Socialism for corporations and financial oligarchy (The New Nomenklatura) with the "Promotion of democracy" as the modification
of Trotskyite "Permanent War" doctrine
“What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion.
All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and
putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National
Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve
the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of
slavery. That is my gospel.”
―
Joseph Goebbels
There were two major favors of Bolshevism -- Trotskyism and Stalinism. Them main different is in the attitude to exporting
revolution to other countries. Trotsky preached so called permanent revolution -- forceful regime changes in other countries, while
Stalin adhered to more isolationist worldview ("Socialism in a single country"). In a way the whole
Mont Pelerin Society can be renamed into "The Committee for the adaptation of Trotskyism for the needs of financial oligarchy"
Neoliberalism is essentially Trotskyism
refashioned for the needs of the global financial elite. Like Trotskyism this is hegemonic ideology which want to
conquer the whole global: instead of "Permanent war" doctrine neoliberals use color revolutions and the "Promotion of democracy."
with essentially the same goal -- global dominance. That's probably why the first substantial support Mont Perelin Society got in
England -- global dominance is the tradition of Brish Empire.
This "socialism for corporations, feudalism for everybody" adapted a large part of Trotskyism ideology and, especially,
political instruments, carefully hiding the origins. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have
the slogan
"neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Like Communism is supposed to be the
result of revolt of proletariat against its oppressions, Neoliberalism can be considered to be the
revolt of the elite (and first of all financial elite) against excessive level of equality that
characterized the world after WWII. They key goal of neoliberalism is redistribution of wealth up at the expense of working
class and lower middle class. Like Trotskyism in the past, it is a militant and dogmatic
faith that ostracizes heretics and utilizes the full power of propaganda to brainwash the population. Like Bolsheviks' Communist
International this virtual "Union of Neoliberal States" have zero tolerance for other social system
or deviations from so called Washington consensus -- the dogmatic statement of main goal of neoliberalism in weaker countries. Like
was the case with Bolshevism media dogs and intelligence agencies are
unleashed on dissenters. Universities were refashioned into neoliberalism indoctrination camp by making neoclassical economics
the obligatory discipline, without taking a course in neo-classical economy the student can't graduate. Much like Marxism-Leninism
philosophy course and Marxist political economy course were obligatory in the USSR universities.
Permanent revolution was refashioned into regime change efforts with "color revolution" as the major instrument of such a change.
If color revolution mechanisms fail, the direct military invasion is always an option ("export
of neoliberal democracy of the tips of bayonets", so to speak). Subversive methods like color
revolutions are polished to perfection. Recently they were used inside the USA as Clinton wing of Democratic Party (aka "soft
neoliberalism") against Trump, who was elected on the platform of "anti-globalization", anti-outsourcing/offshoring", and
ending foreign wars. See NeoMcCartyism
The key idea here is that "free market" in neoliberalism replaces the notion of "dictatorship of
proletariat". The notion of the "world revolution" is preserved. Neoliberals do not want to wait until "free market" wins in the society on its own merits.
They do not believe in Laissez-faire. Like Leninists
they want to use state to build the society in which "dictatorship of market"
happens. To enforce this society on people. This is not about libertarian dream of the state as "night watchman",
on the contrary state in neoliberal
doctrine state of "neoliberal dictatorship" which is active in enforcing "free market" mechanisms, despite possible resistance of the
society.
Neoliberals like Trotskyites are globalists par excellence and dream about world neoliberal revolution. Like Bolsheviks with
communism, they reject any other forms of social
organization other then neoliberalism. And want to export neoliberalism to all countries of the world. If necessary using US bombers
and tanks.
In other words while idea of the state under neoliberalism is identical to Bolsheviks view of state (and is very similar to the
views of the Islamic state, if you
wish ;-), the foreign policy under neoliberalism is the neoliberal empire expansion policy similar to idea of "World Revolution"
which is the central postulate of Trotskyism. In other words neoliberals strongly believe in "Export of revolution", it is just
disguised for unwashed masses as export of democracy. Kind of neoliberal jihad (The Totalitarian
Nature of Islam)
"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam." "Marx has taught that
Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet."
Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and
Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism
are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.
Russell [114]
Perhaps it was Charles Watson who first described Islam as totalitarian in 1937, and proceeded to show how: "By a million roots,
penetrating every phase of life, all of them with religious significance, it is able to maintain its hold upon the life of Moslem
peoples. "Bousquet, one of the foremost authorities on Islamic Law, distinguishes two aspects of Islam which he considers totalitarian:
Islamic Law, and the Islamic notion of Jihad which has for its ultimate aim the conquest of the entire world, in order to submit
it to one single authority. We shall consider jihad in the next chapter, here we shall confine ourselves to Islamic Law.
Mont Perelin society which developed the neoliberal doctrine and served like Communist
International for neoliberalism, was deliberately structured like a congress of pre-selected and
pre-approved thinkers, allowing no dissent, and working in secrecy. Much like the new incarnation of Bolsheviks party. They explicitly rework the
key methods of social struggle invented by Bolsheviks and Trotskyites to the their own ends.
Many subversive method used by neoliberal state to enforce the rule of neoliberalism in other
countries were first invented and tried by Communist International. Marx is probably now
spinning in his grave seeing how his teaching and methods adapted by social-democratic parties were
subverted and bastardized to serve the rich.
According to neoliberal doctrine, free market like socialist social system just do not happen naturally: they should be built and enforced
by the "Party" despite all the resistance. and the Party in this case was artificially constructed of bribed intellectuals
and (what is even more important) of the network of neoliberal think tanks. this idea to use "think tank" as the major weapon
if the unleashing neoliberal revolution was also a direct (but creative) borrowing from Bolsheviks practice.
And as we all know tanks is formidable weapon on a modern battlefields.
The same is true with think tanks in social battlefields. So like
Trotskyites they are constructivists long before the term became popular (emergence of neoliberalism as a
movement belong to early 30th). Nothing is left to the chance.
In other words this like Trotskyism neoliberalism is practically undistinguished from a secular religion. That's why some
researchers call it a market uber
alles religion. The key dogma is "There is no God other then the Market... " In other words, Market under neoliberal doctrine does not need any justification. It is
the ultimate deity that judges the mere mortals, which needs to be imposed on the people by the power of the state, and requires
absolute compliance, achieved by spilling blood, if
necessary.
Much like the idea of communism is a deity for Bolsheviks, which requires no justification and needs to be imposed on the people by
whatever means necessary.
In both cases they are sold as kind of heaven on the earth. In this
sense this is market fundamentalism which is a lot in common with Islamic Fundamentalism. Market
is the heaven on earth for neoliberals and neoliberal priests (which are pretty well paid folk, look at
Summers or Rubin ;-)
have the same promise of twenty virgins to the followers. In they case virgins can be simply bought on money that the neoliberalism
will bestow on the individual who will follow the teaching making him rich ;-). The actual reality is somewhat different. It
is impossible to make rich everybody; this is reserved to the top 1% or 0.01%, while "shmucks" standard of living tend to
deteriorate. But this is a hidden "esoteric" truth the neoliberalism does not advertise. In any case you see the analogy.
Like Trotskyites they were militant faction which wanted to seize
the power but whatever means possible. And they want to forcefully destroy all alternatives
including first of all socialism. Their attitude toward socialism is the exact morrow of Trotskyites
view about capitalism -- they believe that socialism belong to the dustbin of history, and if it
does not want to die "naturally" it is OK to help him to go to the grave. 1973 Chilean coup d'état
against
President
Salvador Allende, is a perfect example of their ideology in action. color revolution are
another. This is how Lenin would force the revolution. They just uses CIA instead of terrorist
underground forces used by Bolsheviks (in case of Bolsheviks often cooperating with anarchist
military faction -- so called 'boeviks").
There is even some uneasy alliance of islamist radicals Western intelligence agencies and neoliberal
NGO in which neoliberal try to use islamist to achieve their goals. The same lack of
principles and amorality was typical for Bolsheviks. In is important to understand that
despite scholarly camouflage key neoliberal figures such as Milton Friedman were actually criminals.
Minton Friedman hands were up to the elbow in blood of innocent victims due to
killing many Chileans during
Pinochet coup (objective view is our view of people which we do not like, so communists probably
provided the most biting critique of neoliberalism and neoliberals ;-) :
In 1975, the New York Times accurately labeled him “the guiding light of the junta’s
economic policy” (21 September 1975). The CIA funded a 300-page Friedmanite blueprint given to
the leaders of the junta in preparation for the coup. In March 1975 Friedman himself,
accompanied by his U of C cohort Arnold Harberger, flew to Chile for high-level talks with the
regime to outline the economic “shock treatment” that led to the mass starvation of those who
had survived the initial phase of bloodletting.
So the world revolution in Trotskyite doctrine is simply replaced by "world neoliberal revolution
by what ever means possible". Criminal actions are OK. Like with Trotskyism "the goal
justifies the means".
Another interesting question is why those people were help-bent of anti-communism, were so
adamantly against socialism? One explanation is that most of them were from Austrian aristocracy
circles. Another is that in their view (and first of all Hayek) market is a kind of natural "supercomputer" that
can provide solutions to all world problems that no government can do. But, at the same time being closet
neo-Trotskyites they advocate military coups and killing of dissenters to achieve their goals.
Their "utilitarian view" of the legitimacy of government, also extents to science. Like for
Trotskyites with their bogus concept of "proletarian science", the science in their worldview is
useful only to the extent it help to built neoliberalism. So there is scientific theories and
scientists which needs to be financially supported and promoted and the scientific theories and scientists that needs to
be suppressed and ostracized. Kind of new Lysenkoism.
That sound profoundly anti-democratic and that's completely true. Neoliberals do not care
about democracy. They care only about "free market" -- their deity like communists cared
only about Communism -- their deity. And both are ready to commit any crimes to achieve their goals. In other words they are a new type of a
dangerous totalitarian sect. and the brand of Totalitarism they promote was called by Wolin "Inverted
Totalitarism". Their approach smells with Lysenkoism. And that' true -- neoliberal practice is
very close to practice of Lysenkoism, especially in the field of economics: they occupied all
commanding positions in economic departments of universities and forcefully suppress any dissent.
The only difference is that they use the power of state just for ostracism and isolation. They do
not send "non-conforming" scientists to GULAG like Bolsheviks did. But they introduce a new
interesting nuance: as the science became a "marketplace of ideas", under neoliberalism you can just
buy the scientist you like on the market. Education also needs to be restructured as market.
Which already happened in the USA.
So we really are talking about neoliberal revolution in the USA, which destroyed the New Deal
capitalism by mercilessly destroying all the relevant law. You are liming in new brave neoliberal
world now.
We can think about neoliberalism employing typical Trotskyite methods of "gain power first"
implement neoliberal policies later. In a way, neoliberalism is the second after Bolshevism social
model that is totally artificially constructed and explicitly planned to be enforced on unsuspecting
people via subversive actions of a totalitarian sect. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of the
Communist Party nomenklatura, neoliberalism is dictatorship of financial oligarchy. Both
neoliberalism and Bolshevism despise democracy and need a strong state which implements neoliberal
policies "from above" -- reforming the society despite the wishes of population (exactly like
bolshevism did it in the USSR space and later in Eastern Europe).
This symbiosis of strong state (in a form of "national security state" and super
powerful intelligence agencies -- often called "the deep state") and
corporation via the rule of financial oligarchy makes neoliberalism a modern flavor of
corporatism. Inverted totalitarism as Sheldon Wolin called it. Like bolshevism neoliberalism relies of power of propaganda (first of all via think
tanks -- its ingenious invention) as well as classic methods used by Bolsheviks such as
indoctrination via economics courses at university economics departments and constant
pro-neoliberal propaganda in major MSM owned and operated by large corporations.
Up to 2000 in the USA standard of living and employment level was maintained (partially via
computer revolution, partially via "expropriation" of resources and capital at xUSSR space),
although there are limits to that and at some point self-destruction process inevitably starts
and the neoliberal society gradually slips into secular stagnation, somewhat similar to Brezhnev's
stagnation period in the USSR. In the USA is characterized by the loss of jobs and
manufacturing to outsourcing, as well as degeneration of neoliberal elite (matching if not exceeding
the degeneration of neoliberal elite). Which at the end created conditions for the rise
to power of Trump and his team of "bastard neoliberals" (neoliberalism without neoliberal
globalization, somewhat similar to Stalin's idea of 'socialism ins single country").
Like Trotskyism in the past (with their slogan of "World revolution" borrowed by neoliberalism) neoliberals in general and neocons in particular (as
"neoliberals with
the gun") are hell-bent of creating Global Neoliberal empire. Killing millions people in the process.
And destroying the well-being of the majorly of people in their host country (the USA in case of
neoliberals, the Russian empire -- USSR -- in case of Trotskyites and later Bolsheviks ).
For them
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’"
as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it. This Nietzschean-style complete disregard of
common people is probably the most common feature between those two "man-eater" class ideologies.
Those Nietzschean Ubermensch like classic psychopaths just do not have compassion for other people.
They are objects, tools for them. Actually you learn a lot about neoliberals by studying
psychopath and sociopath behaviour, especially female sociopath. The percent of sociopaths in
the society is by various estimate is over 5% which considerably exceeds the number of people
required for forming the elite or the top 1% of neoliberal society.
Like Marxism before, neoliberalism provides its own ethics and its own rationality. It enforces a new encompassing
"economic rationalism" (aka
economism) , which should displace old, "outdated"
and more humane rationality of New Deal capitalism.
The ethics of neoliberalism, or "Neoliberal rationality", is heavily tilted toward
viewing people as "homo economicus". Like Marxism (and, by extension, Trotskyism
and Bolshevism/Stalinism ) it "articulates crucial elements of
the language, practice and subjectivity
according to a specific image of the economics." Like Trotskyism before it directly assaults the
idea of democratic governance and the rule of the law proving perverted rationality, elements
of which are erringly similar to the
ideas of "vanguard", "proletarian justice", " journalists
as solders of the Party" and, especially, "Permanent Revolution".
It
rejects the idea of social solidarity (emphasizing it for Undermensch "individual responsibility"
including "who does not work, should not eat") replacing it, like Marxism before,
with the idea of class solidarity (The members of transnational financial elite unite"). They also pervert the idea of the rule of the
law, which animated so much of modernity, hollowing out democratic practices
and institutions while at the same time catalyzing radical, brutal (as in neo-feudal) forms of the elite dominance,
promoting Nietzsche separation of mankind into two caste: Undermensch ("despicables" in Hillary
Clinton words) and Ubermensch ("creative class"). In a way neoliberalism is
socialism for rich and feudalism for poor.
Like Marxism before it, neoliberalism wear the mantle of inevitability. As Bruce
Wilder noted in his post on Crooked Timber blog (11.16.16 at 10:07 pm
30):
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy
consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability.
Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political
agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and
financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.
For example, instead of permanent revolution we have
permanent democratization
via color revolutions and military invasions for the expansion of neoliberal
empire.. With the same fake idea of creating a global neoliberal empire
which will make everybody happy and prosperous.
While this is never advertized (and actually the whole term "neoliberalism" is kind of
"hidden" from the population and its discussion is a taboo in neoliberal MSM), implicitly Neoliberalism
adopted a considerable part of Trotskyism doctrine and even bigger part of its practice, especially
foreign policy practice. Like KGB in the USSR, CIA became presidents praetorian guard (which
occasionally revolts, see JFK assassination).
Like Logos noted this is yet another stunning
"economic-political" utopia with the level of economic determinism even more ambitious than that of
Marx... But what is important to understand is that this doctrine incorporates significant parts of
Trotskyism in pretty innovating, unobvious way. Thus, Marx famous quote "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" is fully applicable
here: instead of revolt of proletariat which Marxists expected we got the revolt of financial oligarchy.
And this revolt led to the formation of the powerful Transnational Elite International (with Congresses
in Basel) instead of Communist International (with Congresses in Moscow).
Both Trotsky and Marx are probably
rolling in their graves seeing such a wicked mutation of their beloved political ideology.
Neoliberalism is also an example of emergence of ideologies, not from their persuasive power or inner
logic, but from the private interests of the ruling elite. Political pressure
and money created the situation in which intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail much like Catholicism
prevailed during Dark Ages in Europe. In a way, this is return to Dark Ages on a new level. Hopefully
this period will not last as long. But as there is no countervailing force on the horizon, only
the major change in economic conditions, such as end of cheap oil can lead to demise of
neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism consists of the same three components as in Marxism: philosophy, political
economy and neoliberal ethics (aka neoliberal rationality).
Among the ideas that neoliberalism borrowed from Trotskyism via renegades
Trotskyites turned neoconservatives (and for all practical purposes
Neoconservatism is just neoliberalism with a gun) such as James Burnham we
can mention the following:
The mantle of inevitability (famous
TINA statement of Margaret
Thatcher is an apt demonstration of this) Globalization and financialization were just
"forces" that just happened, as weather "happens" in meteorology. As Bruce Wilder noted in his post on Crooked
Timber blog (11.16.16 at 10:07 pm
30):
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy
consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt
Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political
agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes.
The concept of the
"new class" which is destined to guide the
humanity with the replacement of "proletariat" with the "creative class". The latter is a
rehash of the Nietzschean concept of Ubermensch.
This creating/managerial/entrepreneur class which is similar to Soviet
nomenklatura. Rejection of
Christianity and
the idea of human solidarity. Like was the case in the USSR, it places
the control of the society in comparatively few hands; in this sense Neoliberal nomenklatura is very
similar to Soviet nomenklatura. In both cases their position in social hierarchy by-and-large is
determined by the position the individual has in government, military, or private industry. Loss of
the position means substantial downgrade in neoliberal social hierarchy, much like in the USSR.
In other words wealth is not enough for high social status. This leads to the
similar adverse effects (Ivy League universities as the membership card to the elite and
corresponding degradation of the level of education (Bush II managed to graduate as many
other "not so talented" sons and daughters of the elite). Suppression of dissent created
promotion of "yes-men" resulting in gradual degeneration
of the elite, as happened with Soviet nomenklatura. Huge discrepancy in the wealth of the
top 1% and the rest of population might be
neoliberalism's Achilles
heel which we saw in action in 2016 elections and Brexit vote.
Rejection of the normal interpretation of the rule of the law and the idea of "neoliberal
justice" (tough justice for Untermensch
only). See, for example a Crooked timber comment:
Neoliberals destroy the notion of social justice and pervert the notion
of the “rule of the law”. See, for example, The Neo-Liberal State
by Raymond Plant
…social justice is incompatible with the rule of law because its
demands cannot be embodied in general and impartial rules; and rights
have to be the rights to non-interference rather than understood in
terms of claims to resources because rules against interference can be
understood in general terms whereas rights to resources cannot. There
is no such thing as a substantive common good for the state to pursue
and for the law to embody and thus the political pursuit of something
like social justice or a greater sense of solidarity and community
lies outside the rule of law.
… … …
…But surely, it might be argued, a nomocratic state and its laws have
to
acknowledge some set of goals. It cannot be impartial or indifferent
to all goals.
Law cannot be pointless. It cannot be totally non-instrumental. It has
to facilitate
the achievement of some goals. If this is recognized, it might be
argued, it will
modify the sharpness of the distinction between a nomocratic and
telocratic state,
between a civil association and an enterprise association.
IMHO for neoliberals social justice and the rule of law is applicable
only to Untermensch. For Ubermensch (aka “creative class”) it undermines
their individual freedom and thus they need to be above the law.
To ensure their freedom and cut “unnecessary and undesirable
interference” of the society in their creative activities the role of the
state should be limited to safeguarding the free market as the playground
for their “creativity” (note “free” as in “free ride”, not “fair”).
Neoliberalism like Stalinism is a "civil religion". The methods of enforcement of this
region on the population by neoliberalism are quite similar to Stalinism, with the only
main difference --the rejection of violence against population as the main method of entrenching
the ideology:
Messianic zeal and hate for the "old order" (The New Deal in case of the USA). Open desire to dismantle
and privatize all the mechanisms of redistribution of income, including (in the USA) Social Security
and Medicare.
Like Trotskyites, Neoliberals are inherently hostile to competing non-liberal societies
- which they see not simply as different, but as wrong.That include nationalistic regimes (Hussein,
Kaddafi), resource nationalists (Putin, Erdogan, Chavez) as well as theocracies (Iran,
North Korea), with the notable exception of Israelis and Saudis (as well as several other Gulf monarchies)
The ideas of truth as "a class truth"; neoliberals reject the idea that there are any
religious (for example Christian) moral values and the concept of truth. They feel that these should be result of
"market of opinions" and the truth
is the one that market favors.
Implicit denial of the idea of "free press". The press is converted into neoliberal
propaganda machine and journalists, writers, etc are viewed as "the solders of the
ideology" who should advance neoliberalism. That's what we saw during the
recent Presidential elections. This is a direct copy of Bolsheviks playbook. It was aptly
demonstrate during 2016 Presidential elections, where all MSM, especially CNN, ABC and
MSNBC serves as attack dogs on Hillary Clinton campaign, not even pretending having an
impartial position like Pravda used to pretend. Compete, blatant
disregard of truth if it does not fit neoliberal goals. Perversion of truth to the extent
that Pravda journalists can be viewed as paragons of objectivity (recent Presidential
campaign of 2016 provides plenty of examples)
Use of university education in indoctrination to the ideology:
The study of neoclassical economics as the key method of indoctrination of people with
economists as a class of well paid priests of neoliberal ideology, masking political
essence of neoliberalism under
special jargon
and
mathiness. Like was the case with Marxism in the USSR, neoliberalism
completely controls economic departments of most US universities and ensure that they are
populated by adherents of this doctrine. The control is more indirect via allocation of
funds, but no less pervasive, then in USSR.
"Economists are wheeled out to comment on all sorts of public policy issues:
in the news, on the TV, online and so forth. The deference to economic expertise is
something that permeates our politics and, through the use of jargon, maths and statistics,
serves to exclude non-expert citizens from conversations about issues that often have a
direct impact on their lives.
As you imply, it is something like an ancient priesthood. In
fact, in an earlier draft of the book we made a comparison to ancient medical texts, which
were only written in Latin and so created a huge asymmetry between experts and non-experts,
which could have awful consequences for the latter. In some senses economics in modern
times goes even further than this, because it affects policy on everything from incomes and
jobs to healthcare and the environment. " ...
"I concur with in that I have concluded that
maybe 60-80% of formal economic language is ideology – it pretty naturally follows that
there will be some attempt to indoctrinate those who wish to speak the language. I guess
the natural place to start is to ask you for a flavour of what this indoctrination looks
like and then maybe we will move on to what its purposes are and what ends it serves. "
The Econocracy An Interview with Cahal Mora naked capitalism
Implicit censure of dissent via ostracism and "inner circle" of "high priest" which
particular in policy making; priests selected not so much due to their intellectual
achievements as for unquestionable loyalty to the system. To get in the inner circle
and to be consider the "high priest" you need to adopt the rules of the game, much like in the
USSR. Otherwise your opinion will be simply ignored. Summers put it the best in one of
his interviews.
Pervasive use of academic science and "think tanks" for brainwashing of the population.
Neoliberals fully adopted the Bolsheviks practice of creating powerful intellectual centers
for promoting the ideology. Pundits from those tanks dominate various political and economic
talk shows and author articles in major newspapers.
Purges of dissent via neo-McCarthyism tactics. Ostracism (especially in academia)
is used instead of physical repression. It relied of demobilization of masses and turning them
atomized and obedient "consumers" instead of mobilization of masses under Trotskyism.
That's why it was called by Sheldon Wolin "inverted totalitarism".
Creation of neoliberal "newspeak" similar to Marxist newspeak. For example the word ‘free"
is redefined as unregulated. That helps to provides a pseudo-scientific justification for the
redistribution of wealth up and increasing poverty of lower 80% or so of population endemic to the system.
An elaborate set of myth, typical for religion is used to justify this social system. Among
them "Invisible Hand Hypothesis",
"Rational expectations"
"Shareholder value",
and many others. Which makes it similar to Lysenkoism.
The fact that the main beneficiaries of the neoliberal globalization are the global mega-corporations and
major western powers (G7) is carefully hidden behind fake rhetoric, which is
not unlike the rhetoric of the Communist Party of the USSR.
The idea of the single party system, with the ruling party serves as the vanguard of
the hegemonic neoliberal class (top 1%) and represents only its interests. Which was adapted
to two Party system to preserve the illusion of democracy. Capture by neoliberals of
Democratic Party under Clinton essentially created one-party system in the USA, as both
parties from this point represent just different factions of the same neoliberal party. Unlike
Bolsheviks one party system, this two party system creates an illusion of multi-party system
and sometimes electorate manages to promote the candidate, which is not approved by
establishment as happened with Sanders and Trump in recent 2016 Presidential election. While
Democratic Party managed to suppress Sanders as was expected, Trump got the nomination and was
elected the President, but was quickly co-opted after the elections.
Economic fetishism. Neoliberals see the market as a sacred element of human
civilization. They want to impose global market that favors transnational corporations in all
countries of the globe, by force, if necessary. Most social activities should be run as a
market. Including labor market. The idea of employability is characteristically neoliberal.
It means that neoliberals see it as a moral duty of human beings, to arrange their lives
to maximize their value on the labor market. Paying for plastic surgery to improve
employability (almost entirely by women) is a typical neoliberal phenomenon -- one that would
surprise Adam Smith.
Cult of GDP. Like Marxism, neoliberalism on the one hand this reduces individuals to statistics
contained within aggregate economic performance. It professes that GDP growth is the ultimate goal of any society. This is very similar to the
USSR cult of gross national product. Another
paradox of
neoliberalism is
it
relies upon
universal
quantification
and comparison
which is completely perverted much like in the USSR central planning system.
And it produces the same dismal results: workers, job-seekers and public
services of every kind are subject to a
pettifogging,
stifling regime
of assessment of
non-relevant metrics. In the job periodic assessments (performance
reviews) are formally used to
identify the
winners and
punish the
losers, or,
non-conformists. In
reality, they dramatically increase the power of management, distort anything converting jobs into variant of the USSR "fake
metrics, fake performance, fake promotions" troika. The
doctrine that
Von Mises proposed to free us from
the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead re-created a new nightmare just on
a different level of sophistication and perversion of basic human rationality.
Use of violence for the spread of the ideology. The idea of Permanent revolution to bring to power the new hegemonic class
in all countries of the globe and create a new global neoliberal empire is direct borrowing from
Trotskyism and was promoted by Jewish neocons, who were former Trotskyites. In neoliberalism
this takes that form of "export of democracy" as the method of achieving and maintaining world dominance
of globalist elite (which in its role of hegemonic class replaces "proletariat" used in Trotskyism):
The idea of
Permanent
Revolution formulated by Trotsky in 1905 is the defining feature of both Trotskyism and
neoliberalism. Like Bolshevism/Trotskyism neoliberalism is militant ideology, especially in
the flavour which in the USA is called Neoconservatism (neoliberals with the gun -- which
advocate famous Al Capone motto - "You Can Get Much Further with a Kind Word and a Gun than
with a Kind Word Alone") Trotsky
argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of
the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They
would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in
Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world.
As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop
worldwide. In neoliberalism the role of Russia is replaced by the USA. And it is the US
elite which asks compradors elite in other countries to come to the US elite aid to establish
global neoliberal regime.
Like Trotskyism, neoliberalism consider wars to impose a liberal-democratic society on
weaker countries (which in modern times are countries without nuclear weapons) which cannot give
a fight to Western armies are inherently just ("regime change" mentality).
So both ideologies are
ready to bring revolution to new countries on the tips of (USA in case of
neoliberalism) bayonets.
A totalitarian vision for a world-encompassing monolithic
global empire (in this case led by the USA, instead of the USSR) governed by an ideologically charged "vanguard". One single state
( the USA in case of neoliberalism) is assigned the place of "holy country"
and the leader of this country has special privileges not unlike Rome Pope in Catholicism
Creation and maintenance of the illusion of "immanent threat" from powerful enemies for brainwashing
the population (National Security
State instead of "Dictatorship
of proletariat"). The idea (and reality) of "dictatorship of the financial oligarchy" replaces the concept of
"dictatorship of proletariat".
The idea of artificial creation of the "revolutionary situation" for overthrow of "unfriendly" regimes
( via color revolution methods); role of students
in such a coup d'états. Neoliberal compradors
(supported by State Department), selected western embassies and NGO instead of communist
parties functionaries as the fifth column inside the societies. Like Marxism, neoliberalism tries to weaken, if not abolish, nation states replacing state
sovereignty with international organizations and treaties dominance (for weaker countries typically using debt
slavery to IMF and World bank). Neoliberalism reflect the nature of global capitalism as a hegemonic
transnational phenomenon. By deemphasizing the role of the nation-state in the global economy and
increasing the significance of transnational production and the rise of a transnational elite and
the transnational corporations neoliberalism realizes dreams of Marx in a very perverted form.
Reliance on international organizations to bully countries into submission (remember
Communist International (aka
Comintern) and its network of spies and Communist Parties all over the world). The global financial
institutions are indeed the key bastion of neoliberal ideology, and they can bully most of poor countries
into adopting neoliberal policies. Especially in time of crisis, which can be iether natural or
artificially created. The global financial institutions are the key instrument of US
foreign policy
- and an important element of the quasi-imperial power, it is the United States. At the same time
international institutions that which does fully correspond to the idea of the USA as the global
hegemonic power, such as UN, are denigrated and ignored if their option differs from the opinion
of the State Department on particular matter. Neoliberalism advocates the globalized unity of elites ( hierarchy
to be exact under benevolent guidance of the US elite). At the same time conditions of population
of countries with "globalized" elite go downhill and internal social protection mechanisms are dismantled.
That creates resistance to globalism and neoliberalism that recently were
demonstrated in Greece and Britain (Brexit).
Social Darwinism
War on and brutal suppression of organized labor.
While in Soviet Russia organized labor was emasculated and trade unions became part of government
apparatus, under neoliberalism they are simply decimated. It "atomize" individual workers
presenting them as goods on the "labor market" controlled by large corporations ( via the myth of
human capital )(
the myth of human capital )
Scapegoating and victimization of
poor . Scapegoating and victimization of poor as new Untermensch. This is a part of
Randism and is closely related to glorification of the "creative class". Treatment of working class as second rate citizens, not unlike Marxists treated peasantry
in the past. Only new "creative class" vanguard are first class citizens under the
neoliberal, much like proletariat was in Marxism. In both cases this is just a smoke screen of
the rule of oligarchy, in case on Marxism of Party oligarchy, in case of neoliberal -- financial
oligarchy. Neoliberalism rejects the idea of social solidarity and in this sense is
distinctly anti-Christian ideology. Much like Marxism was. See
Neoliberalism and Christianity
Finally, neoliberalism like Marxism in the past has become strongly associated with a specific
culture (the US culture, or Anglo-Saxon culture in more general terms) and a specific language (English).
Like Marxism, as an ideology,
Neoliberalism became tied to specific culture and language (both became king of
global standard de-facto). Theoretically any global language would
suit, and it can be Esperanto. But in reality the English language, Hollywood culture,
neoliberal economic policies (aka Washington consensus), and pro-American foreign policy is a "package deal"
for fifth column supporters outside G7; this was especially true in Central and Eastern Europe.
Kind of second class citizens of Neoliberal International (Skeptical Eastern Europeans, who still remember the days of
USSR-led "Socialist Camp" now call it diktat of "Washington Obcom" ;-). That does not exclude jingoism, chauvinism,
flag-waving and foreigner-bashing in the USA (aka American exceptionalism) and other G7 countries. Tony Blair is probably the best
example of this political mentality:
Don't tell me that a country with our history and heritage, that today boasts six of the top ten
businesses in the whole of Europe, with London the top business city in Europe, that is a world
leader in technology and communication and the businesses of the future, that under us has overtaken
France and Italy to become the fourth largest economy in the world, that has the language of the
new economy, more brilliant artists, actors and directors than any comparable country in the world,
some of the best scientists and inventors in the world, the best armed forces in the world, the
best teachers and doctors and nurses, the best people any nation could wish for.
Don't tell me with all that going for us that we do not have the spirit to meet all the challenges
before us.
This "capitalists counteroffensive" or "revolt of the elite" was pioneered in Britain,
where Margaret Thatcher was elected leader of the Tory Party in 1975 and put into real shape by Ronald
Reagan in 1981-1989 (Reaganomics).
Margaret Thatcher victory was the first election of neoliberal ideologue (Pinochet came to power via
supported by the USA military coupe de tat). Both Thatcher and Reagan mounted a full-scale counterattack
against the (already weakened and fossilized) unions. In GB the miners were the most important target.
In USA traffic controllers. In both cases they managed to broke the back of trade unions. Since 1985
union membership in the USA has halved.
Privatizing nationalized industries and public services fragments large bargaining units formed of
well organized public-sector workers, creating conditions in which wages can be driven down in the competition
for franchises and contracts. This most important side effect of privatization was dramatic redistribution
of wealth to the top layer of financial and managerial elite (corporate rich).
Neoliberalism gradually gained strength since probably late 50th with free-market theorists like
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as influential ideologues. Ann Rand also made an important contribution
with her "greed is good" philosophy of positivism. Still many economists and policy-makers favored a
‘mixed economy’ with high levels of state intervention and public spending. That changed in the 1970s
when the state capitalism run into rocks. In a way rise of Neoliberalism was the elite response to the
Long Recession of 1973-1992: they launched a class war of the global rich against the rest. Shrinking
markets dictated the necessity of cutting costs by sacking workers and driving down wages. So the key
program was to reverse the gains made by the US lower and middle class since 1945 and it needed an ideological
justification. Neoliberalism neatly fitted the bill. With outsourcing, the global ‘race to the bottom’
became a permanent feature of a new economic order.
At 1980th it became clear that the age of national economies and ‘autarkic’ (self-contained) blocs
like the USSR block ended as they will never be able to overcome the technological and standard of living
gap with the major Western economies. This inability to match the level of standard of living of western
countries doomed communist ideology, as it has in the center the thesis that as a superior economic
system it should match and exceed the economic level achieved by capitalist countries. Collapse of the
USSR in 1991 (in which KGB elite played the role of Trojan horse of the West) was a real triumph of
neoliberalism and signified a beginning of a new age in which the global economy was dominated by international
banks and multinational corporations operating with little or sometimes completely outside the control
of nation-states.
The rise of neoliberalism can be measured by the rise of the financial and industrial mega-corporations.
For example, US direct investment overseas rose from $11 billion in 1950 to $133 billion in 1976. The
long-term borrowing of US corporations increased from 87% of their share value in 1955 to 181% in 1970.
The foreign currency operations of West European banks, to take another example, increased from $25
billion in 1968 to $200 billion in 1974. The combined debt of the 74 less-developed countries jumped
from $39 billion in 1965 to $119 billion in 1974. These quantitative changes during the "Great Boom"
reached a tipping point in the 1970s. Global corporations by then had come to overshadow the nation-states.
The effect was to impose a relentless pressure on national elites to increase the exploitation of ‘their
own’ working class. High wages became a facto that deters new investment and labor arbitrage jumped
in full swing. Taxes on business to pay for public services or welfare payments became undesirable.
As well as laws designed to make workplaces safe, limit working hours, or guarantee maternity leave.
While from purely theoretic perspective the ‘free-market’ theory espoused by neoliberal academics, journalists,
politicians, bankers, and ‘entrepreneurs’ is compete pseudoscientific Lysenkoism-style doctrine, it
became very popular, dominant ideology of the last decade of XX century. It provides a pseudo-scientific
justification for the greed, poverty, as well as economic crisis endemic to the system. It also justified
high level if inequality of the political and business elite an a normal state of human society. In
this sense, neoliberalism became an official ideology of the modern ruling elite.
Like Marxism before neoliberalism provides its own ethics and its own rationality. It enforces a new encompassing
"economic rationalism", which should displace old, "outdated"
and more humane rationality of liberal capitalism.
"Neoliberal rationality" is heavily tilted toward
viewing the people as "homo economicus". This new neoliberal rationality " articulates crucial elements of
the language, practice and subjectivity
‘according to a specific image of the economic" In so doing neo-liberalism like
Marxism before it directly assaults
the democratic imaginary that animated so much of modernity, hollowing out liberal democratic practices
and institutions while at the same time catalyzing radical, brutal forces of the political spectrum.
In the book
Undoing the Demos Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution Professor Wendy Brown described this "neoliberal rationality" phenomenon and actually shows how close
it is to the rationality which governed communism parties of the USSR and Eastern Block.
"... I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized" and in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person, business, or state) is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending commodification and monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value. ..."
"... The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets. ..."
"... with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is
finally vanquished as a fundamental feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that
citizens be modestly oriented toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand
our freedom as resting in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being
human is extinguished, it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy,
as well as its very intelligibility. ..."
"... For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling rate
of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside the West;
and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states, large and lazy
corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this perspective, neoliberalism
is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation of class power aimed at releasing
capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging all forms of popular solidarities,
especially labor. ..."
"... The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of social, cultural,
and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at the ways that public institutions
and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly recast as private goods for individual
investment or consumption. And they don't get at the wholesale remaking of workplaces, schools, social
life, and individuals. For that story, one has to track the dissemination of neoliberal economization
through neoliberalism as a governing form of reason, not just a power grab by capital. There are
many vehicles of this dissemination -- law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative
form we have come to call governance. It is through governance practices that business models and
metrics come to irrigate every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools,
from corporations to universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement
of democratic terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and
buy-ins that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best
practices." ..."
"... Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having flooded
the American electoral process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment reasoning
that treats corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision also reveals
precisely the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we have been talking
about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces," just as
ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises from
restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge. Thus,
Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces should
be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed at modestly
restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political speech itself is
rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position of its bearer, whether
that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital. This understanding of political
speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as a vital (if potentially monopolizable
and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion. ..."
"... My point was that democracy is really reduced to a whisper
in the Euro-Atlantic nations today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter much
because, "thanks to globalization . . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected representatives.
..."
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept
its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook
the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person!
We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned
in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy
lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their
imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of
his needs alone: consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the
majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies
which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they
reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.
A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes
its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries
to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing
power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken
on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which
tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like
the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
Little wonder that here and there sanity nostalgia is gripping the Western world, at least
those isolated portions of it that are not internalising the sinister "new normal." But it is
seemingly to no avail. All commanding positions are firmly in the hands of lunatics, who are
determined to turn a once great and exemplary civilisation into an asylum.
As George Orwell has taught us, language manipulation is at the frontline (yes, I have just
broken one of the cardinal rules of his "
Politics and the English Language ," but not his final injunction to "break any of these
rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous") of politicised mind-bending. The sort of
language we are permitted to use circumscribes the thinking that we shall be allowed to engage
in. The assault on language is, therefore, an integral component of the unrelenting warfare
being waged for the conquest and control of the mind. Word elimination and reassignment of
meaning, as Orwell also presciently noted, are essential elements of the campaign to reformat
the mind and eventually to subjugate it.
A breath-taking example of how this process works was recently unveiled by the thoroughly
brain-washed students of the once prestigious Brandeis University who, this time without
prompting from their faculty elders and betters, voted to ban from their campus such odious
words and phrases as "picnic" and "you guys," for being "oppressive". "Picnic" is prohibited
because it allegedly evokes the lynching of Blacks.
The precocious young intellectuals took pains to produce an entire list of objectionable
words and phrases, shocking award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates who tweeted in
bewilderment: "What sort of punishment is doled out for a faculty member who utters the word
'picnic' at Brandeis? Or the phrase [also proscribed – S.K.] 'trigger warning'? Loss of
tenure, public flogging, self-flagellation?"
All three punishments will probably be applied to reactionary professors who go afoul of the
list's rigorous linguistic requirements.
Not to be outdone by the progressive kids on the East Coast, avant-garde
California legislators have passed a law to remove the pronoun "he" from state legal texts.
The momentous reform was initiated by California's new attorney general, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan,
who after looking up the job requirements made the shocking discovery that the law assumed that
the attorney general would be a man.
Upon review, it turned out that the state code and other legal documents were enabling
unacceptable concepts by using pronouns "he," "him" and "his" when referring to the attorney
general and other state-wide elected officials. Appalled, Ms. Bauer-Kahan denounced these
linguistic lapses for not representing "where California is and where California is going." She
inarguably was right on that score at least, which has perhaps also something to do with the
massive exodus of California residents to less complicated parts of the country.
When lawmakers of a state which is rapidly turning into a North American Calcutta have no
concerns more pressing than to revise the use of pronouns in official documents, that sends a
clear message where that state is going, exactly as the smart and thoroughly up-to-date woman
said.
But as a Pakistani
immigrant father in Seattle, state of Washington, discovered to his chagrin, the linguistic
clowning can have very serious personal and political consequences. After checking in his
16-year-old autistic son for treatment in what he thought was a medical facility, Ahmed was
shocked to receive a telephone call where a social worker explained to him that the child he
had originally entrusted to the medical authorities as a son was actually transgender and must
henceforth, under legal penalty of removal, be referred to and treated as a "daughter."
Coming from a traditional society still governed by tyrannical precepts of common sense and
not accustomed to the ways of the asylum where in search of a better life he and his family
inadvertently ended up, the father (a title that like mother, now officially "number one
parent," is also
on the way out ) was able to conceive his tragic predicament only by weaving a complex
conspiracy theory:
"They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to
absolutely want to push us in that direction. We had calls with counsellors and therapists in
the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because
that's the only way he's going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state."
Since in the equally looney state of Washington the age when minors can request a
gender-change surgery without parental consent is 13, the Pakistani parents saw clearly the
writing on the wall and, bless them, they came up with a clever stratagem to outwit their
callous ideological tormentors. Ahmed "assured Seattle Children's Hospital that he would take
his son to a gender clinic and commence his son's transition. Instead, he collected his son,
quit his job, and moved his family of four out of Washington."
Perhaps feeling the heat from the linguistic Gestapo even in his celebrity kitchen, iconic
chef Jamie Oliver has come on board. Absurdly, Jamie vowed
fealty to the ascendant normal by dropping the term "Kaffir lime leaves" from his recipes ,
in fear that the alleged "historically racist slur" would offend South Africans. No evidence at
all has been furnished or demanded of complaints from South Africa in that regard. But it
speaks volumes that someone of Jamie's influence and visibility should nevertheless deem it
prudent to anticipate such criticism even though, should it have materialised, it of course
would not originate from South Africa but from white Western political correctness
commissars.
Jamie is now busy, but not just cooking. He is going over his previously published recipes
in order to expunge all offensive references to kefir leaves. Orwell aficionados will recall
this precious passage from 1984 : "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book
rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed,
every date has been altered." And now every recipe as well. The dystopia fits, does it not, to
a tee even something as seemingly trivial as a cooking show?
But it is not just recipes. Children's fairy tales are also fair game for 1984 revision.
Hollywood actress Natalie Portman ( Star Wars , The Professional , Thor ), inspired
apparently by the new cultural normal, has taken it upon herself not to write, but to re-write,
several classic fairy tales to make them "gender-neutral," so "children can defy gender
stereotypes." Predictably, pronouns were again a major target:
"I found myself changing the pronouns in many of their books because so many of them had
overwhelmingly male characters, disproportionate to reality," quoth Natalie as she put her
linguistic scalpel to such old favourites as The Tortoise and the Hare , Country Mouse and
City Mouse and The Three Little Pigs .
Need we go on, or does the sharp reader already get the general drift? How about
State University of New York student Owen Stevens , who was suspended and censured for
pointing out on his Instagram the ascertainable biological fact that "A man is a man, a woman
is a woman. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man." (Owen was snitched on by fellow
students, readers from the former Eastern bloc will be amused to learn.) Or the Nebraska
university basketball coach who was suspended for using in a motivational speech the
mysteriously offensive word "plantation"? Or the hip $57,000-a-year NYC school that
banned students from saying "mom" and "dad" , from asking where classmates went on vacation
or wishing anyone "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays"? Or
female university student Lisa Keogh in Scotland who said in class "women have vaginas"
(who would be better informed than she on that subject?) and are "not as strong as men", who is
facing disciplinary action by the university after fellow classmates complained about her
"offensive and discriminatory" comments? Or
Spanish politician Francisco José Contreras whose Twitter account was blocked as a
warning for 12 hours after he tweeted what some would regard as the self-evident truth that
"men cannot get pregnant" because they have "no uterus or eggs"?
As
Peter Hitchens noted recently "the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector
from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is 'not as nuts' as the indoctrination now
forced on Western students."
One of Yeonmi Park's initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be
met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. "Did
you know," Ms. Park was sternly admonished, "that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They
were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you."
But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi
concluded: "Even North Korea is not this nuts North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this
crazy." Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the
land of her dreams.
Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new
situation: "She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree.
Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant
regimes, and let the drivel wash over her."
Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to
say.
ay_arrow
Plus Size Model 9 hours ago
No worries! We're talking about two different things. You explicitly mentioned meanings
of words in your initial post. Now you're also alluding to what a psyop officer would
describe as manipulating the cognitive environment of a target group. Cognitive
manipulation is a much larger toolbox and involves things like perception management,
information management, memory retrieval, what old timers refer to as symbol manipulation,
etc.
In psychological warfare literature, symbols are somewhat of a mental bookmark. You can
really mess people up by altering the bookmarks slightly or changing around the files they
reference in a prolonged campaign.
The Nazi swastika is probably the most successful symbol manipulation campaign ever. It
means different things to different people and these meanings have evolved substantially
over time. Each new generation and is indoctrinated with different presentations of the
swastika. The wide latitude of interpretation and extreme views associated with it have
consistently created huge social flash points over the past 90 years.
Lorenz Feedback 9 hours ago
I think somethings are being overlooked on this point, Semantic prosody concerns itself
with the way unusual combinations of words can create intertextual 'resonance' and can
suggest speaker/writer attitude and opinion. Consider the difference with using very
powerful versus utterly compelling when presenting an argument. Some words shape narratives
better than others and trigger a response well known to advertisers and propagandists...and
help shape public opinion.
Yes... changing the context of words has a huge impact...
ie the word white is now seen in the context of numerous pejoratives...
Cautiously Pessimistic 10 hours ago
I fit in here in America less and less with each passing year. I feel like a stranger in
my own country at times. I am sure that is by design.
Max Power 9 hours ago
On the other hand, as soon as people encounter real problems like hunger, bankruptcy, or
homelessness, all this ivy league brainwashing evaporates in an instance. Just a stupid
game played by wealthy white libtards believing in fairytales.
The US is not capitalist. There are no "capitalist powers." There are only managerial
states. Read Orwell who, yes, was a socialist.
The US was overtaken by ex-Trotskyites in the form of Neocons, eg. Irving Kristol. They
redefined the US from a nation-state into an ideological state, as the Soviet Union had been.
But we do not have any particular ideology here; the ideology is always changing.
The US empire does not serve the interests of the American people, you'll agree. But it's
not as simple as "capitalism." These ideological battles are theatre. They are not the real
battles. They are pretend religions, like sports teams, which motivate and justify war for
two different elites.
Read James Burnham, another ex-Trotskyite, on Machiavellians and, separately, on the
managerial state. However, Burnham became something akin to a Neocon; so, certainly, don't
come to the same conclusions as he did.
The US is not capitalist. There are no "capitalist powers." There are only managerial
states. Read Orwell who, yes, was a socialist.
Posted by: Weaver | Jun 22 2021 19:35 utc | 15
This is a rather strange interpretation. The power of the managers stems fro the power of
large active shareholders, while the majority of shares may be passively owned by middle
class in the form of retirement savings. As it was explained: "Contrary to popular beliefs,
there are no bulls and bears on Wall Street, but sheep and wolves. And the money is not made
by the bah bah crowd", followed by the distinction between "smart money" and the rest of
investors. The financial games that we discussed in the case of Boeing may seem stupid in
terms of "maximizing long term stock value", but excellent for providing gains for active
investors who got artificial run-up in stock prices followed by selling to the "bah bah
crowd".
Believe it or not, the president says that human rights R us.
Hear that, BLM? Women? Asian Americans? Hispanics? homeless? heavily indebted students? .
. the list goes on.
Biden said so, May 30, 2021
"I had a long conversation -- for two hours -- recently with President Xi, making it clear
to him that we could do nothing but speak out for human rights around the world because
that's who we are. I'll be meeting with President Putin in a couple of weeks in Geneva,
making it clear that we will not -- we will not stand by and let him abuse those rights." . .
here
..reminds me of Aeschylus: "In war, truth is the first casualty."
The author is a very fuzzy way comes to the idea that neoliberalism is in essence a Trotskyism for the rich and that
neoliberals want to use strong state to enforce the type of markets they want from above. That included free movement of
capital goods and people across national borders. All this talk about "small government" is just a smoke screen for naive fools.
"... The second explanation was that neoliberal globalization made a small number of people very rich, and it was in the interest of those people to promote a self-serving ideology using their substantial means by funding think tanks and academic departments, lobbying congress, fighting what the Heritage Foundation calls "the war of ideas." Neoliberalism, then, was a restoration of class power after the odd, anomalous interval of the mid-century welfare state. ..."
"... Here one is free to choose but only within a limited range of options left after responding to the global forces of the market. ..."
"... Neoliberal globalism can be thought of in its own terms as a negative theology, contending that the world economy is sublime and ineffable with a small number of people having special insight and ability to craft institutions that will, as I put it, encase the sublime world economy. ..."
"... One of the big goals of my book is to show neoliberalism is one form of regulation among many rather than the big Other of regulation as such. ..."
"... I build here on the work of other historians and show how the demands in the United Nations by African, Asian, and Latin American nations for things like the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, i.e. the right to nationalize foreign-owned companies, often dismissed as merely rhetorical, were actually existentially frightening to global businesspeople. ..."
"... They drafted neoliberal intellectuals to do things like craft agreements that gave foreign corporations more rights than domestic actors and tried to figure out how to lock in what I call the "human right of capital flight" into binding international codes. I show how we can see the development of the WTO as largely a response to the fear of a planned -- and equal -- planet that many saw in the aspirations of the decolonizing world. ..."
"... The neoliberal insight of the 1930s was that the market would not take care of itself: what Wilhelm Röpke called a market police was an ongoing need in a world where people, whether out of atavistic drives or admirable humanitarian motives, kept trying to make the earth a more equal and just place. ..."
"... The culmination of these processes by the 1990s is a world economy that is less like a laissez-faire marketplace and more like a fortress, as ever more of the world's resources and ideas are regulated through transnational legal instruments. ..."
Hardcover: 400 pages
Publisher: Harvard University Press (March 16, 2018)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0674979524
ISBN-13: 978-0674979529
From introduction
...The second explanation was that neoliberal globalization made a small number of people very rich, and it was in the interest of
those people to promote a self-serving ideology using their substantial means by funding think tanks and academic departments, lobbying
congress, fighting what the Heritage Foundation calls "the war of ideas." Neoliberalism, then, was a restoration of class power after
the odd, anomalous interval of the mid-century welfare state.
There is truth to both of these explanations. Both presuppose a kind of materialist explanation of history with which I have no
problem. In my book, though, I take another approach. What I found is that we could not understand the inner logic of something like
the WTO without considering the whole history of the twentieth century. What I also discovered is that some of the members of the
neoliberal movement from the 1930s onward, including Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, did not use either of the explanations
I just mentioned. They actually didn't say that economic growth excuses everything. One of the peculiar things about Hayek, in particular,
is that he didn't believe in using aggregates like GDP -- the very measurements that we need to even say what growth is.
What I found is that neoliberalism as a philosophy is less a doctrine of economics than a doctrine of ordering -- of creating
the institutions that provide for the reproduction of the totality [of financial elite control of the state]. At the core of the strain I describe is not the idea that we
can quantify, count, price, buy and sell every last aspect of human existence. Actually, here it gets quite mystical. The Austrian
and German School of neoliberals in particular believe in a kind of invisible world economy that cannot be captured in numbers
and figures but always escapes human comprehension.
After all, if you can see something, you can plan it. Because of the very limits to our knowledge, we have to default to ironclad
rules and not try to pursue something as radical as social justice, redistribution, or collective transformation. In a globalized
world, we must give ourselves over to the forces of the market, or the whole thing will stop working.
So this is quite a different version of neoliberal thought than the one we usually have, premised on the abstract of individual
liberty or the freedom to choose. Here one is free to choose but only within a limited range of options left after responding to
the global forces of the market.
One of the core arguments of my book is that we can only understand the internal coherence of neoliberalism if we see it as a
doctrine as concerned with the whole as the individual. Neoliberal globalism can be thought of in its own terms as a negative theology,
contending that the world economy is sublime and ineffable with a small number of people having special insight and ability to craft
institutions that will, as I put it, encase the sublime world economy.
To me, the metaphor of encasement makes much more sense than the usual idea of markets set free, liberated or unfettered. How
can it be that in an era of proliferating third party arbitration courts, international investment law, trade treaties and regulation
that we talk about "unfettered markets"? One of the big goals of my book is to show neoliberalism is one form of regulation among
many rather than the big Other of regulation as such.
What I explore in Globalists is how we can think of the WTO as the latest in a long series of institutional fixes proposed
for the problem of emergent nationalism and what neoliberals see as the confusion between sovereignty -- ruling a country -- and
ownership -- owning the property within it.
I build here on the work of other historians and show how the demands in the United Nations
by African, Asian, and Latin American nations for things like the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, i.e. the right to
nationalize foreign-owned companies, often dismissed as merely rhetorical, were actually existentially frightening to global businesspeople.
They drafted neoliberal intellectuals to do things like craft agreements that gave foreign corporations more rights than domestic
actors and tried to figure out how to lock in what I call the "human right of capital flight" into binding international codes. I
show how we can see the development of the WTO as largely a response to the fear of a planned -- and equal -- planet that many saw
in the aspirations of the decolonizing world.
Perhaps the lasting image of globalization that the book leaves is that world capitalism has produced a doubled world -- a world
of imperium (the world of states) and a world of dominium (the world of property). The best way to understand neoliberal globalism
as a project is that it sees its task as the never-ending maintenance of this division. The neoliberal insight of the 1930s was that
the market would not take care of itself: what Wilhelm Röpke called a market police was an ongoing need in a world where people,
whether out of atavistic drives or admirable humanitarian motives, kept trying to make the earth a more equal and just place.
The culmination of these processes by the 1990s is a world economy that is less like a laissez-faire marketplace and more like
a fortress, as ever more of the world's resources and ideas are regulated through transnational legal instruments. The book acts
as a kind of field guide to these institutions and, in the process, hopefully recasts the 20th century that produced them.
This is a rather
interesting look at the political and economic ideas of a circle of important economists, including Hayek and von Mises, over
the course of the last century. He shows rather convincingly that conventional narratives concerning their idea are wrong. That
they didn't believe in a weak state, didn't believe in the laissez-faire capitalism or believe in the power of the market. That
they saw mass democracy as a threat to vested economic interests.
The core beliefs of these people was in a world where money, labor and products could flow across borders without any limit.
Their vision was to remove these subjects (tariffs, immigration and controls on the movement of money) from the control of the
democracy-based nation-state and instead vesting them in international organizations. International organizations which were by
their nature undemocratic and beyond the influence of democracy. That rather than rejecting government power, what they rejected
was national government power. They wanted weak national governments but at the same time strong undemocratic international organizations
which would gain the powers taken from the state.
The other thing that characterized many of these people was a rather general rejection of economics. While some of them are
(at least in theory) economists, they rejected the basic ideas of economic analysis and economic policy. The economy, to them,
was a mystical thing beyond any human understanding or ability to influence in a positive way. Their only real belief was in "bigness".
The larger the market for labor and goods, the more economically prosperous everyone would become. A unregulated "global" market
with specialization across borders and free migration of labor being the ultimate system.
The author shows how, over a period extending from the 1920s to the 1990s, these ideas evolved from marginal academic ideas
to being dominant ideas internationally. Ideas that are reflected today in the structure of the European Union, the WTO (World
Trade Organization) and the policies of most national governments. These ideas, which the author calls "neoliberalism", have today
become almost assumptions beyond challenge. And even more strangely, the dominating ideas of the political left in most of the
west.
The author makes the point, though in a weak way, that the "fathers" of neoliberalism saw themselves as "restoring" a lost
golden age. That golden age being (roughly) the age of the original industrial revolution (the second half of the 1800s). And
to the extent that they have been successful they have done that. But at the same time, they have brought back all the political
and economic questions of that era as well.
In reading it, I started to wonder about the differences between modern neoliberalism and the liberal political movement during
the industrial revolution. I really began to wonder about the actual motives of "reform" liberals in that era. Were they genuinely
interested in reforms during that era or were all the reforms just cynical politics designed to enhance business power at the
expense of other vested interests. Was, in particular, the liberal interest in political reform and franchise expansion a genuine
move toward political democracy or simply a temporary ploy to increase their political power. If one assumes that the true principles
of classic liberalism were always free trade, free migration of labor and removing the power to governments to impact business,
perhaps its collapse around the time of the first world war is easier to understand.
He also makes a good point about the EEC and the organizations that came before the EU. Those organizations were as much about
protecting trade between Europe and former European colonial possessions as they were anything to do with trade within Europe.
To me at least, the analysis of the author was rather original. In particular, he did an excellent job of showing how the ideas
of Hayek and von Mises have been distorted and misunderstood in the mainstream. He was able to show what their ideas were and
how they relate to contemporary problems of government and democracy.
But there are some strong negatives in the book. The author offers up a complete virtue signaling chapter to prove how the
neoliberals are racists. He brings up things, like the John Birch Society, that have nothing to do with the book. He unleashes
a whole lot of venom directed at American conservatives and republicans mostly set against a 1960s backdrop. He does all this
in a bad purpose: to claim that the Kennedy Administration was somehow a continuation of the new deal rather than a step toward
neoliberalism. His blindness and modern political partisanship extended backward into history does substantial damage to his argument
in the book. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on the political issues of South Africa which also adds nothing to the
argument of the book. His whole chapter on racism is an elaborate strawman all held together by Ropke. He also spends a large
amount of time grinding some sort of Ax with regard to the National Review and William F. Buckley.
He keeps resorting to the simple formula of finding something racist said or written by Ropke....and then inferring that anyone
who quoted or had anything to do with Ropke shared his ideas and was also a racist. The whole point of the exercise seems to be
to avoid any analysis of how the democratic party (and the political left) drifted over the decades from the politics of the New
Deal to neoliberal Clintonism.
Then after that, he diverts further off the path by spending many pages on the greatness of the "global south", the G77 and
the New International Economic Order (NIEO) promoted by the UN in the 1970s. And whatever many faults of neoliberalism, Quinn
Slobodian ends up standing for a worse set of ideas: International Price controls, economic "reparations", nationalization, international
trade subsidies and a five-year plan for the world (socialist style economic planning at a global level). In attaching himself
to these particular ideas, he kills his own book. The premise of the book and his argument was very strong at first. But by around
p. 220, its become a throwback political tract in favor of the garbage economic and political ideas of the so-called third world
circa 1974 complete with 70's style extensive quotations from "Senegalese jurists"
Once the political agenda comes out, he just can't help himself. He opens the conclusion to the book taking another cheap shot
for no clear reason at William F. Buckley. He spends alot of time on the Seattle anti-WTO protests from the 1990s. But he has
NOTHING to say about BIll Clinton or Tony Blair or EU expansion or Obama or even the 2008 economic crisis for that matter. Inexplicably
for a book written in 2018, the content of the book seems to end in the year 2000.
I'm giving it three stars for the first 150 pages which was decent work. The second half rates zero stars. Though it could
have been far better if he had written his history of neoliberalism in the context of the counter-narrative of Keynesian economics
and its decline. It would have been better yet if the author had the courage to talk about the transformation of the parties of
the left and their complicity in the rise of neoliberalism. The author also tends to waste lots of pages repeating himself or
worse telling you what he is going to say next. One would have expected a better standard of editing by the Harvard Press.
Read less 69 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
Anybody interested in global trade, business, human rights or democracy today
should read this book.
The book follow the Austrians from the beginning in the Habsburgischer empire to the beginning rebellion against the WTO. However,
most importantly it follows the thinking and the thoughts behind the building of a global empire of capitalism with free trade,
capital and rights. All the way to the new "human right" to trade. It narrows down what neoliberal thought really consist of and
indirectly make a differentiation to the neoclassical economic tradition.
What I found most interesting is the turn from economics to law - and the conceptual distinctions between the genes, tradition,
reason, which are translated into a quest for a rational and reason based protection of dominium (the rule of property) against
the overreach of imperium (the rule of states/people). This distinction speaks directly to the issues that EU is currently facing.
"... No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides. Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the right amount of detail and scope. ..."
"... Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is. ..."
"... This is exactly the kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better. ..."
I'm a professor at the University of California San Diego and I'm assigning
this for a graduate class.
No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides.
Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is
highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the
right amount of detail and scope.
I could not disagree more with the person who gave this book one star. Take it from me: I've taught hundreds of college students
who graduate among the best in their high school classes and they know close to nothing about the history of US settler colonialism,
overseas imperialism, or US interventionism around the world. If you give University of California college students a quiz on
where the US' overseas territories are, most who take it will fail (trust me, I've done it). And this is not their fault. Instead,
it's a product of the US education system that fails to give students a nuanced and geographically comprehensive understanding
of the oversized effect that their country has around our planet.
Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies
of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native
American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations
and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is.
A case in point is Puerto Rico's current fiscal and economic crisis. The island's political class share part of the blame for
Puerto Rico's present rut. A lot of it is also due to unnatural (i.e. "natural" but human-exacerbated) disasters such as Hurricane
María. However, there is no denying that the evolution of Puerto Rico's territorial status has generated a host of adverse economic
conditions that US states (including an island state such as Hawaii) do not have to contend with. An association with the US has
undoubtedly raised the floor of material conditions in these places, but it has also imposed an unjust glass ceiling that most
people around the US either do not know about or continue to ignore.
To add to those unfair economic limitations, there are political injustices regarding the lack of representation in Congress,
and in the case of Am. Samoa, their lack of US citizenship. The fact that the populations in the overseas territories can't make
up their mind about what status they prefer is: a) understandable given the way they have been mistreated by the US government,
and b) irrelevant because what really matters is what Congress decides to do with the US' far-flung colonies, and there is no
indication that Congress wants to either fully annex them or let them go because neither would be convenient to the 50 states
and the political parties that run them. Instead, the status quo of modern colonial indeterminacy is what works best for the most
potent political and economic groups in the US mainland. Would
This book is about much more than that though. It's also a history of how and why the United States got to control so much
of what happens around the world without creating additional formal colonies like the "territories" that exist in this legal limbo.
Part of its goal is to show how precisely how US imperialism has been made to be more cost-effective and also more invisible.
Read Immerwhar's book, and don't listen to the apologists of US imperialism which is still an active force that contradicts
the US' professed values and that needs to be actively dismantled. Their attempts at discrediting this important reflect a denialism
of the US' imperial realities that has endured throughout the history that this book summarizes.
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" is a great starting point for making the US public aware of
the US' contradictions as an "empire of liberty" (a phrase once used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the US as it expanded westward
beyond the original 13 colonies). It is also a necessary update to other books on this topic that are already out there, and it
is likely to hold the reader's attention more given its crafty narrative prose and structure
Read less 194 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
This is exactly the
kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments
existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction
into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better.
The author of this compelling book reveals a history unknown to many
readers, and does so with first-hand accounts and deep historical analyses. You might ask why we can't put such things behind
us. The simple answer: we've never fully grappled with these events before in an honest and open way. This book does the nation
a service by peering behind the curtain and facing the sobering truth of how we came to be what we are.
This is a stunning book, not to be missed. If you finished Sapiens with the feeling your world view had
greatly enlarged, you're likely to have the same experience of your view of the US from reading this engaging work. And like Sapiens,
it's an entirely enjoyable read, full of delightful surprises, future dinner party gems.
The further you get into the book the more interesting and unexpected it becomes. You'll look at the US in ways you likely
never considered before. This is not a 'political' book with an ax to grind or a single-party agenda. It's refreshingly insightful,
beautifully written, fun to read.
This is a gift I'll give to many a good friend, I've just started with my wife. I rarely write
reviews and have never met the author (now my only regret). 3 people found this helpful
This book is an absolutely powerhouse, a must-read, and should be a part of every student's curriculum in
this God forsaken country.
Strictly speaking, this brilliant read is focused on America's relationship with Empire. But like with nearly everything America,
one cannot discuss it without discussing race and injustice.
If you read this book, you will learn a lot of new things about subjects that you thought you knew everything about. You will
have your eyes opened. You will be exposed to the dark underbelly of racism, corruption, greed and exploitation that undergird
American ambition.
I don't know exactly what else to say other than to say you MUST READ THIS BOOK. This isn't a partisan statement -- it's not
like Democrats are any better than Republicans in this book.
This is one of the best books I've ever read, and I am a voracious reader. The content is A+. It never gets boring. It never
gets tedious. It never lingers on narratives. It's extremely well written. It is, in short, perfect. And as such, 10/10.
I heard an interview of Daniel Immerwahr on NPR news / WDET radio regarding this book.
I'm am quite conservative
and only listen to NPR news when it doesn't lean too far to the left.
However, the interview piqued my interest. I am so glad I
purchased this ebook. What a phenomenal and informative read!!! WOW!! It's a "I never knew that" kind of read. Certainly not anything
I was taught in school. This is thoughtful, well written and an easy read. Highly recommend!!
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
Sound of the Suburbs 12 hours ago (Edited) remove link
They do try and just fool the masses.
If that doesn't work, they stick the boot in.
In the beginning ........
Mankind first started to produce a surplus with early agriculture.
It wasn't long before the elites learnt how to read the skies, the sun and the stars, to
predict the coming seasons to the amazed masses and collect tribute.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any hard work to
concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to elevate
them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn
the initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the
rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods and they were responsible for the bounty
of the earth and the harvests.
As long as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
The class structure emerges.
Upper class – Do as little as they can get away with and get most of the rewards
Middle class – Administrative/managerial class who have enough to live a comfortable
life
Working class – Do the work, and live a basic subsistence existence where they get
enough to stay alive and breed
Their techniques have got more sophisticated over time, but this is the underlying
idea.
They have achieved an inversion, and got most of the rewards going to those that don't
really do anything.
As soon as anyone started thinking about this seriously, the upper class would be in
trouble.
The last thing they needed was "The Enlightenment" as people would start thinking about
this seriously.
Any serious attempt to study the capitalist system always reveals the same inconvenient
truth.
Many at the top don't create any wealth.
That's the problem.
Confusing making money and creating wealth is the solution.
The classical economists identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic
"unearned" income .
Most of the people at the top lived off the parasitic "unearned" income and they now had a
big problem. This problem was solved with neoclassical economics.
Neoclassical economics is a pseudo economics, which is more about hiding the inconvenient
truths discovered by the classical economists than telling you how the economy works.
Things had already gone horribly wrong by the 1930s.
In the 1920s, the economy had been booming, the stock market had been soaring and nearly
everyone had been making lots of money.
In the 1930s, they were wondering what the hell had just happened as everything had
appeared to be going so well in the 1920s and then it all just fell apart.
They needed a better measure to see what was really going on in the economy and came up
with GDP.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth
and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the
economy.
The rentiers are exposed again.
What they need to do is get neoclassical economics back again.
They wrap it in a new ideology, neoliberalism, so no one will notice the return of their
special economics.
*** Please Note: Russia is not weak considering that it has the ability to nuke America in
to ashes within 30 minutes, or any other bunch of idiots that chooses to step over her red
lines. Okay the US has 350 million people compared to 150 million Russians, but the US is
irrevocably divided and Russia is fully united even the Muslim minority is united with the
State in Russia. A divided house can not stand no man can serve two masters. On top of that
the US has no moral values whereas Russia is a Christian country where marriage is between a
man and a woman, by State law. Biden can fly all the queer flags he likes but he still leads
a divided nation with a corrupt State comprised of dual passport holders, amoral materialists
and deluded mentally challenged idiots like Waters and Pelosi.
"... Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of international relations. ..."
"... in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was bizarrely appointed as ambassador. ..."
"... Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken , Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen Donfried , and State Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia. ..."
"... Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that the Maidan would lead to consequences like these. ..."
"... importantly, this 'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging ..."
"... the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were actually quite deliberate and planned ..."
"... the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda. ..."
The rejection
of Matthew Rojansky's candidacy as a Russia adviser to Joe Biden represents an escalation, and
not a departure, from a pervasive bipartisan American pattern of dangerous ignorance about
Russia in the post-Soviet era.
It was reported last week that Joe Biden's government would not be hiring Rojansky, of the
Kennan Institute think tank, to help form policy towards Russia. Though the analyst is known as
a moderate realist regarding Russia issues – in other words, he is not a virulent
anti-Moscow ideologue – he was considered too controversial to be allowed a hearing
during White House deliberations on policy regarding the world's largest country.
Rojansky's sin? Unlike many of the current crop of foreign policy officials, he actually has
some expertise and experience on the subject.
While the scholar's fate may be a glaring and extreme
example of an anti-Russia mindset in Washington that is counterproductive, it represents
only a new low, and not a change from a pervasive bipartisan pattern in the post-Soviet
era.
Those who aspire to, or attain, the most powerful executive position in the United States
have shown a disturbingly willful ignorance of Russia. I learned from a former State Department
official that, in response to a renowned Russia expert attempting to brief presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little
interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold
war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content
to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of
international relations.
Similarly, an American business executive told me that, during a lunch with him and other
leaders of commerce at the US Embassy in Moscow in 2012, then-Vice President Joe Biden showed
no interest in his interlocutors' suggestions that it was in the US' best interests to partner
with Russia after they offered social, economic, and strategic justifications for their
view.
Biden seemed to see the meeting as an opportunity to lecture on his position rather than to
learn or seek insight on Russia.
Moreover, once a US president is in power, the advisers that are appointed to counsel the
commander in chief about Russia have been less than impressive from the 1990s onward.
Condoleezza Rice served as an expert in the George Bush Senior administration and was
wrong about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. During her stint as secretary of
state in the second term of the junior Bush administration, her Russian counterparts who spent
significant time with her made the observation
that Rice was "a Soviet expert, and not a Russia expert."
There was little improvement in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were
given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was
bizarrely appointed as ambassador.
According to investigative journalist Gareth Porter, advisers to Obama were so utterly
incompetent that those serving in the administration really didn't think Russia had the ability
or inclination to counter Washington's provocative actions in
Syria, and therefore they did not plan for that possibility. This incompetence was also
highlighted by Obama's public comments to the Economist in 2014, in which he claimed that
Russia didn't make anything, immigrants didn't go there, and male life expectancy was 60 years
– three claims that anyone with actual expertise on Russia should have easily known were
false.
In fact, at that point, Russia was the second most popular migration destination in the
world, after America itself, while average lifespans have been converging with those of the US
over the past decade. As for manufacturing, Obama said these words at a time when the US, for
instance, was totally reliant on Russian rockets for access to space, having retired its own
unreliable Space Shuttle fleet. If he had access to a competent adviser on the subject, would
he have made these mistakes?
Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint
Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken ,
Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen
Donfried , and State
Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous
ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little
on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia.
Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has
put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating
the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine
and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that
the Maidan would lead to consequences like these.
It takes a special kind of hubris for the US political class to keep thinking they can get
away with this level of sloppiness in understanding the world's other nuclear superpower
– a country so massive that it straddles two major continents and is the sixth largest
economy in terms of purchasing power parity – without serious consequences. At what point
will God's providence run out?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia
Relations," available at Amazon. She blogs at http://natyliesbaldwin.com/ .
"Washington has a dangerous & destructive pattern of wilful ignorance on Russia in
post-Soviet era" It is not just wilful ignorance per se. Without a 'perceived enemy', the
narrative for Russia will fall apart. Ditto China, Iran, N Korea et al.
But importantly, this
'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military
complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be
regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging, but with the antiquated contents
remaining intact.
dotmafia 6 hours ago 6 hours ago
Good article, but, the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others
were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were
actually quite deliberate and planned. In the example of Obama's remarks to The Economist,
the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think
and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda.
Levin High 8 hours ago 8 hours ago
It used to be said that you couldn't be fired for buying IBM, now days in the US you seem to
be hired for blaming Russia.
apothqowejh 9 hours ago 9 hours ago
The US State Department is packed with idiots, political appointees, ideologues and globalist
nut jobs. Their lack of anything remotely like competence is as astonishing as the CIA's full
on embrace of evil.
wowhead1977 4 hours ago 4 hours ago
The cabal in America always want to blame Russia. I'm a American citizen and have no problem
with Russia. These so called sanctions on other countries is a control tactic that most
Americans didn't vote for. This race baiting tactic is from The Fabian Society play book.
Wolf in sheep's clothing is the Fabian Society logo.
We must realize that our Party's most
powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races,
that for centuries have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mold them to the program of the
Communist Party ... In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While enflaming the color
people minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites, a guilt complex for the
exploitation of the color people.
We will aid the color people to rise to prominence in every
walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this
prestige, the color people will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process
which will deliver America to our cause." ~ Israel Cohen - Fabian Society Founder
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's,
Wayne Madsen writes.
Like proverbial bad pennies, the neocon imperialists who plagued the Barack Obama
administration have turned up in force in Joe Biden's State Department. Secretary of State
Antony Blinken has given more than winks and nods to the dastardly duo of Victoria Nuland,
slated to become Blinken's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the number three
position at the State Department, and Samantha Power, nominated to become the Administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Nuland and Power both have problematic spouses who do not fail to offer their imperialistic
opinions regardless of the appearance of conflicts-of-interest. Nuland's husband is the
claptrappy neocon warmonger Robert Kagan, someone who has never failed to urge to prod the
United States into wars that only benefit Israel. Power's husband is the totally creepy Cass
Sunstein, who served as Obama's White House "information czar" and advocated government
infiltration of non-governmental organizations and news media outlets to wage psychological
warfare campaigns.
True to form, Blinken's State Department has already come to the aid of Venezuela's
right-wing self-appointed "opposition leader" Juan Guaido, whose actual constituency is found
in the wealthy gated communities of Venezuelan and Cuban expatriates in south Florida and not
in the barrios of Caracas or Maracaibo.
Blinken and his team of old school yanqui imperialists have also criticized the
constitutional and judicially-warranted detention of former interim president Jeanine
Áñez, who became president in 2019 after the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS)
government of President Evo Morales was overthrown in a Central Intelligence Agency-inspired
and -directed military coup. The far-right forces backing Áñez were roundly
defeated in the October 2020 election that swept MAS and Morales's chosen presidential
candidate, Luis Arce, back into power. It seems that for Blinken and his ilk, a decisive
victory in an election only applies to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not to Arce and MAS in
Bolivia.
It should be recalled that while Blinken was national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden in the Obama administration, every sort of deception and trickery was used by
the CIA to depose Morales in Bolivia and President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. In fact, the
Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, claimed its first Latin
American political victim when a CIA coup was launched against progressive President Manuel
Zelaya of Honduras. Today, Honduras is ruled by a right-wing kleptocratic narco-president, Juan
Orlando Hernández, whose brother, Tony Hernández, is currently serving life in
federal prison in the United States for drug trafficking. For the likes of Blinken, Power,
Nuland, and former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, who currently serves as
"domestic policy adviser" to Biden, suppression of progressive governments and support for
right-wing dictators and autocrats have always been the preferred foreign policy, particularly
for the Western Hemisphere. For example, while the Biden administration remains quiet on
right-wing regimes in Central America that are responsible for the outflow of thousands of
beleaguered Mayan Indians to the southern U.S. border with Mexico, it has announced that Trump
era sanctions on 24 Nicaraguan government officials, including President Daniel Ortega's wife
and Nicaragua's vice president, Rosario Murillo, as well as three of their sons –
Laureano, Rafael, and Juan Carlos – will continue.
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's. Biden
and Brazilian far-right, Adolf Hitler-loving, and Covid pandemic-denying President Jair
Bolsonaro are said to have struck a deal on environmental protection of the Amazon Basin ahead
of an April 22 global climate change virtual summit called by the White House. A coalition of
198 Brazilian NGOs, representing environmental, indigenous rights, and other groups, has
appealed to Biden not to engage in any rain forest protection agreement with the untrustworthy
Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president has repeatedly advocated the wholesale deforestation of the
Amazon region. Meanwhile, while Biden urges Americans to maintain Covid public health measures,
Bolsonaro continues to downplay the virus threat as Brazil's overall death count approaches
that of the United States.
Blinken's State Department has been relatively quiet on the Northern Triangle of Central
America fascist troika of Presidents Orlando of Honduras, Alejandro Giammattei of Guatemala,
and Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. Instead of pressuring these fascistas to democratize and stop
their genocidal policies toward the indigenous peoples of their nations, Biden told Mexican
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador that he would pump $4 billion into supposed
"assistance" to those countries to stop the flow of migrants. Biden is repeating the same old
American gambits of the past. Any U.S. assistance to kleptocratic countries like those of the
Northern Triangle has and will line the pockets of their corrupt leaders. Flush with U.S. aid
cash, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador will be sure to grant contracts to greedy Israeli
counter-insurgency contractors always at the ready to commit more human rights abuses against
the workers, students, and indigenous peoples of Central America.
Biden is also in no hurry to reverse the freeze imposed by Donald Trump on U.S.-Cuban
relations. Biden, whose policy toward Cuba represents a fossilized relic of the Cold War,
intends to maintain Trump's freeze on U.S. commercial, trade, and tourism relations with Cuba.
Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, a Jewish Cuban-American expatriate, is
expected to reach out to right-wing Cuban-Americans in south Florida in order to ensure
Democratic Party inroads in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections. Therefore, even restoring the
status quo ante established by Barack Obama is off-the-table for Biden, Blinken, and Mayorkas.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Cuban-American and
ethically-challenged Democrat Bob Menendez, has stated there will be no normalization of
pre-Trump relations with Cuba until his "regime change" whims are satisfied. Regurgitating
typical right-wing Cuban-American drivel, Mayorkas has proclaimed after he was announced as the
new Homeland Security Secretary, "I have been nominated to be the DHS Secretary and oversee the
protection of all Americans and those who flee persecution in search of a better life for
themselves and their loved ones." The last part of that statement was directed toward the
solidly Republican bloc of moneyed Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Bolivian interests in
south Florida.
While Blinken hurls his neocon invectives at Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba, he
remains silent on the repeated foot-dragging by embattled and highly unpopular right-wing
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera on implementing a new Constitution to replace that put into
place in 1973 by the fascist military dictator General Augusto Pinochet. The current Chilean
Constitution is courtesy of Richard Nixon's foreign policy "Svengali," the duplicitous Henry
Kissinger, an individual who obviously shares Blinken's taste for "realpolitik" adventurism on
a global scale.
While Blinken has weighed in on the domestic politics of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and
Cuba, he has had no comment on the anti-constitutional moves by Colombian far-right
authoritarian President Ivan Duque, the front man for that nation's Medellin narcotics cartel.
It would also come as no surprise if Blinken, Nuland, and Power have quietly buttressed the
candidacy of right-wing banker, Guillermo Lasso, who is running against the progressive
socialist candidate Andrés Arauz, the protegé of former president Rafael Correa.
Blinken can be expected to question the results of the April 11 if Lasso cries fraud in the
event of an Arauz victory. Conversely, Blinken will remain silent if Lasso wins and Arauz cries
foul. That has always been the nature of U.S. Western Hemisphere policy, regardless of what
party controls the White House.
This was Bush racket. Invasion on false pretenses to establish a foothold
and get to former USSR republic. This move was initially a big success (and
Putin helped by using his influence on Northern Alliance) but later
backfire. In other words this was typical imperial policy.
I would guess 2 things, 1. He's hoping if he ends the war then none
of the terrorists that just snuck in won't attack. 2. He plans on
starting a war elsewhere.
"Obama may have gotten (U.S. soldiers) out wrong, but going in is,
to me, the biggest single mistake made in the history of our
country." -- Donald J. Trump
The policies of the Biden administration towards Russia and China are delusional. It
thinks that it can squeeze these countries but still successfully ask them for cooperation.
It believes that the U.S. position is stronger than it really is and that China and Russia
are much weaker than they are.
It is also full of projection. The U.S. accuses both countries of striving for empire, of
wanting to annex more land and of human rights violations. But is only the U.S. that has
expanding aspirations. Neither China nor Russia are interested in running an empire. They
have no interest in planting military bases all over the world. Though both have marginal
border conflicts they do not want to acquire more land. And while the U.S. bashes both
countries for alleged human rights issues it is starving whole populations (Yemen, Syria,
Venezuela) through violence and economic sanctions.
The U.S. power structures in the Pentagon and CIA use the false accusations against Russia
and China as pretense for cold military and hot economic wars against both countries. They
use color revolution schemes (Ukraine, Myanmar) to create U.S. controlled proxy forces near
their borders.
At the same time as it tries to press these countries the U.S. is seeking their
cooperation in selected fields. It falsely believes that it has some magical leverage.
Consider this exchange from yesterday's White House
press briefing about Biden asking for a summit with Putin while, at the same time,
implementing more sanctions against Russia:
Q What if [Putin] says "no," though? Wouldn't that indicate some weakness on the part of
the American administration here?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the President's view is that Russia is on the outside of the
global community in many respects, at this point in time. It's the G7, not the G8. They
have -- obviously, we've put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there
should be consequences for the actions; the Europeans have also done that.
What the President is offering is a bridge back. And so, certainly, he believes it's in
their interests to take him up on that offer.
The G7 are not the 'global community'. They have altogether some 500 million inhabitants
out of 7.9 billion strong global population. Neither China nor India are members of the G7
nor is any South American or African country. Moreover Russia has
rejected a Russian return into the G7/8 format:
"Russia is focused on other formats, apart from the G7," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
said in a brief statement ..
Russia has no interest in a summit which would only be used by the U.S. to further bash
Russia. Why should it give Biden that pleasure when there is nothing that Russia would gain
from it. Russia does not need a 'bridge back'. There will be no summit.
... ... ...
If Biden wants cooperation with Russia or China he needs to reign in the hawks and stop
his attacks on those countries. As he is not willing or capable of doing that any further
cooperation attempts will fall flat.
The U.S. has to learn that it is no longer the top dog. It can not work ceaselessly to
impact Russia's and China's military and economic security and still expect them to
cooperate. If it wants something it will first have to cease the attacks and to accept
multilateral relationships.
Posted by b on April 17, 2021 at 17:53 UTC |
Permalink
"It can not work ceaselessly to impact Russia's and China's military and economic security
and still expect them to cooperate"
You have to understand the USA. They're doing it against Europe on a daily basis, and it
actually works... Get them confused why it doesn't always work against others.
It's interesting what's happening right now (in the past hour or so).
First: Russian and Belorussian news about the arrest of leaders (or key participants) of
an attempted military coup in Belarus, planned by the US security services.
Then, 30 minutes later: the Czechs expel 18 Russian diplomats, accusing them of spying and
of connection to some explosion back in 2014.
I could've been skeptical about the details of the first story, but the second one seems
to confirm it. The second story appears to be an obvious attempt to squeeze the first one out
of the news. And who else could order the Czech government to do this with a 30 minute
notice?
Wouldn't Oceania rulers love to print more of their own currency to buy up all the paper
rights to industrial output without having to invest in the factories or anything else! They
love this kind of business model.
"The secret of success is to own nothing but control everything."
Because of what's at stake and how little I trust Oceania, I confess I no longer have an
opinion about global warming. Even if many of its scientists are *earnest*, who obtained,
processed, and stored the data before they started building models? Those institutions are
capable of anything.
Dementia Joe and his coterie of enablers have embarked on a foreign policy that is likely to result in a new war that will
endanger America and further a growing perception that the United States is weak and divided. There are three troublesome
flashpoints (Ukraine, China and Iran) that could explode at any time and catapult our nation into a costly, deadly military
confrontation. Topping the list is the Ukraine.
The corrupt dealings in Ukraine over the last four years by Joe and Hunter Biden leaves them completely compromised and
subject to coercion, even blackmail. With this as a backdrop the decade long effort by the United States to weaken Russia's
influence in eastern Ukraine has been revived with Biden's arrival in the White House.
Let me first introduce you to some essential facts:
Larry Johnson,
If the Ukraine blows so will Syria! Then the situation might transition from nemesis to tisis in short order. Here is a
strangely appropriate analysis with just one word blanked out.
In the
years ahead, _____________ will assuredly find itself in new international crises involving nations or groups that have
powerful leaders. In some cases, these leaders may have a special, dangerous mindset that is the result of a
"hubris-nemesis complex." This complex involves a combination of hubris (a pretension toward an arrogant form of
godliness) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary, especially one that
can be accused of hubris). The combination has strange dynamics that may lead to destructive, high-risk behavior.
Attempts to deter, compel, or negotiate with a leader who has a hubris-nemesis complex can be ineffectual or even
disastrously counterproductive when those attempts are based on concepts better suited to dealing with more normal
leaders.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR461.pdf
We, too, pray for sanity.
Ishmael Zechariah
Reply
Larry, I unfortunately agree with your observations and conclusion.
I would add that in my opinion, the Russians are a lot more determined, as are the Chinese and Iranians, then the
generally self absorbed younger generations in the West. "Woke" culture has no answer to sunken warships, downed
aircraft and body bags. Do the SJWs want to die for LBGTIQ rights in Russia or another of their pet obsessions de jour?
I don't think so.
My concern for President Biden and America is that, if Ukraine attacks, unless President Putin succeeds in delivering a
very short, sharp and successful lesson to Ukraine there is not going to be a clear path forward to a negotiated
armistice. If that doesn't happen through bad luck, the fog of war, etc. Then I don't think Biden has the intelligence
to get us out of the mess.
If you add to that the possibility that Zelensky may demand American support "or else" when he starts to lose then we
are in very very dangerous territory. If I were the Chinese, I would just stand back and watch. Taiwanese independence
is a meaningless concept without American military backing and I'm sure the Taiwanese know it.
The wild card to me is what is Israel's attitude? Is it possible that they might be a moderating influence for a change?
Reply
Oh, yeah .!!!!!! The country that shoots women and children who get too close to the fence they have constructed in
PALESTINE on other people"s land will be the moderating party. Or maybe Mad Dog Bolton.
Try getting real, and come up with real world situations. Not some fantasy of killers acting like kittens. The
Russians seem more balanced in responding to such provocations than the U.S. & it's gang of follower- puppets. How
long would any of the these follower-puppets be able to go toe to toe with Russia in all-out-war situation. I'd bet
less than 24 hours, probably far less. Or as a Chinese General once asked: would you want to give up Los Angeles to
save Tiwan? The U.S. doesn't seem to have any sort of reliable anti-missile defence system. Would Ole Uncle Joe
really like to get into such pissing contest so early on in his term of presidency? Maybe I am wrong, but from what I
have seen so far, he just seems to be throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. In this game, if one
blunders, the walls vanish, an the lights go out.
Reply
Russia moves cannon boats and amphibious vessels from Caspian Sea to the Black Sea, but in reality these combatants are
perfect for operations in shallow waters and that means Azov Sea and Ukraine's South-Western flank. These ships can form
both a surface group capable of dispatching anything Ukraine may have on Azov Sea, plus form excellent tactical
amphibious group which can land a battalion or two of marines and support them with fire from the sea, both artillery
and MLRS. Of course, there are other forces Russia has there but it is a good way to give Caspian Flotilla a chance for
yet another combat deployment, after its missile ships spearheaded first salvos of 3M14 cruise missiles at ISIS targets
in Syria in 2015. Here are some of those ships:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Caspian_Corvette_Astrakhan_2.jpg
Russia has an overwhelming firepower in the Black Sea proper and whatever the US is sending there is primarily for ISR
purposes in case Ukies go bananas and decide to attack Donbass in death by cop scenario. The US will not interfere in
any meaningful way other than supplying Ukies with recon data.
Reply
It is bigger than Biden or even the Military Industrial Complex. The establishment foreign policy apparatus transcends
political parties and has a continuity that survives changes in administrations. It is obsessed with Russia. It opposed
not just communism but Russia itself so when the Berlin wall fell for it the Cold War never ended and it successfully
pursued the the break up and looting of the Russian Empire and the relentless eastward march of NATO. Putin pushed back
on this resulting in him being demonized by the orchestrated Western media. Trump for all his faults had at least a
halfway rational view of these matters but now the Borg is back and spoiling for a fight. I never cease to be amazed by
the stupidity of these people, their apparent lack of understanding of the importance of Ukraine and Sevastopol in
Russian history and their inability to read a map or know the basics of military operations to see the obvious
indefensibility of Ukraine's eastern border. The danger now is that Ukraine's leaders will overestimate the support they
think they have from the United States and start something they can't stop. This has the feel of 1914.
Reply
Or the Georgian/Russian of 2008 when Georgia attacked on Russian territory. President Bush was talking tough, saying
he would send aid to Georgia on warships. But the rules governing ships entering the Bosferus proscribed such stuff,
aND Bush ended doing nothing. The Russians quickly neutralized the Georgian forces and pushed deeper into Georgia
where they currently remain. The odiot who started the mess was forced out of Georgia & was afterwards appointed a
governor or some such in Ukraine. But I think that too went bad. Such is the level of governance in Ukraine.
Reply
The last 5 Ukros killed were killed by mines. The contact line has many zones where minefields are employed by both
sides. It appears some were killed in their own minefield according to local reports. Civilians in the LPR and DPR have
been killed by incoming fire, most recently a 5 year old boy. Of course OSCE is worthless except as a "bean counter";
who fired what and where is too much to record..
Reply
US defence attache with a group was up at the front yesterday as well as the comic.
Ukraine really has its back up against the wall financially. This year with big interest payments due and no way to get
the funds as the IMF seems to hit its limit on their 'we're never getting it back' budget. Their only steady source of
funds is ironically Russia with the gas transit fees guaranteed at $7B total over the next four years, much of which
will go to the EU and IMF as interest payments. After that the gas fees will drop to zero as the gas transits move to
TurkStream and NS2. With nothing to pay Russia, apart from the little mentioned oil transit fees, Russia may stop
shipping gas/coal/electricity for local consumption as well. At that point either Ukraine crashes or someone else has to
pick up the bill.
Although Kiev will lose dramatically there are very good reasons why Kiev would push the button. Will they ever again
have this PR opportunity to play the innocent victim?
Reply
Earlier this morning I saw a pic of Zelenskiy visiting the front, behind him was a makeshift field tent with a sign on
it, the sign is in Ukrainian but translates as "Vietnam". Is Biden serious about backing Zelenskiy, I guess we'll find
out soon enough.
