Eurasian March More Imperious than Imperial

Last month Alexander Dugin boasted that his Eurasian Youth Union could bring out 1500 participants to their Imperial March. They got about 600-700 according to Kommersant (RFE/RL claims no more than 400 attended). It also seems that the Russian authorities have much more tolerance toward the far right than the left. A few days before the march, Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov granted the International Eurasian Movement a permit to march down Tverskaya to Revolution Square. But there seems to be some confusion on this permit. Other news agencies, like the Moscow Times and RFE/RL, report that Luzhkov only granted a permit for a two hour rally at Mayakovskaya. In contrast, the mayor’s office has rejected a similar request by the “March of the Discontented” for April 14.

There were no reported arrests and no clubbing of demonstrators. That doesn’t mean that the police were not in full force. They were indeed. Twenty-seven truckloads of soldiers, a stepped-up police presence and even several busloads of special forces troops protected the demonstrators and make sure no march occurred spontaneously,” reports Kommersant. One has to wonder who was guarding who. Were the police guarding bystanders or the Eurasianists?

The march displayed all the nationalist rhetoric one would expect at a neo-fascist rally. Again from Kommersant:

“When the USSR collapsed, I had the feeling that I was being cut up into pieces,” Eurasian Youth Union leader Pavel Zarifullin told those gathered. “But we will restore the empire. The process has already begun.” Alexander Dugin, spiritual leader of the movement, called opposition members who attend the March of Those Who Disagree “the forces of hell,” and stated that “America is the kingdom of the Antichrist in the far West. Those who urge friendship with it want to sell the country for Internet and free chewing gum.”

From the Moscow Times:


“We are supporters of the regime. We support Putin because he created the prerequisites for the rebirth of the nation,” Dugin told the rally. “We want guarantees that Putin will stay for a third term or secure the continuity of his course.”

Russia should be strong and not crawling under the West,” Dmitry Zakharov, a rally participant, said Sunday.

“National Bolsheviks want to monopolize street protests and the notion of civil society for themselves, and we want to show everybody today that we, too, are a part of civil society,” said Pavel Kanishchev, waving a black flag decorated with eight yellow arrows symbolizing Russia‘s imperial expansion.


I think that this line from the International Herald Tribune summed things up nicely: “Some demonstrators said they were recruited in rural schools, and had little idea why they were there.”


Posts are going to be light over the next two weeks as I concentrate on finishing my dissertation chapter on the legacy of the Russian Civil War in the Komsomol. Just thought I make an announcement in case anyone is wondering about the lack of posting.

The Duma’s Falsification of History

It appears that the Soviet practice of erasing history from sight and therefore mind continues in Putin’s Russia. Kommersant reports that contrary to the position of the Duma’s Upper Chamber, the State Duma has ruled to remove the hammer and sickle from the WWII Victory Banner, which was raised on the German Reichstag on May 1, 1945.

Support and opposition to the move surely breaks along generational/political lines. “As the son of a War veteran, I can’t vote for the bill,” Sergey Minorov, speaker of the Federation Council, said before the vote. “If our elderly are against it, let’s respect their opinion.” Communists have also opposed the change stating that “symbol of Victory Day now looks more like that of the Day of the People’s Republic of China.” Communist MP Viktor Tyulkin stated before the Duma vote, “The main content was conveyed by the red color, the hammer, sickle and star, which symbolized the unity of the workers, peasants and workers peasants of the Red Army.” One can’t help to note the irony of members of the Communist Party complaining about falsifying history.

However, mention of workers’ and peasants’ unity didn’t spark any nostalgia among members of United Russia, who are spearheading the bill as a way to search for “more efficient models for interaction with the countries on the post-Soviet space.” In the case of the Victory Banner, United Russia wants to harness the victories of the Communist past only without the Communists.

"The Stamp of Guantanamo"

Human Rights Watch slapped both Russia and the United States in the face this week. The first slap was the release of a 43 page report detailing how the US sent seven “enemy combatants” held at Guantanamo Bay to Russia. The result was all seven, Rustam Akhmiarov, Ravil Gumarov, Timur Ishmuratov, Shamil Khazhiev, Rasul Kudaev, Ruslan Odizhev, and Airat Vakhitov, were repeatedly tortured and brutalized by Russian police and security forces. The second slap was a press release condemning Bush’s meeting with Russian Major-General Vladimir Shamanov.

