were; they affected some public debates and congressional views, especially on environmental issues, but did not prevent fast-track approval of NAFTA in late 1993. Still, the activists’ trinational pan-issue networks got better organized than ever before. 

Thus, by the time of the EZLN’s insurrection, the transnational NGOs that had been building global and regional networks, notably those concerned with human rights, indigenous rights, and ecumenical and pro-democracy issues, had counterparts to link with in Mexico City, San Cristóbal de las Casas, and other locales. Then, as NGO representatives swarmed into Chiapas in early 1994, new Mexican NGOs were created to assist with communication and coordination among the NGOs—most importantly, the Coalition of Non- Governmental Organizations for Peace (CONPAZ), based at the diocese in San Cristóbal.30 (An NGO named the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico was established in the United States, but it was basically a public-relations arm for the EZLN.) 

The insurrection did not begin as a social netwar. It began as a rather traditional, Maoist insurgency. But that changed within a matter of a few days as, first, the EZLN’s military strategy for waging a “war of the flea” ran into trouble, and second, an alarmed mass of Mexican and transnational NGO activists mobilized and descended on Chia- pas and Mexico City in “swarm networks” (term from Kelly, 1994). Meanwhile, no matter how small a territory the EZLN held in Chia- pas, it quickly occupied more space in the media than had any other insurgent group in Mexico’s if not the world’s history.1 

Acts of sabotage against Mexico’s economic infrastructure were to be features of the FLN/EZLN’s campaign plan. Victory in such a war would hinge on the ability of dispersed operational units (like the focos of Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s theory of guerrilla war- fare—see Guevara [1960], 1985) to pursue a common strategic goal, strike at multiple targets in a coordinated manner, and share scarce resources with each other through strategic and logistical alliances. 

Strategically, the guerrilla campaign follows a sequence of events, moving from rural to urban settings, with campaigning be- gun in far-off areas but culminating near the opponent’s principal locus of power. Tactically, pitched battles are to be fought whenever possible, as the opponent advances upon the guerrillas.

netwar is a different form of conflict. Inasmuch as the key combatants are organized along networked lines, military operations can be conducted by even quite small units, almost al- ways well below the battalion size recommended by theorists of guerrilla war. In terms of political aims, netwar may be waged with a state’s overthrow and revolution in mind, but it may easily accommodate a reform agenda as well. It is thus a more discriminate and versatile tool of conflict than guerrilla warfare; and it may proceed even in the absence of mass armies, allies, or widespread popular support among indigenous peoples, all of which are normally necessary conditions for the success of guerrilla warfare. 

For armed netwarriors, it is possible, and generally desirable, to strike anywhere, at any time—or not to strike at all, even for long periods; to avoid massing, but to attack in swarms; and to find allies in and draw support from other networked actors. 

Some activists also had other agendas, notably to achieve the erosion if not the downfall of Mexico’s ruling party, the PRI, since it was viewed as the linchpin of all that was authoritarian and wrong in Mexico’s political system.8 

Issue-Oriented and Infrastructure-Building NGOs—Both Important 

As the netwar got under way, two types of NGOs mobilized in regard to Chiapas, and both were important: (a) issue-oriented NGOs, and (b) infrastructure-building and network-facilitating NGOs. 

in 1994 Chiapas engaged the attention of myriad NGOs concerned with the rights of indigenous peoples: transnational NGOs with no national identity, like the Continental Coordinating Commission of Indigenous Nations (CONIC), the Independent Front of Indian Peoples (FIPI), and the International Indigenous Treaty Council (IITC); U.S.-based NGOs, like the South and Mesoamerican Indian Information Center (SAIIC); Canadian NGOs, like Okanaga Nation; and Mexican NGOs (or quasi-NGOs), such as the State Coalition of Indigenous and Campesino Organizations (CEOIC), the Coordinadora de Organizaciones en Lucha del Pueblo Maya para Su Liberación (COLPUMALI), and the Organización Indigena de los Altos de Chiapas (ORIACH). Many of these have links to each other; for example, COLPULMALI and ORIACH are sister organizations in FIPI-Mexico, and FIPI is a member of CONIC. 

FIPI-Mexico put out a plea for transnational indigenous organizations to come to Chiapas and act as human-rights observers while the military conducted its January 1994 campaign. 

The above is only a partial listing, for one issue area. A full listing of all NGOs for all issue areas would run for pages. 

As Sergio Aguayo remarked (as a leader of Civic Alliance, a multi-NGO pro- democracy network that was created to monitor the August 1994 presidential election and later chosen in August 1995 by the EZLN to conduct a national poll, known as the National Consultation, about opinions of the EZLN):17 “We’re seeing a profound effect on their [the NGOs’] self-esteem. 

“If civic organizations have had so much impact, it is because they created networks and because they have received the support and solidarity of groups in the United States, Canada, and Europe.”19 

Chapter Five 

TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONFLICT 

Within weeks, if not days, the conflict became less about “the EZLN” than about “the Zapatista movement” writ large, which, as elucidated in Chapters Three and Four, included a swarm of NGOs. This movement, as befits the analytic background in Chapter Two, had no precise definition, no clear boundaries. To some extent, it had centers of activity for everything from the discussion of issues to the organization of protest demonstrations, notably San Cristóbal de las Casas and Mexico City. It had organizational centers where issues got raised before being broadcast, such as the diocese in San Cristóbal and CONPAZ. And it drew on a core set of NGOs, e.g., the ones in Tables 1–5 at the end of Chapter Four. Yet it had no formal organization, or headquarters, or leadership, or decision-making body. The movement’s membership (assuming it can be called that) was generally ad hoc and in flux; it could shift from issue to issue and from situation to situation, partly depending on which NGOs had representatives physically visiting the scene at the time, which NGOs were mobilizable from afar and how (including electronically), and what issues were involved. 

What led President Salinas, and later Zedillo, to halt military operations and agree to dialogue and negotiations? Varied propositions have been raised for explaining their decisions: e.g., confidence that the army had gained the upper hand, or worries about a backlash among foreign creditors and investors, damage to Mexico’s image in the media, infighting among Mexico’s leaders, or a widespread aver- sion to violence among the Mexican public. Our analysis, however, is that in both instances, the transnational activist netwar—particularly the information operations stemming from it—was a key contributing factor. It lay behind many of the other explanations, including arousing media attention and alarming foreign investors. This activism was made possible by networking capabilities that had emerged only recently as a result of the information revolution. 