Reply
wondering if anyone can point me to a fairly, anyway, reliable, (assuming one exists) 'war games scenario' document on
an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China. Intuitively, it would seem a difficult challenge, especially given China's
lack of any appreciable experience in seaborne invasion. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide, and my
apologies upfront LJ if you deem this offtopic.
Reply
Not meaning to be a smart-alec about it, but why assume that an invasion has to be "seaborne"?
In WW2 the Royal Navy had total control of the waters around Crete. So the Germans simply went over the top of them
and invaded the island from the air.
It was very definitely touch and go for a while until German paratroopers managed to capture an airfield, and from
that point it was all over.
No idea how well defended Taiwanese airfields are, but the PLA would only need to capture one and, again, the final
result will not be in doubt.
Reply
well, the quick answer to your question would be 'fine, alter my initial question to include war games scenarios
on airborne attacks on Taiwan. The glib answer might be, Taiwan is not Crete. And the Chinese PLA are not the
Wehrmacht. Who, by the time of the Crete attack had built up a record that included many successful airborne
attacks. I see no such history with the PLA. That, by no means rules it out. But, in any event, I can't imagine
the PLA would role the dice, SOLELY, on an airborne attack. They would have to have a seaborne plan of attack, in
case Plan A failed. So, in any event, I would be still be in search of that war games scenario.
Reply
Absent any new evidence, I am going to continue to assume that this is really about Nordstream II. The Biden Junta are
probably planning on having their Ukrainian cat's paw make a lunge at DNR/LNR, forcing the Russians to intervene
directly. Ukraine, of course, is not actually a full NATO member, so no Article 5 will be triggered. Instead, Washington
just self-righteously hollers 'Russian aggression!' and demands that Merkel immediately shut down Nordstream II -- the
Russian pipeline into Germany -- just before it's ready to go online.
And then, as a lush reward for their undying loyalty, the Germans get to import frack-gas and oil all the way from the
US at four or five times the market rate. Problem solved!
Reply
you are correct – the Ukraine state does not really want the return of the Donbass region let alone Crimea as it
would result in a complete change in the balance of power in the Ukraine with the Russian-speaking population being
able to form the government, as it had done pre 2014. They really want to push the Germans into stopping Nord Stream
2 by provoking Russia
Reply
Struggling to understand how a Ukraine with such supposedly strong ties to National Socialists of a century ago managed
to end up with a Jewish comedian as President.
Reply
Here's the viewpoint of Ukraine Army's snipers who are primarily composed of volunteer housewives. While to D.C. and
Moscow, it's part of their sphere of political chess, however to those on the front lines, it is survival and protection
of their loved ones.
Almost half a century ago, I took a course in the German language as a refresher during the summer session at my local
junior college. The woman who taught the course was a native Ukrainian. She told the class a little about her
background.
When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, she was in her mid- to late-teens. She had an intense dislike (hatred) of the
Russians and took a job working for the German military government of occupation as an interpreter. She said they had
welcomed the Germans as liberators from the oppression of the Soviet Communists.
Later, when the Red Army juggernaut was rolling west through Ukraine, she realized that it would not be good for her
long-term prospects to remain at home. She chose to move west with the retreating German army. Subsequent to the end of
the war in Europe, she rattled around for awhile in displaced person camps, and ultimately made her way to the United
States.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her story. This was my first introduction to the enmity between the Russians
and the Ukrainians.
Reply
Biden is a tin-hat emperor moving tin soldiers in his bathtub at play time. Surrounded by self-selected idiots who make
him dangerous as hell. This is what his "return to decency" looks like? May he be struck down deaf and dumb.
Reply
Two front war – Russia moving into Ukraine at the same time China moves on Taiwan. They put their wet fingers up to the
wind to see which way the Biden operation blows.
And they could not escape the conclusion this was the time to strike if there is any fortuitous time to strike. Biden
and his new team muddle deeply into reckless ineptitude. And Kamala Harris doesn't have anything to wear.
Reply
An odd thesis. The Russians are signally very, very strongly that they do not want the Ukraine to start a war by
attacking the rebels in Donbass.
They could not be more explicit if they sent a hypersonic cruise missile through Zelensky's office window with a sign
on it that reads "Don't start something you won't even live to regret".
They very clearly do not think that this is "the time to strike", nor even that they think there is a "fortuitous
time" for them to go to war with Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes first then, sure, they'll strike back. But I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion
that the Russians are provoking this when it is very clearly the Ukies and their promoters in the White House who are
pushing these buttons.
Similarly with Taiwan.
The Chinese are not provoking this. They made their red lines clear to everyone as far back as Nixon's trip to China
i.e. if the USA sticks to a one-China-policy then the mainland will refrain from using force against Taiwan.
But the USA is not sticking to the one-China-policy. Recent US diplomatic moves look exactly like what it is:
maneuverings to prepare for when the Taipei government declares independence.
Which is crazy.
But in both cases the USA may well provoke a conflict and then dump their patsies like a discarded toy.
Which would be beyond crazy. It would be an outcome so loopy that there isn't even a word to describe it.
Reply
Thank you for setting it straight.. it seems pretty evident Russia does not want a war but is sure as hell ready
to finish this business if a war is pushed on to them and pushed on to them by the Americans. Ukraine has been
armed by the U.S , funded by the IMF, and cheered by NATO. They will not do a single thing without their owners
permission.
Reply
Back in December 2020 Putin had an expanded meeting with his Defense Ministry Board. In it he laid out several items and
agendas to be carried out by the Military Staff.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64684
March 24th saw Ukraine's Zelensky virtually declaring war against the Russian Federation. One can not rule out Zelensky
using the trade deals with Doha and use the direct flights between Kiev and Doha to smuggle in Jihad's from Syria and
Libya to fight in Donbas. Zelensky on March 3rd in a joint press conference with the European Council President in Kiev
stated that the retaking of Crimea from Russia was now Ukraine Official Policy.
https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/ukraine-redux-war-russophobia-and-pipelineistan/
Reply
Speaking of 'foreign policy', question is who will win out -- D.C. or Tel Aviv?
'The model' is headed to D.C. to try and convince our IC's head-cheeses that the Iran JCPOA isn't such a good deal, and
Tel Aviv is trying to get him an audience with his high-arsed the 'King', China Joe. If D.C. swallows 'the model's'
spiel, then they're bigger suckers than they already appear to be.
Assume this Mossad meeting will take place between Kackling Kamala who will be channeling Obama-Jarrett; or will it
be Stinking Liar Susan Rose channeling Obama-Jarrett? But the Big Guy will be out to lunch.
Reply
We should stop seeing capitalism as this unmovable, eternal and indestructible
system ...
Yes, in fact USA has adjusted capitalism as needed/wanted with socialism (the "welfare
state") and neoliberalism (crony-capitalism).
= ... capitalism and the USA are historically specific phenomena, and they will - 100%
certainty - collapse and disappear eventually.
Still, a collapse can take many forms and affect the world's people in different ways. We
can't just expect that capitalism will die of natural causes and the world will inevitably be
a better place for it. We are right to be wary of the worst outcomes.
= ... you just need to last longer than your political enemy. The fact that USA outlived
the USSR gave it almost 17 years of incontestable supremacy ...
You make "outlasting" seem like a random thing. USSR didn't just lose the roll of the
dice.
= No one takes neoliberalism seriously anymore, even among the high echelons of the
economics priesthood.
Examples?
= It is in this world that the Ukraine chose to align with the American Empire. To put it
simply, it chose the wrong side at the wrong time: it chose the West in an era that's
shifting to the East.
But their "choice" wasn't a free and knowledgeable one, was it? The West was pushing for
that change for 10 years and Nuland bragged of spending $5 billion to achieve it.
And the "choice" was for the entirety of Ukraine to move into the West. Ukraine
suffers greatly from not having Crimea and Donbas. For example, the West had planned gas
fracking in eastern Ukraine (by Burisma). That, of course, never happened.
= The euphoria of the fall of socialism masked the degeneration of capitalism that was
started at the same time and it particularly impacted the Warsaw Pact (Comecon) and the
Western ex-USSR nations.
Ukraine was already an oligarchic nightmare when Maidan happened.
= Nazism is not a system, it is just crazy liberalism, and I hope the white supremacists
and traditionalists in the West take note of that - if they don't want to be
crushed.
Nazism lives on in the form of the combination of: neoliberalism, neoconservativism, and
neocolonialism (aka Zionism). And those who adhere to these ideologies don't seem to have any
concern about being crushed. AFAICT the beatings will continue until morale improves
.
It's hard to track neoliberalism because the neoliberals don't consider themselves
"neoliberal": they're just "normal" or simply "liberal". They are the Hadean ideology par
excellence, the ideology that disguise itself as a-ideological, the invisible ideology.
But we can infer the death of neoliberalism as codified in the Washington Consensus list
from 2008 onward by the set of policies enforced in the USA, the UK, Japan and other
developed European countries (where neoliberalism are expected to be hegemonic), and here I'm
specifically asking you to focus on the so-called "austerity" (which is a more regressive
form of neoliberalism, but is not technically neoliberalism) and the rise of MMT through
money printing or, in the case of Japan, more T-bond issuance, in a complete disregard to
national (sovereign) debt after the pandemic (and, in the USA's case, even before that). Also
pay attention to the list of Economy "Nobel" (Riksbank) Prize winners post-2008 - none of
them being neoliberals in the academic sense of the word, nor having a neoliberal past
(apparently).
The only place left where neoliberalism is still alive and well, albeit weakened, is in
Latin America and the so-called "emerging economies" (Turkey, South Africa and Russia). But
those are not the dominant part of the world in the capitalist sense, it would be akin to the
Roman Empire surviving only as a remnant in pieces of Hispania or Gallia.
The World Health Organization recently published its report on the
origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which has caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Most scientist agree
that the virus is of zoonotic origin and not a human construct or an accidental laboratory
escape. But the U.S. wants to put pressure on China and advised the Director General of the
WHO, Tedros Adhanom, to keep the focus on China potential culpability. He acted accordingly
when he
remarked on his agency's report:
Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this
requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist
experts, which I am ready to deploy.
The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health
Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global
community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective
global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent
analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the
recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of
working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent,
science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of
unknown origin in the future.
The most interesting with the above statement is the list of U.S. allied countries which
declined to support it,
Most core EU countries, especially France, Spain, Italy and Germany, are missing from it.
As is the Five-Eyes member New Zealand. India, a U.S. ally in the anti-Chinese Quad
initiative, also did not sign. This list of signatories of the Joint Statement is an
astonishingly meager result for a U.S. 'joint' initiative. It is unprecedented. It is a sign
that something has cracked and that the world will never be the same.
The first months of he Biden administration saw a rupture in the global system. First
Russia admonished the EU for its hypocritical criticism of internal Russian issues. Biden
followed up by calling Putin a 'killer'. Then the Chinese foreign minister told the Biden
administration
to shut the fuck up about internal Chinese issues. Soon thereafter Russia's and China's
foreign ministers met and agreed to deepen their alliance and to shun the U.S. dollar. Then
China's foreign minister went on a wider Middle East tour. There he reminded U.S. allies of
their
sovereignty :
Wang said that expected goals had been achieved with regard to a five-point initiative on
achieving security and stability in the Middle East, which was proposed during the visit.
"China supports countries in the region to stay impervious to external pressure and
interference, to independently explore development paths suited to its regional realities
," Wang said, adding that the countries should " break free from the shadows of big-power
geopolitical rivalry and resolve regional conflicts and differences as masters of the
region ."
Suffice to say, the China-Iran pact deeply is embedded within a new matrix Beijing hopes to
create with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Iran. The pact forms part of a new
narrative on regional security and stability.
Countries in Asia and further afield are closely watching the development of this
alternative international order, led by Moscow and Beijing. And they can also recognise the
signs of increasing US economic and political decline.
It is a new kind of Cold War, but not one based on ideology like the first incarnation.
It is a war for international legitimacy, a struggle for hearts and minds and money in the
very large part of the world not aligned to the US or NATO.
The US and its allies will continue to operate under their narrative, while Russia and
China will push their competing narrative. This was made crystal clear over these past few
dramatic days of major power diplomacy.
The global balance of power is shifting, and for many nations, the smart money might be
on Russia and China now.
The obvious U.S. countermove to the Russian-Chinese initiative is to unite its allies in a
new Cold War against Russia and China. But as the Joint Statement above shows most of those
allies do not want to follow that path. China is a too good customer to be shunned. Talk of
human rights in other countries might play well with the local electorate but what counts in
the end is the business.
Even some U.S. companies can see that the hostile path the Biden administration has
followed will only be to their detriment. Some are asking the Biden gang to
tone it down :
[Boeing] Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told an online business forum he believed a major
aircraft subsidy dispute with Europe could be resolved after 16 years of wrangling at the
World Trade Organization, but contrasted this with the outlook on China.
"I think politically (China) is more difficult for this administration and it was for
the last administration. But we still have to trade with our largest partner in the world:
China," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit.
Noting multiple disputes, he added: " I am hoping we can sort of separate intellectual
property, human rights and other things from trade and continue to encourage a free trade
environment between these two economic juggernauts. ... We cannot afford to be locked out
of that market. Our competitor will jump right in."
Before its 737 MAX debacle Boeing was the biggest U.S. exporter and China was its biggest
customer. The MAX has yet to be re-certified in China. If Washington keeps the hostile tone
against China Boeing will lose out and Europe's Airbus will make a killing.
Biden announced that "America is back" only to be told that it is no longer needed in the
oversized role that it played before. Should Washington not be able to accept that it can no
play 'unilateral' but will have to follow the real rules of international law we might be in
for some
interesting times :
Question: Finally, are you concerned that deteriorating international tensions could lead
to war?
Glenn Diesen: Yes, we should all be concerned. Tensions keep escalating and there are
increasing conflicts that could spark a major war. A war could break out over Syria,
Ukraine, the Black Sea, the Arctic, the South China Sea and other regions.
What makes all of these conflicts dangerous is that they are informed by a
winner-takes-all logic. Wishful thinking or active push towards a collapse of Russia,
China, the EU or the U.S. is also an indication of the winner-takes-all mentality. Under
these conditions, the large powers are more prepared to accept greater risks at a time when
the international system is transforming . The rhetoric of upholding liberal democratic
values also has clear zero-sum undertones as it implies that Russia and China must accept
the moral authority of the West and commit to unilateral concessions.
The rapidly shifting international distribution of power creates problems that can only
be resolved with real diplomacy. The great powers must recognize competing national
interests, followed by efforts to reach compromises and find common solutions.
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asked
for a summit of leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council:
Putin argued that the countries that created a new global order after World War II should
cooperate to solve today's problems.
"The founder countries of the United Nations, the five states that hold special
responsibility to save civilisation, can and must be an example," he said at the sombre
memorial ceremony.
The meeting would "play a great role in searching for collective answers to modern
challenges and threats," Putin said, adding that Russia was "ready for such a serious
conversation."
Such a summit would be a chance to work on a new global system that avoids unilateralism
and block mentality. As the U.S. is now learning that its allies are not willing to follow
its anti-China and anti-Russia policies it might be willing to negotiate over a new
international system.
But as long as Washington is unable to recognize its own decline a violent attempt to
solve the issue once and for all will become more likely.
Posted by b on April 1, 2021 at 17:52 UTC |
Permalink
Very thought provoking b, I wish time off brought me back firing on all cylinders like
this!
No doubt vk will chime in here better than I but it surely cannot be a matter of "if
America decides". There are historical forces at work in this financialized phase of late
capitalism that are not grasped by the US leadership, let alone factored into intelligent
policy debates. Biden is an arch-lobbyist for the vested interests which compel the US's
unilateral and interventionist foreign policy. I'm quite sure he is incapable of 'deciding'
anything (not just mentally but institutionally). But the underlying dynamic of
world-historical change is beyond him and his whole country. The die was cast long ago when
the Soviet Union fell and the US couldn't help themselves. Junkies for unilateralism since
1989, they will keep shooting up until they OD (Boeing notwithstanding...). I suspect they
will end up like the schizoid UK, psychologically unable to accept increasing and humiliating
losses of empire until it hits the bottom of the dustbin of History.
The rules at issue in the case, initially adopted between 1964 and 1975, had been meant "to
promote competition, localism and viewpoint diversity by ensuring that a small number of
entities do not dominate a particular media market," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the
court. But the rules, he added, were a relic of a different era -- "an early-cable and
pre-internet age when media sources were more limited." "By the 1990s, however, the market for
news and entertainment had changed dramatically," Justice Kavanaugh wrote. "Technological
advances led to a massive increase in alternative media options, such as cable television and
the internet. Those technological advances challenged the traditional dominance of daily print
newspapers, local radio stations and local television stations."
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, No. 19-1231,
concerned three rules. One barred a single entity from owning a radio or television station and
a daily print newspaper in the same market, the second limited the number of radio and
television stations an entity can own in a single market, and the third restricted the number
of local television stations an entity could own in the same market.
In 2017, the commission concluded that the three rules no longer served their original
purposes of promoting competition and the like. The vote was 3 to 2 along party lines, with the
commission's Republican members in the majority.
They were not deciding if media consolidation was OK. They were deciding if the FCC had the
regulatory authority to make such a change. The court decided, unanimously, that they did.
If they had decided otherwise, it would open up any such regulatory changes to lawsuits
against the change. This includes further tightening media ownership rules, or changing rules
on pollution, or regulations on corporate governance.
Is they have should have gone for the throat and said FCC, SEC, FTC, FEC, etc. rule-making
is unconstitutional per se because all legislative and pseudo-legislative activity must be
enacted explicitly by only the Congress.
It would have utterly horrified and enraged progressives and big corporation-loving
republicans, but it would have been considered a judicial Gettysburg for the forces of populism
on both sides because it would have gutted the power of the administrative state to render the
people's assembly a vestigial organ.
The US-China meeting in Anchorage took place 75 years almost to the day of the Winston
Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Just as the latter signalled a break point in the
uneasy, war forced cohabit of the West with the communist Soviet Union, so too the Anchorage
will enter the history as the break point in the US hegemony threatening collaboration of the
West and China.
Since WW2, no other nation, not even Russia, has confronted the US so firmly and so
publicly as did Yang Jiechi, one of the ruling member of the Chinese Politburo when he said
that "the United States does not have the qualification to speak to China from a position of
strength'.
That was a slap in the face the Americans will have to respond to, and it's in the nature
of the response one will find whether the American Governing elite is prepared to share power
or go for a confrontation.
The real question is not about his neocon delusions, which are pretty predictable, but about
the ability for the USA project global dominance in the decade to come.
Blinken is a marionette. And pretty much second rate even in that.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's consider this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and values well'." [My Emphasis] ..."
Let's consider
this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated
World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words
cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have
all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and
values well'." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, he's referring to the rules put in place by the UN Charter. But as we at this bar
all know, it's the Outlaw US Empire for whom Blinken works that's the #1 criminal when it
comes to violating the UN Charter which is why it's "served our interests and values
well."
Now when we turn to reality, it become very clear that China seeks to uphold the UN
Charter--it's one of the foundational members of the newly established Friends of the UN
Charter Group that the Outlaw US Empire will certainly snub because of the reality of its
actual relations to that Act and Organization .
Indeed, what is being said by the very formation of that Group is a big NO!! to the
Outlaw US Empire's attempt to say it abides by the system it's continuously violated for the
past 75+ years. Yet, it's also clear that NO!! isn't being shouted out by global media
enough, particularly when Outlaw US Empire officials give such an excellent opportunity to be
rebuffed and ridiculed for their lies.
We have many good writers here who could take Blinken's words and turn them into an
indictment of himself and the nation he represents. That implies that writers for global
publications are just as good but need to examine the framing of their articles. Peace won't
come to our planet unless the Outlaw Bully Nation is daily accused for what it is and
does.
NATO is a distinct minority yet it holds the world captive in a terroristic manner. It's
well past time to stop groveling and kow-towing and to stand-up and call out the bullshitters
for what they are since being nice isn't getting us anywhere.
To go back to a previous BTL discussion on Patrick Cockburns recent article in
Counterpunch, Bidens missteps so early on are a very worrying indicator that his foreign
policy team is worse than just being malign. They are incompetent. Thats a very dangerous
combination.
I don't think the Russians, Chinese, or most other major countries (apart from Europe) had
a fundamental problem with Trumps approach. They understood him, and were quite happy to
ignore his bombast and threats and focus instead on what was happening in the real world. But
things are different for someone like Biden, and I'm very surprised nobody in his team seem
to realise this. When he talks on the record, its assumed that it is a reflection of a real
policy. At first, I thought maybe he was just doing the usual new guy in power thing of
talking tough to set the ground for later compromises (the opposite of Obama, who appeared
very weak to other leaders, and then just looked indecisive when his policies turned more
hardline). But that does not seem to be the case so far.
I've no idea what the final outcome will be, but I do think that this is one of those
points in history where things take a very sharp and irreparable change in direction.
Obviously, things have been brewing for years, but the ineptness of US foreign policy seems
to have created a strategic Russian/China alliance which will force many countries to make
some very hard choices about which side of the fence they are on.
On a related note, I woke up this morning to find that a speech by Lawrence P. Wilkerson,
who is associated with the conservative paleoconservatives is getting very wide circulation
in China (you know this has to be officially approved otherwise it disappears very rapidly on
WeChat. He makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs as a
sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that, but it
is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the CCP. The
notion that the Uigurs are a sort of third force within China, and as such need to be
destroyed now seems to be very deeply embedded in Chinese thinking, and the interference by
'official' western NGO's are undoubtedly making things much worse for them.
"[Wilkerson] makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs
as a sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that,
but it is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the
CCP."
Just curious as to what your reasons would be for doubting this. The CIA has been doing
precisely this all over the world for over 70 years. There is a clear pipeline between the
Uighurs in China and the CIA-supported "rebels" in Syria. The expatriate Uighur organizations
that are integral to the Western propaganda apparatus is supported and amplified by the NED
and other CIA fronts, as your last sentence implies. This is not to deny the historical
Uighur desire for autonomy in Western China, nor to defend Chinese policies toward them.
Rather, it is to acknowledge the CIA's use of ethnic tensions to sow chaos and division in
non-conforming nations *everywhere*.
1. The US has had little to no success in its many attempts to establish an intelligence
foothold in China. There is zero evidence, direct or indirect, that it has had any successful
contact with Uigur groups directly, although contacts via others, such as the Pakistani or
Turkish intelligence agencies are possible. If there was even the tiniest amount of evidence
of such a link, the Chinese would be broadcasting it from the skies, and not just
re-messaging out tired CT stuff. Chinese intelligence is far ahead of the US in that region,
so they would certainly know if something like that was happening.
2. Uigur groups in general such as we know about them tend to be as virulently anti
Western as anti Han Chinese. All evidence suggests that the brand of Islam that has been
belatedly introduced into those regions is essentially second hand Wahhabism (traditionally,
they were never all that religious).
3. Any such attempt could be easily countered by China – simply by dumping Uigur
radicals into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban, or anywhere else that would create trouble.
The fact that they haven't done this strongly suggests that the Chinese themselves see no
link.
4. US military intelligence is often a misnomer, but even the CIA can't be stupid enough
to think that fostering another islamic state on the borders of Afghanistan is anything but a
terrible idea.
Of course, no doubt some mid ranking CIA officer may have circulated some report saying
more or less 'hey, maybe we can use those Uighurs or whatever they are called'. But thats an
entirely different thing from suggesting that there have been active links and a strategy for
using them to destabilise the borders of China. The reality is that the US has been entirely
unsuccessful in any attempts (when they've been made) to undermine China via internal Chinese
ethnic or religious groups.
Incidentally, the reliability of Wilkerson (who I actually quite like and who says some
interesting things), on that topic can be measured by his statement that the invasion of
Afghanistan was motivated by an attempt to stop the Belt and Road Initiative. It's quite
impressive intelligence if that was the case as the invasion predated the Belt and Road
Initiative by more than a decade.
Yes, I think the important point is your last one. It's not out of the question that on a
rainy afternoon in Virginia some junior CIA analyst amused himself by sketching out such an
idea, and one day the product may leak and be presented as "proof." But for the reasons you
give, the political leaders who would have to approve the scheme would turn it down, even if
it were physically possible. I doubt it would be, actually: from what little information is
publicly available, the US seems to be having little or no luck penetrating that area.
Thanks for the systematic reply. I appreciate each of your points, and pretty much agree
with the first one – including your comment about Turkish intelligence. But regarding
the others, the fact that we are talking about anti-Western Wahabist radicals does not mean
the CIA (or elements of the CIA or other military/intelligence operations) would hesitate to
weaponize them if possible. We did this in Afghanistan, Bosina, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Chechnya etc. Indeed, we seemed to *welcome* the fostering of an Islamic State in Eastern
Syria, because the various jihadists were a means to destroy the Syrian government. When the
goal is to foster chaos and destruction in order to *undermine* an existing state, the
calculus of unleashing the head-choppers is different than if we were actually interested in
fostering stability in the region. I admit that such a strategy might sound insane to *us*,
but Einstein's definition of insanity seems to rule our National Security Establishment.
Not PK, but I would suggest these cases are not only different from each other, but also
different from the Uigurs. Essentially, there was a war going on in all of these cases, and
the US (and they were scarcely the only ones) decided to try to get a bit of influence by
arming one or more of the factions. This is a tactic which is as old as arms themselves, and
has a pretty spotty record of success, if that. Its advantage is that it is low-key and
doesn't require a massive presence (the classic case is the Soviet Union and the Chinese
flooding Africa with AK-47s and copies in the 1960s and 1970s). But the cases you mention are
very disparate. In Bosnia there do seem to have been some (illegal) CIA deliveries to the
Muslims in violation of the embargo, but these were very small scale and in any event the
Muslims were one of the major parties to the conflict, as well as constituting the de facto
government in Sarajevo, because the other ethnicities had withdrawn. Likewise, and in spite
of preening memoirs and films, the US influence in Afghanistan was quite small : the
mujahideen were already forming in the 1970s, and the only contribution the US really made
was to supply anti-aircraft missiles, which complicated the Russians' existence quite a bit.
But actually fomenting and arming an insurgency next to one of the three or four major powers
on the planet, with highly skilled intelligence services? There is stupidity and there's
downright insanity.
I the 1950s, the CIA and MI6 trained and armed the "Forest Brothers" in the Baltics.
Neutral Sweden and Finland were across hundreds of km of water. Land access was through
Soviet territory or satellites. There was no significant international trade or commerce in
the area at the time. Yet they had tens of thousands of well supplied (for that era)
resistance fighters that took a decade for the USSR to stomp out.
To suggest that today's CIA is incapable of stirring things up in a well-connected
Xinjiang when thousands of foreigners travel there, tons of business shipments and
international flights and road transport is a mystifying statement. Particularly after CIA's
decades of experience managing jihadis all across North Africa, Mideast and Central Asia,
more than a few being Uigurs.
And suggesting that the only thing the US supplied the Afghan jihadis were Stinger
missiles is far off the mark. It was a multi-billion dollar per year operation conducted by
the US with collaboration of the ISI and Saudis. All those tens of thousands of jihadis
didn't arrive by camels and make slingshots.
I agree "There is stupidity and there's downright insanity" in fomenting troubles in
Xinjiang. The US has already passed that test. Many times.
We are three generations past the 1950s. Not a relevant example.
The US is not even remotely as good as you'd have to believe to accept this theory. For
starters, we don't begin to have enough people with native level language competence, much
the less willing to live there long enough to be trusted. They'll take our arms, but our
directives?
It is in the interest of the CIA to take credit for all sorts of things where their role
was non-existent to marginal because funding.
I can't claim any great knowledge or insight into the region, but the notion that the
Uighurs were part of a grand CIA strategy, or that they have had sufficient influence in the
region to manipulate them into opposing China, just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unfortunately, like the notion that Covid is spread on frozen food, so far as I can tell it
is now considered 'a fact' by most Chinese, inside and outside the country. As a result, even
Chinese who strongly dislike their government are not at all bothered by reports coming out
of the region.
For what its worth, I knew an English guy who lived for a few years in Urumqi with his
Chinese wife about 15 years ago. He was virulently anti-muslim and didn't much like the
non-Chinese locals he met, but I remember at the time that said that what he saw around him
convinced him that things were going to end very badly for the Uighurs, the Chinese were just
waiting for the opportunity to wipe them out. I was in Tibet at that period (I was fortunate
to get a visa on the last year solo traveller were allowed in) and witnessed the way Tibetans
were openly abused on the street by Chinese soldiers. Even Tibetans said that the Uighurs got
it worse.
The US government and privately motivated US citizens have no credibility on this issue.
That means if anyone is going to raise it, it will have to be someone other than America or
Americans.
That doesn't change the fact of Great Han Lebensraum genocide-policy against the Uighurs
on the part of the Chinese Communazi Party. And Chinese statements about their Lebensraum
genocide against Uighuria are just as much hasbara as Israeli statements about
antiPalestinianitic persecution in the Occupied West Bank.
And if that purely-private opinion of a mere U S citizen makes any Great Han hasbarists (
or might I say . . . Hansbarists) on this thread mad, then that makes me happy.
Your friend was English; I have not seen this attitude on the part of Chinese friends or
Chinese I've talked with. I was traveling on a domestic flight in China a number of years ago
and found myself sitting on a plane next to a random Chinese soldier -- a memorably tall,
handsome young man. He spoke English well enough to have a discussion (the relaxed atmosphere
and the need to pass the time does wonders when it comes to breaking down language barriers).
Major Uighur terror attacks and unrest had been in the news (around 2009), so I asked him
what he thought about it. He said that he grew up in Xinjiang. His parents were Han Chinese
who had first come to Xinjiang during the cultural revolution to build some local
infrastructure/improvement project (he described it to me but I don't remember the details).
They saw their goal as improving conditions in the region. Of course, the government wanted
to solidify Chinese presence in that region of their country, but I heard no hint of anger or
derision toward the Uighur. He said he was very concerned that the Uighur people were happy
and he hoped China could find a way to mend the relationship. He said that growing up, there
were many mixed Chinese/Han marriages and that "people say" that mixed Han/Uighur marriages
produced the most physically beautiful children. I didn't see any evidence of the malignant
racism you describe on the part of your English friend.
Strong central governments vs violent separatist movements tend to create lasting
problems. Growing up in a border state over 100 years after our own civil war, I grew up with
the fact that many people had still not let go of that resentment. Southerners still
maintained a sense of grievance back then. The Maryland state song that I learned as a child
is only now being decommissioned by the state legislature. One stanza refers to the "Northern
scum".
This week's WaPo headline: "Maryland poised to say goodbye to state song that celebrates
the Confederacy".
If your Han Chinese interlocutor's feelings are widely shared among the ruled-over rather
than ruling-over ordinary majority of Han citizens, then it would appear that it is the
MonoParty RegimeGovernment ruling over China which is Communazi, not the people as such.
Regardless, it will be up to countrygovs which have moral standing in this area to comment
or not, not the US anymore. At least for now.
Probably the Uighurs have it even worse than Tibetans because Uighuria is very inhabitable
by Han settlers whereas Tibet is high and dry enough that ( I have read), that
lowland-adapted Hans have trouble physically coping over time with the lower oxygen levels at
Tibet altitude.
If that is so, then the High Tibetan Plateau at least would not provide Lebensraum for
millions of Han Settlers in any case, so why clear the Tibetans off the plateau and out of
existence? Not so much need, in Tibet's case.
@PlutoniumKun
I have no knowledge about points 1 to 3, but totally disagree with point 4.
The hubris and desire of the US alphabet agencies to meddle is remarkable. A current example
is the CIA support of jihadis in Syria that the US military itself is fighting against.
Interesting caution re Wilkerson – do you have a link?
Here is a link to an article talking about that talk PK. Having a coupla thousand Uygurs
in Syria gaining combat experience for use later who knows where was probably proof enough
for China of western intentions. Just think of the other Jihadists who have been used in
places like Libya and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and the Chinese would be drawing their
own conclusions-
The Russian government is
responding angrily to Biden's derisive comments about Putin:
The Kremlin has reacted angrily to US President Joe Biden's remarks that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin is "a killer," calling the comment unprecedented and describing the
relationship between the two countries as "very bad."
U.S.-Russian relations have been deteriorating steadily over the last ten years, and it
always seemed unlikely that Biden would improve them. Now there will be even less of a chance
that Biden can work constructively with his Russian counterpart. The president's blunt answer
to a rather silly question from George Stephanopoulos has further damaged the relationship to
neither country's benefit. Anatol Lieven
observed recently that this is a "completely unnecessary confrontation with Russia" at a
time when the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on some important issues. Lieven cites U.S.
reentry into the JCPOA and extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan as his examples of issues
where Russian cooperation could be very valuable, but he could have added new negotiations on
future arms control agreements as well. Making progress on any one of these becomes much more
challenging when our president is gratuitously insulting theirs. For an administration that
prides itself on practicing diplomacy, they have a funny way of showing it.
The Joseph Biden administration has named Richard Nephew as its deputy Iran envoy. As the
former principal deputy coordinator of sanctions policy for Barack Obama's State Department,
Nephew took personal credit for depriving Iranians of food, sabotaging their automobile
industry, and driving up unemployment rates.
Nephew has described the destruction of Iran's economy as "a tremendous success," and
lamented during a visit to Russia that food was still plentiful in the country's capital
despite mounting US sanctions.
Nephew's appointment to a senior diplomatic post suggests that rather than immediately
returning to the JCPOA nuclear deal, the Biden administration will finesse sanctions
illegally imposed by Trump to pressure Iran into an onerous, reworked agreement that Tehran
is unlikely to join.
Nephew's "simple framework" for "sanctions to perform their expected function" reads like
a torturer's manual (replace "target state" with "prisoner"):
- identify objectives for the imposition of pain and define the minimum necessary remedial
steps that the target state must take for pain to be removed
- understand as much as possible the nature of the target, including its vulnerabilities,
interests, commitment to whatever it did to prompt sanctions, and readiness to absorb
pain
-develop a strategy to carefully, methodically, and efficiently increase pain on those
areas that are vulnerabilities while avoiding those that are not
-monitor the execution of the strategy and continuously recalibrate its initial assumption
of target state resolve, the efficacy of the pain applied in shattering that resolve, and how
best to improve the strategy
Combatting malign influences in the Americas: OGA (Office of Global Affairs) used
diplomatic relations in the Americas region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba,
Venezuela, and Russia, who are working to increase their influence in the region to the
detriment of US safety and security. OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to
strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade
countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples
include using OGA's Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian
COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical assistance in lieu of Panama accepting an offer
of Cuban doctors.
Blinken, like his boss, is a complete moron. He blew it with his patronising threatening
'rules based order' drivel because he has no expertise. Blinken has been doing this for a
decade or two: Syria, Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, and on and on. He has the form of a
killer, the mind of a killer and the intentions of a mass murderer. He has proven the latter
and is the type of global ambassadorial psychopath that one should meet with once and then
never meet again.
The USA has lost its mind and every day that passes proves that point.
This bar deserves broader analysis of other quarters of the planet and no more references
to the Guardian or NYT.
Biden under pressure to tap fewer political ambassadors than Trump, Obama
Donors are growing impatient as Biden delays naming coveted ambassador posts.
I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain relations
with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its terms. Even
though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a different genetic,
cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We will work with the
United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms that we believe are
beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their attempts to stop our
development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to reckon with this.
The author provides basic but essential definition of conflict resolution. The USians either
don't understand or defy it.
Your link to statement by Blinken & Sullivan is propaganda as you say. It is also an
expression of how deeply limited and very stupid these two are. They have no idea what just
hit them.
"America is back" claimed Joe Biden to no ones amusement. But the world has changed
after four years of Trump and after a pandemic upset the world. The U.S. position in this
world and its role in it have thereby also changed. To just claim one is back without
adopting to the new situation promises failure.
As candidate Joe Biden promised that there would be no changes.
Former Vice President Joe Biden assured rich donors at a ritzy New York fundraiser that
"nothing would fundamentally change" if he is elected.
Biden told donors at an event at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan on Tuesday evening
that he would not "demonize" the rich and promised that " no one's standard of living
will change, nothing would fundamentally change ," Bloomberg News reported.
That Biden statement destroyed the illusion of those who had hoped that he would lift
the standard of living for the average Amercian.
Biden stayed true to his words at the fundraiser. There will be no rise in the minimum
wage. The $2,000 checks he promised to all voters will now be only $1,400 checks. They will
also be
heavily means tested . Those who made more than $80,000 in 2019 but lost their income
in 2020 will get no check at all.
Even as they hold the White House and the House and Senate majorities the Democrats are
unable or unwilling to deliver basic progress. This will likely cost them their House
majority in 2022 and the presidency in 2024.
Biden's "nothing will fundamentally change" attitude extends into foreign policy.
Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo - 0:29 UTC · Dec 21,
2019
Today, the #ICC prosecutor raised serious questions about the ICC's jurisdiction to
investigate #Israel. Israel is not a state party to the ICC. We firmly oppose this
unjustified inquiry that unfairly targets Israel . The path to lasting peace is through
direct negotiations.
---
Secretary Antony Blinken @SecBlinken - 1:34 UTC · Mar 4,
2021
The United States firmly opposes an @IntlCrimCourt investigation into the Palestinian
Situation. We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security,
including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.
That nothing will change is also expressed in two policy papers the Biden administration
released yesterday. The early emphasis on human rights, which distinguished it from the
Trump administration, is already gone.
The common theme is now 'democracy' as if that were not just a form of government but a
value in itself.
The White House published an Interim National
Security Strategic Guidance (pdf). The paper is dripping with ideological LGBTQWERTY
librulism. Its central claim is that 'democracy' is under threat:
At a time when the need for American engagement and international cooperation is greater
than ever, however, democracies across the globe, including our own, are increasingly
under siege . Free societies have been challenged from within by corruption, inequality,
polarization, populism, and illiberal threats to the rule of law. Nationalist and
nativist trends – accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis – produce an
every-country-for-itself mentality that leaves us all more isolated, less prosperous, and
less safe. Democratic nations are also increasingly challenged from outside by
antagonistic authoritarian powers. Anti-democratic forces use misinformation,
disinformation, and weaponized corruption to exploit perceived weaknesses and sow
division within and among free nations, erode existing international rules, and promote
alternative models of authoritarian governance. Reversing these trends is essential to
our national security .
It then singles out China:
We must also contend with the reality that the distribution of power across the world is
changing, creating new threats. China , in particular, has rapidly become more assertive.
It is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic,
military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open
international system. Russia remains determined to enhance its global influence and play
a disruptive role on the world stage. Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in
efforts meant to check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and
allies around the world. Regional actors like Iran and North Korea continue to pursue
game-changing capabilities and technologies, while threatening U.S. allies and partners
and challenging regional stability. We also face challenges within countries whose
governance is fragile, and from influential non-state actors that have the ability to
disrupt American interests.
To fight China the U.S. will (ab)use its allies:
We can do none of this work alone. For that reason, we will reinvigorate and modernize
our alliances and partnerships around the world. For decades, our allies have stood by
our side against common threats and adversaries, and worked hand-in-hand to advance our
shared interests and values. They are a tremendous source of strength and a unique
American advantage, helping to shoulder the responsibilities required to keep our nation
safe and our people prosperous. Our democratic alliances enable us to present a common
front, produce a unified vision, and pool our strength to promote high standards,
establish effective international rules, and hold countries like China to account.
Good luck with that. Neither the European U.S. allies, nor the Asian ones, have any
interest in following the U.S. into a confrontation with China. It is their greatest
trading partner and they do not perceive it as an ideological or security threat.
The more we and other democracies can show the world that we can deliver, not only for
our people, but also for each other, the more we can refute the lie that authoritarian
countries love to tell, that theirs is the better way to meet people's fundamental needs
and hopes. It's on us to prove them wrong.
So the question isn't if we will support democracy around the world, but how.
We will use the power of our example. We will encourage others to make key reforms,
overturn bad laws, fight corruption, and stop unjust practices. We will incentivize
democratic behavior.
But we will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by
attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We have tried these tactics in
the past. However well intentioned, they haven't worked. They've given democracy
promotion a bad name, and they've lost the confidence of the American people. We will do
things differently.
The "lie that authoritarian countries love to tell, that their's is the better way to
meet people's fundamental needs and hopes" is targeted at China. But that China did and
does much better than the U.S. to meet its people's needs and hope is not a lie. The
pandemic has again demonstrated that.
The last quoted paragraph has seen some positive attention on social media. But it is
based on a falsehood. The U.S. has not once used military means to 'promote democracy'. Not
ever. It has used war to gain markets and power, to destroy its competition. The
neo-conservatives have claimed to be motivated by 'democracy promotion'. But that was
always just a pretext to hide the real reasons for waging war. Iraq became democratic not
because the U.S. wanted it to be that. In fact, after invading Iraq the the U.S. pro-consul
Paul Bremer tried to prevent universal elections in Iraq. Only the insistence of Ayatollah
Sistani on a universal vote led to a somewhat democratic system in Iraq.
Blinken is, just like Pompeo before him, focused on China:
And eighth, we will manage the biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century: our
relationship with China.
Several countries present us with serious challenges, including Russia, Iran, North
Korea. And there are serious crises we have to deal with, including in Yemen, Ethiopia,
and Burma.
But the challenge posed by China is different. China is the only country with the
economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable
and open international system – all the rules, values, and relationships that make
the world work the way we want it to , because it ultimately serves the interests and
reflects the values of the American people.
That there is no change from the Trump to the Biden administration in hostility to China
is disappointing only for those who had expected some:
Pang Zhongying, a specialist in international relations at Ocean University of China,
said Beijing would be disappointed with the Biden administration's approach to "continue
and even elevate" the tough policies of the Trump era and to strengthen alliances to deal
with China.
"There does not seem to be any change yet in the serious tensions in China-US
relations," he said. "I think there may be some frustration in Beijing that after more
than 40 days [of the new administration] they have not seen any change but there is
actually more pressure from the US."
Beijing will manage the conflict and it is likely to see it as a chance.
The U.S. failure to adopt to new circumstances will accelerate its demise. The U.S.
empire was a historical abnormality and its twilight is near
:
[The Realist professors of International Relations David Blagden and Patrick Porter]
observe America's "position as 'global leader' is premised on a set of impermanent and
atypical conditions from an earlier post-war era", but " the days of incontestable
unipolarity are over, and cannot be wished back ". The result is that "overextension
abroad, exhaustion and fiscal strain at home, and political disorder feed off one another
in a downward spiral, cumulatively threatening the survival of the republic".
The US empire is, then, at an impasse. Its moral and political justification of
overseeing a global order of universal liberal democracy -- the closest real-world
equivalent to the Kantian perpetual peace that has both motivated and eluded liberal
idealists for the past two centuries -- is now beyond its capabilities to maintain.
...
How does this end for America? Biden and the presidents after him will be forced to make
a hard choice: whether to retrench to a smaller and more manageable empire, or to risk a
far greater and more dramatic collapse in defence of global hegemony.
Biden has made his choice. Nothing will fundamentally change under him. He is thereby
likely to repeat all of Trump's foreign policy failures. There will be no new JCPOA with
Iran nor will there be any win for the U.S. in the Middle East. North Korea will continue
to test bombs and missiles. The U.S. will continue to be stuck in Afghanistan. The
Chinese-Russian alliance will strengthen. U.S. allies will further distance themselves from
it.
We can not yet know what, at what point will cause the collapse of U.S. hegemony. But we
are coming more near to it.
Posted by b on March 4, 2021 at 18:04 UTC |
Permalink
Frankly, Biden's speech to the grand poobahs sounded more like a plea for understanding
than a promise, and if you take what the policy paper says at face value it suggests that
"Biden" understands that we have to change to compete. It is also an admission that they
have presided over a period of decline in Uncle Sugar land, so of course they don't want to
dwell on that. I think Biden is worried the "owners" wom't let him do anything.
And it is totally appropriate that Biden is the guy up there trying to deal with this
mess, because he as one of the prime intigators or the present situation, going back 40
years.
Patrick Porter's book, The False Promise of Liberal Order, is good.
But, his realist critique of vulgar liberal propaganda for US imperialism doesn't locate
the source or material roots of US grand strategy.
Realist theory understands power, hegemony and balancing only in terms of military
power. That is the only currency of power in realist thinking, because realism rests on a
state centricity which insists on the autonomy of the state from any social or economic
factors. Military power is thus all that remains.
This theory obviously fails to explain the real history of US foreign policy, which has
used militarism and other tools in support of strategic economic interests on a global
scale, primarily in the South. The military balance of power is by and large only an
expression of the economic balance of power and the class interests of ruling classes
derived from it.
Porter and other realists point out the contradictions of liberal theory and practice
but fail to provide a scientific explanation for consistent US policies.
There is a partnership currently but it's not yet an alliance. The rationale for one is
very strong. Russia needs China or it will be overwhelmed by a hostile US and fairly
hostile Europe. China needs Russia to save it from a resource embargo by US and allies.
Together they will form a huge power bloc in Eurasia combining their respective territories
with joint influence over Central Asia. Other countries in Asia like South Korea, Vietnam
and India will see bloc and decide to stay neutral or side with the China-Russia bloc.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving faster.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving
faster.
Posted by: dsfco | Mar 4 2021 18:54 utc | 4
A guess: PRC having vastly greater economic power thinks its share of influence should
be greater. Russia having vastly superior military power & technology, disagrees. For
example the Chinese government might like access to the most advanced Russian military
technology; the Russians having been invaded many times from both East & West, probably
take the long view.
This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Wendy Sherman, nominated by the Biden
White House to serve as deputy secretary of state.
The career diplomat answered the usual questions on how she views United States posture toward American rivals and official
enemies like Russia, China, and Iran. Once again it was Sen. Rand Paul who had the most direct pushback and biting
criticism against an administration that seems bent on returning to the foreign adventurism and unilateral military
interventionism of the Obama and Bush years.
"We've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton,"
Paul said of President Biden
during his turn to question Sherman. Paul is especially outraged over Biden's Syria strike without consulting Congress last
week.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HanUqh_-CE
During the above exchange with Wendy Sherman, Paul in his concluding remarks had blasted away at Biden's vision of the
world, citing past failed Democratic-led military interventions in places like Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
"I think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss and that's
something I'm really concerned with,"
Paul said.
"All I will say is that
we're bombing now again in Syria without Congressional
approval and we're sending more convoys in there without Congressional approval
. It's a messy war - it's been
going on forever, there's nothing good that's going to come out of our involvement," Paul explained in his statement.
"People say
'well US lives are at risk'
...
yeah
because we put'em there
. We put them in the middle of a civil war that's largely over but can continue if we
keep putting troops into there... to put our troops as a 'trip wire' to get involved in a further escalation of this war."
And that's when the Republican Senator from Kentucky blasted President Biden on his Syria stance and general
interventionist foreign policy:
"I hope that we'll be sane voices and I hope that you'll be one of those," he said addressing Sherman.
"But I don't have a great deal of confidence that we've actually gone away from John Bolton,
I've
think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss, and that's something I'm very concerned with
."
Sherman in response had tried to claim that the Biden admin is not trying to get more deeply involved in the Syria
conflict, but maintained the 'countering ISIS' stance that the Pentagon has used for years to argue it must continue the
occupation of the northeast portion of the country.
Biden has been a major disappointment for those who hoped that he'd change course
regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts
Who hoped that? He didn't run on such a platform. "Engagement with the world" and a
"restoration of the pre-Trump era" was his platform. Don't ask me why but this made him
more popular. He was literally the VP in the most interventionist Presidency in US
history.
... People like Giraldi sometimes seem like plants put in place to discredit
anti-interventionism by trying to make it synonymous with anti-semitism.
In the late 1980s, Rannie Amiri, an independent commentator on political affairs, challenged
then-Senator Joe Biden on his stance toward the Israel-Palestine conflict following a campus
speech that Biden gave, asking him:
Rather than succumb to the influence of various lobbying groups in Washington, such as
AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- which promotes the views of Israel's
right-wing Likud Party], and the untold amount of money they use to dictate policy,
wouldn't it be more prudent to examine the real effects that collective punishment, daily
humiliation, and countless civilian casualties inflicted by the Israelis have on an
occupied population, and use that understanding to formulate a more rational approach
toward the Palestinians?
Here is Biden response to that:
At the end of the exchange, Biden turned, put his arm around Amiri's shoulder, and
addressed the audience.
If this was not such a fine, articulate, and sincere young man, and he implied that my
vote had been bought, I would give him a swift kick in the ass.
The audience roared in applause, and Amiri sat back down to his chair defeated.
However, a friend rose up to defend him, telling Biden: "If my father heard you say such a
thing, I believe he would have done the same to you first."
The tribal stupidity of the people who support Israel first is beyond words. Who would
think in the 20th and the 21th century we would be led by primitive thinking of tribal
fantasies from thousands of year ago?
Most of the us in the west did not know that this has been going on for so long since we
have been deluded with the term "free press" to describe our press in the west. We are slowly
waking up to reality with some "freedom" here and there on the internet like this site.
So, Biden has been a major disappointment for those who expected that he might change
course regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts while also having
the good sense and courage to make relations with countries like Iran and Israel responsive
to actual U.S. interests.
You're giving the morons way too much credit, Sir. It's doubtful even 5% of voters know or
care about geopolitics, and probably less than 1% who voted based on fraudsident biden's
foreign policies.
For 5 years it was nonstop Trump-hatred from the ((( lügenpresse ))) even as Trump
did weasel jared's bidding. Stevie Fking Wonder could see the election was rigged.
The USA is kaput, the supreme joke spineless
The ((( Underminers ))) are a c ** t-hair away from total control.
The Free United States must part ways with the devils in DC. Texas, Florida,
Oklahoma, the Dakotas and Montana for starters.
"Oh say, can you see! By Dawn's early light; a pro-dollar trade; that puts the bears to
flight?" Bloomberg Daybreak this morning boldly states "American exceptionalism is back"
(baby). Apparently better-than-expected data and corporate earnings and the prospects of fiscal
stimulus show the USA is still the global standout after all. As a result, bearish USD trades
touted for the first month of the year need to suddenly be unwound: EUR is now back below 1.20,
AUD is clinging to 0.76, and JPY is past 105.50, while as an EM proxy, MXN is back to 20.38 at
time of writing vs. 19.55 on January 21.
... ... ...
President Biden has called on the military in Myanmar to relinquish power after their recent
coup. What happens when they refuse? A signature criticism of the Obama foreign policy team was
its refusal to match US rhetoric (e.g., "pivot to Asia") with any substantive action (e.g., in
the South China Sea or Syria). The new team gave interviews before assuming office saying they
had learned these lessons. So what options with teeth does the US have for the generals in
Naypidaw to back their demand? Sanctions are meaningless for a group who rarely travel abroad
and whom can look to China for support if needed, despite their coolness towards Beijing to
date.
This underlines the need for any top dog (or cat) to build up a pack (or clowder). Here
again we see problems. Many articles have been written about the new US administration's call
for the EU to stand alongside it to create new global frameworks favourable to the West (and by
extension for USD) and not China (and CNY); and about how the EU is not willing to step up to
that plate because of French exceptionalism and German Merkel-cantilism. Macron now says
the EU should not gang up on China with the US : " This kind of common front against China
risks pushing Beijing to lower its cooperation on issues like combatting climate change, and
exacerbating its aggressive behaviour in Asia, including in the South China Sea, " he says. So
will the US response then have to be Trumpian and EUR negative, like last time? If not, then
what exactly?
Of course, the previous administration had been building bridges to India, which has its own
issues with China. However, this relationship is still in its early stages, and India has
traditionally looked to Russia for muscle, a role Moscow would be happy to play again. In that
regard, the White House backing large anti-government protests in New Delhi against an
agricultural reform programme ostensibly to the US's liking, and criticizing the government for
cutting off the internet to try to disrupt them, is unlikely to help build bridges: indeed,
India has already drawn comparisons to the events of 6 January in the US Capitol, showing the
US is not as exceptional as it likes to project it is. These kind of shifts can matter, even if
this is just one small step on a much longer journey (and USD trend channel).
Meanwhile, the Aussie government (which has also never and will never target house prices,
"just land, bricks, mortar, etc.") might be wondering what the US will help do about a report
that
a Chinese company is planning to build a new city on a Papua New Guinea island near Australia's
northern border . 'New Daru City' allegedly includes an industrial zone, seaport, business
and commercial zone, along with a resort and residential area. Will Canberra regard this as a
market-driven response to the well-known Chinese demand for lifestyle residences in the vibrant
cultural hub that is the PNG hinterland, or as a Bond-villain project to develop a port just
200km from their Northern Territory? The PNG Prime Minister himself says he is "unaware" of
this proposal(!) Yes, this may well not come to pass; but one can again see the paving stones
being prepared for alternative paths for currencies like AUD, USD, and CNY (to say nothing of
PNG's Kina) to travel over the course of the 2020s.
Meanwhile, the US can at least rely on the UK, as usual, where yesterday saw regulators ban
China's CGTN TV news service, and the Telegraph also reports that three Chinese spies posing as
journalists have just been expelled from the country. Somehow, along with the whole BNO
passports issue, this is not likely to help ensure the "golden era" of Sino-British relations
promised under previous UK leadership.
But will it ensure a golden era of Bido-BoJo relations? That is another path as yet
untrod.
Happy Friday! "We love it so much, I think you do too."
On Thursday afternoon President Biden gave a much anticipated and wide-ranging speech laying
out his foreign policy agenda during a visit to the State Department. As expected much of it
was a repudiation of Trump's "America First" vision - though without mentioning Donald Trump by
name. His address to State Department diplomats and staff was centered around the theme of his
words: "America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy."
Alarming for anyone who has called for an end to the vision which sees Washington as
essentially acting the like to 'global police force' - which unfortunately became a
(disastrous) reality starting in the Bush years and under the neocons, Biden vowed that as
commander-in-chief he would "defend democracy globally" .
He urged for the US to rebuild "the muscles of democratic alliances that have atrophied from
four years of neglect and abuse." He emphasized that "We can't do it alone."
Of course, the big question is what will that look like, with many expecting a return to the
kind of 'humanitarian interventionism' abroad and liberal internationalism that defined the
Obama years . This often took the form of covert wars (with the foremost example being Syria)
and military interventions under the guise international coalitions (such as NATO's war on
Libya) aimed at regime change.
"We must meet this new moment of accelerating global challenges – from a pandemic to
the climate crisis to nuclear proliferation – that will only be solved by nations working
together in common cause," Biden said in the afternoon address. "That must start with
diplomacy, rooted in America's most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing
opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, treating every person with
dignity."
Here are some of the highlights and significant foreign policy changes in US posture...
Russia
Biden said that "we will not hesitate to raise the costs on Russia." At a moment Russian
opposition leaders are lobbying Washington for the targeted use of Magnitsky sanctions on
Putin's inner circle, Biden actually mentioned the imprisoned opposition activist Alexey
Navalny by name.
He called on the Kremlin to release Navalny "immediately and without condition" while
expressing that authorities had targeted him for "exposing corruption" of Putin and top Kremlin
leadership. And
further :
He said that he "made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my
predecessor, that the days the United States rolling over in the face of Russia's aggressive
action" – pointing to cyber attacks from the SolarWinds breach and the poisoning of
opposition figure Alexei Navalny – "are over."
On January 19th, the US Senate held confirmation hearings for Joe Biden's Secretary of State
nominee Antony Blinken. Blinken has a reputation on both sides of the aisle for being
exceptionally qualified for the job of America's top diplomat, which is surprising considering
he was on the wrong side of every major foreign policy blunder of the last 20 years ;
Iraq, Libya, and Syria .
When Senator Rand Paul
asked Antony Blinken what lessons he has learned from his disastrous foreign policy record
in Libya and Syria, Blinken replied that after "some hard thinking" he's proud that he has done
"everything we possibly can to make sure that diplomacy is the first answer, not the last
answer, and that war and conflict is our last resort."
Of course war is the last resort. Even the most hawkish war criminals would agree that war
is the last resort. But the question is, war is the last resort to accomplish what? If war is
the last resort to get a country to fully capitulate to Washington's demands then eventually
the US will be at war with everyone. To Blinken, war as the last resort can only be understood
in the same way a mugger considers shooting his victim as a last resort to stealing their
wallet.
Blinken displayed his hubris a few minutes later when he said, "The door should remain open"
for Georgia to join NATO under the justification of curbing Russian aggression .
Rand Paul informed Blinken, "This would be adding Georgia, that's occupied [by Russia], to
NATO. Under Article 5, then we would go to war ."
Senator Paul is right. According to Washington, Russia has been
occupying 20 percent of Georgia since 2008. Under the principle of collective defense in
Article 5 of NATO, the US would be obligated to treat Russia's occupation of the country of
Georgia the same way the US would treat a Russian occupation of the US state of Georgia. That
sounds like a recipe for war. But don't worry, peaceniks, Antony Blinken has assured us that
war is the last resort!
Blinken's framing of the issue exposes his disingenuous approach. Russian aggression is a
term used by Washington insiders to describe a Russian reaction to western aggression. Blinken
knows that the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia was not Russian aggression, he calls it that
because it suits his agenda and the American press is dependably ignorant enough to not ask
questions.
In the 2008 war, Georgia
was the aggressor against the South Ossetians, a people who are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and
who have never --
not even for one day -- considered themselves a part of Georgia. The Ossetians have a
history of Russian
partiality ; they were among the first ethnic groups in the region to join the Russian
Empire in the 19th century and the USSR in the 1920s. Today, ethnic Ossetians straddle both
sides of the current Russian border, and they are more aligned with the Russian government than with the
Georgian government.
When Georgia gained sovereignty from the former Soviet Union in 1991, South Ossetia declared
its independence. In response, Georgian forces invaded South Ossetia, initiating an armed
conflict that killed more than
2,000 people . In 1992, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Sochi between Georgia, Russia
and South Ossetia, which created a
tripartite peacekeeping force led by Russia. Although the international community never
acknowledged South Ossetia's independence, they have enjoyed political autonomy since the 1992
Sochi agreement.
The Sochi agreement held up until Georgia's ultra-nationalist President Mikheil Saakashvili
came to power in the 2003 western-backed
bloodless " Rose
Revolution " coup-d'etat. The pro-western President Saakashvili advocated joining the EU
and NATO, and insisted on asserting Georgian rule over South
Ossetia. U.S. President George Bush
supported the new Georgian president's effort to bring Georgia into NATO, which for Russia
would mean bringing a hostile military up to its border. In 2006, President Saakashvili offered
South Ossetia autonomy in exchange for a political settlement with Georgia. A
referendum was held, and the South Ossetian people overwhelmingly reaffirmed their desire for
independence from Georgia.
In August, 2008, After exchanging artillery fire with South Ossetia,
Georgia invaded South Ossetia's capital city of Tskhinvali, killing
1,400 civilians and
18 Russian peacekeepers . Georgia's attack triggered a Russian invasion into South Ossetia
and Abkhazia (another breakaway region) to restore stability and protect peacekeeping
forces.
Russia is by no means innocent -- they used
disproportionate force attacking targets inside Georgia -- but only a Russophobic shill
would conclude that this war was somehow caused by Russian aggression. The idea that Russia had
no business intervening is laughable. Under the
1992 Sochi agreement , Russia took charge of a peacekeeping coalition to help prevent
exactly the scenario that happened in the summer of 2008.
If George Bush had succeeded in bringing Georgia into NATO, the United States may have been
dragged into war with Russia in 2008. Antony Blinken claims that NATO membership deters Russian
aggression, but does he really believe that Russia would have been deterred from intervening to
protect its own peacekeeping force? Does Blinken believe that Georgia -- backed by the U.S.
military -- would have acted more cautiously in South Ossetia, or is it more likely they would
have been bolder?
It's undeniable that it is in Russia's best interest to have pro-Russian countries on its
borders. But pretending as if Russia is going to march into Tbilisi and reabsorb the entire
country of Georgia into Russia is a level of paranoia that should disqualify anyone from having
an opinion on the subject. The military conflict in Georgia is about the two breakaway regions
and their right to self determination. Russia's self interest happens to align with the wishes
of the people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
By supporting Georgia, America -- the champion of democracy and self determination -- has
adopted the position that South Ossetians didn't really mean to repeatedly choose independence
when given the option. This is a situation where America's professed values are diametrically
opposed to its policy of countering Russian influence everywhere on the map.
Antony Blinken should pause to consider if America's policy objectives are worth fighting a
war for. Is it worth confronting Russia in South Ossetia? Was it worth confronting Russia over
Crimea and the Donbas in
Ukraine ? Is it a good idea to withdraw from the INF
Nuclear Treaty and the
Open Skies Treaty ? Should we have spent the last 30 years marching NATO -- a military
alliance hostile to Russia -- right up to the doorsteps of
Russia ? Is any of this really making us safer?
Blinken has bought into his own propaganda. To Blinken, regardless of the stubborn details
of history, every conflict on Russia's border is simply Russian aggression. Washington's
solution is the expansion of NATO, which Russia describes as "
NATO encirclement. " This is an unacceptable military threat to Russia, who has
a deep distrust of western intentions due to a long history of western invasions into Russia.
Antony Blinken still lives in a bipolar world in which the United States and Russia are
existential threats to each other's existence. Every conflict and every alliance is only viewed
through the lens of the New Cold War crusade against Russia. This maniacal crusade could thrust
America in the unthinkable abyss of nuclear war.
Rand Paul got his answer, Antony Blinken learned nothing from all his mistakes! The danger
isn't merely resorting to war too early, the danger is in sticking our noses in conflicts that
we have no business being in. War should be the last resort to defending America's people and
it's homeland from foreign invasion; it should not be the last resort to enforcing America's
utopian vision on the world, and it certainly shouldn't be the last resort to prevent an ethnic
group in the South Caucasus -- that almost no American has ever heard of -- from the right to
self-determination.
Kenny MacDonald is a former Navy SEAL and Afghanistan War veteran. He is currently pursuing
a bachelor's degree in history. Youtube Channel . Medium . Facebook .
6 Warning Signs from Biden's First Week in Office The "progressive" candidate praised as
a "woke bloke" seems to be carrying on where all his authoritarian Imperialist predecessors
left off Kit Knightly
What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the
recently "elected" administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.
1. VACCINATION
PASSPORTS
I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity
passes or the like) was just a "conspiracy theory", the paranoid fantasy of fringe "covidiots".
All the way back in December, when they were
getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can't do basic maths .
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law,
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
(including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant
international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic
versions of ICVPs.
2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS
Biden's cabinet is praised as the "most diverse" in history, but will hiring a few non-white
people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn't look like
it.
His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland , a neocon warmonger and
one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan , another neocon
warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the
Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken , is also an inveterate US
Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria.
Biden's pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this
role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of "progressive" voice int
his cabinet. He's a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the
board of Raytheon Technologies , an arms manufacturer and military contractor.
As "diverse" as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender there is most certainly no
"diversity" of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.
So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that's
already been displayed in
3. IRAQ
Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the
war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump's
more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse
that decision.
The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to
take its military off their soil , so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically
there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them
before.
4. AFGHANISTAN
Turns out the US can't withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal
with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.
Joe Biden has already committed to "reviewing"
this deal . Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden's admin wanted:
to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any
resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place".
As a great man once
said , nothing someone says before the word "but" really counts. The US will not be
withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will
simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist
attacks.
5. AND SYRIA
Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden's "diverse" team
will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.
Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United
States,
unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.
We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the
President , telling Trump they had followed his orders but not withdrawing a single man.
This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a
joke in the media when it was finally revealed.
There will be no need for any such duplicity now Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a
vocal critic of the decision to withdraw , claiming it gave ISIS a "new lease of life".
Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was
seen entering Syria from Iraq
.
6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM
We called this before the
inauguration . They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned
from Nancy Pelosi's desk it was clear where it was all going.
Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down
approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a
bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for
algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.
That last part is key. The "crack down on social media" part, because the anti-Domestic
Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called
"misinformation".
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to
"rein in" the media :
We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just
spew disinformation and misinformation,"
And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John
Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:
They're casting a wide net. Expect "extremist", "bigot" and "racist" to be just a few of the
words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. "Conspiracy theorist"
will be used a lot, too.
Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the "anyone who disagrees with us is
literally insane" model. With many articles actually talking about "de-programming" Trump
voters. The Atlantic suggests "mental
hygiene" would cure the MAGA problem.
Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming
that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that "de-radicalise" "conspiracy
theorists" who are on the "spectrum
of radicalisation" .
*
As I said at the beginning, it's been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his
biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent
and strict clampdowns on "misinformation".
Blinken does not seem to have repented from his fundamentalist belief in American
imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
Barring an earthquake in Washington, Antony Blinken is set to become the new U.S. Secretary
of State and America's top diplomat. The youthful and telegenic Blinken (58) takes over from
Mike Pompeo who was America's representative to the world under the last Trump
administration.
The contrast could not be more stark. In place of Pompeo's thuggish, rough-edged style,
Blinken has the appearance of consummate diplomat. He's fluent in French owing to a European
education, he's urbane and sophisticated and comes from a family which has diplomacy in its
genes. His father was an ambassador to Hungary and an advisor to President John F Kennedy. An
uncle was ambassador to Belgium.
Blinken has Hungarian and Russian Jewish ancestry. His mother remarried a Polish-American
Jewish survivor of the Nazi holocaust. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate this week,
Blinken
told the story of how his stepfather escaped from a Nazi death march in Bavaria and was
eventually rescued by an American tank driven by an African-American officer.
That story has shaped Blinken's worldview of America's prestige and international role. He's
a proponent of U.S. military interventionism with a presumption of moral duty. He's an advocate
of America working with European allies and upholding the transatlantic alliance – in
contrast to Trump's boorish America First sloganeering. Understandably, Blinken is imbued with
an unshakable belief in "American exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny" as a world leader.
The Senators at his confirmation hearing this week
swooned as Blinken spoke. He's certain to be confirmed as the new Secretary of State in the
coming days. That's because he is seen to be perfect for the task of restoring America's
international image which has been so badly tarnished under Trump and his grumpy gofer Pompeo.
The Europeans will lap up Blinken and his transatlantic romanticism.
Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with "humility and
confidence", which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this "quiet
American" is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the "world's policeman".
If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national security
advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken rose to become
deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama administration. In those roles
he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which turned out to be utterly
disastrous.
He was a big proponent of U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the
toppling and murder of Muammar Gaddafi. That intervention along with other NATO powers has left
a ruinous legacy not only for Libya but for North Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe.
Blinken was also a point-man in Obama's intervention in Syria where the U.S. (and other NATO
powers) supplied weapons to anti-government militants. The so-called "rebels" were in fact
myriad terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamists. Up to half a
million people have been killed in the decade-long Syrian war and much of that blood is on
America's hands from its de facto support for terror gangs. Maybe Blinken genuinely thought he
was supporting "pro-democracy rebels". But even if we give him the benefit of doubt, the upshot
is still a disaster of American interventionism.
Another catastrophic consequence of Blinken's policymaking is Yemen. Under his direction,
the Obama administration backed the Saudi war on its southern neighbor beginning in March 2015
and continuing to this day. Yemen has become the worst humanitarian crisis in the world with
millions facing starvation amid Saudi aerial bombardment carried out with U.S. warplanes and
logistics.
The new Biden administration has indicated it will withdraw military support for Saudi
Arabia in its war on Yemen. But that doesn't absolve the U.S., and Blinken in particular, for
having created the horrendous quagmire from which it is belatedly trying to extricate itself
from.
What's rather perplexing, however, is that Blinken does not seem to have repented from his
fundamentalist belief in American imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
During his Senate hearings, he
showed little regret about America's illegal bombing of Libya and its arming of jihadists
in Syria.
He described the world with the conventional brainwashed American ideology as being a place
where China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are enemies that must be confronted. He also
told Senators he was in favor of increasing supplies of lethal weaponry to the Ukraine and
its rabidly anti-Russian regime in Kiev. Recall that it was the Obama administration which
instigated a coup d'état in Kiev against an elected president in February 2014. The new
regime was and is dominated by far-right nationalists who laud past links to Nazi Germany. If
Blinken has his way the war against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine will escalate and could
ignite a bigger confrontation between Russia and the U.S.
One of the hallmarks of the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev is its espousal of Neo-Nazi
traditions and in particular antisemitic hatred.
Given Antony Blinken's own Jewish ancestry and his own intimate connection to the Nazi
holocaust, you do have to question his competence if he becomes America's foreign policy
leader. His boss President Joe Biden has fondly lionized Blinken as a "superstar" of diplomacy.
Superficially perhaps, he has finesse and intelligence. But in much the same basic way of
adhering to American imperialism, Blinken is as crude and thuggish as his predecessor Pompeo.
He just projects a more plausible look and sound, which is most desirable as a moral cover for
America's criminal imperialism.
Blinken is
known to self-deprecate his "insatiable habit" for making up bad puns. For example, on one
occasion when he was addressing an audience on policy regarding the Arctic, he began by joking
he would be "breaking the ice". Given his ability to pursue destructive dead-end policies, he
might therefore appreciate the moniker "Secretary of State Tony Blinkered".
In a matter of hours, Biden's key national security people -- Antony Blinken as secretary of
state, Avril Haines as director of national intelligence, and Lloyd Austin as defense secretary
-- gave us a remarkably fulsome idea of what we are in for these next four years.
Haines and Austin, neither of whose records are to be admired, are at bottom functionaries
who were nominated and swiftly confirmed because they do what they are told and do not think
too much -- always a career-advancer in Washington.
It is instead Blinken, who is said to enjoy some kind of
"mind-meld" with Biden, that we must consider carefully. (Such a meld must be odd
terrain.)
Blinken's Senate
testimony last Tuesday sprawled over four hours. It is best to scrutinize his remarks while
seated in a chair with sturdy armrests, ideally to calm one's nerves with a pot of chamomile
tea.
Seen or read as a whole, those four hours gave us an extraordinary display of how empire
works and how it prolongs itself. One by one, Blinken's senatorial interlocutors told him in so
many words, "Son, this is what you need to say if you want our confirmation. We want you to
endorse our commitment to aggression, to unlawful interventions, to 'regime change' ops, to
merciless sanctions, and altogether to the empire. But you must make it look nice. Make it look
thoughtful and complicated and considered."
July 14, 2016: Vice President Joe Biden, right, and Deputy Secretary of State Antony
Blinken. (Air Force, Christopher Hubenthal)
I am convinced, having endured the entire C–Span recording, that what I watched was
sheer ritual. Blinken won the Senate's support and now succeeds the shockingly bovine Mike
Pompeo at State. He will do so, however, with the élan and faux sophistication
our nakedly bankrupt foreign policy now requires if the American pantomime is to be sustained
another four years.
Among Blinken's many rather sad-to-witness "Yes sirs," two standout: his finely chiseled
endorsement of Pompeo's reckless assassination a year ago of Qassem Soleimani, Iran's revered
military commander ("Taking him out was the right thing to do"), and his approval of the Trump
administration's decision to send lethal arms to the manically corrupt regime in Kiev
("Senator, I support providing that lethal defensive assistance to Ukraine," when the Obama
administration, from which he comes, did not.)
Late last year, Blinken
appeared on "Intelligence Matters," the podcast run by Michael Morrell, the coup-mongering
former deputy director at the Central Intelligence Agency and now -- of course -- a regular
commentator on the televisions news networks. In their exchange, the two took up the question
of our "forever wars" and Biden's well-advertised commitment to ending them. Here is a snippet
from Blinken's remarks:
"As for ending the forever wars, large-scale deployment of large, standing U.S. forces in
conflict zones with no clear strategy should and will end under his [Biden's] watch. But we
also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless wars with large-scale,
open-ended deployment of U.S. forces with [sic], for example, discreet, small-scale
sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces to support local actors. In ending the
endless wars we have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brushstroke."
This is what we are in for these coming years, the hyper-rational irrationality of the
middling technocrat. There will be adjustments at the margin, reconsiderations of method. There
will be no consideration whatsoever of America's hegemonic objectives -- of the imperial
project.
Blinken's testimony reflected these bitter truths start to finish.
Changes to the Iran Deal
July 14, 2015: President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, announcing the signing
of the Iran-nuclear agreement. (White House)
Of the various questions the new secretary of state took up during his confirmation
hearings, Iran is the most pressing. Senator Bob Menendez, Blinken's interlocutor in this case,
insisted that yes, the U.S. wants to rejoin the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs,
but only if this includes prohibitions against Tehran's "destabilizing activities" and a
missile program that Iran justly considers essential to its security.
An honest, clear-eyed diplomat who wanted to get somewhere with Tehran would have rejected
the very frame of Menendez's line of inquiry, with its references to "support for terrorism"
and "funding and feeding its proxies." But Blinken read his cues and tucked right in:
"The president-elect believes that if Iran comes back into compliance we would, too, but
we would use that as a platform to seek a longer, stronger agreement and also, as you have
pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and Iran's
destabilizing activities. This would be the objective."
This is sheer charade. Blinken knows as well as anyone else that the added conditions the
Biden regime will require before rejoining the agreement -- an end to Iran's ballistic missile
programs and its support for the Syrian government against Islamists and the illegal U.S.
incursion -- effectively cancel all chances that the U.S. will rejoin the accord.
I
predicted in this space shortly after Biden was elected that he and his foreign policy
people only pretended to be serious about reviving the nuclear agreement with Iran. Blinken's
testimony confirms this.
Over the weekend The Times of Israel , citing Channel 12 television,
reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sending Yossi Cohen, chief of Mossad and
a close confidant, to Washington to "set out terms" for any revival of the nuclear deal. Israel
purports to "set out terms," and Biden will receive this spook? This is getting completely
unserious. Completely.
On China, Russia, and Venezuela: Blinken was putty in the hands of the Foreign Relations
Committee's across-the-board hawks. A two-fronted new Cold War across both oceans -- Sinophobia
and Russophobia all at once -- is to be our reality these next four years.
Over the weekend, to be noted, the American Embassy in Moscow had the gall to broadcast
routes protesters could take to demonstrations in various Russian cities to dispute Alexei
Navlany's arrest . A good start.
Marco Rubio, the coup-loving senator from Florida, wanted to know if Blinken thought the
U.S. should continue backing Juan Guaidó, the buffoon Rubio and Pompeo puffed up as
Venezuela's "interim leader" as part of a failed coup operation a couple of years ago.
Blinken:
"I very much agree with you, senator, first of all with regard to a number of the steps
that were taken toward Venezuela in recent years, including recognizing Mr. Guaidó and
seeking to increase pressure on the regime . We need an effective policy that can restore
Venezuela to democracy, and how can we best advance that ball? Maybe we need to look at how
we more effectively target the sanctions that we have ."
Grim, grim times lie ahead if Blinken runs State as he promised the Senate he would.
There are those among us who look for shafts of light. People I greatly respect (some,
anyway) thought it was good news when Biden named William Burns, a career foreign service
officer, to head the CIA. At last diplomacy, not unlawful interventions!
Over the weekend, there were reports
that Biden will review -- not more at this point -- the designation of Yemen's Houthis as
terrorists, a label Pompeo affixed as he emptied his desk last week. Finally, we will stop
supporting the Saudis' savagery!
People believe what they need to believe these days, I find, and belief overrides cognition
in many such cases. I caution these people. At bottom Blinken demonstrated for us that no one
who purports to alter our imperial course will ever be allowed to hold high office. For people
such as Blinken, it is merely a question of wielding influence without having any.
This is where Americans live -- in a crumbled republic no longer capable of changing.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
John Allen aka Ol' Hippy , January 26, 2021 at 12:16
I'm 66, almost 67, and will, most likely, never see any real peace from the US government.
A big portion of the economy is based on imperialist actions and the manufacture of conflicts
around the globe mainly to keeps the arms makers in business. Or simply, war. And no, there
is no nation willing to risk the wrath of the US government by trying to halt this insane
posture of aggression, it's just too big and has a momentum all its own. Biden will continue
unabated this absurd, insanely expensive machine to its eventual implosion in the near
future. All the parts of the fall of the economy are in place, all that's needed is some ill
defined tipping point to be crossed. Perhaps, a war with Iran?
"Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with 'humility and
confidence', which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this 'quiet
American' is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the 'world's policeman'.
"If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
"Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national
security advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken
rose to become deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama
administration. In those roles he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which
turned out to be utterly disastrous."
The once upon a time manufactured aura of Virtue projected by the Outlaw US Empire that
was swallowed by so many naïve nations has vanished with nothing other than its stark
ugliness as a replacement. Refusal to see that reality is what Xi just referred to again as
"arrogance" which puts Blinken into the same ideological camp as Pompeo. As Global Times notes
, if the Outlaw US Empire's attitude's not going to change, than why should China's as
Pompeo's constant lying is replaced by Psaki's:
"When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question Monday about US-China
relations, she said that 'China is growing more authoritarian at home and more assertive
abroad,' adding that China 'is engaged in conduct that hurts American workers, blunts [US]
technological edge, and threatens [US] alliances and [US] influence in international
organizations.' She also noted that Washington is 'starting from an approach of patience as
it relates to [its] relationship with China.'"
The editor's response to such inanity:
"Psaki's statement shows that the Biden administration's view and characterization of
China is virtually identical to those of the Trump administration. Psaki stressed that 'We're
in a serious competition with China. Strategic competition with China is a defining feature
of the 21st century,' reflecting that the Biden administration only cares about a "new
approach" to holding China accountable."
And Psaki's words are the same as Blinken's, which were the same as Pompeo's and Trump's.
In other words, the hole digging by the Outlaw US Empire in its relations with the rest of
the world will continue, which will cause further deterioration of its domestic Great
Depression 2.0. Yesterday I posted a comment that highlighted Putin's expounding on the
further enhancement of the educational component of Russia's Social Contract that is
impossible for Navalny's backers to match. On the previous thread, a good comparison was made
between the Yeltsin years and the ongoing drowning of the Outlaw US Empire. The Reset that's
in the works isn't the one envisioned by Global Neoliberals like Klaus Schwab of the
WEF/Davos crew. It's what Xi spoke of yesterday that I commented upon and Escobar reported on
today. The Winds of Change are blowing again, but there's a gaping hole in the USA's wind
sock so it can't see in which direction it's blowing.
blinken is bad news.. i think that is very obvious from a superficial read on him.. the usa
can't get out of the ditch it has made for itself.. nothing is gonna change...
'liberal interventionism' has always been the hallmark of the US Liberal Class and its
foreign policy Establishment, especially since at least Wilson's jumping into WWI.
Has the US ever not intervened in Latin America whenever it felt like it or thought its
"interests" were at stake?
I think Caitlan J. has a good grasp on what to expect from the Biden war mongering crowd
that has recently moved into DC once again:
"....Trump's base has been forcefully pushing the narrative that the previous president
didn't start any new wars, which while technically true ignores his murderous actions like
vetoing the bill to save Yemen from U.S.-backed genocide and actively blocking aid to its
people, murdering untold tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, rolling
out many world-threatening Cold War escalations against Russia, engaging in insane
brinkmanship with Iran, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the
previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians, and reducing military
accountability for those airstrikes....
....Rather than a throwback to "new wars" and the old-school ground invasions of the Bush
era, the warmongering we'll be seeing from the Biden administration is more likely to look
like this. More starvation sanctions. More proxy conflicts. More cold war. More coups. More
special ops. More drone strikes. More slow motion strangulation, less ham-fisted overt
warfare...."
---
Simply put, more small scale wars/ops mostly by proxy, more support for local wankers
(like Guaido in Venezuela, who has incredibly little popular support), and more of these
killing sanctions, which are especially pernicious to the civilian populations in vulnerable
countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Venezuela, etc.
@Levtraro to travel. It
will be a perk for them – a reward for being good servants. I can even forsee that
airlines will refit their fleets, stripping out coach class altogether, as the people who buy
the cheap seats won't be flying anymore anyway. A lot of industries will down-size so as to
only serve the quality customers.
And rich people are buying up land – lots of it. They are becoming what they already
deem themselves to be: an aristocracy, and a hereditary one at that.
Neo-liberal GloboCap is morping into neo-feudalism. They'll own everthing, and they'll be
happy. You'll own nothing and you'll be happy (or else).
I disagree. Current GloboCap elites and elites thoughout history have needed large
populations to look down to and to harvest for all they can yield. It is not good enough to
have all that you want when all others also have all that they want.
It is not nice enough to travel in your own or rented Gulf Stream or First Class or
Business Class when economy seats are non-existent. It is not good enough that a machine
calls you Sir instead of a real lowly human.
Real respect, admiration and adulation, could never be replaced by programmed respect,
admiration and adulation.
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
"... Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported , Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very fortunate to have them in public service." ..."
"... We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone. ..."
"... Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves on the wrong end of a noose or a knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by Washington. ..."
"... Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ." ..."
While the saccharine continues to ooze from the mainstream media for the incoming Biden
Administration, the real iron fist of what will be the Biden foreign policy is starting to
materialize. As if on cue, major bombings in Baghdad – by ISIS remember them? –
have
opened the door for the Biden Administration to not only cancel President Trump's troop
drawdown from Iraq but to actually begin sending troops back into Iraq.
Is this to be Iraq War 4.0? 3.7? 5.0? Anybody's guess.
If Biden uses this sudden – and convenient – unrest in Iraq as a trigger to
return US troops (and bombs), it should not surprise anyone. As Professor Barbara Ransby points
out in this video , Biden did much
more to make the disastrous 2003 attack on Iraq happen than just vote "yes" on the
authorization to use force. As Professor Ransby reminds us, Biden used the full power of his
position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure the Senate approved
George W. Bush's lie-based war on Iraq. Biden prevented any experts who challenged the "Saddam
has WMDs and he's about to use them" narrative from being heard by Members of Congress,
guaranteeing that only the pro-war narrative was heard.
As much as Bush or Cheney, Biden owns the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which killed a million
Iraqi civilians. And he may well be taking us back.
One figure in the Biden Administration who will play a pivotal role in returning the US to
its hyper-interventionism in the Middle East is Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken . As
a Biden Senate staffer in 2003, he helped the then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman put
together a pro-war coalition in the Democratic Party to support President Bush's Republican
push for invasion.
Later on Blinken was Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, where he successfully made
the case that destroying both Libya and Syria were fantastic ideas. Both countries drowned in
the Obama Administration's "liberation" bloodbath and neither country has recovered from the
"democracy" brought by Washington, but being a neocon foreign policy ideologue means never
having to say you're sorry.
And Blinken isn't.
Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported ,
Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be
very fortunate to have them in public service."
We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has
blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you
promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his
addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone.
Paul reminded the Secretary of State nominee that his only criticism of the Syria "regime
change" plan was that the US did not successfully overthrow Assad. But the US was using
jihadist proxies to overthrow the
secular Assad , so what does this say about Blinken's judgement?
"The lesson of these wars," said
Paul , is that 'regime change' doesn't work!"
Paul added:
Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again it's a
disaster.
You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger.
Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of
the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves
on the wrong end of a
noose or a
knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by
Washington.
Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of
interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by
Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ."
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Joe Biden will ram through warped liberal social experiments masquerading as credible,
time-tested programs designed to stabilize the nation.
It was a stark image never before seen in Washington, DC, and one that bodes ill for the
future prospects of the country. A locked down capital ringed in barbed wire, with 25,000
troops encompassing the Capitol building, provided a surreal backdrop to Joe Biden's
inauguration as the 46 th POTUS.
The excuse Democrats have provided for turning the 'citadel of democracy' into a maximum
security prison is not due to a growing distrust with the electoral process. Nor was it blamed
on the spectacle of the mainstream media and Big Tech silencing the voices of exactly one half
of the U.S. electorate – up to and including that of the now former president, Donald J.
Trump. No, to suggest such irrational things would attract howls of 'conspiracy theory' from
the liberal gallery.
Thankfully, we have Silicon Valley fact checkers and corporate media commentators to lead us
to the valley of truth, which informs us that all those Trump "insurgents" who invaded the
Capitol building on January 6 th were motivated by pure evil intentions rooted in
racism, sedition and white supremacist ideology. And as Hillary Clinton suggested during an
off-the-rails interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Trump and his motley crew of
deplorables may have taken their marching orders from none other than Vladimir Putin himself.
Who needs fiction writers these days when we have the Democratic Party?
Conservatives need to come to grips with the realization that they are not dealing with
rational people who will be willing to engage in cool-headed discussion and debate. Despite a
full sweep of the political landscape, the left remains consumed by a collective fit of rage,
hysteria and raw emotion that shows no sign of abating. Why? Partly due to political immaturity
in the ranks, and partly because 'victory' for the left no longer means victory at the polls;
these fanatics, for that is really what they are, will not rest easy until the political
opposition is shorn of its voice and representation. In other words, when it is completely and
unequivocally obliterated. And given the political proclivities of Big Tech and Big Media,
those dreams are dangerously within reach. Unless the right is able to essentially build its
own internet architecture to bypass the left's censorship machine, they will eventually go the
way of the dinosaurs as a political force.
In the meantime, Joe Biden, or whoever will be pulling his strings, will ram through warped
liberal social experiments masquerading as credible, time-tested programs designed to stabilize
the nation. Of course they are nothing of the sort. These are globalist-backed policies –
such as defunding the police, opening the border, vilifying the right as 'racist,' and
sexualizing the minds of elementary-age children – designed to utterly destabilize the
nation and all of its core institutions, including not least of all the nuclear family. Anyone
who speaks out against these reckless initiatives will be struck down by the harshest cancel
culture cult ever known to man. In fact, 'domestic terrorism' legislation is already drafted
that, if passed by Congress, will go far at stifling any dissenting voices from the right.
The very first line of the proposed legislation , entitled
'Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020,' which was conveniently prepared just weeks before
the Capitol riots erupted, states that "White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists
are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States " Buried deep in
the text is a single line devoted to Antifa, and nothing whatsoever about Black Lives Matter,
yet these groups were responsible for torching and looting a swath of destruction across the
United States following the death of George Floyd during an arrest by a while police
officer.
Days before Biden's ironclad inauguration, the media was out in full force propagating the
notion of a connection between right-wing Trump supporters and – wait for it –
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.
"I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole
generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who
promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology
that justified their violence," Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former head of
Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of all U.S. and allied troops in
Afghanistan, said in an interview. "This is now happening in America." So there you have it,
straight from the horse's mouth: the 'deplorable' right in the United States is almost on par
with the same guys who carried out the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Needless to say, with such outrageous comments making the rounds, there was little chance of
a balanced message from Joe Biden's inaugural
speech with regards to the myriad problems now stalking America. Indeed, the address was
top heavy with warmed-over clichés about "unity," as well as references to racism and
inequality.
After four years of groundless rhetoric about "racist Trump supporters" (yet no other
conservative president has been so successful at attracting members of the Black
and Latino community to the Republican standard than Donald Trump), it was only natural
that Biden would allude to "a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism
that we must confront and we will defeat." Coming just days after the riots at the Capitol
building by Trump supporters, which the hapless mainstream media has been at great pains to
label a "racist" event, the message made it amply clear for whom the bell tolls.
Once again, at this dangerous crossroads in American history, any hope for a true bipartisan
breakthrough is doomed to failure, and more so now as the radical neoliberal wing of the
Democratic Party is demanding the most outrageous social, cultural and political overhaul the
nation has ever witnessed. No true conservative will ever abide by these changes.
At the same time, the voice and demonstrations of the right is not only being brutally
vanquished, it is actually being assimilated under the banner of "domestic terrorism." This
marks the widest chasm between the two primary political parties in the United States, which,
unless quickly bridged, will end in imminent disaster for the American experiment in
democracy.
"... Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism." ..."
ByGlenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global
Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen
Donald Trump's efforts to reduce the ideologically driven base of US foreign policy fuelled great resentment among those who believed
it betrayed Washington's leadership position in the so-called "liberal international order."
Now that power has changed, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, with Joe Biden's administration applying a radical
ideological foreign policy?
A recent article by Michael McFaul, once Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia and a noted 'Russiagate' conspiracy theorist, indicates
what such an ideological foreign policy would look like. McFaul's article, 'How to Contain Putin's Russia', makes a case for a containment
policy.
Containment: learning from the past or living in the past?
To advance his argument, McFaul quotes George Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram and architect of erstwhile US containment
policy against the Soviet Union. McFaul suggests that Kennan's advocacy for a "patient but firm and vigilant containment"
against the revolutionary Bolshevik regime 75 years ago remains as valid as ever.
It would have made more sense to
quote Kennan when
he condemned NATO expansionism and predicted it would trigger another Cold War. As Kennan noted: "there was no reason for this
whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their
graves."
Kennan continued to express disbelief over the rhetoric by the misinformed US leadership, presenting "Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now
we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime."
Kennan then went on to correctly predict that, when Russia would eventually react to US provocations, the NATO expanders would wrongfully
blame Russia.
Ideologues often have nostalgia for the Cold War, when the bipolar power distribution was supported by a clear and comfortable
ideological divide. The Western bloc represented capitalism, Christianity, and democracy, while the Eastern bloc represented communism,
atheism, and authoritarianism. This ideological divide supported internal cohesion within the Western bloc and drew clear borders
with the adversary.
The liberal international order has attempted to recast the former capitalist-communist divide with a liberal-authoritarian divide.
However, the ideological incompatibility between American liberalism and Russian conservatism is less convincing. For example, McFaul
cautions against Putin's nefarious conservative ideology committed to "Christian, traditional family values" that threatens
the liberal international order.
The new ideological divide nonetheless advances neo-McCarthyism in the West. McFaul presents a list of European conservatives
and populists that should be treated as American conservatives, purged from political life as enemies of the liberal international
order and thus possible agents of Russia. Hillary Clinton even suggested that the Capitol Hill riots were possibly coordinated by
Trump and Putin – yes, Russiagate is here to stay. The solution, for McFaul, is for American tech oligarchs to manipulate algorithms
to protect populations from Russian-friendly media.
An American ideological project
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a threat to the liberal international order.
Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the liberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War era.
After the Cold War, liberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition – suggesting that liberal democracy should
be at the center of security strategies. However, by linking liberal norms to US leadership, liberalism became both a constitutional
principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of liberal values – without mentioning that its second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative
and authoritarian than Russia – and Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility
to revert to its original mission as a military bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until the West supported the coup in Ukraine.
Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed
to his ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its borders, as it would give
hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails
to explain why Russia does not mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that endow them with the right to defend other
peoples. The French National Convention declared in 1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to
recover their liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed, if necessary, to the
fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American liberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the world with "democracy promotion"
and "humanitarian interventionism" when it conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that
democracy is advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack if Russia interferes
in the domestic affairs of US. The liberal international system is one of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are merely motivated by the objective of
liberating Russians from their government, which is why he advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between
Putin and the Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the Cold War – the US supposedly
does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their
leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other liberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance," which does not make much sense after
the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011. However, under the auspices of liberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as
it defends the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the liberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US, before outlining his strategies for
interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations"
that are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He goes on to explain that the US
government must counter this by establishing new "non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils
of their government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom tend to promise perpetual peace.
Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed
defender of the ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world and utopia can be
bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance,
while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides states into good and evil, into
peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist,
believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
"... "Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad. He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and values", or, simply, chaos may follow! ..."
"... At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially in cyberspace." ..."
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking.
At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
@follyofwar
hat Trump did not, and for which Trump deserves credit: NOT attacking Iran; NOT starting a
war in the Donbass region of Ukraine; and NOT escalating the attack on Syria to the point
where Syria collapses and Al-Nusra and ISIS terrorists take over (which is what Israel has
openly said they would prefer to Assad!) And I am NOT a 'Trumper', think he was a disgusting
zionist boot-licker, and that he didn't do diddly squat of what he promised to do for the
average American, but sure kissed Wall Street's bottom. The problem is, Bidet may be worse,
if his past is any indication.
Regardless, the next four years are gonna be ugly, really ugly, foreign policy-wise, I'm
afraid ..
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking. At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken on
his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa:
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism," Sen.
Paul argued.
"Like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton you've been a supporter of military intervention in
the Middle East from the Iraq war to the Libyan war to the Syrian civil war..." he introduced
in his Tuesday questoning of Blinken.
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001 and his support for the US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which the Kentucky
congressman said was a major disaster that paved the way for a stronger Iran.
The congressman argued that Blinken continued to push regime change in Syria, which he said
was a significant blunder, especially with the amount of money spent training "moderate rebel
forces" .
Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money.
He would go on to question why Blinken would support the Syrian opposition groups on the
ground, as he pointed out the most powerful fighters are those from the jihadist groups like
the Al-Nusra Front .
"Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again... it's a
disaster. The lesson of these wars is that regime change doesn't work!" Paul said.
"You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger," Paul added while
lambasting the US strategy of going after Iran while Iraq is still weakened by Bush's regime
change war there.
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
Blinken claimed in response that he wasn't supportive of a full-scale 'Iraq-style' regime
change war in Syria while vaguely claiming that he's done "deep thinking" and reflection on the
issue . Blinken never repudiated the policy of regime change in the Middle East, however.
Sen. Paul then shifted his attention to NATO, which he said Blinken was trying to strengthen
for the purpose of combatting Russia. The senator said Blinken's policy on NATO would lead to
war with Russia, which the latter responded would have the opposite effect.
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
The Luftwaffe 8 hours ago
We will see a new major war started by this administration within two years
Cloud9.5 7 hours ago
We have to do something to reduce the population.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
You mean in addition to the 103.5% effective covid vaccine?
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
On duckduckgo.com search > "Med
Cram".
On You Tube: Dr. Seheult's med school video lecture "Vitamin D and Covid 19: The Evidence for
Prevention and " (5.3m views)
Vitamin D3 is sold over the counter.
Karma is coming for Covid.
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Hopefully it's also coming for the thieving liars who pushed this cheap PsyOp (Pompeo is
one, Fauci is another).
bigjim 3 hours ago
I guess Bibi mis-spelled Rand's email address on the memo.
boattrash 2 hours ago
103.5%... that sounds like the voter turnout in all the blue cities.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
If one could take all the people in the world and cram them into a city as dense as Tokyo,
it would cover the area of Rhode Island.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
BS
Tokyo pop density=16121.8 /sq.mi.
Rhode Island = 1045 sq.mi.
At that density RI would hold 16.8 million people.
At the average annual population growth rate of the last century there will be 1 sq.m. of
land per person in only 750 years. That includes all mountains, frozen tundra, jungles and
deserts... now "get off my lawn".
bearwinkle 6 hours ago
Sure, that's why Xiden is allowing millions of immigrants to invade our borders.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
I thought it might be like today...
Hatterasjohn 7 hours ago
Anyone crazy enough to join ,or be in the military , is out of his friggin mind.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Or likes killing civilians. Don't overlook the psychopaths.
headslapper 7 hours ago
and that will be the end of the US.
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
How about the Regime Change just effected right HERE in the good old USA?
Im1ru12 4 hours ago
Exactly - "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul
continued
That's what they do - they just did it here
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
USAllDay 7 hours ago
I'd take Assad over Biden.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
Assad has more integrity in his shoe than Biden has accumulated in the past 50 years.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
If the deep state hates Assad, then I know he must be legitimately a good guy deep down.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
BINGO!
Brutlstrudl 6 hours ago
It seems that after each election, the USA becomes more of a contrarian indicator
SERReal1 7 hours ago
I agree. At least Assad puts his country first and gives the finger to the Deep State.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
Plus a secular government that respects the rights of all religious minorites. Sets a bad
example for all the intolerant apartheid states in the region.
Hopefully the "Assad Must Go" curse gets the entire Biden Administration sooner rather than
later.
aloha_snakbar 8 hours ago
Who cares...Uncle Scam lost the tiny bit of credibility he had on 01/20/2021. RIP
America....
eatapeach 7 hours ago
I care. Here's yet another Israel-first douchenozzle getting put in a very, very high
position. And acting like it'd be any different with Trump at the helm is severe folly.
(Pompeo)
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Sorry bro but anyone with eyes hasn't thought the US credible for more than a century.
4Celts 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Pardon , but the " cost " to the military shouldn't be the top/only argument. What happened
to morally/ ethically wrong ?
SwmngwShrks 7 hours ago
"All wars are Bankers' wars." -Smedley Butler
white horse 7 hours ago
Moral is dead long ago, replaced by new fake moral called humanitarianism.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago
You're an astute observer - few detect such "tells"
Feck Weed 5 hours ago
Consider the audience
FringeDweller 5 hours ago
Fair point.
Lord JT 5 hours ago
He mentioned that it creates more terrorism, and that the incoming regime may be even worse
than the previous.
Unknown User 8 hours ago
Biden will start a war, or two, or three...
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia, we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is
lazy and scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow
the poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Cho Bai Den fol peace!
wick7 5 hours ago
It's amazing how Democrats flipped overnight to being pro war once Obama started new wars.
They were mad when Trump was signing peace deals. Lol.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 8 hours ago
He's right. One disaster after another. Who has Assad attacked? If small countries want the
US to back off then they must develop nuclear weapons. When was the last time the US attacked a
country with nuclear capabilities?
JRobby 7 hours ago
Bust Blinken's balls until he quits like a little rat trying to naw through steel cables
gespiri 7 hours ago
The only way to stop these wars is to send the people (and their kids) who are pushing for
it in the first place to the front lines.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
Or make the state obsolete by transitioning to a private law society.
RedDog1 7 hours ago
Remember how Gaddafi surrendered his nukeprogram to Bush, a few years later Obama/HRC
invaded...resulting in Gaddafi being lynched?
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Iran and NK and Syria remember, for sure. Wish we all remembered the USS Liberty when
shaping foreign policy.
LooseLee 4 hours ago
Remember Libya has no central bank?
Pandelis 3 hours ago (Edited)
you really believe that bs ... it is much more than that ... at the end is about the land
and the people ... money can be printed out of thin air and there is nothing libya (or iraq,
iran etc.) central bank can do about it ...
bring on dr. fraucistein to explain it all to us ... maga!!
roach clipper 6 hours ago
Assad placed his country too close to Is ra hell
manofthenorth 8 hours ago
Sorry guys but we have been played like a second hand fiddle.
I assume Paul has figured out by now that being a murderous psychopath is a job requirement
in DC. It's the first question in the job interview. "Do you enjoy death and destruction for
profit and personal power?"
littlewing 7 hours ago
Remember when Trump bombed Syria and all of a sudden everyone in DC loved him for 15
minutes.
Talk about the big reveal.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
The same Rand Paul who was criticizing Trump in the eleventh hour? That one?? They are all
swamp creatures and seriously make me want to vomit...
pro·le·tar·i·at 7 hours ago
The apple rolled away from the tree.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
Paul, I like you, you seem to care a little bit. However, if they haven't cared in the last
forever, they are definitely not going to start now. They just regime changed ourselves with
almost no substantial resistance, you think they will care about Syria?
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
He puts on a show to care once in a while.
He didn't stand for the truth when it counted.
Goat of Steverino 7 hours ago
GREAT RAND, BUT WHERE WERE YOU ON BIG TECH CENSORSHIP AND ELECTION FRAUD?
Bank_sters 7 hours ago
He's cucked.
Ted Baker 6 hours ago
What is this obsession with Russia? Russia is a peaceful country who defends its people. How
difficult is that to understand?
ReadyForHillary 6 hours ago
Russia isn't down with the NWO.
Dinaric 7 hours ago
(((Blinkin))) is all you need to know.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Does anyone honestly believe that if Biden was honest and had any degree if integrity that
he would be president at this moment in U.S. history? That boy is a 50 year swamp critter A
thoroughly reliable member of the compromised fraternity. Same for Nancy.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Remember the video of younger Biden telling some voter that he graduated top of his class,
with honors????
None of which were true.
littlewing 7 hours ago
His degree is from University of Phoenix.
Now all colleges are that. haha
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Ironically, he wants to set up a comity for Integrity In Government.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Yeah. Thats hysterical!!
Saturday Night Live material - if they had any spine.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Which they don't. Come on, man!
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
Yep. They needed someone with zero integrity.
yeketerina velikaya 7 hours ago
You know who's been right all along?
Tulsi Gabbard.
Right on big tech
Right on Kamala
Right on pardoning Assange and Snowden
Right on the uniparty and false flags in Syria
Right on Queen of Warmongers Hillary and DNC
Right on the MSM
Right on securing the elections/ballot harvesting
She's the real deal and would have delivered on these things but never had a shot.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
She was wrong on gun control. Very wrong! And that's a non-negotiable.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Don't worry real gun control is coming and so much more you didn't ask for...
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
She should have been Trump's vp choice.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
You know....I think you're right. I hadn't thought of that.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
I like Tulsi. She seems like a genuine person with integrity that really cares about the
country. BUT I disagree with her on quite a few issues. Maybe she'll come around.
littlewing 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
Greasy John Roberts wrecked America.
Max21c 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
True.
Vichy John Roberts went full Quisling and brought back Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court
endorsed election fraud, supported the coup d'etat, forced Trump from power, helped usher in a
new era for the banana republic of Jim Crow laws...
phillyla 7 hours ago
John Roberts is compromised 8 ways to Sunday. Trump should have had him impeached and
removed from the bench
El Chapo Read 7 hours ago
If you thought Trump was surrounded by Red Sea Pedestrians with an agenda, research the
ethno-religious background of Biden's cabinet picks.
Shalom!
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Every administration is. Trumps son in law and advisor is as well. Please see the entire
picture for a change.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
How about closing all military bases overseas and dismantling the MIC and oh **** it an old
demented neocon is playing president for a few months, scratch that.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
The crack up boom of the FRNs may force that one day
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I think it'll happen sooner rather than later, the chances are good based on the demented
old pedophile being selected president and his retards at the fed.
rastanarchocapitalist 4 hours ago
In the long run, that might be a good thing if we return to honest money but you can be sure
they'll try to kick the can for another 50 years with some form of new fiat or erasing a couple
of zeroes of our current notes.
Hopefully the masses will just say know but I wouldn't put much faith in that.
RedNemesis 6 hours ago
Parents, do not let your smart, winning kids into the armed services. The MIC will grind
them out with PTSD, brain injuries, and lost limbs. There is no 'patriotism' or allegience to
the Deep State.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with Russia,
we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is lazy and
scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow the
poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia..
Maybe we should instead just launch a sneak attack on Alpha Centauri instead. Skip the small
fry like Russia and China. In a few generations we shall know whether our Earthling space
torpedoes hit Alpha Centauri. This of course should be debated by the people and approved by a
plebiscite per ballot referendums. Then the space war bill sent to the Earthlings Politburo for
their approval. It'll take around a decade or more to design and build the space torpedoes...
then 100 years plus for travel time and the same to get the data back from the
mothership...
Plus we can have both a Cold War and a Hot War with Alpha Centauri... under the leadership
of an Earthling appointed or elected by the Earthlings Council and elevated to the rank of Don
Quixote with the accompany title of Primal inter Pares
We just need more right thinking smart people to join the cult and become enlightened to the
prospects of a new 100 years war with other planets...and maybe some small wars with
planetoids...asteroids and comets...
We can establish of house of OverLords composed of only the best Astrologers to help pick
out which planets to attack & destroy...based upon whether they have offended our star
charts or the zodiac calls for war... In addition we can establish a lower house of UnderLords
composed of mad scientists and Generalissimos and crazy Spy Chiefs... and maybe some nutty
press types from the official media and puppet press to lead us in the Two Minutes Hate against
the Alpha Centauri folks, the space peoples, and the flying saucer people...
Maghreb2 5 hours ago
CIA already had plans for all this under the Stargate Program. After Ike's treaty with
various alien species the MIC began its descent into madness and universal conquest.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
A war like that might "free" you, because the Russians will kick your ***.
balz 7 hours ago
Each time I see this "Office of the President Elect" picture thing, I get nauseous.
Fake office for a fake president who wasn't elected in the first place.
BLOTTO 8 hours ago
Like nothing happened back here at home.
Max21c 6 hours ago
Blinken may prove out to be more slick and savy than Dumbo Pompeo the flying cartoon
elephant but he's still a fawking neanderthal and a ******. Maybe an elite ****** but he's
still a ******. Blind, deaf, and dumb is still blind, deaf, and dumb even with all the powers
of the secret police at their disposal.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
Rand is sick too. He goes on about how these things are bad specifically because they
strengthened Iran? How about liberty crushing mass murder?
"Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money."
So your mad they steal money while creating terrorists? Or are you mad that they don't tell
you what they do with the rest? They abduct children from war zones to make them. Maybe the
indoctrination and rape children's homes are expensive. They have screwed the entire
planet.
There is something wrong with him too. He is another limited hangout
silverlinings00 7 hours ago
He's all bark no bite like Elizabeth Warren. Trotted out to show a feigning resistance.
Insert farm animal here 4 hours ago
Poor Rand is going to have a tough and lonely battle over the next few years. Let's wish him
well, he'll be going it alone for sure.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
It seems odd that no one has allied themselves with him in the same manner as McCain &
Graham.
Pareto 6 hours ago
Another life long bureaucrat talking about his resume. And fails to answer a simple
question. Woop there it is. That's why they hated Trump. Because somebody off the street had
better answers than 25 years of experience.
Rand Paul, one of the few good ones left. Good Luck with Biden and his war hawks!
NumbNuts 6 hours ago
These same people are attempting a regime change in the United States too. From Freedom to
Fascism.
Helg Saracen 6 hours ago
The Americans lost perspectives and actually real freedom when Woodrow Wilson sold US to
international banksters in 1913, now this scam just ends and a new scam begins. You haven't
figured it out yet. By the way, fascism is Italian National Socialism. No offense.
frank further 6 hours ago
Then what was German National Socialism, if not fascism?
/
/
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago (Edited)
They are not attempting. They have done it. They have perfected their craft over the last 70
years in other countries and they brought it home to keep their criminal organization
going.
urhotdogs 6 hours ago remove link
They didn't attempt, they did it! Took a little over 4 years but had to stoop to massive
election fraud and changing state laws on the fly. It was coordinated throughout all levels of
government down to states and courts and SCOTUS.
bunkers 5 hours ago
Communism
bunkers 5 hours ago
Maybe not.
WhiteHose 6 hours ago
Russia Russia Russia! They never stop! BTW, wheres scumbag Hunter?
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
rkb100100 7 hours ago
Yea we know the cabinet is full of heeb's.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
Is he in the boat with Winken and Nod?
GatorMcClusky 7 hours ago
Good one.
Mount Massive 7 hours ago (Edited)
There is a reason Russia has spent the last 2 months ramping up testing of its mil hardware
including hyper-vel ICBM's and SLBM's. - Xiden
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Rand will be the only Senator to give the Dems a hard time. Sad since it should be payback
for EVERY Republican Senator.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Cruz will be fun to watch too. They excel being outnumbered.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
If they wanted Rand out of that spot he would have been gone a long time ago.
Bob Lidd 5 hours ago
Does anyone think the US policy in the middle east will change with 10 of biden's
appointees being jewish .......??
The "greater israel" will continue no matter the cost to the American tax cattle.......
((((blinken))) ..........
ReadyForHillary 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Max21c 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Does not matter. They could not win before and they shall not win now. They're ineffective,
inept, and incompetent. They won't be able to fix the messes and disasters they've created for
themselves. At best they might be able to sick the secret police on a few people at home and
drop some bombs or missiles abroad. But for the most part it's some more of the same. Evil is
as evil does. They're not going to be able to work themselves out of the fix they've got
themselves into or figure it out. They're toast. They're bad people and they're toast.
Washingtonians may have absolute power but they've had absolute power all along...and they
still can't fix the disasters they've caused.
Northern Exposure 6 hours ago (Edited)
Oh thank God!
If we're not looking for a new pointless war to start or jumping into an existing one then
this isn't the America that I know and love!
</sarc>
karzai_luver 7 hours ago
Where is the BUFFALOBILL dude storming the Senate to drag this blinken criminal scum out and
do justice for his wanton murder of thousands?
Shut down this freak show.
I would rather have BUFFALOBILL and his idiots running the place than these feckless
people's representatives.
Tony , have you learned your lesson?
Senator - screw you and your people I will think it over.
Alexander 7 hours ago
Silence republicans! Yes we stole the election using widespread mail in ballots, yes your
state governments changed the rules to allow us to count these mail in ballots more quickly,
yes there were far more votes in this election than any other ever. ANDDDD... NO we will not
look into the validity of this election becuase muh capital rioting grandma threatened sweet
little socialist AOC.
Now give us your children to fight a war in syria.
artless 7 hours ago
Barack Obama. Neocon to the core. Biden is no different. Gonna do us some "liberating"
again. And from the left there will be silence as thousands of poor, short brown people are
killed as "collateral damage".
Welcome back America to what you do the best. Destroy lives. Any over/under on how many days
it takes Biden to start killing folks and hence become a war criminal like pretty much all his
predecessors? I might like a piece of that action.
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Republicans are neocons, democrats are neoliberal. You're basically right, just left out
half the problem.
pods 7 hours ago
Can't bitch about foreign actions in our elections when we pick other governments.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pick ???? Surely you jest !
pods 7 hours ago
We choose sides right?
We picked the CIA stooge in Venezuela.
Not sure about your question.
Maybe "kinetically pick" would be better?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Sorry, I didn't read your post properly. I didn't see "other" governments.
rwe2late 7 hours ago
you either forgot the sarc tag
or failed to notice such as V. Nuland hand-picking leadership in Ukraine,
or the Trump picking of Guiado for Venezuela.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Poor eye sight is my best and only excuse.
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Where is Hunter?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
The Big Guy made him the Advance Minister of Foreign Extortion.
headslapper 7 hours ago
The faces change but the song remains the same. What a waste of energy this government is.
Resources thrown down the toilet to make the Ruling class more wealthy. Why do we even pay
attention. We all need to have a look in the mirror. Myself included of course.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
So now that you've looked in the mirror, what are you going to do about it? Send a
strongly-worded letter? Or are you ready to actually step up. As morally wrong and demented as
the radical left is, at least you have to admire them in the sense they actually step up to the
plate to get sh!t done. It's immoral, but effective.
Canadian Dirtlump 7 hours ago
Lest we forget the same bearded butchers that Chris Stevens flew into ben gazi with (al
Quaeda inter alia aligned ) who were funded and trained by the West were the same ones who flew
from ben gazi to the incirlik nato base to try to do the same thing in syria.
The only reason it didn't work was because of the SAA, Hezbollah and of course the ultimate
backstop Russia. I'm thankful for this.
mikka 7 hours ago
Imagine Russian or Chinese parliament publicly debating regime change in USA.
Uncle_Cuddles 7 hours ago (Edited)
Debating? China has ALREADY done it here.
joew8989 7 hours ago
Rand will continue to fight the good fight, when you live a life based on principal, that's
what you do. We will always need more people like him. That's what built this country, not the
parasites at the helm now.
ItsTooHotForThis 6 hours ago
Paul voted to confirm the electors. His challenge to the new Sec. of State means
nothing.
Garciathinksso 5 hours ago
his argument was based on State's right issue, in case you care
bunkers 5 hours ago
It doesn't matter WHY, he voted with traitors, only, that he did.
SillyTheEnemy 6 hours ago (Edited)
This is literally the only guy we have in the senate who even remotely gives a ****. Yet the
amount of **** that is going to happen to us when biden heats up the war in Syria is
immeasurable. F*ck me
hardright 6 hours ago
Rand Paul is wasting his time.
If he wants to make a difference he should be lobbying Russia to send more troops into
Syria.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
And arranging imports of the Russian vaccine. Less likely to kill you and more effective
than the only 45% effective Pfizer ****.
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago
This guys eyes look exactly like the vampires in the movie 30 days of night. Am I in a
simulation? Why do these people actually look like fictional villains? I mean Whitmer, Newsom,
this new fat, unhealthy, mentally ill assistant "health secretary"? Did I do something really
wrong? Am I in hell and don't know it? No. I am here on earth and psychopaths are real and evil
is real.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
they're just a little scared and overwhelmed. You might be too
WhiteHose 7 hours ago
Look at this Blinken twit! F you pal! And....wheres HUnter??? Diddling his brothers minor
niece? Again? Still?
First Ron and now Rand. I think the club just lets them in as the token Don Quixote. They
have been the only voices of reason for the last 25 years or so, but they are only tilting at
windmills. Nothing is going to change until something forces them to change. The war mongering
and corruption will just roll right along while the MIC and congress get richer by the
minute.
The unrelenting droning of brown people in foreign lands that are ill-equipped to fight back
will commence in 3,2,1...
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Leaving the Republican Party would be the first best step.
ejmoosa 7 hours ago (Edited)
We put too much on one man and one man alone to change things.
Faced with judges and a House and A Senate against him the task before Trump was
Herculean.
Add to that 2/5ths of the states with governors also against Trump and it's even worse.
What you need to do is get involved in your local politics and take control back of your
Cities and County Commissions, as well as your state governments.
Had Trump held control of the House and the Senate and we had sitting on Courts people who
put the Constitution first FOR the people rather than using it against them, things would be a
lot different today.
The choice is yours.
Time to play 7 hours ago
It's good to see that Rand, is starting to think more like his father!
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So he's controlled opposition, too?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
Pretty early to be smoking crack isn't it?
otschelnik 7 hours ago
With Cookies Nuland as Blinken's deputy, you've got the neocon family business installed at
Foggy Bottom. Robert (Victoria's huband), Fredrick, and Kim each with their own pro-war think
tank, and a list of supporters which constitute the "A-list" of the USSA's merchants of death.
Northrup-Grumman, UTX, Raytheon, Lockheed....
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Winken, Blinken and Nod.
That's the administration we got now.
silverlinings00 8 hours ago
Careful Rand, we wouldn't want you to get another "visit" from a neighbor while you're
mowing the lawn.
Pdunne 3 hours ago (Edited)
Biden's biggest Cabinet mistake will ultimately be Blinken.
Like Obama picked H Clinton with disasterous consequences Biden picks Blinken.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Rand Paul says " Assad is a terrible person " !!!
Dr Assad is a HERO !!
Rand Paul is either completely misinformed or just another useless politician afraid to
speak the TRUTH !
A COWARD !
Hessler 4 hours ago
Assad may be a good person at heart but he is not qualified to run a state. He should be a
doctor or something.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
And Joe Biden is ??
OR Boris Johnstone ??
Helg Saracen 4 hours ago
It is up to the Syrians to decide, not you. You already paid for the genocide of the Syrian
Christians in the "fight against the tyrant Assad." I've seen all kinds of idiots and
hypocrites, but you are their king.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
Why did not Assad anticipated the Zionist invasion even though the Snowden document reveled
the CIA/Mossad works in the making in 2006 ??
If he did anticipated an invasion why he did not do anything to safeguard his nation and
it's people ?
Why every men, women and child capable to lift and shoot was not given and an ordinance and
proper training ?? Israel has that. Why can't Syria ?
Syria is a part of Greater Israel. They have been marked for genocide the day Israel was
created, what haste did Mr. Assad showed to safeguard his country against their genocidal
maniacs psychopaths ??
I will never forgive those who inflicted the terrible atrocities on the children and women
and Mr. Assad has a blame to share.
mark3383 3 hours ago
Assad risked his life and continues to do so every day, trump recently bragged he thought
about "taking him out". he's a true hero more than you or I will ever be
steve2241 5 hours ago
Rand Paul doesn't understand. Blinken follows the path that Israel tells him to. Middle East
instability benefits Israel. The fomenting of Sunni-Shia conflict kills Israels' enemies, the
muslims, without Israel having to lift a finger. Syria is no longer a threat to Israel. Mission
accomplished.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
You're wrong on two accounts. First, there's no ****te/Sunni conflict. What goes in Miiddle
East is entire different than what is portrayed here. The locals know but how many of them get
interviewed on live TV or get a airtime on a prime time desk ? Those are reserved for the
chosenites who spew BS about Arabs and Muslims 24/7.
****te/Sunni fiction as broadcasts in the west is nothing but a ploy to wash the hands of
the responsibility and pin the blame on the victims.
Second, Syria is now a bigger threat to Israel than it was in Pre War era. Battle Hardened
troops, better organization, training with Russian/Iranian Military, better equipment, talented
strategists and when you fight a war like that for that long you tend to grow a bigger set of
balls.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Syria wants the GOLAN back - I would say they are a threat to ISRAEL !!
Sick Monkey 5 hours ago
Speaking of war didn't Rand Paul vote to accept the illegitimate electors. I like Paul he
seems to have a level head but you voted to put the commies in power. Like you said in your
speech "there are repercussions". Those who took a stand against this coup must be kept in
power as they put skin in the game. That's a rare and precious gift to us the people. In the
year 2021 it's as good as gold.
Taffer 5 hours ago
Exactly, hence my previous comment below.
mark3383 3 hours ago
trump lost the election because he allowed million of fraud votes to be counted and never
said or did anything about it in the year leading up to it. he 's the one that lost it. no one
else
Sinophile 6 hours ago
"War Pigs"----Black Sabbath
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Yeah!
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
oh lord yeah!
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
Circuses. Theatre for the plebes. Not one bit of foreign policy is decided or affected by
debates or hearings in the Legislative branch. They're all following a script, some of them act
like they aren't in on the joke.
Cloudcrusher 6 hours ago
Psychosis the denial of reality. The military industrial complex is make believe. It's
military industrial congress, Congress is in charge they alone are to blame know one else. The
sooner everyone starts living in reality the better off will be. You want to win the war of
words better start with reality. Or your going to get a another kind of war one where only the
strong survive.
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Watch: Rand Paul Challenges New Secretary Of State Over Regime-Change In Syria
Meaningless inside the beltway for the record drool-n-dribble... Rand Paul just wants to pad
his resume, bio, and gain some street cred claims...
TahoeBilly2012 6 hours ago
When do the new wars start? Dems can't wait. Blame them on Covid or something, they will buy
it.
vspam 7 hours ago
Biden will go to war with Iran and turned thr ME into a fireball. The mainstream media will
cheer him on under the banner of peace and unity
Max21c 7 hours ago
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
Max21c 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Too late. Washington is toast. It's just a question of when Washingtonians lose in Syria,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, et cetera. They already made a mess of things and they do not
have the brains to fix it. Same with their inabilities as regards nonproliferation, North
Korea, et cetera. They don't have what it takes to figure it out and work it out and nobody is
going to fix it for them because they're assholes regardless of which cabal of Ivy League
assholes or ******* elites are in power.
ThomasEdmonds 7 hours ago
Paul isn't supposed to question a Zionist's motives..
aloha-snackbar 7 hours ago
if the youth said no to war and moms said not my child and burned down the recruitment/death
centers then war would end...
tunEphsh 7 hours ago
Thank goodness that Paul told the idiot Blicken to lay off regime change. Obama-Biden made a
mess of the middle east and caused a refugee crises which is still with us. Instead of being
named secretary of state, me thinks Blicken should be put in jail for acts in the Middle East
which killed hundreds of thousands of people.
moneybots 7 hours ago
The EU has become a mess because of regime change.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Of course he should. But that would require sanity.
yerfej 7 hours ago (Edited)
Simple way to stop all this insane venturism and nation building it to MANDATE that every
aysshole like Blinken have a spouse or child or sibling or relative ON THE GROUND fighting in
one of these shyyytholes. These elites love this crap because THEY never pay a personal price,
no they have farmed that out to the "commoners" who supply the bodies. The filthy elites are
good at leveraging everyone else to fulfill their fantasies while paying no price.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
You've seen the videos of Chelsea and Malia on tour in Kabul? Yeah?
yerfej 7 hours ago
More like Eeyore pontificating from her 20 million dollar penthouse about how she is so not
into money, or Maglia dancing around stoned like a "social justice warrior".
Flynt2142ahh 7 hours ago (Edited)
The senate needs more Rand Paul types - and they dont have to be in the Republican
party...This would force actual accountability of uniparty folks and these appointees. We need
less murkowski and collins
phillyla 7 hours ago
I am going to harp on this
in 2014 Matt Bevin challenged McConnell in a Senate Primary
He was gaining momentum
Then Rand endorsed McConnell
Bevin lost McConnell got re-elected
Bevin was later elected Governor of KY so he had the votes
Rand Paul Broke my heart
Leguran@premium PREMIUM 7 hours ago
We need use the Progressive's signage: He is not my President.
LostMyGunsInABoatingAccident 7 hours ago
You can't necessarily call it an "American" policy.
America lost control of it's policy long ago.....
Mount Massive 7 hours ago
Here comes another war, and this time, it will spiral out of control. In two years or less,
I expect the US to be in a major conflict and/or hit at home. Sigh....Leftist
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi just took Rand aside and said, wait and see what your neighbor on the other side of
you has to say about this.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Rand is in the senate. nancy runs the house. That would be Schumer's job.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi seems to be running the show and is the face of the party
WorkingClassMan 8 hours ago (Edited)
Rand Paul, the lone voice of sanity in a rubber-stamp corrupt government.
If you or someone you care about is either in or thinking about joining this nation's
military...please don't. Let these antiwhites fight their own wars. They hate you and don't
trust you because you're White and they hate you owning guns, but they'll put a gun in your
hand and point you at their and Isn'treal's enemies without hesitation.
fudge punch 8 hours ago
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
AVmaster 3 hours ago
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism,"
Uhhh, yea...
... Thats what they WANTED!
Duh!
Scipio Africanuz 3 hours ago
Thank you Senator Paul..
For your candor..
The challenge of US Foreign Policy, is akin to a heroin addiction. It's bad for the country,
but all attempts to cure the country of addiction to imperialism has failed, including our
energetic efforts over the years..
Too many people benefit from the ruination of the country as it engages in squandering
lives, honor, power, reputation, and treasure, in maintaining a facade of illusory power, at
the expense of the true power of the country..
Put simply Senator, at this point, we don't believe any entity on earth can cure the US of
the addiction to depravity save nature, which cure is more preferable to that of the Entity
whose decision is not subject to appeal..
Now Senator, you may not believe in God Almighty and thus, swat away the simple insight but
God does not require your belief to act..
Over His creation..
The only cure, if sense and rationality don't prevail, is exactly what we don't desire to
know and why?
Because we've seen it before, applied to different societies with similar mentality over the
course of human history and Senator, it's never palatable..
Anyhow, probation is till summer, to allow folks do intensive introspective contemplation,
enough to acquire prudent humility and if they don't, well..
Cheers...
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
I believe the Senator is a Christian.
Pdunne 4 hours ago
Blinken is a bald faced liar and is already working with Ms Nuland on more regime
changes.
Venezuela and Syria need to get ready for more robust attacks.
Dzerzhhinsky 2 hours ago
Control the oil, you control the world.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
Oil was the cause of every war for the past century.
Posa 4 hours ago
A ridiculous exchange. Sen Paul seems to take at face value the Liberal-NeoCon claim that
Regime Change is good-intentioned attempt to democratize the Middle East.
Hardly. Regime Change was always designed to a) install Israeli supremacy in the region
("Operation Clean Break"); and b) secure US Global Uni-polar dominance (the Wolfowitz Doctrine)
as part of the Brezezinski "Grand Chessboard". That's the intention... this exchange
demonstrates how out of it Rand Paul is; and what a nasty weasel Blinken is.
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
That's not what Sen. Paul said. He doesn't agree with regime change. That's what he
said.
PaulDF 5 hours ago
To which the Biden appointee replied, "You know, the thing!"
mark3383 3 hours ago
cmon man!
duckandcover 2 hours ago
do your job!
Taffer 5 hours ago
Rand Paul's opinion and $6 will get him a latte at Starbucks.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Foreign policy is never gonna change no matter who's in change because the way system is
setup.
The lifestyle (our way of life) pertaining to the western model of civilization (our values)
needs unlimited supply of money to be supported. The money that can't be made by legal means,
hence the continues war that needs to be maintained overseas while also starting new ones as
requirement arise.
And since this is a continues state, so accompanies it continues propaganda, lies, false
flags, deception and manipulation of facts and truth. LYING IS IN VERY GENES OF THE WHITE
CHRISTIAN WEST. They have been doing it for so long that they have almost mastered the "the art
of lying" the zenith of which is to project your own flaws and crimes on to the subjects you
carried it out on. One thing you can always be sure of, they will never admit their crimes
unless there's no other way. And that they will be accusing their opponents of the same things
they would be doing.
War underpins their society, nation and civilization.
steve2241 4 hours ago
The problem is that the U.S. is abusing its position as printer-in-chief of the Reserve
Currency of the world. With that fake money, it can intervene in the affairs of nations
throughout the world - a capability that no other country enjoys. Take away its reserve
currency and watch how quickly middle eastern strife ends - and the nation of Israel, too.
apparently 6 hours ago
will the left and their mindless supporters be comforted to know that their guy promotes
these "endless wars"? will they be happy to sacrifice their sons and daughters for desert
real-estate whose oil we don't want?
Paul was being way too polite. He should simply say: "I'm not voting to confirm this war
monger" then get up and leave the room.
Hessler 6 hours ago
If you think it's about the oil, you really don't understand the world you inhabit.
apparently 6 hours ago (Edited)
I don't think it's about oil but I'm struggling to name a single US interest in sand-wars.
maybe you can? yes, yes, military/industrial complex, blah, blah, but why the middle east?
please enlighten us.
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
It's to rebuild the world in the image of the west and Islam is the biggest hampering in the
way. Like other religions, it can't be altered or dominated so the only way is to completely
destroy it. This is why Israel was setup by the Anglos at a strategic location in the heart of
the Arab world to engage them into perpetual war and destroy them.
That's about it.
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 5 hours ago
no evidence that the arab spring was against islam. why aren't we doing regime change in
indonesia? why did joe just reverse the Muslim travel ban?
do you understand anything about the world you live in?
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
A lot actually. We are concentrating on the core of the Islamic civilization for when the
core collapses, the outer layers collapses with it. It's the core that holds the entire thing
together, hence we concentrate on Middle East and not on Indonesia.
Arab spring was to sow chaos and turmoil. By the way of deception.....Jewish moto
It is not that Israel establishes America's foreign policy. It is that the basic world view
produced by WASP culture is naturally aligned with Jewish thought in most ways, especially in
terms of Empire: ruling the world.
InflammatoryResponse 5 hours ago
it was not a muslim travel ban. it was a ban on places that didn't have adequate
infrastructure to verify who was travling.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
where is the last place, core or not core, that Islam religion and Muslim culture has been
eradicated by any means? Yugoslavia? India? Not seeing it. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
Your argument does not hold.
starman99 5 hours ago
(((THEM)))
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
Hessler 5 hours ago
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 2 hours ago
by now, we should be weary (and wary) of "it's all a sideshow" arguments.
it simply asserts greater knowledge (never disclosed) and terminates the thread.
as for the grand anti-islam plan... how's that going in western europe?
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
It is ALWAYS about the OIL - thats why IRAN and VENEZUELA are being weakened by crippling
sanctions !!
THAT"S how the ZIO/US does it - SANCTIONS first - WAR 2nd !
Doesn't work anymore since RUSSIA stepped in !
nocturnal66 7 hours ago
Just ask if this 100 year plus war is to create "greater Israel" . It all documented. Enough
already with the lies. Just admit it.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
WWE- fake fights have begun again in earnest .....................
Paul Ryan could fake a punch as good as John Boehner ............
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
The Washington establishment imposed their chosen ruler Joe Schmo Biden to rule over
America.
jesus_loves_you 7 hours ago
H a n g t h e m a l l
Aquamaster 7 hours ago
Should we have a contest to see who can pick the first country Biden will send troops
to?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
DC !
SERReal1 7 hours ago
You win!
WTFUD 7 hours ago
Blinken Heck , don't worry ya'll, Nuland (Nudelman's) back to steady the ship with a fab new
chocolate chip cookie recipe that the terrorists will adore.
littlewing 7 hours ago
And they aren't even trying to hide it.
fzrkid 7 hours ago
Rand can say whatever he wants and it changes NOTHING
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
Who is still planning on filing taxes? At the very least, turn your back on the
system-right? Upvote for not filing, downvote for I just want to avoid conflict-I'm filing.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
But, we are getting a return.
No paying next year though.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Doesn't matter if it is a disaster for the peoples invaded and for domestic liberty in the
USA.
It's considered "worth it" by those in power
to protect the financial supremacy of the dollar,
promote the regional military supremacy of Israel,
and continue the war profiteering of the MIC.
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So what? Your cushy lifestyle and mine is a direct result of hegemony. Get over it.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Celebration of a "cushy lifestyle" gained by plunder and murder is not for everyone.
To revel in it, one requires a special insensibility.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago (Edited)
This fence-sitter did virtually NOTHING to stop the steal.
Now he's whining about having to lie in bed his cowardice helped make.
Many MORE thousands will soon be massacred by these war-mad psychopaths.
This POS is DEAD TO ME.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Rand is smart, he knew no matter what Xiden was going to be installed.
HominyTwin 7 hours ago
He's smart. A bunch of idiots, after a good breakfast at IHOP, were herded into the capital
by govt informants to break stuff for the cameras, and then herded right back out in time for a
hearty dinner at Golden Corral. They did sacrifice their lunch for exactly nothing, though.
Congrats. He stayed away from all that nonsense.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
That's about the size of it, in retrospect.
zulu127 7 hours ago
regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in long wars that are costly to
the military.
Wrong! "regime change needs to continue because it is involving the US in wars that are
profitable to the military.
ableman28 4 hours ago
Part of the problems is that neither the democrats or republicans are primarily in favor of
DEMOCRATIC governments in the middle east. When Egypt FREELY ELECTED the Muslin Brotherhood to
power in Egypt the US fell all over itself to help unseat them, using every technique we
can.....currency debasement, food aid manipulation, tacit encouragement to strongment
(military) that we feel are controllable, etc. etc.
The US was never in favor of one man one vote in South Africa during apartheid and explained
this convenient hypocrisy as an unfortunate necessity.
Supporting regime change is entirely, ENTIRELY, different than supporting democracy. The US
has a very very very long history of supporting the former and claiming it was the latter when
in fact it wasn't. Democracy means letting the chips fall where they may. In countries whose
ruling leadership is oppressive to its people and for which we have a long history of support
its very unlikely that any democratic election would bring us new friends. It would, in every
case, bring to power people who opposed the old government and by association US.
People playing to the stands here in the US are smart enough to know this. But maintaining
the correct political position for domestic consumption also trumps doing the right thing in
anywhere else.
International politics is a pure expression of national interest. Our national interest is
economic outside the US. That part of socialist or marxist theory is spot on.
Hessler 4 hours ago
Insightful, thanks!
LooseLee 4 hours ago
'Disaster' is the MO, Rand. Please, get real or get lost.
Musum 5 hours ago
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken
on his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa
Pointless and hopeless. The only way to end America's endless wars is to deal with the guys
in small hats.
Hessler 5 hours ago
Small hats were employed by the English speaking protestants for their ulterior motives,
world view, global ambitions which were in alignment with the chosenites.
You can't solve the Jewish problem without solving the problem of western civilization.
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The real problems are the 3 letter intelligence agencies, not religion.
Musum 4 hours ago
Are you naive or misdirecting? Offices are occupied by people.
train rider 6 hours ago
Deep thinking and reflection...what about our military personnel and contractors...why are
we putting them in danger with these interventionist kockamamie screw balls coming up with
these strategies...meanwhile innocent civilians keep getting maimed and killed.
We have no business over there, let the countries decide for themselves what they want etc.
we need energy idependence...greta can go fly a kite...keep reducing emissions with tech we
have.
It is very sad that paul's neighbor does not have a more lethal right hook.
TheZeitgeist 7 hours ago
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001
So...only off by a decade. I think ZeroHedge drops these snafus into the copy just to see if
anyone actually reads the stuff.
freakscene 7 hours ago (Edited)
Its skimming material at best. Reading all the way through went out the window when ZH
become a CNN sponsor.
:)
littlewing 7 hours ago
When Ron Paul was calling out Bernanke you would see they were alone in the room.
There is no debate, its all a fraud. Saw the vote on election theft and it was their aides
voting for them.
StanleyTheManly 7 hours ago
Give me a break, Rand Paul. YOU KNOWINGLY voted for this by not standing for our elected
President.
You're a traitor. Shut up and sit down.
TRON Paul 7 hours ago
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
wmbz 7 hours ago
War is a business, and "we" are big business. Matter no how many completely innocent people
get blown away. What matters are the spoils. We were warned over and over again about the MIC
yet here we are.
Profit always wins over peace, no money in it.
totally unwise 7 hours ago
Today, wars aren't meant to be won
they're meant to bring chaos
Chaos
Calling Maxwell Smart and agent 99
Where's that shoe phone ?
freakscene 7 hours ago
I guess, good for Rand? Thats about all he can do.
Dog Will Hunting 7 hours ago
Oh, that Rand Paul. I wondered where he was hiding this whole time peels back Trump's saggy
*** cheeks to find the good doctor
in_xanadu_did_kubla_khan 8 hours ago
Achoo: Hey, Blinkin
Blinkin: Did you say Abe Lincoln?
Achoo: No! I said, HEY, BLINKIN!
createnewaccount 8 hours ago
If we can't have Giant Meteor maybe a global helter skelter of 'regime change' will be a
good consolation prize.
Lt. Frank Drebin 8 hours ago
I voted for Giant Meteor, but the Dominion voting machines switched my vote to turd
sandwich.
Holding My Breath 7 hours ago
A big upvote for sarcasm (or is it utter stupidity?)
The Military/Industrial Complex needs endless foreign wars and imaginary enemies so that the
money won't be spent at home helping Americans. Such as infrastructure projects. The goal from
within is to destroy the American middle class and turn the United States into a third world
country. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump all served the crooks.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Uh then why didn't Trump start wars?
Bear 11 minutes ago
Like father like son ... insight and wisdom
Arizona1234 26 minutes ago
China Joe and the mentally ill Marxist that run his crap show already started a multi
Trillion dollar endless war. The War on the weather they call Climate Crisis. It's the one
where we loose and wind up praying to find the small potato to make it through the day, and
then hope to find a few dry sticks for the fire to cook it. Where you will have to make the
small fire at night so that mentally ill #AOC carbon police can't easily see the smoke.
Maltheus 1 hour ago
It's taken less than 24 hours, after Biden's inauguration, for ISIS to magically make an
appearance again. They're not even pretending anymore.
Tom Angle 2 hours ago
I think I had heard all I want to hear from Rand Paul after.
boattrash 2 hours ago
Gawdamit Rand, we like you and everything, but the Coup you should be focused on is HERE,
even if it means you should spit in your hands, hoist the black flag and start slittin
throats.
Sincerely,
The American People
Dzerzhhinsky 3 hours ago
If the US can steal Syria, it means it will be able to build a pipeline, steal Iranian gas
and sell it to Europe.
The US needs something to give its financiers and controlling energy supplies to Europe would
go a long way to paying off the debt.
learnofjesuits 4 hours ago
vatican's wars
Hessler 3 hours ago
Puritans burred the Vatican so deep underground that if even the nuke detonates there, if
won't make a shockwave on the ground
TemporarySecurity 4 hours ago
Perfectly fine for anybody in the executive to lie through their teeth.
Say one thing in the hearing and do what they always do once confirmed. Our post
Constitutional government needs to fail.
tangent 4 hours ago
Ran Paul's ability to talk as if they are not simply being outright bribed for their
positions is impressive. I suppose the new CCP SoS will take the positions of the CCP, which is
the one paying him the most money for those positions.
richnhappy 4 hours ago
Just read confessions of an economic hit man, by john perkins, all you need to know. The
playbook sounds like what china is doing in the us now, distract the masses with the middle
east ****show.
Seditious 4 hours ago
We have had just one president so far this century that has not used American blood and
treasure to destroy a nation. He was a rogue billionaire that got taken out by every other
billionaire that wanted to stay in the club. The American people are going to have to figure
out that they will have better results solving this nations problems at the Bezos, Walton,
Zuckerberg and Dorsey homes than they will going to the Capitol in Washington DC.
The Child sacrifice murders committed by these people don't occur in some hidden room at a
pizza parlor. They occur on public roads under semitrailers marked Amazon Prime and Walmart
that wouldn't be allowed on the roads of nations that we used to call the third world.
I suppose the only big question is, who's child dies tomorrow?
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
You could look it at that way. I'd say he was a hairs breadth from starting world war III
with Iran and China and was removed by a stroke of bad luck from Wuhan and the old
establishment asserting their authority through corruption.
Trump might be remembered fondly for actually lowering the number of small conflicts but the
U.S war machine is bigger than any one president and his closeness to Israel show what camp he
was in. Only God or a few insiders can really judge what his ultimate aim was but he wasn't the
man who pulled the first shot of the first world war. Damn well loaded the gun and gave it to
the Israelis in my opinion.
Seditious 4 hours ago
During Obama's time in office we had a year in which the United States dropped bombs in more
nations than they did in any single year during WW2.
Bezos, Walton's and others spill our blood domestically. Biden will spill our blood overseas
to keep some other billionaires happy.
Based on your comment, I take it you REALLY like Blinken! Yes?
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The same thing happened in Egypt when Obama pushed for and got quick elections when the only
organization that could field candidates was the Muslim Brotherhood. The result was very
predictable.
The Brotherhood took over and the result was so bad that the people finally rebelled against
Morsi's government. This lead to Al Sisi who was better than Morsi. I question whether the
situation improved by letting the Muslim Brotherhood take control.
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
People? Thought that was the military?
WatchnSee 5 hours ago
"regime change doesn't work" "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle
East,".... nor in the USA. Time will tell.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Don't worry Mr. Paul, these white men in the suits are the leaders of the terrorists groups.
It's hardcoded in their genes, they don't know any other way of earning a living.
Mancolo 6 hours ago
Lessons? I don't need your stinking lessons. I've got friends to pay off.
Pvt Joker PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I like the US policy of Perma War and Regime change. The more troops over there , the less
troops over here.
Scornd 7 hours ago
I dont understand the complaints.
You voted for this.
MCDirtMigger 6 hours ago
By 'you', do you mean Dominion?
littlewing 7 hours ago
District of Criminals
that's all they are.
I am bailing out forever now.
Just looking at them and their actions is self harm.
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
District of Criminals
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
LorDampNuts 7 hours ago
Keep sending your donations to Stop the Steal, Trump has a plan and will be sworn in by
April when it warms up. Free Chumptard hat with every $100 donation.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
I'd donate a hunny for you to flush your head in a toilet ...............
foxenburg 7 hours ago
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Rammbock 7 hours ago
Republicans are great actors
Kotwica 44 7 hours ago
This guy speaks truth, but, no one gives a flying fu<k.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 7 hours ago
Attention Secret Police: We've got one for you!
freedommusic 7 hours ago (Edited)
Whatever these folks say is irrelevant. They are all sitting on foreign soil. The UNITED
STATES CORPORATION is a foreign Municipal entity owned by China claimed in the recent
bankruptcy settlement. POTUS said when he was leaving. Go ahead, take it. The buildings, the
chairs, statues, it's all yours . Anyone who steps outside of that foreign jurisdiction will be
entering American soil and subject to the Laws of the United States Constitutional Republic and
prosecuted for treason and sedition.
DC is now a Chinese embassy.
I wonder how much food they have stocked up in there? I would presume the military would
uphold a blockade and prevent the exchange of trade from occurring into a surrounded hostile
territory of the enemy.
YOU WANT IT
YOU GOT IT
HAVE A NICE DAY
SERReal1 7 hours ago
Where was Rand in calling out the election fraud?
Now he is acting all tough again on the deep state creatures.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
He wants to stay in office. No way is going to touch the third rail. None of them will.
rkb100100 7 hours ago
This is part of a Punch and Judy show put on for retards.
leodogma1 7 hours ago
And yet not one peep of this Quislings tie's to the Chinese Communist party of Evil !
Southern Discomfort 7 hours ago
I'm sure it will be blamed on an action taken by Trump and the only cure will be
intervention. Maybe Joetard can set up a new cabinet level position to seek out opportunities
for new wars.
More-Cowbell 8 hours ago
The show must go on. As if these asz clowns ( all of them ) matter.
north_hand_demon 8 hours ago
Whatever. Your cushy lifestyle, and mine, exists because we're the dominant imperial power
on the planet. Might makes right. Paul knows it too; this is just virtue signaling.
artless 7 hours ago (Edited)
And in your statement lies the real problem with the vast majority of people in this
country.
Yeah I edited the lame ad hom line after I read a few comments. But perhaps it is long due
that rather than simply accept things as the way they are and calling any opposition to it the
thoughts of a ten year old, it might be high time to actually try to make a change in how
people think and ultimately behave.
Too many people letting their wishful thinking override their wisdom, just like when Obama
was enthroned. I will admit that I was fooled back in 2008 as well, thinking "This time
things are finally different!" , though in my defense I will say that the "Reality
Distortion Field" built around BHO by the mass media was far more believable than the one
they have scraped together for Biden.
Biden being installed will thus buy the empire a "grace period" in which other
countries (EU mostly) will happily buy into America's next war effort. As with the
post-Bushlette era decorated with the Obama figurehead, the empire will take advantage of
this "grace period" to escalate its violence.
After all, that is why they want someone like Biden in the White House in the first place.
If the imperial establishment were at all interested in global de-escalation then they would
have gone forward with it when Trump demanded troops out instead of playing shell games to
keep the empire's wars on a low boil. Trump's belligerent noise-making made it impossible
for the empire to escalate its wars. The empire needs someone who is willing to put a nice
"progressive" spin on mass murder in order to get buy-in for a renewed round of
slaughter.
The empire will not waste this opportunity. They have been waiting four years for it.
There will be more war.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 21:14 utc | 77
Agree with most of this as well as your other post earlier in the thread.
Biden is an attempt to put the mask back on the monster so that the woke, "resistance"
crowd will continue to not care about the unabated slaughter abroad. I mean, when you really
look at it, they (and the corporate mainstream "liberal" media) rarely criticized Trump's
foreign policy and often cheered it, albeit without ever openly praising him, per se. We saw
the occasional article about the ethnic cleansing in Yemen that Trump greatly aided and
abetted, but everyone including the NYT was completely behind his war on Venezuela and
attempt to create war with Iran. The media got a bit up in arms when Kashoggi was murdered -
because of course he was then a journalist - but even that died down quite quickly while
Trump continued feting the Israelis and Saudis.
The coming hot wars will be fought with all of the record breaking arms that Trump sold in
the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
All of that having been said, I'll repeat a point I've made since we started talking about
the election: Trump didn't "start any new wars" because there wasn't much left to do after
Obama and Bush set the world on fire and the Iranians (and Venezuelans) showed restraint when
attacked - both physically and economically. Trump and his Zionist handlers would have loved
it if the USA had ended up in a war with either of those countries and I have no doubt that
if he was elected to a 2nd term, we'd have seen one or both transpire. With Biden, same thing
as the first thing about Trump - There isn't much left to destroy that the USA could actually
get away with and I suspect he will continue the existing wars for however long he (or
Kopmala) is in office.
It's an Empire with a revolving-door Emperor called a President or Prime Minister. The
facts are fixed around the policy. We're obviously headed back toward a more 'can't we all
get along' empire, after four years of a guy who thought he was an actual emperor, instead of
a bobble-head. The differences between the two monopoly parties in the USA are entirely
domestic and are nothing but the size of the crumbs given to the people who think they are
free.
bottom line kadath.. the usa will be an ongoing slavish servant to israel.. that much is
clear as day... which way it goes - syria or iran - none of the saber rattling will stop..
israel doesn't want it to stop! neither does the american duopoly! the people might, but
they don't get a say and generally are not interested in foreign policy..
IMO Biden will do as he is told. His white house chief of staff is a powerful and
skilled player and is quite experienced in working with Biden. Joe could well be diverted to
give solid focus on the home front while the rats he has appointed continue their global
piracy and belligerence. I figure that is why they ran the old fool.
On January 21, the president-elect will sign a number of executive actions to move
aggressively to change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and
businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing,
protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards.
On January 22, the president-elect will direct his Cabinet agencies to take immediate
action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis.
Between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive
actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives. The president-elect will fulfill his promises to
strengthen Buy American provisions so the future of America is made in America. He will
take significant early actions to advance equity and support communities of color and other
underserved communities. He will take action to begin fulfilling campaign promises related
to reforming our criminal justice system. The president-elect will sign additional
executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and
ensure that science guides the administration's decision making. President-elect Biden will
take first steps to expand access to health care – including for low-income women and
women of color. He will fulfill his promises to restore dignity to our immigration system
and our border policies, and start the difficult but critical work of reuniting families
separated at the border. And, President-elect Biden will demonstrate that America is back
and take action to restore America's place in the world.
As noted above, this list is not comprehensive. More items and more details will be
forthcoming in the days ahead.
Time will tell how the other appointees in the administration align with Klain and the
extent of the savage power struggle that is soon to manifest.
The USA is now the proverbial Whale in a Swimming Pool: it is big, powerful and impressive
- but can't hide its moves anymore and has little to none margin for any maneuver.
The American Center-wing is ossifying, or, in Cold Warrior terminology (Arthur
Schlesinger Jr.), is losing its "vitality". It is entering a stage where it must "burn the
village in order to save it".
... it seems the answer is that Germany plays the role in Europe that the US plays in the
world and both are satisfied with that role even though neo-liberalism, austerity and
war-mongering are leading us to inhumanity and disaster.
Like i said before elsewhere Biden would capitalize on what Trump has put forth and take
the infamy and blame for instead of moving in the opposite directions of whatever Trump
criticized for in foreign policy. That means be it trade war with China, renege on climate
deals, strong arming NATO and EU countries, or giving everything Israel wants nothing stop
Biden from maintaining what has been put in place.
At most they'll just make excuse on why they had to maintain the policies they themselves
criticized Trump for without changing direction.
He said Joe Biden's strong conviction was that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a "bad idea"
and that the administration would use "every persuasive tool" to convince partners,
including Germany, to discard the project.
That is pretty much a declaration of war against countries in Europe. Stay
away,
America's
disarray is its own woes, not other countries' opportunity The Financial Times lives in
a world where the USA doesn't have more than 2,000 operational nukes, doesn't control the
financial system (SWIFT), doesn't issue the universal fiat currency (Dollar Standard),
doesn't have a big fucking navy, doesn't enjoy absolute ideological hegemony etc. etc.
...Tronald's foreign policy has been a disaster, even if he has supposedly not sparked a
new war. Let's not talk about all the secret operations, multiplied drone attacks, state
terrorist assassinations, etc. And the new administration is now continuing this...
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
They just go through the motions. They know that they can't win-achieve their long held
objectives-but they can't stop repeating themselves, including their past errors. They are
not allowed to. The US ruling caste-servants of the ruling class- are only allowed to
operate within very narrow boundaries. They aren't allowed to take radical measures when
faced with new crises- they are confined within ever diminishing political circles. The
duopoly has become an obvious One Party system. And its politics are those of the Gilded
Age-150 years old and still going strong.
The only solution to America's problems is defeat so complete that it cannot be denied
even by the least perceptive. Anyone with money to spare should be buying popcorn
futures.
...Biden is an elderly figurehead. Trump's mistake was being openly bullying and vulgar
instead of underhanded. Already, the EU ( as cowardly vassals ) are falling into line on
Iran and Russia.
...Paul Craig Roberts is correct. There has not been a regime change, there has been a
revolution and treating policies of this "president" as if he is more than a figurehead
being run by oligarchs is foolish in the extreme.
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
One could say this about the American people who have been herded into two camps so that
the Center can rule. Here's an example: One of Biden's first executive actions is to
include undocumented residents in the Census. This will please the Left immensely and
outrage the Right. But the Census is conducted every 10 years and it was completed in 2020.
So Biden's action is actually meaningless. How many people will actual notice this? Very
few.
It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes.
Meet the Filthy Rich War Hawks That Make up Biden's New Foreign Policy Team
"I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," – Biden Biographer Branko Marcetic
by Alan Macleod November 13th, 2020
https://www.mintpressnews.com/filthy-rich-war-hawks-make-joe-biden-foreign-policy-team/273039/
Neera Tanden – Reduce US Deficits by Raiding the Economies of Countries We Have
Destroyed:
Neera Tanden, Biden's Pick for Budget Office: Now Is Not the Time To 'Worry About Raising
Deficits and Debt'
by Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/11/30/neera-tanden-biden-omb-debt-deficit/
She once suggested that if Americans care about the deficit so much, maybe we should make
Libya pay for it.
| 11/30/2020
( Ariana Ruiz/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom )
Trump ripped the mask off US foreign policy and exposed it for what it is - ugly Zionism
and outrageous Jewish supremacy. Trump did many foreign policy changes previous incumbents
and their handlers wanted to do but were constrained by the optics and international
opinion.
I agree the Biden administration will continue the same tired old foreign policy, only
with the mask back on. Of course the media won't notice the similarities, but the public
will. No matter how fervently the managers tinker with the edges it is events that drive
changes and change people.
I just listened to President Biden's speech. It was a good one, even a great one. Thinking
about what Plato means by the 'noble lie' it was a noble speech, and there wasn't much of a
lie about it.
b finished the posting with
"
While Trump had continued the wars the U.S. waged when he came into office he did not start
any new ones. Since Joe Biden first entered the Senate 47 years ago he has cheered on every
war the U.S. has since waged. It would be astonishing to find four years from now that he
did not start any new ones.
"
Prepare to be astonished. Biden isn't going to start any new wars for the same reason
that Trump didn't......MAD
Humanity has been in the MAD phase of the civilization war we are in since the Obama era
push back in Syria.
Biden's chest beating will not be as "impressive" as Trump's but the trajectory is the
same.
The new chief says to tighten the circle of wagons, but those accused of besieging the
Outlaw US Empire's wagon train stopped attacking and moved on long ago. Meanwhile,
supplying the wagon train continues to take resources away from dealing with very real
domestic problems. The upshot is China will continue to pull away and increase its lead
geoeconomically, and together with Russia will continue to solidify and strengthen the
Eurasian Bloc. Very soon, the EU is going to be faced with a very stark choice--to join the
Eurasian Bloc and thus stave-off economic atrophy or continue to allow its brand of
Neoliberal Parasites to eat and risk rupture, perhaps not in 2021 but before 2030.
The key is that the false narrative that was initiated in 1945 and bolstered in 1979
continues to be treated as gospel despite its path to certain ruin. I noted there were no
questions asked about the international call for a Bretton Woods 2.0 that would end dollar
hegemony and Petrodollar recycling, while removing the one source of coercion behind its
illegal sanctions.
The only possible target of opportunity I see is Venezuela as the frack-patch is about
to fold-up shop and fuel prices cause domestic inflation to soar -- Here in Oregon, gas
prices have gone up 50cents/gal since the first of the year--25%. The oil being the obvious
target now the the lower-48 has definitely peaked.
@ 32 juliania... you are the eternal optimist! there is something admirable about that!..
however you have to contend with a lot of cynical people who think like it's business as
well, as b's post notes..... you might not like to hear this, but nothing is going to
change under biden... big wheels set in motion and biden is not interested in the least in
changing any of it... neither was trump as some of his fanbots are coming to see too...
political speeches are just so much b.s... juliania - as the saying goes, talk is cheap, it
is actions that count.... watch peoples actions, not their talk... biden can talk a good
line, but that has nothing to do with his actions... top of the day to you!
@34 Invading Venezuela and 'taking the oil' won't be easy though there is a possibility
Colombia will help out. Which means the total disruption of South America. More economical
to just buy the stuff.
"It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 16:16 utc | 26
Tnx for expressing this in a much nicer and polite way then i would have written. And
yes, yes it is sad/amusing to watch NPC`s turn into pretzels to explain away their
cognitive dissonans ,utter foolishness and stupidity.
"... If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war – within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise). ..."
"... The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media (again with "Russian disinformation" playing a major role). ..."
"... I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support, given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the Reich. ..."
"... Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people. ..."
This particular inauguration is going to look a lot different from all the others –
the twin bogus narratives of coronavirus and the "attempted
coup" on January 6th have forced, FORCED, capitol city into an almost Martial Law-like
standing.
A heavy troop presence as your leader is sworn in is one of the hallmarks of legitimacy, you
understand. And not even slightly a sign of power being seized illegitimately.
That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves –
what kind of world are we in for?
Internationally it's likely to be business as usual. If you look at his cabinet choices,
from
Victoria Nuland to
Samantha power , we have a LOT of warmongers who bleat about America's "responsibility to
protect". While politicians and pundits are already rebuking Trump & Johnson for failing in
US/UK's
"moral leadership" of the world, or praising Biden for his plans to "counter Russian
disinformation".
If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war
– within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military
intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise).
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic
terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media
(again with "Russian
disinformation" playing a major role).
The big question is whether the inauguration will go off smoothly, or they'll try another
manufactured incident to sell that agenda.
How do you think President Creepy Uncle Joe is going to shape our world? How long before,
for whatever reason, Kamala Harris replaces him? Will the pandemic be "solved"? Will we have a
new war? Discuss below.
Jan 21, 2021 2:24 AM
Washington DC was empty except for the troops. Windblown streets. Jason Goodman did his
walkabout could not even get a distant view of the Capitol. It's as if no one voted for Biden: no supporters even tried to attend the inauguration. You would have expected someone a few diehards who hadn't heard about the military
occupation.
I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support,
given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of
reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the
Reich.
Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a
military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people.
An inauguration of the leader of a nation cannot be legitimate if the people play no part
.
Celebrities cheered with exaggerated leering grins and lockjaw, tongues lolling in a vain
caricature of support from the class of paid actors.
The term 'State Actor' has a new meaning today. The Corporatist Media could not recognise
its own banality. This was like the USSR Actors' Union huddling and fawning around Secretary
General Brezhnev as the Soviet Union teetered to collapse.
Social cretinism is the best one can say about this sorry debacle but I fear it is something
much, much worse.
Disillusioned Peasant , Jan 21, 2021 2:38 AM Reply to theobalt
Agreed, Trump was used as a puppet to shame anybody who questions the narrative or resists
the deep state. He was asked to be a cartoon, a ridiculous exaggeration of a "traditionalist"
or "nationalist" to forever tarnish that stance. He was basically the Alex Jones president
.the ultimate controlled opposition. A clown.
I'm so embarrassed I fell for it in 2016. Of COURSE he was phony. Jan 21, 2021 1:39 AM
The snake as a new head. It's still the same snake. It still crawls on it's belly and it
still spits the same lies on behalf of the masters who stand behind the curtain. We could
still hear Bush Sr when Clinton spoke ; We could still hear Bush Jr when Obama spoke. Red and
Blue are the same colour.
It was refreshing in parts to have an American president who didn't try to contrive a
narrative that would justify invading another country or contrive yet another cell of
'radicalised' terrorists. No explosions on home soil intended to be taken as an attack from
foreign soil. Nothing in four years.
It was all the more surprising as many believed that Trump was and is a great real estate
dealer and TV celebrity who has manufactured his charisma from arrogance and ignorance. He
has never been celebrated for much beyond his business acumen in the real estate area and TV.
This wasn't exactly an erudite man. Former presidents of different ages were and were capable
of putting it on paper in their memoirs. Trump was the sign of the times ; a Twitter
president. His reign was punctuated by the occasional flexing of Uncle Sam's muscles with
threats and a go -ahead-punk-make-our-day approach to public speaking. Yet still no
threats of war. This was an odd four years. That odd = peace says more about the US than
Trump though. So, what was his role ?
In 2001 we had the Twin Towers. The most dramatic mass murder and the destruction of the
laws of Physics and Logic all in one day. Soon after we had the destruction of personal
freedom and the creation of domestic terror. It had been suggested by Philip Zelikow three
years earlier that a 'searing event such as a terror attack' would be a useful and
effective tool in transforming the future by breaking away from the past in no uncertain
terms. It would be the event that nobody dare question, and that would be perfect for
creating a real fear within the people of the west that such a disaster could occur any time
without warning. All they needed was the right salesman to address us.
And so the Patriot Act was born. The surveillance of everyone in their streets, in other
towns and their homes was pushed through as a public health measure and a matter of
national security. If you protested you were a ' 9 /11 denier' and 'unpatriotic'. If
we went too long without evidence of this terror then somewhere would be bombed and the
bomber would be 'neutralised' before we would ever learn who was behind it. It took time to
become a 'new normal' but it became the 'new normal'. Complain- you were a 'dangerous'
conspiracy theorist; in some states it was considered grounds to label you under the mental
health act. Just for asking questions.This was how to protect democracy- by
tyranny.
So, two decades on we were ready and primed.
Gates and his cohort billionaire 'philanderers' had been beavering away for decades
creating more subtle forms of terror. No bangs; no smoke; no mess. These 'missiles'
were microbes and the control groups had been observed closely. From mice, to bats to black
people to gay people. Once the results /data became big enough numbers, the bomb factory went
to work behind the closed doors of 'Cancer Research ' facilities.
We all know now about the hypothetical exercises 'imagined' by the Gates 'Good
Club' ; nightmares of being unprepared etc. They penned in 2030 as target date for the
endgame. . A date that will have seen the human race enslaved or culled by their
terrorism.
Liability would have been taken off the table, giving them free reign. All involved sank
their pennies into the manufacturing of these little bombs. And all Academic Institutions,
MSM platforms, and pharmaceutical industries were funded by Gates and Co. Then
Monsanto and it's subsidiaries were purchased the same way, and the same immunity from
prosecution granted from the damaging synthetic /poison crops and food.
So, 2020, was Trump's last stand. He had his '9 /11'. He had domestic bio
terrorists. Then the rest of the world had it. We had the same threats to national
security and the same 'need' for a new version of a Dystopian Patriot Act.
This wasn't about ISIS or Al -Qaeda and their radicalised lunatics. Trump had found a new
group of Bogeymen. China. He would have sounded a bit paranoid if Russia was blamed for
something again. Besides, everyone knows that all SARS- type or flu-like viruses are made in
China quicker and cheaper. And the US should know that by looking in their many, many
stockpiles in their own Biological War labs they pretend are trying to cure
cancer.
Trump decided to refer to the Covid 19 virus as 'The Chinese disease '. Fang
Ling Fauci had told him to on behalf of Wong Sing Gates.
He went on to call himself a 'war time president' ( there you go- he got one).
He invoked the Defence Production Act, an old Cold War law which allows the Executive
Branch to control and redirect the production and distribution of scarce materials deemed
"essential to the national defense. " In an executive order dated March 18th,
2020.
To add another layer to the movie the troops were brought in and all medics were now
'heroes on the front line'.
The script went global. It began in the country that Gates had composed such a
hypothetical scenario- America. Hence the 'Chinese Disease'. It was the new war on terror
minus the James Bond bad guy Bin Laden.
So Trump ushered it in right on time. It didn't win the election( we were told). Instead,
it won it for Obama's man, Biden.
Biden and Obama were the most vehement advocates of Monsanto, Sterilisation, and Social
Technology ( eugenics ; social cleansing). Obama was made a very wealthy man for his
services to the Gates agenda, pharma and GM / Frankenfood. He was surprisingly racist
as well as elitist. Tom Vilsack was their frontman. Biden has already called him out of
retirement.
So, given the 'war-on-(bio)-terror ' that was born in the USA and sold worldwide,
there was no place for Trump. His job was to let the the 'enemy' in, warn us of the possible
'war ahead' and leave it to Gates. But Trump seemed to have spotted that and didn't
seem too keen on the narrative. So, come on down Barack O Biden. The timing's right.. Jan 20,
2021 11:40 PM Reply to Ben
Do not be bamboozled, in SHAM DEMOCRACY USA there is only one party, THE
REPUBLICRATS (the WAR RACKETEER CORPORATE FASCIST political racket so corrupt it needs two
aliases).
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral
and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of
tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
~ Frederick Douglas, 1857
Schmitz Katze , Jan 20, 2021 10:44 PM
„That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves
– what kind of world are we in for? –
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic.-
Will the pandemic be "solved"? „
It will only be solved when people have had enough of it. The deep state got rid of Trump
(for the timebeing-) under the guise of a pandemic. For them and their minions in MSM,
government and academia it´s a gift that keeps on giving, with never ending corona
mutation fearporn.
It´s totalitarianism, it´s dystopia under under the guise of –
domestic-safety.
The plan now, on the part of the Swamp, is to declare every Trump supporter a terrorist and
an insurrectionist.
But we did not tear down statues of American heroes.
Antifa and BLM did that. We did not attack the police and call for them to be defunded or
fried like bacon. Antifa and BLM did that.
We did not burn and loot the business centers of dozens of America's major cities. Antifa
and BLM did that.
And what have Republican leaders done? They condemn you, anyone who dares to continue to
express support for Donald Trump, as a domestic terrorist. And when there was ample cause to
call out the real terrorists–Antifa and BLM–many of the Republican leaders cowered
and kept silent.
"Neoliberalism and imperialism do not care about the pseudo-fights between the two
parties or the cable TV bickering of the day. They do not like the far left or the far right.
They do not like extremism of any kind. They do not support Communism and they do not support
neo-Nazism or some fascist revolution. They care only about one thing: disempowering and
crushing anyone who dissents from and threatens their hegemony. They care about stopping
dissidents. All the weapons they build and institutions they assemble -- the FBI, the DOJ,
the CIA, the NSA, oligarchical power -- exist for that sole and exclusive purpose, to fortify
their power by rewarding those who accede to their pieties and crushing those who do
not."
the democrats are led by a bunch of international sociopaths, pariahs, billionaire
psychopaths, paranoid schizos, think tank imbeciles, and endless-war mongers - all of this
fully enabled by a sycophantic a**-kissing and biased press which also has lost its common
sense and collective mind. very sad!!!
I particularly like glenn Greenwald's take on some of this insanity...
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Remember when Mueller spent 18 months and millions of dollars armed with a team of
prosecutors and subpoena power, then closed his investigation after arresting *zero*
Americans for conspiring with Russia?
Let's do it again! Anything to distract from how rotted neoliberalism is:
LOL. In that above clip, Hillary Clinton explicitly suggests that Trump was plotting with
Putin on the day of the Capitol Riots, as if Putin directed it.
These people are the *last* ones with any moral standing to rant about conspiracy theories
& disinformation.
This comes at a time when Americans are now
reporting that they trust corporations more than they trust their own government or media,
when pundits are gleefully proclaiming in The New
York Times that "CEOs have become the fourth branch of government" as they pressure the
entire political system to smoothly install Biden, when the leading contender for the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is an Obama holdover who went from the
administration to working for both Amazon and Google, and when Americans are being
paced into accepting an increasing amount of authoritarian changes for their own good.
And this manic celebration and increasing brazenness of corporate power are of course
overlaid atop an unceasing river of human blood as the globe-spanning empire continues to smash
any nation which disobeys it into compliance so as to ensure lasting uncontested planetary
hegemony.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
DH Fabian , January 18, 2021 at 12:03
Yes, nervous middle classers pray Joe Biden will be their salvation. The rest of us know
why "business as usual" will continue. The only real difference between Biden and Trump is
that Biden is more likely to start a catastrophic war (as his record clearly indicates).
Jeff Harrison , January 17, 2021 at 23:17
Good points. Since Americans don't see any consequence to their government's outrageous
behavior, everything's outstanding (there are real benefits to those two oceans)! And it will
remain outstanding until someone shoves our bad behavior in our faces (which could really
happen. The Russians and Chinese are arming themselves to defend themselves from the US.
That's a lot cheaper than having to support a major offensive capability) or our brokeness
blows our economy to hell. You might want to read up on what happened to Sparta ..
No, I am not excited for the inauguration of a man who: Wrote the crime and bankruptcy
bills, voted for the Iraq War, took more money from Wall Street than Trump, and told a room of
rich donors that "nothing will fundamentally change." Democrats are part of the problem
too.
If there must be a CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it.
William Burns in 2014 as U.S. deputy secretary of state. (State Department)
By John Kiriakou Special to Consortium News
P resident-elect Joe Biden has finally named a new CIA director, one of the final
senior-level appointees for his new administration. Much to the surprise of many of us who
follow these things, he named senior diplomat Williams Burns to the position. Burns is one of
the most highly-respected senior U.S. diplomats of the past three decades. He has ably served
presidents of both parties and is known as both a reformer and as a supporter of human
rights.
Burns is currently the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an
important Washington-based international affairs think tank. He served as deputy secretary of
state under President Barack Obama and was ambassador to Russia under President George W. Bush
and ambassador to Jordan under President Bill Clinton. He was instrumental in the negotiations
that led to the Iran Nuclear Deal and spent much of his career focused on the Middle East Peace
Process. Burns joined the Foreign Service in 1982.
Please
Contribute to Consortium
News ' Winter Fund Drive
"Bill Burns is an exemplary diplomat with decades of experience on the word stage keeping
our people and our country safe and secure. He shares my profound belief that intelligence
must be apolitical and that the dedicated intelligence professionals serving our nation
deserve our gratitude and respect. The American people will sleep soundly with him as our
next CIA Director."
The message from Biden is clear: The CIA will not be led by a political hack like Mike
Pompeo, a CIA insider like John Brennan, or someone associated with the CIA's crimes of
torture, secret prisons, or international renditions like Gina Haspel. Instead, the
organization will be led by someone with experience engaging across a negotiating table with
America's enemies, someone experienced in solving problems, rather than creating new ones,
someone who has dedicated much of his career to promoting peace, rather than to creating
war.
Rank & File Response
The question, though, is what will be the response from the CIA's rank-and-file to Burns'
appointment? I can tell you from my 15 years of experience at the CIA that there will be two
reactions. At the working level, analysts, operators, and others will continue their same level
of work no matter who the director is. Most working level officers don't even care who the
director is. It doesn't matter to them. They never encounter the director and policies made at
that top level generally don't impact them on a day-to-day basis.
At the senior levels, the leadership levels, CIA officers will be of two minds. Some will
welcome Burns and his professionalism. They'll welcome a director who doesn't attract adverse
press because of a past history of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. (Even if
they supported those crimes when they were being committed, press attention is always
unwelcome.) They'll welcome a director who didn't head secret prisons overseas. They'll
welcome a director who wasn't in charge of Guantanamo. They'll welcome a director who
wasn't in charge of maintaining a secret "kill list."
Others will resent Burns, though, as they resented an earlier outsider, Admiral Stansfield
Turner. Turner had been appointed by President Jimmy Carter to "clean up" the CIA. Turner then
fired fully a third of the CIA's operations officers, some just months away from qualifying for
retirement. He was universally reviled after that, and he never regained the trust of agency
personnel.
That's not Burns' style. He's not a military officer who demands fealty. He's a diplomat, a
negotiator. The CIA has to be cleaned up. Its policies have to be reformed. If there must be a
CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it. At the very least, we should give him
enough time to at least get started.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
As a top-level State Department official through the administrations of Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton, Bush II and Obama, Burns is implicated in virtually every crime of US imperialism
over the past three decades, including the war in Iraq, the US-NATO attack on Libya, the
military coup that drowned the Egyptian Revolution in blood, and the US intervention in
Syria.
After such a career, as the saying goes, Burns knows where all the bodies are buried. Now
he is assigned to head an agency that is probably responsible for more killing, torture and
mass suffering than any other on the planet: the CIA.
A preview of what to expect from a Burns-led CIA was given during an interview with
National Public Radio's Mary Louise Kelly on "US Global Leadership" held June 19, 2019 at the
Truman Center for National Policy in Washington, DC. In the extended conversation, Burns
defended the US and NATO-led coup in Libya which ended with the grisly murder of Muammar
Gaddafi, followed by an ongoing civil war, the torture and killing of refugees and the return
of slave-markets.
"It was right to act in Libya in the way that we did," Burns said. While the US government
might have "got some assumptions wrong," he expressed no regrets, saying that he still
thought Obama's "decision to act was unavoidable."
Anne , January 12, 2021 at 14:15
I would agree with your estimation some one, anyone who can think, believe, say etc that
what we did in Iraq, Libya (I don't doubt Serbia), Syria is "rightful" has a heinously
distorted mind (pretty much everyone in DC, in the MICIMATT) And Biden has revealed himself
– again – as a subject of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist plutocratic ruling
elites (and one with his hand forever stuck out)
was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows
(including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator. Follow him on Twitter
@georgegalloway
19 Jan,
2021 18:23 It's hard not to wonder if Joe Biden will even last his first 100 days in office...
but those arguing his mind isn't sound enough shouldn't expect a swift exit, because since when
was that a disqualifier?
... ... ...
The madness of Donald Trump had nothing on his Republican predecessor and fellow-impeachee
Richard Nixon. So disturbing were the last days of Tricky Dicky, it came as a relief to America
and the world when he resigned – even though it was famously said his successor Gerald
Ford couldn't chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time. Bovine he may have been,
but a mad-cow he wasn't.
The Raging Bull Donald J Trump – grotesque, bizarre, unbelievable – had the
misfortune to go quite mad in the age of cable news and social media. His narcissistic
predilections always bordered on personality disorder. But his natural braggadocio stormed him
to victory in 2016 in a backlash against the super-smooth professorial presidency of Barack
Obama, with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton riding shotgun.
Under Obama, the Clintonite deindustrialisation of America became almost complete .
China was presented with America's lunch. And in no less than nine conflicts across the
globe Obama was 'nation-building' in other people's countries while his own country was falling
apart. But a dark storm was gathering
If only the Democrats had not started out by trying to steal Trump's election in a flurry of
pussy-hats and fake Russiagate hoaxes. If only they hadn't striven might and main to railroad
the Electoral College into betraying their mandate and – in the case of
Nancy Pelosi – make a thinly disguised call for "uprisings throughout the country."
If only they hadn't spent countless millions and two whole years of a four year-term with the
Mueller Inquiry and the cockamaney theorem that the man who confronted Russia from Ukraine and
the Baltics through the wrecked INF and Open Skies treaties to the killing fields of the Levant
was, in fact, an agent of Vladimir Putin. If only, if only
As it happened, the descent into madness of Trump was complete by the end. The coronavirus
he derided at first, before predicting it would disappear in the warm weather of spring, before
pondering whether bleach up the bahookie might not be an option as a cure. The Tammany Hall
skullduggery of election day, practiced over a century in places like New York, rolled out
across the country. The political suicide of only half-making a revolution on January 6 dug
his own grave. Nobody ever beat a candidate who polled over 75 million votes before. But
Sleepy Joe Biden did.
And he did it hardly ever leaving his basement home studio, where he painfully struggled to
read an autocue even with an earpiece shrieking the words to him. When he did speak, it was
often gibberish that would have made Ronald Reagan blush. He oftentimes plainly didn't know
where he was, what office he was running for, which woman was his sister and which was his
wife.
When Boris Yeltsin was rattling down, the world endlessly amused itself at the sight of
Russia on its back, legs akimbo with thieves picking its pocket. With Joe Biden, though, the
political class and its media echo-chamber merely look the other way.
Despite Democratic Party control of all levels of Federal power, it seems unlikely we are
about to witness an FDR or a JFK barnstorming 100 days. It seems fair to wonder if Sleepy
Joe will even see out a hundred days in office. It is, however, certain that if he is in office
he will not be in power. Because power has already passed to the cavernous uncertainty of Vice
President Kamala Harris.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Mark Conley 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Thanks for reminding the world that the president of the USA including his puppet elected
office bearers has absolutely no power whatsoever. Well said. Thus you have answered your own
observation at the end. The future is indeed dark and uncertain with the only certainty that
nothing good can be expected from any USA government. Thus the onus is on the peaceful
majority to do what is necessary.
Atilla863 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:15 PM
One thing is certain in the new leadership - the debt will go on growing, perhaps reaching
40+ T dollars before the next elections. While this trend continues - the Chinese will be
laughing all the way running to their banks as their economy records fortune after fortune
proportional only inversely to the rate at which America recedes into superpower sunset.
JJ_Rousseau 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
I'm surprised at George Galloway's comments, as he is a former MP in British politics. Kamala
in charge? Don't make me laugh. The cabal is in charge, as they have been since Woodrow
Wilson. Before actually, as Garfield was assassinated for shedding light on the banker
machinations. Garfield knew that control of the nation's money was control of the nation. The
coup of America is complete. The POTUS is only the spokesman for the cabal, nothing else
Biden will be much easier to control and manipulate by the Jewish Banking Cartel, which
ultimately controls the US government and Wall Street. Trump was too unpredictable and would
have made it difficult for them to achieve their historical hope. "The Jews energetically
reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope
of World Empire." - Dr. Max Mandelstamm ***We should always listen to the doctors.
Not stolen.....50 states certified, 60 plus courts found nothing fraudulent, and the
electoral votes were confirmed by the House and Senate, with the Senate led by Pence. So, as
the world knows and anyone who knows election laws, the election was one of the most
legitimate ever held in the US.
KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The Jewish Banking Cartel is ultimately in control of the US government and Wall Street.
They've been in control for decades. Now they've obviously teamed up with the Jewish Big Tech
companies like Facebook and Google in order to gain even more control. Controlling the money,
money system, and the minds of the masses has been their goal. Two Jewish controlled
companies control over $9Trillion of American's wealth. (BlackRock Inc. & Goldman Sachs)
They've finally achieved their goal. The cartel is now in control of a country that is
completely out of control. Karma!
Daffyduck011 KarlthePoet 38 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:18 PM
Ashkenasty banking cartel.
JJ_Rousseau KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:29 PM
It's not only the banking cabal, it's the media (which the same gang own, of course). This
cannot happen without a complicit media. This is a very old strategy
Blackace180 7 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:49 PM
He'll be impeached multiple times, along with his family. Removed and jailed. People need a
reminder of just how messed up Obama/Biden was and it is coming. The caravans are already on
the way and gas has jumped 55 cents a gallon since the election, for no reason other than it
is Biden. People will run the nutcracker right out of office, hopefully before the country
collapses from his nutcracker policies.
White Elk 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:45 PM
The press-elected.
Xilla White Elk 33 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:23 PM
How did the press elect him?
Franc 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Xilla/Herrbifi, you're not welcome here. We all know what your goals are, and we all know
you're just here to make a pointless mess.
5th Eye 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
An Italian bureaucrat once said, "Everything is changed, so that it remains the same." It
will be exactly like that under Biden to legitimate his regime.
The_Chosenites 51 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
Since both Trump and Biden are proud zionists, the only thing I am certain of is Israel and
the Jewish community have won another election and we'll see many jewish politicians elevated
to positions of power in the Biden administration. Biden best do what's best for Israel if he
knows whats good for him and his health.
KarlthePoet The_Chosenites 16 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:40 PM
Maybe when Kamala becomes President she can get advice from her Jewish husband, who is a
lawyer. What a coincidence.
Enki14 9 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:48 PM
That Henry Kissinger, long time shadow government puppet endorsed demented biden is a clue as
to what might happen as they know in 2 years the masses will reinstate conservatives and in 4
years another trumpster. We may see sweeping changes, with some huge blowback.
The_Chosenites Enki14 4 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:53 PM
Kissinger has had a bed in the oval office for many a President, he must have been installed
by the Chosennites to stay in office forever. Presidents come and go, but Kissinger remains
to pull the strings. Goldman Sach's et al rule the roost.
Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:42 PM
Biden's 100 days are interesting. It's exactly 100 days from January 20 to May 1, which is
the communist May Day.
Skeptic076 Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Used to be the American May Day as well, you know? Interesting if you research why it is not
anymore.
Michael Knight 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:46 PM
Impossible to believe he'll be in charge????? That's probably because he won't be!
RCBreakenridge Mike Freeman 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Mike, seriously? What echo chamber are you living in? How can you look at Biden and not
understand that he's little more than a life-size cardboard cutout of the man that used to be
Obama's puppet? He'll be in office as long as they can continue to stand him up for photo ops
and he continues to do exactly what he is told. As soon as either of those conditions falter,
Nancy and friends will roll out the 25th amendment, show him the door and lead KH to the
presidents chair. But make no mistake, the only choices Sleepy Joe will be making are to do
as he is told.
"... "A month after the election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to fulfill his ..."
"... to donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet appointments ..."
"... What little organized left political infrastructure exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum deserve a loyal opposition. The ..."
"... being done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp creatures a free pass ..."
"... Despite Tanden's ..."
"... push for Social Security cuts ..."
"... , Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to defend Social Security ..."
"... . Despite Tanden having her organization ..."
"... rake in cash ..."
"... from Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and ( ..."
"... ) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer advocacy group ..."
"... CAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tanden ..."
"... a union at CAP, ..."
"... union leaders ..."
"... in Washington lauded her. ..."
"... American Prospect ..."
"... "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ..."
"... "a President Putin would be in the business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and other nations that are near the U.S. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Bernard Schwartz, ..."
"... a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin ..."
"... (which is by far the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th, ..."
"... "Biden allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter" ..."
"... , and reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate. ..."
That didn't take long. He's not even in office, and he has already surrounded himself, as
the incoming President, with individuals who derive their wealth from (and will be serving)
America's top defense contractors and Wall Street. The likelihood that these Government
officials will be biting the hands that feed them is approximately zero. Great investigative
journalists have already exposed how corrupt they are. For that to be the case so early (even
before taking office) is remarkable, and only a summary of those reports will be provided here,
with links to them, all of which reports are themselves linking to the incriminating evidence,
so that everything can easily be tracked back to the documentation by the reader here, even
before there are any 'Special Prosecutors' (as if those were serving anyone other than the
opposite Party's political campaigns, and, ultimately, the opposite Party's billionaires).
First up, is the independent investigative team of David Sirota and Andrew Perez. On
December 4th, they bannered "The Beltway
Left Is Normalizing Corruption And Corporatism" , and reported that "A month after the
election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to
fulfill hispromiseto donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit
admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in
Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet
appointments ."
Liberal (that's to say Democratic Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness of Democratic
politicians, and conservative (that's to say Republican Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness
of Republican politicians; and, so, the public today are getting corrupt leaders whichever side
they vote for. No mainstream 'news' media report what independent investigative journalists
such as Sirota and Perez report. Authentically good journalists use as sources -- and link to
in their articles -- neither Democratic nor Republican allegations, but instead are on the
margins, outside of the major media, and so rely on whistleblowers and other trustworthy
outsiders, not on people who are somebody's paid PR flacks, individuals who are being paid to
deceive. As Sirota and Perez state: " What little organized left political infrastructure
exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum
deserve a loyal opposition. Thegood workbeing done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is
getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp
creatures a free pass ." It's all some sort of mega-corporate propaganda -- 100%
billionaire-supported on the conservative side, 100% billionaire-supported also on the liberal
side, and 0% billionaire-supported for anything that is authentically progressive (not
dependent, at all, upon the aristocracy).
That independent reporting team focused on Biden's having chosen an economic team which will
start his Administration already offering to congressional Republicans an initial Democratic
Party negotiating position that accepts Republicans' basic proposals to cut middle class Social
Security and health care benefits in order for the Government to be able to continue expanding
the military budgets and purchases from the billionaire-controlled firms, such as Northrop
Grumman -- firms whose entire sales (or close to it) are to the U.S. Government and to the
governments (U.S. 'allies') that constitute these firms' secondary markets. (In other words:
those budget-cuts aren't going to be an issue between the two Parties and used by Biden's team
as a bargaining chip to moderate the Republicans' position that favors more for 'defense' and
less for the poor, but are actually accepted by both Parties, even before the new
Administration will take office.) Obviously, anything that both sides to a negotiation accept
at the very start of a negotiation will be included in the final product from that negotiation;
and this means that during a Biden Presidency there will be reductions in middle-class Social
security and health care benefits in order to continue, at the present level -- if not to
increase yet further -- Government spending on the products and services of such firms as
Lockheed Martin and the Rand Corporation (firms that control their market by controlling their
Government, which is their main or entire market).
Sirota and Perez focus especially upon one example: Neera Tanden, whom Biden chose on
November 30th to be the White House Budget Director, and who therefore will set the priorities
which determine how much federal money the President will be trying to get the Congress to
allocate to what recipients:
Despite Tanden'spush for Social Security cuts, Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to
defend Social Securitylauded
herthink
tank. Despite Tanden having her organizationrake in
cashfrom Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and (previously) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer
advocacy group
praisedCAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the
rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tandenbustinga union at CAP,twonationalunion
leadersin Washington lauded her.
Next up: One of the rare honest non-profits in the field of journalism is the Project on
Government Oversight, POGO, which refuses to accept donations from "anyone who stands to
benefit financially from our work," and which states in its unique "Donation Acceptance Policy" that,
"POGO reviews all contributions exceeding $100 in order to maintain this standard." In other
words: they refuse to be corrupt. Virtually all public-policy or think-tank nonprofits are
profoundly corrupt, but POGO is the most determined exception to that general
rule.
On 20 November 2020, POGO headlined "Should
Michèle Flournoy Be Secretary of Defense?" and their terrific investigative team of
Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey delivered a scorching portrayal of Flournoy as irredeemably
corrupt -- it ought to be read by everybody. It's essential reading throughout, and its links
to the evidence are to the very best sources. So, I won't summarize it, because all Americans
need to know what it reports, and to be able to verify, on their own (by clicking onto any link
in it that interests them), any allegation that the given reader has any question about.
