Within the first five minutes of the movie “Iron Man II,” Tony Stark declares that his wonderful suit of iron has guaranteed world peace. In doing so, he pushes one of the foremost lies that form the foundation of capitalist ideology: that true peace for workers can exist alongside the profit motive. In this grotesque film, which is filled with sexism, the glorification of the U.S. military and Cold War anti-communism, this deception is perhaps the worst. Capitalism only offers ceaseless violence, from domestic abuse to nuclear war, for the world’s workers. No “Iron Man” can do what communist revolution can: consign capitalism to the dustbin of history and usher in a society based on workers’ needs and hopes.

In the first film, Stark is kidnapped and forced to build a super weapon for terrorists, portrayed by Arab-looking actors (thus fulfilling the film industry’s role as a source of racist, imperialist ideology). Instead of developing a weapon for his captors, Stark builds a metal suit that allows him to fly, shoot and generally wreak havoc on the “bad guys.”

The film begins with the U.S. government demanding Stark hand over the suit to the military. Defiantly invoking his “right to private property” and declaring that he has “privatized world peace,” Stark refuses. In this Libertarian fantasy Tony Stark, the super-capitalist, provides for the needs of the working class (who suffer most from the ceaseless violence of capitalism and would thus benefit most from true peace). Libertarianism is the belief that capitalist markets are completely self-regulating and that there is no need for government. Accordingly, the state in the movie, rather than being shown as an instrument of the capitalist class, is shown as a bumbling bureaucracy separate from the capitalist class.

Through a montage of magazine covers and a brief self-congratulatory speech from Stark himself, we learn that the invention of the Iron Man suit has led to five years of “peace and prosperity.” Stark reveals the nature of this “peace” when he declares himself a modern “nuclear deterrent,” a clear allusion to the “peace” of the Cold War era. The U.S. appears to still be an imperialist power and people like Tony Stark still live in utter wealth, meaning that many more have to live in desperate poverty.

The Iron Man is clearly being used not as a weapon of liberation but a weapon of intimidation. The Iron Man has not brought world peace, but rather world domination by U.S. imperialism. By the end of the movie, the reality that the so-called “free market” hero is in service to the U.S. war machine is apparent: Tony Stark is fighting alongside his friend and U.S. Army Colonel, James Rhodes. Stark Industries, his company, may be the hot company, but it still needs the might of the U.S. military to allow it access to markets. (Replace Stark Industries with ExxonMobil and you’d have a movie about the invasion of Iraq.)

Along with a U.S. superhero, this film gives us the proto-typical Russian villain, Ivan Vanko or “Whiplash.” Vanko’s father was a Russian scientist who worked with Stark’s father, but was deported by the elder Stark back to the USSR because Vanko was too greedy (which is rich, coming from a Pentagon contractor).

Vanko is a physicist (with a gym membership himself) incapable of comprehending Stark’s technological advancements. He can only mimic advancements, not develop his own, thus fulfilling the stereotype of the overly mechanical Russian scientist not privy to the “freedom” of U.S. capitalism.

Of course belief in this myth requires forgetting that in many scientific fields the Soviet Union was far ahead of the “liberated” U.S. The specter of communism still haunts the bosses and their film industry.

“Iron Man II” will clearly be one of the biggest blockbusters of the year (in its first two days it made over $327 million worldwide). And it is not hard to see why: good actors put in strong performances and top-of-the-line special effects highlight an action-packed script. But every aspect of capitalist media is designed to reinforce capitalist ideas and we should be critical of these underlying lessons. “Iron Man II,” at its core, is a celebration of capitalist individualism and U.S. nationalism simply wrapped in a sleek, glamorous shell. 

Since their founding by Spain and Portugal the history of Latin American states has been a history of imperialism. Today Russia, China, and the European Union (E.U.) all fight over the abundant natural resources of the region, challenging the traditional dominance of the U.S. ruling class. The opportunist native bosses in Latin America have begun to re-orient their economies and populations to reflect this struggle, choosing their favored imperialist master.