Mexican officials admit that they were over- whelmed by the “information war” in the early days of the conflict.

the EZLN convened a Continental Encounter For Humanity and Against Neo- liberalism in April 1996, and an Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism in August 1996. 

During 1994 and 1995, the government behaved gingerly toward the foreign presence in Chiapas, partly because it attracted media coverage; but since 1996, measures have been taken to control and curtail it (as we shall discuss). 

These conferences gave Marcos renown for having a “capacidad convocatoria” (convocational capacity) that attracted civil-society allies, legitimized the EZLN, and thus enabled it to break out its confinement, at least in ideational and informational senses. All this represented a radical departure from the classic guerrilla style, lead- ing one keen observer to posit that real fighting had been superseded by a “shadow war”: 

While all parties to the conflict knew that radio, television, and the press were part of the battlespace, months passed before government officials realized the significance of the Internet—and “cyberspace” generally—for the EZLN and the NGOs. 

Mexico’s Foreign Minister Jose Angel Gurría observed that: “Chiapas . . . is a place where there has not been a shot fired in the last fifteen months. . . . The shots lasted ten days, and ever since the war has been a war of ink, of written word, a war on the Internet.”

During 1994, few Mexican officials had any awareness that the EZLN and sympathetic NGOs were developing a strong presence on the Internet by means of e-mail lists, computer conferencing systems, and Web pages that were often accessed by hundreds, per- haps thousands, of activists in North America and around the world. Eventually, these officials began to learn what the NGOs already knew—that a new model of conflict was emerging, one in which the use of the new information technologies reflected the rise of radically new approaches to organization, doctrine, and strategy. 

A faction of pro-Zapatista radicals based in New York, drawing on ideas coming out of radical theater circles and inspired by the shock tactics of Earth First! and ACT-UP, has begun to advocate “electronic civil disobedience.”10 The intent is to go beyond the electronic protest tactics (e.g., e-mail and fax campaigns) that Zapatista activists have emphasized so far, and focus on creating “virtual sit-ins” that may shut down sensitive Web sites and Internet servers in Mexico and/or the United States, in order to “disrupt the flow of normal business and governance.” The protagonists of this view are trying to create software for use on anonymous offshore servers—“ping engines, spiders, and offshore spam engines”—that will enable them, and any other individual anywhere who wants to join, to conduct what amount to massive, remote-control, standoff, swarming attacks in cyberspace (see Wray, 1998a, 1998b). 

The Mexican army took the opposite tack, creating much smaller operational units, of roughly platoon size (36–45 troops, with an officer in command), and deploy- ing them in a dispersed fashion across Chiapas, blanketing the state with the aim of deterring new outbreaks of fighting. In a traditional guerrilla war, this move might have had disastrous consequences,13 inviting the defeat in detail of one isolated detachment at a time. For counternetwar, however, this scheme for decentralizing authority and deployment proved optimal, and fighting soon died out almost completely. 

Since a social netwar is not a traditional insurgency, part of the challenge is to recognize that military roles rarely figure large in a counternetwar against social actors. Indeed, it might be said that army had more problems dealing with the NGOs than with the EZLN. 

the netwar has had a positive side for the military. It has prompted tactical decentralization, institutional redesign in favor of smaller, more specialized and mobile forces, new efforts at joint op- erations, and improvements in interservice intelligence sharing. These shifts engendered some intra- and interservice tensions; but the benefits of reorganization should outweigh the difficulties and costs, in terms of an increase in military efficiency. If fully imple- mented, this program would amount to a “revolution within the army.” 

The netwar has obliged the army to devote much increased attention to public affairs, psychological operations, relations with NGOs, and human-rights issues. The army’s concerns about generating sufficient information to do its job is but a part of a general movement to give more attention to the development of an “information strategy.” This new focus has entailed efforts to cultivate better relations with the media and has extended to mounting a number of psychological operations, including “sky shouting” from helicopters with bullhorns, as well as leafleting. More importantly, the pursuit of an integrated information strategy spurred the Mexican government to form a joint intelligence apparatus that is supposed to put an end to the proprietary, baronial practices that have characterized its competing intelligence organizations throughout the 20th century. 

The prospects for netwar—and counternetwar—revolve around a small string of propositions about networks-versus-hierarchies, as discussed earlier: Accordingly, it can be said that hierarchies have difficulty fighting networks. It takes networks to fight networks—in- deed, a government hierarchy may have to organize its own networks in order to prevail against networked adversaries. 

Whoever masters the network form should gain major advantages in the information age. 

the interagency arena is where networking may best occur in the government world. Improving civil-military, inter- service, and intramilitary coordination and cooperation become essential tasks 

the government adapted by organizing interagency and other inter- governmental networks to try to prevail against the pro-Zapatista networks. Although the government and the army initially re- sponded in a traditional, heavy-handed manner to the EZLN’s insurrection, they have not responded idly or unthinkingly since then to this seminal case of social netwar. 

Once negotiations got under way and Chiapas was defined as more a political than a military problem, the Ministry of Government (Gobernación) took charge of overall strategy, leaving the Ministry of Defense (SEDENA) to focus on avoiding further damage to its image. An innovative interagency group was established in January 1994 at the Center for National Se- curity and Investigation (CISEN), which fits under Gobernación and is the key agency for national security and intelligence matters.20 This interagency group…worked to define overall government strategy toward the EZLN and related problems in Chiapas. It soon assessed that the EZLN was not a powerful force in military terms, and that the threat of other armed groups arising around the country was overstated. The strategy it developed during 1994 aimed to localize and limit the conflict, and had essentially three prongs: a military prong to keep the EZLN confined in the conflict zone, while avoiding combat and improving the army’s human-rights behavior; a political prong to keep the dialogue and its agenda from becoming national in scope, and to regain control of information; and an economic prong to offer resources and mount programs that would appeal to some of the local population’s needs. The strategy was also designed to let the Zapatistas talk (and let them know that there was no alternative to talking), while working gradually to diminish international attention to the EZLN and whittle down its demands. 

Mexico needed a “national intelligence community.” 