However, I shall point out here the sheer hypocrisy of the following which that article quotes
Flournoy as asserting: "It will be imperative for the next secretary to appoint a team of
senior officials who meet the following criteria: deep expertise and competence in their areas
of responsibility; proven leadership in empowering teams, listening to diverse views, making
tough decisions, and delivering results." (Of course, that assertion presumes the
given 'expert' to be not only authentically expert but also honest and trustworthy,
authentically representing the public's interest and no special interests whatsoever -- not at
all corrupt -- which is certainly a false allegation in her own case.) She had urged the 2003
invasion of Iraq, and had participated in planning and overseeing both the war against Syria,
and the coup that destroyed Ukraine (and none of those countries had ever invaded, or even
threatened to invade, the United States); and, so, for her to brag about her
"delivering results" is not merely hypocritical, it is downright evil, because she is obviously
proud, there, of her vicious, outright voracious, record.
Her business-partner, Tony Blinken, has already received Biden's approval to become his
Secretary of State, and the first really good investigative journalist that American
Prospect magazine has had, Jonathan Guyer, headlined on November 23rd, "What You Need to Know About Tony Blinken" , and what Guyer
reports is just what any well informed reader would expect to see for a business
partner of Flournoy's.
Guyer's report closes by making passing reference to a CBS 'news' puff-piece for Blinken. In
that CBS
puff-piece , Blinken says, "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting
Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its
deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer
space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to
countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ." What would Americans think if
Russia were to have retained its Warsaw Pact, and "a President Putin would be in the
business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing
them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new
capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I.,
electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and
other nations that are near the U.S. "? Guyer pointedly noted that "The [CBS News] podcast
was sponsored by a major weapons maker. 'At Lockheed Martin, your mission is ours,' read an
announcer." Tony Blinken's mission is theirs. These people get the money both coming and going
-- on both sides of the "revolving door." Today's American Government is for sale to
the highest bidders, on any policy, domestic or foreign. 'Government service' is just a
sabbatical to boost their value to the firms that will be paying them the vast majority of
their lifetime 'earnings'. This is the reality that mainstream U.S.-and-allied 'news' media
refuse to publish (or, especially , to make clear). Only an electorate which
is ignorant of this reality can accept such a government.
Back on 26 January 2020, I had headlined "Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They
Come" and documented the reality of this, but America's mainstream media were hiding that
fact so as to decrease the likelihood that the only Democratic Party Presidential candidate whom no billionaire
supported , Bernie Sanders, might win the nomination. Perhaps now that it's too late, even
those 'news' organizations (such as CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times ,
Washington Post , PBS, and NPR) will start reporting the fact of Biden's corruptness.
Where billionaires control all of the mainstream media, there is no democracy -- it's not even
possible , in such a country
Bernard Schwartz,a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin(which is by far
the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's
allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th,"Biden
allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter", and
reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's
campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just
that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor
of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate.
Near the end of the Democratic Party's primaries, on 16 March 2020, CNBC headlined
"Megadonors pull plug on plan for anti-Sanders super PAC as Biden racks up wins" , and
reported that Bernard Schwartz had become persuaded by other billionaires that, by this time,
"Biden could handle Sanders on his own." They had done their job; they would therefore control
the U.S. Government regardless of which Party's nominee would head it.
Biden -- like Trump, and like Obama and Bush and Clinton before him -- doesn't represent the
American people. He represents his mega-donors. And he is staffing his Administration
accordingly. He repays favors: he delivers the services that they buy from him. This is today's
America. And that is the way it functions.
"These leaders are trusted at home and respected around the world, and their nominations
signal that America is back and ready to lead the world, not retreat from it,"
Biden said on Saturday in a statement announcing his picks to fill top positions under his
nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken.
Like Blinken, the five latest State Department picks are veterans of the Obama-Biden
administration. Nuland , a
neoconservative who was named undersecretary for political affairs, goes all the way back to
former President Ronald Reagan's administration and was a foreign policy adviser to former Vice
President Dick Cheney.
Other new re-hires include: Wendy Sherman, deputy secretary of state, who led the
Obama-Biden administration's negotiating team on peace talks with Iran; Brian McKeon, deputy
secretary for management and resources, who was a national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden; Bonnie Jenkins, undersecretary for arms control and international security,
who previously coordinated nonproliferation programs; and Uzra Zeha, undersecretary for
civilian security, who formerly was charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Paris.
After four years of President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, including efforts to
wind down foreign interventions and broker peace deals, Biden's declaration of "America is
back" portends a sharp contrast in foreign policy. He said his latest nominees will "use
their diplomatic experience and skill to restore America's global and moral
leadership."
Nuland, who studied Russian literature at Brown University, wrote last summer in Foreign
Affairs of how "a confident America should deal
with Russia " with a more "activist" policy, including "speaking directly to
the Russian people about the benefits of working together and the price they have paid for
(President Vladimir) Putin's hard turn away from liberalism." She added, "Washington and
its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results
for many years after."
Nuland perhaps was using such "statecraft" when, as assistant secretary of state in
December 2013, she handed out cookies
to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti square who were demanding the resignation of
President Viktor Yanukovich. An audiotape leaked in February 2014 showed that
her involvement in the uprising went well beyond cookies, as she spoke with US Ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt about plotting to replace Yanukovich with Washington's chosen opposition leader,
Arseny Yatseniuk, and about involving the UN to "f**k the EU" by pushing through a
US-preferred Ukraine policy.
Ironically, Nuland's appointment comes just as politicians in Washington fret over this
month's storming of the US Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, which some called a
coup attempt.
"I knew it wasn't a real coup because Victoria Nuland wasn't handing out cookies,"
Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow said of the Capitol assault. "She'll be back
overthrowing governments in the Biden administration, so it remains a valid standard."
In light of Nuland's hawkish history, 25
anti-war groups have jointly called for the Senate to
reject confirmation of her nomination as undersecretary for political affairs.
"Victoria Nuland is returning to the State Department," one commenter wrote on
Twitter. "The United States is returning to the former Soviet republics with great strides.
A fierce struggle with Russia begins."
I am strongly against balkanization of the country. The example of the USSR shows where it
leads -- misery of common pople and dramatic drop of the standard of living, while new gand of
ruthless oligarchs emerge from the ruins.
Pushing the Trump-inspired populist movement underground may only cause it to resort to more
drastic measures. As the leftist libertarian reporter Glenn Greenwald observes ,
"these people know they are scorned and looked down upon... and the more you humiliate
and make them feel powerless, the more you take away their ability to organize and express
that rage, it's gonna find an outlet in more destructive ways."
As a former professor at a top-ranking university, I favored a Trump re-election, not
because I support Trump so much as abhor what the opposition represents and is proving itself
to be. In response to the social media threat to expression, I have inaugurated a new group on
Telegram called 'Thought Criminals'. There, fellow 'thought deviationists' like me are able to
express views that are effectively proscribed on mainstream social media platforms. No one
among us advocates violence or the overthrow of the government. None of us is 'racist'. We
advocate only the rights enshrined in the US Constitution.
But some groups, no doubt, are intent on violence. Yet the violent extremists consist mostly
of Antifa and related 'activists', who will unfortunately trick Trump supporters into another
error during the inauguration, like some appeared to do when involved
in the Capitol siege. It's not as if violent extremists among the Trump base were always there,
ready to pounce on any opportunity to express their "racist," "white nationalist"
views.
Rather, as the rising party has already demonstrated, these people stand to lose the most
under a Biden-Harris regime, whose Big Tech and mainstream media allies act as governmental
enforcement apparatuses.
Trump supporters have been hated and demonized simply for wanting to live without being
reprimanded and punished for their whiteness, their middle-Americanness, or their values. They
face an anti-white, anti-native, anti-middle-America extremism that is set to silence and crush
them into submission.
These and others will form a new underground under the prevailing ideological and political
hegemony. This banishment of millions, and not Trump, is why the nation will fall apart, if
indeed it does.
JJ_Rousseau 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:58 PM
The best thing that could happen is for USA to "balkanize". For the rest of the world, and
for Americans too. The founding fathers intentionally put restraints on the federal
government's power to prevent the situation we now face. Both parties (actually the duopoly)
are guilty of breaching the constitution, on so many levels we have lost count
Ronj14848 JJ_Rousseau 1 hour ago 15 Jan, 2021 07:23 PM
The USA have more American in uniform outside America than civilian Americans inside America.
You bleed yourself dry trying to be the boss of the world.
chert JJ_Rousseau 3 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:52 PM
Right, states should have more power than the federal government. Case in point: North Dakota
is trying to pass a law to sue Facebook and Twitter for those who have been censored on those
platforms. But federal law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act will supersede
because federal law wins.
apothqowejh 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:17 PM
As an American, I can't say a reckoning hasn't been overdue. The myopia in this country, and
the tolerance for evil, was bound to rebound. From a refusal to honestly look at 9/11, a
refusal to accept responsibility for Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and a host of other
insanely brutal blunders, to an acceptance of such horrors as the USAPatriot Act and the
COVID scam, everyday Americans have obliviously sleepwalked into a totalitarian dystopia.
Tyranny abroad inevitably leads to tyranny at home, and we have well-earned it by refusing to
vote for peace and non-interventionism; for limited government, for responsible spending. Now
our votes no longer matter, and we are caught helpless in the whirlwind of our own
destruction.
newagerage apothqowejh 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:33 PM
The CIA, NSA, Pentagon... all these corporations lead to disaster as the employees have to
keep causing trouble to justify their jobs and spend, spend like crazy, the Army and
intelligence agencies spending the hard worked money from Silicon Valley and other sectors.
The country just doesn't make sense, first outsource jobs to China and then when they see
that Chinese people are smarter than them outsource those to India? are Indians idiots? I
don't think so... both countries will rule the World by the end of the century. And the most
important of all... where is your public education system? you can live without a proper
health system, China does, but without a decent public education system? most Americans don't
know where Portugal or Belgium is placed, no matter black or white...
ceshawn 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:31 PM
Trump didn't do this. The irrational reaction to Trump did this. It started with the
now-fully mythological Russia-gate nonsense (that started with an almost ridiculously made up
FISA warrant application). Continued through constant over-the-top challenges by Democrats of
Trump following Obama-era laws (separation of children and adults for illegal border
crossings) and the clear obstruction used by opponents during his entire Presidency. Trump
was a disaster, Biden will be a nightmare (or a complete liar), but the left shouldn't be
complaining when the reaction to their candidate is equally as disturbing as their reaction
to the right (and yes, the circus that was the "raid" at the Capitol is just as bad as the
intel community doing shady things against a sitting President).
Ronj14848 ceshawn 1 hour ago 15 Jan, 2021 07:27 PM
Trump didnt start new wars......but he has created a situation that foriegn wars will spring
from his actions. He has created hate for a country that during the second world war was a
much loved country.
billy brown ceshawn 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:36 PM
What could the 'rioters' do? We aren't going to let them poison us anymore. This election
will not be stolen and the new patriot act isn't going to get passed quietly. They are going
to have to crush us or allow a partition of the country
ceshawn 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:36 PM
If I were Russia or China, I would be watching carefully. Biden almost HAS to go after Russia
over the Crimean disaster of Obama and China will be his easy-out enemy if things are
complicated otherwise. North Korea will somehow become a big deal again as well. Let those
missiles fly, because the incoming administration has a proven track record of blowing up
innocent women and children for "funsies" (drone strikes on "suspected" terrorists...oh and
their families) without any form of due process or care for the safety of collateral damage.
Ronj14848 ceshawn 58 minutes ago 15 Jan, 2021 07:36 PM
True...the media support the military industrial complex. Their friends own the miltary
industrial complex . See who they support politically and avoid them like the plague.
Ronnie Spelbos ceshawn 2 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 06:04 PM
if I was Russia or an Eastern European nation I would offer asylum to white heterosexual men
and their families who want to leave the US. Take advantage of the brain capital and work
ethic of this group. The US is no country for white men.
Ohhho 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 01:41 PM
The Evil empire felt vulnerable so it lashed out with vengeance! None if it helps to fix the
issues behind the problem so I expect to see more of it in the near future!
TheFishh Ohhho 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:32 PM
There are literally just a few things the US can do to rebound as a decent country, but the
establishment doesn't want to make those moves. They rather see everything collapse than see
their wealth and power decreased by any amount.
OneHorseGuy 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:17 PM
"79% of Americans think the US is falling apart" those not accounted for are possibly
homeless or illiterate and don't have the opportunity of putting their view forward.
Ronnie Spelbos OneHorseGuy 2 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 06:02 PM
102% think the US is falling apart - cites Dominion.
newswithoutbord OneHorseGuy 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:31 PM
Spot on, mate!
RTaccount 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:22 PM
There will be no peace, no unity, and no prosperity. And there shouldn't be.
TheFishh RTaccount 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:38 PM
The US regimes past and present have worn out their bag of tricks. A magician is a con-man.
And the only way they can entertain and spellbind the crowd with their routines is if
everyone just ignores the sleight of hand. But people are starting to call the US out for the
tricks it is pulling, and that's where the magician's career ends.
omyomy RTaccount 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:54 PM
We the sane people know who is picking a fight. No matter what the propaganda outlets decree.
Tor Gjesdal 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
79%,sure? OK. Very soon 85% of Westerners will understand their Countries are heading for
failures. They have been deceived for way too long.
Twenty Tor Gjesdal 5 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:23 PM
The alternative to western governments is dictators, one party rule. Yes, most western
governmental concepts are idealistic, but we wouldn't trade for anything else because we know
better.
JIMI JAMES Tor Gjesdal 6 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:31 PM
0 covid cases,i dont think so.
soumalinna1 4 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:36 PM
Correct. America will never be the same again. Democrats and CNN destroyed a once great
nation.
Ronnie Spelbos soumalinna1 2 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 06:06 PM
The 1965 Immigration Act destroyed the US. A country too diverse with little in common was
always bound the fall apart.
Drayk soumalinna1 3 hours ago 15 Jan, 2021 04:42 PM
In their efforts to expunge the Trump movement from memory let alone existence, these
neo-Stalinists are hellbent on nullifying constitutionally guaranteed rights – freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms are under assault.
In place of the Bill of Rights, they would impose a Bill of Don'ts:
Don't say what we don't want to hear.
Don't gather where we don't allow, especially if you are a 'deplorable'.
Don't bother petitioning for grievances, because we don't care. Don't own weapons and don't
defend yourself when you or your property are attacked, even as the police are defunded.
Don't tell us about your right to privacy because our right to surveil you supersedes
it.
Don't tell us you have the right to confront the witnesses aligned against you, or see the
evidence alleged against you, or to present evidence and witnesses in your own defense. That's
your white privilege speaking, and we will not tolerate hate speech.
Don't expect us to be bound by due process or the rule of law. Feelings and desired outcomes
trump facts and rules, both of which are tools of oppression, relics of the fascist
patriarchy.
Don't object, or we will cancel you entirely from these Disunited States of Woketopia.
And first and foremost, don't dare have the temerity to question election results that have
handed us uncontested power.
Only authoritarians sanction this state of affairs. The harm they will do, as they neglect
and inflict further pain on the Republic, will be immeasurable. The nation is failing, not
merely because it is divided, but because a contingent has rejected its foundational
principles. That contingent is now in control.
"... , and author of several books, including ..."
"... Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran ..."
"... . @medeabenjamin; Nicolas J. S. Davies, an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
"... . @NicolasJSDavies; and Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 Democratic delegate for Bernie Sanders,and is Coordinator of ..."
Yves here. Biden's nominees have skewed towards the awful, particularly on the foreign
policy front. But his plan to install Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland at State is a standout. For
those of you new to this site and not familiar with Nuland's sorry history, this post gives an
overview of her role in fomenting the coup in Ukraine and in putting relations with Russia on a
Cold War footing. The authors encourage readers to call their Senators and urge them to vote
against her nomination.
And before you get unduly excited by Biden nominating Gary Gensler to the SEC, I would much
rather have seem Gensler at Treasury. Gensler demonstrated at the CFTC that he's effective and
dedicated to combatting abuses by Big Finance. However, his best shot at making the SEC feared
and respected again is to appoint a tough head of enforcement, so keep an eye out for that
pick.
The problem that Gensler will have at the SEC is that it is the only Federal financial
services industry regulator that is subject to Congressional appropriations, rather that living
off its fees and fines (the SEC collects far more than Congress allows it). And Democrats, like
Joe Lieberman, then the Senator from Hedgistan, have been if anything more aggressive than
Republicans in threatening the SEC and in keeping it budget-starved.
I had said to Lambert that if Biden wanted to be Machiavellian, the way to pretend to reward
Elizabeth Warren while actually sandbagging her would be to make her SEC chair. Let's hope that
isn't his logic for appointing Gensler.
Photo Credit: thetruthseeker.co.uk Nuland and Pyatt planning regime change in Kiev
Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her because the U.S. corporate
media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that
President-elect Biden's pick for Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs is stuck in
the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an
arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.
Nor do they know that from 2003-2005, during the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq,
Nuland was a foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the Bush
administration.
You can bet, however, that the people of Ukraine have heard of neocon Nuland. Many have even
heard the leaked four-minute audio of her saying "Fuck the EU" during a 2014 phone call with
the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
During the infamous call on which Nuland and Pyatt plotted to replace the elected Ukrainian
President Victor Yanukovych, Nuland expressed her not-so-diplomatic disgust with the European
Union for grooming former heavyweight boxer and austerity champ Vitali Klitschko instead of
U.S. puppet and NATO booklicker Artseniy Yatseniuk to replace Russia-friendly Yanukovych.
The "Fuck the EU" call went viral, as an embarrassed State Department, never denying the
call's authenticity, blamed the Russians for tapping the phone, much as the NSA has tapped the
phones of European allies.
Despite outrage from German Chancellor Angela Markel, no one fired Nuland, but her potty
mouth upstaged the more serious story: the U.S. plot to overthrow Ukraine's elected government
and America's responsibility for a civil war that has killed at least 13,000 people and left
Ukraine the poorest
country in Europe.
In the process, Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, the co-founder of The Project for a New
American Century , and their neocon cronies succeeded in sending U.S.-Russian relations
into a dangerous downward spiral from which they have yet to recover.
Nuland accomplished this from a relatively junior position as Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs. How much more trouble could she stir up as the #3 official
at Biden's State Department? We'll find out soon enough, if the Senate confirms her
nomination.
Joe Biden should have learned from Obama's mistakes that appointments like this matter.
In his first
term , Obama allowed his hawkish Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republican Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, and military and CIA leaders held over from the Bush administration to
ensure that endless war trumped his message of hope and change.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, ended up presiding over indefinite detentions without
charges or trials at Guantanamo Bay; an escalation of drone strikes that killed innocent
civilians; a deepening of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan; a self-reinforcing
cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism; and disastrous new wars in
Libya and Syria
.
With Clinton out and new personnel in top spots in his second term, Obama began
to take charge of his own foreign policy. He started working directly with Russia's President
Putin to resolve crises in Syria and other hotspots. Putin helped avert an escalation of the
war in Syria in September 2013 by negotiating the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpiles, and helped Obama negotiate an interim agreement with Iran that led to the
JCPOA nuclear deal.
But the neocons were apoplectic that they failed to convince Obama to order a massive
bombing campaign and escalate his covert,
proxy war in Syria and at the receding prospect of a war with Iran. Fearing their control
of U.S. foreign policy was slipping, the neocons launched a
campaign to brand Obama as "weak" on foreign policy and remind him of their power.
With
editorial help from Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan penned a 2014 New Republic
article entitled "Superpowers Don't Get To Retire," proclaiming that "there is no democratic
superpower waiting in the wings to save the world if this democratic superpower falters." Kagan
called for an even more aggressive foreign policy to exorcise American fears of a multipolar
world it can no longer dominate.
Obama invited Kagan to a private lunch at the White House, and the neocons' muscle-flexing
pressured him to scale back his diplomacy with Russia, even as he quietly pushed ahead on
Iran.
The neocons' coup de grace against Obama's better angels was Nuland's 2014 coup
in debt-ridden Ukraine, a valuable imperial possession for its wealth of natural gas and a
strategic candidate for NATO membership right on Russia's border.
When Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych spurned a U.S.-backed trade agreement with
the European Union in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia, the State Department threw a
tantrum.
Hell hath no fury like a superpower scorned.
The EU trade
agreement was to open Ukraine's economy to imports from the EU, but without a reciprocal
opening of EU markets to Ukraine, it was a lopsided deal Yanukovich could not accept. The deal
was approved by the post-coup government, and has only added to Ukraine's economic woes.
The muscle for Nuland's $5 billion coup was Oleh
Tyahnybok's neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the shadowy new Right Sector militia. During her leaked
phone call, Nuland referred to Tyahnybok as one of the "big three" opposition leaders on the
outside who could help the U.S.-backed Prime Minister Yatsenyuk on the inside. This is the same
Tyanhnybok who once
delivered a speec h applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and "other scum" during World
War II.
After protests in Kiev's Euromaidan square turned into battles with police in February 2014,
Yanukovych and the Western-backed opposition
signed an agreement brokered by France, Germany and Poland to form a national unity
government and hold new elections by the end of the year.
But that was not good enough for the neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing forces the U.S. had
helped to unleash. A violent mob led by the Right Sector militia marched on and invaded the
parliament building , a scene no longer difficult for Americans to imagine. Yanukovych and
his members of parliament fled for their lives.
Facing the loss of its most vital strategic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, Russia
accepted the overwhelming result (a 97% majority, with an 83% turnout) of a referendum in which
Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which it had been a part of from 1783 to
1954.
The majority Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine
unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine, triggering a bloody civil war between U.S.-
and Russian-backed forces that still rages in 2021.
U.S.-Russian relations have never recovered, even as U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals still
pose the greatest single
threat to our existence. Whatever Americans believe about the civil war in Ukraine and
allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, we must not allow the neocons
and the military-industrial complex they serve to deter Biden from conducting vital diplomacy
with Russia to steer us off our suicidal path toward nuclear war.
Nuland and the neocons, however, remain committed to an ever-more debilitating and dangerous
Cold War with Russia and China to justify a militarist foreign policy and record Pentagon
budgets. In a July 2020 Foreign Affairs article entitled "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland
absurdly
claimed that Russia presents a greater threat to "the liberal world" than the U.S.S.R.
posed during the old Cold War.
Nuland's
narrative rests on an utterly mythical, ahistorical narrative of Russian aggression and
U.S. good intentions. She pretends that Russia's military budget, which is one-tenth of
America's, is evidence of "Russian confrontation and militarization" and calls
on the U.S. and its allies to counter Russia by "maintaining robust defense budgets,
continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear weapons systems, and deploying new conventional
missiles and missile defenses to protect against Russia's new weapons systems "
Nuland also wants to confront Russia with an aggressive NATO. Since her days as U.S.
Ambassador to NATO during President George W. Bush's second term, she has been a supporter of
NATO's expansion all the way up to Russia's border. She calls
for "permanent bases along NATO's eastern border." We have pored over a map of Europe, but
we can't find a country called NATO with any borders at all. Nuland sees Russia's commitment to
defending itself after successive 20th century Western invasions as an intolerable obstacle to
NATO's expansionist ambitions.
Nuland's militaristic worldview represents exactly the folly the U.S. has been pursuing
since the 1990s under the influence of the neocons and "liberal interventionists," which has
resulted in a systematic underinvestment in the American people while escalating tensions with
Russia, China, Iran and other countries.
As Obama learned too late, the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time can, with a
shove in the wrong direction, unleash years of intractable violence, chaos and international
discord. Victoria Nuland would be a ticking time-bomb in Biden's State Department, waiting to
sabotage his better angels much as she undermined Obama's second-term diplomacy.
So let's do Biden and the world a favor. Join World Beyond War , CODEPINK and dozens of other
organizations opposing neocon Nuland's confirmation as a threat to peace and diplomacy. Call
202-224-3121 and tell your Senator to oppose Nuland's installation at the State Department.
Nuland has also been declared persona non grata by Russia, so she would not be able to go
with Biden, were he to visit Moscow. Russian foreign minister Lavrov, actually refused to
shake her hand when she attended a US-Russia meeting with Kerry. She is poison to any attempt
to peaceful relationships.
Yes, I remember that meeting clearly. Can't cite the network, but it covered her closely
– body language only. I wonder where Biden stood on that act of diplomacy given his own
corruption, and also what John Kerry's thinking is about now. John Kerry's stepson was in
cahoots with Hunter Biden. It looked like Kerry brought her along for some rehabilitation and
Lavrov was having none of it. Instead he went directly to the delegation from Ukraine and
they stood in a circle all with their backs turned to Vicky who had no choice but to wander
over to the coffee table and pretend she wasn't totally uncomfortable. Totally excluded. How
can she recover from that?
If there is one thing that Russia hates it is fascists and that is because of the enormous
damage caused by them in WW2. We call those invaders Nazis but the Russians seem to call them
fascists. I sometimes wonder if it is part of their mother's milk this hatred. For people
like Nuland to help topple the government of a large, bordering country like the Ukraine and
install people that were literally fascists was too much for the Russians. These were fascist
of a very low order that had the old 1930s routines down pat, including the torchlight
parades. And there was Nuland, handing out cookies to the rioters, many of whom had been
trained in rioting tactics in Poland and were being paid about $100 a day by the US if I
recall correctly. Of course Nuland was not alone as there was also a Representative from the
EU also handing out cookies. The only equivalent that comes to mind is a violent revolution
in Canada using professional rioters and having diplomatic representatives from the Russian
Federation and China handing out donuts to the rioter. I wonder what Washington would say
about a stunt like that.
Nuland is a disgusting human being. Since she is a right winger, regardless of what party
may be listed on her voter ID, I don't think Bettridge's law applies here at all.
So glad all these 'woke' people put good old Uncle Joe back in office. Wonder how many
realized they were supporting people being burned alive by actual Nazis in doing so?
Thanks for this. Our "learned nothing/forgot nothing" Bourbon restoration will be led by
one of the dimmer Bourbons who couldn't even set up a good grift in Ukraine without boasting
about it and then angrily denying it. Should the press finally, improbably turn on him it
should make for some fun news conferences. But perhaps he'll merely be moving to the White
House basement from his Delaware basement.
CFTC's budgets are also set through congressional authorization and appropriations. Yes,
the CFPB is not subject to Congressional appropriations, but for good reasons. However, all
financial regulation can be overturned by the Congressional Review Act.
As for the article, citation needed. Sort of a laundry heap of questionable material. Make
no mistake, the Russo-Ukrainian War is a real war. Uniformed Russian armored infantry of
331st regiment of the 98th Svirsk airborne division dropped into Ukraine territory on 24
August 2014. From 25 to 27 August, Russian troops in civilian clothing, backed up by an
armored column [not in disguise] took Novoazovsk. This is about Russia not being able to
station 25,000 troops in Crimea as they had under Yanukovych. US troop levels in Europe have
been at their lowest for the last 20 years. The US would like to [nay, needs to] keep it that
way. However, the erosion of territorial integrity is a touchy subject in Europe given the
lasting peace of the post-war period in a place where the wars have a pre-fix like "Hundred
Years".
President Arseniy Yatsenyuk is of Jewish origin so the claims of coordination with Nazi
sympathizers is dubious. Not even going to get the boycotted unconstitutional Crimean
referendum.
As for WW III, Obama's defense department made it a priority to recover all the MANPADS,
such as the Chinese-made FN-6 [via Qatar], Russian-made Strela-2's and Igla-S's [via Libya]
from the FSA without so much as a thank you from the Russian Air Force. [Turkey, on the other
hand, armed the FSA with Stinger's.] It should be noted that the Syrian conflict's death
toll, in just four years, surpassed the 19-year death toll in all the Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Iraq war theatres combined.
Think about this way: who needs NATO and the EU more to maintain his power structure, Joe
Biden or Vladimir Putin. Isn't it clear Americans don't care, and American business does not
look to compete in Russian anytime soon. The geography is wrong. But Putin must find a way to
engender ethnicities who do not like the Russian Empire, who had been cleansed by Stalin. One
way is to sell energy below cost to the republics and buy in back from political allies in
the form of electricity. Something upon which the EU frowns. [Personally, I did not care for
the way Putin early on systematically and indiscriminately starved Chechen civilians for
years. It was cruel on a level unseen outside of the Rwandan genocide. More importantly, it
was the Russian Federation abdicating its authority by not providing for its own citizens and
not letting NGO's fill the calorie gap. I'd like to think had Putin's admin not been so
wobbly the first few years, he might've let the Red Cross feed the children.]
Russia was never going to permit a US orchestrated coup in Ukraine without resistance. The
idea that Putin needs NATO more than Biden does seems unreasonable.
Talking about "citations", perhaps you could supply the readership of this site with some
credible citations and links for a few of the far fetched claims you're making here. Most of
this comment reads like pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
I heard about Gary Gensler, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland, and I immediately
thought, "The good, the bad, and the ugly."
Gensler surprised everyone when he was at the CFTC by doing his job, and doing it well,
and his running the SEC is a good thing.
Samantha Power is an aggressive war monger, and in her position at USAID, she will likely
have her fingers in regime change pie, since USAID is part of the deep state regime change
apparatus..
I've long suspected that NATO has existed since 1991 to allow the US/EU axis to control
Middle-Eastern and African resources. For example, the Rammstein military hospital is where
every Gulf War soldier was airlifted for major treatment and convalescence.
Also, there is a huge international trade in opium. It's grown in Afpak and shipped out in
every direction. I suspect that a fair amount of that flows through Ukraine and Crimea. If
you look at a topo map of Crimea, there's a lot of seashore that could be good "smuggler's
coves". Following this line of argument, Russia grabbing it from Ukraine was a gimme to
Russia's gangsters. This, as well as the "Pipeline Wars", gives Russia a strong reason to
encircle Ukraine.
And that's what false flag with Capitol ransacking accomplished. It fives Clinton/Obama/Biden
clique card blank for suppressing the dissent
This false flag operation like shooting protesters by snipers during Ukrainian Maydan is a
logical end of American Maidan and pursued the same goals -- deposing the current president,
hijacking political power and consolidating it via repressions.
Notable quotes:
"... That is why we are witnessing the fussy, aggressive actions of the Democrats - a ridiculous re-impeachment of the president, who will leave the White House in a week, the most severe censorship and suppression of dissent. There is no need for the real winners of fair elections to behave like that, as they are aware of their legitimacy and are confident in themselves (relying on the real, not imaginary, support of the majority of the population). ..."
From the "Biden Exploits His Capitol Gains" article:
Joe Biden's own language certainly sounded less like a magnanimous winner uniting his
people than like that used by autocrats and dictators to hold onto power, argues Diana
Johnstone.
Diana Johnstone's opinion is quite reasonable. In fact, a "creeping"/"bureaucratic" coup
d'etat took place in the United States. And it wasn't Trump at all, but Biden & Co. The
fact that "Joe Biden's own language sounded like that used by autocrats and dictators to hold
onto power" is further confirmation of this.
If you are in the majority and you win the election honestly, then there is no need to act
the way the Democrats did. The current aggressive rhetoric of Biden (and other Democrats) is
evidence that the elections were stolen/falsified. Biden knows this very well, and therefore
his language is as cruel, irreconcilable and repressive as possible. After the illegitimate
elections, the task is to consolidate own's power and suppress all those who reject what
happened. In fact, this is what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan 2014.
That is why we are witnessing the fussy, aggressive actions of the Democrats - a
ridiculous re-impeachment of the president, who will leave the White House in a week, the
most severe censorship and suppression of dissent. There is no need for the real winners of
fair elections to behave like that, as they are aware of their legitimacy and are confident
in themselves (relying on the real, not imaginary, support of the majority of the
population).
Globalization has made the United States a hollow giant. It has produced an enormous
wealth gap, and this inequality is producing a breakdown in social cohesion. They have faced
crisis before in the form of political polarization, economic hardship and racial tensions,
but the situation now is a combination of every one of the mentioned before amplified by
orders of magnitude by the pandemic.
The power of the MIC, Wall Street and Big Tech along with their MSM minions acting in a
concerted way is the only thing preventing an implosion of the country. Either that or the
notion of "American Exceptionalism" is truly implanted in the hearts and minds of the people,
whether they realize it or not.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
Few observations on Biden, Iran and the nuclear deal.
I don't know if US will or will not return to implement it's obligations under the UNSC 2231,
nor I know if US Jewish lobby will allow that. But for sure Iran will not renegotiate for new
terms or a new deal on nuclear program secondly under no circumstances Iran will negotiate
(with anyone) her conventional military capabilities or her policies and alliances toward her
allies in the region since these are real matter of national security for Iran. But also
there are signs from Biden that should be considered. Firstly almost all Biden's national
security team are diplomats with experience negotiating with Iran that could be a signal on
policy change, secondly I believe due to strategic failure of maximum pressure to subdue Iran
and more importantly due to US' own strategic necessity to keep China and Russia away from
ME, US and EU will want to decouple or even prevent Iran from a mutual strategic necessity or
alliance with China or and Russia for that reason IMO it might be possible US will adopt a
new posture toward Iran. I also believe Iran's foreign policy in ME is basically based on her
long term interests and security with her regional alliances, multipolarity, and stability in
her region, therefore any proposal by US or EU to agitate this policy will be rejected or not
adopted by Iran.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
A new JCPOA will obviously have to eliminate all sanctions. But that might not be
enough. Iran might want compensation for the economic damage done, compensation from the UK,
France, and Germany as well as the US. Moreover, Iran will want to keep its now much larger
stockpile of low-enriched uranium. It might want an even larger stockpile, and the right to
enrich to 20%, which it is now doing. A breeder reactor and a plutonium stockpile would be
nice, too.
But there are even other demands that might be made: reduction or removal of
US/NATO/Israeli forces in the Gulf; reduction or elimination of Israeli nuclear
weapons.
That train left the station.
In the past 5 years Iran re-configured it's economy into an autarcic fully industrialized,
food secure, and diversified economy. It now earns more from the sale of manufactures and
foods than from petroleum. It now manufactures AfraMax tankers, general cargo vessels, and
naval vessels. It manufactures cars and trucks, and railroad rolling stock. It built hydro
and irrigation schemes. It launches satellites into orbit.
Iran is now pressing ahead with the Arak heavy water reactor.
Khameni just banned import of NATO vaccines, and ordered the country to be vaccinated with
Iran's own vaccine.
Khameni and the hard liners will not permit Iran to rejoin or to negotiate any agreements
with the "Great Satan". Their line will be the US must show itself to be agreement capable by
rejoining the JCPOA and removing any and all sanctions while paying damages too.
Iran will increase the amount of assistance given the Houthis. Trump's declaration of the
Houthis as terrorists, benefits the resistance by solidifying their adherence to it. The
Houthis must now "go for broke" or surrender. They will not surrender.
The harsh reality is Biden/Harris will be occupied at home suppressing the MAGA crowd.
Since this group is 74 million strong, and mostly white, in a country trying to make them
second class citizens, will be quite a challenge that. The jury is still out on that one.
Then there is the not so small matter of US oil production dropping like a stone from 12
mmBbl/day to 7 by July with further drops in the following 12 months. This coupled with and
likely due to bankruptcies of a large number of producers going forward.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
Definitely staged event, whether the protestors knew or didn't. Going forward, I'm
switching to Signal from WhatsApp and viber, have to rethink my use of Gmail as well. Don't
use faceborg or Jill Dorsey's twat. Enough is enough!
It's what I said would happen in the other thread:
Watching the spectacle from a far a couple of things stand out for me.
This event has really put the fear of God into the DC political class. When you see the
photos of the politicians during this event you see real fear. I bet not one of them ever
thought that the people would be so fed up with the DC political class that they would
storm the Capitol to show their frustration. Such behaviour was simply un-American. It was
things you saw on TV happening in far away places. Never would such scenes ever happen in
the good ole' USA.
The second thing that stands out for me is that the American people have reached their
wits end with the political class and are prepared to do what no-one ever thought they
would do. Storm the Capitol! Disorganised as it was. What can they achieve with real
organisation!
So now the people realise they have power in a collective and this power has put the
fear of God in the people they despise. This has truly been a transformative event both for
the political class and both for the people.
You can see this fear in the hysterical way the DC political class has reacted to this
event. I don't think this hysteria is fake. I think it is quite real. They are so desperate
to regain control of the "narrative" that they are flooding this forum (as pointed out
eloquently by William Gruff, and no doubt many other forums) with sock puppets to denounce
anyone who disagrees with the establishment view.
This hysteria is going to lead to an over reaction which will in turn spur these people
not just to lob a Molotov cocktail (politically speaking) at the DC political class but to
become one themselves.
There is nothing so dangerous as a person with nothing to lose and nothing so fearful as
a man with everything to lose.
How it will play out I don't know, but the old normal has been shattered.
That the USA is a single-party with two branches that play "good cop, bad cop" already
is consensus among serious historians, sociologists, political scientists etc. The news
here is that this system won't change with Biden.
The Vandal sack of Rome of 455 CE was a completely different scenario. By that time,
Rome had only symbolic importance to the Empire, and already was at an advanced stage of
economic decay. Indeed, that's the main factor that differentiates the High from the Late
Empire: the end of Italic hegemony, and the economic rise of the Eastern cities (Nicomedia,
Antioch, Constantinople, Nicephorum etc.). Or, on a second thought, is it? Is the USA in
really such advanced stage of economic decline? Only time will tell.
One last observation is that people usually confuse change with revolution. A given
society doesn't need to go through any revolution in order to change itself. On the
contrary: societal change is always happening, as we talk. What makes revolutions special
is the fact that the previously exploited class becomes the dominant class; they turn the
society upside down (hence the name).
But even a society that avoids any revolution will still change and eventually
degenerate and die. Personally, I like prof. Moniz Bandeira's "Mutazione dello Stato",
literally "mutation of the State", which describes a situation where the contradictions of
society (development of the productive forces and the relations of production) continues to
develop without a revolutionary situation or scenario. In this case, the USA is
"mutating".
We've been in this environment since 911. It's been one continual project, not something
new being being imposed. It's a continual tightening of society, including the
Pandemic.
It's all been allowed to happen for an obvious agenda of compliance and control. From
'riots' of BLM/Antifa to the 'insurrection' of Trumpeteers, the point is to narrow accepted
thought - to manufacture consent, which is much easier with an un or misinformed populace.
A social credit system is coming to the west - call it the Karen Revolution.
Democracy is not an option, and never has been. Time to network with slow-mail and smoke
signals, because as an organizing principle beyond sales and marketing, the internet's days
are numbered.
Yes, the only difference is that one side, the deplorables, are speaking truth to power.
The other side is conviently putting its head in the sand right now and begging for more
federal overreach.
I have tried to explain over the past while, that what we are seeing in the US is an
ongoing coup, This is a coup against the US people by the US corporate and financial
oligarchs. Clearly, they are benefiting by not simply enriching themselves at taxpayers
expense, but securing their own criminal amoral behaviour through the supression of human
rights and what is left of the freedom of speech in the US. This is accelaerating
exponentially and has been going on long before Trump came on the scene.
Avoid paying attention to the distractions, and keep your eye on the ball.
Stealing the election. Trying to remove Trump from office, with two weeks to go, and
'erase' him from the internet (and politics and whatelse?). Turning the U.S. into a
de-facto police state. And the rush to do this all very quickly.
This smacks of desperation.
What are their Dems (rather their Deep State and 'Globalist' bosses) afraid of?
I have tried to explain over the past while, that what we are seeing in the US is an
ongoing coup, This is a coup against the US people by the US corporate and financial
oligarchs. Clearly, they are benefiting by not simply enriching themselves at taxpayers
expense, but securing their own criminal amoral behaviour through the supression of human
rights and what is left of the freedom of speech in the US. This is accelaerating
exponentially and has been going on long before Trump came on the scene.
Avoid paying attention to the distractions, and keep your eye on the ball.
Nuland will be nominated for the position of under secretary of state for political affairs,
the US media said on Tuesday with Politico being the first to
drop the scoop. It's the highest-ranking post in the department after the secretary and deputy
secretary. During the Obama administration, Nuland served as assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian Affairs, and was a key official in formulating and implementing his
Russia policies. She also served as US envoy to the UN under George W. Bush and advised Vice
President Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
The news that the vocal Russia hawk was returning to the White House was understandably met
with loud cheering by the fans of Pax American on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics were
dismayed and somewhat horrified, considering her record.
Arguably the most publicly known episode of Nuland's Obama tenure came in 2014, when a tape
of her conversation with then-ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. It happened
shortly after Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a wave
of street protests culminating in an armed coup, which happened with much encouragement from
Washington.
Nuland and Pyatt were discussing who among the coup leaders should be in the upcoming
Ukrainian government, which indicated that Washington played a much bigger role in the crisis
than it publicly admitted. The infamous " F**k the EU" remark came as Nuland expressed
frustration with European nations, who were reluctant to lend legitimacy to the benefactors of
the events, and said UN officials could be called in to help "glue this thing"
instead.
The EU's skepticism at the time could have been due to the fact that President Yanukovich
was expelled under a threat of violence just hours after Germany and Poland helped seal a power
sharing
agreement between him and the opposition leaders, serving as guarantors of the deal. Her
return as a senior diplomatic official is likely to get on a few people's nerves in Europe,
which is ironic considering how the Biden administration is supposed to rebuild alliances
damaged by the Trump presidency.
While flying private in the world of academia and think tanks during the Trump years, Nuland
maintained her confrontational attitude to anyone challenging US dominance. Her recipe for
dealing with Russia, as outlined
in Foreign Policy magazine last summer, is more sophisticated weapons, permanent NATO bases on
the Russian border (which will require abolishing a key Russia-NATO agreement) and deniable
cyber operations against Moscow.
Nuland also played a
peculiar part in US domestic affairs, possibly having a hand in the promotion of the
notorious Steele dossier. The collection of opposition research and rumors was used by the FBI
to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign and fueled the endless flood of claims that the
incumbent president was somehow a Russian stooge.
An FBI memo released last
year revealed that Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson "and others were talking to Victoria Nuland
at the US State Department" about the file. The firm looked into Donald Trump for the
Hillary Clinton campaign and retained retired British intelligence agent Christopher Steele for
the job.
In multiple interviews, Nuland insisted that her role with the dossier was very limited
because it dealt with domestic politics. "[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points
of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, 'This is not in our
purview,'" she
told CBS News in 2018, adding that she advised him to go to the FBI. Some skeptics believe
her role in launching the Steele dossier may have been much more significant.
Nuland is one of many Obama-era officials tapped by Biden to serve again with him at the
helm. In addition to her, the latest reported batch includes Wendy Sherman, the former under
secretary of state for political affairs, Jon Finer, who had various roles under Obama, and
Amanda Sloat, ex-deputy assistant secretary for Southern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean
affairs.
Victoria Nuland, wife of neoconservative Robert Kagan, is expected be nominated for under
secretary of state for political affairs
According to a report from
Politico , Joe Biden's transition team is expected to nominate Victoria Nuland to
be the under secretary of state for political affairs for the incoming administration's State
Department.
Nuland, who is married to neoconservative Robert Kagan, is known for her role in
orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine while she was the assistant secretary of state for
Europe and Eurasian affairs in the Obama administration.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and then-US
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked and released on YouTube on February 4th,
2014 . In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of former
Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced to step down on February 22nd,
2014.
The US-backed coup sparked the war in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region and led to the Russian
annexation of Crimea. Both regions have a majority ethnic-Russian population who rejected the
nationalist, anti-Russian post-coup government that even had
neo-Nazis in its midst .
In a
2020 column for Foreign Affairs titled, "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland said Russian
President Vladimir Putin "seized" on the 2014 coup and other "democratic struggles" to "fuel
the perception at home of Russian interests under siege by external enemies." She also cited
the war in the Donbas and annexation of Crimea as examples of Russian aggression, as most in
Washington do.
Nuland worked in the Bush administration from 2005 to 2008 as the US ambassador to NATO.
From 2011 to 2013, she served as the spokesperson for Barack Obama's State Department, and from
2013 to 2017, Nuland was the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs.
Politico also reported that the Biden administration is tapping Wendy Sherman to
work directly under Secretary of State-designee Anthony Blinken. Sherman worked in the Obama
administration's State Department and played
a crucial role in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Why the protégé of Cheney Nuland? Why now? Did Biden completely succumbs to
Alzheimer? Does Biden administration strive to be as dysfunctional, neocon-dominated and
destructive as Obama administration?
Politico reports Tuesday that President-elect Joe Biden is tapping former senior Obama
administration foreign affairs officials to serve in his cabinet.
Most notably among them is neocon Victoria Nuland, who has just been tapped as Biden's state
department undersecretary for political affairs.
Writes Politico :
"Another veteran diplomat, Victoria Nuland, will be nominated for the role of under secretary
of State for political affairs, one of the people said. Nuland also previously served in the
Obama administration, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs."
Recall that in this capacity she ran point for Obama's regime change "democracy
promotion" efforts in Ukraine . In 2014 leaked audio clip posted to YouTube caused deep
embarrassment for the State Department amid accusations the US was coordinating coup efforts
using the ongoing "Maidan Revolution" to oust then President Viktor Yanukovych.
In that leaked
phone call Nuland told US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt "F*ck the EU" - for which
she was later forced to apologize. Here's some of the audio for a little trip down memory
lane.
She had also been instrumental in her prior postings at the State Department in Obama's
disastrous Libya intervention.
After the Obama administration she's been part of various think
tanks, including the hawkish Brookings Institution, where she's been a fierce critic of Trump's
supposed "appeasement" of Putin. She's also argued for deeper military intervention in Syria
.
Politico in its description of the incoming Obama-era officials underscores they are
hawks on
Russia :
Nuland and [Wendy] Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving
the Obama administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign
policy -- particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin .
On the National Security Council, former State Department official Jon Finer will be named
deputy national security adviser, the people said, reporting up to incoming national security
adviser Jake Sullivan. Finer, a former journalist, joined the Obama White House as a fellow
in 2009 and served in various roles throughout Obama's tenure, including as a foreign policy
speechwriter for Biden and a senior adviser to then-deputy national security adviser Blinken.
Finer had been working in political risk and public policy at the private equity firm Warburg
Pincus, which was co-founded by Blinken's father, since leaving government in 2017.
The key NSC role of senior director for European Affairs will go to Amanda Sloat, a
Brookings Institution fellow ...
... ... ...
As is the unfortunate norm in the Washington beltway, the Liberal hawks under Obama simply
went to who's who of neocon think tanks like Brookings, and have now been called back in
revolving door fashion for pretty much a return to Obama era foreign policy (and its
disasters ).
"Obama Official Ben Rhodes Admits Biden Camp is Already Working With Foreign Leaders:
Exactly What Flynn Did" [ Glenn Greenwald ]. "Any
doubts about how customary it is for such calls to be made by transition officials were
unintentionally obliterated on Monday night by former Obama national security official Ben
Rhodes, who is almost certain to occupy a high-level national security position in a Biden
administration. Speaking on MSNBC -- of course -- Rhodes, while amicably chatting with former
Bush/Cheney Communications Director turned-beloved-by-liberals-MSNBC-host Nicolle Wallace,
admitted in passing that ' foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden
talking about the agenda they're going to pursue January 20 ,' all to ensure 'as seamless
a transition as possible,' adding: 'the center of political gravity in this country and the
world is shifting to Joe Biden.'" • Presumably the FBI should be interrogating Rhodes
about his guilty knowledge. Anyhoo, I'm so old I remember when IOKIYAR was current in the
blogosphere: "It's OK If You're A Republican." But now IOKIIOG: "It's OK If It's Our Guy."
>David Sirota – "That was enough to barely defeat Trump.."
I'm getting confused, was Trump officially defeated. If not why are all these folks making
these kinds of statements without any qualifications, none, zip. He could have said "most
likely" or some other qualifier. Am I missing something here? Let the legal process of
contesting the election play out for Pete's sake.
"... The Biden administration, staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario, then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible coalition of allies against China. ..."
"... Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their Republican counterparts. ..."
Under Barack Obama, the containment of
China -- the "pivot to Asia" -- took the form of what might be called trilateralism, after
the old Trilateral Commission of the 1970s. According to this strategy, while balancing China
militarily, the United States would create trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade blocs with
rules favorable to the United States that China would be forced to beg to join in the future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended as an anti-Chinese, American-dominated Pacific
trade bloc, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sought to create a
NATO for trade from which China would be excluded.
Obama's grand strategy collapsed even before the election of 2016. TTIP died, chiefly
because of hostility from European economic interests. In the United States, the fact that the
TPP treaty was little more than a wish-list of giveaways to U.S. finance and pharma interests
and other special-interest lobbies made it so unpopular that both Hillary Clinton and
Trump
renounced it during the 2016 presidential election season.
Trump, like Obama,
sought to contain China , but by unilateral rather than trilateral measures. The Trump
administration emphasized reshoring strategic supply chains like that of steel in the United
States, unwilling to offshore critical supplies even to allies in Asia and Europe and North
America. This break with prior tradition would have been difficult to pull off even under a
popular president who was a good bureaucratic operator, unlike the
erratic and inconsistent Trump.
The Biden administration,
staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a
détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as
Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario,
then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible
coalition of allies against China.
An emphasis by the Biden administration on alliances may succeed in the case of the
U.S.-Japan-Australia-India "Quad" (Quadrilateral alliance). The UK may support America's East
Asian policy as well. But Germany and France, the dominant powers in Europe, view China as a
vast market, not a threat, so Biden will fail if he seeks to repeat Obama's grand strategy of
trilateral containment of China.
Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their
Republican counterparts. In part this is a projection of domestic politics. In the
demonology of the Democratic Party, Putin stands for nationalism, social conservatism, and
everything that elite Democrats despise about the "deplorables" in the United States who live
outside of major metro areas and vote for Republicans. The irrational hostility of America's
Democratic establishment extends beyond Russia to socially-conservative democratic governments
in Poland and Hungary, two countries that Biden has denounced as "totalitarian."
In the Middle East, unlike Eastern Europe, a Biden administration is likely to sacrifice
left-liberal ideology to the project of
maximizing American power and consolidating the U.S. military presence, with the help of
autocracies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any hint of retrenchment will be denounced by the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment that lined up behind Biden, so do not expect an end to
any of the forever wars under Biden. Quite the contrary.
Michael Lind is Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of The American Way of Strategy. His most recent book is The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite.
Leaders in the House of Representatives announced on Friday a rules package for the 117th
Congress that includes a proposal to use " gender -inclusive language" and eliminate gendered
terms such as "'father, mother, son, daughter," and more.
James McGovern (D-Mass.) speaks during a meeting at the Capitol in Washington, on Dec. 21,
2017. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Terms to be struck from clause 8(c)(3) of
rule XXIII , the House's Code of Official Conduct, as outlined in the proposed rules (
pdf
), include "father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew,
niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother,
stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, [and] granddaughter."
Such terms would be replaced with "parent, child, sibling, parent's sibling, first cousin,
sibling's child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild,
stepsibling, half-sibling, [and] grandchild."
According to the proposed rules, "seamen" would be replaced with "seafarers," and "Chairman"
would be replaced with "Chair" in Rule X of the House.
... ... ...
The rules package will be introduced and voted on once the new Congress convenes.
bloostar 1 hour ago remove link
What gender was the pig's head? Is it correct to refer to it as a pig?
researchfix 1 hour ago
Well, my father and mother are dead already. So they will never know, that they are not my
father and mother.
Al Gophilia 1 hour ago
These idiots should no longer be honorably idenified with the noun Represtenative.
judgement put 29 minutes ago
Actually, 'repressed-tentative' isn't so bad.
Ms No PREMIUM 1 hour ago
I think it was Lenin that said "The last enemy of Marxism is the family"
Et Tu Brute 1 hour ago (Edited)
When politicians cannot deliver a $2K stimulus that affects 30%+ of the population but
have time to promote laws representing the interest of less than 0.6%* but still affecting
the over 95% who do or will have a family, you know it's not just a matter of ineffective
governance and culture wars, it is deliberate Psychological Warfare, coordinated through
Mainstream Media, aimed at dividing and demoralising the population.
"*******" is an appropriate non-gendered term referring to all the Democrats in
Congress.
St. TwinkleToes 1 hour ago
So now we're supposed to appease 1% of the population who are gender confused freaks by
removing thousands of years of family relationships?
RocketPride PREMIUM 1 hour ago remove link
Democratic Congress continues to endear themselves to true American values. F-ing idiots,
I hope they are all voted out in 2022
sgt_doom 1 hour ago remove link
On Dominion voting machines?????
sgt_doom 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Exactly why there should be laws against geriatric dementia-suffering twits who once were
financially connected to Saddam Hussein in congress.
The twitch Pelosi wants to destroy the family unit: Job #1 of the Maoist agenda!
Itinerant 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Just look at how much they are improving the world, fueling inclusive economic growth
!!!
In France they've already moved to force you to fill in parent1 and parent2 instead of
mother and father.
Medical Experts are now saying that boy/girl should be removed from birth certificates as
clinically irrelevant.
Right, no need to check for descended testicles or abdominal hernia in little boys, or
anything else.
What you circumcise, may as well be your thumb, right?
I just had an operation on my testicle, of course it is clinically irrelevant to find the
right doctor for anything to do with your prostrate or testicles, or any gynecological
issues, for that matter.
We are going insane ... we are already in the lemmings rushing to the cliff stage.
You are talking about the democrat/marxists manifesto and its philosophy which was so
perfectly described by George Orwell and is as follows:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully
constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be
contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate
morality while laying claim to it ( ) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in
them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence
of objective reality" - George Orwell
chunga 31 minutes ago
I suspect the primaries are also completely rigged. It's bugging me now that it's really
setting in. The US is a failed state, bankrupt in every imaginable way.
Im4truth4all 24 minutes ago
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell
"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own
understanding of their history." - George Orwell
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every
picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has
been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has
stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right." -
George Orwell
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." - George
Orwell
F ormer acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who has disingenuously argued for years that he had
nothing to do with the agency's torture program, but who continued to defend it, has
taken himself out of the running to be President-elect Joe Biden's new CIA director.
The decision is a victory for the peace group Code Pink, which spearheaded the Stop Morell
movement, and it's a great thing for all Americans. Now, though, we have to turn our attention
to Biden's nominee to be director of national intelligence (DNI), Avril Haines.
Haines is certainly qualified on paper to lead the Intelligence Community. A longtime Biden
aide, she has the president-elect's confidence. But that's not good enough. Haines is exactly
the kind of person who shouldn't be in a position of authority in intelligence. She is
the kind of neoliberal intelligence apologist whom so many of us have opposed for so many
years. Don't just take my word for it, though. Look at
her record .
Haines first began working for Biden when she served as deputy general counsel of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee when Biden was its chairman. When Biden became vice president in
2009, Haines moved to the State Department, where she was the assistant legal adviser for
treaty affairs. After only a year, she moved to the White House, where she became deputy
assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs,
the National Security Council's chief attorney.
That's quite a position. What it means was that her job was to legally justify President
Barack Obama's decisions on such intelligence issues as drone strikes and whether to release
the CIA Torture Report. She served there under CIA Director John Brennan. Obama apparently
liked the job she did for him because in 2013, he named Haines deputy director of the CIA
(DD/CIA).
Haines was the first woman to be named DD/CIA, and she served again under Brennan, who
proved time and again that he was no fan of
congressional oversight . Haines's attitude was similar to Brennan's: The CIA was going to
do what it was going to do, and she would make no apologies for it.
There were three controversial areas where Haines made a name for herself and for which she
should have to answer in a confirmation hearing: The CIA's refusal to release the Senate
Torture Report and the decision to hack into the Senate Intelligence Committee's computer
system; the CIA's decision to not punish those officers who carried out the hack and who killed
and tortured prisoners beyond even what the Justice Department said was permissible; and the
government's drone program, in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians were killed.
Drone "pilots" launch an MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle for a raid in the Middle
East. (U.S. military)
Haines' Torture Cover-Up
You may recall that in December 2014, the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee released a
heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the committee's torture report, the
result of years of investigation using primary-source CIA documents. The executive summary was
about 525 pages long, just a fraction of the nearly 6,000-page complete report. And the release
of the 525 pages was the result of protracted negotiations between the committee and the
CIA.
In the end, the public heard a few details of what the CIA's prisoners underwent at secret
prisons around the world. But the full story was never made public. It likely never will be.
And that's thanks to Avril Haines.
Earlier that year, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein took to the
Senate floor in a very unusual display and accused CIA Director Brennan of spying on her
committee's staff members. Specifically, Feinstein said that CIA officers had hacked into the
Senate's computers to see what it was that committee investigators were focusing on.
The hacking was unprecedented, and Feinstein referred it to the Justice Department for
prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder, however, chose not to pursue the case. Brennan took
responsibility for ordering the hacking and he made no apologies for it. But his top aide, his
assistant, his legal adviser through the episode was Avril Haines. She has never explained her
decisions in support of the hack.
Furthermore, it was Haines who
overruled the CIA's inspector general and who decided not to punish those CIA officers who
hacked into the committee's computers, or those CIA officers who had gone over and above what
the Justice Department had authorized in its "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" program,
killing and maiming prisoners.
In the end, not only were no CIA officers punished, but the leaders and most prominent
officers in the torture program were promoted, in some cases into some of the most sought-after
positions in the CIA. I know this to be true. I worked for them.
Haines and Drones
One area in which Haines has not received a great deal of media coverage has been her role
in the drone
program . When Haines was the National Security Council's top lawyer, Brennan was the
keeper of the so-called kill list. It was Haines who took phone calls in the middle of the
night asking her for legal authority -- permission -- to launch missile attacks from drones.
She has never answered for her actions.
Now is the time for Americans to put down their collective foot on Biden's national security
appointees. Morell was utterly inappropriate for a senior position in the Biden national
security apparatus. Haines is, too. She has, very simply, committed crimes against humanity.
I'm under no illusions that Biden is a progressive or that he will differ greatly from previous
Democratic presidents on national security.
But I do believe that wrong is wrong. Avril Haines is exactly the kind of person we
don't want running the Intelligence Community. This is the moment for opponents of her
nomination to lobby senators on the Intelligence Committee. There's still time to defeat
her.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Cadogan Parry , December 30, 2020 at 21:51
The Intercept (26-June-2020) reported Haines' consulting for controversial data-mining
firm Palantir. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel is also an investor in Carbyne, co-owned by
the late Jeffery Epstein and members of the Israeli political and intelligence establishment.
Ties between Palantir and Carbyne were cemented when it opened a center in Israel in 2013.
Hamutal Meridor, Palantir Israel's current head, served as senior director of Verint, with
deep ties to Unit 8200. Verint was previously implicated in being one of two companies hired
by the NSA to put a backdoor into US telecommunication systems and popular applications,
ensuring it's immediate access.
I urge all who have read this article to watch "Silenced", a James Spione film about John
Kiriakou, Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack -- whistleblowers who paid a very high price for
their honesty and integrity (hXXp://silencedfilm.com). Mr. Kiriakou gave up a lucrative job
and almost two years with his family for sharing the truth. His voice needs to be heard now .
Avril Haines' record of ignoring tremendous human rights violations makes it clear that she
should not hold a position of power in the intelligence community of the upcoming
administration.
Anonymot , December 29, 2020 at 19:31
Mr. Biden is a male clone of Mrs. Clinton who is a mouthpiece for the CIA/MIC/WallSt. She
is still the person who controls the Democrat National Committee (DNC) via Tom Perez and they
control and advise old Joe. Joe is merely the puppet at the end of the inner organization's
strings. They are all yes-men/women in the service of the shadow's mindset.
We will have another Obama puppet show.
After 4 years of the unique societal insanity ward that destroyed a maximum of the little
remaining democracy, including the directorship and key personnel of every Washington bureau,
there is little improvement to expect under the Biden Harris clone team. In the stupid
intelligence area that Trump damaged even more deeply than is publicly known, Brennan and
Clapper are back as Biden advisors.
Once again, the eagles have died, replaced by beagles sniffing out more war, more oil, and
more empire.
Professor Mearsheimer discusses the foreign policy agenda of the President Biden administration.
He shares his insights on the likely continuities as well as differences between the Biden administration's policies and the
policies pursued by President Trump over the past four years.
About the Speaker: John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell
Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He
graduated from West Point (1970), has a PhD in political science from Cornell University (1981), and has written extensively
about security issues and international politics. Among his six books, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014) won
the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize; and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), made the New York
Times bestseller list.
His latest book is The Great Delusion: Liberal Ideals and International Realities (2018), which won the
2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow.
In 2020, he won the James Madison Award, which
is given once every three years by the American Political Science Association to "an American political scientist who has made
a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." Recorded on the 17th of November 2020
His predictions here are coming true right now. I would also add that the polarization of politics in the US will have
continued unpleasant domestic social ramifications. Do I want to stay and endure it ? Trump did try like hell to back the
US out of long standing losing wars in the middle east. Nobody appreciates this though.
Mearsheimer expects the Dems to give up on the mindless saber-rattling directed at Russia for the last four years. He may be
right, the D's were likely cynically providing "boob bait for the bubbas." Taking a tough line vs China is more unlikely given
that PRC is so closely tied to the Silicon Valley and Wall Street plutocrats who are the real base of the Democrat Party.
Before our national self-inquest on Donald Trump has run its course, we will be prompted
to remember again that the world exists. President-elect Joe Biden's appointments at the
departments of defense, state, and the national security council are likely to include some
combination of Michele Flournoy, Jake Sullivan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others of the
globalization group around Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These people believe in
the rightness of a world with the United States at its center, deploying commercial strength,
trade agreements, diplomatic suasion, and military alliances in a judicious synthesis. Armed
intervention, preferably multilateral, is held in reserve. They take on trust the global
politics of neoliberalism. For them, the Trump presidency, though unanticipated, was merely a
disagreeable hiatus. They have never stopped planning for their return.
SPONSORED CONTENT
How To Entirely Empty Your Bowels Each Morning (1 Min Routine) Your Gut Reboot
[Photos] The Most Dangerous Place Where You Should Never Swim Is Actually In New Jersey
Tie Breaker
[Photos] Marisa Tomei Gave The Crew A Little Extra Graduatez
They did not study the catastrophe of Vietnam, and they have not learned from it. As
Gareth Porter showed in Perils of Dominance , that war, whose atrocities the world
remembers more vividly than Americans do, was protracted not from morbid credulity regarding
the domino theory but rather a primitive fear of losing face. It was carried forward through
presidencies in both parties with a maximum of deception. The War in Afghanistan has
similarly extended over three presidencies; and yet, to the neoliberal establishment,
Afghanistan in 2020 is a good deal like Vietnam in 1971. It must not be "abandoned." A recent
New York Times story praised some generals for "tempering" the rashness of Donald
Trump's attempt to withdraw once and for all.
For reasons of personality that hardly bear looking into, Trump in foreign policy
represented a break from the militarized globalism the United States had adopted with the
fall of the Soviet Union and the coming of a unipolar world. The laboratory for this approach
was the Yugoslavia intervention commandeered by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The madness
under the idealism was revealed in the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
That seems a long generation ago, to the short memory of Americans. Even more thoroughly
forgotten has been the Libya War -- President Obama's disastrous bid to show support for the
Arab Spring -- with all the destruction it wrought: the civil war that followed, the swollen
mass migrations from North Africa to South Europe, the opening of slave markets in Libya
itself. After Libya came Syria, in which the United States supported an Al Qaeda offshoot in
another humanitarian cause. After Syria came the Obama-Trump support for the Saudi
obliteration of Yemen.
The United States has long faced the peculiar choice -- messianic on both sides -- of
serving the world as an exemplary nation or as an evangelical one. The former image was best
drawn by Abraham Lincoln when he said that the proposition "all men are created equal" was
meant as "a standard maxim for free society," which would be "constantly approximated" in the
United States itself, "constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the
happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere." By contrast, the
evangelical image was epitomized by John Kennedy's eloquent and dangerous inaugural address:
"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Lincoln's standard
maxim meant the force of our example. Kennedy's bear any burden meant the force
of our weapons.
A new Cold War with Russia was dragged onto center stage in 2013–2014. The process
began at the Sochi Olympics and was locked in by the American reaction to the Russian
reaction to the coup in Ukraine. The neoliberal elite is deciding, at this moment, whether to
prefer Russia or China as the number-one U.S. enemy on the horizon. But must we have one?
"Faith in a fact can help create the fact," said William James. A named expectation of
trouble creates the conditions for that trouble. And yet, informed citizens today in the
United States, in China, and in Russia all know that such a return to the inveterate habits
of the old Great Powers would be supremely irresponsible. Our most dire confrontation now is
with the natural world, which, in the form of climate change, is taking its revenge on
humanity for a century of abuse.
SPONSORED CONTENT
[Photos] At 56, Laura Ingraham Has Never Been Married And Now We Know Why Graduatez
[Photos] Behind Her Fame, Milana Vayntrub Has Some Secret Now Out In The Open Penguin M.D.
[Photos] 35 People That Forgot to Check The Background Before Taking Photo Penguin
M.D.
If the fires and floods of the last many years, in Australia and California, in Prague and
Houston, have nothing to say to you, it is not clear what planet you are fit to live on. The
best thing the policy elite could do, for the United States and the world, would be to put
themselves out of business. Begin a series of international agreements to cooperate in
slowing the progress of climate change, and in anticipating and defending against the worst
of its effects. Practically speaking, as a matter of course, this will require a new ethic of
international cooperation. Not war, not even an enhanced trade war, and not with China and
Russia most of all.
David Bromwich is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. He is the author
of American Breakdown:
@Supply and Demand
'progressive' MeToo had disappeared. The MeToo activists love Bill Clinton and his various
acquaintances, such as the badly aged idiots of Russian Pussy Riot and the Maxwells family.
This is so progressive! See also the "progressive" Google/FaceBook/YouTube blanket censorship
over anything that can be qualified as 'antisemitic' by the ADL (created in memory of a
rapist and murderer Leo Frank). The 'progressives' have been taken for a ride by zionists.
The 'deplorables,' unlike Clintons, have a sense of dignity. As for the half-wit
'progressives,' they will undoubtedly have their chance to learn more about their most
important tutors, the Trotskyists.
The ascendancy of neoliberal forces to the executive branch of the U.S. state represents a
development that potentially will be even a more dangerous period of aggression from the U.S.
white supremacist settler state and its white supremacist colonial European allies.
Why is this so? The primary agenda of the right-wing neoliberal forces represented by the
Biden Administration is to reassert U.S. global leadership by reconsolidating a common
U.S.-European capitalist program of domination that was disrupted with the "America first"
positions of the Trump Administration.
The Biden Administration is animated by the belief that the objective logic of overall
Western hegemony is tied to finding a way for more effective collaboration around a common
imperialist agenda. This belief is shared by Angela Merkel of Germany, and despite some
contrary public declarations from French President Macron on issue of European independence,
Macron sees an effective Western alliance as critical, even if it is under U.S. leadership
once again.
The racialist character if these appeals are obvious to those of us who operate from a
critical anti-colonialist frame that centers race and violence as the essential elements of
the rise of the Pan-European white supremacist colonial/capitalist patriarchal project. The
commitment to continued white colonial/capitalist global hegemonic dominance is clear.
Biden's objective to revive a U.S. hegemonic role over the Western project of collective
domination must be seen as a race project.
Trump's plan from the beginning of his administration was to complete the Obama pivot to
Asia, but those efforts were undermined by the domestic political obstacles he faced in just
trying to gain full control of the Executive Branch. And while Trump was eventually
successful in winning over elements of the U.S. and European ruling classes to a more
aggressive stance against China, his short-sighted, erratic "America first" policies and his
inability to consolidate effective power over the U.S. state were a destabilizing force for
the continued hegemony of the Western colonial/capitalist project.
The U.S.-EU unity project with its NATO military wing in the service of collective
imperialism and under U.S. leadership is the neoliberal corrective strategy to
Trump.
Biden's Intersectional Imperialism is Exposed
Obama represented the last stage of what Gramsci called a passive revolution where
oppressive state mitigates the influence of antagonistic groups through "gradual but
continuous absorption."
The U.S.-EU race and class project of unity adopted by the Biden Administration will face
serious political and economic challenges. The clumsy attempt to utilize Obama's soft power
ideological mystifications in the present circumstances of capitalist crisis together with a
deep legitimation crisis will result in abject failure by the Biden administration on both
the global and domestic levels.
First among the challenges facing the incoming administration is the competing economic
interests among Western capitalists. The abrogation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPA) with Iran by the Trump Administration and the reimposition of sanctions that required
economic disengagement from Iran by many European firms, was a major fissure in the Atlanta
alliance.
The lost revenues by European firms as a result of economic disengagement with Iran and
the efforts to undermine the Russian NORD stream two pipeline that alienated significant
elements of German capital are just two of the issues that will weigh on the trust factor in
U.S. political leadership going forward.
Moreover, there are two interrelated contradictions of this unity strategy that the
Northern neoliberal capitalist class must confront but will be unable to resolve: first, the
impact of the capitalist crisis exacerbated by COVID that has unleashed forces disruptive to
the capitalist order from both the left and the right. And secondly, the attempt by the left
and social democratic movements and nations to develop, however tentatively, from the
obviously failed neoliberal capitalist model.
The U.S.-EU Unity Process Requires a Countervailing Peoples Unity Process
The strategic challenge for the left in Northern countries is countering these efforts
with a coherent anti-capitalist, internationalist, anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist
and pro-socialist popular movements and structures.
But in the U.S. and Europe, that is easier said than done. Along with the ideological and
organizational fragmentation of the left, one of the main issues that undermines the ability
for the left to cohere in the U.S. and Europe is the cultural and ideological influences of
white supremacist ideology.
The inability to reject the fiction of a "Europe" and its civilizational superiority has
thoroughly corrupted the worldviews and politics of Western leftism. In the face of the
U.S/EU/NATO attacks and subversion on Syria, Libya to Venezuela and Bolivia, instead of
anti-imperialist solidarity, the left engaged in torturous abstract "discussions" around the
merits and mistakes made by these various Southern nations, not recognizing the arrogant
white supremacist positionality of that approach.
Anti-imperialist marginalization is reflective of the shift in the consciousness not only
of the public in various Western nations but of the putative left as well. Even among Black
liberationist forces in the U.S., who have traditionally had internationalism and
anti-imperialism at the center of their worldviews and politics, a strange U.S.-centrism has
emerged. This tendency along with an ironic embryonic racial chauvinism that elevates a
distinctive "African American" construction of so-called global anti-blackness as an
intractable ontological phenomenon, has created serious ideological and political challenges
for anti-imperialist coalitional work.
Yet, those challenges must be met by African/Black left and left forces in general. It is
impossible for forces in the U.S. and Europe to avoid their unique responsibilities situated
at the center of the colonial empires, to the peoples of the world who have the knee of
collective imperialism on their necks.
Bringing this discussion closer to the territory referred to as the United States,
anti-imperialism, and the struggle against U.S. chauvinism among the left must be taken up as
an area of struggle. For African/Black revolutionaries, and indeed for the working and
laboring classes, our gaze must extend beyond our local and national realities. Not because
those realities are unimportant but because we are unable to understand local realities
without understanding the full constellation of class, race and material forces that shape
those structural realities nationally and locally.
Mobilizing our forces to confront and defeat the Pan-European project is not a call to
abstractionism. The organizational challenge is to answer the question of how does local
work, that is, building a real, concrete internationalism, look.
It is not enough to position ourselves in solidarity with the victims of U.S. imperialism.
The base-building work that we engage in must reflect that mutual connection with the
colonized.
That is why the Black internationalist stance is not some exotic addition to radical
organizing but must be seen as fundamental to our movement building work. Understanding that
we are immersed in a system of exploitation and oppression that is global, even though it has
local manifestations, is critical for us to effectively address that perennial task of
determining "what must be done" to advance our forces.
Confronting that question of what is to be done has become even more crucial today amid
the irreversible decline of the capitalist order. And while we commit to building a mass
movement of the exploited and oppressed, we must take account of some troubling developments
over the last four years.
The unveiling of the left patriots who were concerned with "our democracy" and who
enthusiastically propagated the talking points of neoliberalism while remaining silent on
U.S. imperialism, and entered the intra-bourgeois class struggle as junior partners to
neoliberal right, revealed once again that if the left is not prepared to defeat whiteness
and the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination, it will join as the tail to the neoliberal right in
the cross-class white supremacist fascist project led by neoliberals.
Our survival demands that we remain "woke" to that possibility and plan accordingly.
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
The announcement drew praise from many professional climate activists and groups, perhaps
assuming that Kerry was taking his lead from Bernie Sanders, who has for years been saying
the same thing. Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement, Varshini Prakash said his
statement was an "encouraging move," while 350.org's Bill McKibben, predicted Kerry would
be an excellent climate czar. Yet, as media critic Adam Johnson argued, Kerry's
proclamation should deeply concern progressive activists and will likely lead to expanding
the already bloated military budget.
Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank, the American Security Project
(ASP), whose board is a who's who of retired generals, admirals and senators. The ASP also
hailed the appointment of their man, explaining, in a little-read report, exactly what
treating the climate as a national security threat entails. And it is nothing like what
Sanders advocates.
For the ASP, climate change constitutes an "accelerant of instability" and a "threat
multiplier" that will "affect the operating environment," and notes that Kerry will have
three priorities in his role as President Biden's right-hand man. What were those three
priorities? Making sure people in the Global South could eat and have access to safe
drinking water? Reparations? Disaster relief or response teams? Cutting back on fossil fuel
use? Indeed not. For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
"... Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of fact. ..."
"... If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim made by the infamous January 2017 "intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17 intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the time. ..."
"... Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations. After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized, this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous . ..."
Democrat Joe Biden, anointed by the US mainstream media and Silicon Valley as the next
president, "must call out Putin's secret war against the United States" when he assumes
office, the Post's editorial board argued this week.
But this "secret war" exists only in their feverish imagination. Each and every one
of the things they list as examples of it consists of assertions based on insinuation at best,
or has otherwise been debunked as outright fake news.
Exhibit A is the "mysterious attacks" that supposedly "targeted" US diplomats
and spies in Cuba, China, Australia and Taiwan. This 'Havana Syndrome' was blamed on Russia last
week in a coordinated media campaign, but the "scientific" paper it was based on
carefully avoids actual attribution, saying only that the vague symptoms were
"consistent" with a posited microwave weapon.
This is an evolution of the original story, which claimed that Russia had used "sonic
weapons," not microwave ones. Even the New York Times later admitted
that the headaches, sleep deprivation and other problems were more likely caused by the loud
chirping of Cuban crickets.
Exhibit B is another doozy, the infamous "Russian bounties" story. The New York Times
claimed in June that
some money captured from local mobsters in Afghanistan was somehow proof that Russia was paying
the Taliban to kill US soldiers – again, not on the basis of actual evidence, but on
conjecture that this was "consistent" with what the CIA and US military said were
Russian objectives.
Thing is, neither the US
intelligence community nor the Pentagon were
ever able to confirm the story, having investigated it for months. It just so happened that it
was brought up just as the DC establishment sought to torpedo President Donald Trump's plan to
pull out of Afghanistan and end the 20-year war that has long since forgotten its
purpose.
Exhibit C is the "looting of valuable hacking tools" from the cybersecurity firm
FireEye, announced earlier this
week. FireEye itself never named the culprit, with its CEO Kevin Mandia only saying it was
"consistent with a nation-state cyber-espionage effort."
That didn't stop the Post from claiming that "spies with Russia's foreign intelligence
service" are "believed" to have hacked FireEye, citing "people familiar with the
matter." Well there you go, anonymous and unverifiable sources asserted it, therefore it
must be true!
Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's
computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That
is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert
Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the
government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of
fact.Another nail
in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim
If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice
there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these
alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and
mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim
made by the infamous January 2017
"intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17
intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the
time.
Keep in mind that these are the same spies and media that never saw the demise of the Soviet
Union coming, and have been predicting Russia's impending collapse any day now – for the
past 20 years. So much for their actual knowledge of Russian goals or thinking.
Speaking of 'Russiagate,' the Post has been on the leading edge of that conspiracy theory
from the start. It won Pulitzers for pushing it on the
American public. It also played a key role in smearing Trump's first national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn, so he would be fired – and later cheered his railroading by Mueller.
At least they're consistent , so to speak.
Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's
Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a
mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations.
After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized,
this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous
.
That's because the Post is literally in bed with what Trump called the Washington
"swamp," the entrenched US political establishment. What they print is what that
establishment thinks and wants Americans to believe. With Joe Biden in the White House, the
objectives of that establishment and the official US government would be, to use their own
phrase, consistent .
Which is why the Post's "secret war" fantasy is, shall we say, highly likely
to become an actual shooting war with Moscow. As the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons
between themselves to destroy the world several times over, that can't possibly be good for
Amazon's bottom line. Someone ought to tell Bezos.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
or Donald Trump, truth is a matter of convenience, with facts entirely optional and plenty
of space allowed for make-believe. Yet in American public life, our current president is far
from being the sole purveyor of fictions and falsehoods. The very institutions that citizens
count on to distinguish between fact and fable engage in their own forms of mythmaking. While
they may steer clear of telling outright lies, they dispense no small amount of drivel,
concealing actual truth behind a veil of illusion.
Allow me to offer an illustrative example in the form of a recent column by the
Washington Post's David Von Drehle, a seasoned journalist now installed in that paper's
stable of political commentators and called upon twice weekly to reflect on the fate of
humankind.
The title of Von Drehle's essay poses a question: "Joe Biden says America is back. Back to
what?" Von Drehle then proceeds to spell out his own answer to that what. Yet in doing
so, he packages his views in a specific historical context. It's that context that is
instructive.
Let us acknowledge that the Biden team is no more likely to take its cues from some
garden-variety pundit than from members of the outgoing administration. Van Drehle's policy
recommendations -- that Biden should "end the mollycoddling" of Saudi Arabia, insist that China
"play by the rules," and knit "the Americas into a hemisphere of happiness" -- carry about as
much weight with the incoming administration as do Mike Pompeo's opinions, i.e. next to none
whatsoever.
Yet this is not to say that Von Drehle's column is just so much hot air. From his perch at
the Post, he is a small, but not inconsequential player in a grand project to which
members of the foreign policy establishment swear fealty. The aim of that project is to salvage
and rejuvenate claims of American Exceptionalism that Donald Trump mangled and trashed nearly
beyond recognition.
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as exemplar
-- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence to direct
history itself. Pumping new life into this hoary old notion requires persuading Americans today
that before Trump screwed things up, the United States had history well in hand, with the world
taking its cues from Washington.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.426.0_en.html#goog_738456037 Ad ends in
15s
Von Drehle purports to believe that such a world actually existed. Furthermore, he believes
that a sufficiently savvy U.S. president can restore that world -- all that's required is
assertive American leadership. Nor is he alone in entertaining the prospect of going "back" to
that triumphal time, before Trump appeared on the scene and messed everything up. Indeed, take
Biden's rhetoric at face value and our next president may well share in this fantasy.
So of considerably greater significance than Von Drehle's policy prescriptions is the
historical wrapping in which they arrive. It's history with a specific and carefully selected
time horizon. For Von Drehle (and probably for Biden), the history that matters begins with the
end of World War II, a moment that ostensibly inaugurated "seven decades of bipartisan [foreign
policy] consensus." Providing a foundation for that consensus was a "win-win view of America's
role in the world." Generations of postwar leaders, according to Von Drehle, understood that
"the long-term interests of Americans were best served by the gradual expansion of peace and
prosperity worldwide." The result was "an expansive, internationalist approach" to basic
policy. This, in sum, is the past that Von Drehle is selling as a roadmap to a happy
future.
Now such assertions may not qualify as bald-faced lies in a Trumpian sense, but taken
together they amount to a fairy tale. The postwar bipartisan consensus was never more than
partial and tentative at best. When put to the test -- with Vietnam as the most vivid example
-- it gave way. Nor did the Cold War and the accompanying nuclear arms race reflect a win-win
view of America's role in the world. The Cold War was a zero-sum game, pitting us against them
-- "better dead than Red," remember?
As for the United States promoting the gradual expansion of peace and prosperity worldwide,
that claim is difficult to square with Washington's marriages of convenience with sundry
dictators, involvement in numerous coups and assassination plots, and the U.S. penchant for
killing people in faraway places, unmatched by any other nation on the planet. Since 9/11 in
particular, war and disorder rather than peace and prosperity have been America's principal
exports. All of this predated Trump.
Von Drehle is eager for the United States to resume "its rightful place in the world order"
as "the friend of freedom and the scourge of tyrants." Forget just for a second that the United
States befriended a long list of tyrants: Batista, Somoza, Marcos, Noriega, the Shah of Iran,
Mubarak of Egypt, and, until 1990, Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Of greater relevance to the present
moment is this question: who or what assigns nations their rightful place in the world order?
This is not a matter upon which columnists in the employ of the Washington Post are
inclined to reflect, preferring to assume that history's decision is irreversible: we are
Numero Uno. Period. Full stop. Been that way forever.
Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence that
he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column, further
embellishing the nation's achievements as friend of freedom and scourge of tyrants, as will his
various counterparts at the Post, the Times, the Wall Street Journal , and
other prestige outlets.
They will collaborate in minimizing the moral ambiguity that permeates America's past. They
will shrug off crimes or lock them away in a box labeled "Sorry. Didn't Mean To." They will
inhibit learning and bury truth.
And they will get away with it.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and TAC's
writer-at-large.
I'm not sure that "they" can continue to "get away with it." The US financial situation
is not good. The US government is dysfunctional, and US society as a whole, the combination
of capital and people, is no longer particularly competitive. No matter what Biden, et al,
think they are going to do with respect to leading the world, it's not clear that the world
will pay any attention, or that the the US can even afford it.
It's a tragic, in the classic sense, situation, as almost everything that has weakened the
US empire has been self inflicted.
All true. To see a better reflection of America, maybe one should read Serghei Lavrov's
interviews and press conferences:
https://thesaker.is/foreign...
or see how the Chinese are trolling Australia in the aftermath of the scandal of the
Aussie special forces killing (with intent) scores of civilians (probably far less than the
US troops) in Afghanistan - just as a fast track on how Americans are regarded outside
their border...
While Mr. Von Drehle sees and praises Dorian Gray, the world at large watches with
fascination another patch of horror coming up on his portrait...
I totally agree with Bacevich. There is really nothing that generates global more
resentment than this kind of American hubris, American arrogance:
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as
exemplar -- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence
to direct history itself.
"Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence
that he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column..."
As will Andrew J. And you can be sure Bacevich will use any topic at hand to slip in as
many backhands against President Trump as he can muster. Once a RINO, always a RINO. But
despite all the snide slurs against the President here & elsewhere, Bacevich's
preferred candidate, stately Joe Biden may soon dignify the Oval Office (maybe); & then
Andrew can spend the next four years defending him, just like Von Drehle.
America HAS NO memory, particularly regarding the heinous aspects of its past. Who
remembers the Indian removals, Chinese and Japanese exclusion acts, or the Philippine
insurrection?
As success and comfort displace esteem and integrity and corruption turns pervasive the
virtuous order of society is overturned: independent, principled, talented spirits are
typically encountered only well away of the mainstreams of media while middling
obsequiousness and venality rise above their betters in pubic view.
Tripe, deception and corrupton are what one can expect from corporate governance no
matter which wing s dominant. We haven't seen the
worst of it yet, though we are getting there faster than we thought.
I agree w/Bacevich. I love how R's and D's pretend they are different.
'The America First policy is gone' scream the Laura Ingraham's as she (and the other
Republican Hawks) lament a possible decrease in hostility with China and Iran. The
Democrats pronounce, 'America is back, now we are really going to get tough with Russia and
do regime change in Venezuela right!'
Here is the new boss, same as the new boss. We will continue to waste our treasure and
energy harming other countries and neglect ourselves until we are spent.
Editor's note : US President-elect Joe Biden nominated Neera Tanden, a close ally of
Hillary Clinton and president of neoliberal DC think tank the Center for American Progress, on
November 29 to serve as director of his administration's Office of Management and Budget.
Tanden is notorious on Twitter for her aggressive attacks on the left.
In response to the nomination, The Grayzone is reprinting this
June 20, 2016 report by Ben Norton.
"Unless we take the oil from Libya, I have no interest in Libya," Donald Trump declared in
an April 2011 interview on CNN's "Newsroom."
The U.S. government was considering military intervention in the oil-rich North African
nation at the time. Trump said he would only participate if Washington exploited Libya's
natural resources in return.
"Libya is only good as far I'm concerned for one thing -- this country takes the oil. If
we're not taking the oil, no interest," he added.
NATO claimed its U.S.-backed bombing campaign was meant to protect Libyans who were
protesting the regime of longtime dictator Muammar Qadhafi. Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, used NATO's own materials to show that this was false.
"In truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start," Zenko
wrote in an exposé in Foreign Policy in March.
Trump was not the only figure to propose taking Libya's oil in return for bombing it,
however. Neera Tanden, the president of the pro-Clinton think tank the Center for American
Progress, proposed this same policy a few months after Trump.
"We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil," Tanden wrote in an October 2011
email
titled "Should Libya pay us back?"
"Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit. If we want
to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us
back doesn't seem crazy to me," she added in the message, which was obtained and first
published by The Intercept .
Liberal hawkishness
Tanden is a close ally of Hillary Clinton, and is frequently named as a likely
chief-of-staff in a Hillary Clinton White House. The Center for American Progress, which Tanden
leads, was founded by John Podesta, a key figure in the Clinton machine.
Podesta is the chairman of
Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign, and he previously served as chief of staff under
President Bill Clinton. With his brother Tony, John also co-founded the Podesta Group, a public
affairs firm that has
lobbied for Saudi Arabia , among other countries.
Tanden has expressed hawkish views, although in a statement to Salon she strongly opposed
being described as hawkish. The New York Times has described Hillary Clinton as
more hawkish than her Republican rivals , although it still endorsed her for president.
The Center for American Progress president
invited hard-line right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in
Washington, D.C. in November, after he had spent months aggressively trying to jeopardize the
Iran nuclear deal.
Tanden does not comment on international affairs much, but her tweets provide some insight
into her hawkish views, which do not reflect the official policy of the Center for American
Progress.
In September 2013, when the Obama administration was preparing to bomb Syria, she tweeted support,
writing, "On Syria, while I don't want to be the world's policeman, an unpoliced world is
dangerous. The US may be the only adult in the room left."
Just over a week later, the administration
backed off of its plans, in response to enormous backlash -- and in fear that it would end
up with another Libya on its hands.
During the lead-up to the war in Libya, Tanden expressed support for military intervention.
She suggested that Americans should
be "chanting" for Qadhafi's ouster.
Days after the NATO operation was launched, she wrote , "To liberal friends
worried re Libya, is there better reason 4 use of US power than 2 protect innocent civilians
from slaughter by a madman?"
Like many liberal figures who supported the NATO bombing of Libya, she
stopped talking about the country between 2011 and 2014, while it was roiled by violent
chaos and extremism.
These tweets came before the October email in which Tanden suggested taking Libya's oil in
return for bombing it. Trump made the same proposal several months before, in April.
After this article was published, Tanden stressed in a statement to Salon that her views do
not reflect those of the Center for American Progress, which did not take a position on
Libya.
She claimed being labeled "a hawk is a ridiculous caricature," adding, "I opposed the Iraq
war from the beginning." Tanden noted that the Center for American Progress "was among the
first think tanks to lay out concrete plans for ending the war in Iraq." She also said that she
does not support putting U.S. troops in Syria.
"CAP is a think tank," Tanden stressed, referring to the organization by its acronym. "We
have internal discussions and dialogues all the time on a variety of issues. We encourage the
deliberation of ideas to spur conversation, push thinking and spark debate. We do this in
meetings, on phone calls and yes, over e-mail. One internal e-mail exchange among colleagues --
which was leaked to another organization -- or a few tweets does not constitute a published,
official policy position."
Salon never once stated that Tanden's views reflect the Center for American Progress'
official policy, but Tanden accused Salon of implying this.
Leftist critics have long lambasted the Democratic Party's militaristic foreign policy,
arguing it is not much different than the GOP's. This exploitative idea proposed by both Trump
and Tanden lends further credence to the argument that, when it comes to the U.S. empire, the
Democratic and Republican parties are much more similar than their adherents make them out to
be.
A strange mix
At the time of his April 2011 CNN interview, Trump was considering running as a Republican
in the 2012 election. His nationalistic rhetoric then was very consistent to that of today.
Trump lamented that the U.S. was "just not respected" and had become "a laughing stock
throughout the world." He hoped that he could reverse this supposed trend, just as he now
promises to "make America great again."
Trump's proposal on Libya was consistent with his views on Iraq. He
declared at the American Conservative Union's 40th Conservative Political Action
Conference, in 2013, that the U.S. should "take" $1.5 trillion worth of Iraq's oil to pay for
the illegal war.
In his presidential campaign today, Trump has made similar proposals. His foreign policy is
a strange mix of skeptical non-interventionism and hawkishness.
In the 2011 CNN interview, Trump expressed skepticism about the rebels in Libya. "They make
the rebels sound like they're from 'Gone With the Wind,' very glamorous," Trump said. "I hear
they're controlled by Iran. I hear they're controlled by al-Qaeda."
The rebels had very little to do with Iran. Iran did express support for the opposition to
Qadhafi's dictatorship, but it
staunchly opposed Western military intervention, which it warned was hypocritical,
neocolonial in nature and motivated by Libya's large oil reserves.
By no means were all of the rebels extremists, but there were al-Qaeda-linked elements in
the opposition to Qadhafi. Human rights groups documented atrocities committed by extremist
rebels, including
ethnic cleansing of black Libyans .
After the NATO war toppled Qadhafi, the country was thrown into chaos. Rivaled forces,
including extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia and eventually ISIS, seized control of
swaths of the country, and weapons from Qadhafi's enormous cache ended up in the hands of
extremist groups throughout the region. To this day, large parts of Libya are not under the
control of the internationally recognized government.
Disastrous Libya war
Hillary Clinton played the
leading role in rallying up U.S. support for the NATO war. Reports have since shown that
the Pentagon was skeptical of U.S. involvement at the time, but, under the leadership of
Secretary of State Clinton, the Obama administration portrayed it as a humanitarian
mission.
President Obama insisted at the beginning of the intervention, "Broadening our military
mission to include regime change would be a mistake." The State Department likewise said
"President Obama has been equally firm that our military operation has a narrowly defined
mission that does not include regime change."
Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates later told The New York Times, "I can't recall any
specific decision that said, 'Well, let's just take him out,'" referring to Qadhafi.
Micah Zenko, the Council on Foreign Relations scholar, showed this to be false. "This is
scarcely believable," Zenko rejoined in his detailed report
. "Given that decapitation strikes against Qaddafi were employed early and often, there almost
certainly was a decision by the civilian heads of government of the NATO coalition to 'take him
out' from the very beginning of the intervention."
"The threat posed by the Libyan regime's military and paramilitary forces to
civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes and rebel ground movements within
the first 10 days," he explained. "Afterward, NATO began providing direct close-air support for
advancing rebel forces by attacking government troops that were actually in retreat and had
abandoned their vehicles." The military intervention continued for more than seven months.