The HRW report, “The Stamp of Guantanamo,” didn’t spare either party from vilification. First, the United States for “stamping” these seven men with the elastic label of “terrorist” and for the “torture and ill treatment” they suffered at Guantanamo. According to the British human rights group Reprieve, this included:

beatings; deliberately inflicting serious pain upon the wounded (by deliberately letting stretchers drop, for example); forcing detainees to kneel on small rocks for hours with their hands behind their heads; exposing detainees to the elements, especially cold; denying medical treatment, especially for the wounded; jumping and landing with the knees on the backs of detainees’ heads; depriving detainees of sleep; forcing detainees to run while shackled in painful positions; threatening detainees with dogs; desecrating the Koran and interfering with daily prayers; and at least initially, failing to honor the dietary restrictions of Muslims. Some said bright lights were shone on their faces throughout the night; others described crude and degrading attempts at sexual humiliation.

The main focus, however, was not United States was the use of torture in Afghanistan, Iraq, or in Guantanamo. It has done that more thoroughly in previous reports. The focus was on the US reliance on hollow “diplomatic assurances” from countries that they would not torture returnees, a subject HRW already dealt with in 2005. The Russian case only highlights to utter futility in such “assurances.”

Governments that have transferred or tried to transfer suspects with such “assurances” include Austria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The receiving countries have included China, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, all of which have well documented records of torture. The US government has been particularly eager to use such “assurances” as it begins to repatriate detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

Human Rights Watch opposes the use of “diplomatic assurances” in returning suspects to countries where they are at risk of torture. Governments that engage in torture routinely deny it and refuse to investigate allegations of torture. A government that is already violating its international obligation not to torture cannot be trusted to abide by a further “assurance” that it will not torture. This report provides evidence of precisely that fact, in the case of Russia.

The report goes on to state that despite “diplomatic assurances” the Americans used the threat of torture in Russia as a coercive measure against the seven. As the report states: “The Americans … frightened us with return to Russia, [and] said that in Russia, we will be tortured,” Airat Vakhitov told Human Rights Watch. “There was constant blackmail,” Ravil Gumarov told Human Rights Watch. “They kept saying, ‘We’ll send you to Russia,’ that ‘They’ll string you up there’ and that kind of thing.”

Yet despite the United State’s direct involvement in the use of torture, as Ravil Gumarov told HRW, “In the final analysis, the Russians were worse.”

Russia’s state and local security forces are well known for their use of secret and arbitrary detention, intimidation, kidnapping, torture, and brutality, especially in Chechnya. And while Russia’s use of these methods pre-dates the “global war on terror”, the latter has only given the use of brutality new life and new “legal” justification. “The Russian human rights organization Memorial stated in February 2006, “We have extensive evidence to suggest that under the pretext of fighting ‘Islamic extremism’ and ‘international terrorism,’ a large-scale campaign of persecution of Muslim followers of so-called ‘unconventional’ Islamic sects has been launched in Russia,” the HRW report cites.

To get a sense of what these seven men went through upon their return to Russia, one need only point to the case of Rasul Kudaev.

Kudaev returned to Russia from Guantanamo with the following aliments: “hepatitis, stomach ulcers, the after-effects of a bullet he received in the hip in Afghanistan that was never removed, serious headaches, high blood pressure, and other ailments.” All of this rendered him disabled and incapable of working. But the fact that Kudaev was relegated to crutches didn’t stop the local FSB in Nalchik from abducting Kudaev in a sweep after several gunmen attacked government offices and police stations in Nalchik in October 2005.