In sum, beginning in 1994 the federal government, its national security apparatus, and the military had to try to transform them- selves to respond to this social netwar. Yet this transformation has never been complete, and there has been a constant tension and interplay between, on the one hand, learning to treat the Zapatista movement as an information-age social netwar and, on the other hand, wanting to treat it as a traditional insurgency. The key touch- stone as to which hand of strategy was prevailing was not the mili- tary—its presence and strength grew throughout, leaving the conflict zone thoroughly blanketed and penetrated by small detachments. Rather, the touchstones were, apparently, two forces over which the government had marginal control but which it knew were key players in the overall game and dearly wanted to control: the foreign NGOs and the local paramilitary forces. Which hand of Mexican strategy was stronger seems to have varied mainly according to the degree of foreign NGO and media attention. 

few other governments would have been so tolerant of such an unusual, heavy, albeit episodic influx of foreigners showing great interest in an inter- nal security matter. During 1996, however, and especially during the international encounters that attracted thousands to Chiapas, gov- ernment agents began stepped-up efforts to videotape, warn, and question foreign activists, especially those who were traveling on tourist visas but seemed engaged in activism, not tourism, and lacked affiliation with recognized NGOs. Some were deported. 

Over 200 activists have been obliged to leave Mexico since January 1997. In one incident in April 1998, about a dozen foreigners, who were present at a site that was in the process of declaring itself an “autonomous municipality” aligned with the EZLN, were detained, interrogated, and forced to leave Mexico. 

In the name of nationalism, and citing constitutional proscriptions against foreigners meddling in internal politics, the government is taking a much harder line than before toward foreign activists, even though officials also point out that hundreds of special visas granting observer status have been provided to NGO representatives who have been visiting and monitoring conditions in the conflict zone. 

Chapter Six

THE NETWAR SIMMERS—AND DIFFUSES

Since 1996, much of the Mexican public has tired of the Zapatista story and begun to doubt that it benefits Mexico, even though it has raised important reform issues. 

their campaign to get indigena communities all over Mexico to declare their autonomy represents, in its own way, a strategy to seize power around the periphery of the state and the ruling PRI party—and that is viewed in Mexico City as potentially quite threatening. 

the Zapatistas tried to diffuse their netwar onto the global stage by means of the “Intercontinental Encounters” in 1996 and 1997, where they called for the creation of global “networks of struggle and resistance.

The sudden appearance of the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) in Guerrero, Oaxaca, and elsewhere in June 1996, and its spate of armed assaults in July, caused all sides in the Chiapas conflict to wonder anew whose side time was on. This armed group of unclear origins and dimensions quickly proved more violent than the EZLN and more able to operate in diverse parts of Mexico, leading a Mexican scholar to compare the two organizations as follows: “The Zapatistas are a local abscess. The E.P.R. is a general infection.”4 

The EPR, whose leadership appears to be mainly mestizo, has a scattered social base in the impoverished mountain villages of Guerrero and Oaxaca. It may also have a social base in an organization that appeared in January 1996: the Broad Front for the Construction of a National Liberation Movement (FAC-MLN), which is a nationwide, network-like coalition of numerous (perhaps as many as 300) leftist groups, including radical peasant and teachers unions.5 In contrast to the EZLN, the EPR is largely shunned by the Mexican and transnational NGOs who rallied to the EZLN’s cause—and the EPR has not done much to seek the NGOs’ support. In addition, the EZLN and the EPR both deny having links to each other. Overall, then, the EPR is freer than the EZLN to pursue military actions on its own initiative. 

EPR as a network-like alliance among numerous (reportedly 14) armed organizations from all over Mexico (PROCUP included).7 Some reports also hold that the EPR is the armed front for a broader movement of which the FAC-MLN is the main political front.8 If the latter story is correct, then the EPR fits better into the netwar framework. 

The EZLN has no known ties to drug traffickers, but the EPR has been suspected of some indirect links. 

There is no evidence of direct links between the EZLN and the EPR, and the differences noted above argue against such links. Yet there appear to be indirect links and influences. According to Tello (1995), some guerrillas from PROCUP, one of the constituent elements of the EPR, may have joined the EZLN in its formative days. 

The other, more documented story is that the EPR may reflect a bitter disappointment in some leftist circles that the EZLN failed to spark nationwide unrest and later relented on the armed struggle. In this story, the FAC-MLN and the EPR are offspring of groups that were critical of, and later expelled by, the EZLN and its leaders at the EZLN-sponsored National Democratic Convention in Chiapas in August 1994. 

EPR’s pronouncements and actions do not reveal much. It has a general command. But if it has a hierarchical central command presiding over decentralized units, it does not qualify structurally as having a network design, although it may emu- late netwar strategies and tactics. If it consists of a set of armed groups and support elements operating as a clandestine all-channel network, with a central clearinghouse for consultation and coordination, then it may be deemed a netwar actor. If so, the EPR represents a different kind of netwar actor from the EZLN. Most likely, the EPR is at least partially networked and aims to wage an armed guerrilla netwar that will emphasize tactically dispersed, nonlinear, swarming operations. 

The EPR has displayed some cleverness at information operations. An example lies in the invitations and bus tickets for journalists to arrive at a particular time and place where, unbeknownst to each other, they expected to conduct interviews with EPR leaders but instead found themselves witnessing an EPR attack on a government building. 

THE ZAPATISTA NETWAR GOES GLOBAL 

Some activists have endeavored to extend the Zapatista movement by generating a global dimension. In July–August 1996 in Chiapas, a working group with participants from around the world lauded the importance of communications for the Zapatista movement and its ability to project its ideas. The group suggested creating an “International Network of Hope,” whose design would be “horizontal,” “self- organizing,” and “without centralized coordination” (all terms that could have been taken from a theory of networks and netwars). 

In the critical documents, “network” was deemed a very unclear concept. At worst, it was a new “buzzword of the internationalized Left” and might not even be a progressive form of organization (since networks were already a mainstay of corporate and conservative actors). It seemed more a “metaphor” than a “structure” that could be truly developed. 

The aim should be, as an American noted, “to weave a variety of struggles into one struggle that never loses its multiplicity” (Cleaver, 1998). But, perhaps partly because the Zapatista movement was so much the cause celebre of the gathering, the skeptics and critics evidently needed reminding that a worldwide trend in favor of networked social movements was already well under way in Europe and North America 

Marcos, the EZLN, and the Zapatista movement sought to achieve a global reach. They wanted the conflict in Chiapas to represent an opening salvo in what they believed should be not only a national but also a global struggle against the defects of neoliberal- ism, capitalism, and the market system. 