Rebel forces went on to brutally murder Qadhafi, sodomizing him with a bayonet. When
then-Sec. Clinton heard that he had been killed, she rejoiced in front
of TV cameras, joking, "We came, we saw, he died!"
In April, Obama singled out U.S. support for the NATO war in Libya as the worst decision of his
presidency.
Zenko warned that the "intervention in Libya shows that the slippery slope of allegedly
limited interventions is most steep when there's a significant gap between what policymakers
say their objectives are and the orders they issue for the battlefield."
"Unfortunately, duplicity of this sort is a common practice in the U.S. military," he
added.
Interestingly, Trump himself cautioned in an interview on Fox News' "Fox
& Friends" in March 2011 that U.S. intervention in Syria would be a "slippery slope."
"It is a slippery slope and more and more, you realize that we're over there fighting wars
to open up these governments and they would have opened up themselves," Trump said, expressing
skepticism about U.S. military involvement very early on in the war.
Clinton called for the exact opposite in Syria. She would go on to oppose diplomacy and
insist the U.S. should support the "hard men with the guns."
DNC hack
Trump's unusual mix of anti-interventionist and exploitative foreign policy views are
highlighted in the Democratic National Committee's alleged opposition research.
A hacker broke into the computer network of the DNC and leaked its opposition research on
Trump. A 210-page
document that appears to be this report highlights Trump's past remarks on Libya, Syria,
Iraq and more.
Also revealed in the report is that Trump bragged that he "screwed" Muammar Qadhafi with an
unfair business deal.
U.S. media outlets immediately blamed the DNC hack on the Russian government. Soon after,
however, they quietly backed away from the hasty conclusions they made based on what
progressive media watchdog Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting pointed out
was incredibly flimsy evidence.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
P resident-elect Joe Biden's pick to run the Office of Management and Budget has a history
of defending British ex-spy Christopher Steele's
discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Years of controversial claims about the Trump-Russia controversy, particularly about the
dossier funded in part by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, presents one of several obstacles
for Neera Tanden, a longtime Democratic operative, to achieve Senate confirmation next
year.
A significant question that remains is how the two Senate runoff races in Georgia shake out
in January, with control of the upper chamber hanging in the balance. Tanden is sure to meet
stiff opposition from Republicans, who will be led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom Tanden
derisively tweeted in August 2019,
"Stacey Abrams just called McConnell 'Moscow Mitch.' Love it."
In selecting Tanden on
Monday, Biden described the president
of the left-wing Center for American Progress as "a leading architect and advocate of policies
designed to support working families." Tanden worked on Bill Clinton's successful run in 1992
and Barack Obama's successful presidential run in 2008. She was also an adviser on Hillary
Clinton's successful Democratic primary effort in 2016 and the failed general election run that
November.
Not mentioned in her Biden transition team biography was the role Tanden played in promoting
unsubstantiated claims throughout the Trump-Russia controversy.
Tanden launched the
"Moscow Project" in 2017, and after Buzzfeed published Steele's dossier in January 2017,
Tanden's think tank released a
statement saying, "The intelligence dossier presents profoundly disturbing allegations;
ones that should shake every American to the core." Tanden went on to defend the Steele dossier
repeatedly on Twitter, attacking those who critiqued the FBI for relying on its claims to
obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority against former Trump campaign associate
Carter Page and implying that critics of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation were doing
Russia's bidding.
"Make Chris Steele the next James Bond," Tanden tweeted in January
2017.
In a tweet about Rep. Devin Nunes's FISA memo in February 2018, which criticized the FBI's
surveillance of Page and its use of the dossier, the Washington Examiner's Byron York
noted that "no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele
dossier information." Tanden responded by saying, "Even
if this is true, hasn't the dossier been mostly proven to be true? It's amazing how comfortable
the likes of Byron York are happy to run interference for Russians intervening in our
elections." Tanden followed up with another tweet claiming that the
"dossier has been mostly established as right."
Tanden's "Moscow Project" also
released a flawed critique of the Republican FISA memo, with Tanden defending the FBI's
surveillance. In addition, Tanden tweeted in April 2018 that
the dossier was "started with funding by a GOP megadonor."
Although the conservative Free Beacon had hired the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS, it said in October 2017 that it "had no knowledge of or
connection to the Steele dossier." It later emerged that Steele was not commissioned by Fusion
GPS (and did not begin compiling his dossier) until Clinton campaign lawyer
Marc Elias hired Fusion.
"What parts of the dossier have been disproven?" Tanden tweeted in January 2019.
"I will wait."
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December 2019 report and subsequent
declassifications undermined Steele's claims in the dossier. Horowitz said the Trump-Russia
investigation concealed exculpatory information from the FISA court, and he
criticized the Justice Department and FBI for at least 17 "significant errors and
omissions"
related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele.
Declassified footnotes show the FBI knew Steele's dossier may have been compromised by
Russian disinformation . Horowitz said FBI interviews with Steele's main source, U.S.-based
and Russian-trained lawyer Igor Danchenko, "raised significant questions about the reliability
of the Steele election reporting."
FBI Director Christopher Wray called the FISA findings "utterly unacceptable" this
year and concurred with the DOJ's conclusions that at least two of the four FISA warrants
against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.
Nearly all the FISA signatories -- Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates , Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein , fired FBI Director
James Comey , and fired FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe -- indicated under oath they wouldn't have signed off on the surveillance if
they knew then what they know now, and a declassified FBI spreadsheet showed the
lack of corroboration for Steele's claims.
Other Russia-related claims Tanden has made could present sticking points during her
confirmation process.
She tweeted on Oct. 31, 2016,
that President Trump was a Russian "puppet" in part because there was a "Trump server connected
to Russian bank" and tweeted again in December
2016 that Trump may have gotten "talking points from the server at Trump Tower connected to
Russia."
The
claim that a Russian Alfa Bank server was secretly communicating with a server at Trump
Tower, also pushed by Steele, emerged in 2016, but Horowitz noted the FBI "concluded by early
February 2017 that there were no such links," and the Senate Intelligence Committee's August
report
did not find "covert communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel." Jake
Sullivan, Biden's pick for national security adviser, also pushed the refuted Alfa
Bank claim in 2016.
The week after Trump's victory, following reports that Russian cyberactors had targeted a
number of state election systems, Tanden mused, "Why would hackers hack in unless they could
change results?" The next day, she pushed back against
criticism she received, tweeting, "Funny, I don't remember saying Russian hackers stole
Hillary's victory." There is
no evidence that Russian hackers changed any votes in 2016.
"Mueller found Russian interference in the election. He also found Trump coordinated with
Russia. These are facts," Tanden tweeted in October.
Although Mueller's investigation concluded in 2019 that the Russian government
interfered in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," the report "did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities."
After the report's release, Tanden tweeted that
"Mueller has failed the country" and "Adam Schiff > Robert Mueller." Earlier this year,
Schiff released dozens of House Intelligence Committee witness interviews that showed Obama's
top national security officials
testified they hadn't seen direct evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Self-proclaimed President-elect Joe Biden has chosen a budget director, Neera Tanden, who
once argued the US should ease funding shortages for left-wing social programs by making
countries like Libya pay for being bombed. Biden's transition team on Monday announced its
nominations for the six people selected to fill key economic roles in the incoming
administration, led by former Federal Reserve Bank Chair Janet Yellen as treasury secretary.
Tanden, a Hillary Clinton loyalist who currently heads the Center for American Progress, will
be director of the Office of Management and Budget if Biden's media-declared election victory
withstands legal challenges from President Donald Trump.
This crisis-tested team will help lift America out of our current economic downturn and
build back better -- creating an economy that gives every single American a fair shot and an
equal chance to get ahead. https://t.co/F6JMBHUgVx
-- Biden-Harris Presidential
Transition (@Transition46) November
30, 2020
However, critics have already recalled an example of her unusual budgeting philosophy. In a
2011 email that was made public by WikiLeaks, Tanden said Libya should be made to pay for the
bombing campaign that helped to topple Muammar Gaddafi's government, which would help balance
the US domestic budget.
"We have a giant deficit, they have a lot of oil," Tanden said. "Most Americans
would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit."
If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil-rich countries
partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me.
With President Donald Trump all but conceding to the transition team that will take over
after January next year, interest now shifts to President-elect Joe Biden's choices for
cabinet. On the national security front, the imperial-military lobby will have reasons to be
satisfied. If Trump promised to rein in, if not put the brakes on the US imperium, Biden
promises a cocktail of energising stimulants.
While campaigning for the Democratic nomination, Biden tried to give a different impression.
Biden the militarist was gone. "It time to end the Forever Wars, which have cost us untold
blood and treasure," he stated
in July 2019. Pinching a leaf or two out of Trump's own playbook, he insisted on bringing "the
vast majority of our troops home – from the wars on Afghanistan and the Middle East".
Missions would be more narrowly focused on Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Support would also be withdrawn
from the unpardonable Saudi-led war in Yemen. "So I will make it my mission – to restore
American leadership – and elevate diplomacy as our principal tool of foreign policy."
This was an unconvincing display of the leopard desperately trying to change its striking
spots. During the Obama administration, the Vice-President found war sweet, despite subsequent
attempts to distance himself from collective cabinet responsibility. These included the current
war in Yemen, the assault on Libya that crippled the country and turned it into a terrorist
wonderland, and that "forever war" in Afghanistan. In 2016, Biden claimed to be the sage in the
administration, warning President Barack Obama against the Libyan intervention. An impression
of combative wisdom was offered. He had "argued strongly" in the White House "against going to
Libya," a position at odds with the hawkish Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who insisted
on something a bit more than going to Libya. After the demise of Muammar Gaddafi, what then?
"Doesn't the country disintegrate? What happens then? Doesn't it become a place where it
becomes a – petri dish for the growth of extremism?" So many questions, so few
answers.
The Iraq War is another stubborn stain on Biden's garments. His approval of the invasion of
Iraq has been feebly justified as benign ignorance. As he explained
to NPR in September last year, he had received "a commitment from President [George W.] Bush he
was not going to go to war in Iraq." Bush looked him "in the eye at the Oval Office; he said he
needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam
Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program." Then came the invasion: "we had a shock
and awe". For Iraqis, it was a bit more than shock and awe.
With the warring efforts of the US in Iraq turning sour, Biden entertained
a proposal reminiscent of Europe's old imperial planners: the establishment of "three
largely autonomous regions" for each of Iraq's ethnic and confessional groups, governed by
Baghdad in the execrable policy of "unity through autonomy". Not exactly an enlightened
suggestion but consistent with previous conventions of dismemberment that have marked Middle
Eastern politics.
In considering Biden's record on Iraq, Spencer Ackerman of The Daily Beast was
clear in describing an erratic, bumbling and egregious performance. "Reviewing Biden's
record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that
arrayed people at the bloody intersection."
Now, we forward ourselves to November 2020. The
Trump administration has given a good cover to the incoming Democratic administration.
Considered putatively wicked, all that follows the orange ogre will be good. In introducing
some of his key appointments, Biden's crusted choices stood to attention like storm
troopers-elect, an effect helped by face masks, solemn lighting and their sense of wonder.
"America is back,"
declared Biden. A collective global shudder could be felt. The Beltway establishment,
mocked by Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as "the Blob," had returned.
In the cast are such figures from the past as former Deputy Secretary of State and former
Deputy National Security Adviser, Tony Blinken. He will serve as Secretary of State. National
Security adviser: former Hillary Clinton aide and senior adviser Jake Sullivan. Director of
National Intelligence: Avril Haines ("a reliable expert leading our intelligence community,"
remarked CNN's unflinching militarist Samantha Vinograd of CNN, herself another former
Obama stable hand from the National Security Council). Secretary of Defence: most probably
Michèle Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defence for Policy.
Blinken, it should be remembered, was the one who encouraged Biden to embrace the
antediluvian, near criminal project of partitioning Iraq. This does not worry The Guardian,
which praises his "urbane bilingual charm" which will be indispensable in "soothing the
frayed nerves of western allies, reassuring them that the US is back as a conventional team
player." He is a "born internationalist" who likes soccer and played a weekly game with US
officials, diplomats and journalists before joining the Obama administration.
Johannes Lang, writing
in the Harvard Political Review, is a touch sharper, noting that Blinken "is a committed
internationalist with a penchant for interventionism." The two often go together. As Blinken
recently told
The New York Times (members of the UN General Assembly, take note), "Whether we like it or not,
the world simply does not organize itself."
Flournoy and Blinken have been spending time during the Trump years drawing sustenance
through their co-founded outfit WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm promising to bring "the
Situation Room to the Board Room." Revolving door rhetoric is used unabashedly: We knew power;
we can show you how to exploit it. Having served in a presidential administration, these
individuals are keen to use "scenario
development and table-top exercises to test ideas or enhance preparedness for a future
contingency". The consultants are willing to give their clients "higher confidence in their
business decisions," as Flournoy puts it, in times of "historic levels of turmoil and
uncertainty around the world".
The Flournoy set have also been the beneficiaries of the US defence funding complex,
fronting think tanks that have received generous largesse. In a
report for the Center for International Policy, Ben Freeman notes that, "Think tanks very
considerably in terms of their objectives and organization, but many think tanks in Washington
D.C. share a common trait: they receive substantial financial support from the US government
and private businesses that work for the US government, most notably defense contractors."
Flournoy's own Center for a New American Security now
ranks second to the RAND Corporation in the cash it gets from defence contractors and US
government sources.
Biden's Department of Defense agency review team, tasked with informing what is hoped will
be a "smooth transfer of power," has its fair complement of those from entities either part of
the weapons industry or beneficiaries of it. According to
In These Times , they make up at least eight of the 23 people in that team. Think tanks
with Biden advisory personnel include the militarily minded Center for Strategic and
International Studies, which boasts funding from Raytheon, Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Lockheed Martin Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation.
America – at least a version of it – is back, well and truly. The stench of wars
continuous, and interventions compulsive, is upon us.
David Hasakkuk,
I'd love to hear you what deeper psychological analysis you may have to offer on the
doublethink phenomenon.
Someone, a hardcore democrat, recently lectured to me that conservatives have no
principles evidenced by support for Trump. I responded that her party should not be lecturing
given their near worship of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and apparent lust for killing the
unborn. She went psychotic on me. It seems like it's the same spell that people in cults fall
into - and I've seen some people that I thought were fairly smart and worldly fall into
it.
Symptoms appear to include a lack of ability to appreciate irony, lack of self-reflection,
loss of ability to reason, loss of all perspective and a tendency to see choices as between
an exaggeration of the ugliness of the reality that exists and a fantastical utopia or
idealized person that doesn't exist and never will.
t is an undeniable fact that the republic has entered one of the most dangerous crises of
its short existence. This is not only due to the disputed election results of November 3
rd , but also to a multitude of other factors beyond American borders, including the
global financial crisis which a certain pandemic has unleashed upon the world, and slide
towards a major world war between great powers that has accelerated chaotically in recent
years.
As unpopular as it might be to state in polite society, as of this writing it is still
impossible to state with 100% certainty that Joe Biden will in fact be inaugurated on January
20, 2021. The simple reason for this is that verifiable evidence of vast partisan vote fraud
tied to the highest echelons of British Intelligence have mounted with every passing day with
Dominion voting systems most recently accused of
erasing 2.7 million Trump votes across the nation , and giving 220 000 pro-Trump votes to
Biden in Pennsylvania (along with hundreds of other vote counting anomalies and technology
glitches across all major swing states).
These and other major signs of mass vote fraud have giving rise to reasonable questions of
the validity of the official results which will be taken to the courts as Gen. Michael Flynn's
Attorney Sidney Powell eloquently laid out recently.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SFCXPw1t17o?feature=oembed TRUMP, BIDEN AND THE ONCOMING
MELTDOWN
By now most people reading this are aware (or should be aware) that the trans Atlantic
financial system has been set to melt down under a $1.5 quadrillion derivatives time bomb being
held together by a mix of wishful thinking, hyperinflationary money printing and vast unpayable
securitized debts waiting to default. It should also come as no surprise that the Great Reset
Agenda designed to coordinate the "post-COVID world order" has nothing to do with any actual
pandemic, and everything to do with imposing a new bankers' dictatorship onto the nations of
the earth.
Both Trump and Biden profess to support American leadership to the world going into this
storm, but both men operate on very much opposing paradigms of what this means, and what
foreign policy tradition should be activated.
Where Biden has championed the idea that "America should lead the world" in opposition to
the dangerous rise in "authoritarianism, nationalism and illiberalism" giving the reigns of
foreign policy over to a team packed with hawkish representatives of the Military
Industrial Complex, Trump has done something different.
On November 9 the incumbent president fired Mark Esper
(possibly to subvert a planned coup) and instated General Christopher Miller to the position of
Defense Secretary who has called for a total end to the 19 year Afghan war
stating :
we are not a people of perpetual war. It is the antithesis of everything for which we
stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end."
Having vocalized his desires to return the USA to its traditional protectionist,
non-interventionist agenda repeatedly over four years, Trump famously characterized the battle
at hand as one of "patriots against the globalists."
And yet, despite these facts, many apparently intelligent people have celebrated that the
"bad orange man" has finally been ousted and normality may once again occur.
Hogwash.
In an
April 2020 Foreign Policy article , Joe Biden called for the re-assertion of American
leadership of the world order stating that "for over 70 years, the United States under
democratic and republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules" of the
world order. Predicting the two possible scenarios that will befall the world should the USA
continue to "abdicate our leadership" as Trump has done, Biden says that either: 1)
Someone else takes America's place as global hegemon that doesn't "advance our interests and
values or 2) "No one will and chaos will ensue".
But wait a minute!
Shouldn't there be a third option in Biden's crystal ball? What about the option of a world
defined by sovereign nations working in win-win cooperation and mutual self interest? Sadly,
from a zero-sum mind that can only think in "balance of power" terms, this third scenario
cannot exist.
The paradox for such little minds, however, is that the very essence of America's emerging
from WWII in a leading position that Biden praises is entirely premised on the understanding
that the world is more than a zero-sum system.
THE FORGOTTEN MULTI-POLAR TRADITIONS OF
THE USA
From the drafting of the UN Charter in 1941, the formulation of the Bretton Woods system in
1944, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there is no doubt that there is very
little that America has not directly influenced.
While this leadership is undeniable and often objectively destructive as sin, it is too
easily forgotten that the UN Charter, as outlined by Franklin Roosevelt was premised on the
belief that America must never become an empire but merely help those in need by providing the
means of industrial development. This was essentially understood as the internationalization of
the New Deal which included social safety nets, bank regulation, productive work guarantees and
infrastructure projects to all other nations aspiring independence across Africa, Asia and the
Americas or struggling the heal from the destructive effects of the war.
FDR's vision for the IMF/World Bank mandates were never to reconquer poor nations under a
new system of debt slavery and conditionalities, but to extend productive credit for long term
megaprojects that were in the common aims of mankind and which
angered Churchill immensely.
Most importantly, this vision was premised on the need for a trust-based U.S.-Russia-China
alliance that never would have permitted the emergence of a bipolar Cold War.
Working alongside such anti-imperial co-thinkers as Republican leader Wendell Willkie, Vice
President Henry Wallace, economist Harry Dexter White, confidante Harry Hopkins, Asst.
Secretary of State Sumner Welles and Attorney General Robert Jackson (to name a few), this
small but powerful group of patriots representing both parties, worked vigorously to ensure not
only that the Wall Street/City of London Frankenstein Monster of Nazism would be put down but
that Churchill's vision of a restored British Imperial system would not succeed.
THE TRUE
SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world (and scaring the hell out of the thing that controls Joe Biden).
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common
ends.
These principles were expanded even further to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on
December 10, 1948 which re-iterated the founding principles of America's Declaration of
Independence- extending those unalienable rights to all mankind as FDR envisioned stating in its
preamble :
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule
of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between
nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as
a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every
individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
These were the ideas that were meant to give life to the "Four Freedoms" first enunciated by President
Roosvelt in 1941 and re-asserted by his anti-imperial Vice President Henry Wallace in
1942.
Now admittedly this positive American foreign policy outlook which launched the post-war age
is a far cry from anything the world has come to recognize in the USA since the emergence of
the Cold War and especially since the murder of John F Kennedy who had done much to resist
America's full takeover by this newly revised British Empire (which some have chosen in recent
years to label "the deep state").
Much like the US Constitution itself, these principles largely remained ink on parchment as
a new age of Cold Warriors, Rhodes Scholars and Fabians directed from
British Intelligence created NATO , divided the world among the lighter skinned haves and
darker skinned have nots while unleashing a system of endless wars onto the earth under a new
Pax Americana.
Today a small window is still open for a renewal of the forgotten traditions of the American
republican traditions that were upheld by such leaders as John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Grant,
Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR and JFK. President Trump has clearly taken a stand in
opposition to the reconquest of the republic by the deep state and it remains to be seen if the
American people have the fortitude to do everything in their power to organize themselves in
defense of the republic and civilization more generally.
"OR"
There are also middle ways: my ideal would be a real United Nations without dominant bullies,
capable of reigning in globalist MNCs, governments or religions.
Population numbers will have to weight in much more for voting power and no SC privileges for
amassing nuclear bombs.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:08 PM
This essay includes McKinley as a defender of "Republican traditions," and of course it's
hard to argue against that position, seeing as how McKinley was a tool of the Big City
corrupt political system. That he fraudulently used the sinking of the "Maine" to declare war
on Spain, and then put down an insurgent revolt by natives of the Philippines by allowing
U.S.soldiers to garott them, is simply in the tradition of Republicans. We agree.
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 1:02 AM Reply to
Doctortrinate
Excellent scripting in the court scene. I remember seeing this film when it was first
released. Made goose bumps
The public has been drummed down to the point where they refuse to question what props up the
fake wigs on the court jesters
yes, It was an eclectic time examination post experimentation perhaps .and there was room
for it, uncrowded by the weight of obligation – keeping it at distance was comfortable
even held the sense that the destructive order was being outrun, until..the reconditioning
ascent of a harpy and it's handbag,
The cess-pit beneath our seeming foundation, is become a source for self-righteous
vengeance – coming into our very private chambers after we seemed to 'save face' or
raise it over and against the hateful in conquest.
The presumption to be free of the evil that one has set ones face against is the
generating of the 'cess-pit' as something to be eradicated, lidded over, cancelled, such as
to preserve the 'order' that runs above its denial.
Self-revulsion as a concept, can be opined about, but human self-hatred is a hell indeed
if not a final fact.
The revealing of us to ourselves can be the dis-illusioning of what we thought to be and
truly believed but was never true – even though lived.
or the tarrying in such illusion as the exploiting of its underlying themes of 'getting' for
a self set apart from the life it represents.
richard , Nov 22, 2020 9:02 PM
"THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world "
Oh really? hear are some U.N. quotes:
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their
individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
– Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
"A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it
disapproves of their activities." – Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order
[referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if
they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial"
invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence.
It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights
will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the
World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship
Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial
and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit
and power.
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers,
triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market
.The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control
of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by
Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret
committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on
Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the
[State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all
the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial
Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).
"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to
bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They
want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase
business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship
and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting
disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an
all-powerful one-world government." Harpers, July l958
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 12:47 AM Reply to
richard
Hello richard: Excellent listing of verifiable quotes. Thanks!
The establishment of the United Nations has done more to dis-unite the world than any
other singular effort. Yet civilians are still looking for some daddy authority to straighten
out the sticky fuzz they found in their navels
I don't know, I think the US going around the world for the last 100+ years bombing anyone
who threatened their capitalist hegemony can pick up a pretty good share of the blame for an
unstable world
paul , Nov 22, 2020 6:02 PM
Neither will win. As always, the only real winners will be a certain Levantine minority.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
The great mock battle to choose Israel Puppet 46 will play out over the next few weeks as
pure theatre, with Creepy Joe picking up Trumpo's somewhat tarnished crown in due course. For
all the difference it makes. Creepy Joe will be marginally even more of a puppet than
Trumpo.
The court challenges are going nowhere. Some have already been dropped or dismissed, and the
rest soon will be, irrespective of vote rigging and ballot stuffing on an epic scale.
Likewise, there will be no attempt to reverse the current outcome at the electoral college
next month. Nothing's going to happen. Nada. Zilch. It's all pure kabuki.
Clowns and court jesters like Alex Jones or Giuliani will caper about making an exhibition of
themselves, peddling their vitamin supplements and lining their pockets.
Trump will squeeze whatever cash he can from his gullible base to pay off his campaign debts.
But none of this is serious. Trumpo has gone AWOL. He is not holding any public events. The
lawsuits have been dropped. He is not putting any of his own money into them. The electoral
college delegates will not go rogue to keep him in power. Georgia is gone. He is not going to
flip Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Trumpo deserved to lose, whether he actually did or not. He abandoned his base the minute he
was elected, and served out his time as a Zio Shill.
He built a grand total of 4 miles of his Big Beautiful Wall. Some of it has already fallen
down. That only leaves 1,996 miles for the Beaner Illegal Immigrant Hordes to walk through.
Obomber deported far more illegal immigrants than Trumpo, 1.1 million v. 800,000. His idea of
draining The Swamp was to appoint Bolton, Abrams, Pompeo, Haspel, and half of Goldman Sachs
to all the senior posts in his administration. The same goes for Bringing The Troops Home.
None will actually be withdrawn from Afghanistan, despite the latest announcement. Like
Rebuilding The Infrastructure.
Trumpo is a con man, a Bunko Artist. He achieved nothing. Because he never intended to. He
never even tried. He was just another Mitt Romney.
Trumpism will just provide him with a meal ticket for some time to come. He needs to find
another $400 million from somewhere to pay off his debts. The GOP will go full on Zionism,
Globalism, Faggots, Trannies, Globo Homo, Open Borders, Amnesties.
One of Trumpo's last of many favours for Israel is to pardon the traitor and Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. He will soon be on his way home to a hero's welcome in Kosherstan.
Biden's new administration will be virtually 100% kosher, apart from a few token black/ gay/
trannie/ vagina/ shabbos goys.
Chief of staff, Attorney General, Treasury, all Chosen Folk.
Trumpo was never more than a Zionist puppet, just like Wilders, Orban, Salvini, AFD, Duterte.
All 100% Faux Right Controlled Opposition created by the Chosen Folk.
Thanks Paul, for that excellent description of Trump and what we can expect from Biden
until he leaves/dies and we have Kamala. The policies will remain virtually unchanged as the
President is irrelevant.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 5:58 PM
Bankers have been running the world for centuries, not empires, not presidents, not
parties, not nations.
They provide nation states with two (or more) parties with seemingly oppositional values,
but who are controlled behind the scenes by the same banking cabal. Trump is working with the
cabal, just as closely as his predecessors, Obama, Bush, Clinton etc., to create the illusion
of opposition, the illusion of difference, the illusion of choice and the illusion of
hope.
Just as the election was obviously stolen, so too it was planned to create internal
conflict and violence. Both parties play the game of electioneering to obfuscate the theft of
civil rights and assets from the populace without opposition. The media enhances the process
of obfuscation. The voters are too busy fighting amongst themselves to see the outright theft
of their real assets.
There are no individuals or groups who attain positions of power in any government or
nation who oppose the banking cartel that rules the world, owns and controls all the largest
corporations, security state apparatus, the militaries and defense sectors of all
nations.
There are no heroes coming to anyone's rescue. No white hats, no black hats. They are all
agents of the cryptocracy, because the goal has always been the enslavement of humanity, and
that goal was attained long ago and has never wavered.
The New World Order was achieved with the formation of the United Nations as a front for
the cryptocracy (banking cartel) to further its objectives through the cooperation of
governments individuality and collectively controlling their populations.
Whether our enslavement was achieved using a kindler, gentler slavery called "capitalism",
based on the consumption of poorly made goods exploiting cheap labor by corporate entities
majority owned and controlled by the cryptocracy, in faux democracies, using the fake two
party system, or whether slavery was achieved by force through communism where an appearance
of state ownership obfuscated cryptocracy ownership and control, so wages could be lowered
and people more tightly controlled, both political systems were a sham. Both systems were
always controlled by the same cryptocracy; the banking cartel.
The cryptocracy ruled the capitalist West and the communist Eastern bloc with ease.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:06 PM Reply to
Researcher
Just as all political parties are false enemies who work together behind the scenes, so
too is the enmity between nation states and the supposedly opposed political and nation state
blocs and alliances.
Opposition is created as a facade and pretext to facilitate immensely profitable
skirmishes, occupations, hot wars, cold wars and civil conflicts. These methods of
manufactured conflict accomplish control and ownership for the cryptocracy of large tracts of
land with rare earth minerals and energy reserves as well as the labor and industry of large
and small populations plus access to the taxes and wealth of all nation states.
These faux oppositional forces whether they be internal or external, create an illusion of
a divided, hostile and fractured world for the unknowing and distracted public, who have had
their history altered and rewritten, indoctrinated with propaganda in a Prussian model of
education as 'learning by rote' instead of learning through exploration, reason, logic,
invention and experimentation. As such, 'educated' populations have become another tool of
the controllers where they are largely ignorant of the inextricable links between politics,
energy, economies, the monetary system, wars, governments, crime, industry and human
enslavement.
The false appearance of separation of these issues into compartmentalized subjects,
compartmentalized thinking, are further enhanced and driven through sound bites using the
cryptocracy owned corporate media.
Binary choices, compartmentalized issues, and supposed random events are sold to humanity
to corral thinking, coerce conformity, limit options and choices within illusory paradigms
where full spectrum dominance is fulfilled. Subsequently, all resources on earth including
populations can be easily exploited for the purpose of profiteering, while simultaneously
inflicting unnecessary misery and suffering through the leverage of usury and forced taxes
within the monetary system.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:10 PM Reply to
Researcher
The banking cartel (BIS, IMF, World Bank) own the major energy corporations, green and
carbon based and that is why there has been a decades long push for carbon control and
capture, using climate change pseudo science and propaganda as a way to control and limit our
individual, national and collective energy consumption and output.
Since energy is the real currency that runs the world, and energy is also the way which we
as humans and living creatures survive, innovate, create and function – as electrical
and energetic beings – the cryptocracy believe that all energy, including our physical
and neuronal bodily functions be wholly controlled by them, and them only. The cryptocracy
already control our external energy and power systems and grids, and all oil, coal, gas,
wind, hydro, nuclear, solar and hydrogen, which fuel human and economic activity.
The cryptocracy are not content to let us decide our own fates, occupations, business
dealings, economies, health or lives using our inherent freedom as thinking, sentient and
independent beings who are born free. They seek to further enslave our every thought,
function and action through the technocracy and the biometric control and data grid they have
built around us for the last century.
In the beginning of the 20th century, the banking cartel through their control of the
chemical industry, extended their model of human slavery to include profiteering from
destroying people's health, by controlling genetic and epigenetic expression through
increased toxic exposure to external radiation, a poisoned and altered food chain, deficient
soil, a poisoned fluoridated water supply, increased exposure to carcinogens, endocrine
disruptive chemicals and unnecessary vaccines that wrought irreversible, long term negative
effects.
The medical industrial complex and vaccine industry sought to claim credit for the
eradication of diseases that had already been quelled through proper sanitation, plumbing,
better nutrition and improved living conditions.
The control grid of populations through the economic system, military industrial complex,
monetary system, faux governments, and the medical industrial complex has merged into a
totalitarian model of complete control of all human behavior, health and bodily functions
using faux pandemics, where governments coordinate terror operations against the
citizenry.
The bankers are transitioning away from the current monetary, economic Ponzi scheme using
the US petro dollar fractional reserve banking system, which could only function for a
limited time, in a debt expansionary environment, underpinned by constant economic expansion
and population growth.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:13 PM Reply to
Researcher
A number of factors including increased standards of living, women entering the workforce,
contraception and immunocontraception and cultural changes have inhibited population growth
in developed nations, so that expansionary model has reached its 'limits of growth'.
Governments have been hiding the lack of population growth using immigration. They've been
hiding the contracting economic activity in developed nations by creating fake financial
products and accounting frauds, banking fraud, rigged market indices and markets. The
cryptocracy knowing this economic model would eventually collapse at their discretion,
created unseen enemies to unite us against, be it a fictional virus, or fictional global
warming, the result being a coordinated, top-down authoritarian monitoring, control of
populations, economies and individuals.
The bankers, governments and industrialists are forcing humanity to transition to a
technocracy controlled economy based on humans as capital, the collection, collation and
control of all organic and non organic resources on earth including our biometric data and
behavioral obedience, while they simultaneously enforce a liquidation of assets phase.
We are their assets and we are being liquidated.
At the end of every transitory economic cycle or created currency or financial crisis, the
banking cartel and their minions facilitate a global catastrophe, whether that's a planned
war between nations, civil unrest or a manufactured terror event. This serves as a cover for
the harm that their planned economic transition (and failure) creates. These planned failures
of economic systems created by the cryptocracy provide additional profits for the banking
cartel where real assets are stripped from citizens in the form of savings, land, property,
assets, businesses and redistributed by force, upwards to the oligarchs and cryptocracy.
That is the purpose of the lockdown and the faux pandemic. A continued and further
redistribution of the global wealth of the majority of citizens to the 0.01% so that bankers,
industrialists and governments who already control our food and energy supply, can force the
majority into compliance with the vaccine program. The vaccine program creates a legal and
cost efficient liquidation of the majority of humanity and the biometric enslavement of the
remaining youth who manage to survive, while transitioning to the new economic model of a
global digital currency based on physical human enslavement, human data management, with
central command control using Artificial Intelligence.
Jean Wilson , Nov 22, 2020 8:07 PM Reply to
Researcher
Thank you Researcher. Brilliant writing!
Lost in a dark wood , Nov 22, 2020 4:41 PM
No wonder the CIA hates Trump!
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/361227-us-begins-bombing-taliban-opium-plants-in-afghanistan
US begins bombing Taliban CIA opium plants in Afghanistan
11/20/17
The U.S. military has begun bombing opium production plants in Afghanistan as part of a new
strategy targeting Taliban revenue, a top general said Monday. "Last night, we conducted
strikes in northern Helmand [Province] to hit the Taliban where it hurts, in their narcotics
financing," said Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support in
the country.
--
What has happened to people? If the U.S. says it is bombing an opium production plant,
that means they're lying. First thing I think of is who did the U.S./CIA/Trump want killed
and why? But you interpret it as Trump trying to stop the opium business of the CIA?
And then you follow it with Trump, after four years of bombing Afghanistan, is somehow
being pressured by Germany to continue bombing Afghanistan?
Frankly, I don't think we have any idea what the CIA thinks of Trump.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 7:32 PM Reply to
wardropper
They must think he's the greatest actor on earth, since apparently some who understand the
bankers are in league with and controlling governments, the UN, WHO and the WEF against
humanity, yet they also believe that Trump is standing up for the Constitution against the
banking cartel, the military and the vaccine industry.
Except he isn't and hasn't.
By declaring a fake emergency and continuing that emergency, while creating OPERATION WARP
SPEED, he handed the country over to the military, PhRMA and FEMA.
He has no intention of handing it back to the citizens and he's had every means and every
opportunity.
I think a great majority of people are simply in denial on the left and the right because
they don't want to believe they've spent their entire lives being conned by bankers,
politicians and oligarchs using cheap tricks, third rate acting, fake science and obvious
monetary fraud and gangster governments.
The veil of their human enslavement has been lifted off their faces and they still refuse
to see the obvious truth.
Instead they hide behind masks, false enemies and the lies they tell themselves. It'd be
sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
wardropper , Nov 22, 2020 7:58 PM Reply to
Researcher
I agree with all that, but the CIA is not renowned for advertising what it 'thinks'
Moneycircus , Nov 22, 2020 11:08 PM Reply to
wardropper
The CIA does not 'think'. It was set up by Wall Street and the bankers as the muscle of
Wall Street and the bankers
Trumpo deserves to be put on trial and executed after a suitably fair trial if only for
his actions in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Palestine and elsewhere. For the murder of General
Soleimani and 30 others, for all the children who have died in those countries as a result of
US economic terrorism and actual terrorism on his watch. It doesn't matter if he failed to
control others who were allowed to pursue their own agenda. A commander who loses control of
his troops is fully liable when they run amok.
Their is very little to be said in his favour. We have come very close to war on a colossal
scale on several occasions over the past two years as a result of his actions. The fact that
this did not come to pass and disaster was avoided in no way goes to his credit. This should
be attributed to the Grace of God or my lucky rabbit's foot. And the fact that Russia, China,
and even Iran and North Korea have incomparably better and more responsible leadership than
we do.
Western leadership, Obama, Clinton, Trump, Sarkozy, Macron, Merkel, May, Cameron, Johnson, is
the worst in its history. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional and
ideologically driven.
So can anything positive at all about Trump's legacy?
Biden may be even worse.
Clinton, rabid and deranged, and even more dishonest, certainly would have been.
But we deserve something better than the choice between a dogshit sandwich or a catshit
sandwich.
Trump has at least exposed the MSM for what it is, and forced the deep state to take off the
mask of sham democracy and reveal its true ugly face.
But it's not much of a legacy for four years.
John Goss , Nov 22, 2020 1:08 PM
The Second World War was the turning point here in the UK and in the US, When the war
finished there was a Labour Party which was actually a Labour Party. For some years before
that the US Democratic Party had been and was a Democratic Party, When paper ballots
mitigated against fraud Franklin D, Roosevelt was elected for an amazing 4 terms. He died
days before the end of the war having introduced welfare reforms that endeared him to
people.
It has been pretty much downhill since then, ending up with Keir Starmer at the head of
the Labour Party and Joe Biden at the head of the Democratic Party. Need I write more?
el Gallinazo , Nov 22, 2020 3:19 PM Reply to
John Goss
Problem>reaction>solution. The Great Depression in the USA was triggered by
the banksters being instructed to create a vast credit bubble in the 20's with their
fractional reserve system (being able to lend 9 fake dollars for every one they actually
owned) and then instructed to withdraw credit very rapidly, creating a cascade of defaults..
That is a historical fact easily researched.
This article's view of recent history is among the most superficial I have ever read. I do
not believe in democracy being an Agorist, because democracy is a trick of the predator
class. When I see a government which does not enforce its rules through the barrel of a gun
and cages, I may be tempted to re-evalute my views. Still waiting however. That said, the one
thing that I agree with in this article is that Trump won the election handily based on legal
and valid votes and the apparent Biden win was based on huge fraud. One should never
underestimate Sydney Powell, even with her sweet Georgia Plantation accent. She may be the
first competent snd trustworthy hire Trump has ever made in the last four years, and one may
ask why this is. On one level, the fraud was designed to put Biden in the White House. On a
deeper level, it was designed to rip the country apart. I would recommend that the American
people rushing to the giant box stores (which are permitted to stay open while the various
governors' blatantly illegal EO's have shut down their mom and pop competitors) to buy toilet
paper for the coming Darkest Winter of the fake scamdemic, would be wise to load up also on
beer and popcorn so they can watch this shitshow on their giant plasma TV's from the
sofa.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:34 PM Reply to
el Gallinazo
The notion of "fraud" in the election is a charade. Research the Dominion voting system
and you will discover that Ms. Powell, despite the high regard she has attained, is blowing
smoke. Her entire case against Dominion from Chavez to German vote counting is a fat joke. On
her, and on us. Why is she doing this? We will find out in due time.
hroughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign policy,
claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called to make America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American Empire
Great Again.
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will task ending them to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic party and ideologues of permanent war.
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war going back to the Clinton
administration.
In the Trump era, they've cashed in, founding Westexec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for secretary of defense and Blinken is expected to be
national security advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate foreign relations committee chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS).
CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech
giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon.
She was keenly aware that the public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review, she crafted a new concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state
while giving the appearance of a drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program.
This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called for the U.S. to be able to
simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare, clandestine weapons
transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all buttressed with propaganda
campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and corporate news
media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban.
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future.
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal.
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an extensive propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
All of this was based on a report from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by
the Qatari monarchy that was arming extremist militias to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war.
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine,
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted.
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fuelled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift
called the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S.
used to maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia, seeking to ensure that the U.S. could win a war against China in
Asia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities, development of
futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones, hypersonic weapons,
cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence making unimaginably
complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind. All of this would
be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley giants that it
birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation.
In June, Flournoy published a lengthy commentary laying out her strategy called "Sharpening
the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration".
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia.
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea. Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia, a position Flournoy shares.
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast.
The end of forever
wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the
public doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support, but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
His Venezuela policy will be almost identical to Trump's – sanctions and regime
change.
In Central America, Biden has proposed a 4 billion dollar package to support corrupt
right-wing governments and neoliberal privatization projects that create even more
destabilization and send vulnerable masses fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy, escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
Feature photo | Graphic by Antonio Cabrera for MintPress News
Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports
and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and
tweets at @ DanCohen3000
.
This is nothing new, the war machine keeps going and going. I actually found an individual
that has the same outlook on stopping the behavior of the United States as I do.
International lawyer Christopher Black in this interview had the following to say.
Question: What in your view needs to change in order to make U.S. foreign conduct abide by
international law and therefore enhance the prospects for world peace?
Christopher Black: It will require a revolution in the United States to do that, an
overthrow of the economic powers that control the machinery of the state, but there is no
prospect of that happening. There is really no effective opposition to these policies in
the U.S. The peace movement is weak and fragmented, dominated by the "cruise missile
liberals". The voices of reason have no power, no real influence among the masses of the
people which are dominated by a sophisticated propaganda machine known as the "media".
Censorship is increasing and the few critical voices that exist are being silenced.
It will take, in my view, a military defeat of the United States in order to bring
about the conditions necessary for the required changes. And, perhaps that will happen,
as China has stated time and again, that if Washington decides to take direct control of
their island of Taiwan and the Americans interfere or if they are attacked in the South
China Sea, they will defeat the U.S. But such a war would have world consequences and would
cause realignments of power not only in the USA, if we all survive it.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces in retreat and determined to bring democracy building home
after their colonial expeditions extinguished it at home, hastening the rise of America's own
Saddam in Trump. Biden's own instincts may be decisive, however, and he was against war in
Libya while also in favor of splitting Iraq. The dementia rumors are nonsense; Biden is a
canny and often mendacious operator, and while I think Trump is a fascist and quite possibly
a Russian mafia sub-boss, Biden may well be the restoration of more homegrown, American mafia
rule. An argument that Giuliani has made in so many words, standing as he does on the Russian
side and yelling into the shifting parapolitical winds.
It's not really that complicated for China. They have no interest in or need to strike the
American mainland. That would only be necessary if they were seeking global hegemony like the
US, which they are not. Their strategic nuclear capabilities are strictly deterrence. All
China has to do is survive the coming conflict arising from the Thucydides Trap that the US
and China are caught in with minimal damage to their industrial capacity, infrastructure, and
population.
That I specified "survive" and not "win" is not a mistake. The default
outcome if nothing is done is that China ascends to uncontested sole global economic
superpower status. That is not necessarily their intention but rather the natural outcome of
China continuing the development of their domestic human capital and quality of life for 1.4
billion people. China doesn't have to take the fight to the US to end up on top, and the US
has no choice but to somehow turn back the economic clock in China to keep its position as
global imperial hegemon. Color revolution attempts, trade war, and bioweapon attacks have all
failed the empire miserably, so all the US has left is to go kinetic.
The "US aircraft carrier force projection model" is effectively nullified by China,
but those assets are still protected by America's delusional reality exclusion zone:
"Destroying our carriers is unthinkable! No one would ever dare do that!" . That
defense will prove inadequate against China's variety of "carrier killer"
missiles.
As for America's stealth aircraft, China's defenses will likely be a surprise to many in
the American empire. Furthermore, America's only stealth aircraft with sufficient range to
reach China's mainland on anything other than a one way suicide mission would be the B-2
bomber, of which America only has 21. Those 21 will not last long in a kinetic conflict.
Quite a few will likely simply be destroyed on the runway in Diego Garcia while the survivors
will get to find out how well China's nifty new quantum radar works. The F-22 and F-35 would
require refueling to get from carrier stand-off distance to the mainland and refueling again
to get back, with America's aerial tankers needing to loiter within range of China's air
defenses... not a good battle plan for the empire. Those stealth aircraft will not shift the
advantage in the empire's favor, and attrition will be much higher than expected among
them.
It must be repeated that China doesn't need to destroy the United States. They are not
playing the board game "Risk" after all. China just needs to defeat the American
empire's military force projection capabilities in their own neighborhood, and China already
has that capacity right now. Every day that elapses shifts the advantage further into China's
favor, so the empire needs to act while they still have the ability to do so. Trump's
unwillingness to do more than bark loudly and his resistance to going kinetic is why the
imperial elites had to fraud the elections so openly to get a more compliant figurehead into
office ASAP. That the empire couldn't wait another four years means that we will see
"interesting times" (yeah, even more interesting than the preceding twelve months!)
real soon now.
"A cornered dog will bite, even if it is obvious that it cannot win."
So will I, so what?
"It was never China's nor Iran's intention to "corner" the empire. That is simply the
situation that America finds itself in now that its economy is in "late capitalism" decline.
It is really not even anyone's fault, not even Trump or Reagan or any of the other usual
suspects."
I agree, but again, so what? I'm not concerned with who is morally correct, I'm mainly
concerned with whether there is going to be a big war and what happens if there is, that's
not a moral question. I've been waiting around 40 years to watch our collapse, and I still
think there is enough that is/was good here to be worth hoping for a soft landing. That's
probably better for the rest of the planet too, but it's arguable.
Neither Iran of China is cornered, they are well-prepared, well-supported by "partners",
and on their home turf. WE are not ready. We are vunerable. But we are not cornered either,
nobody is going to come over here and interfere while we fight among ourselves.
Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 13:10 utc | 109
What scares me about Blinken and Sullivan is the career trajectory. Both had completely
unearned and unreasonable success every step of their lives. There is never any explanation
for this manner of success but family connections. Neither has done anything of note other
than to occupy positions of power.
Sullivan is all of 43 years old, has been a mover and shaker since his twenties. Any who
have never read Halberstam's Best and Brightest might look at that now. We are in for a shit
show. Biden is not going to do anything but take his meds and take a lot of naps. Already he
is not to be seen. The crew named so far will steamroller Kamala, she is no more than a
figurehead.
Likely she won't even stay in the room when it gets serious. Best possible outcome is that
kids who have never done anything but suck up won't know what to do when they are left in
charge with no adult supervision. Or there will be shadowy figures in background who steady
the rudder.
Yes, it is not a moral question, it is an economic one. Wars have never been about
morality.
That said, China has for a number of years now been preparing for a minimally damaging
escape from the Thucydides Trap, and by "minimally damaging" I mean for the US as
well. As I said above the Chinese are not at all interested in hurting the US.
The plan is to "spring" the Thucydides Trap in the South China Sea and hopefully
confine most of the damage to that area. If successful then the empire gets its soft landing
(albeit with significant amounts of military materiel and personnel sacrificed) and humanity
moves beyond the Trap.
@ PB 75
visible costs of vassaldom . . costs of American presence....decreasing the national
security. . .participating in sanctions
Yes, plus a primary reason . . .Cost of buying US military junk like F-35. Foreign military
sales is a mainstay of the US economy.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 3:43 utc | 83
When you add the numbers, "military junk" has notable prestige -- with matching prices,
but the total loot of American companies is probably many times larger. For example, Trump
waged a series of trade wars to perpetuate negligible taxation of "technology giants" like
Google or Amazon. "Intellectual property" was a stumbling block in the trade war with China,
with dire consequences for soy growing farmers in USA (and a boon to their colleagues in
South America). Then there is pharma. It seems that the really big companies are comfortable
being in relative shadow behind arms makers, and discourse on security threats and needs
--because Russian use trolls to interfere with elections, we (all countries that cherish what
is good and precious) need new generations of nukes, planes, ships and toilet seats. However
illogical, it is more noble sounding than preventing the likes of Apple from more than
nominal taxation.
"... Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for the way it creates tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy. ..."
"... Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful. ..."
"... It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop letting the sociopaths manipulate you. ..."
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
This complete schism from reality, where you've got an incoming administration stacked with
Beltway insiders who want to attack Chinese interests running alongside an alternate imaginary
universe in which Biden is a subservient CCP lackey, is only made possible with the existence
of media echo chambers. It's the same exact dynamic that made it possible for liberals to spend
four years shrieking conspiracy theories about the executive branch of the US government being
run by a literal Russian agent even as Trump advanced mountains of world-threatening cold war
escalations against Moscow in the real world.
You see this dynamic at work in conventional media, where
plutocrat-controlled outlets like Breitbart are still frantically
pushing the Russiagate sequel narrative that Hunter Biden's activities in China mean that
his father is a CCP asset. You also see it in social media, where, as explained by journalist
Jonathan Cook in an article about the
documentary The Social Dilemma , "as we get herded into our echo chambers of
self-reinforcing information, we lose more and more sense of the real world and of each
other."
"We live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms whose only
criterion is how to maximise our attention for advertisers' products to generate greater
profits for the internet giants," writes Cook.
Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates
their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for
the way it creates
tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information
which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built
on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres
from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy.
Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've
discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively
seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and
there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting
the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate
with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent,
ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful.
You should not be afraid of your government being too nice to China. What you should worry
about is the US-centralized power alliance advancing a multifront new cold war conducted
simultaneously against two nuclear-armed nations for the first time ever in human history.
There are far, far too many small moving parts in such a cold war for things to happen in a
safely predictable manner, which means there are far, far too many
chances for something to go very, very wrong.
Whenever someone tells you that a US president is going to be "soft" on a nation the
US government has marked as an enemy, you are being played. Always, always, always, always.
It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get
out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop
letting the sociopaths manipulate you.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
USA-MA BIN LADEN / NOVEMBER 25, 2020
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
Deep down, Americans know that – and that is why they so readily engage in these
spittle-flecked campaigns.
Welcome to the Orwellian world of America where the same American Empire that bombs,
invades, sanctions, regime changes, encircles, or colonizes multiple nations around the world
whines like a triggered little snowflake that poor innocent war criminal America is being
"threatened"!
Truly pathetic.
CHRISTIAN J. CHUBA / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
There are many good websites (in addition to this one of course). I'd always tell someone,
just look to see what speaks to you my list some are 'out there' I'll summarize.
https://www.antiwar.com/ –
Kind of like a drudgereport for decent people on world events. They go through the effort of
summarizing AP and other official news outlet stories rather than mindlessly link to them.
Just hearing the same stories minus the slavish propaganda will deprogram many people.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/ – M.E., Yemen, if
your friend is very sensitive to anything that insinuates that Israel is not the celestial
city he might be offended.
https://southfront.org/ – Ah
.. on our State Dept list of Russian disinfo. Discuss military conflicts, sympathetic to the
countries at the receiving end of our attention.
http://thesaker.is/ – Saker was an
intel guy from the 'other side' during the Cold War, values decency, Orthodox Christian, only
site that regularly publishes speeches from Nasrallah, does military analysis, arrogant but I
always feel like I learned something.
http://www.moonofalabama.org
– anonymous analyst, German Intel guy, writes very well. I put him last because he has
been on a pro-Trump binge lately. I think they are secret lovers. Given what he normally
writes about I have no idea what he sees in him.
Vicky left fake democracy promotion was always about expanding and sustaining controlled
from Washinton global neoliberal empire. It is a part and parcel of Full Spectrum Dominance
doctrine implementation. So it will lean to further drop of the standard of living on the
majority of US people.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces are in retreat and determined to bring democracy building
home after their colonial expeditions extinguished it
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and
mobilizing ideology. For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and
mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two
Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
You can't find better smarter neocons to pursue the Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine to the
total decimation of the standard of living of ordinary Americans ;-)
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
... During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President
Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction"
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
... In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
Joe Biden's national security adviser pick defended the anti-Trump dossier in 2018 as
"perfectly appropriate."
Many news outlets have declared Biden the president-elect. Newsmax has yet to project a
winner, citing legal challenges in several key battleground states.
Jake Sullivan, who worked for Biden when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration and as a senior foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton during her
presidential race in 2016,
made the comments on a podcast interview with David Axelrod, the chief strategist for
Obama's presidential campaigns.
"I mean, I believe that it is perfectly appropriate and responsible if we get wind, or if
people associated with the campaign get wind, that there may be real questions about the
connections between Donald Trump, his organization, his campaign and Russia that that be
explored fully," he said at the time, The Daily
Caller reported.
Sullivan worked for Clinton when a law firm representing her campaign hired an opposition
research firm to investigate Trump's possible ties to Russia. The firm hired Christopher
Steele, the author behind the dossier alleging a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation
between the Trump campaign and Russian government."
Special counsel Robert Mueller later found those claims to be unfounded during his probe
into Russian interference in the election, writing in his
report "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or
coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
ELECTION 2020: What President Biden Won't Touch November 24, 2020 Save
Considering the think-tank imperialists in the bunch Biden is naming to direct U.S. foreign
policy, Danny Sjursen expects little to change in the essence of the war-state.
Military aircraft streaming red, white and blue during the welcoming ceremony for President
Donald Trump, May 2017, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (White House,
Andrea Hanks)
I n this mystifying moment, the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up
either as "Ding dong! The witch is dead!" or "We got robbed!" Both are problematic, not because
the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent, but because
each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption: that President Donald Trump's demise would
provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster.
While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such
a belief -- race relations, climate change, and the courts
come to mind -- in others, it was distinctly (to use a dangerous phrase) overkill. Nowhere was
that more true than with America's expeditionary version of militarism, its forever wars of
this century, and the venal system that continues to feed it.
For nearly two years, We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would
mean everything, that Nov. 3 would be democracy's ultimate judgment day. What if, however, when
it comes to issues of war, peace, and empire, " Decision 2020 " proves barely
meaningful?
After all, in the election campaign just past, Donald Trump's sweeping war-peace rhetoric
and Joe Biden's hedging aside, neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered
to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America's uniquely intrusive global role.
Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America's posture and policy "over there,"
nor challenge the essence of the war-state, a sacred cow if ever there was one.
U.S. presidential debate, Sept. 29, 2020.
That blessed bovine has enshrined permanent policies that seem beyond challenge: Uncle Sam's
right and duty to forward deploy troops just about anywhere on the planet; garrison the globe; carry out aerial
assassinations; and unilaterally implement starvation
sanctions . Likewise the systemic structures that implement and incentivize such
rogue-state behavior are never questioned, especially the existence of a sprawling
military-industrial complex that has infiltrated
every aspect of public life, while stealing money that might have improved America's
infrastructure or wellbeing. It has engorged
itself at the taxpayer's expense, while peddling American blood money -- and blood -- on absurd
foreign adventures and autocratic allies, even as it corrupted nearly every prominent public
paymaster and policymaker.
This election season, neither Democrats nor Republicans challenged the cultural components
justifying the great game, which is evidence of one thing: empires come home, folks, even if
the troops never seem to.
The Company He Keeps
As the election neared, it became impolite to play the canary in American militarism's coal
mine or risk raising Biden's record -- or probable prospects -- on minor matters like war and
peace. After all, his opponent was a monster, so noting the holes in Biden's block of Swiss
cheese presumably amounted to useful idiocy -- if not sinister collusion -- when it came to
Trump's reelection. Doing so was a surefire way to jettison professional opportunities and find
yourself permanently uninvited to the
coolest Beltway cocktail parties or interviews on cable TV.
George Orwell warned of the dangers of such "intellectual cowardice" more than 70 years ago
in a
proposed preface to his classic novel Animal Farm . "At any given moment," he wrote,
"there is an orthodoxy that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not
exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it Anyone who
challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
And that's precisely what progressive paragon Cornel West warned against seven months ago
after his man, Sen. Bernie Sanders -- briefly, the Democratic frontrunner -- suddenly proved a
dead candidate walking. "Vote for Biden, but don't lie about who he really is," the stalwart
scholar suggested .
It seems just enough Americans did the former (phew!), but mainstream media makers and
consumers mostly forgot about the salient second part of his sentiment.
Cornel West speaking at a house party for Sen. Bernie Sanders in Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 15,
2020. (Gage Skidmore, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
With the electoral outcome now apparent -- if not
yet accepted in Trump World -- perhaps such politeness (and the policing that goes with it)
will fade away, ushering in a renaissance of Fourth Estate oppositional truth-telling. In that
way -- in my dreams at least -- persistently energized progressives might send President Joe
Biden down dovish alternative avenues, perhaps even landing some appointments in an executive
branch that now
drives foreign policy (though, if I'm honest, I'm hardly hopeful on either count).
One look at Uncle Joe's inbound nieces and nephews brings to mind Aesop's fabled moral: "You are judged by the company you
keep."
Think-Tank Imperialists
One thing is already far too clear: Biden's shadow national security team will be a
distinctly status-quo squad. To know where future policymakers might head, it always helps to
know where they came from. And when it comes to Biden's foreign policy crew ,
including a striking number of
women and a fair number of Obama administration and
Clinton 2016 campaign retreads -- they were
mostly in Trump-era holding patterns in the connected worlds of strategic consulting and
hawkish think tanking.
In fact, the national security bio of the archetypal Biden bro (or
sis ) would go something like this: she (he) sprang from an Ivy League school, became a
congressional staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security
council, consulted for WestExec
Advisors (an Obama alumni-founded outfit linking
tech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American Security
(CNAS), had some defense contractor ties , and
married someone
who's also
in the game .
It helps as well to follow the money. In other words, how did the Biden
bunch make it and who pays the outfits that have been paying them in the Trump years? None of
this is a secret: their two most common think-tank homes -- CNAS and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) -- are the second- and sixth-highest recipients, respectively,
of U.S. government and defense-contractor
funding . The top donors to CNAS are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and the Department of
Defense. Most CSIS largesse comes from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and
Raytheon.
How the inevitable conflicts of interest play out is hardly better concealed. To take just
one example, in 2016, Michèle Flournoy, CNAS co-founder, ex-Pentagon official, and "
odds-on favorite " to become Biden's secretary of defense,
exchanged emails with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ambassador in Washington. She pitched
a project whereby CNAS analysts would, well, analyze whether Washington should maintain
drone-sales restrictions in a non-binding multilateral " missile technology control "
agreement. The UAE's autocratic government then paid CNAS $250,000 to draft a report
that (you won't be surprised to learn) argued for amending the agreement to allow that country
to purchase American-manufactured drones.
Michèle Flournoy, at right, on front of WestExec Advisors homepage.
Which is just what Flournoy and company's supposed nemeses in the Trump administration then
did this very July past. Again, no surprise. American drones seem to have a way of ending
up in the hands of Gulf theocracies -- states with abhorrent
human rights records that use such planes to surveil and brutally bomb Yemeni civilians
.
If it's too much to claim that a future Defense Secretary Flournoy would be the UAE's
(wo)man in Washington, you at least have to wonder. Worse still, with those think-tank,
security-consulting, and defense-industry ties of hers, she's anything but alone among Biden's
top
prospects and nominees. Just consider a few other abridged resumes:
Tony Blinken, on left, with President Barack Obama, on WestExec Advisors homepage.
Tony Blinken , [named
secretary of state on Monday] a longtime foreign policy adviser, to serve as secretary of
State; frontrunner for national security adviser: CSIS; WestExec (which he co-founded with
Flournoy); and CNN analyst. Jake Sullivan , [named
national security adviser on Monday]: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
("peace," in this case, being
funded by 10 military agencies and defense contractors) and Macro Advisory Partners, a
strategic consultancy
run by former British spy chiefs. Avril Haines [named
director of national intelligence on Monday]: CNAS-the Brookings Institution; WestExec; and
Palantir
Technologies , a controversial, CIA-seeded, NSA-linked data-mining firm. Kathleen Hicks , probable deputy
secretary of defense: CSIS and the Aerospace Corporation , a
federally funded research and development center that lobbies on defense issues.
An extra note about Hicks: she's the
head of Biden's Department of Defense transition team and also a senior vice president at
CSIS. There, she hosts that think tank's "Defense 2020" podcast. In case anyone's still
wondering where CSIS's bread is buttered, here's how Hicks
opens each episode:
"This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, and the Thales Group."
In other words, given what we already know about Joe Biden's previous
gut-driven policies that pass for "middle of the road" in this anything but middling
country of ours, the experiences and affiliations of his "
A-Team " don't bode well for systemic-change seekers. Remember, this is a president-elect
who
assured rich donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he were elected. Should he
indeed stock his national security team with such a conflicts-of-interest-ridden crowd,
consider America's sacred cows of foreign policy all but saved.
Biden's outfit is headed for office, it seems, to right the Titanic, not rock the boat.
Off the Table: A Paradigm Shift
President Barack Obama meeting with his national security team, April 25, 2011.
Michèle Flournoy, as under secretary of defense for policy. is on the president's right,
seated against wall. (White House, Flickr, Pete Souza)
In this context, join me in thinking about what won't be on the next presidential menu when
it comes to the militarization of American foreign policy.
Don't expect major changes when it comes to:
One-sided support for Israel that enables
permanent Palestinian oppression and foments undying ire across the Greater Middle East. Tony
Blinken
put it this way: as president, Joe Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to
things like annexation [of all or large portions of the occupied West Bank] or other decisions
by the Israeli government with which we might disagree." Unapologetic support for various Gulf
State autocracies and theocracies that, as they cynically
collude with Israel, will only continue to heighten tensions with Iran and facilitate yet
more grim war crimes in Yemen. Beyond Michèle Flournoy's professional
connections with the UAE, Gulf kingdoms generously fund the very think tanks that so many
Biden prospects have populated. Saudi Arabia, for example, offers annual donations to
Brookings and the Rand Corporation; the UAE, $1 million for a new CSIS office building ; and Qatar,
$14.8 million to Brookings. America's historically unprecedented and provocative
expeditionary military posture globally, including at least
800 bases in 80 countries , seems likely to be altered only in marginal ways. As Jake
Sullivan put it in a June CSIS interview : "I'm
not arguing for getting out of every base in the Middle East. There is a military posture
dimension to this as a reduced footprint."
Above all, it's obvious that the Biden bunch has no desire to slow down, no less halt, the "
revolving door " that
connects national security work in the government and jobs or security consulting positions in
the defense industry. The same goes for the think tanks that the arms producers amply
fund to justify the whole circus.
In such a context, count on this: the militarization of American society and the
"thank-you-for-your-service" fetishization of American soldiers will continue to thrive,
exhibit A being the way Biden now closes almost any speech
with "May God protect our troops."
All of this makes for a rather discouraging portrait of an old man's coming administration.
Still, consider it a version of truth in advertising. Joe and company are likely to continue to
be who they've always been and who they continue to say they are. After all, transformational
presidencies and unexpected pivots are historically
rare phenomena. Expecting the moon from a man mostly offering MoonPies almost guarantees
disappointment.
Obama Encore or Worse?
Tony Blinken, at right, as deputy national security advisor, with President Barack Obama,
Sept. 19, 2014. (White House, Pete Souza)
Don't misunderstand me: a Biden presidency will certainly leave some maneuvering room at the
margins of national security strategy. Think nuclear
treaties with the Russians (which the Trump administration had been systematically tearing
up) and the possible thawing of at least some of the
tensions with Tehran.
Nor should even the most cynical among us underestimate the significance of having a
president who actually accepts the reality of climate change and the need to switch to
alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. Noam Chomsky's
bold assertion that the human species couldn't endure a second Trump term, thanks to the
environmental catastrophe, nuclear brinksmanship, and pandemic negligence he represents, was
anything but hyperbole. Yet recall that he was also crystal clear about the need
"for an organized public" to demand change and "impose pressures" on the new administration the
moment the new president is inaugurated.
Yet, in the coming Biden years, there is also a danger that empowered Democrats in an
imperial presidency (when it comes to foreign policy) will actually escalate a
two-front New Cold War with China and Russia. And there's always the worry that the ascension
of a more genteel
emperor could co-opt -- or at least quiet -- a growing movement of anti-Trumpers, including
the vets of this country's forever wars who are increasingly
dressing in antiwar clothing.
What seems certain is that, as ever, salvation won't spring from the top. Don't count on
Status-quo Joe to slaughter Washington's sacred cows of foreign policy or on his national
security team to topple the golden calves of American empire. In fact, the defense industry
seems bullish on Biden. As Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes recently put it ,
"Obviously, there is a concern that defense spending will go way down if there is a Biden
administration, but frankly I think that's ridiculous." Or consider retired Marine Corps major
general turned defense consultant Arnold Punaro who recently said
of Biden's coming tenure, "I think the industry will have, when it comes to national security,
a very positive view."
Given the evidence that business-as-usual will continue in the Biden years, perhaps it's
time to take that advice from Cornel West, absorb the truth
about Biden's future national security squad, and act accordingly. There's no top-down
salvation on the agenda -- not from Joe or his crew of consummate insiders. Pressure and change
will flow from the grassroots or it won't come at all.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor at antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times ,
The Nation , Huff Post , T he Hill , Salon , Truthdig ,
Tom Dispatch , among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance
units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders
of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His latest book is
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Follow him on Twitter
at @SkepticalVet . Check out his
professional website for contact info,
scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
The choices the incoming president Joe Biden has made so far are not great at all. The
people he so far selected are staunch interventionists who will want to continue the wars
they have started during their previous time in office.
Tony Blinken will become Secretary of State. (It was probably thought to be too hard to
get Senate confirmation for the similar bad
Susan Rice.) In 2013 the Washington Post
described his high flying pedigree :
Blinken is deputy national security adviser to President Obama, who has also invoked the
Holocaust as his administration wrestles, often painfully, with how to respond to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. One of the government's key
players in drafting Syria policy, the 51-year-old Blinken has Clinton administration
credentials and deep ties to Vice President Biden and the foreign policy and national
security establishment in Washington. He has drawn attention in Situation Room photos,
including the iconic one during the May 2011 raid of Osama bin Laden's compound, for his
stylishly wavy salt-and-pepper hair. But what sets him apart from the other intellectual
powerhouses in the inner sanctum is a life story that reads like a Jewish high-society
screenplay that the onetime aspiring film producer may have once dreamed of making. There's
his father, a giant in venture capital; his mother, the arts patron; and his stepfather,
who survived the Holocaust to become of one of the most influential lawyers on the global
stage. It is a bildungsroman for young Blinken -- playing in a Parisian jazz band, debating
politics with statesmen -- with a supporting cast of characters that includes, among
others, Leonard Bernstein, John Lennon, Mark Rothko, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Abel
Ferrara and Christo.
The man is a war mongering psycho:
Blinken surprised some in the Situation Room by breaking with Biden to support military
action in Libya, administration officials said, and he advocated for American action in
Syria after Obama's reelection. These sources said that Blinken was less enthusiastic than
Biden about Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a strike in Syria, but is
now -- perhaps out of necessity -- onboard and a backer of diplomatic negotiations with
Russia. While less of an ideologue than Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations (a job for which he was considered), he not surprisingly shares her belief that
global powers such as the United States have a "responsibility to protect" against
atrocities.
He has since shown
no remorse about those foreign policy failures:
Blinken maintains that the failure of U.S. policy in Syria was that our government did not
employ enough force. He stands by the false argument that Biden's vote to authorize the
invasion of Iraq was a "vote for tough diplomacy." He was reportedly in favor of the Libyan
intervention, which Biden opposed, and he was initially a defender and advocate for U.S.
support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. In short, Blinken has agreed with some of the
biggest foreign policy mistakes that Biden and Obama made, and he has tended to be more of
an interventionist than both of them.
If you can't quite place Jake Sullivan, he's was a long-serving aide to Hillary Clinton,
starting with her 2008 race against Barack Obama, then serving as her deputy chief of staff
and director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning when Clinton was Obama's
secretary of state. (...) In 2016, during her failed presidential campaign, Sullivan once
again teamed up with Clinton, and he was widely expected to have been named to serve as her
national security adviser or even secretary of state had she won.
Since 2016, and since the creation of NSA, Sullivan has emerged as a kind of foreign
policy scold, gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- criticizing those who reflexively
oppose American intervention abroad and who disparage the idea of American
"exceptionalism." Indeed, in an article in the January-February issue of The Atlantic,
"What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About America," Sullivan explicitly says that
he's intent on "rescuing the idea of American exceptionalism" and presents the "case for a
new American exceptionalism".
Sullivan
send classified documents to Hillary Clinton's private email server. He wrote to her that
Al Qaida is "on our side in Syria." He also hyped fake Trump-Russia collusion
allegations.
It is yet unknown who will become Secretary of Defense. Michèle Flournoy is the
most named option but there is
some opposition to her nomination :
[B]ackers of Michèle Flournoy, his likely pick for defense secretary, are trying to
head off a last-minute push by some left-leaning Democrats trying to derail her selection,
with many progressives seeing her nomination as a continuation of what critics refer to as
America's "forever wars."
I expect that the progressive will lose the fight and that either Flournoy or some other
hawkish figure will get that weapon lobbyist position.
Progressives also lost on the Treasury position. Biden's nomination for that is Janet
Yellen who is known to be an inflation hawk. She is unlikely to support large spending on
progressive priorities.
As usual with a Democratic election win the people who brought the decisive votes and
engagement, those who argue for more socialist and peaceful policies, will be cut off from
the levers of power.
In three years they will again be called upon to fall for another bait and switch.
Posted by b on November 24, 2020 at 16:32 UTC | Permalink
There are so many creatures that the swamp holds. Don't be surprised by what comes
next.
The entire project for Democrats in this election cycle was to get rid of Trump. There was
never any vision for the future or a presentation of policy to gain voters. It was all "Trump
is an existential threat and the only priority is to defeat him at the polls." Bernie Sanders
made this all quite clear as he again led his legion of lemmings off a cliff and into an
ocean of Neoliberal/neoconservative Forever Empire.
But hey, it's all worth it to get rid of The Man With The Golden Toilet.
Meanwhile, yeah, it's back to future with more of the same as far as the eye can see.
Which, with an economy in shambles, and a populace with a death wish, might not be as long as
one thinks.
At the very least "gravitas" will have been restored to its venerable and "sacred"
institution. And a good portion of the american population can heave a huge sigh of relief,
and go about their business of profound ritualistic conformity.
Gravitas restored by an aging old man, potentially on the verge of dementia, which is a
sad condition by any measure. A collection of Human beings about as bereft of solutions of
philosophy of spiritual comprehension as possible, at this point in human history. We all
have an enormous amount to look forward to!
It's a veritable who's who of the same criminals who instigated and executed the covert (and
sometimes overt) military and economic aggressions across several regions of the globe, to
include North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
"US multinationals aim to clear away a stumbling block, the Trump administration's
protectionism and anti-globalism, to push forward their international plans, in particular
their exploration of the Chinese market, experts said. They made the comments in response to
news that New York business leaders signed a letter urging the Trump administration to start
the power transition to the incoming Biden administration.
"They also predicted that many of the prejudicial and disruptive policies launched by the
Trump administration against China, like sanctions on Huawei and tariff hikes, will be
corrected once Biden becomes the new US president.
"More than 160 top US executives have signed a letter pressing the Trump administration to
acknowledge Joe Biden as the president-elect and begin the transition to the new
administration, according to a report by The New York Times. Most of the executives come from
US multinationals including Mastercard, Visa, Condé Nast, WeWork and American
International Group.
"Many top executives from US financial companies have signed the letter, including David
Solomon, chief executive of Goldman Sachs and Jon Gray, Blackstone's president."
Such an attitude might sway Biden away from a confrontation first policy with China since
the overall balance of power has changed greatly since he was Vice-President. Perhaps the
Neocons will finally learn Peace is more profitable than war.
@ karlof 73 Trump's draconian trade restrictions will soon be lifted
wiki: The trade war has negatively impacted the economies of both the United States and
China. In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial
difficulties for farmers. In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of
economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. Many American
companies have shifted supply chains to elsewhere in Asia, bringing fears that the trade war
would lead to a US-China economic 'decoupling'. In other countries the trade war has also
caused economic damage, though some countries have benefited from increased manufacturing to
fill the gaps. It has also led to stock market instability. Governments around the world have
taken steps to address some of the damage caused by the economic conflict.//
As on war, and many other issues, the corrupt US Congress has allowed "executive
privilege" to enact measures and programs that would never be allowed in a real "democratic"
country, governed by citizens with availability to a free press.
Edward Abbey: "Democracy--rule by the people--sounds like a fine thing; we should try it
sometime in America."
The incoming Biden administration's cabinet carries a strong whiff of deja vu, and that's no
accident – the uninspiring president-elect is staking everything on evoking a lost utopia
that never existed under ex-president Obama.
The Biden campaign's rule of thumb for his cabinet appointments seems to be to channel the
Obama administration – with an extra helping of wokeness where possible. This has seen
him float Pentagon veteran and dyed-in-the-wool megahawk Michele Flournoy as the first-ever
female Secretary of Defense and former DACA czar Alejandro Mayorkas as the first Latino-Jewish
head of the Department of Homeland Security.
There's also the rumor he's planning to pick Obama's former Fed chair
Janet Yellen as the first-ever female Treasury Secretary – but even if she's not the
lucky lady, fellow former Clinton adviser Lael Brainard could get the nod, or one of two black
candidates – one of whom happens to be gay. Whoever he picks, they'll be a "first"
– and, given their institutional history as reliable servants of the ruling class under
Obama, a dependable source of more-of-the-same fiscal policies.
Lest all this wokeness turn off the Republicans who defected to Biden out of distaste for
President Donald Trump's determination to upset the military-industrial applecart, the presumed
president has also brought back ex-Secretary of State John Kerry, who'll be returning to
Washington to serve as a 'climate czar' on the National Security Council. While Kerry would be
the first person to hold such a position, which will allow him to skip a Senate confirmation
that could be unfriendly given the chamber's Republican control, Kerry's time at the head of
the State Department saw the Obama administration continue digging the US deeper into its
portfolio of ill-advised wars. And Kerry was the man who signed the Paris Climate Accords on
behalf of Washington in 2016, a treaty President Donald Trump wasted no time removing the US
from. He should go down plenty smooth indeed.
Most of the Biden picks were second-stringers during the Obama years and thus haven't quite
become household names yet. This is likely to be a point in their favor – if the history
of would-be Secretary of State Antony Blinken is any indication, Biden has good reason for
picking relative unknowns. A report from the American Prospect revealed Blinken had spent the
post-Obama years getting rich quick at consulting firm WestExec – which coincidentally
(or not) was co-founded by
would-be Pentagon chief Flournoy after her most recent stint at the Pentagon. The firm focuses
on "helping new companies navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon
contracts" – suggesting a Biden presidency won't just deliver a fatter Pentagon
budget, but new wars to go with it.
It's no surprise, then, that Washington-watchers are sinking into deja vu. Biden was elected
as the "anti-Trump," a return to some vague fantasy of "normalcy" . Except the
nostalgia for the Obama era that helped shoehorn Biden into office earlier this month was based
on a wholly synthetic reimagining of the eight years in which the career politician served as
vice president.
Obama may have inherited George W. Bush's financial crisis in 2008, born of rapacious
investment banks that mistook people's life savings for free chips from a casino, but the "
recovery " he claimed as his own never bothered to lift up
most working- and
middle-class Americans . Many of these lost their homes, and if they didn't, their children
"failed to launch," in no position to strike out on their own. The younger generation
were either mired in student debt or merely unable to afford even the cheapest 'starter homes'
due to an absence of living-wage jobs open to young adults entering the
workplace.
Biden made it clear repeatedly in the run-up to this month's election that he had no
interest in feeling these people's pain. "I have no empathy for it – give me a
break," he said,
complaining that millennials had been given everything by his own generation, the Baby
Boomers. In reality, those "whiners" so loathed by the president-to-be made 20 percent
less than Biden's generation at the same age at best – assuming they were lucky enough to
have a job at all. Back when it was still considered acceptable to trash Biden, most
establishment outlets raked him over the coals for such tone-deaf comments. But such negativity
was memory-holed when the Democrats crowned Biden their pick to run against Trump –
speaking ill of the anointed one got progressives labeled Trump supporters or Nazis or
worse.
Those whose rose-colored glasses let them see Biden as the second coming of Obama forget
that "Bush in a black-man suit" turned two wars into seven, allowed Citibank – one
of the worst offenders of the 2008 financial crisis – to shape his cabinet, and passed a
mockery of "universal healthcare" that forced the lower-middle-class to purchase health
insurance they couldn't afford or shoulder a tax penalty they also couldn't afford. Biden has
promised to reignite the war in Syria, veto the actual universal healthcare policy that is
Medicare for All, and ensure nothing will fundamentally change for his fat-cat Wall Street
donors – and those
donors seem to be picking
his cabinet just like they did his boss' in 2008.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
82
Robin Olsen 13 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 10:23 PM
Restarting the war in Syria will take a major false flag that is bullet proof in order to get
Russia to withdraw...not one false flag chemical attack staged by Obama and Biden actually
worked in the past. Trump's failed too. The world is onto America's false flag strategy...To
get Americans behind another 20 years of forever wars is also gonna take significant false
flag. Americans will fall for it, they always do...but no one else will...not this time.
Without international support he cannot restart anything, the British are not enough to
counter Russian interference and I don't think Bojo will survive the next election anyways.
HypoxiaMasks 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:17 PM
With any luck he will bless us with Hillary, Comey, Brennan, the corpse of McCain and as an
added bonus Lil Bush and both Obamas
DukeLeo HypoxiaMasks 9 hours ago 24 Nov, 2020 02:50 AM
Biden has not officially been pronounced winner in the elections, and he already has picked a
neocon team. What a big surprise. Makes you wonder how many people who voted for him really
knew what they were doing.
Ibmekon 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:34 PM
When Trump got into power he soon overtook Obama record of 26171 bombs in 2016. Trump since
2015 has dropped over 133,000 bombs . Trump tried to get troops out - the MIC just sent them
back in. Joey Biden and new secretary of state are committed to keep the troops out occupying
countries around the world - which requires the bombs to keep falling, one every 12 mins.
Because nobody actually wants the USA military in their country (apart from a few well bribed
military/religious dictators) We have no number for those murdered - the USA refuses to keep
any count.
And that coming from Trump who put APARTHEID Israel first
and did more for that racist country than he did for America.
whether underground , 5 hours ago
Exactly. And biden will for sure, 110% COMPLETELY END any idea of putting Americans first
in anything other than shackles. F all of them.
Mr Poopra , 5 hours ago
People still think Biden will actually assume office? If Trump won't win in the courts,
he's going to burn the entire thing down on his way out. Full Declass coming. Swamp creatures
tremble!
SurfingUSA , 4 hours ago
Problem is the agencies are openly defying him on declass (and have been). Would have to
send in U.S. marshals.
CJgipper , 4 hours ago
trump will do nothing. he should have already done the declassifications.
FingerInTheDarkness , 4 hours ago
Dropping the Biden laptop after most of the mail in ballots were already in the mail is
all you really need to know. Biden was installed. The only question is what to do next? He
will come for the guns and he will force the poison shots. Options are few.
cankles' server , 4 hours ago
He's already tried the declass route regarding Russia hoax and was thwarted by swamp
creatures.
"Means and methods" will be the mantra for obstructionists.
FingerInTheDarkness , 4 hours ago
Just like he declassified the JFK stuff, err wait a damn minute. We been had!!!
eatapeach , 3 hours ago
Even if it's released, you can bet Israel's complicity in the murder/coup will be omitted,
despite the fact that Jack Ruby (Rubinstein) was a Mossad asset and AIPAC got the massive
benefit of NOT having to register as a foreign agent.
Dragonlord , 5 hours ago
I am more amazed that the left love wars more than Trump and thats after the former
accused the latter of starting WWIII
Herodotus , 5 hours ago
They made sure that Goldwater was defeated so that they could build up the war there and
insure that 58,000 Americans would die in Vietnam.
Fizzy Head , 4 hours ago
...Once they had JFK out of their way.
BarnacleBill , 4 hours ago
For as long as Americans honour the 58,000 invaders more than the 2,000,000 victims of the
invaders' activities, there is no hope for the USA. And no respect, either. Sorry! I wrote
this post (link below, "The war against women") eight years ago, and it's still sadly
relevant.
You really have to wonder about an American generals loyalties when they do not like or
recommend an America first policy. Who exactly is the guy Gen. Mattis working for?
Rich Stoehner , 5 hours ago
Mattis is working for a globalized cartel of ho-mos.
"America First" was a con. What we got is a 'J3w5 First' foreign & domestic
policy.
Biden's isn't hiding his ''J3w5 First' foreign & domestic policy.
The only difference between the two are stylistic, the goal is the same.
Haboob , 3 hours ago
The difference is how they operate.
Trump wants peace through business and Mattis wants peace through war?
frontierland , 3 hours ago
Peace has nothing to do with it.
Trump conned White America with his pro-White dog-whistles, a tactic developed by his
mentor Arthur Finkelstein. The establishment doesn't like this approach as it woke the
sleeping giant, White America, while delivering no pro-White policies... Which made White
America self-aware, with expectations raised, awake and pissed off with Trumps failure to
deliver.
The "Left" arm of the neoLiberal establishment prefers an honest, open anti-White
approach... The long, slow-boil of White America.
Seal Team 6 , 4 hours ago
Mattis also threw in a dig at Trump's coronavirus response, noting "The pandemic should
serve as a reminder of what grief ensues when we wait for problems to come to us."
Really now? It seems to me that the US did exactly what Mattis says by the Obama
administration helping to fund the level 5 Wuhan lab, along with the French and the
neo-marxist government in Canada.
Does anyone in the MSM ever ask any of these turds questions that are actually relevant,
or do they give them an open mike to fabricate history however they like?
Max21c , 4 hours ago
Mattis is a product of the Deep State and an agent of the Deep State. He's been
brainwashed by the Deep State and his loyalties are to the Pentagon Gestapo and CIA and Deep
State. His loyalties are not to the American nation, American citizenry, Constitution and
Bill of Rights. He works for and sides with the secret police and state security
apparatus.
d_7878 , 4 hours ago
Ron Paul: "Trump Does The Bidding of the Deep State".
"... U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war, hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved. ..."
"... Medea Benjamin is ..."
"... of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection . Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
Congratulations to Joe Biden on his election as America's next president! People all over
this pandemic-infested, war-torn and poverty-stricken world were shocked by the brutality and
racism of the Trump administration, and are anxiously wondering whether Biden's presidency will
open the door to the kind of international cooperation that we need to confront the serious
problems facing humanity in this century.
For progressives everywhere, the knowledge that "another world is possible" has sustained us
through decades of greed, extreme inequality and war, as U.S.-led neoliberalism has repackaged and force-fed
19th century laissez-faire capitalism to the people of the 21st century. The Trump
experience has revealed, in stark relief, where these policies can lead.
Joe Biden has certainly paid his dues to and reaped rewards from the same corrupt political
and economic system as Trump, as the latter delightedly trumpeted in every stump speech. But
Biden must understand that the
young voters who turned out in unprecedented numbers to put him in the White House have
lived their whole lives under this neoliberal system, and did not vote for "more of the same."
Nor do they naively think that deeply-rooted problems of American society like racism,
militarism and corrupt corporate politics began with Trump.
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain
unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Background: Burns, a career diplomat who has served as ambassador to Russia and as
deputy secretary of state, gets particularly high marks for cognitive empathy -- understanding
the perspectives and motivations of international actors.
Few if any contenders for foreign policy positions in the Biden administration surpass Burns
when it comes to appreciating one tenet of progressive realism: military interventions have a
way of leading to bad things. In a ten-page memo Burns wrote to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, then his boss, during the runup to the Iraq War, he laid out a
cornucopia of possible unintended consequences, including some that became all too real. (Like:
Iran feels threatened and acts accordingly.)
Even highly surgical uses of violence, Burns recognizes, can have blowback. Last year he
wrote
that, during the Obama administration, as "drone strikes and special operations grew
exponentially," they were "often highly successful in narrow military terms" but at the cost of
"complicating political relationships and inadvertently causing civilian casualties and fueling
terrorist recruitment."
So it's not surprising that Burns has often pushed for non-military solutions to foreign
policy problems. Still, he has supported dubious interventions -- such as America's joining
allies in arming Syrian rebels, a policy hatched while Burns was deputy secretary of state in
the Obama administration.
In retrospect, it's not shocking that this policy only succeeded in amplifying the killing
and chaos, given the conflicting agendas of our allies and the divergent aims of the various
rebel groups -- not to mention the aforementioned inherent unpredictability of military action.
Yet, even with years of hindsight, Burns confined his criticism of this proxy intervention to
matters of timing and execution. In his 2019 book The Back Channel , he said we should
have given more aid to the rebels earlier. But Burns does, at least, get credit for considering
Obama's public demand for regime change ("Assad must go") unwise, and for having initially
hoped for more open-ended negotiations than that demand permitted.
Cognitive empathy (A)
Burns is adept at seeing the perspectives of international actors, as demonstrated in
particular by his views on Russia. He has a history of dealing effectively with the country,
and he takes Moscow's interests seriously. Unlike many in the foreign policy establishment,
Burns doubts the wisdom of NATO expansion -- including its early phases but especially its
later ones. When the US "pushed open the door for formal NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia," he has
said , "I think that fed Putin's narrative that the United States was out to keep Russia
down, to undermine Russia and what he saw to be its entitlement, its sphere of influence."
Burns believes that, though Putin
clearly sees the US as an adversary, he doesn't see the US-Russia relationship in purely
zero-sum terms; Putin is capable of seeing "those few areas where we might be able to work
together. He is capable of juggling apparent contradictions."
Burns is very aware -- as many US officials over the years have not been -- that hectoring
foreign countries about how they should behave can be counterproductive. "I've always felt we
get a lot further in the world with the power of our example than we do with the power of our
preaching," he
said in a New Yorker interview. "Americans can sometimes... be awfully patronizing
overseas."
Respect for international law (B)
Burns is generally a strong advocate of international law. And in the course of his career
he has often had occasion to invoke it -- as when, in 2014, he
said disputes over islands in the South China Sea should be resolved via adjudicatory
mechanisms outlined in the Law of the Sea Convention. (Had he not been speaking for the US
government, he might have added that, regrettably, America itself has not ratified that
convention.)
Unfortunately, Burns seems to have adopted the habit, widespread in the foreign policy
establishment, of being more fastidious in applying international law to adversaries than to
the US. In The Back Channel he offers some practical criticisms of America's 2011
intervention in Libya, but he doesn't note that when the mission shifted from defending
imperiled civilian populations to overthrowing the regime, it arguably
violated the letter of the authorizing UN resolution and certainly violated its spirit.
Similarly, his discussion in that book of Obama's arming of Syrian rebels evinces no concern
about the fact that this intervention, according to common
legal reckoning , violated the UN Charter.
Support for international governance (A)
Burns certainly supports international governance of a progressive sort -- agreements and
institutions that address climate change and arms control, for example, and the inclusion of
labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And he has been deeply involved in
multilateral problem solving, such as the Iran nuclear deal.
But what sets Burns apart from your typical progressive supporter of international
governance is his understanding of the need to expand it beyond these traditional areas. He
recognizes, for example, that if work in artificial intelligence and genetic engineering
proceeds without restraint in a context of intense international competition, bad things could
happen. So he wants to
"create workable international rules of the road" in these areas, and he wants the US State
Department to "take the lead -- just as it did during the nuclear age -- building legal and
normative frameworks."
Universal engagement (A-)
As a quintessential diplomat, Burns believes that the U.S. should be open to relations with
any country willing to talk. He is especially emphatic about the importance of maintaining
diplomatic and economic engagement with China; he
criticizes those who "assume too much about the feasibility of decoupling and containment
-- and about the inevitability of confrontation. Our tendency, as it was during the height of
the Cold War, is to overhype the threat, over-prove our hawkish bona fides, over-militarize our
approach, and reduce the political and diplomatic space required to manage great-power
competition." And Burns recognizes one of the biggest payoffs of engagement with China: to
"preserve space for cooperation on global challenges."
Burns eschews a Cold War not just with China but with authoritarian states more broadly. He
is refreshingly
skeptical of proposals -- fashionable in neoconservative and some liberal circles -- to
form a "league" or "concert" of democracies that would fight "techno-authoritarianism."
Burns doesn't seem to have expressed the degree of skepticism about America's promiscuous
use of economic sanctions that a progressive realist might like. But he gets points for at
least recognizing the inconsistency of their application. "We focus our criticism on Maduro, in
Venezuela, who richly deserves it, and then pull punches with Mohammed bin Salman, in Saudi
Arabia," he
said in a New Yorker interview.
Burns also recognizes that the foreign policy establishment's obsession with Iran is, well,
obsessive. Tehran has "an outsized hold on our imagination," he
says . Yes, he believes, Iran poses threats to American friends and interests, but those
threats are manageable, in part because, contrary to a common American view, Iran is "not 10
feet tall."
Miscellaneous
(1) After leaving the government, Burns became president of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. That's a highly and rightly respected position. But it should be noted --
since any good progressive realist wants to root out the influence of the military industrial
complex -- that Carnegie has taken money from Northrup Grumman
( as well as
from such foreign countries as Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates and from NATO).
(2) Burns deserves credit for seeing that the foreign policy establishment, confronted by
Trump's jarringly disruptive policies, is in danger of mindlessly retreating to pre-Trump
policies that in fact need sharp revision. Recounting (and embracing) the bipartisan opposition
to Trump's abrupt withdrawal of military support for Kurds in Syria, he
adds , "If all this episode engenders, however, is a bipartisan dip in the warm waters of
self-righteous criticism, it will be a tragedy We have to come to grips with the deeper and
more consequential betrayal of common sense -- the notion that the only antidote to Trump's
fumbling attempts to disentangle the United States from the region is a retreat to the magical
thinking that has animated so much of America's moment in the Middle East since the end of the
Cold War." This magical thinking, he continues, involves "the persistent tendency to assume too
much about our influence and too little about the obstacles in our path and the agency of other
actors."
Full spectrum dominance theorists are dusted off and put in key positions in new
administration. Instead of punishment and jail terms Russiagaters got promotion.
Biden signals US return to full-on globalism and foreign meddling by picking interventionist
Anthony Blinken as secretary of state
Joe Biden has named Anthony Blinken – an
advocate for isolating Russia, cozying up to China and intervening in Syria – as
secretary of state, cementing a foreign policy built on military forays and multi-national
motivations.
Biden, the nominal president-elect, announced his selection of
Blinken along with other members of his foreign-policy and national-security team, which is
filled with such veteran Washington insiders as John Kerry, the new climate czar and formerly
secretary of state in the Obama-Biden administration.