The details of Kudaev’s detention were spelled out by his lawyer Irina Komissarova in her testimony before the European Court of Human Rights in December 2005. While Komissarova’s testimony is too long to quote in its entirety (I urge readers to read the report themselves), here is a sample:

Upon arrival at the Sixth Department I saw Kudaev R.V., who was sitting on a stool, in a contorted position, holding his stomach. There were a large bruise and many scratches on the right side of his face near the eye. Apart from the investigator, there were many other persons in the office (three to five people). Investigator Artemenko A., who had worked with him that day, gave me the record of the interrogation of suspect Kudaev R.V. to read. After reading the document, I asked Kudaev R.V. whether he had indeed given the testimony. In response, he expressed the wish to talk to me alone…

In our conversation, Kudaev R.V. told me that he had been tortured and beaten after he was brought to the Sixth Department. The testimony in the interrogation record was not his, it had been made up, and it was not correct…

When Kudaev R.V. informed the investigator that he would not sign the interrogation record… all hell broke loose!!! From all sides people in the office gathered around (by the way, none introduced themselves) and everyone started issuing threats at Kudaev R.V. In the end, he could no longer stand it and said that he would sign the interrogation record because he was afraid that after I left they would beat him again. Someone in the room told me “you are free to go, we don’t need your services any more.”

The fear expressed by Kudaev R.V. that he would again be beaten I saw as realistic.

I think readers get the gist of it. For more gory details I again suggest readers examine the report themselves.

HRW’s conclusion reiterates its admonition of both the United States and Russia.

Since September 11, 2001, the US government has advanced several novel and pernicious interpretations of international law, including the law on torture. The Bush administration’s attack on the Geneva Conventions, for example, has ignited a storm of criticism worldwide. Unfortunately, the US government’s novel and pernicious use of “diplomatic assurances” has not been as widely condemned by the international community—in large part because other governments, particularly Western European states and Canada, are using them too. These governments have played, therefore, an indirect role in the shameless use of “diplomatic assurances” that is described in this report.

Immediate responsibility for the suffering of these seven Russian men lies of course with the Russian government. But the US government must bear its share of the blame as well. Given the commonplace nature of torture by Russian law enforcement, it seems implausible that the Americans could have sent home these seven men, branded as they were by the “stamp of Guantanamo,” and expected them to suffer anything less than the misery that they have, in fact, endured.

It seems that when it comes to torture the Bush Administration and Russia are joined at the hip in other ways. On March 27, Bush did a photo-op with Russian Major-General Vladimir Shamanov. The Major-General was visiting the White House as the co-chairman of the Russian-US Commission on mission soldiers. Shamanov, according to HRW, “is implicated in grave human rights abuses, including the killing of civilians in the villages of Alkhan-Yurt in 1999 and Katyr-Yurt in 2000, and the illegal detention and torture of detainees in 2000.” HRW documented these abuses in a report in 1999. In addition, according to the Washington Post, “The European Court of Human Rights also has found Shamanov’s troops responsible for the “massive use of indiscriminate weapons” that killed civilians in another village, and human rights investigators concluded that detainees at a base under his command were beaten, subjected to electric shocks and held in pits.” Shamanov called these allegations as “fairy tales” in 2004.

The Bush Administration’s ignominy results not so much from meeting with Shamanov. After all, officials responsible for atrocities are easy to find working there daily. It comes from its feeble attempt to claim that it didn’t know about Shamanov’s crimes. As White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters, “The president was not aware of the allegations made against (Shamanov) and he was seeking to sharpen the focus on the commission’s good work.”

Not aware!? Perhaps a White House staffer should have consulted the Internets and do a search on the Google. Think Progress did and they found that “a quick Google search of “Vladimir Shamanov,” references to the general’s role in the killings come up on the first page.” Plus are we really to believe that anyone would get as much as a pinkie finger into the Oval Office without extensive background checks? Is White House security really that lax?

Alas we should remember that claims of amnesia are a favorite response for the White House. Either Bush has one of those flashy thingies from Men in Black in his desk or he and his people are flat out liars. I suspect the latter.

Oh and let us not forget that scandal begins with the Kremlin. Shamanov’s crimes were essentially applauded when he was awarded the “Hero of Russia” medal for his service in Chechnya in 1999. There are even reports that he proudly wore it to his visit to the Oval Office.

Tajikistan Bans Slavic Names

Just as readers at Siberian Light are discussing communist names, the NY Times is reporting about the President of Tajikistan’s effort to ban names with Slavic endings. President Emomali Rakhmon’s (the President formerly known as Rakhmonov) decree to drop “-ov” from family names is yet another nationalist attempt to remove the vestiges of Russia/Soviet influence over Tajik society. As Ilan Greenberg of the NY Times writes,

Amid a series of idiosyncratic decrees aimed at removing traces of Soviet influence, the president of Tajikistan announced Tuesday that he had dropped the Slavic “ov” from the end of his surname and that, henceforth, the same must be done for all babies born to Tajik parents.