The analyst should thus be wary of easy notions that social movements are the key factor affecting a government’s decisions to adopt re- forms. They may be an important factor, but as Diane Davis (1994, p. 38) notes in a study of Mexico City during 1982–1988, “the willing- ness and capacity of governing officials to cede to popular mobilizations, and to introduce certain institutional reforms, may influence the overall extent of democratization as much as the presence of social movements themselves.” 

at times it may be the government’s intention to have the Zapatistas take some credit, to help keep them on a peaceful track and thereby try to institutionalize their behavior. 

The EZLN is the most significant armed movement in Mexico since the 1970s, and the Zapatista movement writ large is the most significant social movement since the student-led social movement of 1968. What has made the EZLN/Zapatista movement so significant is, in particular, its capacity for nonviolent information operations, spread through all manner of media. 

The netwar contributed to acute perceptions of crisis and instability, especially in 1994. But this did not have all the effects the Zapatista movement may have intended. The adverse perceptions alarmed foreign investors and creditors, and they contributed to the peso de- valuation late that year—thereby weakening the state. Yet earlier in 1994, when many activists shifted their focus from the conflict in Chiapas to aspire to bring about the downfall of the PRI in the national elections, the perceptions of potential crisis and instability stemming from Chiapas led many citizens to vote overwhelmingly for the PRI’s candidates—thereby strengthening the state. 

Overall, the netwar has helped impel the Mexican government to continue down the road of reform. It added to the pressures on Mexico’s leaders to enact political and electoral reforms; to make the political party system more transparent, accountable, and democratic; to take human rights more seriously; to accept the rise of civil society; and to heed anew the needs of indigenous peoples. Some analysts claim that political and electoral reform has proceeded faster since the Zapatista movement than in years past. 

Mexico’s prospects for stability and for success in dealing with multiple netwars—the social netwar identified with the EZLN, the armed netwar pursued by the EPR, and the criminal netwar represented by the internetted drug cartels—will depend on the government’s ability to form its own inter- organizational and multiagency networks to confront and counter those netwars. 

the serious potential future risk for Mexico is not an old- fashioned civil war or another social revolution—those kinds of scenarios are unlikely. The greater risk is a plethora of social, guerrilla, and criminal netwars. Mexico’s security (or insecurity) in the information age may be increasingly a function of netwars of all varieties. Mexico is already the scene of more types of divisive, stressful netwars than other societies at a similar level of development, in part because it is a neighbor of the United States. 

At present, neither social (EZLN/Zapatista), guerrilla (EPR), or criminal (drug trafficking) netwar actors seem likely to make Mexico un- governable or to create a situation that leads to a newly authoritarian regime. This might occur, if these netwars all got interlaced and rein- forced each other, directly or indirectly, in conditions where an economic recession deepens, the federal government and the PRI (presumably still in power) lose legitimacy to an alarming degree, and infighting puts the elite “revolutionary family” and its political clans into chaos. 

Mexicans take their nationalism very, very seriously. The EZLN was quick to deny that it was foreign in origin and repeatedly averred it was a Mexican movement. More to the point, it has resisted allying with movements that are not nationalist. Some NGO activists, notably in the area of indigenous rights, wanted the EZLN to express its solidarity with their transnational agenda, but Marcos and other leaders declined to do so. The EZLN has also not posed as a cross-border Mayan irredentist movement. Had the EZLN cast aside its Mexican nationalist credentials, the government and the army might have had a solid pretext, and public support, for quashing it. 

when a society has become disorderly and out of equilibrium as a result of a systemic transition, actors that might normally be marginal may have decisive effects. 

Ironically, U.S. military assurances of the availability of material support for counterinsurgency may discourage the Mexican army from pursuing innovative operations against the EPR. 

the Mexican military and the NGOs are the bracket- ing forces in this conflict. Moreover, they are among the most counterpoised actors on the Mexican scene; many among them even regard each other as enemies. The military is part of Mexico’s statist hierarchies; it is steeped in the traditions of closed nationalism and is responsible for preserving constitutional order. In contrast, the NGOs are part of the emerging antihierarchical, multiorganizational networks of the information age; many are amenable to trans- national ties and eager to pressure for reform. The backgrounds, cultures, interests, and ideological orientations found among military officers and NGO activists are generally at odds. 

Without a diverse transnational presence, presumably of responsible NGOs (and corporations), Mexico would probably not make a strong effort to evolve into an open, democratic system that can benefit all sectors of society.21 

Yet there is a conundrum. Neither the military, which is statist in orientation, nor the NGOs, which contain many leftists and center- leftists, seem to favor Mexico’s full transition to an open market economy. It is not clear that either actor has much belief that the construction of an economically advanced, politically democratic system requires a market system. If statist preferences continue to prevail within both actors, their increased activism may unwittingly help keep much of Mexico locked in its traditional preferences for corporatist approaches to its development. 

“guarded openness,” a deliberately ambivalent concept from the new field of information strategy that means being forthcoming about providing and sharing information in areas of mutual benefit where trust and confidence are high, yet being self-protective in areas where trust and confidence are not ad- equate (see Arquilla and Ronfeldt, 1997).24 

The Mexican case is so seminal that Harry Cleaver (1997) speaks of a “Zapatista effect” that may spread contagiously to other societies: 

Beyond plunging the political system into crisis in Mexico, the Zapatista struggle has inspired and stimulated a wide variety of grassroots political efforts in many other countries. . . . it is perhaps not exaggerated to speak of a “Zapatista Effect” reverberating through social movements around the world—homologous to, but ultimately much more threatening to the New World Order of neo- liberalism than the “Tequila Effect” that rippled through emerging financial markets in the wake of the Peso Crisis of 1994. 

to quote from Adrienne Goss (1995), it appears that a global “third sector” is being created—“a massive array of self- governing private organizations, not dedicated to distributing profits to shareholders or directors, pursuing public purposes outside the formal apparatus of the state.”3 This amounts to an “associational revolution” among nonstate actors that may prove as significant as the rise of the nation state.4 

EVOLUTION OF ORGANIZATION, DOCTRINE, AND STRATEGY 

The Mexican case instructs that militant NGO-based activism is the cutting edge of social netwar, especially where it assumes trans- national dimensions. A transnational network structure is taking shape, in which both issue-oriented and infrastructure-building NGOs are important for the development of social netwar. This infrastructure is growing, so that the activism it enables can extend from the locale where issues are generated (e.g., Chiapas) to the distant hallways of policymakers and decisionmakers (including in Washington, D.C.). 