Blinken, a long-time adviser to Biden and deputy secretary of state under President Barack
Obama, has been hailed by fellow Democrats and globalists, such as retired General Barry
McCaffrey, as an experienced bureaucrat with "global contacts and respect." Enrico
Letta, dean of the Paris School of International Affairs, called Biden's choice the "right
step to relaunch transatlantic ties."
He was even praised for a 2016 appearance on the Sesame Street children's television
program, where he explained to the show's 'Grover' character the benefits of accepting
refugees.
While some critics focused on how Blinken " got rich working for corporate
clients " during President Donald Trump's term in office, the new foreign-affairs chief's
neoconservative policy recommendations might be cause for greater concern. He advocated for the
Iraq War and the bombings of such countries as Libya and Yemen.
Blinken is still arguing for a resurgence in Washington's
military intervention in Syria. He lamented in a May interview that the Obama-Biden
administration hadn't done enough to prevent a "horrific situation" in Syria, and he faulted
Trump for squandering what remaining leverage the US had on the Bashar Assad regime by pulling
troops out of the country.
"Our leverage is vastly even less than it was, but I think we do have points of leverage to
try to effectuate some more positive developments," Blinken said. For instance, US special
forces in northeast Syria are located near Syrian oil fields. "The Syrian government would
love to have dominion over those resources. We should not give that up for free."
Blinken also sees Biden strengthening NATO, isolating Russia politically and " confronting
Mr. [President Vladimir] Putin for his aggressions."
As for China, Blinken has said Washington needs to look for ways to cooperate with Beijing.
Reinvesting in international alliances that were weakened by Trump will help the Biden
administration deal with China "from a position of strength" as it pushes back against
the Chinese Communist Party's human-rights abuses, he said.
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign
policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's
brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American
Empire Great Again .
Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America
is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power
of our example."
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure,"
Biden has said.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton
administration.
During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the
president's National Security Advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY
This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines .
Support the independent journalism initiative here .
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush
is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction."
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the
world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using
it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms
manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big
banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the
public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new
concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a
drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called
for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare,
clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all
buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and
corporate news media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is
beginning to lose momentum."
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the
commitment may change over time."
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure
short of a political settlement being in place."
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it
doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without
outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we
going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is
something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may
change."
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are
being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."
MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan
dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."
So did CNN.
As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief
Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."
All of this was based on a report
from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming
extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the
intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending
in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars.
We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also
a more effective way."
Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq,
it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll
understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine.
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a
lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia
and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to
military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to
Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
But Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called
the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to
maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities,
development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones,
hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence
making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind.
All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley
giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation .
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for
the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater
advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their
backyard."
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we
maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and
electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir
Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border
and threaten us militarily."
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended
deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and
will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless
wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet,
small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In
ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush
stroke."
The end of forever wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public
doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
In Central America, Biden
has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments
and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses
fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
naughty.boy , 14 hours ago
deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.
Distant_Star , 14 hours ago
Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger.
They are too "important" to be at risk.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is reportedly set to announce this week that Tony Blinken,
who supported the idea of "Russia collusion," would be his Secretary of State.
President-elect Joe Biden intends to name his longtime adviser Antony Blinken as secretary
of State, according to three people familiar with the matter, setting out to assemble his
cabinet even before Donald Trump concedes defeat.
In addition, Jake Sullivan, formerly one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, is likely to
be named Biden's national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the matter.
An announcement is expected Tuesday, the people said.
Blinken, who served as deputy secretary of state and deputy national security advisor under
President Barack Obama, has also been a New York Times
opinion writer and a "global affairs analyst" for CNN. In that capacity, he supported the
"Russia collusion" hoax.
As Breitbart News reported in 2017, Blinken
told CNN: "The president's ongoing collusion with Russia's plans is really striking,
intentional or not." He said that Russia had sown doubt about American elections and
institutions.
(Subsequently, an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of any
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.)
Blinken also
apologized earlier this year to left-wing anti-Israel radical Linda Sarsour, regarded by
many critics (
even on the left) as an antisemite, after the Biden campaign tried to distance itself from
her views.
He is also married to Evan Ryan, a former aide to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. Ryan
worked for Clinton at a time when Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, acknowledged
accepting a campaign donation from entrepreneur Johnny Chien Chuen Chung.
Chung said that the donation was meant to help Clinton pay for Christmas receptions for the
Democratic National Committee at the White House, in exchange for "VIP treatment for a
delegation of visiting Chinese businessmen," according to the
Los Angeles Times .
Biden is expected to name several potential Cabinet nominees in the coming days.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart
News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7
p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The
Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump's Presidency . His recent
book,RED
NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a
conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship.
Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during
the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter 21 Nov, 2020 13:52 Joe
Biden thinks he can save America and the world from four years of Donald Trump. Instead, Biden
will find himself in a foreign policy trap where his tough guy rhetoric compels him to finish
what Trump started.
If one listens to Joe Biden and his closest national security advisors, all it will take to
undo four years of Trump-era foreign policy is a few dozen strokes of the pen. According to the
plan, the presumptive president-elect will sign off on a series of executive orders which
reverse the course charted by Trump, returning America back to the path of greatness derived
from undisputed global leadership that had been the trademark of the Obama years, when Biden
reigned as vice president and Barack's right-hand man.
Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear agreement and the World Health
Organization are all actions Biden can take as soon as he takes office. Reversing Trump's troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan and halting the redeployment of US forces from Germany are also
high on Biden's 'to do' list. However, simply reversing a decision made over the course of the
past four years does not reset the clock; for example, the world has moved on regarding climate
change, with nations like China taking the lead in promulgating plans for reaching a "carbon
zero" posture by 2060. Biden claims he can do this by 2050, but American domestic political
reality, shaped by an economy fine-tuned by Trump and inherently resistant to the kind of
economic change that would need to occur to make the Biden climate change plan viable, may have
something to say about that timetable.
The Iran deal
The Iran nuclear deal finds Biden trapped by his own hardline rhetoric, setting conditions
that are as unrealistic as they are unobtainable (for instance, requiring Iran to renegotiate
key aspects of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as a pre-condition for
the US rejoining that pact). Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, recognizing the bad
position Biden's mouth has placed its owner in, has wisely noted that Iran can return to its
JCPOA commitments simply by Biden signing an executive order cancelling the Trump sanctions.
This is one executive order Biden likely will not sign, because it requires him to certify the
JCPOA as being good as written, something he has already articulated against.
One of the first decisions Biden will be compelled to make upon assuming the presidency is
how to proceed on the issue of US troops in Afghanistan. If the Trump reductions are completed
as planned by January 15 (a big 'if', given the proclivity of the US military to
lie to Trump about actual troop deployments), Biden will be pressured by the Pentagon to
immediately redeploy up to 5,000 troops in order to create the force structure the Pentagon
believes necessary to ensure stability while Afghanistan transitions to peace. This, of course,
would kill the peace plan the US has in place with the Taliban, setting the stage for even more
'forever war'.
Regime change and more war
Other regional issues jump out – the ongoing effort to oust Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela, and the ongoing Saudi-led war in Yemen, to name two. Biden's anti-Maduro rhetoric is
every bit as strong as Trump's, meaning there is little chance of a policy re-direct on this
front. Likewise, if Trump fulfils threats to name the Houthi rebels in Yemen as a terrorist
organization, it will be difficult for Biden politically to reverse that decision, or else be
doing the bidding of Iran. Yemen will become another example of a 'forever war' living up to
its name.
Awkward in Europe
Another issue Biden will be called upon to deal with is the ongoing American redeployment of
troops out of Germany. Trump has committed to sending thousands of these redeployed troops to
Poland, a move Biden will have difficulty reversing. In the end, Biden will be pressured to not
only halt the withdrawal of US forces from Germany, but also find fresh troops to replace those
headed for Poland. But such a commitment must be measured in relation to the ongoing
controversy over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia with Europe. Trump has put in
place sanctions designed to halt the pipeline from being completed; Biden is likewise opposed
to the pipeline reaching fruition. Getting Germany to commit to taking in US troops while
blatantly interfering with German economic sovereignty is a balancing act Biden may not be up
to carrying out.
Arms control deadlock
Likewise, Biden has indicated that he would be inclined to sign an extension to the
soon-to-expire New START Treaty. Russia has long insisted that future arms control agreements
must consider missile defense issues. The Trump administration has just tested a missile
interceptor integral to the Aegis Ashore anti-missile system deployed in Romania and Poland in
an anti-intercontinental ballistic missile configuration. The likelihood of Russia agreeing to
any new arms control measures without a commitment on the part of a Biden administration to
reduce and/or eliminate European-based missile defense systems is zero. So, too, is are the
odds of a Biden administration doing away with missile defense in Europe. The result is an
expensive arms race at a time when the US can afford it least.
Finally, Biden inherits a policy posture toward both Russia and China which is as hostile a
relationship as has existed since the Cold War. Russia's force posture in Europe is such that
NATO would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to be in a realistic position to take
on the Russian military in any conventional ground war in Europe. Moreover, it is unlikely
Europe will agree to either the formal endorsement of such an objective, or the economic
commitment needed to underwrite it. Complicating matters further is that China and Russia have
reacted to the aggressive policies of the US, which pre-dated the Trump era, by considering the
possibility of a formal alliance against what they term "western hegemony." Such an alliance
would complicate any effort on the part of a Biden administration to back up the
president-elect's pusillanimous rhetoric with actual muscle, since any conflict in Europe would
automatically trigger a Pacific response, and vice versa.
China's dominance
Regardless of anything else, perhaps the biggest challenge facing a Biden administration
will be in dealing with the consequences of Trump's decision to withdraw from the Obama-era
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an abortive free trade agreement designed to keep China out
while promoting American economic leadership. China, together with 14 other Asia-Pacific
nations, recently signed what amounts to the world's largest free trade agreement. The
signatories to this agreement, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP),
include the 10 countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), along
with China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia, and together account for around 30
percent of global GDP. The RCEP cements China's status as the dominant economic power in the
Asia-Pacific regions, and represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the US, whose
precipitous withdrawal from the TPP in 2017 paved the way for China's stunning diplomatic
coup.
The collapse of the TPP, when combined with the economic crisis brought on by the Covid-19
pandemic, made the RCEP attractive to nations who looked to trade with China as the only viable
means of rebuilding their stricken economies. The RCEP helps solidify the regional geopolitical
objectives of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative by opening the economies of the Asia-Pacific
region to Chinese-funded development projects. The diplomatic victory of China in bringing the
RCEP to fruition represents a stunning defeat for the US, which had been seeking regional
support in its ongoing trade war with China. Moreover, given the linkage between economic and
security issues, the fact that major regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand
and Australia have so decisively joined their economies to China's undermines ongoing US
efforts to build a regional coalition designed to contain and eventually roll-back China's
presence in the South China Sea. While President-elect Joe Biden has reached out to Japan and
South Korea in an effort to reassure them of his administration's commitment to their security,
a future Biden administration is ill-positioned to counter the economic influence China has
locked itself into through the RCEP. From an economic perspective, the US 'pivot to Asia' has
been effectively halted, with the Asia-Pacific nations now firmly in China's court.
From Europe, to South America, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and on to the Pacific,
President Joe Biden will be inheriting a world transformed by four years of Trump policies.
While Biden has indicated that he is inclined to reverse many, if not all, of the Trump foreign
policy "disasters" as soon as practical after assuming office, the reality is that he
will find his hands tied by the combined impact of his own aggressive rhetoric, which in many
instances paralleled the policies undertaken by Trump, or the fact that the geopolitical
situation that exists today does not permit a return to the foreign policy of yore.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
An eye-popping array of corporate consultants, war profiteers, and national security hawks
have been appointed by President-elect Joe Biden to agency review teams that will set the
agenda for his administration. A substantial percentage of them worked in the United States
government when Barack Obama was president.
The appointments should
provide a rude awakening to anyone who believed a Biden administration could be pressured to
move in a progressive direction, especially on foreign policy.
If the agency teams are any indication, Biden will be firmly insulated from any pressure to
depart from the neoliberal status quo, which the former vice president has pledged to restore.
Instead, he is likely to be pushed in an opposite direction, towards an interventionist foreign
policy dictated by elite Beltway interests and consumed by Cold War fever.
Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary for the Obama administration, paused for a
moment and said "I don't know" in an interview Sunday when asked if he thinks former VP Joe
Biden would be a good president.
CBS's "Face The Nation" host Margaret Brennan asked Gates if he stood by a statement from
his memoir that Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national
security issue over the past four decades." Recommended
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was rereading your memoir before we sat down to talk and you said in your
memoir, Joe Biden is impossible not to like.
Quote: "He's a man of integrity, incapable of hiding what he really thinks, and one of
those rare people you know you could turn to for help in a personal crisis. Still, I think
he's been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the
past four decades."
Would he be an effective commander-in-chief?
ROBERT GATES: I-- I don't know. I don't know. I-- I think I stand by that statement. He
and I agreed on some key issues in the Obama administration. We disagreed significantly on
Afghanistan and some other issues. I think that the vice president had some issues with the
military. So how he would get along with the senior military, and what that relationship
would be, I just-- I think, it-- it would depend on the personalities at the time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He's a peer of yours. Does that mean you're older?
ROBERT GATES: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think he's right for this moment?
ROBERT GATES: I think I'm pretty busy and pretty active but I think-- I think having a
President who is somebody our age or older, in the case of Senator Sanders, is- I think it's
problematic. I think that you don't have the kind of energy that I think is required to be
President. I think-- I'm not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in
your sixties. So, I mean it's just a personal view. For me, the thought of taking on those
responsibilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting.
American libs are just as fundamentally imperialist as the right, and their obsession with
IdenPol garbage is just a smokescreen to pretend that they aren't.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote about
the banality of evil , and there's never been a more banal bunch than the foreign policy
and security state crew Barak Obama surrounded himself with for eight years beside the possible
exception of
Bush's own Neocons .
Now after three years screaming about
"Russian collusion" it appears the Evil Empire is about to regain its lost ground,
championing new wars and more interventionist expansionism with a much greater role for the US
military in the world.
Let's name names.
Pentagon
For the defense chief post, the Washington Post has portrayed the banal face of Michele
Flournoy as the pick to
'restore stability' to the Pentagon , an entirely false assertion. Recall that Fluornoy
promotes unilateral global US military intervention, and advocated the destruction of Libya in
2011. By the
military-industrial revolving door , Flournoy enabled many Corporate weaponry contracts
amounting to tens of millions. Likewise Fluornoy is on the Booz-Hamilton board, where the swamp
cannot get any deeper. As if this wretched example of an agent-provocateur for war and
destruction were not bad enough, Biden is reportedly considering Lockheed-Martin banal kingpin
Jeh Johnson for the DoD position, too.
Lockheed director Johnson was employed by Rob Reiner and Atlantic editor arch-Neocon
David Frum to run
the Committee to Investigate
Russia which mysteriously blew up as soon as the Mueller Report was released. Jeh Johnson
has continued to warn of "Russian interference" in the US presidential election until now.
Biden's anointing as president-elect has ended that. As Homeland Security head, Johnson
authorized cages for holding immigrant children. He also supported the assassination of General
Suleimani, and has voiced support for US wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
State
From Libya to Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and beyond, the banality of evil is perhaps best
personified by Susan Rice – apparently Biden's premiere pick for Secretary. Rice was an
abject failure at the United Nations, but all seems forgiven, probably at the behest of Biden's
donors. After her failure at the UN, Obama kicked Rice upstairs to be his National Security
Advisor, a position that does not require Senate approval.
An obvious war hawk in the mold of the Democrat's donor class, a Rice appointment could
reinforce the liberal mantra that women can be just as good at interventionism as men, and
ensure full re-establishment of the Neoliberal agenda in Washington. John Kerry has been
flagged as a potential for State (again) too, but at age 77 and subsequent to the failure
of the
JCPOA Kerry is an unlikely pick.
Another potential pick among the banal Daughters of Darkness is Victoria Kagan-Nuland ,
architect of the 2014 debacle in Ukraine (among other things). Outed at State in an
embarrassing act of what she called impressive statecraft and other
embarrassing incidents, Nuland seems an unlikely choice. But Kagan-Nuland is as banal as banal
can be, and Biden may somehow wish to reinforce his solidarity with the JTF and his donor class, on
Israel.
National Security Advisor
Banality is certainly the mark of the beast here, in the form of Tony Blinken. Well in with
Michele Flournoy (above) Blinken typifies
the type of banality the Deep State engages in to promote its evil, with Blinken as successful
as any other Deep State actor. A major hawk on Russia and war hawk in general, Blinken is an
apologist for Israel . Blinken is a war hawk on Afghanistan and Syria too, and Blinken was
directly
involved in CIA operation Timber Sycamore . Oh, the banality.
Another model of banality is Leon CIA Panetta who so far claims that cruising the Monterey
peninsula is more fun that being in Washington. But we know that's false and Panetta would be a
logical pick. Besides being a hawk on everything, and laughing about the fact he has no idea
how many wars Obama's America was fighting – because he lost count – Panetta is
simply another sycophant for evil like Hannah Arendt portrayed in her study of Adolf
Eichmann.
CIA
Banal of the banal is of course Mike Morell. This incredibly vacuous excuse for a human
being has been hate-mongering for years. Beside his
blatant pandering support for another banal and brutal warmonger – Hillary Clinton
– Mike Morell is one Neoliberal who still maintains that Saddam Hussein actively
aided and abetted al Qaeda with regard to the 911 attacks. But Morell simply and ultimately
represents the banality of evil, just as Arendt depicted Adolf Eichmann, but in Morell's case
succinctly summarized here by
Ray McGovern .
United Nations
Outing the banality of the banal would be incomplete without mentioning Jen Psaki . Although a potential pick for
White House Communications Director, why not promote an accomplished liar to a venue where
accomplished lying really matters?
Conclusion
There is no indication that the United States as an entrenched warfare state will ever
change its course until forced to. Mr Trump was incapable of enforcing that change. Sidelined
by
Russiagate psychosis , as a Beltway Neophyte and his own worst enemy at times, that sank
Trump's agenda. The actions of Mr Trump now – to end the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Yemen -- should have been undertaken in earnest and without compromise years ago. Point
being that Mr Trump's new appointments to the Pentagon – and let's hope CIA – will
hopefully blunt the efficacy of Biden's bad actors going forward.
Regardless, characters the same or similar to the ones listed above will definitely infest
Washington's infernal Beltway cesspool once again via Joe
Biden make no mistake. And they will be meaner and nastier than ever before!
Guaranteed.
Creative_Destruct , 2 hours ago
And the same old swamp slime (Morell, et al) waits eagerly to burst back in through the
doors of power. New boss, same as the old(er) boss(es). Uuuuuuggh.
EndofTimes , 5 hours ago
Obama's 3rd Term. Swamp will grow like a tumor. These demons are shaking with excitement
to get into office and fulfill the desires of the founders of the UN. Kill off America and
establish a global government
truth or go home , 4 hours ago
Biden is 100% deep state puppet. He will say and do whatever they tell him to.
Dominion = Scytl = CIA = Deep State = Swamp
CIA threw the election. Trump team caught them.
Trump has already cut the CIA off at the knees. Getting ready to fill up Guantanamo
again...
Giant war going on inside the gov right now - Biden enjoying the limelight before he is
retired to his rocking chair.
CatInTheHat , 5 hours ago
NICE JOB Biden voters!!
You MORONS electing Obama 2.0 on STEROIDS is WHY we got a Trump in the first place
To Hell In A Handbasket , 4 hours ago
The USSA electorate are idiots, and divided idiots at that. You got Trump because the
electorate was desperate, and you got Biden because the other half was desperate. That adds
up to a desperate population. Your enemy is not voters from the other side of the Uniparty.
Please get off the GOP vs DEMOCRAT horse$h1t.
Bay of Pigs , 3 hours ago
Quite an impressive list of Neoliberal globalist ****bags.
SabOObas , 3 hours ago
The establishment demonizes Trump for 4 years.
The sheeple voted to put the guy with 40 years of corruption under his belt in office,
because the establishment said its good for you.
Jgault , 2 hours ago
It is always the small man, the inept man, the insecure man who has a need to demonstrate
to the world his bravado with reckless and senseless gestures.
Biden and his brothel of advisors he surrounds himself with have perhaps the worst track
record of international policy since Jimmy Carter, absolute proven failures and disasters in
Ukraine, Syria, Lybia, and Egypt. This is the group that laid the intellectual groundwork for
what would become the largest refugee crisis and humanitarian disaster in nearly 50
years.
Laughably, now the MSM is doing a complete 180 in their editorial view of troops in
Afghanistan and Syria...what a shock!
Lacking foresight, insecure, lacking ethical standards and being given the ability to
order troops, how could this possibly go wrong?
Trump was the first President in 30 years not to provoke any new millitary interventions,
yet the world criticized him for his style. Let's see how long it takes for the world to
start looking back to a more stable past.
ReadyForHillary , 3 hours ago
The Democrat party is the WAR party.
RumbleGuts , 4 hours ago
Another article that doesn't realize red and blue are the same team. Make no mistake, big
baby bonespurs is in deep with the deep state. Think epstein. ;-)
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Mike Morell, the most evil man to ever draw a breath, as CIA Director?
A Biden Presidency can never be allowed to happen.
flawse , 2 hours ago
There will not be a Biden presidency. There is obviously some other plan.
DebbieDowner , 3 hours ago
This author's last paragraph fails to acknowledge that the CIA and FBI has not obeyed
Trump's (or any President's) orders in quite some time. Now is the time for someone to
finally make a change and it took such a massive plan to expose them all to drain the
swamp.
Was Trump an isolationist? Not really, though it's easy to see how he got this reputation,
at first glance of his foreign policy.
He had an aggressive posture
against Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, with his illegal sanctions policy against these countries.
He demonstrated total fealty to the Israeli project to
annihilate Palestine. His "trade war" against China is sold as a way to rebuild the U.S.
economy, but it is also about maintaining U.S. power; for what other purpose could instruments
such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and América Crece be used when they have
been
designed to advantage U.S. companies around the world?
Trump certainly attacked the Western military alliance system, trying to force NATO members
to spend more on their military. But at the same time, Trump developed other military
alliances: one of these, first developed by George W. Bush in 2007, is the Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue, or Quad, which draws Australia, India, and Japan into a military alliance
against China. At the same time, Trump drove an agenda in Latin America -- through the
Lima Group (established in 2017) -- to create an alliance against Venezuela.
Why Biden Is Not a Multilateralist
The liberal media portrays Biden as a multilateralist -- but the evidence for this
speculation on the president-elect's foreign policy is problematic, to say the least.
Biden wants to rebuild the Western military alliance system that Trump has eroded. An
indication of Biden's enthusiasm was an early phone
call to French President Emmanuel Macron, to suggest that the United States is back as a
player in Europe. This is not an advance toward a multilateral world order, but rather a return
to the old alliance system where the United States (with its Canadian and European allies)
attempts to dominate the world system by the use of its military, diplomatic, and economic
power.
Further evidence offered for Biden's multilateralism is his commitment to return the United
States to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or the Iran deal) and the 2016 Paris
Agreement.
Why does Biden wish to return the United States to its commitments toward Iran? Obama
entered this deal because the Europeans were desperate for a source of energy after the United
States and France destroyed access to Libyan oil in NATO's 2011 war and hurt access to
Russian natural gas because of the Ukraine conflict in
2014. Obama agreed to the Iran deal because the Europeans were desperate, not to line up with
the demands of international law; Biden will give the Europeans this gift, welcomed by the
Iranian people, in order to cement the Western alliance system. Meanwhile, Biden continues to
talk
about suffocating the Iranian people.
On climate, during the negotiations that resulted in the Paris deal during Obama's
presidency, the United States
watered down the text of the agreement, preventing a truly multilateral deal that would
have accepted Western responsibility for a century of fossil fuel use. Again, there is no major
commitment to save the planet in Biden's pledge to return to the Paris Agreement; the main
agenda is to strengthen and subordinate the European countries to the U.S.-led alliance
system.
Primacy Remains the U.S. Goal
The U.S. State Department's Policy Planning Staff wrote in the early years of the
Cold War, "To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power
must be the object of U.S. policy." This desire for primacy remains the explicit U.S. policy.
Trump, in his four years as president, did not depart from this policy. Nor has Biden in his
five decades in public office. They might differ in their tone or in their strategy, but not in
the pursuit of this goal. Biden's adviser Charles Kupchan has written a new book called
Isolationism , which offers a clichéd view of U.S. foreign policy, and then
concludes, "[T]he United States must reclaim its exceptionalist mantle"; this means that the
United States must continue to seek primacy.
This goal of primacy has made it difficult for the U.S. elites to come to terms with the
fact of the slow attrition of U.S. power since the illegal war on Iraq (2003) and the credit
crisis (2007). Failure to acknowledge that the world will no longer tolerate one single
superpower has led the United States to impose a warlike situation against China. This
begins with Obama's "pivot" to Asia in 2015, and intensifies with Trump's "trade war."
Cold War on China Looms
Since 2015, not one U.S. Silicon Valley CEO has made a robust statement for comity between
the United States and China. Apple's Tim Cook held a
meeting with Trump in August 2019 merely to allow Apple to better compete with Samsung,
which was not hit by the U.S. tariffs. There was no broad statement about Trump's "trade war,"
with which Cook seemed quite pleased.
Silicon Valley firms know that on certain technological developments -- such as 5G,
robotics, GPS, and soon microchips -- Chinese firms have clearly produced next-generation
technologies, and in many cases have leapfrogged over their U.S. counterparts. Silicon Valley
companies are quite happy for the U.S. government to put the entire weight of the state against
Chinese firms. This includes using the security apparatus to accuse Huawei of being involved in
Chinese government espionage. It is a curiosity that none of the Silicon Valley firms worry
about privacy per se, because -- according to the Edward Snowden revelations -- the
National Security Agency uses the PRISM program to collect data freely from Silicon Valley
internet firms; but the U.S. uses the privacy and espionage arguments to try to hurt Chinese
tech firms and protect the intellectual property and market advantages of Silicon Valley. Since
this is the real cause of the trade war, there is every likelihood -- and Biden has said so --
that a Biden administration would continue to prosecute the trade war.
In 2013, the Chinese government set up the One Belt, One Road (now Belt and Road Initiative,
or BRI) to extend its commercial links across the world. The Obama administration responded in
2015 with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a platform to break China's commercial ties
along the Pacific Rim. Trump jettisoned the TPP and went for a more direct trade war. To
counter the trillions of dollars that China will mobilize for the BRI, the United States used
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (set up in 2004) and América Crece (2019) to funnel
billions of dollars to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. All of this is a desperate
attempt to undermine China and maintain U.S. primacy.
The United States is not yet prepared to acknowledge the changed world situation. This will
take time. Short of that, it is important for people to speak up against an escalation of hostilities.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
Vijay Prashad's most recent book is No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (New
Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2015).
The US military establishment will breathe a sigh of relief at Joe Biden's victory in the
presidential election. Nearly 800 former high-ranking military and security
officials penned an open letter in support of the Democratic candidate during the campaign.
A who's who of former generals, ambassadors, admirals and senior national security advisers --
from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to four-star admiral and Bush-era Deputy
Homeland Security Advisor Steve Abbot -- backed Biden as the best bet to revive US power. A
month earlier, 70 national security officials who served in Republican administrations threw
their weight behind Biden (the list soon grew to 130), arguing that, on foreign policy, Trump
"has
failed our country" .
Why was Biden the war criminals' candidate of choice? The foreign policy chaos and
controversy of the Trump years were a symptom of a global superpower in relative decline, with
no real strategy out of the quagmire.
The US empire is at a turning point. It is the world's undisputed superpower; its reach is
global, both militarily and economically . The US has been the world's largest economy since
1871, and its military has close to 800 installations in 80 countries around the world. But
today, it is facing a growing economic rival in China, and several lesser powers challenging
its ability to call the shots in every corner of the globe, most notably Iran and Russia.
The War on Terror, launched by the administration of George W. Bush , resulted in the
invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It killed more than a million people and
cost upwards of US$2.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For the people
of the Middle East, it was a massacre. For US empire, it was a disaster. The destabilisation of
Iraq led to the expansion of Iranian influence across the region, rather than the regime change
in Tehran the Pentagon dreamed of. The intervention in Iraq was meant to secure US dominance.
It instead exposed the weaknesses and limits of US power right at the moment when China's
dramatic economic expansion was beginning.
Tensions between the US and China have been increasing for years. Since its accession to the
World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built its economic power, its diplomatic power and
its military power, while the US became bogged down in endless wars and suffered economic
crisis and depression with the 2008 financial crisis.
Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia", with its plan to increase US naval forces in the
Asia-Pacific, was a signal that the US ruling class wanted to contain and encircle China.
Obama's then classified Air-Sea Battle doctrine was an effort to create an operational plan for
a possible military confrontation. Leaked cables made public by WikiLeaks reveal that Australia
was in lockstep with US imperial strategy. In conversation with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd confirmed Australia's willingness to "deploy force
if everything goes wrong". But Obama's strategy was too little too late for containment. China
became more aggressive in pressing claims in the South China Sea while beginning to close the
enormous gap in military capabilities with the United States, engaging in the most rapid
peacetime arms build-up in history.
Under Trump, these tensions further increased. Trump's confrontational rhetoric and trade
war were a sharp break from the decades-long US strategy of integrating China into the
international liberal order. Since the Republican administration of Richard Nixon -- who in
1972 became the first US president to visit Beijing -- the US ruling class thought it could
ensure global supremacy by incorporating China into the world system. For a while, it appeared
to work. China became the world's sweatshop and a key site of investment for US companies such
as Apple and General Motors. But the strategy could be mutually enriching for only so long.
Today, China is leveraging its meteoric growth to challenge the United States' leadership in
the Asia-Pacific.
Obama's signature containment strategy was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP
would have been the largest free trade deal in history, lowering tariffs and other non-tariff
barriers to trade between eleven Pacific countries and the US. Its goal was to lock out China
and further integrate Pacific countries with the US economy. Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter said that the TPP was "as important as another aircraft carrier".
But just a few years later, Donald Trump tore up the TPP. The move was at odds with the
consensus among the US economic and military elite, but the new president had his own ideas
about how to contain China. Trump railed against the US trade deficit, accused Beijing of
currency manipulation and, as Obama did, of stealing technology from US companies. In the 2019
State of the Union address he said, "We are now making it clear to China that after years of
targeting our industries and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and
wealth has come to an end".
By August this year, Trump had slapped tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese goods, with a
targeted campaign against tech giant Huawei, which had been tipped to overtake Apple in global
phone sales. While Republican and Democratic politicians have backed a hardline approach to
China, Trump's erratic protectionist approach to trade has alienated large sections of the
capitalist class otherwise happy with domestic tax cuts and deregulation. A Bloomberg Economics
report, released before the pandemic gripped the country, estimated that the escalating tariffs
on China would cost the US economy $316 billion by the end of this year.
More worryingly for the US establishment, Trump adopted a dismissive attitude towards US
allies, particularly the European Union. Trump prided himself on his ability to cut deals with
other nations that favoured the US. He signalled that the multilateral approach to trade was
over when he tore up the TPP, and followed that by applying tariffs on German cars, Canadian
steel and French luxury goods. For much of the US elite, these moves have simply created a void
that Beijing is attempting to fill with its own free trade deals and the $1 trillion Belt and
Road initiative, which aims to incorporate more than 138 countries into trade routes and
production chains centred on China.
The International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the UN and other
international institutions project US dominance by drawing allied nations behind US leadership.
Trump's presidency delegitimised or sidelined those institutions as he focused on an "America
first" posture. The military establishment believes that this has threatened, rather than
strengthened, US power -- although there is now an acknowledgement that those institutions
failed to keep China in check, something a Biden presidency will also grapple with.
The war criminals hope that Biden will restore political legitimacy to the office by
rehabilitating the liberal ideology that manufactures consent for American imperialism,
pitching US aggression as necessary to "make the world safe for democracy" and defending the
"rules-based liberal world order". Above all, the US establishment hopes that Biden will
restore relationships with US allies and construct a coalition of nations to confront China,
after a disastrous four years that called into question US global leadership. As the National
Security Leaders for Biden open letter bemoaned: "Our allies no longer trust or respect us, and
our enemies no longer fear us".
Biden has a proven record as a hawkish proponent of US empire. For decades, he served on the
Senate foreign relations committee. He was an early proponent of the expansion of NATO to
project US influence into the former eastern bloc after the fall of the USSR. He backed US
intervention in the Balkan war, supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, voted for the
war on Iraq in 2003 and, as vice president, backed the US intervention in Libya.
There is consensus within the US ruling class over the need to "get tough" with China. The
military establishment expects Biden to turn the screws. On the campaign trail, he accused
Trump of "getting played" by Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he called a "thug". This is
consistent with Democratic Party practice in the Congress, which is to criticise Trump for not
being tough enough. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, for example, accused Trump of
"selling out" by cutting a trade deal with China. Schumer also spearheaded legislation to
implement bans on Huawei when Trump appeared to back down.
Since his first days in Congress, Biden has also made a name for himself as a staunch
supporter of the apartheid state of Israel. According to Israeli publication Haaretz ,
Biden is said to have a "real friendship" with Israel's far-right president, Benjamin
Netanyahu. He was vice president when the US signed a $38 billion military aid deal with
Netanyahu, which the State Department called the "single largest pledge of bilateral military
assistance in US history". So while Trump pushed pro-Israeli rhetoric far to the right,
abandoning any pretence of support for Palestinian statehood, Biden put his money where his
mouth is when it came to propping up Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
On Afghanistan, Biden may prove to be to the right of Trump. As vice president, he supported
an enduring US military presence in the country. Trump, by contrast, shocked the US military
when he announced on Twitter that he wants all troops out by Christmas. In contrast, Biden in
an interview with Stars and Stripes , a military newspaper, said he would maintain a
troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Anti-imperialists need to judge Biden by his blood-soaked record in Congress and by the
company he keeps. The bulk of the US military establishment has backed Biden precisely because
they think his multilateral approach will restore credibility to US interventions. It's for
this reason that Forbes magazine senior contributor Loren Thompson predicted last month:
"A Biden presidency would be more likely to use US military forces overseas than President
Trump has been".
Global capitalism is facing a profound crisis that is reshaping international relations and
putting pressure on the fault lines of existing conflicts. Open imperialist rivalry will be a
feature of the coming period, along with wars over regional disputes. There is no length to
which the US ruling class won't go to safeguard its position as global superpower. And Joe
Biden is the commander-in-chief. He is now the most dangerous man in the world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
While probably "less aggressively nasty" than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is still a
"conventional politician," but it won't be easy for him to dismiss his party's progressive
wing, Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground.
Brother to US Senator Bernie Sanders and the Green Party Spokesperson on Health and Social
Care (England & Wales), Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi that
while Biden was not his "choice" for president, he prefers him over the current
incumbent, President Donald Trump.
... ... ...
As a fixture of the establishment, Biden will follow the interests of corporate money and
the military-industrial complex rather than anybody else's, Sanders noted.
"Biden is a conventional politician, he is beholden to big money, he is beholden to
defense industries,
joe_go 13 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 07:03 AM
If no one in America went to vote the country would still look the way it looks today. The
big money and military industry would run the country the way it runs it when people vote and
think it matters.
Spirgily_Klump 20 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 12:46 AM
Do you know after Biden was out of the VP office the Chinese communist party had donated $70
million to one of his foundations at the University of Pennsylvania from which Joe drew a
salary of over $900,000 per year? With his benefiting from the hundreds of millions his
family took in from foreign powers and persons how can he gain the security clearance
necessary for the presidency? The president needs the highest clearance. Even an applicant to
the CIA get polygraphed.
shadow1369 Spirgily_Klump 9 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 11:00 AM
Just one of many skeletons jangling in Bidet's closet, they will be used by his controllers
to keep him on track.
Iwanasay 19 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 01:22 AM
It doesn't matter who is in power, America's destiny has been chosen by other behind the
scene faces
RedDragon 15 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 05:27 AM
All USA presidents are beholden to big money entities, inclusive incoming Biden presidency.
Trump is beholden to the Jewish money powers etc..
Beware savvy, sophisticate liberals bearing gifts of evasive and ethically empty prose.
Having, for my sins, spent a few weeks reading just about everything on offer from what
unrepentant neocon zealot – and born-again Washington Post columnist – Max
Boot
dubbed Joe Biden's foreign policy "A-Team," I can vouch for the new transition team's
vapidity and verisimilitude. Put another way, Boot's favored Biden Posse – the Iran
nuke channeling , P4
(Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Jake Sullivan, and Nicholas Burns) +1 (Michèle Flournoy)
– have a rare gift for typing tons but saying little.
Worse still, what they do let slip drips with subtext of status quo-hawkishness
– Biden's shadow team of five ground hogs spotting their shadows and predicting four
more years of warfare winter. Moreover, these aren't just any Washington lowland creatures
– they're being groomed
, respectively, for national security adviser, director of national intelligence, a
senior
diplomatic role,
possible secretary of state, and probable secretary of defense.
Only you're not supposed to look under the lid of Biden's national security transition
team, because, well uh, Trump was worse, and there's, like, lots of ladies in the lineup. No
really, "serious" people are saying that . With straight faces. And clear consciences.
With no consequences. What a world!
This column's immediate genesis, though, was Glenn Greenwald 's vicious and vital
responsive -evisceration of
MSNBC contributor – and self-described "thriver on chaos"
– Mieke Eoyang's recent nonsense Newspeak tweet . Here's her attempt
to silence through shaming – and signaling by buzzword:
If the Chinese decide to really mess with the Biden administration, I'd imagine they would
do something like build a road or even a pipeline in Afghanistan, even though it is
completely unnecessary, simply to force the US to stay longer. Doesn't seem like their style,
though.
In regards to Russia, same as most of the last 100 years, really. If anything big happens
at all, it would be Putin retiring. In that case, CNN will have wild fantasies about Boris
Yeltsin 2.0, while in reality Russian oligarchs may have some kind of trial moment to figure
out whether his successor can continue to enforce a balance or not, which is a big question.
Team Biden brings nothing to the table in that situation other than talking sh#t and creating
confusion. The EU on the other hand could, but it's looking less and less likely. Especially
as they will likely be immersed in a post covid political crisis and renewed challenge from
right wing parties.
Last but not least, look for Biden to be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize before lunch on
his first day in.
here will be much pressure from the liberal hawks to finish the war they had launched
against Syria by again intensifying it. Trump had ended the CIA's Jihadi supply program.
The Biden team may well reintroduce such a scheme.
Susan Rice has criticized Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban. Under a Biden
administration U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are therefore likely to again increase.
One possible change may come in the U.S. support for the Saudi war on Yemen. The
Democrats dislike Mohammad bin Salman and may try to use the Yemen issue to push him out of
his Crown Prince position.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
After four years of Russiagate nonsense, which Susan Rice had helped to launch, it is
impossible to again 'reset' the relations with Russia. Biden could immediately agree to
renew the New START treaty which limits strategic nuclear weapons but it is more likely
that he will want to add, like with Iran's nuclear deal, certain 'amendments' which will be
hard to negotiate. Under Biden the Ukraine may be pushed into another war against its
eastern citizens. Belarus will remain on the 'regime change' target list.
China would heave a big sigh of relief if Biden picks Rice as his secretary of state.
Beijing knows her well, as she had a hands-on role in remoulding the relationship from
engagement to selective competition, which could well be the post-Trump China policies.
For the Indian audience, which is obsessive about Biden's China policy, I would
recommend the following YouTube on Rice's oral history where she narrates her experience
as NSA on how the US and China could effectively coordinate despite their strategic
rivalry and how China actually helped America battle Ebola.
Interestingly, the recording was made in April this year amidst the "Wuhan virus"
pandemic in the US and Trump's trade and tech war with China. Simply put, Rice
highlighted a productive relationship with Beijing while probably sharing the more
Sino-skeptic sentiment of many of America's foreign policy experts and lawmakers.
All together the Biden/Harris regime will be a continuation of the Obama regime. It's
foreign policies will have awful consequences for a lot of people on this planet.
Domestically Biden/Harris will revive all the bad feelings that led to the election of
Donald Trump. The demographics of the election
show no sign of a permanent majority for Democrats.
It is therefore highly probable that Trump, or a more competent and thereby more
dangerous populist republican, will again win in
2024 .
Obama-Biden 3.0 as Pepe Escobar put it with an added twist
I do not agree with the assumption that the new administration (either Biden or Trump)
will start more wars, as you call them. I posit that Trump would have had his war if it
were possible but we are in a MAD phase of a civilization war and Biden will be just as
neutered as Trump.
We are not going back to Obama 3.0. That ship sank when Russia stymied Obama empire in
Syria. We are in a brave new world that is unfolding before our eyes....the future is all
around us but just not evenly distributed.
The Atlantic council this morning ("The way forward for transatlantic sanctions") is
already discussing new sanctions the Biden Administration will bring in against Russia over
the failed revolution in Belarus and the Navalny fraud. I'm amazed at how
self-congratulating these fools are, they truly are blind both to the problems the US is
facing and how the US is creating new international crisis that will destroy the
nation.
I can not understand why you insist here that Trump ended jihadist´s support in
Syria, when it was these past days that we knew by US envoy there, Jeffries, that the
troops not only were not decreased, by augmented.
Anyway, I guess we can conclude that if not directly, jihadists support continues
through Turkey, as we have witnessed in the past conflict in the Caucasus.
An article in Foreign Policy from a Bush era neo-con tells you what to expect:
Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of
the West, Russia's neighbors, and his own people. Biden seems to understand that, not least
because he has been the target of Russian interference in the 2020 election, including a
disinformation campaign tied to Russia that was designed to smear him and his son Hunter.
Earlier this year, Biden wrote, "To counter Russian aggression, we must keep [NATO's]
military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to take on nontraditional
threats, such as weaponized corruption, disinformation, and cybertheft." He continued: "We
must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with
Russian civil society, which has bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir
Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system." In an interview with CBS News' 60 Minutes
before the election, Biden said he considered Russia "the biggest threat to America right
now in terms of breaking up our security and our alliances."
These instincts are sound, and Biden likely will appoint officials who think the same
way he does when it comes to Putin's Russia.
The more articles and postings that I see that bemoan the Deep State restoration (horror!)
and return of business-as-usual (horror!), the more I think that we are being set up for an
eventual Trump win.
Recent history tells us that Republican Presidents do BIG WARS (invoking Republican's
claim to patriotism and a strong military) and Democratic Presidents do small, covert
wars.
Why else would Trump fight an EMPIRE-FIRST establishment that he largely agrees with (as
demonstrated by his actions while President)?
Mr Wabbit - as I've written before (here and elsewhere): there is NO really existing
difference between the which colored face(s) hang out in the WH (or in Congress) because they
all belong to the same political stratum and, essentially, hold exactly the same positions,
worldviews, attitudes, perspectives. All (aside from a tiny handful on occasion) support the
MICIMATT, are intrinsically part and parcel of it. All get to fatten their bank accounts, get
to revolve twixt this post and that in the MIC/TT/MA. At base most if not all (Blue/Red, it
matters not at all) work for/along with/are part of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist
plutocratic ruling elite.
Thus the warmaking will NOT stop without serious and continuous effort on the part of a
large part of this country's population - and that isn't likely to happen: lots of folks earn
their nice livelihoods in the MICIMATT industry; and most - overwhelmingly most - of the US
population do not give a fuck what this country does to any other around the world, so long
as a) doesn't affect them; b) their pension plans benefit; c) they can go back to sleep. How
many even know where Syria, Libya, Iran, Ukraine ARE????
And they do not care - except when there is the occasional blowback - which is viewed as
(what else?) terrorism, not simply retaliation. The real terrorism being projected, inflicted
by guess which nations?
Kevin Gosztole on Grayzone; Patrick Lawrence on Consortium News; Danny Sjursen on Anti-war
- all pieces give one despair, sheer and utter despair at the so-called electoral "choices"
we had and the reality of the continuation of the imperial war machine, run by the utterly,
completely grotesque, barbaric usuals (whatever their bloody sex, skin hue).
While lecturing the world over "international norms", the deliberate obliviousness over
the astonishing rolling humanitarian disasters initiated by the USA is beyond disturbing.
Watch out for Eliot A Cohen and what Phil Geraldi coined as "Kaganate of Nulandia" ilks in
that FP Team. In Obama's first year we had Dennis Ross at the WH and Jeffrey Feltman at
Turtle Bay whilst the R2P women were at Foggy Bottom : we got the Arab Spring followed by the
demise of Ghaddafi and the havoc in Syria.
Who will Susan Rice put in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to give the middle finger to
Abu Mazen?
While The Dem party is strongly anti-Russia, connected at it is to the Atlantic Council
and NATO, the probable next SecDef Flourney is throwing down the gauntlet on China.
...from TaiwanNews:
Flourney assessed that China is starting to believe it can achieve a quick strike that
would disable all U.S. defenses in the region, paving the way for an invasion of Taiwan.
"China's theory of victory increasingly relies on 'system destruction warfare' -- crippling
an adversary at the outset of conflict, by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare,
counterspace, and cyber-capabilities," wrote Flourney.
To boost deterrence capabilities, Flourney asserts that the U.S. must modernize and
strengthen its forces in the region to raise the cost of "Beijing's calculus." Such is the
buildup that Flourney is advocating, that it would enable the U.S. military to "credibly
threaten to sink all of China's military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the
South China Sea within 72 hours" . . here
This is quite a change from the current administration, which has followed the Taiwan
Relations Act in stressing that the break-away province is responsible for its own defense,
with no mention of US support. In fact the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with this
Chinese province. Normally these treaties only include countries of course, and while Taiwan
claims to be a country of course it isn't.
On the question of war, it's no secret that Biden is likely to prove more hawkish than
Trump, though Biden himself is a diplomatic man. However the world has changed since the days
of Obama. The Middle East has ground to a stalemate, and there are no objectives to achieve
by putting in more troops or air-strikes. Trump just tried and failed to bomb Iran. The
military advice to Biden won't be different.
With regard to the "pivot to Asia", I doubt that the Chinese are much afraid of a US
attack.
...Abstracting the factor of a new party naturally being inclined to reinitialize all the
wars abandoned or paralyzed by the previous party at a first glance...
1) Venezuela: I would bet Biden should have learned from Trump's mistake, but fact on the
field is the Southern Caribbean nation is a too appetizing target for him to to revisit it
and do a real invasion with Colombia through the land as an auxiliary;
2) South China Sea/Taiwan: Susan Rice's little story is touching, but the Western-backed
Asian MSM (SCMP, Asia Times etc.) is already preparing the psychological/ideological field
for a hot war between China and the USA there, which means they were already briefed by
Biden's team it will happen;
3) Afghanistan: at the heart of Central Asia (Heartland) + CIA opium = a matchstick will
rule over the Cocytus before the USA abandon its occupation of that country;
4) Yemen: the war pays for itself as the Saudis are recycling USDs into American weapons,
so I think inertia will prevail. When the Saudis say it's over, it's over;
5) Syria: game's over for the Americans there. The Russians imposed a no-fly zone to
NATO/USA. Most they can do is to prop up Turkey (which they don't like right now) to fund
terrorists in Idlib to try to drain the Russian coffers a little bit more but the Kremlin can
push the nuclear button anytime if it really comes to that point (if ever);
6) Belarus: it was more a German affair than an American affair. Doesn't apply;
7) Ukraine: unfinished business will probably lead to another ramping up over the Dnieper,
but the Donbassians have the geographical advantage and will never lose their territory as
long as they have full-fledged support from Russia;
8) Russia: the problem here is the USA is in a position it has to choose - Russia or the
European Peninsula? Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has already stated Germany's unconditional
loyalty to the USA is directly linked to the continuation of NATO. If NATO's gone, then the
European Peninsula may become a second Southeast Asia.
If ... Tom Cotton is the Republican nominee, a Dem Presidential victory in 2024 will make
Biden's 2020 landslide look like the small mound of sand sliding into the bottom half of an
hourglass.
Citibank's foreign policy Team would be much more accurate wouldn't it ?
That's like saying Obomber or Bush had their own foreign and economic policy.
The only reason DC puts on this shit show is to protect the owners from
accountability.
No matter who the "president" is there will be more war, sanctions, and coup attempts
because that's what the money/power cult needs to obtain more power and control.
These assholes successfully perpetrated a coup of the US government, why would they worry
about which flunky gets (s)elected ??
"Hillary Clinton at the UN? Whether or not Biden appoints her, things are getting very
brazen and very bitter, very fast."
Lawrence opines:
"Let us now send this conscienceless liar to the UN to make sure the world knows we're all
for international cooperation so long as all others submit to our dictates and don't get in
our way when we invade other countries, foment coups or otherwise breach international
law.
"I confess to longstanding animosity toward the odious Clinton. In truth she is merely the
apotheosis of what we've known for some time about the incoming regime's character.
"Biden's army of foreign-policy transition advisers -- 2,000 in number -- is chock-a-block
with warmongers, Russophobes, Sinophobes, Iranophobes, exceptionalists, puppets of apartheid
Israel, humanitarian interventionists, and others promising nothing but trouble. We've known
this for some time."
Lawrence did some great digging to complement the work done by other investigators. The
following is excellent:
"The Democratic 2020 platform published on the eve of Biden's nomination last summer,
intended to bring Bernie Sanders' supporters on board, included these commitments on the
foreign-policy side:
•"Bringing our forever wars to a responsible end."
•"Rationalizing the defense budget."
•Ending covert "regime change" operations in favor of "more effective and less costly
diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement tools."
•"Right-sizing our counterterrorism footprint."
•Scaling back U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in favor of "a durable and inclusive
political settlement" with a residual role for special operations forces.
"Didn't President Donald Trump attempt to achieve various of these objectives? Didn't
hawks in his administration and at the Pentagon vigorously and illegally subvert these
attempts? Didn't the mainstream press cheer on these subversions while lambasting Trump daily
for jeopardizing "national security" as he tried (however inconsistently) to bring troops
home, settle up in Afghanistan, negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and other
such things?...
"Those who expected the Biden regime to give Americans a thoughtful, informed,
post-exceptionalist foreign policy -- and I am not among these people -- are in for too many
disappointments to list over the next four years. Let us consider a few of the more
consequential."
Lawrence goes on to detail why there'll be no peace in Eurasia and no reduction in the
Imperial Budget. I agree 100% with his summation:
"One principle will guide the Biden regime's foreign policies. Biden is a man of empire
and those around him empire's lieutenants. This will determine all of what is to come."
Realistically that means the Outlaw US Empire will continue to drown as it spins around
and slowly descends down the toilet bowl. Nowhere in anyone's analysis of this issue is there
any mention of the fact that great domestic strength and vitality are a prerequisite for any
attempt at Imperial Dominance, and nowhere in Bidenland is there any policy proposal to
rehabilitate that fact. Sure, all sorts of hawks will populate the Pentagon and continue at
the State Dept, but they might as well be doves since the Empire's industrial base can no
longer support an aggressive Imperial Policy. Then there's the Human Capital that's in just
as dire a condition as the Industrial Plant. Biden in many respects faces the same set of
problems Trump was confronted with and allowed to fester/worsen. Plus, half the nation is
dead-set against him and his regime, perhaps even more so than with Trump since there'll be
no constant BigLie Media smearing.
The gap between the Outlaw US Empire and those nations it's chosen to demonize as
competitors and worse continues to grow daily. The RCEP is only one manifestation. A second
is the continuance of BRICS, which just held a Summit. If Biden launches an attack against
Iran, he'll suffer a massive defeat for the same reasons as Trump. Same with North Korea.
Same as with the South China Sea. Same as with Taiwan. Same as with Syria. And I'd say the
last bullet within the Color Revolution gun available for use in Eurasia was recently fired
to no effect. Latin America is rebounding again. In almost every respect, the Outlaw US
Empire is weaker now than in 2017 when Trump took over. IMO, Biden's #1, most important and
difficult job will be domestic since his donors will insist they be allowed to continue to
eat away at the vitals that are the fundamental basis of support for the Empire--Following in
the footsteps of Rome.
Russia will be the main target of the new US regime, expect to see the russian underbelly
in flames in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and of course in Ukraine and Syria.
The russian regimen change project will be at full speed, economically, politically,
domestic and external insurgencies, all in order to bleed to death the Bear that they see as
a cultural, military, industrial and natural resources rival that has to be fully destroyed
and reduced to smithereens, divided in corrupt satrapies much smaller and easy dominate
"à la ukrainien" or georgian, to extract, on the cheap, all their natural resources
with nice fees for the Biden family or many others american plutocrats. Win-win
situation.
One of the pieces to "bleed the beast" project was the Pashinyan sororite hiper-corrupt
regime, who sell large amounts of weapons to the jihadis in Syria to kill russians and
syrians soldiers, this was the last straw for the russkies with them:
So the DoD just announced that Trump is drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to
2500 for each by January 15th 2020, and there are about 5,000 private military contractors in
each which will probably increase to compensate. Easy call for Trump.
Yes, I saw McConnel plead to be able to stay and "finish" Afghanistan. Such a tired show
now. The same ol' tune, spoken a thousand times on that senate floor.
But to your point, not all Republicans are non-interventionists. There are many, many
RINOs amongst them who actually loathed the idea of Trump as POTUS in 2015, so much so that
it took the groundswell of support for DJT that these RINOs relented and hopped aboard the
Trump-train.
Now that he has lost, they want to revert back to their prior and favored position as
controlled opposition to the Dem establishment. It will at first be subtle, with feigned
support for outgoing POTUS, but gradually, they will cease mentioning him at all.
It remains to be seen whether the constituents in these RINOs' districts will not see
through the subterfuge.
As I have mentioned before, I think they will come for the RINOs if they disembark the
Trump-train. They are sowing wind.
As we move forward resistance to American hegemony becomes stronger, more broad and a more
viable counterbalance to the western hegemony on world affairs. This is while US and her
allies have and are becoming weaker and therefore more unbalanced. Political and economic
unbalance as seen during the pandemic is much more difficult and costly for developed
nations as would be for the third world.
As has been seen in past few years this shifting power balance will naturally make the losing
power, more reactionary and more violent to preserve and restore her power, both domestically
and externally.
As this giant corpse start decaying her parasites start chowing more and demanding more to
save themselves, which makes this dying giant even more unpredictable, and perhaps more
reactionary and violent regardless who's the president and in power, Trump or Biden has not
and will not make any change difference for the Deep state policies.
Fortunately this is, and has been, the trajectory we are on for some time now, and IMO this
is unstoppable, no matter who and how much propaganda is leveled inside and outside of
west.
Biden has said that he will re-instate the nuclear agreement with Iran but with
'amendments'.
Wishful thinking by Biden and his faction, if he get into white house at all. The greatest
obstacle for any US president to get back to JCPOA is the general disqualification of US
governments to be part of any international agreement.
Obama signed, Trump teared in pieces, Biden signing again (are we in a Kindergarten?), who is
going to guarantee that the next republican president (in 4 years?) doesn't tear it in pieces
again or even the to-be president Kemala Harris (in 2 years?) doesn't trigger the snap back
as a friendly pay back gesture to the Zionist Apartheid regime for getting the job as
president?
Although Rouhani government has sent strong signals that they are ready for a new round of
negotiation, with less then 9 months to the next elections in Iran, almost no chance that the
next winner come from technocrat camp, theocracy not ready to support technocratic efforts
for new negotiations and finally wide popular resistance to continue the JCPOA even in the
current format. It would be more then a wounder to encounter JCPOA 2.0
What occupies the fantasies of the populace does matter to the oligarchs who run the show.
If it didn't matter to the elites they would not spend so much time and energy trying to
shape those fantasies...
The elites are going to support the politicians that are most accomplished and adept at
bolstering the fantasy of the two party system and American democrazy. There is no doubt that
Donald Trump is the salesman of the year for the smoke the elites are blowing up your ass.
There is no other politician that could get 150 million americans sucked into the
fantasy.
And what that means is they will do whatever they can to make sure trump gets another four
more years.
Can't say I disagree with much of this when taken at face value, but I'd appreciate some
backing to this assertion, for which it's quite uncharacteristic of b not to provide right up
front.....if true.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
I should note, and most MoA readers will agree, that it's nearly impossible to find any
Western media organization - including erstwhile progressive outlets - who don't agree with
the alleged status quo that Maduro is a "dictator" and "has to go."
So what WOULD a Biden administration do differently? All's I can find of substance is that
they'd use sanctions in a more precise manner, not the blunt force instrument that Trump has
applied - and - that they would grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans wishing to
flee (I'd bet there's a good mix of the Mestizo and Moreno poor, as well as the trust fund
descendants of the colonial elite) to the United States whereas Trump refused or dragged his
feet to the point that it didn't matter.
I think, then, that the decisions made will be less to do with Biden being a bad man
(which, like Trump, he is), but instead all grounded in the accepted "reality" that "Maduro
must go" and there must be a "peaceful democratic transition" (back to right-wing colonialist
descendants from whom (some of) their stolen land and oil leases were stolen back under
Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. This falsehood has been cemented as truth and reality
across both sides of the U.S. political spectrum as well as that of the UK, Canada and
France: Maduro = Commie Dictator and Brutal Humanitarian Abuser. There is absolutely ZERO way
that Joe Biden would go against it in any meaningful way. He'll just do it a little less
roughly and mean spiritedly as Trump and Bush before him had done (no coups and fewer
sanctions under Obama).
This is a good article on the
intricacies of the politics of food (and resources - a good history lesson all the way
around and recommended - written in June of 2018 and looking back not only on the Chavez
years, but the colonial history that preceded him. I think it's required reading for anyone
who wants to get into a debate or discussion (here or elsewhere) about Chavez and Maduro.
Trump is war monger lite compared to Biden that is war monger/criminal heavy. Greater
chaos is coming inside and outside the US while liberals go back to sleep comfortable that
another Obama like admin is in charge.
My prediction: in the next four years it will be near impossible to paper over the
objective collapse of the US Empire of Insanity.
Biden's campaign said he "was among the first Democratic foreign policy voices to
recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader and to call for Maduro to
resign."
Even socialist Sanders, who refused to call Maduro a "dictator", is anti-Maduro:
Sanders called Maduro a "vicicious tyrant" and said there should be "international and
regional cooperation for free elections in Venezuela so that the people of that country can
make -- can create their own future."
there's plenty of countries in the world where the US will continue and/or try to regime
change legitimate governments.
some of these were already started by Mr. Hope and Change, and will continue or be ramped
up by Mr. Sleepy/Rice/Flournoy - like Ukraine, a perfect pretext to irritate Russia with. And
poor Venezuela, which both current and past administrations have attempted to strangle to
death
Some of these came to fruition under Pompeo/Haspel/Trump like Armenia (2018); and some
like Belarus have survived, so far.
some where successfully changed under Trump, like Brazil.
some were temporarily regime changed, like Bolivia (2019), but are now back in the hands
of the real Socialists and indigenous peoples.
some were successfully carried out under Obama, like in Honduras and Paraguay.
The chinese finally learned and took action in Hong Kong which is now essentially out of
the regime change column. Iran will never be regime changed either, nor Syria.
And some like Lebanon are still in play.
I expect economic sanctions/warfare to be increasingly used by this incoming democratic
administration as much as the outgoing republican.
The way for all this nefarious and despicable activity by the US and the West to end
is....??
Trump just didn't have the same amount of low hanging fruit that Obama did . . .like
Ukraine and Syria
low hanging fruit: a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little
effort.
Let's be clear that Obama's "fruit" turned out to be rotten apples (losses in Ukraine*
& Syria**), plus Mr Hope & Change foolishly sent 70,000 more troops to Afghanistan,
destroyed one of the leading countries in Africa (Libya) for no reason, threatened Iran every
fortnight with his "all options on the table" BS then did an 'agreement' with Iran that was
easily overturned,. .the list goes on.
*NATO wanted Russia's only warm-water port in Crimea, and didn't get it.
**Russia stepped in to prevent US-supported regime change
All of the linear and conventional predictions about the next administration's foreign
policy will be proven wrong, because they neglect the near-fatal deterioration of the US
economy and its social fabric in the last 4 years. In short, any return to the pre-Trump
status quo is simply impossible. That ship sailed forever.
What is pretty much guaranteed, however, is significant and irreversible ratcheting up of
economic tension between America and the rest of the world. The approach may undergo some
finessing, but substance will not only remain but acquire additional urgency. The US is in
desperate need of reducing its current account deficit, and that can't be accomplished
without more threats, more brinkmanship, and more unilateral impositions. You can say goodbye
to any prospect of international harmony, it won't happen. Sure, Democrats may attempt
softening of rhetoric at first, but it will be proven counterproductive and abandoned rather
quickly.
The only reason the Deep State brought Biden back to political life, is because he is one of
the few remaining old Cold Warriors capable of achieving normalization of relations with
Russia. It's of overarching importance at this point, as without it nothing really works for
America and all possible geopolitical equations simply fall apart right away. It's also
pretty clear that because Biden's mental and physical condition is in rapid decline, such
normalization will be proceeding at breakneck speed. Expect Biden-Putin summit in first 6
months of the inauguration, ostensibly to sign new Start Treaty or prolong the old one. After
that, "the dialogue" will kick into overdrive.
All in all, modeling next 4 years of US foreign policy based on op-ed articles in American
MSM is just silly. These are written not to enlighten but to obfuscate. Expect secret
entreaties to Moscow literally within hours of January 20, 2021.
There may be some small cookies thrown Russia's way, but that country as a serious threat
must remain. The 500,000 person US ground force, modernly equipped, depends upon it. There is
no other justification, only a "dangerous" Russia.
Look at Zionist-imperialist bitch Susan Rice berating the UN General Assembly for its
overwhelming vote in 2012 on according Palestine non-member observer status:
Just as the US must have enemies, because there's so much money in it, it must also (for
the same reason) continue to have Israel calling the signals in the Middle East.
By "low hanging fruit" (or poisoned apples), what I meant was from the PR angle.
Situations in those places - by the CIA's making or not - were being reported in the West in
such a manner so that they were more easily than usual sold as "humanitarian interventions"
to "help democracy flourish" and the like. Whereas Bush had his 9/11 and fake WMD threats
from Saddam, Obama had the "organic" "grassroots" uprisings in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Tunisia
and other places which would be used as excuses to go in and steal gold, wreck nations who
were a threat to the Franco or American post-colonial control structures, and otherwise
instill chaos, which is one major goal of EVERY U.S. intervention - especially in the ME.
But yeah, what was done to Libya, Syria and the Ukraine is unforgiveable. I'm just saying
that TPTB when Trump was in office didn't have the easy, made-for-humanitarian intervention
news stories to excuse the next round of destruction. That's one reason they had to try so
hard with Iran - going as far as designating their military and its leaders as terrorists and
all that shit so they could bomb Soleimani while he was on a diplomatic mission. Can't have
an outbreak of peace, now, can we? That is, unless it's a carefully scripted PR version of
"peace" such as what we saw recently with the gulf monarchies and Israel.
Gonna have to say target numero uno has got to be Syria. Finishing off Syria, and chasing
the Russians home will be the lynchpin to the rest of Biden's Middle East Policy. Once Syria
is collapsed into chaos and ethnic cleansing, Lebanon/Hezbollah become much easier to deal
with. Iran becomes further isolated and it's ability to project power seriously reduced. The
whole point of JCPOA IMO was a delaying tactic, keeping Iran on the back burner while Iranian
Proxies and Regional Influence are mopped up.
I expect the Mighty Media Wurlitzer of Pro-War Propaganda will soon begin spinning up and
focusing on the brutality inflicted on the moderate head-choppers by the Assad
Regime...another chemical weapons attack anyone?
The Russian presence in Syria is actually quite precarious, despite their military gains
they don't project power very efficiently beyond their borders. The Biden Regime will
therefore turn up the heat, possibly with a No-Fly Zone over both Idlib and Southern Syria/Al
Tanf in conjunction with a well armed proxy offensive backed by air-support. DNC Dems/Deep
State/NeoCon believe Russia to be bluffing and will either back down or be rolled over in
short order.
Strange IMO.
Most everyone here is talking like it will be business as usual on foreign policy.
I am not so sure. I think that Covid19 has pricked the phony bubble created after the 08/09
collapse. I know the stock market is right back and everything looks fine but I think there
is deep rot beneath.
Couple that with a lot of draws in their latest endeavours and I doubt that the machine can
keep operating with such confidence/arrogance.
Do you also remember how the 2000 presidential campaign played out? Gore was characterized
by the MSM, straight up, as an "interventionist" while Bush - eager to distance his own
foreign policy from the Balkan wars and Clinton/Gore tried to walk a fine line between
isolationism (of which he was accused) and non-interventionism.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush announced that he would pursue a
"distinctly American internationalism" in foreign policy (Bush i999a), largely in contrast
to the liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration. He initially sought to have
a foreign policy that placed greater emphasis on American national interests than on global
interests.
(look up George W. Bush and "classical realism")
So what do Trump and Bush II have in common? How about Trump and Obama? I'll tell you: The
preceding administration of the opposite political party had a history of military
interventions that were quite unpopular with the public, which was looking for a change. And
guess what Obama said when he first stepped into office. That's right - he'd pursue a
retrenchment based foreign policy dedicated to fighting existing terror threats in places and
places near where the previous administration had already placed American troops - AND to
wrap up the already existing wars. From the Atlantic's retrospective:
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Although Obama never presented himself as a pacifist
candidate, his 2007-2008 presidential campaign was predicated in part on the promise to end
the war in Iraq and properly prosecute the war in Afghanistan. In March 2008, he declared
of Iraq, "When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this
war." Later that year, he listed his first two priorities for making America safer as
"ending the war in Iraq responsibly" and "finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the
Taliban." The president also promised a foreign policy that relied more on diplomacy and
less on military might in his first inaugural address, telling his audience that "our power
grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the
force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Well before the
tumult of the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Obama famously offered to extend a hand to
those willing to unclench their fist. (there are links embedded there)
Here's what Brookings has to say:
I do not mean to overstate. Obama's presidency will not go down as a hugely positive
watershed period in American foreign policy. He ran for election in 2007 and 2008 promising
to mend the West's breach with the Islamic world, repair the nation's image abroad, reset
relations with Russia, move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, avoid "stupid wars"
while winning the "right war," combat climate change, and do all of this with a
post-partisan style of leadership that brought Americans themselves together in the
process.[1] He ran for reelection in 2012 with the additional pledges of ending the
nation's wars and completing the decimation of al Qaeda. Six years into his presidency,
almost none of these lofty aspirations has been achieved.[2] There has not been, and likely
will not be, any durable Obama doctrine of particular positive note. The recent progress
toward a nuclear deal with Iran, while preferable to any alternative if it actually
happens, is probably too limited in duration and overall effect to count as a historic
breakthrough (even if Obama shares a second Nobel Prize as a result).
And before you start to think that Trump said much different, here's a blurb from your own
article:
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we
shouldn't be involved with," Trump said. "Instead, our focus must be on defeating terrorism
and destroying ISIS, and we will."
Hence, there hasn't been a President for the last 50 years that has campaigned on, or
entered office with a PUBLIC plan to engage in foreign regime change activities. But nearly
every one of them, especially since Ronald Reagan, have had "excuses" crop up for
"humanitarian interventions" and that includes Bush II and Obama. The so-called Arab Spring
began in earnest in mid- to late 2010 and Syria and Libya were in mid to late 2011 during
their peak, at which point the U.S. and France got involved under the auspices of
"humanitarian intervention."
So more than 3 years into his first term, Obama still hadn't "started any new wars." Three
years is an incredibly short period of time when looking at history, even the history of the
United States. Trump's only been in office for about 3 years and 9 months. Nothing like the
Arab Spring has happened so far while he's been there. That is indisputable. What is also
indisputable is that Trump DID try to spark a war by assassinating General Soleimani. Whether
there was any plan AT THE TIME to end up invading Iran (a total fool's errand as you know
well), I doubt, but the goal of that assassination was to prevent an organic, non-U.S.
brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which at the very least was a threat to Trump's
precious arms sales, but also very much in line with his Zionist friendly Israel policy. At
worst, who knows, but you can't make an unchallenged assumption that Trump and his advisors
had fully thought through all possible Iranian retaliation options and concluded that there
was no way the assassination would cause Iran to do something so bad that a new war was
justified regardless of the cost. Sorry, but you just can't.
Yeah, yeah, Trump hasn't started any "new wars" but his rhetoric and public facing stated
foreign policy goals were virtually the same as Obama's. Trump just didn't get any 9/11s,
Eastern European or Middle East uprisings that would have been sufficient for him or ANY
previous president to attempt to justify "humanitarian interventions" abroad. As I've said
for a while, if he had a second term, there would have been a new war - even if it was the
"deep state" and CIA who created the astroturf casus belli.
...Trump has also unleashed a mass proto fascist movement, which is based amongst the
lowest scum of the working class, various billionaire factions, and the white suburban middle
class and small business owners.
These genies will not go back into their bottles. Neoliberal hegemony is shattered.
All of this is the result of the 1% sucking the blood of the working class for the past
four decades. 2008 was the spark. Covid was the explosion.
I see this every damn day in the US, even in a wealthy liberal city. The social fabric has
largely fallen apart. Living in the US is daily suffering, dashed hopes, sadness, and rage.
It is awful.
Biden won't have any room for major wars abroad. He might try to rebuild liberal alliances
but he won't have any capacity to overthrow Asad or Maduro or to reverse the objective trends
of global capitalism. How can he reboot US primacy if China and Asia account for 90 percent
of world economic growth?
Covid has revealed the US as a paper tiger with little institutional capacity to manage
itself or the world. It is in fact a threat to the world.
Biden and his neoliberal coterie will act like arrogant pricks. They are arrogant pricks.
But we can laugh at them. They have a limited shelf life.
Well of course it will be awful. There has never been an administration in American
history that hasn't been awful on foreign policy. We've always been an empire.
Biden will find a world different than the one he remembers from four years ago. The
blustering incompetence of the Trump administration was the world's cue to move on. And the
empire now has a lot of issues in the home territory that need immediate and drastic
attention.
Few empires survive long after being forced to turn inward after a long period of
expansion. We're beyond things that can papered better with a glorious little war.
Biden likely takes power with a collapsed health care sector and a real economy of misery
for most. He'll have a federal government riddled wholly unqualified ideologues in a country
that went ahead and delegitimized it's own elections for one man's vanity. Where half the
country doesn't believe in the virus that crushed the health care system and wrecked the
economy. It will all be terrible because the US has reached the historical point where
terrible describes all the options.
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises
some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power
in America is for real and it is something that some Jews
are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it
functions. If you're an American (
or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and
nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election
when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on.
If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your
understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the
interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S.
Congress or White House.
And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you
must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You
behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully,
if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.
It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted
and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul
Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and
voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia
Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to
stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights
and a critic of Israeli brutality.
He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the
military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared
to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is
opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the
movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel
and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues
being promoted by the Zionist lobby.
There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior
Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor
famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their
support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just
how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating
insider tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the
Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside
the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will
no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate
and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a
recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is
entitled
The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to
limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example,
how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for
Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it
impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."
Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by
Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several
occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama
just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for
Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of
the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly
confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist
to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing
views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the
Obama presidency."
And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running
full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it
operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions
to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported
the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way
for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."
Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of
the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming
Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be
possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign
country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States
does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called
"special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any
other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include
funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening
Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Threat inflation is like Apple pie among Washington swamp national security parasites
Notable quotes:
"... The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist. ..."
"... Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of "threat-size" . . . ..."
Applying any logic to the "threats" against the US "national security" AKA world hegemony
becomes much simpler with recognizing two simple facts:
1. The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no
diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist.
2. Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of
"threat-size" . . .
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, & African
"terrorists" -- did I miss anyone?
US president-elect Joe Biden's approach to diplomacy is diametrically opposed to that of the outgoing Donald Trump, known as he
was to levy undiplomatic salvos at foreign leaders via social media. But one shouldn't expect a wholesale revamp in substance
when the veteran Democrat takes office in January. FRANCE 24 takes a closer look at Biden's foreign policy agenda.
ADVERTISING
The former
US
vice
president brings a wealth of foreign policy experience, expertise and, not insignificantly, genuine interest in global affairs
to the White House. The Democrat served as chair of the
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
, readily making
trips
to Iraq and Afghanistan
to gather the facts on the ground, prior to spending eight years as President
Barack
Obama
's right-hand man from 2009 to early 2017.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday reflected fondly on her regular meetings with VP
Biden
under
Obama. "He knows Germany and Europe well. I remember good encounters and conversations with him," Merkel said as she
underlined Biden's "decades of experience in foreign policy" and "very warmly" congratulated him on his election win.
The transatlantic conversation is indeed likely to mellow amid a promised early flurry of multilateral moves on Biden's part
that dovetail with key European priorities and reverse the sorts of
Trump
manoeuvres
that boggled European capitals.
Biden
has
said
his foreign agenda would "place the United States back at the head of the table, in a position to work with its
allies and partners to mobilise collective action on global threats". The operative word there may be "table" -- Biden recognises
there should be one. After four years of "America First", with the erratic Trump toppling proverbial roundtables with an
iconoclastic flourish, Biden will be conspicuous about putting the pieces back together.
"For 70 years, the United States, under Democratic and Republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules,
forging the agreements, and animating the institutions that guide relations among nations and advance collective security and
prosperity -- until Trump," Biden wrote in a Foreign Affairs piece last spring that
reads
like a foreign policy manifesto
. "If we continue his abdication of that responsibility, then one of two things will
happen: either someone else will take the United States' place, but not in a way that advances our interests and values, or no
one will, and chaos will ensue. Either way, that's not good for America."
Biden says he will rejoin the
Paris
Climate Agreement
"on day one" and, "in his first 100 days in office", he will convene a global summit on climate to press
the world's top carbon-emitters to join the US in making national pledges more ambitious than the ones they made in the French
capital back in 2015.
On the campaign trail, the president-elect also pledged to rejoin the
World
Health Organization
on his first day in office -- after Trump eschewed and quit the Geneva-based institution in the midst of
the
Covid-19
global
public health crisis. "Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health," Biden reasons.
During his first year in office, the president-elect has also pledged to host "a global Summit for Democracy to renew the
spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the Free World". The gathering's stated aim is to obtain commitments toward
fighting corruption, countering authoritarianism, notably through election security, and advancing human rights globally.
Biden has also pledged to rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council.
As a presidential candidate, Biden stumped for renewing America's support
NATO
,
calling his country's commitment to the 70-year-old political and military alliance "sacred, not transactional", in contrast
to his predecessor's vision of the body as a protection club with dues.
"NATO is at the very heart of the United States' national security, and it is the bulwark of the liberal democratic ideal -- an
alliance of values, which makes it far more durable, reliable, and powerful than partnerships built by coercion or cash," the
lifelong transatlanticist wrote. Cue the sigh of relief in Baltic capitals.
Countering 'Russian aggression'
Naturally, part of Biden's argument for bolstering NATO is the message it will send
Moscow
.
"To counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliance's military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to
take on nontraditional threats, such as weaponised corruption, disinformation, and cyber-theft," Biden explained in Foreign
Affairs.
He was vice president in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, sinking ties between Moscow and Washington to a
post-Cold War low.
Observers note that Washington has not been complacent with Moscow in the intervening years, imposing sanctions on Russia
during Trump's term in office even as the man behind the desk in the Oval Office seemed keen to look the other way. But under
Biden, the mixed message of friendliness to Vladimir Putin conveyed by Trump -- who declined to address such affronts as the
bounties Moscow allegedly put on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan -- will likely be a thing of the past.
"We must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with Russian civil society, which has
bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system," Biden has pledged.
Despite his wariness of Moscow, Biden has promised to pursue an extension of the New START Treaty, which his campaign called
"an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia" and use that nuclear arms reduction agreement as a
foundation for future arms control arrangements.
Coalescing allies to confront China
Biden sees
China
,
meanwhile, as the most pertinent threat to US interests long-term, a stance that enjoys rare relative bipartisan agreement in
Washington, meaning the shift on relations with Beijing will primarily be one of tone and method.
Biden has slammed China for stealing US firms' technology and intellectual property and for giving its state-owned firms an
unfair advantage with subsidies.
Instead of addressing US concerns unilaterally as Trump has, Biden has proposed building a coalition of allies to confront
China where the nations disagree (unfair commercial practices, human rights abuses) and to engage in cooperation where it is
needed (climate issues, global public health, nonproliferation, not least vis-à-vis North Korea).
"On its own, the United States represents about a quarter of global GDP. When we join together with fellow democracies, our
strength more than doubles. China can't afford to ignore more than half the global economy," wrote Biden in Foreign Affairs.
"That gives us substantial leverage to shape the rules of the road on everything from the environment to labour, trade,
technology, and transparency, so they continue to reflect democratic interests and values," he reasoned.
The Delaware Democrat has blasted Trump's propensity for designating imports from the European Union and Canada, America's
"closest allies", as national security threats, damaging long-entrenched relationships with "reckless tariffs".
"By cutting us off from the economic clout of our partners, Trump has kneecapped our country's capacity to take on the real
economic threat," he wrote, pointing to China.
No more 'forever wars' in the Middle East
Biden has pledged to "re-enter" the Iran nuclear deal, "negotiated by the Obama-Biden administration alongside our allies and
other world powers" -- namely France, Germany, the UK, the EU, China and Russia. He credits the accord with having blocked
Iran
from
obtaining a nuclear weapon and blames Trump's decision to cast it aside for prompting Iran to rekindle its nuclear ambitions
and adopt a more provocative stance. Biden has pledged to rejoin the agreement "if Tehran returns to compliance" and use
"hard-nosed diplomacy and support from our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against
Iran's other destabilising activities".
Meanwhile, the former vice-president has also said he would "end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen".
Although he has said Trump's unilateral approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made the two-state solution for
Israel that Biden backs more difficult, he has said he
would
keep the embassy
Trump moved to Jerusalem in 2018 where it is. Biden has welcomed the normalising of relations the Trump
administration helped negotiate
between
Israel and Gulf states
in recent months.
The Democrat has pledged to sustain "an ironclad commitment to Israel's security". He has also cautioned the country over its
treatment of the Palestinian territories,
saying
earlier this year
, "Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off
any hope of peace."
In terms of US military commitments in the region, Biden has advocated bringing home the vast majority of American troops in
the Middle East and Afghanistan, in favour of narrowing the focus to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State group. He wants to end the
"forever wars" the US has waged in the region.
Daily newsletter
Receive essential international news every morning
"We must maintain our focus on counter-terrorism, around the world and at home, but staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts
drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention, and it prevents us from rebuilding the other
instruments of American power," he wrote in Foreign Affairs.
No hard-border Brexit
It would be a misnomer to count
Brexit
as
among Biden's hot-button policy issues. Indeed, while Trump ally Boris Johnson and his Conservative leadership in London once
looked forward to negotiating an "ambitious" post-Brexit trade deal with the US, neither Biden's campaign website's outline of
his foreign policy priorities nor the former vice president's quasi-manifesto in Foreign Affairs makes any mention of the
United Kingdom per se or its divorce proceedings from the EU. What is clear is that Biden is not poised to cater to the
so-called "Special Relationship" at any cost.
"We can't allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit," the
president-elect, a noted Irish-American,
tweeted
in September
. "Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the
return of a hard border. Period."
Not quite Twitter diplomacy as Trump might conduct it, but the president-elect's sentiment won't have escaped Downing Street's
attention as it turns the page on Europe.
Independent commentator Caitlin Johnstone is raining on the parade of Liberals and
Progressives who are hailing "barriers being broken" merely because Joe Biden is expected to
pick a woman for the top Pentagon post in a historic first, blasting
the spectacle as "Imperialism in Pumps" given presumed top choice Michele Flournoy hails
from deep within the heart of the hawkish military-industrial complex .
"President-elect Joe Biden is expected to take a historic step and select a woman to head
the Pentagon for the first time, shattering one of the few remaining barriers to women in the
department and the presidential Cabinet," the
Associated Press reported gushingly this weekend.
Seen as a steady hand who favors strong military cooperation abroad , Flournoy, 59, has
served multiple times in the Pentagon, starting in the 1990s and most recently as the
undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012. She serves on the board of Booz Allen
Hamilton , a defense contractor...
This word "moderate" which the AP news agency keeps bleating is of course complete
nonsense. Standing in the middle ground between two corporatist warmongering parties does not
make you a moderate, it makes you a corporatist warmonger. Flournoy is no more "moderate"
than the "moderate rebels" in Syria which mass media outlets like AP praised for years until
it became undeniable that they were largely Al Qaeda affiliates ; the
only reason such a position can be portrayed as mainstream and moderate is because vast
fortunes have been poured into making it that way.
She highlights the nauseating spectacle of MSNBC and others attempting to frame it as a
great achievement for feminism:
"White progressives training their fire on women and women of color who are under
consideration to lead the nat sec departments makes me deeply uncomfortable about their
allyship for those communities," tweeted MSNBC contributor
Mieke Eoyang. "Especially when the nat sec community is dominated by white men."
It's only going to get dumber from here, folks.
Let's clear this up before the girl power parade starts: the first woman to head the US
war machine will not be a groundbreaking pioneer of feminist achievement. She will be a mass
murderer who wears Spanx. Her appointment will not be an advancement for women, it will be
imperialism in pumps.
Glenn Greenwald also pointed out the obvious in terms of what's really going on here,
deriding "the neoliberal scam of exploiting identity politics" .
Greenwald came under attack for so much as daring to question Flournoy's potential
appointment on the mere basis that one supposedly can't possibly question the choice when
"barriers are being broken" (and nevermind that a woman, Gina Haspel, currently runs the most
powerful spy agency in the world).
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Greenwald wrote of this tactic: "It belongs as a Hall of Fame exhibit showing why Democratic
Party neoliberals and militarists are indescribably deceitful and repulsive."
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all of Obama's more aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors
to profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop artificial intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New
American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec Advisors.
Nicholas Burns
was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2008, he
has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director and
Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
Samantha Power
served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National Security Council.
She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S.'s "crippling sanctions" on Iran and
North Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, the climate crisis, mass extinction, and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5 percent of their budget), trying to
clean up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism, and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the No. 2 position at the State
Department, and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As
Under Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a
prescient and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the No. 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome, and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea, and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs (or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine, or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats).
But this will be a long two years if we let Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on
critical appointments, policies, and legislation. Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be
an early test of whether Biden will be the consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight
for real solutions to our country's most serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas.
If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still
believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign
policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be
undermined by four more years of war, hostility, and international tensions -- and our most
serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School
of Law, and is author of the recently-released No More
War: How the West Violates International Law by Using "Humanitarian" Intervention to Advance
Economic and Strategic Interests. You might have noticed something curious following
Biden's apparent election win – liberal politicians and media are sounding the alarm that
Trump may use his remaining months in office to draw down our troops from Afghanistan.
For example, the New York Times ran a piece on
November 12 claiming that " both in Kabul and Washington, officials with knowledge of
security briefings said there was fear that President Trump might try to accelerate an all-out
troop withdrawal in his final days in office " before the more "responsible" Biden can take
over and try to stop or at least slow this. It is clear now that it is the liberal
establishment, and the Democratic Party, which is more wedded to war than their counterparts
across the aisle, and that should be disturbing to people hoping for progressive change with
the incoming Administration.
First of all, we must start with this discussion with the undisputed fact that our leaders
do not know, and have not known for some time, what the US' goals and strategy in Afghanistan
even are. One would be forgiven for not knowing, or for forgetting this fact because the
incontrovertible evidence of it – the so-called "
Afghanistan Papers " – received scant and only momentary attention when they were
exposed last year by the Washington Post.
As these documents, consisting of interviews with hundreds of insiders responsible for
prosecuting the war show, the American public was intentionally lied to about the alleged "
progress " of this war, even as our leaders were unsure what " progress "
meant.
As the Washington Post noted, the US government never even decided who it was really
fighting there: " Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an
adversary? What about Islamic State and the bewildering array of foreign jihadists, let alone
the warlords on the CIA's payroll? According to the documents, the US government never settled
on an answer ." Almost to a person, everyone involved in this morass agreed that the
billions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, have been in vain. It has all been a
colossal waste.
Now, however, we are being told to panic that Trump may end this disastrous conflict. For
example, the quite liberal and almost blatantly pro-Biden news outlet, National Public Radio
(NPR) ran segments all last week about
female soccer teams in Afghanistan. The message of these segments was clear – these
soccer teams are (allegedly) proof of women's advances in Afghanistan as a result of the US'
intervention since 2001, and these advances are in jeopardy if Trump ends this
intervention.
Such manipulative stories of course obscure the real fact that the US has been undermining
women's rights in Afghanistan since it began intervening there in 1979, and Afghanistan
still
ranks at the very bottom of all countries for women's rights. But there is no doubt that
such stories will warm the hearts of many Biden supporters to continue war there.
Meanwhile, it is not only Afghanistan which is the focus of the liberal enthusiasm for war.
Thus, as the Grayzone
has reported , Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressionally-appointed Syria
Study Group, recently outlined the plans for even deeper US intervention in Syria – an
intervention which Trump has at least paid lip service to ending.
Specifically, Stroul emphasized that " one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US
military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces, " that this territory
happened to be the richest in Syria in terms of oil and agriculture, and that the US would
intensify its intervention in and against Syria to keep its control of this territory and its
resources. Of course, taking over other nations' resources is a violation of international law,
including the Geneva Conventions prohibition against "plunder," but that seems to be of no
concern.
The liberal media is also elated by the prospect of a Biden White House being more
aggressive in its foreign policy towards both Russia and China.
As CNBC explains
, " Now there is likely to be a change in the air when it comes to U.S.-Russia relations. At
the very least, analysts told CNBC before the result that they expected a Biden win to increase
tensions between Washington and Moscow, and to raise the probability of new sanctions on
Russia...Experts from risk consultancy Teneo Intelligence said they expected more cooperation
between Biden and Europe on global issues such as 'countering China, Russia' ."
While one might think that increased tensions with two major nuclear powers would not be a
welcome development, years of the false Russiagate narrative have groomed liberals for such
tensions.
Incredibly, Trump has been portrayed as being soft on Russia, even as he backed out of a
major
anti-proliferation treaty (The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) which had been
signed with the Kremlin back in 1987, and even as he
sent the largest contingent of US troops (20,000) in a quarter of a century to train with
European soldiers on the Russian border. I must note here that the converse – Russia's
sending tens of thousands of troops to the border with the US – is simply inconceivable
and would indeed be seen in Washington as an occasion for war. I, for one, am quite alarmed to
think of what a Biden policy of "getting tougher" with Russia would look like, and what kind of
catastrophe it could bring about.
Regretfully, I now live in a country in which liberals outflanking conservatives in terms of
their tolerance and even eagerness for aggression and war, especially when that aggression and
war is being led by officials who, as I'm sure we will see in the new Biden Administration,
happen to be women or people of color. For the first time recently, I have seen the concept of
"intersectional imperialism" being used to describe this situation, and I believe this to be a
very real phenomenon; to be but another means of making war that much easier to swallow for
broad swaths of the American public.
The irony, of course, is that the bombs dropped by the US in war, no matter who happens to
be in charge of the US government at the time, disproportionately fall upon women and children
of a darker skin hue, and they maim and kill just as much as those dropped by old white male
Republicans. Sadly, few seem to understand or care about this.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
benalls 31 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:27 AM
It's not the "left" or "right", republicans or democrats, but a new American movement,,,,
CBM,,, wich usually means 'silent but deadly' but in this case it stands for "CEO's Bonus
Matters" . The movement congressional members from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing vowed to
support. Its time for us to grab our shields, helmets, and frozen water bottles and travel to
a new neighborhood to loot and burn. Israel has given Harris and JOJO their instructions.
razzims 49 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:10 AM
same ol empire of chaos and their eternal war. no matter which party wins election
HypoxiaMasks 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 09:42 AM
Other than the Bush and lil Bush, every war from the beginning of the 20th century was
started with a Democrat president. Tell me again how the Republicans are the party of war
MarkG1964 5 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:54 AM
The democrats and republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Worth the Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War is a documentary short
reviewing the role of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in leading the United States into the most
devastating foreign policy blunder of the last twenty years.
Produced and directed by Mark
Weisbrot and narrated by Danny
Glover , the film features archival footage, as well as policy experts who provide insight
and testimony with regard to Joe Biden's role as the Chair of the United States Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations in 2002.
Lawrence Wilkerson
, Former Chief of Staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell; Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary;
U.S. Army Colonel, Retired
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vhcuei8_UJM
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The possibility of eased sanctions with Iran, while extremely important, is not guaranteed
and will be offset by Biden's own commitment to imperialist plunder in the region. One cannot
forget that Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars
from two to seven. In eight years, Biden assisted in the
coup of Honduras , the overthrow of Libya , and
the ongoing proxy
war in Syria . Biden's commitment to the WHO should not negate his firm opposition to any
single-payer model of healthcare and the large sums of
money he receives from the very healthcare industry which has ensured the U.S. is without a
public health system all together.
"Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars from two to seven."
Biden and the Democratic Party are joint partners with the GOP in the facilitation of the
ongoing Race to the Bottom for the working class. Wall Street
donated heavily to Biden with full knowledge that his administration will continue to
support the right of corporations to drive down wages, increase productivity (exploitation),
and concentrate capital in fewer and fewer hands. Boeing's CEO stated clearly clear that his
business prospects would be served
regardless of who won the election . Prison stocks rose after Biden announced Kamala Harris
as his
vice president . On November 4th, Reuters announced that the lords of capital were
quite pleased that
no major policy changes were likely under the new political regime elected to Congress and
the Oval Office.
Biden will inevitably rule as a rightwing neoconservative in all areas of policy. His big
tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as large as Hillary
Clinton's in 2016. Over 100 former GOP war hawks of the national security state endorsed
Biden in the closing weeks of the election. Larry Summers, a chief architect of the
2007-2008 economic crisis,
advised his campaign . Susan Rice and Michele Flournoy are likely to join Biden's
foreign policy team -- a key indication that trillions will continue to be spent on
murderous wars abroad.
The question remains whether Biden can effectively govern like prior Democratic Party
administrations. American exceptionalism is the Democratic Party's ideological base, but this
ideology is entangled in the general crisis of legitimacy afflicting the U.S. state. Biden's
ability to forward a project of "decency" that restores the "soul of the nation" is hampered by
his attitude that "nothing will fundamentally change" for the rich. Biden also lacks charisma
and talent. While millions were ready to vote for anyone and anything not named Donald Trump,
four years of austerity and war under a president with obvious signs of cognitive decline is
guaranteed to sharpen the contradictions of the rule of the rich and open the potential for
further unrest on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.