Latin America serves as a major source of raw materials for the imperialist powers. Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia are all major exporters of oil, with Mexico being the second largest source of U.S. oil. The recent find of fresh oil reserves in Colombia’s Cusiana fields guarantees a continued imperialist presence in the region. Large mining operations, like the copper mines in Chile, are vital to U.S., Chinese, and Russian manufacturing.

The Southern Common Market, MERCOSUR, plays an important role in regulating South American trade for the benefit of the imperialist powers. Since its inception in 1991 it has been successful in fixing resource prices so low that producing states cannot even maintain themselves.

The U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) uses oppressive conditional loans to regulate Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, as the local bosses struggle for autonomy and profits. To escape the U.S. imperialists, Venezuela makes oil deals with Chinese and Russian bosses. As a result, Ecuador and close ally Venezuela are the only Latin American countries that participate in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a longtime thorn in the U.S. bosses’ side.

In many parts of Latin America, capitalist profits revolve around the growing drug trade. Although U.S. bosses have frequently touted their “war on drugs,” they have orchestrated and encouraged drug trafficking and the armed gangs which run the trade. The U.S. built and funded the Contras in Nicaragua and paramilitary groups in Colombia, Guatemala and El Salvador that form the vital drug pipeline between Colombia and the U.S. These fascist gangs were created in the 1980s to brutalize workers and discourage communist organizing, all the while funded by the largest market of narcotics users in the world, the U.S. After the leftists were killed, the drugs kept flowing.

The imperialist powers do not fight over Latin America because it is poor. Latin America is rich; only the people are poor. More than 500 million live in extreme poverty, while 36 local billionaires (and more imperialist bosses) reap increasing profits from their labor.

Both local capitalists and imperialists have no interest in addressing the deteriorating situation of workers in Latin America. As the extraction of wealth from Latin America becomes more frenzied the people become more impoverished. For example, in garment factories owned by Korean, French and Spanish capitalists in Bolivia, children work 16 hours a day under sweatshop conditions. Whenever workers in Latin America fight back against such oppression, the U.S. and its corporate interests have funded police and military repression to bring workers back in line.

In recent years, leaders have emerged in Latin America who have tried to win workers with claims of “socialism” and false promises to free their countries from the yoke of U.S. imperialism. Some prominent examples include Chavez in Venezuela, Lula Da Silva in Brazil and Correa in Ecuador.  These leaders wrest control of their countries from the U.S. by making deals with other imperialist powers like China and Russia. Merely changing the face of their master they are repositioning their workers to be exploited by a different side of the growing inter-imperialist dogfight.

Host to nine U.S. military bases, Colombia remains firmly under the control of the U.S. bosses. In addition to its wealth of natural resources Colombia is a vital strategic interest to the U.S. since it is geographically positioned to easily control the rest of the region. The government, hopelessly tied to the drug trade, is known for brutalizing workers and destroying unions by murdering organizers.

The Colombian government also serves as America’s pit-bull in the region, using its military to intervene in other parts of Latin America.  In 2008 Colombia almost sparked a war with Venezuela and Ecuador when Colombian and U.S. troops crossed into Ecuador to assassinate Raul Reyes, leader of the FARC guerillas.

Despite these horrific conditions bred by imperialism, workers continue to fight back. On May 1st millions of workers all over Latin America marched against capitalism. In some of the marches, the slogan of down with capitalism and long live communism was heard. In Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba and Honduras, the workers remembered the martyrs of Chicago and called for a fight against the imperialists punitive system of control.

PLP was present in many of these marches raising the communist flag, declaring that we have a world to win. Workers have broken barriers by joining the Party of the working class, as they see people suffering the same injustices from Mexico to Afghanistan to Brazil. On May Day they raised the only flag of the international working class, the communist flag, and called for revolution. Only one Party, the PLP, is capable of destroying capitalism and the deadly imperialism it breeds! 