The case instructs that netwar depends on the emergence of “swarm networks,”7 and that swarming best occurs where dispersed NGOs are internetted and collaborate in ways that exhibit “collective diversity” and “coordinated anarchy.” The paradoxical tenor of these phrases is intentional. The swarm engages NGOs that have diverse, specialized interests; thus, any issue can be rapidly singled out and attacked by at least elements of the swarm. At the same time, many NGOs can act, and can see themselves acting, as part of a collectivity in which they share convergent ideological and political ideals and similar concepts about nonviolent strategy and tactics. While some NGOs may be more active and influential than others, the collectivity has no central leadership or command structure; it is multiheaded, impossible to decapitate.8 A swarm’s behavior may look uncontrolled, even anarchic at times, but it is shaped by extensive consultation and coordination, made feasible by rapid communications among the parties to the swarm.9 

The Zapatista case hints at the kind of doctrine and strategy that can make social netwar effective for transnational NGOs. Three key principles appear to be: (1) Make civil society the forefront—work to build a “global civil society,” and link it to local NGOs. (2) Make “information” and “information operations” a key weapon—demand freedom of access and information,10 capture media attention, and use all manner of information and communications technologies. Indeed, in a social netwar where a set of NGO activists challenge a government or another set of activists over a hot public issue, the battle tends to be largely about information—about who knows what, when, where, how, and why. (3) Make “swarming” a distinct objective, and capability, for trying to overwhelm a government or other target actor. Although, as noted above, swarming is a natural outcome of information-age, network-centric conflict, it should be a deliberately developed dimension of doctrine and strategy, not just a happenstance. 

Where all this is feasible, netwarriors may be able to put strong pressure on state and market actors, without aspiring to seize power through violence and force of arms. 

To date, mainstream netwar activism has gone in the directions described above and elsewhere in this chapter: It has emphasized the creation of complex, multi- organizational networks, which use the new technologies mainly to improve communication and coordination within the network and to exert pressure on government and other actors through electronic protest measures (e.g., via e-mail and fax-writing campaigns). In contrast, a new “electronic civil disobedience” faction is emerging that appears to care less about the organizational network-creating dimensions of doctrine and strategy, favoring aggressive computer- hacking tactics that, though termed “virtual sit-ins,” verge on anarchistic or even nihilistic “cybotage” against sensitive government or corporate Web sites and Internet servers. 

A target government should care about its international image, and be sensitive to its disruption.12 The more a government cares about presenting to the world an image that it is, or is becoming, a modern democracy and wants to attract foreign investors, the more vulnerable it may be to a netwar that jeopardizes its image. Perhaps a susceptibility to social netwar is a sign of modernity. 

a major part of social netwar is about activists’ efforts to get their story into the global media, so that it reaches and arouses foreign publics and governments. 

the presence of journalists may contribute importantly to a netwar by providing, very quickly, a broader audience than usual for NGO activities. A symbiotic dynamic may thus develop between the activists and the media (in which the journalists may claim that they are the ones who deserve credit for calling a conflict to the world’s attention, but the larger dynamic is about the activists using the media to accomplish this). Furthermore, the media’s presence may alter the local power equations vis-à-vis information—a local government may lose the luxury of controlling who knows what about a conflict, and its options may decrease accordingly. As inter- national attention grows, a hard-line approach, for example, may be less feasible for a government. 

In general, information-processing regimes such as human rights and ecology are more accessible to NGOs than state-centric arrangements for trade or arms control. 

In other words, the situation in a target society should be such that a diversity of NGOs exist and can mount different attacks on different issues, adapting flexibly to the circumstances. In the process, the message—the story and its symbolism—may get modified and broadened beyond its original meaning in the conflict zone, in order to appeal better to audiences abroad. 

he fight over “information” has made the Zapatista conflict less violent than it might otherwise have been. But it has also made the conflict more public, disruptive, protracted, and difficult to isolate; it has had more generalized effects than if it had been contained as a localized insurgency. Thus, although the Mexican military has performed reason- ably well militarily against the EZLN, has decentralized its organization, created new small units, improved its communications and mobility, and acquired new material and budgetary resources in the process, it has been bedeviled by many aspects of this new approach to conflict. The army in particular has seen its combat operations deterred and its image impugned to an unusual degree. 

The Mexican case suggests that the U.S. Army may be increasingly called upon to provide “knowledge assistance” to allies for public and press rela- tions, psychological operations, and the restructuring of command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) functions in response to netwars. Respect for human rights, and possibly for the looming matter of “information and communications rights,” may play no small part in this. 

It may turn out that a new language and a new set of metrics must be devised. New centers and schools are already being established for the U.S. military to help address such challenges. T 

the ease of entry and the deniability afforded by network designs imply an increasing “amateurization” of militant activism, terrorism, and crime. It is increasingly easy for protagonists to construct sprawling networks that have a high capacity for stealthy operations by individuals or groups, as well as for rapid swarming en masse.

Information—as a function of the technological and organizational innovations stemming from the information revolution—is now said to be a “force multiplier”

“information strategy” is emerging as a new tool of statecraft. U.S. officials are accustomed to emphasizing economic, political, and military strategies and instruments for urging foreign governments and societies to develop in liberal democratic direc- tions. Yet, global civil-society NGOs whose focus is informational more than economic, political, or military may prove more potent as information-age instruments of policy and strategy, especially to pursue goals like “democratic enlargement.” Chris Kedzie’s (1995) work on the positive correlation between political democracy and communications connectivity provides a basis for proposing that information be treated and developed as a distinct new dimension of policy and strategy

Review of Whose Streets?

Whose Streets is an unusual documentary about the riots in Ferguson that followed the death of Mike Brown.

I say unusual because the focus on the surface of what was presented by the activists in the film belies many more interesting areas of exploration. More specifically, while there are clearly many zealots for Black Revolutionary Struggle – no one ever talks about the organization that’s been build or what it does besides protest. Other practical things are ignored as well. We see in the beginning that Brittany quits her job to protest for over 57 days, but how she and her girlfriend-turned-wife-and-partner-in-activism manages to sustain herself and her child are never addressed. As this capacity to financially drop the “real world” at the same time she is complaining about the financial difficulties faced ber her community is unusual and – in my view – merits explanation.

Throughout the film queer black communists give interviews to the camera, yet while we learn their resentful views regarding the police, how burning a building is a “strategic act” that is “revolution – we learn nothing about the organization, guiding mission or the other projects and activities that unites them.

Looking at the website of the Organization for Black Struggle, which has existed since 1980, it seems that they are Pan-Africanist Marxists with connections to CAIR that occasionally engage in electoral politics – but not much else.