"Biden's big tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as
large as Hillary Clinton's in 2016."
To maintain social peace, Biden will use the Oval Office to consolidate its corporate forces
to suffocate left wing forces inside and outside of the Democratic Party. The graveyard of
social movements will expand to occupy the largest plot of political territory as possible. A
"moderate" revolution will be declared for the forces of progress in the ruling class. Perhaps
the best that can be summoned from a Biden administration is the advancement of consciousness
that the Democratic Party is just as opposed to social democracy and the interests of the
working classes as Republicans. Plenty of opportunities exist to challenge the intransigence of
the Democrats but just as many obstacles will be thrown in the way of any true exercise of
people's power.
The 2020 election is yet another reminder that social movements must become the focus of
politics, not the electoral process. This is where an internationalist vision of politics is
especially important. Social movements in Bolivia returned their socialist party to power after
a year living under a U.S.-backed coup. Massive grassroots mobilizations in Cuba, Vietnam, and
China contained the COVID-19 pandemic in a matter of months. Ethiopia and Eritrea have agreed
to forge peace rather than wage war. The winds of progress have been blowing toward the Global
South for more than a century. The most progressive changes that have ever occurred in the U.S.
have been a combined product of the mass organization of the U.S.' so-called internal colonies
such as Black America and the external pressures placed on the U.S. empire by movements for
self-determination abroad.
The 2020 election has come and gone. What we know is that Biden is a repudiation of
revolutionary change. Humanity will suffer many losses even if more of the oppressed and
working masses become aware of Biden and the DNC's hostile class interests. Trump was rejected
by a corporate-owned electoral process just as Clinton was rejected in 2016. Politics in the
U.S. remain confined to the narrow ideological possibilities offered by neoliberalism and
imperial decay. Oppressed people must create and embrace a politics that take aim at the forces
of reaction currently pushing humanity to the brink of total destruction. The only way this can
happen is if Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party become the primary target of the
people's fight for a new world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Danny Haiphong is co-coordinator of the Black Alliance for Peace Supporter Network and
organizer with No Cold War. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American
Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News–From the
Revolutionary War to the War on Terror (Skyhorse Publishing). His articles are re-published
widely as well as on Patreon at patreon.com/dannyhaiphong. He is also the co-host with BAR
Editor Margaret Kimberley of the Youtube show BAR Presents: The Left Lens and can be reached on
Twitter @spiritofho, and email at [email protected].
Elephants in the Room: Why Do America and Britain Commit War Crimes? Neoliberalism and
Predatory CapitalismPart II By Rod Driver Global Research, November 15,
2020 Region: Europe ,
USA Theme: History ,
US NATO War
Agenda
"I spent 33 years being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American Sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."(1) (Major-General Smedley D. Butler,
1931 , US Marine Corps)
Once people understand the extent of the crimes of the US and British governments, the next
question they ask themselves is 'Why?'
The quote above shows clearly that US war and economic exploitation are two sides of the
same coin. Military aggression by rich nations often supports the economic interests of a small
number of the world's wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations. Decisions about
wars and decisions about how the world's trading system is structured are each made by a small
number of powerful people.
This includes not only politicians, but also senior executives in industry, particularly
banking, oil, mining, food and weapons. Most of these people live in the world's advanced
nations, particularly the US. I shall use the phrase 'Western elites' to refer to these people.
Some of these elites have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to make sure that their position
of power and wealth in the world is maintained. In 1948 the US had only 6% of the world's
population but 50% of the world's wealth. A US official stated at the time that their aim was
"to maintain this position of disparity"(2). As will become clear throughout these posts, the
views of US planners have changed little in the last 70 years.
Control of Resources and Trade
What is important in the minds of Western elites can be summed up by the phrase 'control of
resources and trade'. This is a shorthand way of summarising a number of connected ideas.
Resources include things like land, oil, minerals, crops and human labor. Rich countries want
poor countries to allow global corporations to extract and process these resources, and to take
them overseas, without too much interference from national governments, whatever the downsides
for local people. Rich countries also want poor countries to have economic systems that will
allow global corporations to dominate trade, buying and selling in order to make substantial
profits, without being too restricted by local laws. Again, this applies even where there are
downsides for local people.
Western elites therefore want leaders in other countries who will implement the 'right'
economic system. This means a particularly exploitative version of capitalism, sometimes called
neoliberalism or predatory capitalism, including widespread privatisation, weaker regulations
for big companies, and decreases in government expenditure, known as austerity. (These economic
policies will be discussed in more detail in later posts). The global financial and trade
system is manipulated deliberately and systematically to create this outcome. This might sound
like a conspiracy, but it does not really work that way. Provided everyone just plays their
part (corporate executives and bankers pursue profit, politicians make laws that favor
corporations, and trade negotiators from rich countries try to create trading agreements that
benefit their corporations), the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Blocking Independent Development
If leaders in other countries want to determine their own economic systems, this is known as
independent development. This does not mean that a country cuts itself off from the rest of the
world, or does not engage in trade. It simply means that the leaders of a country refuse to
implement neoliberal economic policies that allow corporations from rich countries to dominate
their economies, to plunder their resources, or to exploit their people. Western elites have
tried very hard to block independent development, because it limits their control. Leaders who
object to being exploited by rich nations can be overthrown and replaced, often causing
devastating consequences for their people, particularly the poor. The new leaders are often
referred to as US clients. They usually cooperate with the US because this helps them gain
power and wealth in their own country. Getting these rulers into power can be quite tricky.
Techniques range from manipulating elections right up to full-scale military invasion.
US Dominance
The US in particular has two other key goals. It wants to maintain a global financial system
based around the US dollar, and it would like to ensure that no other country becomes strong
enough, either militarily or economically, to be a rival. In 2018 the US announced that its
main focus was no longer on the 'war on terror', but would focus on "inter-state strategic
competition"(3), meaning Russia and China.
Whenever the reasons for a war are discussed in the mainstream, there is a tendency to look
for a single explanatory factor. In practice there tend to be a cluster of factors, often
connected to each other, that all push in the same direction. As well as the reasons discussed
above, there are plenty of big corporations that frequently benefit from war. This includes the
weapons industry, financial companies, private military contractors (mercenaries), oil and
minerals companies, and more recently many companies that win contracts to participate in the
reconstruction process in war zones.(4)
The Importance of Oil
Oil in the Middle East has been described as
"a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the great material prizes in world
history."(5)
Without oil, most advanced economies would grind to a halt. Of all the resources that
American leaders want to control, by far the most important is oil. Their control of oil is not
so much about wanting it all for themselves. It is more about being able to deny it to
others.(6) Anything that a country cannot produce for itself, but needs badly, can be used as a
means of control. A shortage of oil for a country such as China would make life very difficult
for them. This is the main reason that the major wars of the 21 st century have been
in oil rich regions. Specific motives relating to recent wars will be discussed in later
posts.
How Do We Know The Real Reasons For British and US Wars
Until 2006 it was difficult to know what politicians and government decision-makers were
really saying to each other about their reasons for wars and other activities. The government
kept many files secret in order to hide their crimes. In the UK we had to wait for 30 years
(this has now been reduced to 20 years) until some of these files became declassified. During
that period, we had to rely on the word of politicians and journalists for information. The
declassified files show that politicians often lie, particularly about their reasons for war,
and that mainstream media are not sufficiently questioning.(7) Time and again, the mainstream
media would show clips of Prime Ministers and Presidents saying 'We want peace', while those
same individuals were responsible for major wars. The files also show that Politicians use
concepts like 'national security' or 'official secrets' to cover up their crimes.
In 2006 a man named Julian Assange set up a new organisation called Wikileaks. This enabled
whistleblowers (people who witness criminal or unethical activity, usually by their employers)
to make information available to the public without their identity becoming known. Millions of
documents were given to Wikileaks exposing widespread war crimes by the British and US
governments, and widespread criminal activity by other governments and big companies. All of
these documents are available online and can be examined by anyone.(8)
Key Points
US and British wars are about control of trade and resources in other countries.
Of all the resources that the US wants to control, oil is the most important.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking
modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the second in a series entitled Elephants In The
Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what's really going on in
relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream
media.
A pair of progressive House Democrats is urging President-elect Joe Biden not to nominate a Pentagon chief who has
previously worked for a defense contractor.
"Respectfully, and in full agreement with your past statements, we write to request that the
next secretary of Defense have no prior employment history with a defense contractor," Reps.
Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
wrote in a letter to Biden released Thursday.
Pocan is the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Lee is the caucus's
chairwoman emeritus.
Flournoy's career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the
Pentagon and consulting firms that help businesses procure Pentagon contracts. In 2018, she
joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, an IT company that played an important role in Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman's 2015 drive to consolidate power. Booz Allen employs dozens of
retired American military personnel to train the Saudi Navy and provide logistics for the
Saudi Army. They deny helping the Saudi war in Yemen, and if you believe that
It's true – we probably won't like anyone appointed to Secretary of Defense.
But we must firmly oppose the fundamental conflict of interest that occurs when the official
selected to oversee the Defense Department is beholden to the same companies that stand to
gain enormous profit under their tenure. We oppose Michele Flournoy and any candidate for
Secretary of Defense with ties to revolving doors of the Pentagon because when the military
contractors calls the shots, we get:
The sale of even more weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, further fueling those
repressive regimes and their war on Yemen
More money wasted on the Pentagon – despite the country being in dire need of
resources to combat the pandemic, stop climate change, and guarantee universal
healthcare
An escalation of the US's reckless cold war with China – which could turn into a
hot war, endangering millions of people around the globe
More drones, more money for weapons contractors, more violence and more death, at home
and abroad.
With this new administration and new progressive voices in Congress – Cori Bush and
Jamaal Bowman, for example – we have a real chance to prioritize peace over war. We
already have efforts in the works to finally end U.S. support for the war on Yemen, slash the
Pentagon budget, de-escalate the growing conflict with China, and advocate for a New Good
Neighbor Policy in Latin America. But these campaigns for peace, especially the work to end
the war in Yemen, could be in serious trouble if Michele Flournoy, or anyone who shuffles
between the revolving doors of the Pentagon and military contractors, is appointed to lead
the Department of Defense. Tell
Congress: Americans don't want someone who has supported the war in Yemen running the US
military! Don't support Michele Flournoy or any candidate with ties to military companies as
Secretary of Defense!
We knew we'd have to hit the ground running with a Biden presidency, and it looks like our
first urgent call to action is here. Contact your
Senators now!
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it "the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might just
benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
Many of the president-elect's potential picks for foreign policy positions -- including
Susan Rice and Michele Flourney -- have onlookers worried. "With a Biden administration, we can
expect a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria.
Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen, but judging by his potential cabinet picks,
that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists
in Washington," Dave
DeCamp , assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress . "His administration will
likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire, with a more diplomatic and
coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China."
Rice, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under
Obama, has amassed a fortune of around $40
million . After leaving office, she was given a spot on the board of Netflix, being paid
$366,666 as a base salary. On top of that, she was given $2.3 million worth of the company's
stock. However, it is her husband, former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron
(whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist), who is the prime source of her wealth. She
was a key driver in U.S. action in Libya, and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher
sanctions on North Korea and Iran.
Flournoy, meanwhile, was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the
Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. After "serving the
country," she received lucrative consulting contracts, joined corporate boards, and began her
own security think tank, WestExec Advisors. By 2017, she was making a reported $452,000
annually.
"Certainly the possible selection of Michele Flournoy and other WestExec advisors people is
concerning," Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told
MintPress .
This isn't just because of their corporate/financial ties, though of course that's
alarming -- can we be sure that people whose private sector career involved leveraging their
government experience and contacts to help multinationals secure favorable business
conditions will have their intentions calibrated toward good policy and not to their private
sector career?"
"Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict, but again, words are only so much. It's
highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the
voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia (during the Yemen
conflict), under certain conditions, as they have a right to protect themselves. This speaks
volumes," said Mariamne
Everett of the Institute for Public
Accuracy . Rice and Flournoy, she added, were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq
War, which does not bode well for those concerned with peace.
Marcetic agreed, noting that, while in office, Flourney was "a major liberal
interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world, but has also
publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global
dominance," something which would be a "disaster for containing climate
catastrophe."
The recycling of old faces (many of them considerably richer than before) into the new
administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy, and more in the
way of continuation. Biden himself has largely acknowledged this, tweeting , "When I'm speaking to
foreign leaders, I'm telling them: America is going to be back. We're going to be back in the
game." To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs, these words will
likely not comfort them . DeCamp suggested that there will be no great difference in policy
between Trump and Biden administrations:
Despite Trump being painted as an 'isolationist,' his administration has actually
expanded NATO, shored up the support of some Asian countries to counter China, and
significantly increased Washington's military footprint in the Pacific. Biden will continue
this as he made clear in recent phone calls with Asian leaders and his tough talk on China's
claims to the South China Sea during the last presidential debate."
Flournoy meets with Afghan Army personnel during a tour of the Kabul Military Training
Center Aug. 7, 2010. Photo | DVIDS
Everett offered a similar analysis, suggesting that, with pro-Israel zealots like Rice
advising him, the Biden administration would "expand" on what Trump had done in Palestine as
well. Meanwhile, for Latin America, his foreign policy team intends
to revive the so-called "anti-corruption drives" of the Obama era, which ultimately overthrew
an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair
Bolsonaro.
Marcetic suggested that Biden would attempt to rejoin many of the international treaties and
organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of, including NATO and
the Paris Climate Agreement.
I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," continuing genocidal sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela,
ongoing treatment of Latin America as an American fiefdom, and militarism and conflict
continuing to be the dominant organising principle of U.S. foreign policy, rather than, say,
co-operation and stopping climate change," he added.
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden
will have "the most diverse, intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled." If
representation is important, it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life
will have a seat at the negotiating table. However, judging by Biden's wealthy picks, it
appears that yet again, no one will be representing the great majority of working-class
Americans.
To those watching the drama unfolding in Washington, DC around the stalled efforts on the
part of nominal President-elect Joe Biden in forming a transition team, the parallels are
eerily familiar: a bitterly contested election between an establishment political figure and a
brash DC 'outsider', a controversial outcome delaying the implementation of the transition
between administrations, and an openly condescending atmosphere where the incoming team
postured as comprising a return to 'adult' leadership.
That time was December 2000, when a Republican team led by President-elect George W. Bush
stood ready to install a cabinet composed of veteran spies, diplomats, and national security
managers who had cut their policy teeth during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush. With Colin Powell as secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense,
George Tenet as director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice as national security
advisor, the foreign policy and national security team that Dubya surrounded himself with upon
assuming the presidency was as experienced a team as one could imagine.
And yet, within two years of assuming their responsibilities, this team of 'adults' had
presided over the worst terrorist attack in American history, and the initiation of two wars
(in Afghanistan and Iraq) that would forever change both the geopolitical map of the world and
America's role as world leader.
Twenty years later, the roles have reversed, with an experienced team of veteran 'adults'
hailing from the eight-year tenure of President Barack Obama preparing to transition the US
away from four tumultuous years of the presidency of Donald J. Trump. While Biden has not
finalized his foreign policy and national security team, there is a consensus among experienced
political observers about who the top contenders might be for the 'big four' foreign and
national security policy positions in his administration.
While there is no doubting the experience and professional credentials of these potential
nominees, they all have one thing in common: a proclivity for military intervention on the part
of the US. For anyone who hoped that a Biden administration might complete the task begun by
President Trump of leading America out of the 'forever wars' initiated by the 'adults' of the
administration of George W. Bush, these choices represent a wake-up call that this will not be
the likely outcome.
Moreover, a potential Biden cabinet would more than likely complement the existing
predilection on the part of the president-elect for military intervention, pointing to a
foreign and national security policy which not only sustains the existing conflicts in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, but increases the likelihood of additional military
misadventures. The Biden team will almost certainly seek to shoehorn the president-elect's
aggressive "America is back" philosophy into a geopolitical reality that is not inclined to
accept such a role sitting down.
So who's likely to fill what role?
Secretary of State
The hands-on favorite here is Susan Rice, who served as both national security advisor and
US ambassador to the United Nations under Barack Obama. Biden knows her very well, and they
have a great working relationship. With a history of promoting US intervention in Syria and
Libya, Rice would more than likely support any policy suggestions concerning a re-engagement by
the US in Syria in an effort to contain and/or overthrow Bashar al-Assad, and would be reticent
to withdraw US forces from either Afghanistan or Iraq.
She would also most likely seek hardline 'confrontational' policies designed to 'roll-back'
Russian influence in Europe and the Middle East, as well as China's claims regarding the South
China Sea. Rice would seek to strengthen the military aspects of NATO to better position that
organization against Russia in Europe, and China in the Pacific.
A Rice nomination could run afoul of a Republican-controlled Senate, where a source close to
the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has noted that a "
Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees " but would oppose "radical
progressives" or ones who are controversial among conservatives.
While Rice is not a "radical progressive," the Republicans continue to condemn her actions
while serving as the US ambassador to the UN in response to the 2012 terrorist attack on the US
Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans – including the US ambassador to
Libya – dead. This controversy prevented her from becoming secretary of state during
Obama's second term, and one can expect a very contentious Senate hearing if she is nominated,
with no guarantee that she would pass.
An equally qualified, but far less controversial, woman is the likely nominee for this
position. Michele Flournoy, if nominated and confirmed, would become the first female secretary
of defense in the history of the US. Given her extensive resume, which includes several
previous appointments in senior policy positions in the Department of Defense during both the
Clinton and Obama administrations, she would provide an experienced hand in the management of
the Pentagon.
Flournoy once famously told the New York Times that "
warfare may come in a lot of different flavors in the future. " In her previous postings
in the Pentagon, she took a hardline stance against both Russia and China, encouraged military
intervention in Libya and Syria, and sustained military operations in Afghanistan. Her
proclivity to seek military solutions to challenging foreign policy issues would reinforce the
similar inclinations of Biden. With Flournoy at the helm of the Pentagon, America can expect to
experience a full menu of war "flavoring."
While the above two positions represent the ostensible heads of US foreign and defense
policy, the reality is that the US has become increasingly reliant upon the covert action
capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency when it comes to influencing diplomatic and
military outcomes. While news reports have on occasion lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding
covert CIA activities, allowing Americans and the world a small measure of insight into their
scope, scale and effectiveness, the reality is that the vast majority of the work of the CIA
remains classified, revealed only decades after the fact, if at all.
As the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and later as vice
president, Biden is intimately familiar with these covert activities, and of the potential of
the CIA to impact American foreign and national security policy. One of the names being bandied
about for the role of director is Michael Morell. He is a retired career CIA officer, having
worked his way up the ranks over the course of a 33-year career, finishing in 2013 having twice
served as the acting director under President Obama.
Morell would no doubt manage the agency in a professional manner. He is a CIA man, seeped in
the dark arts. Insight into how this experience might manifest itself in a Biden administration
was provided through comments Morell made about Syria
while appearing on PBS in 2016. " What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians
pay a little price ," he said. " When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons
to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay
a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a
price ."
By "paying a price," Morell meant "killing." Russians and Iranians, he said, should be
killed " covertly, so you don't tell the world about it, you don't stand up at the Pentagon
and say 'we did this.' But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran ."
If state, defense and the CIA are the three principal tools available to Biden in the
conduct of foreign and national security policy, the person responsible for making these three
players – along with a host of other departments and agencies – come together as a
single team falls to the national security advisor. Here, Biden seems to be leaning toward
another experienced hand, Antony Blinken.
Blinken's resume includes stints at the State Department and National Security Council
during the Obama administration. Like the other potential nominees, Blinken possesses the kind
of experience necessary to hit the ground running. As someone who knows and is well known by
all the major policy players that could populate a Biden administration, including the
president-elect himself, Blinken would be able to coordinate policy formulation and
implementation in a seamless fashion.
Therein, however, lies the rub – Blinken would serve as a facilitator of
interventionist policy positions that he is inherently inclined to agree with. Like Biden's
other potential nominees, Blinken supported the Obama interventions in Syria and Libya, two
events that serve as a litmus test for ascertaining potential interventionist scenarios in the
future.
Whereas a national security advisor should insulate the presidency from the more focused,
hardline policy proposals put forward by state and defense, and provide balance when it comes
to considering covert action proposals from the CIA, Blinken would function more as a
superhighway of interventionist policy options between these entities and a president whose own
background can be defined as never having seen an opportunity for US intervention that he
didn't like.
As things stand today, one cannot predict the composition of a Biden cabinet with absolute
certainty; it is likely that one or more of the potential candidates listed here will fall by
the wayside, their path blocked by the unpredictability of a Senate confirmation at the hands
of a hostile Republican Party.
But the predilection for military intervention and covert action will define any Biden-led
cabinet, regardless of exactly who ends up seated there. In the end, the likelihood that this
iteration of 'adult' leadership ends up getting America embroiled in excessive interventions
that further disrupt the global geopolitical balance in the US's disfavor while costing its
people precious blood and treasure is high.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it"the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might
just benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
"... It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... The transition has also been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed for the party’s failure in 2016. ..."
"... The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. ..."
"... That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget, but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head. ..."
"... Obama's deep state lied, people died: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-envoy-admits-hiding-us-troop-numbers-praises-trumps-mideast-record/170012/ ..."
"... I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world. ..."
"... The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other. ..."
"... "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." ..."
"... Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state. ..."
Donald Trump was much troubled during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns by so-called conservatives who rallied behind the #NeverTrump
banner, presumably in opposition to his stated intention to end or at least diminish America’s role in wars in the Middle East and
Asia. Those individuals are generally described as neoconservatives but the label is itself somewhat misleading and they might more
properly be described as liberal warmongers as they are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on most social issues and are
now warming up even more as the new Joe Biden Administration prepares to take office.
To be sure, some neocons stuck with the Republicans, to include the highly controversial Elliott Abrams, who initially opposed
Trump but is now the point man for dealing with both Venezuela and Iran. Abrams’ conversion reportedly took place when he realized
that the new president genuinely embraced unrelenting hostility towards Iran as exemplified by the ending of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. John Bolton was also a neocon in the
White House fold, though he is now a frenemy having been fired by the president and written a book.
Even though the NeverTrumper neocons did not succeed in blocking Donald Trump in 2016, they have been maintaining relevancy by
slowly drifting back towards the Democratic Party, which is where they originated back in the 1970s in the office of the Senator
from Boeing Henry “Scoop” Jackson. A number of them started their political careers there, to include leading neocon Richard Perle.
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is
now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini.
The transition has also
been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed
for the party’s failure in 2016. Given that mutual intense hostility to Trump, the doors to previously shunned liberal media outlets
have now opened wide to the stream of foreign policy “experts” who want to “restore a sense of the heroic” to U.S. national security
policy. Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum are favored contributors to the Atlantic while Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss were together at
the New York Times prior to Weiss’s recent resignation.
Jennifer Rubin, who wrote in 2016 that “It is time for some moral straight
talk: Trump is evil incarnate,” is a frequent columnist for The Washington Post while both she and William Kristol appear regularly
on MSNBC.
The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and
everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia
serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. In the post-9/11 world, the neocon media’s leading publication The Weekly Standard
virtually invented the concept of “Islamofascism” to justify endless war in the Middle East, a development that has killed millions
of Muslims, destroyed at least three nations, and cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 trillion. The Israel connection has also resulted
in neocon support for an aggressive policy against Russia due to its involvement in Syria and has led to repeated calls for the U.S.
to attack Iran and destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. In Eastern Europe, neocon ideologues have aggressively sought “democracy promotion,”
which, not coincidentally, has also been a major Democratic Party foreign policy objective.
The neocons are involved in a number of foundations, the most prominent of which is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD), that are funded by Jewish billionaires. FDD is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz and it is reported that the group takes direction
coming from officials in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Other major neocon incubators are the American Enterprise Institute,
which currently is the home of Paul Wolfowitz, and the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins University.
The neocon opposition has been sniping against Trump over the past four years but has been biding its time and building new alliances,
waiting for what it has perceived to be an inevitable regime change in Washington.
That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy
agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create
in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland.
Robert was one of the first neocons to get on the NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president
and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by
Trump. His wife Victoria Nuland is perhaps better known. She was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government
of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support
to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies
on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget,
but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And, to be sure, beyond regime change in places like Ukraine, President Barack Obama was no slouch when it came to starting actual
shooting wars in places like Libya and Syria while also killing people, including American citizens, using drones. Biden appears
poised to inherit many former Obama White House senior officials, who would consider the eager-to-please neoconservatives a comfortable
fit as fellow foot soldiers in the new administration. Foreign policy hawks expected to have senior positions in the Biden Administration
include Antony Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power and, most important of all the hawkish Michele
Flournoy, who has been cited as a possible secretary of defense. And don’t count Hillary Clinton out. Biden is reportedly getting
his briefings on the Middle East from Dan Shapiro, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who now lives in the Jewish state and is reportedly
working for an Israeli government supported think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies.
Nowhere in Biden’s possible foreign policy circle does one find anyone who is resistant to the idea of worldwide interventionism
in support of claimed humanitarian objectives, even if it would lead to a new cold war with major competitor powers like Russia and
China. In fact, Biden himself appears to embrace an extremely bellicose view on a proper relationship with both Moscow and Beijing
“claiming that he is defending democracy against its enemies.” His language is unrelenting, so much so that it is Donald Trump who
could plausibly be described as the peace candidate in the recently completed election, having said at the Republican National Convention
in August “Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing their dreams and the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs,
opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars, wars that never ended.”
It should be noted that the return of "neocons" does not mean the return of people like Wolfowitz, Ladeen, Feith, Kristol who
are more "straussian" than "liberal/internationalist", but those like Nuland, Rice, Sam Powell, Petraeus, Flournoy, heck even
Hilary Clinton as UN Ambassador who are CFR-type liberal interventionist than pure military hawks such as Bolton or Mike Flynn.
These liberal internationalists, as opposed to straussian neocons, will intervene in collaboration with EU/NATO/QUAD (i.e. multilaterally)
in the name upholding human rights and toppling authoritarianism, rather than for oil, WMDs, or similar concrete objectives. In
very simple terms, the new Biden administration's foreign policy will be none other than the return to "endless wars" for nation-building
purposes first and last.
The name Kagan is the Russianized version of the name Cohen. He was going to be McCain's NSA had he been elected. They pulled
a stunt with the Bush admin to make Obama look weak by pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008. Sakaasvili, the president
of Georgia, was literally eating his own tie:
A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy
goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors
feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head.
I don't think they have that much influence. They pushed a lot of nonsense in the late 70/early 80s about how the Taliban were
George Washingtons and here we are today, they're worst than the Comanche. The last time I saw Richard Perle make a TV appearance,
he was crying like a baby. Robert Novak, the prince of darkness, was a Ron Paul supporter. The only ones really kicking around
are Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, but Kristol was almost alone when he was talking about putting 50,000 boots on the ground
in Syria. Rubin is a harpie who only got crazier and crazier. Kagan had his foot in the door with Hillary only because of his
wife. Those two might get back in with Biden on Ukraine, but Biden would do well to keep them at a distance.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present
in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist
foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world.
It seems now that there is a new breed of neocons, unified by opposition to Trump's messaging, but not much else. Odd to find
people like Samantha Power, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, and Paul Wolfowitz marching together in perfect step.
A good perspective by Philip Weiss on the same subject. Eliot A Cohen must be communicating a lot with the Kagan brothers ,
Dennis Ross and Perle to see who can be parachuted either to the WH or Foggy Bottom.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology
The revolutionary spirit (see E. Michael Jones' work). From communism to neoconservatism it's ultimately an attack on the Beatitudes
and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. "The works of mercy are the opposite of the works of war" -- Servant of God Dorothy Day
I hold the Cold Warriors like Scoop a species distinct from those of the post-USSR era. The current version started at the
end of the cold war. We felt like kings of the world after Gulf War 1 and the shoe seemed to fit.
The HW Bush administration pondered how best to use this power for good. I've read some things which report there was a debate
within the administration on whether to clean up Yugoslavia or Somalia first. They got Ron to "do the honors" for the invasion
of Somalia at Oxford: About 20 minutes in.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?35586-1/arising-ashes-world-order
That was played as part of the pep-talk on the Juneau off the coast of Somalia. Stirring stuff.
In some small way I never stopped sipping that Kool Aid. It's hard to stand by and watch unspeakable evil go down when you
have the power to stop it...or think you do. Time will tell if the Neocons are capable of perceiving the limits of force. Certainly
had some hard lessons in the last few decades.
Hogs lining up for a spot at the trough? The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other.
I think its generally shocking that Trump or the republicans didn't make a bigger issue of Biden's history of supporting disastrous
intervention, especially his Iraq War vote. Maybe they felt like its not a winning issue, that they would lose as many votes as
they gain by appearing more isolationist. But overall, Trump favoring diplomacy over cruise missiles should have been a bigger point in his favor in the election.
It is distressing to read that we will have people in the government who are looking for a fight. That is especially true in
view of China's aggression in recent years and the responses we will have to make to that. I think we will have more than enough
to do to handle China. What do the neocons want to do about China?
Here is an article about China that really startled me and made me realize how much of a threat is was becoming. The Air Force
chief of staff talks about the challenges of countries trying to compete militarily with us in ways that have not occurred for
awhile. Here are two quotes that really got me:
"Tomorrow's Airmen are more likely to fight in highly contested environments, and must be prepared to fight through combat
attrition rates and risks to the nation that are more akin to the World War II era than the uncontested environments to which
we have since become accustomed," Brown writes."
And
"Wargames and modeling have repeatedly shown that if the Air Force fails to adapt, there will be mission failure, Brown warns.
Rules-based international order may "disintegrate and our national interests will be significantly challenged," according to the
memo."
The article doesn't say we will have another arms race but that is an obvious response to China's competition with us. I thought
all that was done and gone. I do not want to resume it. I don't want another period of foreign entanglements, period. We still
haven't paid for the War Against Terrorism. I look into the future and all I see is us racking up bills that we have no ability
to pay. And then there is the human cost of all this, I don't want to even think about that.
Snouts in the trough accounts for a certain amount of neocons, I'm sure. There is, however, a unifying vision beyond that which
puzzles me, given the very different political orientations of various neocons. Neocons are found in academia and the media as
well. Those types are less dependent on taxpayer dollars in exchange for their views (they'll get whatever tax money gets pushed
their way in grants, etc regardless).
I find Polish Janitor's "straussian" and "liberal/internationalist" flavors of neocon intriguing, as I hadn't considered that
before.
COL Lang's quote from Plato reminds me of another (from Cormac McCarthy): "It makes no difference what men think of war, said
the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The
ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All
that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state.
I concur with your thoughts about standing by as evil occurs. We just have a habit of jumping into complex situations we don't
understand, and making things worse. I suspect you feel the same way.
The military misadventures during my career (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria) were marked by our own black and white
thinking. The more successful adventures (Colombia, Nepal) were marked by our appreciation (to a certain extent) of the complex
nature of the environments we were getting involved in...and the fact that we weren't involved in nation-building in the latter
two locales. There were viable governments in place, and we weren't trying to replace them.
Here is another Biden clip that should have been exploited too - way back when - when the media was a little more trusted,
but no less pompous. However, Biden The Plagerizer had it coming.
Though I am warming more and more to Trump Media becoming the real soul of America. Plus someone, in time. will need to pick
up Rush Limbaugh's empire. America needs a counter-weight to fake news more than it needs the keys to the White House, with all
its entangling webs, palace intrigues, chains and pitfalls.
Godspeed President Trump. If someone with as few talents s Biden can rise like Lazarus, just think what you can do with your
little finger. No wonder the Democrats want Trump destroyed; not just defeated in a re-election. We have your back, Mr President.
Are the people of America up for another arms race and a more or less cold war with China? I think the Chinese will give us
a lot more trouble than the Soviets ever did.
And yet we allow their students to come here and learn all we know and their elites to bring their dirty money here and we
give them green cards and citizenship and protect the money they took from the Chinese people. Not so smart on our part.
What is the next theater of war that Biden's new friends will involve us in? I noticed lots of Cold War era conflicts are heating
up lately, Ethiopia Morocco Armenia being recent examples. IS in Syria/Iraq is still castrated due to the continued mass internment
of their population base in the dozens of camps, but they have established thriving franchises in Africa and their other provinces
continue to smolder.
During a July 19, 2020 appearance on Operation Freedom, General Mclnerney, referring to his
original March 19, 2017 interview about TFIE HAMMER, stated:
What we didn't know 011 that date in March 2017 was that's what was presented to President
Obama on the 5th of January [2017] just before he left office when they opened the
investigation and he directed the FBI to look into and the reason why the FBI sent two people
over to interview General Flynn. Aid that information 011 the Kislvak memo came from HAMMER. It
wasn't a normal NSA document.
Aid that's why Sally Yates wasn't aware of it until the president mentioned it and said put
the appropriate people. That's a dog whistle to put our special team on. Aid so, Biden was
sitting in that meeting. Biden. Biden has got Russian collusion all over him along with
President Obama.
This could not have happened unless Obama was letting it happen. So that's why we've got to
get John Durham's grand juries going and going on in a hurry, so the Anerican people know how
corrupt the entire Democratic party is, but also the media...
...The Obama Administration cabal waged a criminal campaign against General Flynn, including
attempting to frame General Flynn with Logan Act violations when General Flynn had done no such
thing. Peter Strzok's hand-written notes suggest that it was Vice President Joe Biden who came
up with the idea of prosecuting General Flynn for Logan Act violations. General Flynn, the
incoming National Security Adviser, had cut no deals or suggested any deals to Russian
Ambassador Kislvak, as they well knew.
Director Comey's announcement that the FBI was investigating whether President Trump had
connections to the Kremlin, issued less than 24 hours after the conclusion of General
Mclnerney's radio interview, proved that Admiral Lyons and General Mclnerney, with information
from Fanning and Jones of The Anerican Report, were right 011 target -- THE HAMMER is the key
to the coup.
A the FBI used to say, "There are no coincidences."
They had stolen the keys to the kingdom, and they wanted to keep their weapon.
Strzok and Page were aware of, and texting about, Dennis Montgomery. Both Strzok and Page
were intimately involved with the Russian Collusion Hoax. Both Strzok and Page were key
participants in the coup d etat -- a coup d etat against a duly-elected United States
president. This act of treason had never been seen before in America.
Regardless of whether Strzok and Page had Iranian family members or grew up in Iran, their
oath as public servants was to the United States Constitution. The actions of Strzok and Page
were the actions of an enemy.
"... Now I'm posing this as a serious question. What does the Duopoly gain from Biden
that it can't get from Trump?"
Surely the money pump that was dispensing largesse to the post-Maidan regime in Ukraine
via the contacts that regime has with the DNC (Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council and the
media who take the Atlantic Council's money, like Bellingcat for example) before 2017, and
which must have dried up while Trump was President, will start up again should Biden last
long enough past his inauguration. After all, you know he did indeed push former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to sack his Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for continuing to
investigate the activities of Mykola Zlochevsky and his company Burisma Holdings (at which
Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors) and even
boasted about it.
With Biden at the helm, both Democrats and those Republicans (like Mitt Romney) who do not
support Trump can push for further neoliberal, military and other activity against Russia in
eastern Europe and Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia). They might also try to resurrect
their war in Syria and ensure Syria can never get the Golan Heights back.
But if Atlantic Council is onlyy a DNC tool, how do you explain that under YTrump
administration and Pompeo SoS it was Atlantic Council fellow Franak ViaÇorca who
helped organize the Belarusina color revolution, to the extent that now he figures in his
Twitter account as Tikhanovskaya´s personal advisor?
Thanks for your reply! IMO, there wasn't much drop-off in Color Revolution activity under
Trump, and he followed fairly closely the National Defense Directives against both Russia and
China. Perhaps its the blatant rejection of treaties since Biden has vowed to
rejoin/renegotiate, particularly New START. Maybe it's resistance to a currently secret
policy ploy like the Great Reset or Biden's announced very different approach to the pandemic
or some other secret schism we're not privy to yet. I don't doubt the vote result here in
Oregon since our system is extremely hard to violate in any massive manner--it was an
emotional contest thus the high turnout. The joined Media Narrative is cause for concern for
it signals another BigLie, and to go through that effort means a rather important motive.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 12 2020 1:34 utc | 143
The history of the last three decades show that Republican's wage major wars while
Democrats wage small and/or covert wars (liberal interventions) and regime changes.
Republicans will never relinquish the patriotic mantle that allows them to trump (pun
intended) the left's aspirations.
I don't think this holds water. What I see is a clear pattern of decline:
1) George H. W. Bush directly invades Iraq with legitimate American forces. It a
full-fledged invasion, the first war declared for explicitly economic purposes by the USA.
Nobody finds it weird or contests it, because the USA had just emerged victorious from the
Cold War and is now the sole superpower;
2) Bill Clinton, in order to not rub American supremacy on everybody's faces, invades
Somalia and annihilates Yugoslavia with legitimate American forces behind a UN flag. He wins
Yugoslavia but doesn't manage to do a Communist Nürnberg Trial, and loses in Somalia.
The first chink in the armor of the sole hegemon;
3) George W. Bush wins through electoral fraud (Florida). 9/11 happens with his blessing.
He then has to do a kabuki in order to blame it all on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even then he
doesn't earn the UN's blessing. He invades Iraq and Afghanistan with legitimate American
forces and wins in Iraq. He takes Iraq's oil reserves, but the objective doesn't solve
America's economic problems. Afghanistan turns into a swamp. He fails to invade Iran and
fails to bomb North Korea. He loses against Russia in Georgia. The USA still is able to
invade other countries and destroy them with legitimate American forces, but with much more
difficulty and not always achieving what it wants. For the first time since the beginning of
the End of History invasions are halted before they even begin;
4) Obama has to begin his government with a mammoth USD 1.1 trn unconditional bailout to
America's big banks and other companies. He tries to make a profit from the occupation of
Iraq by recalling American troops and substituting them with drones and mercenaries
(Blackwater). Afghanistan continues to drain the coffers. Russia rises. China rises. He
pathetically tries to invade Syria with auxiliaries (ISIS) and fails utterly (Russia even
imposes a no-fly zone to NATO/USA). Invasions are then further scaled down to color
revolutions (Ukraine, etc.). South China Sea is lost without even a fight. Ukraine is
partitioned by Russia after the color revolution and NATO loses the Black Sea forever;
5) Trump cannot even begin a new war. He contents himself with color revolution in Latin
America, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Belarus and other Central Asian countries. For the first time
since the End of History, a POTUS tries to be friends with a previous enemy nation (North
Korea and Russia). For the first time, a color revolution is reverted in Latin America
(Bolivia), while a clandestine invasion of Venezuela also fails.
So, the pattern here is clearly one of decline. At the beginning of the End of History
(1991), the USA can invade anyone with its regular forces, legally and with the blessing of
the UN and NATO - and wins all those conflicts. Then, it begins to lose or at least not
completely win - but still do the whole thing legally, with regular forces and with
blessings. Then it still is capable of invading and winning - but not legally and not with
the blessing of even the main NATO allies (France and Germany); also, even when it wins, it
is clear it was not what the Empire needed to stay afloat. Then, it has to abandon any
prospects of invasion by regular forces, having to resort to color revolutions and
clandestine auxiliaries (terrorist armies). Then it is not even capable of doing those color
revolutions successfully anymore (except in Latin America - the Empire's historical little
bitch, so it doesn't really count).
The conclusion we can reach here is that Trump didn't initiate any new war for the simple
fact he couldn't: the Empire is overstretched, its resources dwindling.
With Biden, I think we'll witness this process deepening, but in another key:
"Political wisdom holds that Americans, the American public, doesn't vote on foreign
policy," he said in New York, speaking before a crowd that included some former diplomats.
"But I think that's an old way of thinking. In 2019 foreign policy is domestic policy in my
view. And domestic policy is foreign policy."
With Biden, we can see for the first time in American history the USA officially admitting
it is an empire. The American people will be directly involved and voting and supporting for
foreign policy, i.e. invasions and interventions. Domestic policy will fuse with foreign
policy, in a typical imperial metamorphosis. There will be no going back, it will be a war of
annihilation between the USA (I'm here including its provinces) and the rest of the world. As
the famous Soviet epic once said, it will be a battle not for glory, but "for life on
Earth".
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Biden has a long history of being deeply culpable in human rights abuses. Our instinct may
be to jubilantly proclaim that the suffering for vulnerable population will now end, but that
wouldn't be the case for, say, civilians in war zones. Biden's decision to actively advocate
for the disastrous war on Iraq and the crime bill, which imprisoned millions of
African-Americans, are rightly notorious.
Biden certainly also did not embolden Obama's more peaceful and internationalist
inclinations, which he demonstrated in his speech to the Muslim world and opposition to the
Iraq war, when he served as his vice-president. As the Guardian [2] reported about 2016, the
last year of the Obama administration, "the ( ) administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs.
This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas
with 72 bombs; that's three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day." Under Obama/Biden, ten times
more drone strikes were authorized than under Bush, and the US joined the coalition to bomb
Yemen, which has exacerbated a famine that had killed 84.701 by November 2018.[3]
Biden has never seriously reflected on the lives there were wrecked and the traumas that
were imposed during the post-9/11 wars, and there is no sign that he will deescalate US foreign
policy in 2021. But there is hope: In opposition to Trump, movements to bolster domestic human
rights in the US have been invigorated. The heroes of the last four years – the Dreamers,
as well as the BLM, anti-detention and Sanders activists – will not go away. Can their
call for moral transformation take on global dimensions?
None of our doubts about Biden should diminish our recognition of the racist horrors of the
Trump years. Some of his supporters claim that "Trump never started a war", and submit this
statement as proof that Trump is less damaging to the world than a centrist Democrat only tell
(or know) half the truth. The trend in US foreign policy has been to drop more and more bombs
since 09/11 – and the Trump administration, which was packed with notorious Islamophobes,
represented the sad, recent pinnacle of a trendline that will hopefully not be continued under
the Biden administration. In Afghanistan, warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions in
2019, which was the highest number since the Pentagon began tracking how many bombs it drops in
2006.[4] Consequently the US, and its allied Afghani forces, killed more than the Taliban
within 2019.[5] Trump would have certainly further undermined international humanitarian law in
war zones. After all, he pardoned a war criminal as an intentional symbolical gesture,[6] and
advocated for bombing the families of terror suspects, which is, of course, a crime per the
Geneva Convention.
If the past years have shown anything, it is how important it is to limit the war powers of
presidents no matter who is in office. The next in line usually turned out to be worse in
important respects when it comes to questions of war and peace. The only antidote is holding
Biden accountable on foreign policy, starting today.
With Joe Biden declared president-elect by a chorus of major networks in unison on Saturday,
the same mainstream media has suddenly dropped any notion of 'Russian interference' in the
election which for years had received wall to wall coverage.
Over the weekend an MSNBC host went so far as to declare without evidence
"This might be the cleanest election we have ever had." And conveniently apart from the
'sudden' unprecedented leap in vaccine development and with markets soaring on the news, the
foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White House on
January 20.
As a case in point NATO's official message of congratulations to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
underscored that a Biden White House will finally be able to confront "assertive Russia"
according to a statement by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
"I warmly welcome the election of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I
know Mr. Biden as a strong supporter of NATO and the transatlantic relationship," Stoltenberg's
written
statement began .
And here's where the NATO chief referenced "assertive Russia" and the "rise of China":
"We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia, international terrorism, cyber and missile threats, and a shift in the
global balance of power with the rise of China," Stoltenberg stated .
The suggestion is of course that Trump didn't exercise enough "strength" - though it seems
hard to make this argument especially in the case of China.
And it's further long been pointed out that US-Russia relations have actually been at a low
point in recent history under Trump , given the Trump administration withdrawal from key
weapons treaties like the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Open Skies, and
with New START set to expire early next year.
There's also the attempts to block completion of the Nord Stream 2 Russia to Germany gas
pipeline, which has included targeted sanctions against Western companies helping to construct
it. The Trump State Department has also done much to open up weapons sales to Ukraine.
Recall too that not only has Trump throughout his presidency demanded European allies do
more in terms of shouldering their fair share of the burden of defense spending for which they
are "delinquent", but has repeatedly called the Cold War era alliance "obsolete" and at some
points even hinted the US could withdraw.
But his ultimate purpose in this appeared geared toward strengthening the organization into
a true alliance and not merely Washington carrying the burden of major spending.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
We detailed last month that top NATO officials
appeared to be openly rooting for a Biden victory following four years of Trump being a
thorn in the side of Brussels. This is true enough, but in terms of Russia one could easily
argue Trump has been a greater hawk in terms of ignoring European demands that key nuclear and
weapons treaties be extended . 07564111 , 5 hours ago
ROFL .. idiot Stoltenberg thinks he is immortal.
cankles' server , 3 hours ago
Wasn't NATO literally designed for war?
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
NATO Declares Biden White House Will Finally Confront "Assertive Russia"
"the foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White
House on January 20."
The only reason any foreign power would prefer to work with Biden is that they know he is
a wimp, that he is corrupt and can be bought (as proven by his history with China) and that
for he will not look out for American interests (as opposed to theirs).
You see, Democrats define anything that takes down America as a win - including there own
contrived victories that will never materialize.
Biden would sit in his underwear and do what he's told to do, like any proper corpse.
That's why the dead (and blue-bots) voted for him.
LevelHeadedMan , 4 hours ago
As we say in Russia;
Собака лает, а
караван идёт.
The dog barks, yet the caravan moves on.
It means we will keep assembling more and more nukes while this idiot continues
bleating.
SMC , 3 hours ago
You have a lot of support from normal, productive Americans.
LevelHeadedMan , 3 hours ago
Thank you. We like regular Americans too!
richard_engineer , 1 hour ago
As an American, I think Russia has been legitimate in its attempts at peace while USA has
been continuously trying to provoke Russia. I think that the bolsheviks you kicked out are
trying to get revenge and use America as their pawn.
Seriously man, I'm legitimately afraid that Russia would launch a pre-emptive attack if
further cornered by USA & NATO. I live in Sacramento, CA - do you think this city would
be targeted by nuke?
I imagine Russia would focus on the defensive nukes placed in Europe first, and then
likely to target many large cities in USA & Europe. Russia has a lot of nukes so I
imagine it would launch full-scale attack to completely disable the opponent from future
attack.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
So after Trump is sworn in on 20th January, NATO is finished. There is no way back from
this.
No1uNo , 5 hours ago
I support the sentiment, my fear is they've mobilised so much resources to constantly
attack Trump, I don't see those attacks ending only escalating. If you can see a way that the
CFR, Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Council, Soros NGO's etc all get disbanded and some
serious jail time thrown at them - then yes their pet projects will suffer. Without that
Trump needs to be very careful outside of the White House.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
Trump could not take down the DS until everyone could see what was happening. The last 4
years have been all about this election - this is how people will finally SEE what has been
happening. There never were going to any arrests in the first term. Now there will be 4 years
to take down the DS... and another 4 years after that. No need to rush, one step at a time
will get us there.
Thurmonster , 3 hours ago
Riiiight.
philipat , 5 hours ago
LOL. And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
And I for one can't think of ANY yet I can think of many provocations against Russia by NATO.
And, of course, if NATO provokes Russia too hard and war does break out, Europe will be on
the front line and could, if Russia so wished, be reduced to rubble in short order. I can't
imagine why the Europeans would want to do this to themselves but there we have it. At least
it would mark the end of the awful EU!
East Indian , 5 hours ago
Russia has stealthily crawled to place itself just next to NATO's boundaries! Isn't
enough?
acementhead , 5 hours ago
And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
Come on man They're (Russia) building a pipeline to sell gas to Germany. How dare they,
that gas belongs to the US oligarchs.
xpxhxoxexnxixx , 1 hour ago
Isnt it funny that the MSM and Dems are completely fine glossing over the fact that half
the country voted against Biden. It's as if they think we're all united simply because of the
outcome. It's no wonder why we have the country we do, and why the dems continue to squeak by
year after year. There is no desire for them to understand the American people- they simply
figure 'we'll get just enough votes to do what we want' 100% of time. There is no desire for
them to actually want to work with others to improve the country. And year after year we
believe it simply in the 'name of democracy'- as if that actually means anything. So Trump is
the red flag commie garbage man to them, and literally anyone else is freedom. If you ever
see the MSM or social media start to talk about why we have a literal divide in this country,
I think i'll call it quits here on Earth. But it'll never happen.
GoldenDebt , 5 hours ago
These evil F-ers want nuclear war. Trump did it right. I suspect Trump was going to forge
a new peace, demonrats didnt want that. They want to kill us all with a nuke war. Democrats
are pure evil.
Jerzeel , 5 hours ago
More like the usual gang want to beat up again on some **** hole country.
Fireman , 5 hours ago
NATO, North Amerikan Terror Organ, that limp appendage dangling from the Pedophile
Politburo in Natostan capital of USSA's flaccid vassal Brussels, seat of the infamous albeit
collapsing EUSSR wants to be the global gangster sidekick of the Pentacon thugs but just
doesn't want to pay to play. Will the Germans get suckered for a third time into a global war
for their anglozionazi bankster masters and the Washing town thugocracy? Nah...they finally
seem to have figured it and STASI agent "Erika" out as the I$I$ "backed" Saudi Mercan IOU
petroscrip toilet paper dollah gets flushed from the global Ponzi sewer of the Potemkin
Village (idiot) Mercan "economy" of slaughter for the profit of the zero 1%.
Meanwhile the Dark Winter of financial collapse is upon US, on both sides of the
Atlanticist swamp, as the detritus of USSA'S Middle East judaic wars rapes, decapitates and
pillages its way across a seething Europe betrayed by the hag in Berlin and her Soros puppet
master. Syria is where the anglozionazi beast and Pentacon Murder Inc. finally bit off more
than they could chew in their serial judaic wars of terror and the rest of humanity sees it
for what it is. All the emasculated pedophile pawns in Natostan huff and puff at Mr. Bear's
doorstep but that is all these Brownstoned cretins will ever do. It is all over bar the
inevitable bankrupt collapse of €urolandia and the long awaited civil war reloaded in
Slumville, USSA. Bismarck was right more than a century ago, the only future Germany has and
Urupp by default is in the warm embrace of Mr. Bear and his vast supply of energy and
resources as USSA vainly squeezes gas from the "shale miracle" BS and hubris bloated turds in
the stinking Washing town swamp as the brand new cadaver in chief, Creepy Joe and his Camel
get ready to torch Slumville in the mother of all dumpster fires.
Onward to Leningrad with Onkel Adolf and the dancing fool of Natostan.
We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia...
Which is code for:
The EU is poorly run and incredibly weak, having to rely on other nations for resources
and subsidies, so please help us because the glory of Europe has pretty much completely
faded. -signed, little bitch Jens
Is-Be , 4 hours ago
"Mr. Gorbechov, you have my word that we will not advance one inch towards Russia."
They are not worthy of their ancestors. Real Northman are bound by their oaths.
Even Loki could not break his.
NorwegianKing , 5 hours ago
Jens Stoltenberg is a Quisling.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
So the extreme aggression of NATO is going to be used to attack the nonexistent Russian
aggression?
Fabelhaft , 1 hour ago
The plan ... is to minimize Putin and or his philosophy of 'Russian resources for Russia',
to the point that the Russian people will vote his method out and gladly surrender control of
their goods to the West. Then, be good servile Russians. Oh, and another thing, a big thing,
the West hates Russia's Cross. The Cross has to go, also.
Somewhat Unisex , 4 hours ago
The whole Russia tensions are nauseating.
Russia has a GDP similar to South Korea.
But the MIC always needs a boogeyman I suppose.
libfrog88 , 3 hours ago
NATO is so full of ****. They are the ones provoking Russia all the time. They need to
justify their worthless existence and it is costing far too much.
nanook007 , 4 hours ago
Yes of course......parasite globalist warmongers love the democrat pedophile hair
sniffer.
overmedicatedundersexed , 5 hours ago
"War is Peace.".some democrat leftist.
Stringer99 , 5 hours ago
Nato like many other organisations needs a threat, real or imaginary to exist. The US
spends more on weapon systems than the next 16 countries combined. Their usual reason is
things like 9/11. The same forces behind 9/11 include the same nato puppet masters and
connected think tanks who also profit from Nato funding. Its just another business model
involving trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers. Whether its the arms industry or big
pharma, fear is their currency of control.
TheySayIAmOkay , 4 hours ago
Great. When does ISIS funding kick back into full gear?
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 4 hours ago
These Northern Atlantic Terrorists Orcs took out 2 secular leaders (Qaddafi, Saddam) and
tried taking out a third (Assad), and they wonder why radical Islam is filling in the void?
How the hell are these sub humans ever in charge of making such decisions? NATO HQ should be
wiped off the map.
They also made the refugee problem worse.
Haboob , 5 hours ago
Russia is no longer the USSR so why "confront" them.
Simpson , 5 hours ago
Resource rich country.
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
its not case...you cant milk taxpayers for 750 bilions usd a year withouth enemies and
threat...so Military industry created terrorists camps and as it failed..now they wanna
encyrcle china and russia and spread ******** about them...danger is if you provoke around
these borders the war might come even as accident as Putin warned..its all only
softwares...
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
DESPITE the all Trump faults he gave humanity four more years...HIlary would go
nuclear...same apply with Biden.
dog breath , 5 hours ago
Gaslighting is strong with EU. Trump wants NATO military spending to be 2% of GDP. Germany
wants gas pipeline with Russia. This is direct contradiction to this NATO *******
propaganda.
minoas , 1 hour ago
They won't be happy until they kill us all in a nuclear war. Russia is not a threat to
Europe. China does not send it's troops around the world overthrowing governments. Encircled
by US bases, it has built a small island off it's coast to protect it's seas lanes while we
have nearly a thousand military installations around the globe if we count our covert ones.
Russia and China is athreat to world hegemony by the US. That is their crime
Tom Angle , 1 hour ago
Who sponsored a Neo-Nazi coupe on the Russian border? Who continually holds war games on
the Russian border? Who does Russian natural gas keep who warm in the winter? Who creates and
sponsors terrorists to make way for a pipeline to Europe? Who builds bio labs on Russian
borders? So who is assertive?
MoreFreedom , 2 hours ago
Translation: Stoltenberg says he's glad Biden is president because that means they'll all
pocket more US taxpayer money, and the US taxpayer is the sheep. There's money to be made in
NATO deals and deployments, provided the US pays for it.
Theremustbeanotherway , 2 hours ago
In the UK, our politicians are corrupt beyond redemption.
Our legal system is becoming corrupt beyond redemption.
The current senior personnel in our armed forces are pansies and incapable of defending
our nation and only capable of attacking the indigenous population.
The current senior personnel in our police forces are bent out of shape determined to
victimise the indigenous population.
We are still under the cosh of the Bolsheviks in Europe intent on promoting war.
Most of the population of the UK are incapable of seeing through the BS and lies - I now
know what it is like to be held hostage in an asylum!!
Old Captain Hindsight , 5 hours ago
NATO outing themselves as enemies of the people?
It is funny watching all of these idiots jump the gun.
jnojr , 41 minutes ago
Maybe Joe Biden can get a Nobel Peace Prize even faster than Barack Obama did?
Promethus , 1 hour ago
I started in the US military during the cold War. It is so sad that people like me no
longer recognize this country and look to Russia as a bulwark of Christianity and western
civilization.
Stay strong Russia. The USA and western Europe have abandoned God and now are reaping what
they sewed..
"Let's bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can't count the number of
times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of
many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump
presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to
"normalcy" -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise
some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign
policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet.
Susan Rice for Secretary of State
Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden's Vice President,
served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both
under the Obama administration.
While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no
scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some
of her statements:
"I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons
and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6,
2003)
"It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction
need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes
whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward,
as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration
about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime
change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a
question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before
we can enforce this and previous resolutions." (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of
Rice's statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.)
She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which
judging by the following quote at
the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a "laissez faire"
attitude : "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the
effect on the November [congressional] election?"
In a
speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about
vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as
illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as "flawed" and "insisted on Israel's
right to defend itself and maintained that Israel's democratic institutions could credibly
investigate any possible abuses." Her position has changed little since then, as recently as
2016,
she proclaimed that "Israel's security isn't a Democratic interest or a Republican interest
-- it's an enduring American interest."
Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser
Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP
Biden's National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013
to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017.
Blinken had immense
influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate
Biden's approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"For Biden ", he argued , "and for
a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy." He added
"It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is
possible."
The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama's campaign promise
to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led
to even more
chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency.
Blinken seems to be
of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : "On
leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn't organize itself. And until this
[Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing,
helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern
relations among nations. When we're not engaged, when we don't lead, then one or two things is
likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place – but probably not in
a way that advances our interests or values – or no one does. And then you get chaos or a
vacuum filled by bad things before it's filled by good things. Either way, that's bad for
us."
Blinken also appears to be steering
Biden's pro-Israel agenda, recently
stating that Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions
that it makes, period, full stop." which includes an all out
rejection of BDS , the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel's
occupation of Palestine.
Michèle Flournoy for Secretary of Defence
Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama
administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
Flournoy, in writing the
Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy
under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.'s endless and costly wars which prevent
us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green
New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, "when the interests
at stake are vital, we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary,
the unilateral use of military power."
While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a "Top
Defense and National Security Think Tank" based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the
Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she
declared , that the United States would "need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts
to destroy an adversary's weapons stockpile" before it "could erect defenses to protect those
weapons, or simply disperse them." She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush
administration, in
a speech for the CSIS : "The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation
– continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as
these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran,
North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world
there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials
or weapons."
It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic
consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental,
military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon
contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that
describes itself on its website as "a
unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining
research and technology to keep our world safer." Their partnership on the AI initiative
entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by
Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police
operations.
Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the
biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50
representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees
supported "ask(ing)
Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict." Flournoy did not. She said
that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these
advanced patriot missiles to defend itself.
Conclusion
If a return to "normalcy" means having the same old politicians that are responsible for
endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real
structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call
for "normalcy" is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led
to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the
stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those
posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars.
Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in
France.
By C. J. Hopkins , award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His dystopian novel, ' Zone 23 ', is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. His essays and other works can be found at,
and he can be reached via, cjhopkins.com
or consentfactory.org . OK, so,
that was not cool. For one terrifying moment there, it actually looked like GloboCap was going
to let Russian-Asset Hitler win.
Hour after hour on election night, states on the map kept turning red, or pink, or some
distinctly non-blue color. Wisconsin Michigan Georgia Florida. It could not be happening, and
yet it was. What other explanation was there? The Russians were stealing the election
again!
But, of course, GloboCap was just playing with us. They're a bunch of practical jokers,
those GloboCap guys. Naturally, they couldn't resist the chance to wind us up just one more
time.
Seriously, though, while I enjoy a good prank, I still have a number of liberal friends,
many of whom were on the verge of suffering major heart attacks as they breathlessly waited for
the corporate media to confirm that they had successfully voted a literal
dictator out of power. (A few of them suffer from IBS or other gastrointestinal disorders,
so, in light of the current toilet-paper shortage caused by the Return of the Apocalyptic
Plague, toying with them like that was especially cruel.)
But, whatever. That's water under the bridge. The good news is, the nightmare is
over! Literal Hitler and his underground army of Russia-loving white supremacists have been
vanquished! Decency has been restored! Globalization has risen from the
dead!
... ... ..
Meanwhile, the GloboCap propaganda has reached some new post-Orwellian level. After four
long years of "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION!" now, suddenly, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
ELECTION FRAUD IN THE USA!"
That's right, once again, millions of liberals, like that scene in ' 1984' where the
Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate-Week speech, have been ordered
to radically reverse their "reality," and hysterically deny the existence of the very
thing they have been hysterically alleging for four solid years and they are actually doing
it!
... ... ///
Marian1637 7 hours ago
I can not comprehend
that democrats do not blame Putin for Biden winning!
Reilly 3 hours ago
Very funny, bravo!
Nothing like a bit of slapstick, with a dose of reality also in the middle of a waking
nightmare about to happen. ;))
DeoGratias 4 hours ago
One correction : it is not GloboCap it is
GloboComs. The objective of communism is to create two classes of a society : rulers and
workers. Thus GloboCaps are GloboComs.
Winter7Mute 5 hours ago
A reliable way to make people
believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished
from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact. I'm not even
sure if most journalists or reporters know what their even talking about, when writing these
articles.
Vidarr Kerr 5 hours ago
There is such a thing as Too Much Sarcasm.
EarthBotV2 Vidarr Kerr 4 hours ago
I disagree. The liberazi "thinks" with the gut -- as in "What does your gut tell you?"...
There's a 'good chance' that the US will return to the policy of foreign wars under Joe
Biden, which will make its reconciliation with the EU impossible, Willy Wimmer, former
vice-president of the OSCE, warned.
The main reasons why the Americans voted for Donald Trump four years ago were their
tiredness of constant wars waged by their country and collapsing economy and infrastructure in
the US, Wimmer told RT.
Trump has kept his promise and didn't start any new foreign conflict, but that may well
change if a member of the Democratic Party is in the White House, former Vice President of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly said.
Joe Biden isn't an empty white sheet – he represents the Democratic Party, who in
the 1990s destroyed the Charter of the UN.
The German political veteran recalled the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia under Democratic
President, Bill Clinton, in 1999. He also pointed out that "in the presidency of [Barack]
Obama, Biden was Vice President and he was in absolute accordance with Obama's drone wars and
the wars in the Middle East, therefore there's a good chance that Joe Biden continues in the
same way as the Democratic Party did it in the 1990s and under Obama" before 2016.
"And going back to before 2016 means going back to war" for the US, Wimmer
argued.
Relations between Washington and Brussels have deteriorated under Trump over his demands for
the EU nations to make larger financial contributions to NATO as well as political and economic
pressure on the block to stop dealing with Russia and China.
Hopes that things would improve under Biden will be dashed, "as long as the US and NATO
don't return to the Charter of the UN," the 77-year-old, who also served as State Secretary
to Germany's Defense Minister, said.
However, he pointed out that it remains a question if the current US economy, which was
heavily hit by the coronavirus, would even allow Biden to return to the aggressive policy,
which the Democrats used to pursue.
Unlike German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who already congratulated Biden over beating
incumbent Trump in the US presidential election, Wimmer believes that others "should be
very-very careful with congratulations."
The Democratic candidate declared himself the winner on Saturday after several major
television networks projected that he was on a path to take more than 270 electoral votes
needed to win the presidency after four days of tense vote counts in several battleground
states.
"It's quite unusual that the result of an election is announced by a news agency or a
news channel. We're used in all our countries, which belong to the OSCE, that we have Election
Committees, who announce results. And this hasn't been done yet in the US," he pointed out,
describing the events surrounding the American election as "unbelievable."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory . ..."
The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten
bestselling books, especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump's haphazard and
continuously shifting orbit. With metronomic regularity, such gossipy volumes appear, make a splash, and almost as quickly
vanish, leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond.
Remember when Michael Wolff's
Fire and
Fury: Inside the Trump White House
was all the rage? It's now available in hardcover for
$0.99
from
online used booksellers. James Comey's
Higher
Loyalty
also sells for a penny less than a buck.
An additional forty-six cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman's "
insider's
account
" of her short-lived tenure in that very White House. For the same price, you can acquire
Sean
Spicer's memoir
as Trump's press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci's
rendering
of
his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski's "
inside
story
" of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not
have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mary Trump, and that journalistic amanuensis Bob
Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain basement prices.
All that said, even in these dismal times genuinely important books do
occasionally make their appearance. My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one. It's called
Tomorrow,
the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy
and if you'll forgive me for being direct, you really ought to read it.
Let me explain why.
The "Turn"
Wertheim and I are co-founders of the
Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft
, a small Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That
Quincy
refers
to John Quincy Adams who, as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago, warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad
"in search of monsters to destroy."
Were the United States to do so, Adams predicted, its defining trait -- its
very essence -- "would insensibly change from
liberty
to
force.
"
By resorting to force, America "might become the dictatress of the world," he wrote, but "she would be no longer the ruler of
her own spirit." While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities, it remains apt.
A privileged man of his times, Adams took it for granted that a WASP male
elite was meant to run the country. Women were to occupy their own separate sphere. And while he would eventually become an
ardent opponent of slavery, in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either. His immediate priority as secretary of state
was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity. That meant avoiding
unnecessary trouble. We had already had our revolution. In his view, it wasn't this country's purpose to promote revolution
elsewhere or to dictate history's future course.
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks:
the Greatest Of All Time. As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians, he brought to maturity a pragmatic
tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent, avid
commercial engagement, and the avoidance of great power rivalries abroad. Adhering to such a template, the United States had,
by the beginning of the twentieth century, become the wealthiest, most secure nation on the planet -- at which point Europeans
spoiled the party.
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914
and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable -- so at least a subsequent generation
of WASPs concluded. This is where Wertheim takes up the story. Prompted by the German army's lightning victory in the battle
of France in May and June 1940, members of that WASP elite set about creating -- and promoting -- an alternative policy
paradigm, one he describes as pursuing "dominance in the name of internationalism," with U.S. military supremacy deemed "the
prerequisite of a decent world."
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from
Massachusetts or planters from Virginia. Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton, wrote columns for
leading New York newspapers, staffed Henry Luce's
Time-Life
press empire, and
distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes (grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among
them). Most importantly, just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR). As such, they had a direct line to the State Department, which in those days actually played a large
role in formulating basic foreign policy.
While
Tomorrow, The World
is not a
long book -- fewer than 200 pages of text -- it is a
tour de force
. In it, Wertheim
describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France.
He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves
castigated as "isolationists," a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness. Those favoring armed
intervention, meanwhile, became "internationalists," a term connoting enlightenment and generosity. Even today, members of the
foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework, which still warns against the bugaboo of
"isolationism" that threatens to prevent high-minded policymakers from exercising "global leadership."
Wertheim persuasively describes the "turn" toward militarized globalism
engineered from above by that self-selected, unelected crew. Crucially, their efforts achieved success
prior
to
Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war,
but the essential transformation of policy had already occurred, even if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what
it meant. Its future implications -- permanently high levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases stretching
across the globe, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically
subversive
arms
industry
-- would only become apparent in the years ahead.
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully
constructed myth, he does so with devastating effect. Most of all, he helps his readers understand that "so long as the
phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin, all is permitted."
Contained within that
all
is a
cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations, successes and failures, notable achievements and immense
tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed. While beyond the scope of Wertheim's book, casting the
Cold War as a
de facto
extension of the war against Nazi Germany, with Soviet dictator
Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler, represented an equally significant triumph for the foreign policy establishment.
At the outset of World War II, ominous changes in the global distribution
of power prompted a basic reorientation of U.S. policy. Today, fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power --
did
someone
say
"the rise of China"? -- are once again occurring right before our eyes. Yet the foreign-policy establishment's response
is simply to double down.
So, even now,
staggering
levels
of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling
"national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of U.S.
policy. And even now, the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and
expedient amnesia, as well as a means to enforce discipline.
Frozen Compass
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster. Yet implicit in
Tomorrow,
The World
is this question: If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a
hitherto successful policy paradigm, then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in the present century not
produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army's
sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht's assault and the accumulation of U.S. military disappointments dating from 9/11.
From a tactical or operational perspective, many will find such a comparison unpersuasive. After all, the present-day armed
forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat, nor is the government of the United States petitioning for
a cessation of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940.
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes. Time and again since 9/11,
whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or lesser theaters of conflict, the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes
for which it went to war. From a strategic and political perspective, therefore, the comparison with France is instructive,
even if failure need not entail abject surrender.
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo
(including Americans who bothered to pay attention) were counting on that country's soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression
once and for all. Defeat came as a profound shock. Similarly, after the Cold War, most Americans (and various beneficiaries of
a supposed
Pax Americana
) counted on U.S. troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly
global status quo. Instead, the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of "endless
wars" that U.S. forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion.
Crucially, however, no reevaluation of U.S. policy comparable to the "turn"
that Wertheim describes has occurred.
An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump's promise to put
"America First" might credit him with attempting such a turn. In practice, however, his incompetence and inconsistency, not to
mention his naked dishonesty, produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags. Threats of "
fire
and fury
" alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ("
we
fell in love
"). Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten. Trump
abandoned
a
global environmental agreement,
massively
rolled back
environmental regulations domestically, and then
took
credit
for providing Americans with "the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet." Little of this was to be
taken seriously.
Trump's legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic
equivalent of
Mulligan
stew
. Examine the contents closely enough and you'll be able to find just about anything. Yet taken as a whole, the
concoction falls well short of being nutritious, much less appetizing.
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the entire national
security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump's departure from office will restore some version of normalcy. Every
component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the
editorial boards of the
New York Times
and
Washington
Post
yearns for that moment.
To a very considerable degree, a Biden presidency will satisfy that
yearning. Nothing if not a creature of the establishment, Biden himself will conform to its requirements. For proof, look no
further than his vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. (No isolationist he.) Count on a Biden administration, therefore, to
perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices.
As Peter Beinart
puts
it
, "When it comes to defense, a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency, and that's going
to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers." Biden will increase the Pentagon
budget, keep U.S. troops in the Middle East, and get tough with China. The United States will remain the world's
number-one
arms
merchant, accelerate efforts to militarize outer space, and continue the
ongoing
modernization
of the entire U.S. nuclear strike force. Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the
"inside."
Above all, Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of
American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership. "The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and
autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future, as well." Those
uplifting sentiments are, of course, his from a recent
Foreign
Affairs
essay
.
So if you liked U.S. national security policy before Trump mucked things
up, then Biden is probably your kind of guy. Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of "dominance in the name
of internationalism" will resume. And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- policies, we should note, that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the
White House.
The Voices That Count
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of
evidence showing that it's not working to the benefit of the American people? Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm
that dates from Hitler's assault on France, now a full 80 years in the past?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that
essential question. In the meantime, however, allow me to make a stab at offering the most preliminary of answers.
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the
military-industrial complex -- the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in
discovering new "threats" -- one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between
self-interest and the national interest. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams never confused the two. His latter-day
successors have done far less well.
As an actual basis for policy, the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes in
Tomorrow,
The World
has proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day
proponents still purport to believe it to be. The paradigm produced in 1940-1941 was, at best, merely serviceable. It
responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment. It justified U.S. participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany, a
necessary undertaking.
After 1945, except as a device for affirming the authority of
foreign-policy elites, the pursuit of "dominance in the name of internationalism" proved to be problematic. Yet even as
conditions changed, basic U.S. policy stayed the same: high levels of military spending, a network of foreign bases, a
penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry.
Even after the Cold War and 9/11, these remain remarkably sacrosanct.
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of:
well, I guess it could have been worse. When it comes to the U.S. response to 9/11, however, it's difficult to imagine what
worse could have been.
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment, however, a different
interpretation prevails: the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory, unsullied by any
unfortunate post-9/11 missteps. The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight
decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden, are dead and gone.
This paradigm persists for one reason only: it ensures that statecraft will
remain a realm that resolutely excludes the popular will. Elites decide, while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the
bill. In that regard, the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today.
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real
change become possible. The turn in U.S. policy described in
Tomorrow, The World
came
from the top. The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit
of deference when it comes to determining what this nation's role in the world will be. Those on top will do all in their
power to avert any such loss of status.
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and
metaphorical. Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns.
While Americans cannot ignore the world beyond their borders, the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of
searching for distant monsters to destroy. Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential first step
toward recovery.
Share this:
Russia has consistently stressed its willingness to work with either candidate -- late last
month, the Kremlin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov rebuffed suggestions that Moscow prefers the
incumbent: "it would be wrong to say that Trump is more attractive to us."
But Russia's political commentary sphere has proven more polarized. Some cite
Biden's readiness to extend the New START treaty without additional conditions as evidence that
Biden is someone that the Kremlin can do business with; others have expressed concern over the
Democratic candidate's "Russophobic" cabinet picks and predict that, under a Biden presidency,
Washington's policy of rollback will escalate to an unprecedented level. But there is also an
overarching belief that Washington's Russia policy is so deeply embedded across U.S.
institutions that not much is likely to change in U.S.-Russian relations.
As Peskov put it, "there is a fixed place on the altar of US domestic policy for hatred of
Russia and a Russophobic approach to bilateral relations with Moscow." Still other commentators
are interested in the process as much as the outcome, drawing attention to ongoing mass unrest and
allegations of electoral misconduct in order to argue that Washington has forfeited its moral
authority to lecture others on proper democratic procedure and the orderly transition of
power.
"@realDonaldTrump election night 800,000 lead was wiped out by hundreds of thousands of
mail in ballots counted without any Republican observer," Giuliani tweeted on Sunday
morning, a day after Associated Press called Pennsylvania and the entire election in favor of
Joe Biden.
"Why were Republicans excluded?," he continued, before asking his followers to
"tweet me your guess, while I go prove it in court."
Like his boss, Giuliani has insisted that Biden's apparent victory was the result of fraud.
Republican observers say they were denied access to counting centers, which allowed staff
inside to do "bad things" with the ballots, in Trump's words. At least one postal worker
has claimed that he was ordered to backdate mail-in ballots, while the Trump campaign has
alleged that droves of dead people voted in Philadelphia, and that staff there illegally
counted late-arriving mail ballots.
Giuliani called the "Philadelphia Democrat machine" "brazen," and claimed that the
late heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier and actor Will Smith's grandfather both voted in previous
elections in the city after their deaths.
"I bet Biden dominated this group," he tweeted. "We will find out."
Just an example of how brazen the Philadelphia Democrat machine is.Former heavyweight
champion Joe Frazier voted in the 2018 election. He died on 11/7/18.Will Smith's grandfather
voted in 2017, 2018. He died in 2016.I bet Biden dominated this group. We will find
out.
Biden beat Trump in Pennsylvania by around 40,000 votes, or 0.6 percent of the total vote,
though a small number of ballots remain to be counted. Though Republicans in the Keystone State
have not outright called Biden's win fraudulent, State House Speaker Bryan Cutler called on
Friday for Governor Tom Wolf to launch a "full audit" of the vote there before
certifying the result.
In a
letter to Wolf, Cutler cited the widespread use of mail-in ballots without signatures, the
exclusion of Republicans from polling places, and the extension of the mail-in deadline as
"issues that cannot be overlooked."
Based on how the vote was run in Pennsylvania, "no matter who wins, you're going to have
50 percent of the population, no matter which side, that is not going to have faith in the
result," State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman told reporters on Friday.
Quizzed by reporters about her handling of the vote, Pennsylvania's Secretary of State,
Kathy Boockvar said that she had done everything "to make sure every voter, every candidate
and every party has access to a fair, free, safe and secure election."
Biden has vowed to regain the world's respect for the Outlaw US Empire, which begs this
question: When did the world actually respect it? "Leaders" who uttered the word respect were
paid to do so as it was painfully clear for those at the top levels of governments that after
WW2 what was the USA was now the Outlaw US Empire since it had no compunction violating
International Law and thus its own fundamental Law--a nuclear armed outlaw is something you
fear, not respect. And even before WW2, FDR had to make clear his foreign policy toward those
in the Western Hemisphere was to be that of a Good Neighbor, not Loan Shark. Again, the Loan
Shark is feared, not respected. So, what respect is it that Biden seeks to regain since none
has existed for over a century? We'll need to wait and see what he does immediately after
he's sworn in on 20 January for he must first show respect for the Constitution he'll swear
to defend and uphold, and that means obeying the edicts of International Law as directed by
the UN Charter which is part of said Constitution. IMO, that would need to be a mandatory
first step if he wants to gain respect. Otherwise, he'll signal the USA will remain the
Outlaw US Empire.
Viewing Biden as a cannula to insert Harris and all that would imply, I ask how such a
weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule. Mrs Thatcher sought this,
as did Bush 43, Truman with Korea, and as many others have classically done, by making a war
and a victory. It does seem sure that the "election" has failed materially to achieve the
basic goal of creating consent. In the example of Thatcher, Robert Green tells us that in the
Belgrano affair the war went very nearly to atomic explosives. One is inclined, in the matter
of atomics, to speculate on how many times luck will prevent nukewar. Of course Korea also
came quite close to nukewar too, and remains there.
The glorious (if hypothetical so far) Harris War may not go well, as Martyanov tells us,
the US has in fact lost military supremacy, and the weak unconsented Harris is not liable, I
judge, to have the strength or understanding to avoid defeat.
Defeat, at this stage of empire, may be akin to the wizard of oz being seen to be a fake.
Indeed, Harris herself seems to be a fake "black" and also a fake champion.
When empires lose wars and are seen to be insane, the several satrapies begin to depart.
Only today, they say, Germany decided not to buy F35's... Therefore, considered as a whole
from this moment in History, it seems to me that we shall have a glorious atomic defeat, will
all that follows.
That would seem to satisfy the Deagle prediction of a mere 54 million persons in USA circa
2025.
When discussing weak people in the White House, don't forget the Bush Baby. Weak
presidents serve a purpose, which is to allow their handlers in the CIA/deep state to work
unimpeded. What this means is that Harris has no bearing on whether the US will go kinetic
again. That decision will be up to committees in the CIA/deep state. Unfortunately, the CIA
is a distillation of the very most violently psychotic and delusional freaks from American
society, which is itself a society that produces more than its share of violently psychotic
and delusional freaks.
Neoliberal fascists continue the purge of the real Left and give us a small taste of what
will happen under a Biden presidency
Posted by: killwallstreet | Nov 8 2020 13:37 utc | 3
------------------------------------------------------
Neoliberals and Neocons are both supporters of the Empire! The only difference is Neocon
don't hide their Empire agenda behind some nice words/slogans like the Neoliberals.
Mao once said he'd prefer to deal with the right party.
I ask how such a weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule.
I think you are failing to see the continuity of EMPIRE policy. Biden, Harris, Trump,
Hillary, Obama, GWBush, Clinton all did or will do what the Deep State EMPIRE managers want
them to. Harris is no any more prone to war-making than any of her predecessors and will not
take risks that the Deep State have not thoroughly examined.
This confirms my hypothesis that stated the liberals didn't like Trump merely because he's
vulgar - not because of his policies.
This is the "confidence thesis", which states that the sole factor for the success of any
given liberal system (not socialism - socialism is failed by design...) is merely the people
in it to make it work and trust blindly it will work. Guess where this thesis is dominant?
The financial sector.
The logic of finance is impregnating in every facet of American life and politics. The USA
is consolidating itself more and more as an exclusively financial superpower.
If he's smart, the likely President-elect will stop the unpopular endless wars and use the
money to help our domestic economy.
...Lunch Pail Joe was supposed to win back the support of white, blue-collar workers who had
defected to the Republicans. Campaign organizers said he would energize Black and Latinx
voters. But there wasn't much of a shift among non-college educated men. And those folks who
did go Democratic largely voted against Trump, notfor Biden. It's as if
Biden had undergone an enthusiasm bypass.
Trump's populist appeal has strong racist and misogynist elements, but also reflects a
genuine anger at economic inequality and endless wars. If Biden simply returns to mainstream
Democratic Party governance, it won't satisfy the Democratic Party base nor those Trump
supporters with legitimate complaints.
So what is to be done?
Biden will have his hands full reversing Trump's disastrous domestic policies. But he can
also make serious changes in US foreign policy.
Biden can implement progressive and popular policies during his first 100 days in office, in
many cases, programs that he already promised and which don't require Congressional approval.
These include:
Stop the war in Yemen : This years-long conflict, which benefits no one but the
oil-rich rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has killed more than 100,000
people and caused the preventable deaths of 113,000 children .
Biden could immediately freeze weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, forcing them to stop
bombing civilians and withdraw their troops. It would be one step toward ending unpopular,
endless wars.
Earlier this year, Democrats and anti-interventionist Republicans in the Senate voted to
invoke the War Powers Act to stop funding the Yemen war. It was vetoed by Trump.
To his credit, Biden supported the war powers resolution. His campaign spokesperson Andrew
Bates
toldThe Washington Post , "Vice President Biden believes it is past time to end US
support for the war in Yemen and cancel the blank check the Trump Administration has given
Saudi Arabia for its conduct of that war."
Lift Trump's unilateral oil blockade of Cuba and restore normal diplomatic relations:
Trump has gone further to economically attack Cuba than any other President. He cut off much of
Cuba's oil supplies from Venezuela by
applying sanctions against international shipping companies. This, combined with a halt in
foreign tourism, has wrecked the Cuban economy. Public transport doesn't have enough gasoline;
trucks can't bring produce from the countryside.
The people of Cuba pose no danger to the US. During the later part of Barack Obama's
presidency, people from the US freely visited Cuba, to the benefit of both countries.
During the campaign, Biden
said , "As President, I will promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted
harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights."
With a stroke of the pen Biden could lift the oil embargo, re-open US visits to Cuba, and
fully staff the Embassy in Havana, which is now operating with a skeleton crew.
Rejoin the Iran nuclear accord: Trump unilaterally withdrew from the internationally
binding Iran
nuclear accord and imposed harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people. This policy of
"maximum pressure" has failed to change Iranian domestic or foreign policy. Biden should
immediately rejoin the accord and lift all sanctions related to nuclear issues.
In September, Biden wrote
, "If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the US would rejoin the
agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations." He added that the new administration
would lift the "disgraceful" ban that prohibits Iranians and people from other Muslims nations
from entering the US.
But Biden's promises were couched
in bellicose, Cold War rhetoric about Iran's alleged threats to the US. Democratic and
Republican hawks will certainly pressure Biden to take a hard line against Iran. But both
countries would benefit from re-implementing the accord and lowering tensions.
End attacks on China: Trump initiated a trade war against China. He tried to ban
Chinese technology from being used in the US and even
sought the arrest of a top Chinese corporate executive. But, of course, China retaliated.
Trump's policy against China has been a massive failure, with the US losing nearly
300,000 jobs as of September 2019.
China poses no military threat to the people of the US. China has one military base outside
its territory; the US has about 750. China now has also developed the world's second largest
economy and competes successfully with US corporations. The trade war is aimed at promoting US
corporate profits at the expense of Chinese competitors.
With executive action, Biden could end the trade war quickly. Unfortunately, Biden has
"drunk the Kool-Aid" when it comes to China. He said , "My focus will be on rallying our friends in
both Asia and Europe in . . . joining us to get tough on China and its trade and technology
abuses."
Biden must shift policies on China as part of recognizing that the world has changed a lot
in recent years.
Joe Biden is a mainstream Democrat who supported many of the foreign policy disasters
of past presidencies. He backed the occupation of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq War, and he
strongly supports Israel against the Palestinians.
But today, the US is considerably weaker, wracked by recession, and politically divided.
People are fed up with endless wars. Regional powers such as Turkey, Russia, and Iran are
exerting influence in areas formerly under US domination.
If he's smart, Biden will recognize the new reality, stop US interventions, and use the
money being spent on foreign wars to help our domestic economy. I'm confident he will make some
promised changes but progressives will have to build grass roots pressure to make the changes
we really need.
Foreign Correspondent appears every other week. Reese Erlich is an adjunct professor in
International Studies at the University of San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
The world Vice President Biden knew at the end of the Obama administration no longer exists.
In four years, President Trump reshaped the geopolitical reality around the globe, making
Biden's dreams of "normalization" impossible.
If the press reports are true, it appears that much of the world joined the roughly 50
percent of Americans who celebrated the news that Joe Biden had passed the Electoral College
threshold of the 270 votes needed to become president-elect. While America struggles to find a
path where Biden will be able to restore domestic tranquility to a deeply divided nation, the
world will likewise need to get to grips with how it will respond to an administration whose
thinking is rooted in a world that no longer exists.
The geopolitical reality that existed in 2016, following eight years of the Obama
administration, has been radically transformed after four years of a Trump administration which
broke with virtually every previously held diplomatic norm, tradition, and precedent. It was
not just US policy that had been altered – the world also changed, forced to adapt to
Trump's unconventional approach toward international affairs. A Biden administration which
seeks to recreate the world that existed in 2016 will find itself ill-prepared to deal with the
harsh new realities of a post-Trump world.
Repairing the US economy will be a top domestic priority for a Biden administration, and
this cannot be without consideration being given to the contentious state of US-China
relations. Policies
seeking to bring an end to the ongoing US-China trade war will collide with
Biden's tough rhetoric regarding China's military presence in the South China Sea and
elsewhere. It is hard to see how either can be done in isolation, meaning the status quo
inherited from the Trump administration will likely remain for some time to come.
Hollow
climate rhetoric
Joe Biden has promised that he would re-enter the Paris Climate Accord immediately upon
assuming the presidency. When the Trump administration formally withdrew the US from the Paris
Accord on November 4, 2020, Joe Biden responded by tweeting"Today, the Trump Administration officially left the Paris Climate Agreement. And in exactly
77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it."
Re-entering the Paris Climate Accord will not pose much of a problem – the US never
treated it as a treaty, with then-president Obama bypassing constitutional requirements for
Senate advice and consent by simply signing an executive order. But is unlikely that Biden will
be able to get Congress to fund a
multi-trillion-dollar initiative at a time when the US economy is reeling from the economic
downturn brought on by the Civd-19 pandemic. In short, Biden's plan to rejoin the Paris Accord
is little more than political theater with no chance of meaningful success.
Repairing the
Iran deal or not
Another "day one" priority for Biden is to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal). President Trump precipitously withdrew from this
Obama-legacy agreement in May 2018 (another agreement enshrined not as a treaty, but rather
through executive order).
Biden has committed to rejoining the deal "once Iran returns to compliance," and then use
the JCPOA as the basis upon which to negotiate a broader and longer-lasting deal with Iran.
One of the first challenges confronting a Biden administration is to navigate the issue of
what constitutes "returning to compliance." It was the US, not Iran, that withdrew from the
JCPOA, and today the JCPOA framework continues to exist, sans America. As such, the first step
that must be taken is for the US to rejoin without pre-conditions. Then and only then would
Iran consider the possibility of resuming negotiations about any post-JCPOA agreement.
However, some of Biden's key foreign policy advisers
appear to have re-thought their position on Iranian sanctions , which would be lifted if
the US rejoined the JCPOA. There is a feeling that the Trump policy of "maximum pressure" might
be on the verge of paying dividends. Void of any up-front commitment regarding future nuclear
policy, ballistic missiles or regional interference, there is a feeling in the Biden camp that
keeping sanctions in place might be the best policy option vis-a-vis Iran.
Further complicating any future Biden Iran policy will be how a Biden
administration deals with the issue of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria,
and the Trump Arab-Israeli "peace offensive" which has seen several Gulf Arab States normalize
relations with Israel as part of an effort to solidify an anti-Iranian coalition in the Persian
Gulf. It is highly likely that Biden will seek to solidify the US military presence in the
region, thereby threatening the peace agreement with the Taliban, and provoking pro-Iranian
militias in Iraq. Likewise, Biden will seek to use the US military presence inside Syria as a
means of strengthening US-Kurdish ties. In short, a Biden administration will find itself
rapidly bogged down in the forever wars in the Middle East, with no plan on how to either win
or get out.
US-Israeli relations during the Obama administration were at an all-time low, primarily
because of Israel's handling of the issue of Palestinian rights and statehood. With the Trump
administration all but writing Palestine out of any Arab-Israeli framework for peace, the Biden
administration will be immediately confronted by the issue of
how to re-engage on the issue of Palestine , knowing that in doing so it could upset the
trajectory of Arab-Israeli normalization that had been begun under Trump.
Turkey and
NATO
Likewise,
the issue of Turkey looms large . Turkey's involvement in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and now
Azerbaijan has changed the geopolitical landscape in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the Levant,
and the southern Caucasus in the four years since the Obama administration. Any effort to
aggressively confront Turkey would need to be taken in conjunction with Biden's plans to
"repair" America's relationship with NATO and the rest of Europe. This is especially the case
regarding Turkey's contentious relations with both France and Greece.
NATO itself is a major issue confronting a Biden administration.
Biden has said he will renew good relations between the US and its NATO allies strained by
four years of the Trump administration. But what does this mean exactly? Will Biden keep US the
forces in Germany that Trump had begun to withdraw? And what will Biden do about US forces in
Poland? Does Biden's pledge to "get tough" with Russia extend to doubling down on demanding new
elections in Belarus? Providing more lethal aid to Ukraine? Further encouraging Georgian
membership in NATO? What will Biden's policy be regarding intermediate-range missiles in Europe
following Trump's withdrawal from the 1987 landmark INF Treaty? The reality is Trump has left a
potential Biden administration a tangled mess in Europe, where any policy initiative in one
area raises a host of problems in another.
And then there is the issue of Russia. Biden spent
his entire campaign promoting how "tough" he was going to be on Russia , and in particular
its president, Vladimir Putin. Two major decisions that will be confronted by a Biden
administration early on, however, would require more finesse than muscle. The most pressing
will be the extension of the Obama-era New START treaty, set to expire on February 21, 2021
– exactly a month and one day after President Biden would be sworn into office. Russia
has indicated that it is ready to extend the New START treaty without preconditions, and
it is likely that a Biden administration would seek to do just this in order to preserve
the last reaming arms control framework between the US and Russia. The next step, however
– negotiating a follow-on treaty – requires an atmosphere of trust that, on the
surface at least – appears to be lacking on the part of a new Biden administration,
especially if it is simultaneously seeking to appear "tough."
Another problem is that of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, connecting Russia with Europe.
The Trump
administration has put in place strong sanctions designed to kill the project. Germany, a
critical NATO ally and one of the nations with which a Biden administration would logically be
seeking to repair relations (especially after the particularly contentious relationship between
Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel), has taken umbrage over what it deems to be US
interference in its sovereign economic interests.
When Biden was vice president under Obama,
he called the Nord Stream 2 project"a bad deal for Europe." Every indication is
that Biden continues to embrace this stance. Even if Biden were to soften his position on Nord
Stream 2 as an olive branch to Germany, however, it would not mean that Biden would be willing
to soften the US policy on sanctioning Russia over Ukraine. The fact is, Biden does not much
care for Putin, and it is hard to see how the kind of personal relationship that preceded most
meaningful US-Russian diplomatic breakthroughs could be engendered, let alone prosper.