Most Tajiks added a Slavic ending to their surnames when the country came under Soviet rule early in the last century.

The president, Emomali Rakhmon — formerly Rakhmonov — also banned certain school holidays and traditions associated with the Soviet period, including a holiday known as ABC Book Day, when toddlers gather in a circle to read aloud. He also ordered all university students to leave cellphones and cars at home, saying they distracted from academic study.

Mr. Rakhmon won a third seven-year term in November in a presidential election widely dismissed as a farce. But Tajikistan’s political culture has not produced the sort of ethnocentric governing style that developed in nearby Turkmenistan, where Saparmurat Niyazov, the dictatorial leader also known as Turkmenbashi (Leader of All Turkmens), died three months ago.

Central Asian governments have chosen vastly different approaches toward their ethnically mixed populations, from the extreme ethnic chauvinism prevailing in Turkmenistan to an officially enforced celebration of multiculturalism in Kazakhstan, the region’s economic giant to the north. But Tajik nationalism has “not become a dominant political force” in the country, a report prepared for the Library of Congress says.

Tajiks reached by telephone in Dushanbe, the capital, said the president’s decrees had little popular support but had engendered confusion and mild annoyance at the imposition.

“It doesn’t matter to me to say the truth; I’m not thinking about it,” said Shamsiyna Ofaridyeza, 30, an accountant in Dushanbe who is five months pregnant. “But if the president says we have to use Tajik names, then I’ll change my baby’s name. What else can I do?” Ms. Ofaridyeza and her husband have Tajik surnames made to sound more Russian.

Ms. Ofaridyeza was more supportive of the ban on students driving cars and brandishing cellphones. “Students are not studying,” she said. “They are too busy sitting on their cars showing off. But you know, we are a democratic people, and everyone should be able to name his baby what he wants.”

Old Wine in New Bottles?

Lyndon linked me about Nashi’s “Connecting with the President” or the “President’s Liaison Officer” campaign, so I’ll return the favor by liking his lucid breakdown of Nashi’s marketing-activist tactics. As he concludes:

The idea of using Nashi partisans as electronic “go-betweens” to/from the President (the passers-by receive special SIM-cards which will also be able to receive “all essential information about the movement’s activities,” per this description of the event) is an intriguing modern take on the Soviet idea of a loyal vanguard, though it’s supposedly an exercise in “modern democracy” (“sovremennaia demokratiia”).

I agree. What strikes me is not only how media savvy this all is, but also how these methods can be found among activists on the left and the right all over the world. The question all this poses for me is how much of Nashi’s participation in Russia’s “modern democracy” is symbolic of democratic practice around the world?

OD-Group Protests at MGU

For the past few weeks academic email lists devoted to Russian studies have been receiving a petition from a group of Sociology students from Moscow State University. A MGU student group named OD-Group, which is distributing the petition, claims that

In recent years, lectures at the department have become ever more insipid and formal exercises. The administration has cut the number of seminars and practical classes. We are allowed to take ever fewer course units in neighboring disciplines. We are hardly ever given the opportunity to attend talks by outside lecturers. Exam questions are limited to the contents of a textbook authored by the dean. The dean’s office has distributed a brochure to all students which approvingly quotes the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” blames Freemasons and Zionists for the world wars, and claims that they control US and British policy and the global financial system.

Studying conditions at the department are unbearable. There are not enough lecture halls, and there is no ventilation. The building is stuffed with video surveillance cameras which the administration uses to track suspect students. Factory-style turnstiles have been installed at the entrance, and the security guards act rudely toward students. We have no library of our own.

We demand that the curricula be changed, competent teachers be invited, students be informed about foreign exchange programs, the rude security guards be dismissed, the rigid gating system be abolished, and a minimum of basic amenities be provided.

Their organizing efforts seemed to have paid off. Today a few English language media picked up on the story. The New York Times claims that Moscow State University has opened an investigative commission to look into the claims, though Vladimir I. Dobrenkov, the dean of the Sociology Department told the Times in a telephone interview, that the claims “are full of hints, rumors and half-truths” and that no anti-Semitism has been taught or tolerated on campus.” One then wonder what exactly will be investigated? Will it be OD-Group’s accusations or OD-Group themselves?