Since I studied Marxism with Vivek Chibber, Bertell Ollman, and Slavoj Zizek during my Master’s studies at NYU I kept hoping for something substantive to be raised – however it never was. Instead all I heard were avant-guardist platitudes aimed at justifying their illegalist positions and strained relations with the larger community.

Another example of things that made the tone of the film now sit right with me was when one of the Ferguson participants holds up artifacts left in the street by riot police, such as the shells from rubber bullets, he holds up a spent cannister of tear gas and explains how the police’s use of this to dispurse crowds is illegal. He says, with clear animosity in his voice, that these are only supposed to be used in times of war. This is incorrect, and in fact the opposite of what’s true. Tear gas is considered forbidden in war conditions and legal to use on civilians.  are doing in the streets is illegal.

That Tef Poe tweeted something to the same effect, considering his close relationship with TeleSUR, qualifies as Orwellian Irony.

To his credit Tef Poe was a good MC for the riots. Hearing him speak in this context was much more enjoyable than when I’ve made the effort to listen to his music. When I heard him say the phrase “this ain’t yo daddy’s civil rights movement” to a large assemblage of people, I couldn’t help but crack up laughing. I remembered that Layla Brown-Vincent described exactly this scene in her thesis We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting for: Pan-African Consciousness Raising and Organizing in the United States and Venezuela
, but I never expected to actually see it.

Unrelated to my comments on the film, I just wanted to say that The Boondocks was an incredibly witty and insightful television series and that I didn’t realize that there was also a collected book of newspaper comics by the same person that wrote for the series.

The Frantz Fanon quote and the shot of books is meant to, presumably, depict wokeness – but if you actually pause the film and look at what’s there – it appearent that what’s there is not all that deep. I should know, I’ve read about half of the non-fiction books she shown there.

At the beginning of the “organic protests” following Michael Brown’s death – far left – it’s already appearent that members of the Revolutionary Communist Party‘s Chicago chapter are present. Assata’s Daughter, another revolutionary communist group, frequently appears in the film. Worth mentioning is that the drive time from Chicago to St. Louis is four a half hours and, having reviewed the time lines of other communist activist groups, I know that immediately following the death of Michael Brown other groups from New York and Minneapolis also went there – as well those from other locales. Considering that it’s well documented in the public statements of police officers that the area was swarming with foreign agitators even from the beginning – it’s notable that this fact isn’t included within the film. Instead a number of individual residents are depicted disconnected from riots saying that they live there.

The statements captured on film by Bassem Masri, a Palestinian born St. Louis transplant that those around him characterized as an agressive drug addict and who died of a fentanyl overdose not long after the Ferguson riots, are vastly different in tone from the threatening chants towards the police in the videos he uploaded to YouTube during these events. His characterization of Ferguson as being equivalent to Palestine is, of course, categorically absurd.

I learned through research after watching the film that the name of the organization that Brittany Ferrell founded was Millenial Activists United, which may or may not be an intentional allusion to the Mau Mau.

The scenes wherein she leads a group of protestors to shut down a highway intersections was, well, bizarre.

I clipped the middle image as it’s at the point in which she leads a call and response chant that quotes Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

The last image, is a screen shot of her arrest report. Brittany Ferrell’s incredulous response to reading aloud the officer’s description of the scene which the viewed of the film has just scene is bizarre. We’ve just seen her do everything that’s been described in the report – and yet she claims that’s not what happened at all.

Unsurprisingly, given Danny Glover’s penchant for support for pan-Africanist and revolutionary activists – there is a picture of him with Brittney on her Twitter.

Given all of the above people’s passionate misunderstandings of law, their intentional and unnecessary provocations toward police, and their projection onto “the system” of issues that were better suited to being addressed by a more productive form of communal, collective action I found it difficuly to be sympathetic to the riots are the voices of the unheard rhetoric which closes the film.

The citation of the section of the Declaration of Independance stating that people have a right to overthrow the government when it oppresses them at the close of the film seemed to me to be ham-fisted and incongruent with what Whose Streets? just presented – unless the point was to highlight the absurdity of narcissistic angry black lesbian communists’ claims that street protests conceptualized as some significant step in a revolutionary process was the answer to their grievances – especially considering many of them depicted in the film seemed so trivial.

Lastly, gotta admit that it wasn’t a big surprise given that Pan-Africanist Revolutionaries were the protagonist of the film when I saw that Nicholas Maduro’s favorite interruptionist organization – Code Pink helped fund this film. I wonder how many other Venezuelan connected/sponsored organizations were there at Ferguson…

Bolivarian News Networks Spreading Anti-Christian Disinformation in Defense of Evo Morales

AFP is a global news agency that delivers fast, accurate, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world. From conflicts to politics, economics, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology – they cover it all. They also have a Fact Check division which covers their

I’m glad they recently published the article These are the anti-indigenous tweets that Bolivia’s interim president deleted as it means I don’t have to write about the numerous fake tweets being circulated related to the return of democracy to Bolivia.

The writings of Fausto Reinaga has found a large audience in MAS, Evo Morales party, and is important to understanding their political policies over the past ten years.

If I had more time and energy – I’d translate Indianismo, política y religión en Bolivia (2006-2016) as it’s an incredibly insightful article. Or I’d write something on how Evo Morales’ world view relates to the writings of Fausto Reinaga and that this, combined with the views of Álvaro García Linera, Marxist intellectual and Bolivian vice-president, made for policies which no longer cared about democracy.

Alas, I don’t. So instead, I will just cover who’s sharing it…

Eva Golinger: Chavista “Media Personality”, not a Journalist

Interesting to note how despite this “media personality” being informed that the information the promoted is factually incorrect, they still leave it up.

One of the persons cited in the above AFP article, which even including a screenshot of their original Tweet, is Eva Golinger.

Eva Golinger used to work as legal council for Hugo Chavez, so given this former principal – and that she doesn’t claim to be a journalist – it’s perhaps not surprising that she shows no principle related to truth-telling and does not take the two seconds required to correct their claim after others have pointed it out. According to other’s which have investigated her writings with greater depth then myself, this isn’t the first time that Eva Golinger has promoted a gross misrepresentation of reality.