English and Dutch Boers (Afrikaners) colonized South Africa and, in 1948, subjected black Africans to a formal racist system called Apartheid, an Afrikaner word meaning “apart.” This system was based on a combination of U.S. slavery and its successor Jim Crow, with no equality politically, economically or culturally.

*  *  *  *  *

June 16 marked the 34th anniversary of the Soweto uprisings in South Africa. Today it’s an official South African holiday, Youth Day. It commemorates the hundreds of young people killed fighting the Apartheid system. June 16, 1976, will live in the memories of South Africans and anti-racist workers worldwide for generations to come.

Black African students received inferior education in overcrowded schools and had to pay the equivalent of half their parents’ monthly income to even attend school, while white students received free education.

The Soweto rebellion’s immediate spark was a new requirement that math and social studies be taught in Afrikaans, the Apartheid government’s official language. However, teachers had always taught in English. Most were unable to teach in Afrikaans, a third language for them besides their native one and English.

The Rebellion Begins

On June 13, 1976, the students called a meeting; 400 attended. The Soweto Students Representative Council (SSRC) was selected to lead the campaign against this new racist edict. Two delegates per school were elected. They refused to accept the order to be taught in Afrikaans, still another racist burden imposed by the Apartheid government. Students, fearing being stopped, told their parents nothing. They decided to march to Orlando stadium to present their demands. On June 16 at 7 A.M., about 5,000 students, most between 10 and 20 years old, met at various points around Soweto Township and started marching. But before they got inside the stadium, police with vans formed a wall blocking them.

The cops fired tear gas, warning them to disperse. With the students holding their ground, the police started shooting into the crowd. Twelve-year-old Hector Petersen was the first one killed. Then angry students began hurling stones and bottles at the cops, running forward, throwing, then retreating and repeating the action. This continued all day.

The Battle Rages

Symbols of the hated Apartheid system were burned: administrative offices, government buses and vehicles. Liquor stores and beer halls were looted and then set afire. Battles continued through the night, with police shooting wildly in the dark (Soweto had no street lights).

Thousands of injured students went to the Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital where some died in the hallways and others outside the emergency room. Over 200 students were murdered. Workers arrived home to find cops everywhere in personnel carriers called “hippos,” vehicles built to withstand landmines in the guerilla wars in Namibia and Mozambique. The bodies of dead and injured students were littered all over. Clouds of black smoke hung over the Township.

The next day most workers voluntarily stayed away from their jobs. Then the students realized they’d have to talk to their parents to expand their forces to fight Apartheid. In intensive house-to-house visits they explained the issues to their parents. The police banned all political and mass meetings.

Chrysler Workers Back the Students

On June 22, mass funerals became mass meetings. Townships near Pretoria joined the struggle. Over 1,000 South African Chrysler auto workers struck to support the students, the first time workers had done so. The boycott spread to the Alexandra Township. By June 18, the Apartheid government closed all schools in Soweto and Alexandra.

SSRC’s next major action, set for August 4, was more ambitious — organizing a three-day general strike and a school boycott. This had not happened since 1961. Students cut the key signal box, halting trains from running to Soweto. Students gathered at all the commuting sites, urging workers to stay home. An estimated 20,000 to 40,000 workers struck. It was 60% successful over three days.

By now, the student boycott had spread to the Western and Eastern Cape. The Apartheid government detained hundreds of students indefinitely to stop the demonstrations. Then they used a vicious divide-and-conquer strategy, pitting Zulu workers against the students.

Fight Racist Divisions

Many Zulu male migrant workers lived in hostels, without their families. The police told them the students would attack them. During the second three-day boycott one hostel was burned, probably by an agent provocateur. Under police protection, the Zulus then attacked the students and residents.

The SSRC, realizing they had to win the Zulu workers politically, explained how the police had misled them. Zulu workers were won to see that the students’ and Soweto workers’ fight against Apartheid was their fight too.

The third SSRC demonstration, August 23, spread to Witwatersrand and the Transvaal. A solid 75% to 80% participation was sustained over three days. Almost 750,000 workers participated. Zulu migrant workers gave almost total support.