I assume that in the end it will be the latter because since the creation of the commission, as the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, six students were detained by the police for distributing fliers. They were later released without charges. This was the second arrest in as many months. On February 28 police arrested some students for similar activities.

Russia’s Billionaires Enter Global Ruling Class

A few weeks ago Forbes released its World’s Billionaire List. Most commentators have noted the increase in Chinese, Indian, and Russian presence on the list. This is not surprising. The three countries are some of the most economically robust countries in the world. China serves as the global center of cheap labor. India an increasing center of high tech and service. Russia the world’s oil and gas supplier. Taken together the three nations provide the pillars of a global economy—labor, communications, and fuel.

It is no wonder then that the global ruling class is reflecting these nations. Russia has 53 billionaires (two shy of Germany), of which 19 are new to the list. China has 20 (41 if you include Hong Kong), 13 of which are new. India has 36 with 14 newcomers. Billionaires are growing faster in Russia, China, and India than anywhere else in the world.

What does this mean for the global ruling class? As James Petras notes in his article “Meet the Global Ruling Class,” this surge in billionaires has come with increasing polarization of the world’s wealth. “The total wealth of this global ruling class,” he writes, “grew 35 per cent year to year topping $3.5 trillion, while income levels for the lower 55 per cent of the world’s 6-billion-strong population declined or stagnated. Put another way, one hundred millionth of the world’s population (1/100,000,000) owns more than over 3 billion people.” I’ll repeat that in case you didn’t get it: One hundred millionth of the world’s population own more than 3 billion people. So much for the rising tide lifting all boats.

Petras also makes some important observations about Russia’s billionaires. They are young. Most “accumulated” their wealth in their mid-20s. Few are members of the old Communist leaders. Despite Western media assertions about Putin moving against Russia’s oligarchs, “biographical evidence demonstrates that there is no rupture between the rise of the billionaires under Yeltsin and their consolidation and expansion under Putin.” And lastly, in response to Forbes‘ laughable assertions that these Russian billionaires were “self made,” Petras writes, “Of the top eight Russian billionaire oligarchs, all got their start from strong-arming their rivals, setting up ‘paper banks’ and taking over aluminum, oil, gas, nickel and steel production and the export of bauxite, iron and other minerals. Every sector of the former Communist economy was pillaged by the new billionaires: Construction, telecommunications, chemicals, real estate, agriculture, vodka, foods, land, media, automobiles, airlines etc..” Self-made indeed.

But perhaps most interesting is how Russia and Latin America compare in this regard. Latin American and Russian elites got their wealth not like Bill Gates, but essentially by seizing state industries privatized in neo-liberal privatization schemes:

In both Latin America and Russia, the billionaires grabbed lucrative state assets under the aegis of orthodox neo-liberal regimes (Salinas-Zedillo regimes in Mexico, Collor-Cardoso in Brazil, Yeltsin in Russia) and consolidated and expanded under the rule of supposedly ‘reformist’ regimes (Putin in Russia, Lula in Brazil and Fox in Mexico). In the rest of Latin America (Chile, Colombia and Argentina) the making of the billionaires resulted from the bloody military coups and regimes, which destroyed the socio-political movements and started the privatization process. This process was then even more energetically promoted by the subsequent electoral regimes of the right and ‘center-left’.

What is repeatedly demonstrated in both Russia and Latin America is that the key factor leading to the quantum leap in wealth ­ from millionaires to billionaires ­ was the vast privatization and subsequent de-nationalization of lucrative public enterprises.

It is no wonder Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that “property is theft.”

Anatomy of an Elite

The character of the Russian elite is a topic of constant speculation. Is it one man rule? Is it an oligarchy? Is it a mafia structure? What is the real relationship between Putin’s administration and the security organs? Between the state and the emerging Russian middle class? What will happen in 2008?