George Ciccariello-Maher: Chavista Activist with Academic Characteristics

Then there’s George Ciccariello-Maher. This is the “Political Science” Professor (I put this in quotations as after readings his PhD dissertation this doesn’t seem an appropriate title. Comparative Literature, maybe…) who once made news headlines following Russian sock puppets extensively re-tweeting his trolling Chavista messages and the left Twitter after Left-Twitter started harassing him for dating someone much younger than him.

After leaving his position for reasons that have never been clarified, he then got a titular role at one of NYU’s art school and UNAM – the Mexican University whose political science department isn’t credentialed with the state and has longstanding connections with the FARC.

He too posts disinformation and then leaves it up after followers point out it’s falsity.

TeleSUR English: Disinformation, not Journalism

Given the long time love affair between Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro and their PSUV with Evo Morales and his MAS, unsurprisingly TeleSUR English too got in on the action. An authentic screen shot of TeleSUR’s inauthentic reporting can be viewed here.

Jacobin, Democratic Socialists of America and Disinformation

Jacobin, the Democratic Socialists of America, and a “Leftist activist” all sharing the same incorrect information.

I’ve noticed that Jacobin’s editorial line has become significantly more alinged with that with Venezuela as Bhaskar Sunkara started to expand the organization. Branko Marcetic’s article “Why Did Facebook Purge TeleSUR English“, which is passed off as insightful editorial commentary when it is just uninformed braingarbage remixed from RT and Sputnik talking points, was the first indicator for me.

Regardless of their past – here we can see that Jacobin and the Democratic Socialists of America, along with accounts connected to Venezuela’s large coordinated, inauthentic behavior network are all sharing this as well.

Conclusion

So, en toto, who’s spreading anti-Christian disinformation?

Socialists and Bolivarians.

São Paulo Forum

Logo for the 22nd São Paulo Forum. “The Popular Power Assures the Victory”.

In 1990, sponsored by the Labor Party (PT) of Brazil, 48 leftist parties and organizations in Latin America held a conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil

They expressed a firm firm opposition to imperialism, hegemonism, colonialism or neo-colonialism in any form that they understood it, as well as external political intervention. It has put forward in recent years propositions for alternative model of governance With the purpose of replacing market-based development models.

Articles

Venezuela in Light of Anti-American Parties and Affiliations in Latin America

Photos

Photos of São Paulo Forum Slogans: Another World is Possible

Quotes

Quote by Julian Assange on the São Paulo Forum Offshoot, the World Social Forum

Quote about Julian Assange and the São Paulo Forum offshoot, the World Social Forum

Quote by Fidel Castro on the São Paulo Forum

Quote by Michael Hardt on the São Paulo Forum

Quote by Alexander Dugin on the São Paulo Forum

Review of Democracy in America

Long considered a masterpiece account of early American history and one of the founding works of comparative politics, Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville is one of those few books that truly lives up to it’s hype. Divided into two parts, de Tocqueville uses his experiences travelling and speaking to numerous persons of high and low standing across the newly born United States to investigate the soil in which the North American soul grows.

After providing some geological, political and geopolitical commentary in the beginning of the work – the reader immediately begins on a panoramic journey across the regions of New England. The focus is primarily on political institutions, their procedures, areas of authority, electoral norms and the various players within government be they parties or individuals seeking to ensure their interests are brought to bear. In his frequently comparisons of these aspects of political life to their French counterparts – America reliably is described as the preferable system.

In his descriptions of the American system of northeastern townships, the powers granted to local governments, the general ideas concerning administration and the salutary social and economic benefits of decentralization – de Tocqueville gives an paean to American political innovation with only occasional interspersions of criticism. The New World’s lack of an historical, hereditary Aristocracy provided space for meritocracy to grow. The best representatives of this class? Hard-working Protestant settlers willing to brave the frontiers to establish plantations and the merchants who’d live exceptionally frugally just so that they’d be able to undercut the British by a mere 1% on costs. While not blind to the reality or roles of blacks and indigenous peoples in this new world, he sees little room for their inclusion into the body politic. The latter group defies any attempt at being included within the body politic – understandably so considering the patter of dispossession and war. The former lacks the educational capactities to meaningfully participate. This is not to say that he’s an uncritical supporter of settler colonialism. He states that whites must one day drastically adjust the way they treat slaves, something which will be hard to do as the influence of slavery has penetrated into “the master’s soul and gave a particular turn to his ideas and tastes” (184). And yet he also recognizes that the literacy of Anglo-Saxon culture, along with it’s technological development and drive towards progress as a foundational societal goal are the traits of successful, long-lasting civilizations – meaning that these groups must catch up, not the other way around.

de Tocqueville’s conception of Government is aligned with Aristotlean concepts. The composition of interests by those in it’s institutions are always changing due  to external events and this leads Democracies to change into oligarchy, aristocracy, tyranny and extreme democracy – or mob rule. While nationalist figures may want to make the founding covenant of Government sacred, in other words, there are always conflicts which lead to it’s descralization via various forms of corruption.

de Tocqueville frequently invokes the difference between Liberty and Democracy – associated with the new United States – with Absolute Monarchy or Despotism, or pre-Revolutionary France. His thoughts on these matter may lack some of the academic rigor that historians or sociologists of the present would require, there is a dearth of anything approaching something that could be called quantitative analysis – however they are nevertheless insightful as, intuitively, one can see their honesty. Take this, for example:

“Despotism brings men to ruin more by preventing them from producing than by taking away the fruits of their labors, it dries up the fount of wealth while often respecting acquired riches. By liberty engenders a thousandfold more goods than it destroy, and in nations where it is understood, the people’s resources always increase faster than the taxes.” (107).

This tension between liberty understood as Rights to be exercised and tyrrany understood as non-elective obligations to Power pervades de Tocqueiville’s work and is likely what has made him so enjoyed by Americanists.

Elective associations – be it political, economic or religious – that are entered into freely are considered the basis of identity and the means of self-reproduction.

Using taxes as a form of gratifying private needs – such as in the modern context, Medicare for All – is a form of graft that depletes the Virtues required for a democratic system. Democracy requires literacy, education and most of all virtue – for it is by presuming that the people don’t have the capacity to properly manifest their own interests that tyranny by a calculating political class comes to be.

What de Tocqueville means here is the different between equality in opportunity versus equality of outcome.

When resentment is mass-mobilized against prosperity, political stability is lost as the public order turns to an amoral model. If I had more inclination I’d give a number of modern examples as I think his insights into self-interest, virtue and democracy are quite compelling. But instead I’ll say that the active qualities of an individual are lionized as without them they become unable to see how the achieve the welath, power, renown and other rewards of work that they crave.