Sporadic protests continued. In April, 1977, the SSRC successfully stopped rent increases in Soweto. In September, when Black Consciousness Movement leader Stephen Biko was murdered in prison, rebellions spread nation-wide, especially in the Eastern Cape. The following month the last SSRC leader fled into exile. On October 19, the government banned 17 organizations, most connected to the Black Consciousness Movement.

A Worldwide Movement Erupts

Internationally, the rebellion inspired workers and students to hold anti-apartheid demonstrations supporting the South African rebels. Students at universities throughout the U.S. and Europe launched major divestment campaigns demanding college Boards of Trustees sell off stocks in companies doing business in South Africa, such as Ford, IBM, Eastman Kodak and Hewlett-Packard. Citibank was the largest U.S. lender to Apartheid South Africa.

Pressure was maintained throughout the 1980’s. In 1990, the government was forced to lift the ban on resistance movements. That year Nelson Mandela was freed from 29 years in prison.

Today, while “official” Apartheid has ended, it continues unabated through extreme poverty and racism. The workers and youth of South Africa must build on their militant history and move in a revolutionary communist direction so that their amazing struggles in battling Apartheid will not have been in vain. 

WORCESTER, MA, May 12 — PLP led a multi-racial demonstration of 150 workers and youth to oppose a racist Tea Party rally that was defending Arizona’s fascist anti-immigration law.

Prior to a May 11 City Council vote not to discuss a boycott of Arizona for that law targeting immigrants from Latin America, PLP members and friends formed a coalition of groups to present a resolution to the Council to boycott Arizona (see letter, page 6). Meanwhile the ACLU and the Mayor sent their versions of an anti-Arizona boycott to the City Clerk.

But yesterday, the racist Council voted not even to discuss it, even though it had previously voted on resolutions such as divesting from Darfur and passed a “no-hate” resolution against anti-Semitic graffiti. However, in this case the Latino community was raising its concerns about racial profiling and how it was targeting Latinos.

We continued to organize for a rally in front of City Hall. But when we heard that the Tea Party and the racist paramilitary MinuteMen would hold a counter-demonstration to support the fascist Arizona law, we fought for a large turnout to demonstrate against the Tea Party.

Many working people in the city were outraged that the Tea Party would show up so they brought their friends to the action. As usual, the TV and press never interviewed any anti-Tea Party groups, covering only the Tea Party and the City officials.

On the rally day, PLP’ers arrived at City Hall a half hour before the Tea Party and two of us established ourselves in the middle of the Plaza, forcing the Tea Party off to the side. Some wore confederate flags and seemingly included MinuteMen thugs.

The Tea Party racists began yelling at our comrades and friends, saying we were “illegal” and to “go back to Cuba.” We called them Nazis and yelled “death to fascist laws.” More and more people came, swelling the anti-racist boycott crowd to 150, overwhelming the 30 out-of-town Tea Party racists.

When the Tea Party gang saw us using our sound system, they tried to provoke us by pointing their bullhorn one foot from our ears. One of our comrades boldly blocked a Tea Party racist from harassing an anti-racist speaker on our open microphone with a sign that read, “Death to fascist laws!”

We continued to label them fascist and racists, while calling for multi-racial unity and for a worker-run society. We chanted, “Asian, Latin, black, and white, against racism we must unite!”; and, “Same enemy, same fight, workers of the world unite!” which many workers liked. We also chanted, “Working people have no nation! Smash racist deportations!”

The workers in the crowd became energized when one of our friends led a chant in Spanish, “Aqui estamos y aqui nos quedamos!” (“Here we are and here we’ll stay!”), a chant undocumented workers used in New Bedford, MA, when federal immigration cops raided a factory and arrested them. Many people said later that although the Tea Party intimidated them, they felt stronger when PLP members and friends stood up to the fascists.

The confrontation and the City Council’s racist vote caused such anger that people stepped up to call for a community meeting two days later to continue the fight against racism.J