Olga Kryshtanovskaya, head of the Elite Studies Center at the Sociology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, and author of Anatomiia rossiiskoi elita (2004) says that the Russian elite has been split between Westernizers and Slavophiles for the last 200 years. “In fact, these have been the only two “parties” in Russia ever since,” she says in an interview with Kommersant Vlast’. “No others have emerged, no matter how many parties Russia has seen over the decades. The Westernizers argue for freedom of the individual, private enterprise, separation of powers, elections. For Slavophiles, all this means alien ideologies and chaos that casts doubt on the very existence of the Russian state.” Putin’s regime is simply the most recent personification of the Slavophile faction in power.

Kryshtanovskaya makes several other interesting insights in the interview. I encourage everyone to read it. Here are few highlights:

Question: If the strength of the Russian state lies in rejecting democracy, then why do the people who are currently at the helm keep saying that Russia needs democracy? They could just change the Constitution, after all.

Olga Kryshtanovskaya: But why act so crudely? It was the liberals who publicly betrayed the autocratic machine and openly attacked its load-bearing components: the pyramid of power, the command economy, secrecy. But today’s authorities have an entirely different background. In the secret services, they were trained in undercover operations – working behind a mask, concealing their true intentions. No need to wreck the system openly; instead, you need to infiltrate it and go on to preserve its facade while altering the contents to suit yourself, step by step. But these steps toward changing the system should always be done from different directions, and always unexpectedly for those within the system and outside observers alike. So that no one will be able to trace a logical connection between various steps or figure out the purpose of the whole operation.

Rumor has it that soon after Vladimir Putin came to power, he made a revealing remark: “Wherever you look, it’s all like Chechnya.” What he meant was disorder. But what is “disorder” to someone from a military or state security background? It’s the absence of control. If there’s no control, there are opportunities for independent influence. And the presence of alternative centers of power is perceived by the siloviki as a threat to Russia‘s integrity. Does the Duma refuse to take orders from the presidential administration? That’s disorder. Is Gazprom run by Rem Vyakhirev rather than the Kremlin? Disorder. Are some parties making demands, are the media talking about something or other? It’s all disorder – it needs to be eliminated. And they have eliminated it. Over the past seven years, the chekists have changed Russia‘s political system entirely – without changing a single letter of the Constitution.

Question: But most citizens are content with present-day conditions – judging by President Putin’s popularity.

Olga Kryshtanovskaya: For the people, democracy still remains something foreign, incomprehensible, and suspicious. But the present regime’s autocratic style is familiar – they understand where President Putin is leading Russia. We still retain our traditional faith in a Good Tsar. Besides, the position of the chekists is incredibly stable these days. That’s mostly because the present system relies on age-old traditions of autocratic statehood. The siloviki aren’t being resisted by any other force. Not even Yuri Andropov enjoyed such freedom of action: he always had to consult the Politburo, where he had only one vote. But now the chekists are their own “Politburo.” Essentially, all the major decisions in Russia are made by five people: Vladimir Putin, Viktor Ivanov, Sergei Ivanov, Igor Sechin, and Nikolai Patrushev.

Question: But Vladimir Putin will drop out of that quintet in 2008.

Olga Kryshtanovskaya: Even if he steps down as president, he won’t leave the “Politburo.” The corporation known as the Federal Security Service (FSB) and its ruling group will remain unchanged. It’s only Boris Berezovsky who claims that he “made” Putin. Putin was made president by the corporation that came to power in 2000. And it didn’t go to all that effort just to surrender power after a mere eight years.

Question: A great deal will depend on the successor, right?

Olga Kryshtanovskaya: The chekist “Politburo” will remain in power anyway. If they prefer a “strong” president, they will choose Sergei Ivanov. If they prefer a “weak” president, it will be Dmitri Medvedev. Or Vladimir Putin might remain the leading figure after all.

Quotations from the interview were translated by Elena Leonova.

Blackwater in the Caspian

Jeremy Scahill’s new book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army will prove to be a much needed expose of the Bush Administration’s privatization of the military. Not only are there an estimated 100,000 mercenaries in Iraq, pushing the American military presence far beyond what most are aware, but Blackwater is the vanguard spear for the Bush Administration’s policy in the Caspian Sea region. The “Great Game” is back on. Why? It’s oil of course. For more on Blackwater and its role in the Caspian listen to him on today’s Democracy Now! You can also get a taste of the book in his recent article in the Nation.

Scroll to top