***

Here is a guide for those that wish to read along with the insights of experts.

Review of A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism

“What else is communism but the imperialism of the Jews?”
– Camil Petrescu, Romanian playwright, novelist, philosopher and poet

*** 

A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevismby Paul Hanebrink is considered by Samuel Moyn to be “a new classic in the canon of twentieth century history.” The book examines this particularly virulent strain of anti-Semitic thought that believed Soviet Communism to be a Jewish plot. This notion continues today in a number of ethno-nationalist strains, such as the writings of David Duke, thus as a work of engaged academics – this is a welcome historical work. 

In his reconstruction of the transnational European locations in which the idea of Judeo-Bolshevism first developed and describing it’s mutations – Hanebrink provides a truly compelling account of history. Following the Russian revolution of 1917 German, Polish, German, Hungarian, Romanian and British fears of Judeo-Bolshevism were pervasive.

The Bolsheviks themselves were not immune turning their Jewish comrades cultural and religious background against them. In Russia, Czech Republic and elsewhere the Communist Party culled their own or used rumors of Jewishness to destroy careers and reputations. Hanebrink describes several cases wherein Judaism becomes seen as a marker for Cosmopolitanism, which was a code for one that was likely to express disloyalty to the State in thoughts or deeds. The concept used to describe such events are “sovereignty panics” and frequently applied to anyone close to the functions of the government.

Some of the common responses to such conditions were appeals for religious or cultural renewal, the rewriting of laws, as well as the dispossession, expulsion or murder of Jews and a heightened willingness to ally with states – i.e. Germany – that expressed willingness to help combat the Jewish/Communist menace. Hanebrink’s brilliance in this work is by extensive archival research which shows that much of the handwringing over Jews, based as it was an exaggeration of the Jewishness of Communist Party activists, often related to more material interests such as desire for assurances of more territory (Poland) and the illiterate provincial’s resentment of an older, literary culture that considered themselves better equipped to govern a modern state (Hungary). Because of this elasticity and the empirically dubious methodology of identifying Judeo-Bolshevik plots – it functioned as a sort of intellectual contagion…

Immigration, Existential Fears and the Racial Other

Judeo-Bolshevism made Adolph Hitler famous in Germany, while the Nazi party’s weaponization of the idea their success helping to propagate it such that it could fit a variety of contexts helped him internationally. Their literature and the institutions that they sought to spread awareness of this identity and with it a Nationalist hysteria. Old fashioned geopolitics with this identity politics twist became especially dangerous and toxic as the European continent prepared for war.

Once war officially began, nationalist militaries and militias began to turn their hysterical fears into actions they deemed as defensive. Worries over international spy networks, espionage, racial and cultural purity, and fears of wartime food shortages turned this socio-cultural tension into the Holocaust that is well known about, as well as numerous other pogroms and forced exiles. As this was oftentimes done in the peripheral towns, the imperial capitals came to host those forced into exile. “75,000 Jews fled war-torn Galicia for Vienna… Another 25,000 sought shelter in Budapest” and almost all of them – having been forced from their land, homes and occupations with only what they could carry were marked by the bitterest poverty, trauma and desolation (55). The situation created by these reproduced what it was that criticism of this minority feared – a desperate mass of a racially “othered” people that was agitating for significant change.

Personal Reflection on the Book

Over a decade ago my father and I travelled to the village in what is now Ukraine where much of my paternal family were killed in anti-Jewish pogroms before and during World War II. The Synagogue in this small village has stayed in a ruinous state since it was firebombed. The burial grounds adjacent to it has become a path for cows to reach an adjacent pasture. The headstones that populated this once sacred space have all been broken into pieces, and the etchings of names and dates on them are filled with black moss and have largely been eroded away by weathering. As Hanebrink recounts the events which lead to the murderous melees in and around Lvov, it was hard for me not to be profoundly affected by this narrative. It made me understand all the better my now-deceased Grandmother’s combination of deeply felt progressivism views and strong aversion to communism.

It’s because of this that I found the section describing the development of “Judeo-Christian” civilization to be so personally illuminating. and the manner in which many post-WWII intellectual sought to connect Soviet Communism with Germany Nazism. While I’ve read Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianismand Domenico Losurdo’s Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism – I admit to not being very informed on many of the debates surrounding the use of the concept.

Criticisms of the Book

There should have been several of these in the text. Paul Hanebrink, should you ever read these, reach out to me and I’ll help you make them.

There are several points wherein Hanebrink makes numerical claims that beg further explanation but that aren’t developed. I understand that this may have to do with the fact that principles of data science haven’t made their way into the discipline of history writing, but if they were it would have made this book significantly better. I say this as despite making several claims that the number of Jewish people within the Communist Party by those on the Nationalist Right was vastly inflated, there’s only a few instances where he cites actual numbers. I do not believe that he is misrepresenting reality here, sources are always referenced to back up his claims, but I do feel like the inclusion of some infographics and chart that visualize the data to which he is referring would be a far superior means of making his case. If in one image, for instance, he was to organize geographic claims made on the Jewish components of the party alongside their actual numbers based on the now-publicly-available data on party membership i.e. “In Romania it was claimed that Jews were “almost all” of the party while their records indicate that they were only “20-40%” that’s a more effective means of making the point. In another point, related to this criticism, he talks about the reality effect and viral spread of Jews conceptualized as “parochial anxieties about the nation and it’s enemies (32). A timeline chart showing publication dates of the sources he’d uncovered which supported this rational claim would have effectively supported this position.

Another criticism that I had of the book, which is unfortunately typical of a lot of academic writings, is the variated repetition of important ideas. I didn’t count the number of times I read a variation of “The concept of Judeo-Bolshevism was a concept used by Religious and Nationalist communities by which to understand their current political crisis,” but if I had to guess it’d be somewhere around 50. This is admittedly a petty criticism, but I found myself getting annoyed when every few pages I read a different iteration of an already established summation.

Lastly, I was hoping that the author would draw some minor connections from the history around Judeo-Bolshevism to that around Cultural Marxism – the narrative centered around Jewish Marxists from the Frankfurt School setting up shop at New York’s New School for Social Research. But then again that would really require another book to cover…

That said, these negative assessments are minor and the book is truly a great work of history. My hardback copy is highly annotated, and the prose was crisp and insightful. I imagine I’ll come back to it again in a few years.

Also, if you’re interested, read some more in-depth reviews on the book here.