There are many other critical foreign policy challenges facing a potential Biden
administration, including the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, Venezuela, the war in
Yemen, and the growing ISIS presence in Africa, to name but a few. A Biden administration would
most likely seek to bring into its ranks foreign policy and national security experts who had
been weaned on eight years of the Obama administration. But the world these experts left in
2016 no longer exists. Moreover, these experts have been virtually shut out from any advisory
role during the Trump administration. A new Biden foreign policy team will be seeking to
rebuild relations with a world based upon an outdated game plan, creating the potential for a
disconnect between expectations and results that could further strain America's relationship
with the global community.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The prevailing view is that a victory for Biden would be bad for Russia, because a
Democratic administration is expected to impose new economic sanctions on Moscow as punishment
for its bad behavior -- first and foremost, for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. This view is widely shared by pro-Kremlin pundits, senior officials and the
executives of state-owned enterprises, and is even promoted by the few remaining independent
Russian media outlets such as the Bell newsletter, a daily staple in the information
diet of the Russian upper-middle class.
A more nuanced view on Biden is held by some people working on U.S. issues in the Russian
government. A president who is not tainted by suspicion of being a Russian asset -- and who
knows how to organize a normal process for national security discussions -- will be able to
restore some guardrails to the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent further deterioration,
those people argue. A President Biden would not be able to pay close attention to Russia, since
he and his senior advisers will be overwhelmed by domestic issues and otherwise focusing on
China. But a possible new Democratic administration appears to be open to retaining some
pillars of the arms control regime and discussing rules of competition in cyberspace. And it
could be more clear-eyed -- and therefore skeptical -- about the side effects and efficiency of
sanctions as the United States' major tool in Russia policy. Much will depend on who is put in
senior positions such as secretary of state and national security advisor, and on the midlevel
bureaucrats controlling the Russia portfolio.
After U.S.-Russian relations nearly hit rock bottom on Trump's watch, nobody in Russia
believes that four more years of Trump could be good for Moscow. If Trump is reelected, the
only silver lining will be the even deeper level of disarray in the Western alliance and U.S.
disengagement from its partners that a second Trump term would likely bring. For the Kremlin,
schadenfreude over the gradual demise of Pax Americana would simply sugarcoat the risks and
downsides of Trump remaining in the White House.
Alexander Gabuev is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center. Twitter:
@AlexGabuev
Trump was an outsider. The deep state won. There's never been such a relentless,
full-spectrum media propaganda campaign against a president such as this. Americans are
mostly dumb media creatures, especially the ignorant young who are infantile consumers of
Facebook and other twaddle. Corporations such as Apple poured hundreds of millions into BLM
and other front groups. And don't forget the massive terror campaign in the streets.
Capitalist globalism has retaken the presidency.
The Task before "Sleepy Joe" is to put Liberal America Right Back to Sleep
by Jonathan Cook / November 6th, 2020
At birth, all of us begin a journey that offers opportunities either to grow – not
just physically, but mentally, emotionally and spiritually – or to stagnate. The journey
we undertake lasts a lifetime, but there are dozens of moments each day when we have a choice
to make tiny incremental gains in experience, wisdom and compassion or to calcify through
inertia, complacency and selfishness.
No one can be engaged and receptive all the time. But it is important to recognise these
small opportunities for growth when they present themselves, even if at any particular moment
we may decide to avoid grasping them.
When we shut ourselves into the car on the commute to work, do we use it as a moment to be
alone with our thoughts or to silence them with the radio or music? When we sit with friends,
do we choose to be fully present with them or scroll through the news feed on our phones? When
we return from a difficult day at work, do we talk the issues through with family or reach for
a glass of wine, or maybe bingewatch something on TV?
Everyone needs downtime, but if every opportunity for reflection becomes downtime then we
are stagnating, not growing. We are moving away from life, from being human.
Dried-out husk
This week liberal Americans reached for that glass of wine and voted Joe Biden. Others did
so much more reluctantly, spurred on by the fear of giving his opponent another four years.
Biden isn't over the finishing line quite yet, and there are likely to be recounts, court
challenges and possibly violence over the result, but he seems all but certain to be crowned
the next US president. Not that that should provoke any kind of celebration. The rest of the
world's population, future generations, the planet itself – none of us had a vote –
were always going to be the losers whichever candidate won.
The incumbent, Donald Trump, miscalculated, it seems, if he thought dismissing his opponent
as "Sleepy Joe" would be enough to damage Biden's electoral fortunes. True, Trump was referring
to the fact that Biden is a dried-out husk of the machine politician he once was. But after
four years of Trump and in the midst of a pandemic, the idea of sleeping through the next
presidential term probably sounded pretty appealing to liberals.
Most of them had spent their whole political lives asleep, but four years ago they were
forcibly roused from their languor to protest against Donald Trump. They grew enraged by the
symptom of their corrupted political system rather than by the corrupt system itself. For them,
"Sleepy Joe" is just what the doctor ordered.
But it won't be Biden doing the sleeping. It will be the liberals who cheerlead him. Biden
– or perhaps Kamala Harris – will be busy making sure his corporate donors get
exactly what they paid for, whatever the cost to the rest of us.
In this analogy, Trump is not the opposite of Biden, of course. He represents stagnation
too, if of a different kind.
Trump channels Americans' frustration and anger at a political and economic system they
rightly see as failing them. He articulates who should be falsely blamed for their woes: be it
immigrants, minorities, socialists, or the New World Order. He offers justified, if
misdirected, rage in contrast to Biden's dangerous complacency.
But however awful Trump may be, at least some of those voting for him are grappling, if
mostly unconsciously, with the tension between stagnation and growth – and not of the
economic kind. Unlike most liberals, who dismiss this simplistically as "populism", some of
Trump's supporters do at least seem to recognise that the tension exists. They simply haven't
been offered a constructive alternative to anger and blame.
Ritually disappointed
Unlike the liberals and the Trumpists, many in the US have come to understand that their
political system offers nothing but stultifying stagnation for ordinary Americans by
design , even if it comes in two, smartly attired flavours.
They see that the Trump camp rages ineffectually against the corporate elite, deluded into
believing that a member of that very same elite will serve as their saviour. And they see that
the Biden camp represents an ineffectual rainbow coalition of competing social identities,
deluded into believing that those divisions will make them stronger, not weaker, in the fight
for economic justice. Both of these camps appear resigned to being serially – maybe
ritually – disappointed.
Failure does not inspire these camps to seek change, it makes them cling all the more
desperately to their failed strategies, to attach themselves even more frantically and
fervently to their perceived tribe.
That is why this US election – at a moment when the need for real, systemic change is
more urgent, more evident than ever before – produced not just one but two of the worst
presidential candidates of all time. We are looking at exactly what happens when a whole
society not only stops growing but begins to putrefy.
Enervating divisions
Not everyone in the US is so addicted to these patterns of self-delusion and self-harm.
Large swaths of the population don't bother to vote out of hard-borne experience. The system
is so rigged against them that they don't think it matters much which corporate party is in
power. The outcome will be the same for them either way.
Others vote third party, or consciously abstain in protest at big money's vice-like grip on
the two-party system. Others, appalled at the prospect of Trump – and before him the two
Bushes, and before that Ronald Reagan – were forced once again to vote for the Democratic
ticket with a heavy heart. They know all too well who Biden is (a creature of his corporate
donors) and what he stands for (whatever his corporate donors want). But he is slightly less
monstrous than his rival, and in the US system those are the meaningful electoral options.
And among Trump's supporters too, there are many desperate for wholesale change. They voted
for Trump because at least he paid lip service to change.
These groups – most likely a clear electoral majority – could redirect the US
towards political, social, even spiritual growth, if they could find a way to come together.
They suffer from their own enervating divisions.
How should they best use their numerical strength? Should they struggle to win the
presidency, and if so should it be a third-party candidate or should they work within the
existing party structures? What lesson should they draw from the Democratic leadership's
sabotaging – twice over – of Bernie Sanders, a candidate offering meaningful
change? Is it time to adopt an entirely different strategy, rejecting traditional politics? And
if so, can it be made to work when all the major institutions – from the politicians and
courts, to the police, intelligence services and media – are firmly in the hands of the
corporate enemy?
Terrible reckoning
There is no real way to sleep through life, or politics, and not wake up one day –
usually when it is too late – realising catastrophic mistakes were made.
As individuals, we may face that terrible reckoning on our death-beds. Empires rarely go so
quietly. They fall when it is time for their citizens to learn a painful lesson about hubris.
Their technological innovations come back to haunt them, as ancient Rome's lead water-pipes
supposedly once did. Or they over-extend with ambitious wars that drain the coffers of gold, as
warrior-kings have discovered to their cost through the ages. Or, when the guardians of empire
least expect it, "barbarians" – the victims of their crimes – storm the city
gates.
The globe-spanning US empire faces the rapid emergence of all these threats on a planetary
scale. Its endless wars against phantom enemies have left the US burdened with astounding debt.
Its technologies, from nuclear weapons to AI, mean there can be no possible escape from a major
miscalculation. And the US empire's insatiable greed and determination to colonise every last
inch of the planet, if only with our waste products, is gradually killing the life-systems we
depend on.
If Biden becomes president, his victory will be a temporary win for torpor, for complacency.
But a new Trump will emerge soon enough once again to potentise – and misdirect –
the fury steadily building beneath the surface. If we let it, the pendulum will swing back and
forth, between ineffectual lethargy and ineffectual rage, until it is too late. Unless we
actively fight back, the stagnation will suffocate us all.
The emergence in recent weeks of a coalition of neoconservative Republicans and former US
national-security officials who have thrown their support behind the Democratic candidacy of
Joe Biden is an ominous development to those who believe US foreign policy should be guided by
the principles of realism and military restraint, rather than perpetual wars of choice.
In early June, a group of former officials from the George W Bush administration launched a
political action committee (PAC) in support of Biden's candidacy. The group,
43 Alumni for Biden , boasts
nearly 300 former Bush officials and is seeking to mobilize disaffected Republicans
nationwide.
The mobilization appears to be having an impact: More recently, "more than 100 former staff
of [the late US senator John] McCain's congressional offices and campaigns also endorsed Biden
for president,"
according to NBC News , as well
as dozens of former staffers from Senator Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
That Republican support comes in addition to the more than 70 former US national-security
officials who teamed up
and issued a statement urging Biden's election in November.
Citing what they believe is the grave damage President Donald Trump has done to US national
security, the group does include some mainstream Republicans like Richard Armitage and Chuck
Hagel, but also features notable neocon hardliners like Eliot Cohen, John Negroponte and David
Kramer, who, perhaps not incidentally, played a
leading role in disseminating the utterly discredited Steele dossier prior to Trump's
inauguration.
These are not merely grifters or desperate bids for attention by unscrupulous and avaricious
Beltway swamp creatures. Though there are those too: the so-called
Lincoln Project , helmed by neocon operative Rick Wilson, which is an outside group of
Republicans (including former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele)
devoted to defeating Trump in November.
As historian David Sessions recently
tweeted , "Basically nobody in liberal circles is taking seriously the consequences of the
fact that the exiled cadre of the Republican Party are building a massive power base in the
Democratic Party."
The merger between Democrats and neocons is not merely confined to the world of electoral
politics; it is already affecting policy as well.
Over the summer, in response to The New York Times'
dubious "Russia bounty" story , Democratic congressman Jason Crow
teamed up with Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney (daughter of former US vice-president
Dick Cheney) to prohibit Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee also collaborated to pass an amendment that
imposed restrictions on Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany , showing, if nothing
else, that the bipartisan commitment to the new cold war is alive and well.
It is noteworthy that while there has been considerable pushback to economic neoliberalism
within the Democratic Party in recent years, thanks, mainly, to the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders, the advocacy of reformers like Elizabeth Warren and the increasing popularity of
economists like
Stephanie Kelton , the same cannot be said for foreign policy.
Biden has evinced an openness to being "pushed left" on social and economic policies if he
is elected president, but on external affairs he still largely operates within the standard
Washington foreign-policy playbook.
If anything, on foreign policy Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, having fallen
not only under the spell of "Russiagate" but also increasingly under the influence of neocons
and other former Bush officials who have pushed that discredited narrative for their own
ends.
The Democrats have also displayed a rather supine obeisance in regard to the country's
intelligence community, in spite of a
multiplicity of well-documented lies or half-truths that would at the very least justify
some skepticism about their claims or motivations.
Nobody should be surprised.
The neocons had been signaling their intention to flee the Republicans as early as 2016 when
it was widely reported that Robert Kagan had decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president
and speak at a Washington fundraiser alongside other national-security fixtures worried about
the alleged isolationist drift within the Republican Party.
Indeed, the Democrats welcomed the likes of Kagan and fellow neocon extremist Max Boot with
open arms, setting the stage for where we are today: a Democratic presidential nominee running
to the right of the Republican nominee on foreign policy.
Missing: whither the progressives?
Over the past few US election cycles, progressive Democrats have increasingly challenged the
party's prevailing neoliberal bias on domestic economic policy. Equally striking, however, is
that they have been delinquent in failing to provide an alternative to the hegemonic influence
of militarists and interventionists growing within their party regarding foreign policy.
As it stands today, the so-called progressive foreign-policy alternative is really no
alternative at all. To the contrary, it evokes Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's seminal work,
The Leopard , whose main character, Tancredi,
sagely observes to his uncle , "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to
change."
So it is with much of what passes for a genuine foreign-policy alternative: The rhetoric
slightly changes, the personnel certainly change, but in substance, the policy status quo
largely remains.
Consider a
recent interview with the socialist Jacobin magazine featuring Matt Duss, a foreign-policy
adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Duss, who seeks to articulate the foundations of a new
"progressive" foreign policy, told the Quincy Institute's Daniel Bessner:
"We have neither the right nor the ability to transform other countries, but we should do
what we can to protect and expand the political space in these countries for local people to
do that work. We can also provide funding or resources for American civil society actors to
work in solidarity with their international counterparts ." [emphasis ours]
That sounds anodyne enough, but in reality, it is nothing but a form of liberal
imperialism. Historically, seemingly benign initiatives conducted under the aegis of local
people backed by so-called democracy-building programs have often planted the seeds for more
malign military intervention later.
Who makes the decision as to which local people to support? How does one (purportedly)
protect and expand that political space? We have seen how well that worked out in Afghanistan,
Iraq, or, indeed, in the mounting human tragedy that is Syria today.
Comments like that of Matt Duss amount to this: "We don't have the right to transform other
countries but we're going to try anyway." Forswearing pre-emptive military action (wars of
choice) isn't enough. Change will only come about when US foreign policy adheres to the
principles of the UN Charter, and above all, the ancient Westphalian principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. American policymakers need to
learn that less is more.
That used to be a guiding principle of Democrats, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "
good neighbor policy " that repudiated intervention in the domestic affairs of Latin
America.
Of course, as subsequent events such as World War II illustrated, there may be a point at
which external assistance/intervention in other parts of the world might become necessary; but
the United States should not perpetually arrogate to itself the role of sole judge and jury in
determining when that line should be crossed, no matter how benign its intentions might
appear.
The broader point is that explicating a foreign policy somewhat less hawkish and merely
paying lip service to international law that transcend the norms established by the Bush-Cheney
neocons isn't enough.
That is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Republican-lite economic agenda embraced by "
New Democrats " such as Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner,
whereby the Democrats internalize the Republican Party's market-fundamentalist paradigm, but
simply promise to implement it more fairly, rather than do away with it altogether.
That appears unlikely to change under a future Biden administration. As American
Conservative editor Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
has noted , "Democratic interventionists and Blob careerists now [sit] at the right hand of
[Biden] like [Antony] Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and
Michele Flournoy , who has been touted as a possible secretary of defense.
"They would sooner drag the country back into Syria, as well as position aggressively
against China if the military pushed hard enough and there was a humanitarian reason to justify
it."
Nowhere in Biden's foreign-policy ambit do we find mainstream figures warning about the
dangers of a new cold war with Russia or China, nor to the broader problems posed by America's
overall propensity toward militarism. In fact,
Biden does just the opposite .
The shape of things to come?
With the notable exceptions of a few anti-war Democrats like Barbara Lee, Tulsi Gabbard, Ro
Khanna and Jeff Merkley, the opposition party has spent much of the Trump era turning itself
into the party of war.
Meanwhile, one could envisage a future where the Republicans, under the influence of
"national conservatives" such as Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, or even Trump advisers such as
retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor (recently nominated to be US ambassador to Germany),
becomes the party of realism and restraint abroad.
To the limited extent that President Trump has been guided by any kind of restraint (which
has been
capricious at best ), it has paid dividends for the United States. In the Middle East, for
example, given that the United States is now largely energy-self-sufficient, it no longer needs
to play policeman in that part of the world.
Who exactly is Joe Biden , the man who may be
our
president come Jan. 20? The truth is, as of right now, we don't really know.
We have no clue what Joe Biden actually thinks, or even if he's capable of thinking. He
hasn't told us and no one's made him tell us for a full year. In fact, it's becoming clear
there is no Joe Biden. The man you may remember from the 1980s is gone.
What remains is a projection of sorts, a hologram designed to mimic the behavior of a
non-threatening political candidate: "Relax, Joe Biden's here. He smiles a lot. Everything's
fine." That's the message from the vapor candidate.
So who's running the projector here? Well, the first thing you should know is that the
people behind Joe Biden aren't liberals. We've often incorrectly called them that. A liberal
believes in the right of all Americans to speak freely, to make a living, to worship their God,
to defend their own families, and to do all of that regardless of what political party they
belong to or what race they happen to be born into or how far from midtown Manhattan they
currently live.
A liberal believes in universal principles, fairly applied. And the funny thing is, all of
that describes most of the 70 million people who just voted for Donald Trump this week. Most of
them don't want to hurt or control anyone. They have no interest in silencing the opposition on
Facebook or anywhere else. They just want to live their lives in the country they were born in,
and it doesn't seem like a lot to ask. So by any traditional definition, they are liberal.
However, our language has become so politicized and so distorted that you would never know
it. What you do know for certain is that the people behind Joe Biden are not like that at all.
They don't believe in dissent. "You think one thing? I think another. That's OK." No, that's
not them at all. They demand obedience to diversity, which is to say, legitimate differences
between people is the last thing they want. These people seek absolute sameness, total
uniformity. You're happy with your corner coffee shop? They want to make you drink Starbucks
every day from now until forever, no matter how it tastes. That's the future.
Now, if these seem like corporate values to you, then you're catching on to what's
happening. The Joe Biden for President campaign is a purely corporate enterprise. It's the
first one in American history to come this close to the presidency. If a multinational
corporation decided to create a presidential candidate, he would be a former credit card shill
from Wilmington, Del., and that's exactly what they got. What's good for Google is good for the
Biden campaign and vice versa. We have never seen a more soulless project. They literally
picked Kamala Harris as Biden's running mate, someone who can't even pronounce her own name.
Not that it matters, because it's purely an advertising gimmick.
We watched all of this come together in real time. We stood slack-jawed in total disbelief
as a man with no discernible constituency of any kind rose to the very top of our political
system, as if by magic. It's possible in the end that Joe Biden himself never convinced a
single voter of anything over the entire duration of the presidential campaign, but he didn't
have to. Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination because he wasn't Bernie Sanders. He came to
where he is today because he isn't Donald Trump. It's the shortest political story ever
written.
Now, whatever you may think of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, they did it the
traditional way. Each one of them had the support of actual voters. Living, breathing people
loved them, believed in them, vested their hope in them, and, by the way, agreed with their
ideas, which they articulated clearly.
But corporate America hated them both. They couldn't be controlled, particularly Donald
Trump, whose complete unwillingness to submit made him the greatest possible threat. That's why
they hate Donald Trump, because he won't obey.
It's insulting to say that Joseph R. Biden won this election, if that is what comes to pass.
The tech companies will have won. The big banks will have won. The government of China, the
media establishment, the permanent bureaucracy, the billionaire class -- they will have won,
and not in the way that democracy promises. If a single person equaled a single vote, a
coalition like that could never win anything. There aren't enough of them.
But as a group, they have something that Donald Trump's voters sadly do not have, and that
is power. They have lots of power and they plan to wield that power, whether you like it or
not. It's all starting to look a lot like oligarchy at this point. The people who believe they
should have been in charge all along now may actually be in charge.
So what does that mean for the rest of us? Will corporate America declare victory and back
off? Can we speak freely again? Will they take the boot from our necks? Can we have America
back now that the Great Orange Emergency has passed? Well, the mandatory lying orders finally
be lifted?
Those are the questions we'll be paying attention to, since we plan to stay in this country.
And one other thing while we're at it, who's excited to greet our new corporate overlords? Who
plans to collaborate, particularly of those on the right side, the Republican side, the side
that said it was defending you? Who's happy about all of this? That seems worth keeping track
of, just so we know who we're dealing with here. Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of
FOX News Channel's (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network
in 2009 as a contributor.
Postmodernist, in this context, usually means something like 'based on self-confident
assertions that have no connection with reality'. Or 'based on truthness '.
Neoconservatives are flocking to the Biden campaign. The DC braintrust that believes in
using US military power to aid Israel in the Middle East has jumped parties before– to
Clinton in '92, and back to Bush in 2000– and now they're hopping aisles to support
Biden, with Bill Kristol leading the way.
Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by "Jewish Americans for Biden", and
moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans
endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump's character posing a danger to democracy. But both
neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East and
reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won't
necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support
Israel and believe in American military intervention.
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic , echoed
the fear that Israel is being politicized. "A lot of Jews made a big mistake by taking
something I was in favor of, moving the embassy to Jerusalem and obsessing about that," he
said. But there was huge political risk in that: if the United States is internally divided,
at war with itself, and "Israel has become a partisan issue, which it should never ever be .
That's not in Israel's longterm security interest."
Biden will reverse that trend by appointing strong supporters of Israel, Cohen said.
"Joe Biden has a long record as a friend of Israel. I think we're both quite familiar
with the kinds of people who will go into a Biden administration and I think we feel very
comfortable that they will have a deep and abiding concern for Israel which is not going to
go away."
Edelman also said that Trump has created many "dangers" in the region by not being
aggressive:
"By withdrawing or threatening to withdraw US forces, by repeatedly not replying or
dealing with Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf or against Saudi oil infrastructure,
he's created a sort of vacuum that is being filled in Libya by Russia and by Turkey "
Biden will work with allies and be ready to use U.S. military in the region– or as
Edelman said, "to play."
"The region is a mess," Edelman said. "And yet the president continually says he wants the
U.S. to withdraw from the region. The reality is that the withdrawal of US power form the
region has helped create this morass of threats."
He cited three war zones in which the U.S. or proxies' bombing is essential to U.S.
security, Libya, Yemen and Syria.
In Syria, "The Trump administration pulled out and said, we don't want to play here,"
Edelman said.
"Other forces are going to fill the vacuum created by the absence of US leadership and
they won't be benign forces," Edelman said. Iran, Russia, or Turkey will come in and create a
"vortex of instability that can potentially come back to haunt us" -- with terrorist attacks
or the disruption of energy markets.
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
In other words, Trump has failed the Israel Lobby because he has tried to pull our US forces
from the Middle East and, although he has laid down sanctions against Iran, he has not gone to
war. Of course, these are the people who promoted the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war. They
are probably right that Russia and Turkey would benefit from US pulling out completely
(Libya??), but where are legitimate US interests in all this? Trump ran on ending Middle East
wars and getting out of the region–the original reason the neocons jumped ship (in
addition to fears of a nascent Orange Hitler). Despite being president he has been unable to do
so. He has been strongly
opposed by the foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon -- a testament to the extent
to which the US security establishment is Israel-occupied territory.
Lurking in the background of the attitudes of Cohen and Edelman is the idea that Biden would
tame the forces on the left that have been so critical of Israel in recent years. With Biden
they get it all: Strongly pro-Israel even to the point of initiating a war with Iran, taming
the anti-Israel voices on the left (Kamala Harris with her Jewish husband s not among them),
and perhaps a Senate led by Israel operative Chuck Schumer. Meanwhile the Republican Party
would default to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining neocons, and the hope of a
nationally competitive GOP, much less a truly populist GOP, would die. Bill Kristol loves the
prospect of a long-term Democrat domination.
And of course, all of these bellicose proposals are cloaked in a veneer of "Jewish values"
-- not so ironic if one assumes, as is certainly the case, that promoting war for specifically
Jewish interests is indeed a Jewish value.
Cohen spoke about Jewish values. He and his family belong to an orthodox synagogue and
have raised four children with a religious education. "I've tried to live my life by Jewish
values. One thing that's very important for Jewish Republicans. Obviously the issue of Israel
is important, it's the only Jewish state, it's important to look after it and for it to
thrive, but what is our approach to politics?" Jews don't believe that you Render unto God
the things that are God and render unto Caesar the thing that are Caesar's and therefore not
take issue with a politician's character "so long as they do what we want them to do." He
said, "That's not the Jewish way." In the Book of Samuel, the king engages "in despicable
behavior," and the prophet storms into his bedroom. "We believe that character matters." And
this election is about character.
Okay, Trump is not a saint. But given that Biden is up to his eyeballs in scandal doesn't
bother Cohen at all -- despite overwhelming documentation. So we are not supposed to care that
the Biden family raked in millions by using Biden's influence to alter US foreign policy or
that China could easily blackmail him into doing their bidding on trade and military issues. So
in the end, it's really about what Cohen, Edelman, Kristol, et al. think is good for Israel
(Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot jumped the GOP ship even before Trump was elected). Again, count
me unsurprised.
And of course, the other thing is that neocons have always been on the left
within the Republican Party. One might say they have attempted to not only make Israel a
bi-partisan issue (their first priority) but also promoting the liberal/left social agenda,
such as replacement-level non-White immigration, as a bipartisan issue -- both values strongly
promoted by the mainstream Jewish community. They jumped ship mainly because Trump was
promising to undo the liberal/left social agenda as well as disengage from foreign wars and US
occupation of the Middle East. During the 2016 campaign, some of the strongest denunciations of
Trump came from neocons ("
Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump: Neocon Angst about a Fascist America" ).
If you haven't seen it, Carlson's interview with Bobulinski is damning, and the documents he
refers to have been thoroughly authenticated.
Trump has been dealing with jews all of his life and knows what they are like. This is a
double-edged sword for jews as he is wise to their dishonest criminality and double-dealing
and is able to work around their machinations and dishonesty.
This s why (some) jews hate him. If he wanted to, he could expose them for what they truly
are
To Trump's credit, he has his own security detail interspersed within his Secret Service
protection team making possible harm or actions against him difficult if not impossible. A
good thing
I truly believe that Jews are the strongest assets Satan has. They are constantly forcing
us super-stupid Gentiles into wars for Israel. We have Gentile-American soldiers (Jews don't
serve) facing off against my white Christian brothers, mainly to be a counter-balance to
Iranian forces in the country who are battling U.S.-backed terrorists. Jews hate Russians
because they are white Christians and they actually hate us white-Christians in America, too.
(For now, we are simply useful idiots for them.) It is time that we Gentiles wake up and kick
every single last Jew out of this country before the Jews get us all killed!
DJT has done a good job of separating the J wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Unfortunately, it's the chaff that seems to have all the power money and influence. For
now.
Who paid for all this peace in the Middle East?
American tax money was used to
De-stabilize Iraq
De-stabilize Libya
De-stabilize Syria
Only Iran is left as a major power in the Middle East.
Let's get the draft going to get our brave boys and girls(and LGBTQ) fighting to maintain
peace in the Middle East.
We ALL need to give until we can give no more.
Maybe draft exemptions for the Ivy League, someone has to tell us what to do.
Jewish promoted Critical Race Theory believes and teaches that systemic racism is the main
reason why blacks commit criminal acts. Therefore the response to the disparity between White
and Black crime is to alter the standards, i.e., change White expections of the Black
community. Because to say to Black Americans that they must alter their behavior to meet the
current standards is racist.
Samuel Krasner, the Jewish DA in Philadelphia, is aboard with this. He decriminalised
shoplifting in his jurisdiction. And we now have shoplifters walking out of stores with
armfuls of stolen goods whilst smiling in the cameras and saying, 'I can't be
prosecuted.'
Then there is this unbelievable piece of BS legislation from Virginia: "Virginia
legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights,
etc."
When Virginia state legislator who sponsored the bill, Patrick Hope, was asked about this
by a reporter from The Daily Press he responded by saying he didn't know that police were no
longer allowed to stop vehicles for not having their lights illuminated.
Patrick Hope sponsored a bill without actually knowing what was in it! If you think at
this stage that Patrick Hope is a hopeless idiot he gets worse.
When the importance of working brake lights on vehicles was mentioned to Hope he said:
"The brake lights -- I'm not concerned about that as a safety issue -- but I can certainly
see how headlights could be of concern ."
A Virginia state legislator is dumb enough to believe that brake lights have no importance
whatsoever to road safety in his state.
The modern United States? You couldn't f ** king make it up! By the way, who are the
majority people driving defective cars in Virginia? Blacks and other newly arrived
minorities, of course.
Would the local authorities in any part of Israel decriminalise shoplifting for a minority
demographic in their area? Not likely. How about Samuel Krasner, would he recommend that
crime be legalised for minorities in the state of Israel? No, he wouldn't. He's not stupid.
He would not do anything that would destroy his native country.
Would an utter idiot like Hope be allowed to introduce insane life endangering legislation
in Israel? No, his Jew financial backers would not allow that.
But, Trump or no Trump, all this is coming to your local area of America very soon.
It's amazing. It's astounding. A cursory look shows there are Jews behind every act of
destruction against White America and its founding culture.
The Jews are driving the de-educating of American youth, they've staffed 90% of the media
with lying, immoral and shameless journalists and installed unintelligent and easily
corruptible politicians in both US political parties.
As we see with Hope, the Jews have made possible state legislators who are so stupid that
they are probably suffering from mental health issues. What's very sad is that there's hardly
a peep from the great American public against them.
The Jews who first suggested making anti-semitism a crime in the West actually said to
their comtemperies at the time that it was just a "pipe dream." They never actually thought
in their wildest dreams that Western people and politicians would accept the lie that
anti-Jewishness was systemic in the West and needed laws to counteract it.
But, unbelievably for them, they easily got their anti-Semitism legislation enacted. And
then, enboldened, they drove ahead with Holocaust denial and all the other BS.
Now, as we see with the headlights, brake lights and the decriminalising of shoplifting
for Blacks, the Jews have become viciously emboldened. They've learned that European
provenanced Whites will accept any and all Bull S ** t that is thrown at them.
Shame on all Americans for sitting idly by whilst the tiny Jew demographic urines on all
that your forefathers built and fought for.
If your descents are Islamist slaves policed by Blacks in the latter half of this century
(all ruled from on-high by the Jews) they'll deserve it. They'll deserve it because their
fathers and grandfathers were idle and lazy cowards who sat on their butts while the great
inheritance which they were bequeathed was pulled out from under them.
BTW: Who had secured a vantage point in New York in September 2001 from which to watch the
planes fly into the buildings? And who then danced and cheered energetically as the planes
hit the buildings and killed 2,977 people?
Surely, you might think, it was Arabic Islamists, or Pakistanis, or some other race of
Muslims.
You'd be wrong if you thought this.
The correct answer is "five Israelis". Yes, it was five Jews who danced and sang as 2,977
Americans were murdered in cold blood.
@Lot el. Cursed with the loss of thousands of American lives resulting from such actions.
Cursed with the loss of tens of thousand of non-American lives from such actions. All this
for a shitty little country with which America doesn't even have a defence treaty.
Our Steadfast Ally ? The USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard and the Israeli selling of American
defence technology to China immediately spring to mind. There is no defence treaty between
America and Israel. Israel is not America's ally. Rather it is a parasite on the American
body politic. Either Americans rip the parasite off their body, or it will eventually kill
America.
"... We, in Russia, went through a fairly long period where foreign funds were very much the main source for creating and financing non-governmental organisations. Of course, not all of them pursued self-serving or bad goals, or wanted to destabilise the situation in our country, interfere in our domestic affairs, or influence Russia's domestic and, sometimes, foreign policy in their own interests. Of course not. ..."
Genuine democracy and civil society cannot be "imported." I have said so many times. They
cannot be a product of the activities of foreign "well-wishers," even if they "want the best
for us." In theory, this is probably possible. But, frankly, I have not yet seen such a thing
and do not believe much in it. We see how such imported democracy models function. They are
nothing more than a shell or a front with nothing behind them, even a semblance of sovereignty.
People in the countries where such schemes have been implemented were never asked for their
opinion, and their respective leaders are mere vassals. As is known, the overlord decides
everything for the vassal. To reiterate, only the citizens of a particular country can
determine their public interest.
We, in Russia, went through a fairly long period where foreign funds were very much the
main source for creating and financing non-governmental organisations. Of course, not all of
them pursued self-serving or bad goals, or wanted to destabilise the situation in our country,
interfere in our domestic affairs, or influence Russia's domestic and, sometimes, foreign
policy in their own interests. Of course not.
There were sincere enthusiasts among independent civic organisations (they do exist), to
whom we are undoubtedly grateful. But even so, they mostly remained strangers and ultimately
reflected the views and interests of their foreign trustees rather than the Russian citizens.
In a word, they were a tool with all the ensuing consequences.
A strong, free and independent civil society is nationally oriented and sovereign by
definition. It grows from the depth of people's lives and can take different forms and
directions. But it is a cultural phenomenon, a tradition of a particular country, not the
product of some abstract "transnational mind" with other people's interests behind it.
It appears the "Russia, Russia, Russia" cries from Adam Schiff and his dutiful media peons
is dead (we can only hope) as Director of National Intel John Ratcliffe just confirmed to Foxx
Business' Maria Bartiromo that:
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
As Politico's Quint Forgey details
(@QuintForgey) , DNI Ratcliffe is asked directly whether accusations leveled against the
Bidens in recent days are part of a Russian disinformation effort.
He says no:
"Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no
intelligence that supports that."
" We have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that
Hunter Biden's laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It's simply not true.
"
"And this is exactly what I said would I stop when I became the director of national
intelligence, and that's people using the intelligence community to leverage some political
narrative."
"And in this case, apparently Chairman Schiff wants anything against his preferred
political candidate to be deemed as not real and as using the intelligence community or
attempting to use the intelligence community to say there's nothing to see here."
"Don't drag the intelligence community into this. Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of
some Russian disinformation campaign. And I think it's clear that the American people know
that."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and
you've got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it.
This means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an
established fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the
energy that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the
White House.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on,
everyone would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made,
Russiagate would never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful
forces are pushing us into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed
nations, and Trump would be grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The
mainstream news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon
which they have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information
with each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
As we detailed previously, as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal threatens to throw the 2020
election into chaos with what appears to be solid, undisputed evidence of high-level corruption
by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the same crowd which peddled the
Trump-Russia hoax is now suggesting that Russia is behind it all .
To wit, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who swore on National television
that he had evidence Trump was colluding with Russia - now says that President Trump is handing
the Kremlin a "propaganda coup from Vladimir Putin."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has gone full tin-foil , suggesting that Giuliani was a 'key
target' of 'Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.'
2/ Russia knew it had to play a different game than 2016. So it built an operation to cull
virulently pro-Trump Americans as pseudo-assets, so blind in their allegiance to Trump that
they'll willingly launder Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.
Yet, if one looks at the actual facts of the case - in particular, that Hunter Biden appears
to have dropped his own laptops off at a computer repair shop, signed a service ticket , and
the shop owner approached the FBI first and Rudy Giuliani last after Biden failed to pick them
up, the left's latest Russia conspiracy theory is quickly debunked .
This is the story of an American patriot, an honorable man, John Paul Mac Issac, who tried
to do the right thing and is now being unfairly and maliciously slandered as an agent of
foreign intelligence, specifically Russia. He is not an agent or spy for anyone. He is his own
man. How do I know? I have known his dad for more than 20 years. I've known John Paul's dad as
Mac. Mac is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, who flew gunships in Vietnam. And he continued his
military service with an impeccable record until he retired as an Air Force Colonel. The crews
of those gunships have an annual reunion and Mac usually takes John Paul along, who volunteers
his computer and video skills to record and compile the stories of those brave men who served
their country in a difficult war.
This story is very simple – Hunter Biden dropped off three computers with liquid
damage at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware on April 12, 2019. The owner, John Mac Issac,
examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on
the harddrive of the third could be recovered. Hunter signed the service ticket and John Paul
Mac Issac repaired the hard drive and down loaded the data . During this process he saw some
disturbing images and a number of emails that concerned Ukraine, Burisma, China and other
issues . With the work completed, Mr. Mac Issac prepared an invoice, sent it to Hunter Biden
and notified him that the computer was ready to be retrieved. H unter did not respond . In the
ensuing four months (May, June, July and August), Mr. Mac Issac made repeated efforts to
contact Hunter Biden. Biden never answered and never responded. More importantly, Biden stiffed
John Paul Mac Issac–i.e., he did not pay the bill.
When the manufactured Ukraine crisis surfaced in August 2019, John Paul realized he was
sitting on radioactive material that might be relevant to the investigation. After conferring
with his father, Mac and John Paul decided that Mac would take the information to the FBI
office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mac walked into the Albuquerque FBI office and spoke with an
agent who refused to give his name. Mac explained the material he had, but was rebuffed by the
FBI. He was told basically, get lost . This was mid-September 2019.
Two months passed and then, out of the blue, the FBI contacted John Paul Mac Issac. Two FBI
agents from the Wilmington FBI office–Joshua Williams and Mike Dzielak–came to John
Paul's business . He offered immediately to give them the hard drive, no strings attached.
Agents Williams and Dzielak declined to take the device .
Two weeks later, the intrepid agents called and asked to come and image the hard drive. John
Paul agreed but, instead of taking the hard drive or imaging the drive, they gave him a
subpoena. It was part of a grand jury proceeding but neither agent said anything about the
purpose of the grand jury. John Paul complied with the subpoena and turned over the hard drive
and the computer.
In the ensuing months, starting with the impeachment trial of President Trump, he heard
nothing from the FBI and knew that none of the evidence from the hard drive had been shared
with President Trump's defense team.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The lack of action and communication with the FBI led John Paul to make the fateful decision
to contact Rudy Giuliani's office and offer a copy of the drive to the former mayor. We now
know that Rudy accepted John Paul's offer and that Rudy's team shared the information with the
New York Post.
John Paul Mac Issac is not responsible for the emails, images and videos recovered from
Hunter Biden's computer. He was hired to do a job, he did the job and submitted an invoice for
the work. Hunter Biden, for some unexplained reason, never responded and never asked for the
computer. But that changed last Tuesday, October 13, 2020. A person claiming to be Hunter
Biden's lawyer called John Paul Mac Issac and asked for the computer to be returned. Too late.
That horse had left the barn and was with the FBI.
John Paul, acting under Delaware law, understood that Hunter's computer became the property
of his business 90 days after it had been abandoned.
At no time did John Paul approach any media outlet or tabloid offering to sell salacious
material . A person of lesser character might have tried to profit. But that is not the essence
of John Paul Mac Issac. He had information in his possession that he learned, thanks to events
subsequent to receiving the computer for a repair job, was relevant to the security of our
nation. He did what any clear thinking American would do–he, through his father,
contacted the FBI. When the FBI finally responded to his call for help, John cooperated fully
and turned over all material requested .
The failure here is not John Paul's . He did his job. The FBI dropped the ball and, by
extension, the Department of Justice. Sadly, this is becoming a disturbing, repeating
theme–the FBI through incompetence or malfeasance is not doing its job.
Any news outlet that is publishing the damnable lie that John Paul is part of some
subversive effort to interfere in the United States Presidential election is on notice. That is
slander and defamation. Fortunately, the evidence from Hunter Biden's computer is in the hands
of the FBI and Rudy Giuliani and, I suspect, the U.S. Senate. Those with the power to do
something must act. John Paul Mac Issac's honor is intact. We cannot say the same for those
government officials who have a duty to deal with this information.
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually
impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony
at home.
After several color revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in
the US, with British assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been
limited resistance against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0.
Nevertheless, Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions
more are dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump.
The most dangerous result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM
purveyors is the growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems,
such as Schiff and Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook
and Twitter engaged in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post
and of various Trump-related accounts.
This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it was at least in part
an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond. Even though Twitter
ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment designed to gauge
reactions and areas of resistance.
In November, there could be further, more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current
expansionist movements being made and planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts
of a new non-democratic model of "American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but
"rules-based."
"Joe Biden's 'war economy' policies are a radical break with the status quo."
Telegraph
"Bidenomics is a heady brew. The Democrats' $7.9 trillion blast of extra spending is a step
beyond Roosevelt's New Deal. It mimics the Keynesian expansion of the Second World War and
consciously aims to run the economy at red-hot speeds of growth.
If enacted in full, it is large enough to lift the US economy out of the zero-rate
deflationary trap of the last decade and entirely reshape the social and financial
landscape.
The stimulus will be corralled inside the closed US economy by Joe Biden's protectionist
"Buy America" policies, his industrial strategy, and his carbon border tax (i.e. disguised
tariffs against China). This limits leakage.
It is a laboratory of sorts for a post-globalisation experiment in what used to be called
"reflation in one country" – before the free flow of goods and capital emasculated
sovereign governments.
"It's quite likely that, just as in World War II, when we push down on the economic
accelerator, we will find that we have been running on one cylinder up until no w," said the
Roosevelt Institute, now advisors to the
Biden campaign .
This is why
Moody's Analytics estimates that Bidenomics accompanied by a Democrat clean sweep of
Congress would lift American GDP by an extra 4.8pc, add an extra seven million jobs, and raise
per capita income by an extra $4,800 over the next four years , compared to a clean sweep by
Donald Trump. Economic growth would rocket to 7.7pc in 2022." Telegraph -------------
Evans-Pritchard, the author of this piece baldly declares that the Trump tax cut failed to
stimulate economic growth and that a clean sweep by the Democrats in November would lead to
massive GDP growth and a reduction in present economic inequalities in American society. I will
be very interested in your comments. pl
That's a fine read Col. Thank goodness that after 47 years as a politician, including 8
years as VP - during which TARP did what? - Biden finally has a plan to Tax and Spend that
beats all the Tax and Spend plans that went before this one.
Just what is this getting spent on - the same things Obama-Biden promised, "green" (the
color of money) energy, solar charging stations and 1.5 million energy efficient homes
(didn't the Housing bubble cause a little economic problem?), 'educaiton'! I wonder if that
includes teaching us all critical race theory? and "infrastructure". And here I thought
broken records were out of style.
Where's the money coming from? According to Oxfordeconomics, which the Guardian links to,
Biden's raising taxes, but it won't lower consumer spending:
".... we estimate an overall multiplier of 0.25 for the individual provisions in Biden's tax
package. So, for every dollar of tax increase, households would reduce their spending by 25
cents. As such, while the proposal would generate a substantial revenue inflow, we
don'tbelieve it would significantly constrain consumer spending."
So what is the decline in corporate spending if you raise corporate taxes? The economists
at Oxfordeconomics conveniently left that out, nor did they eplicitly tell you that a decade
of tax revenue will still leave you with 60 years of tax burden from Joe's spending.
"On the corporate tax front, the most significant revenue raisers are:•A 7ppt
increase in the statutory corporate tax rate to 28%, which would raise $1.3tn over
10years.•An increase in taxes on foreign earnings.•A 15% minimum tax on global book
income.•The elimination of several real estate investment tax preferences." (Oooh look,
Trump's screwed! Yeah! I wonder how all those REITs look with that?)
Another unasked question: Who is going to do all that economy stimulating work if there is
a national lockdown due to Covid?
"LaRouche's comments were prompted by an article published in the Telegraph on May 19 by
British intelligence stringer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whose experience in orchestrating U.S.
impeachment drives for the British goes back to his attacks on President Bill Clinton.
Evans-Pritchard, on the eve of Trump's first trip abroad as President, is spreading the black
propaganda line that Trump might already be incapacitated, in much the same way as President
Richard Nixon was incapacitated by then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who "instructed
U.S. military officials to ignore any order from the Oval Office to use nuclear weapons."
Evans-Pritchard asserts that the key to overthrowing Trump is to pull Republican support
away from him, which he admits is still strong. But what happens next? He quotes Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, former British UN ambassador and now chairman at Gatehouse Advisory Partners:
"America can be very powerful if it decides to act hard. Xi Jinping and Putin will probably
wait and see whether Trump self-destructs." Evans-Pritchard then raises the question: How
will Trump behave "when the special prosecutor [Robert Mueller] starts to let rip with a
volley of subpoenas."
I like the idea of a Carbon Border Tax. Or at least the one proposed by the EU, as I have
not seen Biden's proposal. It has never made sense to me that we import from countries with
low environmental standards when our own manufacturers are handicapped.
But unless Biden can carry Democratic Senatorial challengers against GOP incumbents it
ain't gonna happen. It will be stalled in the Senate. There is no way McConnell will even
allow it on the Senate floor.
This thinking has been wrong, repeatedly so, for the last 10 years. The idea that there is
just one more pedal to push down to jumpstart the economy belies the truth that we have
experienced the most accommodative and expansive monetary policy on a global level in modern
times.
Aside from the lack of efficacy, which I may look to discuss at length later on, there is
another striking thing about this plan, and that is how it will be paid for. The reason is
not the traditional "where will the money come from" I know where it will come from, cheap US
debt, but it tells us two key things. The first is that the functional ideas of Modern
Monetary Theory (MMT) that you can basically just issue debt and have your central bank both
monetize it and keep the interest payments low and use that to fund largely unlimited
government spending have for the most part been endorsed by those on the left as a mechanism
to deliver on their grand plans. The second thing that is striking though is what they want
to spend the money on, which is military spending and infrastructure and not healthcare and a
green new deal. This calls into question what alignment there is on the cadres of the left or
the possibility that starting with infrastructure is a way to run cover to expand these
fantasy economics to social projects without reorienting the economy towards their
achievement.
Evans-Pritchard's talents are wasted on economic commentary. He writes well, but in the
breathless tones of a failed thriller writer. His entire worldview is based on the notion
that it is always two minutes to midnight. It's a shame that they put all of his stuff behind
a paywall.
Maybe if Biden's plan is approved we will finally see the inflation that Wall Street and
its media minions have been whining about for the past forty years.
I have no doubt that the collapsing pocket that is Conservative Inc will luxuriate back on
the familiar loser's ground of "fiscal responsibility."
Biden's plan, such as it is, simply marries the essence of Trump's nationalist policies
with Great Society spending levels. Like so much of his platform, it is designed to keep the
progressives on the plantation until Nov 3 and not one minute beyond.
Sure it will. The devil is in the details. When has any Democrat economic plan ever
produced intended results. First they have to confess what went wrong with their trillion
dollar "War on Poverty" that now requires another trillion to pretend to clean up that
grotesquely distorted mess.
Until they confess to their sins of the past, they are doomed to repeat them. How are they
going to remedy their decades of teacher union K1-2 fail turning out entire generations of
dysfunctional illiterates who are somehow going to be absorbed into this dynamite
economy.
They are sitting in the back room smoking dope and spinning tales. What I hear is wealth
confiscation and/or turning on the printing presses. Time for a good recap of Obama's initial
"Green Jobs Revolution" from his first term - who did those promise work out and why are we
having to undo the piles of excrement Biden First Term left behind.
I have a bad case of deja vu When in fact the Trump Tweaking was paying long term
dividends, until the deep state hijacked covid to destroy any possible Trump bragging rights.
Never forget Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump's SOTU address and declaring they were all lies --
and then carrying out her covid porn agenda to make sure she was proven correct.
Remember the three generation rule - all revolutionary and planned economies always fail
by the third generation. Soviet Union, Margaret Thatcher's warning, Cuba, etc ......if all
the wealth in the world was redistributed, it would be back in similar hands three
generations later. Societies always stratify, even since the Sumerians.
America is unique primarily because of the mobility it offers between the strata by its
relatively free market system. Don't mess with it. Democrat's heavy handed planned utopia is
a nightmare.
I am no economist. However, I am not in debt. I am not wealthy, but I have all I need and
want. I've worked very hard during my life and enjoyed my jobs because they were suited to my
training and kislls. My retirement funds keep me comfortable. My two sons are doing well in
our current economy. That's, of course, a self-centered view of the situation.
But, with that in mind, I say this: "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." (I know Biden is not
Greek, but I hope you get my point.)
I am also remembering the Obama administration. I may receive only an Obama phone and an
EBT card.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is generally a very astute writer. However, on economics and
national fiscal policies and central banking he has bought into the Davos sophistry that
defies common sense for over a decade.
An example of this sophistry is this line from the passage in your post - "..lift the US
economy out of the zero-rate deflationary trap of the last decade...". Ask an average
American if they've seen any price deflation in their rents or house prices, their kid's
tuition, their health care premiums, their cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of tacos at
their neighborhood taqueria, the cost of getting their shirt cleaned, over the past decade
and they'll laugh at you. The cost of living of average Americans have risen and that is the
real living experience. But of course if you're Ben Bernanke or Mario Draghi or Jerome Powell
or Ms. Lagarde then we are in a "deflationary trap" and they should print more and more money
that gets shipped first to their friends on Wall St. The Party of Davos as Jack called
it.
Under the government enforced lockdown, how many trillions has the US federal government
under the Trump administration borrowed from future generations in the first and now the
second stimulus waiting for approval? How many trillions did Jerome Powell print up and send
to his friends at Blackrock and Citadel?
GDP is a useless indicator IMO. Digging trenches and filling them up will raise GDP. A
very important indicator however is productivity growth. That has been lagging for many
years. Another are median household income & wealth, which has also been lagging. What
we've seen in the US is a dramatic increase in wealth inequality between the top 0.1% vs the
bottom 80% over the past 50 years and this curve continues to accelerate - second order
derivative!! The second is the level of systemic debt across all sectors - individuals,
corporate and government at all levels that has continuously risen over 50 years increasing
systemic leverage to a point larger than during the civil war and WW II. This has occurred
under both parties and the Trump presidency has actually increased it despite the rhetoric.
Compare the Balance of Trade relative to the soundbites.
A systematic restructuring of our economy away from financialization, away from bailouts
of the oligarchy, away from unprecedented market concentration, away from untrammeled credit
expansion to back previous credit losses and having a monetary authority with a singular
focus on sound money is what's necessary. But that's not gonna happen under either Trump or
Biden as it will gore the ox of the Party of Davos whose interests is what both sides
primarily cater to. More debt-fueled government spending always ends up as socialism for the
oligarchy which is exactly what we've had for decades. It is an economic truism that as
productivity of debt continually declines, economic productivity also declines. That's the
trap we are in!
Been very happy with my gold investments these past two years and will stick with them
thanks, Biden would supercharge them.
Longer term I am looking to have most of my money in Asia, Russian oil companies also seem
to like drilling for oil, rather than desperately trying to be anything else than producing
oil like BP and the rest. Demographics are dire for most of the West and the US is likely to
continue transitioning in to a Latin American style country. People have been well
conditioned in to not talking about such things but no point talking about the increasing
economic dysfunction without talking about the underlying cause. A massive increase in
immigration will lead to a surge in inequality, anemic economic growth, fiscal deficits and a
decline in gdp per capita.
Time to start think about investments the way a well to do Latin would.
Well, Biden has to get elected first, we'll see. Carbon taxes, hmmm - another way to
destroy the middle-class?
Something to think about is the European Central Bank, they are a meeting late this month
with "experts" to determine if they will go to a digital currency. The ECB might then decide
the "experts" are right and go full digital on Jan 1st, 2021. We might see a whole lot of
Euro money coming into the USA, hope so. However, the Federal Reserve has not been printing
any new bank notes so you'll have trouble finding crisp bills for Christmas gifts.
IMO, based on the debt current and future we are loading on the backs of our children, it
matters not a whit which of the paths are chosen. Both will end in destruction of said debt
by some method - because you can only load so much on horseback and still ride. As we stand
now, we are walking alongside a swaybacked packhorse already. Closing off the country, where
the only growth has been in the services sector for decades, makes sense in what
universe?
Raise taxes? They have only ever increased in my lifetime, my fathers and his. At what
point does the Boston Tea Party repeat? From where I sit, everything either party does is
only adding fuel to a coming conflagration, as nothing is actually paid for - a ledger entry
is aggregated and we march on. The piper will get paid, as he has the children...
1.socialism and keynesian economics as a viable theory dead dead right now....today and
politicians know it
2. central banks are trapped at zero bound interest rates with no way under heretofore main
stream economic theories to stimulate their respective economies
3. politicians are largely dumb as a bag of hammers with not a shred of understanding what to
do other than to listen to think tanks warmed over rehashed ideas that have not worked in the
past and won't now.
4. what biden is proposing is MMT with communist thomas piketty theory disguised as classical
keynesian nonsense being sold to a public almost as dumb as those doing the selling
5. in order to make this works they will have to institute guranteed basic income for the
umpteen millions of people who will NEVER work again under this policy of bullshit
6. and lastly to ensure NO ONE can escape this trap which will evolve into an UGLY neo
feudalism for 99% of the populace this team of genuinely EVIL people will have to CANCEL ALL
paper money FORCING everyone to have a bank account for using digital money THE ONLY money
that can exist if this comes to pass. banks loves this as it gives them a cut of all the
action
7.as a result taxes will be anything they want and YOU have no escape or recourse
whatsoever
8. say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing and your economic life under digital money will
be cancelled placing you into destitution and death
9. this is a recipe for slavery on a gigantic scale ensuring the 1/10 of 1% can rule without
disturbance forever
10 revolution will be the only option at that point and since the police and military will
continue to be paid by the state it will be bloody
On the other hand, if this scheme promises to bring back the Jimmy Carter 14% interest
rates on CD's for us retired folks, I say bring it on. Everyone else will just have to deal
with the economic rubble later on their own.
I just need another good 15 years or so myself. In other words, never believe old people
when it comes to managing the US economy- our goals are selfish and very short term. So like,
what's in this for meeeeeee?
Biden must have listened to AOC for this fiscal policy advice. Bring back chicken coops
and victory gardens, and turn in your scrap metal because we are WAR.
What in God's name is Biden having a Brit pushing his economic plan. We all know they
embellish everything which then falls apart into pieces. Yes, Fred I remember those +14%
interest rates I paid on my mortgage and still kick myself for not taking the 100k down
payment and putting it into a 14% 30 year CD and renting. But then we all have those
memories. Sure would not want my grandchildren paying those rates on a 500k mortgage as it
would kill the real estate business and this country.
Sleepy Joe will be ready for the assisted living center by year two and we would be stuck
with Checkbook Harris, UGH. Vote for the Bullcrapper that gets things done.
Ahem; This has been done before: After Hitler was elected in 1933; He slammed the borders
shut to money transfer, then started building the autobahn. It worked, Germany came out of
the slump. Of course, Hitler then moved on to building planes & tanks. Also, Modern
Monetary theory says you can run the printing presses & print money like mad, as long as
that paper is going into a real, working economy, it gets recycled. That does not describe
the current 'developed world' economy; the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, real estate) has
eaten it's own tail. When all the other assets have jacked up half way to the moon, there
will be another gold rush (same as 1930s) & my shack in northern BC will shake with all
the helicopters flying around to work up new gold mines.
Candidate Donald Trump's 2016 programme was clear. Bring industry back home. Ditto the
troops. Ensure an adequate defence. Drain the swamp.
Looked good. I hadn't realised that his main achievement would be somewhat simpler. Stay
functioning in office in the face of the most dangerous series of attacks on an American
President that can have been seen since the early nineteenth century.
So clearly he's going to need another term in office to get on with all the things he
should have been able to get on with in the first.
Candidate Joe Biden was, I thought at first, stealing part of the Trump 2016 programme. Bring
industry back home. Turns out not - as far as I can see America will remain the most heavily
industrialised country going. But, as in my own country, much of the industry will still be
abroad. With the jobs.
As with my own country Biden's America will be environmentally virtuous. It'll hit some
good targets. It'll not use as much fossil fuel. Yesterday's heavy polluters - the coal mines
and steel mills - won't pollute any more.
Fake. Again as with my own country the dirty industries we still rely on will still be
roaring full steam ahead. Coal will still be mined. Steel will still be produced. But
elsewhere.
So Candidate Joe Biden will not be the man to put that part of the Trump 2016 programme
into action. He'll be the man who continues with the fake environmentalism we've already seen
so much of. Naturally, if the heavy industry is outsourced so is our pollution. Doesn't look
that clever a trick to me, even if it fools the eco-warriors.
In a recent op-ed on RT, I outlined the
puzzling and ironic configuration that is the anti-Trump 'resistance.' But I didn't explore one
important 'interest group' within a 'deep state' intent on destroying Trump's presidency at all
costs -- namely, the neocon
hawks of both major political parties and the
military and
intelligence establishments that defy strict party affiliation.
This contingent includes members of top military brass and intelligence
officers , of course, but also military and intelligence contractors, including those
employed by the permanent bureaucracy to foil Trump's first run for the presidency by
attempting to tie him to "Russian collusion ."
Condemn Trump all you want. It's quite fashionable and facile to do so. The penchant has
long since leaked across the Atlantic via the US and international media establishments. But
critics must be either uninformed or disingenuous to liken Trump
to Hitler . Hitler was, after all, a fascist strong man and supremacist intent on
militarism and world expansionism. And Trump is nothing of the sort.
Quite the contrary, Trump wants no part of expansionism. He has insisted that he deplores
the endless wars in the
Middle East and
Afghanistan . Trump has been removing troops from both
regions since his presidency began. And he's reportedly been foiled in efforts for a
complete withdrawal by his generals . But now he
may be prepared to flout their prerogatives and take matters into his own hands, if
given a second term.
While Trump touts a strengthened
military , the Trump Doctrine
involves a particular brand of populist American
nationalism . This includes a foreign policy stemming from 19th-century Republican
politics . Those who
have subscribed to this political position have been traditionally non-interventionist, while
demanding that a premium be laid on national self-determination, the protection of national
sovereignty via strong borders, and the promotion of national self-interest over international
or global entanglements.
Trump has suggested that the military brass wants to start wars to
enrich military contractors.
The hue and cry coming from the political establishment over Trump's foreign military
policy is a thin scrim to cover for the interests of the military industrial complex. And the
interests of the military industrial complex are for its own expansion and the profits that
derive from it.
Trump's foreign policy on the limited use of military force runs counter to those of the
Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden administrations. Both of these followed the orders of neocon hawks.
Shocking his left-wing base, Obama retained many of
Bush's top cabinet members, including war hawk Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And, of course,
then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) voted in favor of
and championed
the invasion of Iraq in 2002.
The Obama administration not only continued the Bush campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it
extended them with record-breaking bombings in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya. Recall that it was Obama who
murdered, via a drone bomb, sixteen-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was
the son of alleged al-Qaeda fighter (and American citizen) Anwar Awlaki, who Obama had
bombed two weeks earlier, in Yemen. In fairness it must be noted that a US raid in Yemen resulted
in the
death of Abdulrahman's 8-year-old sister in 2017. But it was Obama who exploded the
conflict in Yemen.
The Obama-Biden international adventurism extended to the invasion
of Libya and the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, an escapade that destabilized
that country and led directly to the arming of
jihadists. Under Obama, the Pentagon and CIA directly armed and trained Syrian "rebels"
fighting Bashar Assad, many of whom then
grew into the ISIS caliphate. A 2016 iconic headline in the Los Angeles Times said it all:
"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA
." It is interesting to note that it was Trump who ended the
CIA's training of the so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels whose intent was the
toppling Assad's government.
Obama was elected in 2008 on his promise to end Bush's war in Iraq, a conflict he said he
opposed from the
outset . Instead, Obama and his war hawks expanded this war and added several others. And
all of this after Obama was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize (for no apparent reason) in 2009.
The military escalation under Obama-Biden surely explains the deep state's preference for
Biden over Trump. But what about the voters? In opposing Trump and favouring Biden, the leftist
'resistance' is
supporting the continuation of dodgy and illegal US invasions and endless wars. An
achievement to be proud of. On the other hand, voters who support non-intervention and troop
withdrawal favour the Republican, Donald Trump.
So, tell me again: who's 'left' and who's 'right' in this US presidential election?
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
A buzz-phrase I keep noticing is the use of "without evidence". For example, when Trump,
or anyone the MSM wants to target, makes an accusation and the MSM has to discuss that
accusation it is unsurprising to encounter the phrase "without evidence"
as seen
here
If only the anonymous "US intelligence sources"
(here)
that the Mouthpiece Media echo so frequently were qualified with "without evidence".
I tried combining the two phrases and instead of receiving thousands of results I
received
three .
"... AP is hardly the Ministry of Truth, dictating Newspeak under the penalty of torture. As it turns out, it doesn't have to be. A bit of updated style – and thought – guidance announced on Twitter from time to time will do. ..."
Used as the journalism Bible by most English-language media, the AP Stylebook has updated its guidance for employing the word 'riot,'
citing the need to avoid "stigmatizing" groups protesting "for racial justice."
While acknowledging the dictionary definition of riot as a "wild or violent disturbance of the peace," AP said the word
somehow "suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium."
Worse yet, "Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize
broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice " the Stylebook account tweeted on
Wednesday.
The claim that something has been used in the past in a racist way has already led to banishing many English terms to the Orwellian
"memory hole." It certainly appears the AP is trying to do the same with "riot" now.
Instead of promoting precision, the Stylebook is urging reporters to use euphemisms such as "protest" or "demonstration."
It advises "revolt" and "uprising" if the violence is directed "against powerful groups or governing systems,"
in an alarming shift in focus from what is being done towards who is doing it to whom .
There is even a helpful suggestion to use "unrest" because it's "a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition
of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt."
Translated to plain English, this means a lot more mentions of "unrest" and almost no references to "riot," in media
coverage going forward, regardless of how much actual rioting is happening.
Mainstream media across the US have already gone out of their way to avoid labeling what has unfolded since the death of George
Floyd in May as "riots." Though protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota turned violent within 48 hours, before spreading to other
cities across the US – and even internationally – the media continued calling them "peaceful" and "protests for racial
justice."
Yet in just the first two weeks of the riots, 20 people have been killed and the property damage has
exceeded $2 billion , according
to insurance estimates – the highest in US history.
AP is no stranger to changing the language to better comport to 'proper' political sensitivities. At the height of the riots in
June, the Stylebook decided to capitalize"Black" and "Indigenous" in a "racial, ethnic or cultural sense."
A month later, the expected decision
to leave "white" in lowercase was justified by saying that "White people in general have much less shared history and culture,
and don't have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color."
Moreover, "Capitalizing the term 'white,' as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs,"
wrote AP's vice-president for standards John Daniszewski.
The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, as its full name goes, has effectively dictated the tone of English-language
outlets around the world since it first appeared in 1953. It is also required reference material in journalism schools.
So when it embraces vagueness over precision and worrying about "suggestions" and "subtly conveying" things over
plain meaning, that rings especially Orwellian – in both the '1984' sense of censoring speech and thought and regarding the corruption
of language the author lamented in his famous 1946
essay 'Politics and the English language.'
AP is hardly the Ministry of Truth, dictating Newspeak under the penalty of torture. As it turns out, it doesn't have to be.
A bit of updated style – and thought – guidance announced on Twitter from time to time will do.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from
2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
"... The reason that the "mainstream" parties are in decline is that they are no longer willing to represent the interests of ordinary people. Both are the captives of special interest groups ..."
"... What I see happening seems to me to be less explained by Hannah Arendt than by Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer. ..."
"... They are not accepting an evil, just banality of evil that goes unrecognized as evil for its very banality. They see the extremes, and as Hoffer wrote they are drawn by that extreme; that is the very appeal of it, not just something they excuse as if banal. ..."
The one thing I see in Maoist China, Nazi Germany and Czarist Russia/Soviet Union is that "freedom was curtailed" and the government
cracked down on "law and order." If you look at the intimidation tactics of individuals, couples, families at restaurants and
the assassinations of Police Officers, the violent riots, arson and looting in american cities you can see the justification for
the government to "crack down on freedoms" and restore "law and order" similar to Maoist China and Pre-War Germany but for different
reasons and justifications. If you look at the lefts handling of the Chinese biological weapon of terrorism COVID19 and the resulting
lock down of the economy and the enforced government closing of churches, synagogues and mosques then you can see similarities
in Maoist China, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik/Stalinist Soviet Union (and its satellites) but for different reasons and different
justifications.
-The radical elements pushing for civil war and revolution in the US arent reacting to hunger or the economy as they did in
Germany or Russia.
-The radical elements pushing for civil war and revolution in the US are fundamentally Marxist and are using feminism to pit
men and women against one another, to destroy marriage and family to abort children. Marxists are using Gay Rights to pit sexual
orientation of gays against sexual orientation of straights. Marxists are using the prejudice of minorities against the whites.
Marxists are again pitting poor against rich. Marxists fracture society into entitled and embittered tribes. Radical elements
are pushing for reparations and re-indoctrination as well as civil war and revolution. This is very close to the tactics of Maoist
China and it has been proven that George Soros and Peoples Republic of China are financing Antifa and Black Lives Matters..China
was too weak to fight the Maoist Communists so many fled to Taiwan. Russians were bribed to revolt against the Czar and put the
Bolsheviks into power. Germans were desperate and the Pre-Nazi government was to weak to restore the economy. Americans aren't
desperate. Americans are rich fat entitled and ridden with guilt for their blessings to the point where they are self destructive
so Americans dont have motivational similarities to the Germans or the Russians for revolution.
Strong Correlation to today
Todays indoctrination youth with their rabid faces and penchant for violence remind me much more of indoctrinated Maoists destroying
Chinese culture, attacking Chinese business owners and property owners to enforce a Cultural Revolution.
There was a fairly large economic diaspora during the Reagan years, as the heavy manufacturing (steel) and assembly (auto)
factories in what became know as the Rust Belt closed down and people moved South and West for better opportunities. (One of the
results of that diaspora s the nationwide popularity of the Pittsburgh Steelers, as thousands upon thousands of fans left western
PA and moved elsewhere but maintained their loyalty.)
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction
between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards
of thought) no longer exist."
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
Now, is it the right or left that is more anti-science and anti-fact? Who lies to us more, the right or left? Check PolitiFact
or any other reasonably balanced fact checker before you answer (No, Media Matters doesn't count). Which party's leader said:
"Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening,"
I mean neither have a clean slate here, they are human and are politicians, too. But Trump's avalanche of lies and unsupported
claims in Tuesday's "debate" makes it ridiculous to argue that Trump is on the side of fact, truth, and evidence.
Bingo. I live in an overwhelmingly liberal suburb of NYC. This place is sleepier than Mayberry. My wallet (with over $200 inside)
slipped out of my pocket while I was riding my bike. The police had called me to pick it up before I even realized that it was
missing.
Last week a two motorized skateboards were stolen, and someone shoplifted 5 cigars from the local tobacconist.
There is little sexual adventurism, no visible celebrations of perversion, and sexuality is largely a private matter. If you
told an off-color sexual joke at the local bar, you'd likely be asked to leave.
For a guy who cautions against living by lies, Rod would do well to engage some social and intellectual elites on a regular
basis. Visit places like Potomac, Maryland, or Princeton, New Jersey, or Swampscott, Massachusetts. The reality is that it's out
in "Christian America" that all of this stuff is running rampant.
"Democratic norms are under strain in many industrialized nations, with the support for mainstream parties of left and
right in decline."
The reason that the "mainstream" parties are in decline is that they are no longer willing to represent the interests of
ordinary people. Both are the captives of special interest groups (ethnic minorities and the radical Left in the case of
the Dems, and corporations and wealthy individuals in the case of the GOP). Middle America no longer has any place to go.
Thanks for this overview of Hannah Arendt's thought and its relation to current circumstances. Very insightful. I've been wanting
to read her book for a while now but have not yet done so.
"who today talks about totalitarianism?"
Political libertarians and social conservatives have for over 100 years been warning us of this coming totalitarianism. One
was even so astute as to see past the absolute dictatorships of the 20th century to what we have at our doorstep today.
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications
and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority
of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them
in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For
their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness;
it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal
concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to
spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency
of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the
uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often
to look on them as benefits. After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned
him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network
of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot
penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced
by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it
does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing
better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Another Tocquevillian quote that commands attention today:
"What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil
and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even
as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality
and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything
must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish? There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of
themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their
country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard
of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets,
the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful
stranger called "the government." They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought
to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of
their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the
nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience
than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy
the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license. When a nation has reached this
point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no
longer finds citizens but only subjects."
You know, I'm a full Republican conservative, but in a way, I kinda think that maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a similar
economy like what's in Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc, etc, so that idiots that think that kind of life style
is good. THEN when they find out what it's like living in a WORKER'S PARADISE, they'll know.
What I see happening seems to me to be less explained by Hannah Arendt than by Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer.
We are surrounded by the extreme emotions of people feeling desperate. They are grasping at whatever is on offer, and equally
likely to grasp at anything else offered.
They are not accepting an evil, just banality of evil that goes unrecognized as evil for its very banality. They see the
extremes, and as Hoffer wrote they are drawn by that extreme; that is the very appeal of it, not just something they excuse as
if banal.
The emotions are running to such extremes that politics breaks up longstanding friendships, and even families, as we saw in
the American Civil War. That did not happen in Germany's banal acceptance of evil and power.
Control requires widening the net, which requires expanding the parameters of government, which requires centralizing government
power, which when done in boiling frog manner, can take a couple of centuries or so. Yet here we have arrived.
It took a long time to get from there to here and getting from here to there will require tough duty.
Sensible people might opt for a modernized Articles of Confederation with reasonable limited taxation privileges and a modified
defense arrangement but of course sensible people are in low demand.
Should quoting you include that perhaps as many as 5 million Russian POW's also perished in the holocaust, and that it was
a good thing? I am saving this RD article much more for the commentary than what rod said. Anti-fascists and the radical left?
Yeah, right. Okay folks, show of hands. How many out there, identifying themselves as left or right, wish that world war 2 had
lasted longer? Bone spur patriotism seems to be on full display here.
"At universities within the University of California system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track
positions have to affirm their commitment to "equity, diversity, and inclusion" -- and to have demonstrated it, even if it
has nothing to do with their field."
It isn't just the U.C. schools. Here in Thousand Oaks, California, sits the campus of California Lutheran University - a private
institution ( though no longer "Lutheran" or indeed "Christian" in any meaningful sense of those words ). The faculty and staff
are undergoing frank re-education, in preparation for the loyalty oath. And, those who dare resist ( sadly, there are few ) are
simply shown the door. Any dissent is labelled "racist", "homophobic", etc., etc. The jackboots are echoing even in the quiet
streets of suburbia...
And the so-called California Ethnic Studies Curriculum ( based on critical race will soon be introduced as a mandatory high
school class. No class, no graduation. It's utterly chilling.
In the United States, a great deal of study and energy goes into promoting respect for
democracy, not just to keep it alive here but also to spread it around the world. It embraces
the will of the majority, whether or not its main beneficiaries have more resources than other
citizens do, as shown by the election of President Obama, who promised hope and change for the
suffering majority, but did not sit long in office before being subjected to an economic vote
of no-confidence.
Those who claim we run a plutocracy (government for the rich by the rich) -- or that we're
victims of a conspiracy contrived by a shadow government -- are right while being wrong.
Our government is beyond the reach of ordinary American citizens in terms of economic power.
However, the creation of a system to keep the majority of the populace at the losing end of a
structure which neither promised nor delivered a state of financial equality was a predictable
extension of the economic system the U.S. government was formed to protect.
... .... ...
Forty years of Cold War and the ultimate realization that abuse of the communist system and
a hierarchy of privilege proved that system to be vulnerable to selfishness -- in common with
the triumphant capitalist countries.
Because any desired outcome can be written into an equation to exclude unwanted facts or
inputs by holding some things constant while applying chosen variables that may not hold true
under every historical circumstance, it's considered "falsifiable" and therefore "scientific."
But only if it appeals to the right people and justifies a given political need will it become
sacrosanct (until the next round of "progress").
.... .... ...
Abusive Self- Interest
In 1764, twenty- five years before the embrace of Madame Guillotine (when heads rolled
literally to put the fear of the mob into politics), contempt for the filth and poverty in
which the French commoners lived while the nobility gorged on luxury goods showed how arrogant
they were, not just in confidence that their offices of entitlement were beyond reproach and
unassailable, but that mockery and insult in the face of deliberate deprivation would be borne
with obedience and humility.
It certainly affected Smith's outlook, since he wrote The Wealth of Nations with a
focus on self- interest rather than moral sentiments. And while this may be purely pragmatic,
based on what
he witnessed, he also wrote about the potential for self- interest to become abusive, both
in collusion with individuals and when combined with the power of government. Business
interests could form cabals (groups of conspirators, plotting public harm) or monopolies
(organizations with exclusive market control) to fix prices at their highest levels. A true
laissez- faire economy would provide every incentive to conspire against consumers and attempt
to influence budgets and legislation.
Smith's assertion that self- interest leads producers to favor domestic industry must also
be understood in the context of the period. While it's true that the Enlightenment was a
movement of rational philosophy radically opposed to secrecy, it's important to understand that
this had to be done respectfully , insofar as all arguments were intended to impress the
monarchy under circumstances where the king believed himself God- appointed and infallible, no
matter his past or present policies, and matters were handled with delicacy. Yet, Smith's
arguments are clear enough (and certainly courageous enough) to be understood in laymen's
terms.
In an era when the very industry he's observing has been fostered by tariffs, monopolies,
labor controls, and materials extracted from colonies, he did his best to balance observation
with what he thought was best for society. It's not his fault we pick and choose our recipes
for what we do and don't believe or where we think Smith might have gone had he been alive
today.
The New Double Standard
The only practical way to resolve the contradiction between the existing beneficiaries of
state favoritism in this period and Smith's aversion to it is to observe that the means to
prevent competition and interference with the transition from one mode of commerce to another
that enhances the strength of the favored or provides a new means to grow their wealth is to
close the door of government intervention behind them and burn any bridges to it.
In psychological terms, the practice of "negative attribution" is to assume that identical
behavior is justifiable for oneself but not another. It may not be inconsistent with a system
of economics founded on self- interest, but it naturally begs a justification as to why it
rules out everyone else's self- interest. The beauty of this system is that it will
always have the same answer.
You may have guessed it.
Progress.
Reallocation of Assets
It was always understood that capitalism produces winners and losers. The art of economizing
is to gain maximum benefit for minimum expenditure, which generally translates to asset
consolidation and does not necessarily mean there is minimum sacrifice. There's an opportunity
cost for everything, whether it's human, financial, environmental, or material. But the most
important tenet of free market capitalism is that asset redistribution requires the U. S.
government to go to DEFCON 1, unless assets are being reallocated for "higher productivity," in
which case the entire universe is saved from the indefensible sin of lost opportunity.
Private property is sacred -- up until an individual decides he can make more productive use
of it and appeals to the courts for seizure under eminent domain or until the government
decides it will increase national growth if owned by some other person or entity. In like
manner, corporations can suffer hostile takeovers, just as deregulation facilitates predatory
market behavior and cutthroat competition promotes an efficiency orientation that means fewer
jobs and lower incomes, which result in private losses.
In the varying range of causes underlying the loss of assets, the common threat is progress
-- the "civilized" justification for depriving some other person or entity of their right to
own property, presumably earned by the sweat of their brow, except their sweat doesn't have the
same champion as someone who can wring more profit from it. The official explanation is that
the government manages the "scarcity" of resources to benefit the world. This is also how we
justify war, aggression, and genocide, though we don't always admit to that unless we mean to
avoid it.
Perfectly Rational Genocide
History cooperates with the definition of Enlightenment if we imagine that thoughtfulness
has something to do with genocide. In the context of American heritage, it has meant that when
someone stands in the way of progress, his or her resources are "reallocated" to serve the
pursuit of maximum profit, with or without consent. The war against Native Americans was one in
which Americans either sought and participated in annihilation efforts or believed this end was
inevitable. In the age of rational thought, meditation on the issue could lead from gratitude
for the help early settlers received from Native Americans to the observation they didn't
enclose their land and had no concept of private property,
to the conviction they were unmotivated by profit and therefore irreconcilable savages. But
it takes more than rational thought to mobilize one society to exterminate another.
The belief in manifest destiny -- that God put the settlers in America for preordained and
glorious purposes which gave them a right to everything -- turned out to be just the ticket for
a free people opposed to persecution and the tyranny of church and state.
Lest the irony elude you, economic freedom requires divorcing the state from religion, but
God can be used to whip up the masses, distribute "It's Them or Us" cards, and send people out
to die on behalf of intellectuals and investors who've rationalized their
chosenness.
CHAPTER TWO: INSTILLING THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE
Selfishness may be exalted as the root and branch of capitalism, but it doesn't make you
look good to the party on the receiving end or those whose sympathy he earns. For that, you
need a government prepared to do four things, which each have separate dictums based on study,
theorization, and experience.
Coercion:
Force is illegitimate only if you can't sell it.
Persuasion:
How do I market thee? Let me count the ways.
Bargaining:
If you won't scratch my back, then how about a piece of the pie?
Indoctrination:
Because I said so. (And paid for the semantics.)
Predatory capitalism is the control and expropriation of land, labor, and natural resources
by a foreign government via coercion, persuasion, bargaining, and indoctrination.
At the coercive stage, we can expect military and/ or police intervention to repress the
subject populace. The persuasive stage will be marked by clientelism, in which a small
percentage of the populace will be rewarded for loyalty, often serving as the capitalists'
administrators, tax collectors, and enforcers. At the bargaining stage, efforts will be made to
include the populace, or a certain percentage of it, in the country's ruling system, and this
is usually marked by steps toward democratic (or, more often, autocratic) governance.
At the fourth stage, the populace is educated by capitalists, such that they continue to
maintain a relationship of dependency.
The Predatory Debt Link
In many cases, post- colonial states were forced to assume the debts of their colonizers.
And where they did not, they were encouraged to become in debt to the West via loans that were
issued through international institutions to ensure they did not fall prey to communism or
pursue other economic policies that were inimical to the West. Debt is the tie that binds
nation states to the geostrategic and economic interests of the West.
As such, the Cold War era was a time of easy credit, luring postcolonial states to undertake
the construction of useless monoliths and monuments, and to even expropriate such loans through
corruption and despotism, thereby making these independent rulers as predatory as colonizers.
While some countries were wiser than others and did use the funds for infrastructural
improvements, these were also things that benefited the West and particularly Western
contractors. In his controversial work Confessions of an Economic Hit Man , John Perkins
reveals that he was a consultant for an American firm (MAIN), whose job was to ensure that
states became indebted beyond their means so they would remain loyal to their creditors, buying
them votes within United Nations organizations, among other things.
Predatory capitalists demand export- orientations as the means to generate foreign currency
with which to pay back debt. In the process, the state must privatize and drastically slash or
eliminate any domestic subsidies which are aimed at helping native industry compete in the
marketplace. Domestic consumption and imports must be radically contained, as shown by the
exchange rate policies recommended by the IMF. The costs of obtaining domestic capital will be
pushed beyond the reach of most native producers, while wages must be depressed to an absolute
bare minimum. In short, the country's land, labor, and natural resources must be sold at
bargain basement prices in order to make these goods competitive, in what one author has called
"a spiraling race to the bottom," as countries producing predominantly the same goods engage in
cutthroat competition whose benefactor is the West.
Under these circumstances, foreign investment is encouraged, but this, too, represents a
loaded situation for countries that open their markets to financial liberalization. Since, in
most cases, the
IMF does not allow restrictions on the conditions of capital inflows, it means that
financial investors can literally dictate their terms. And since no country is invulnerable to
attacks on its currency, which governments must try to keep at a favorable exchange rate, it
means financial marauders can force any country to try to prop up its currency using vital
reserves of foreign exchange which might have been used to pay their debt.
When such is the case, the IMF comes to the rescue with a socalled "bailout fund," that
allows foreign investors to withdraw their funds intact, while the government reels from the
effects of an IMF- imposed austerity plan, often resulting in severe recession the offshoot of
which is bankruptcies by the thousands and plummeting employment.
In countries that experienced IMF bailouts due to attacks on their currencies, the effect
was to reset the market so the only economic survivors were those who remained export- oriented
and were strong enough to withstand the upheaval. This means they remained internationally
competitive, which translates to low earnings of foreign exchange. At the same time that the
country is being bled from the bottom up through mass unemployment, extremely low wages, and
the "spiraling race to the bottom," it is in an even more unfavorable position concerning the
payment of debt. The position is that debt slavery ensues, as much an engine of extraction as
any colonial regime ever managed.
The Role of Indoctrination
The fact that it is sovereign governments overseeing the work of debt repression has much to
do with education, which is the final phase of predatory capitalism, concluding in
indoctrination. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the lesson to the world was that
socialism can't work, nor were there any remaining options for countries that pursued "the
third way" other than capitalism. This produced a virulent strain of neoliberalism in which
most people were, and are, being educated. The most high- ranking of civil servants have either
been educated in the West or directly influenced by its thinking. And this status of acceptance
and adherence finally constitutes indoctrination. The system is now self- sustaining, upheld by
domestic agents.
While predatory capitalism can proceed along a smooth continuum from coercion to persuasion
to bargaining to formal indoctrination, the West can regress to any of these steps at any point
in
time, given the perceived need to interfere with varying degrees of force in order to
protect its interests.
Trojan Politics
Democracy is about having the power and flexibility to graft our system of government and
predatory capitalism onto any target country, regardless of relative strength or conflicting
ideologies. An entire productive industry has grown up using the tools of coercion, persuasion,
bargaining, and formal indoctrination to maximize their impact in the arena of U. S. politics.
Its actors know how to jerk the right strings, push the right buttons, and veer from a soft
sell to a hard sell when resistance dictates war, whether it's with planes overhead and tanks
on the ground or with massive capital flight that panics the whole world.
When the U. S. political economy goes into warp overdrive, its job proves far more valuable
than anything ever made in the strict material sense because there's never been more at stake
in terms of what it's trying to gain. It's the American idea machine made up of corporations,
lobbyists, think tanks, foundations, universities, and consultants in every known discipline
devoted to mass consumerism, and what they sell is illusory opportunity dressed in American
principles. They embrace political candidates who'll play by elitist rules to preserve the
fiction of choice, and, in this way, they maintain legitimacy, no matter what kind of
"reallocation" is on the economic agenda.
The issue is not whether we'll question it, but who we'll applaud for administering it.
In the Information Age, perception management is king.
What I liked most about this article was the highlighting of impossible-to-counter
narratives, the hypocrisy of Western democracy promotion (even as Western governments fellate
domestic and foreign economic elites), and the denigration of nationalism from 1990-2016.
Sadly, the author does a disservice in suggesting that such manipulations are past. Instead,
the Western power-elite has done what it does best: co-opt a 'winning' narrative
(nationalism) and double-down.
Other deficiencies:
Ignores the fact that the US Deep State, caretakers of the Empire, hasn't accepted
defeat. Since 2014 they have been actively trying to reverse what they see as a major
set-back (not defeat).
Via economic sanctions, trade wars, propaganda, and military tensions the Empire is
waging a hybrid war against what it calls the "revisionist" efforts of Russia and
China.
Plays into the propaganda narrative of Trump as populist.
Fails to see the 1990's 'economic shock therapy' as a deliberate attempt to push
Russia into total capitulation. This, darker view, was confirmed obliquely by Kissinger in
his interview with ft in which he stated that no one could foresee the ability of Russia to
absorb pain.
Sen. Chris Murphy said this the other day: "I have a real belief that democracy is
unnatural. We don't run anything important in our lives by democratic vote other than our
government. Democracy is so unnatural that it's illogical to think it would be permanent. It
will fall apart at some point, and maybe that point isn't now, but maybe it is."
"... On the strength of Adrian Vermeule's review last month (" Liturgy of Liberalism ," January 2017), I picked up Ryszard Legutko's The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies . Legutko sees many parallels between the communism that dominated the Poland of his youth and the political-social outlook now treated as obligatory by Eurocrats and dominant in America, which he calls "[neo]liberal democracy." ..."
"... One parallel struck me as especially important: "Communism and [neo]liberal democracy are related by a similarly paradoxical approach to politics: both promised to reduce the role of politics in human life, yet induced politicization on a scale unknown in previous history." We're aware of the totalitarian dimension of communism. But liberalism? Isn't it supposed to be neutral with respect to substantive outlooks, endorsing only the constitutional and legal frameworks for free and fair political debate? Actually, no. Liberals always assert that liberalism is the view of politics, society, and morality "most adequate of and for modern times." ..."
"... [Neo]Liberalism, Legutko points out, is committed to dualism, not pluralism. He gives the example of Isaiah Berlin, who made a great deal out of the importance of the pluralism of the liberal spirit. Yet "Berlin himself, a superbly educated man, knew very well and admitted quite frankly that the most important and most valuable fruits of Western philosophy were monistic in nature." This means that liberalism, as Berlin defines it, must classify nearly the entire history of Western thought (and that of other cultures as well) as "nonliberal." Thus, "the effect of this supposed liberal pluralism" is not a welcoming, open society in which a wide range of substantive thought flourishes, but "a gigantic purge of Western philosophy, bringing an inevitable degradation of the human mind." ..."
"... The purge mentality has a political dimension. Since 1989, European politics has shifted away from a left vs. right framework toward "mainstream" vs. "extremist." This is a telling feature of [neo]liberal democracy as an ideology. "The tricky side of 'mainstream' politics is that it does not tolerate any political 'tributaries' and denies that they should have any legitimate existence. Those outside the mainstream are believed to be either mavericks and as such not deserving to be treated seriously, or fascists who should be politically eliminated." ..."
"... Lumpenproletariat ..."
"... Legutko speaks of "lumpenintellectuals." These are the professors and journalists who buttress the status quo by rehearsing ideological catechisms and exposing heretics. We certainly have a lumpenintelligentsia ..."
"... I regularly read two lumpenintellectuals in order to understand the orthodoxies of our political mainstream: Tom Friedman over at the New York Times and Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal . The former is a cheerleader for today's globalist orthodoxies, complete with ritual expressions of misgivings. The latter eagerly plays the role of Leninist enforcer of those orthodoxies ..."
♦ Boys and girls are different. There, I've said it, a heresy of our time. We're not
supposed to suggest that a woman shouldn't fight in combat, or that an athletic girl doesn't
have a right to play on the boys' football team -- or that a young woman doesn't run a greater
risk than a young man when binge drinking. We are not supposed to reject the conceit that the
sexes are interchangeable, and therefore a man can become a "woman" and use the ladies'
bathroom.
Male and female God created us. I commend this heresy to readers. Remind people that boys in
girls' bathrooms put girls at risk, and that Obergefell is a grotesque distortion of
the Constitution. True -- and don't miss the opportunity to say, in public, that men and women
are different. This is the deepest reason why gender ideology is perverse. As Peter Hitchens
observes in this issue (" The Fantasy of
Addiction "), there's a great liberation that comes when, against the spirit of the age,
one blurts out what one knows to be true.
♦ Great Britain
recently announced regulatory approval for scientists to introduce third-party DNA into the
reproductive process. The technological innovation that allows for interventions into the most
fundamental dimensions of reproduction and human identity is sure to accelerate. Which is a
good reason for incoming President Trump to revive the President's Council on Bioethics. (It
existed under President Obama, but was told to do and say nothing.) We need sober reflection on
the coming revolution in reproductive technology. Trump should appoint Princeton professor
Robert P. George to head the Bioethics Commission. He has the expertise in legal and moral
philosophy, and he knows what's at stake. (See " Gnostic Liberalism ,"
December 2016.)
♦ On the strength of Adrian Vermeule's review last month (" Liturgy of
Liberalism ," January 2017), I picked up Ryszard Legutko's
The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies . Legutko sees many
parallels between the communism that dominated the Poland of his youth and the political-social
outlook now treated as obligatory by Eurocrats and dominant in America, which he calls
"[neo]liberal democracy."
One parallel struck me as especially important: "Communism and [neo]liberal democracy
are related by a similarly paradoxical approach to politics: both promised to reduce the role
of politics in human life, yet induced politicization on a scale unknown in previous history."
We're aware of the totalitarian dimension of communism. But liberalism? Isn't it supposed to be
neutral with respect to substantive outlooks, endorsing only the constitutional and legal
frameworks for free and fair political debate? Actually, no. Liberals always assert that
liberalism is the view of politics, society, and morality "most adequate of and for modern
times."
This gives [neo]liberalism a partisan spirit all the more powerful because it is denied.
Although such words as "dialogue" and "pluralism" appear among its favorite motifs, as do
"tolerance" and other similarly hospitable notions, this overtly generous rhetorical
orchestration covers up something entirely different. In its essence, liberalism is
unabashedly aggressive because it is determined to hunt down all nonliberal agents and ideas,
which it treats as a threat to itself and to humanity.
[Neo]Liberalism, Legutko points out, is committed to dualism, not pluralism. He gives the example
of Isaiah Berlin, who made a great deal out of the importance of the pluralism of the liberal
spirit. Yet "Berlin himself, a superbly educated man, knew very well and admitted quite frankly
that the most important and most valuable fruits of Western philosophy were monistic in
nature." This means that liberalism, as Berlin defines it, must classify nearly the entire
history of Western thought (and that of other cultures as well) as "nonliberal." Thus, "the
effect of this supposed liberal pluralism" is not a welcoming, open society in which a wide
range of substantive thought flourishes, but "a gigantic purge of Western philosophy, bringing
an inevitable degradation of the human mind."
♦ The purge mentality has a political dimension. Since 1989, European politics has
shifted away from a left vs. right framework toward "mainstream" vs. "extremist." This is a
telling feature of [neo]liberal democracy as an ideology. "The tricky side of 'mainstream' politics
is that it does not tolerate any political 'tributaries' and denies that they should have any
legitimate existence. Those outside the mainstream are believed to be either mavericks and as
such not deserving to be treated seriously, or fascists who should be politically
eliminated."
♦ Karl Marx coined the term Lumpenproletariat . Lumpen means "rag"
in German, and its colloquial meanings include someone who is down-and-out. According to Marx,
this underclass has counter-revolutionary tendencies. These people can be riled up by
demagogues and deployed in street gangs to stymie the efforts of the true proletariat to topple
the dominant class.
Legutko speaks of "lumpenintellectuals." These are the professors and journalists who
buttress the status quo by rehearsing ideological catechisms and exposing heretics. We
certainly have a lumpenintelligentsia , left and right: tenured professors,
columnists, think tank apparatchiks, and human resources directors.
♦ I regularly read two lumpenintellectuals in order to understand the orthodoxies of
our political mainstream: Tom Friedman over at the New York
Times and Bret
Stephens at the Wall Street Journal . The former is a cheerleader for today's
globalist orthodoxies, complete with ritual expressions of misgivings. The latter eagerly plays
the role of Leninist enforcer of those orthodoxies.
♦ Bill Kristol recently stepped down
as day-to-day editor at the Weekly Standard . .... As he put it with characteristic humor, "Here at The Weekly Standard , we've
always been for regime change."...
Mini Teaser: Radicals of the democracy-promotion movement embody the very thing they are
fighting against -- a closed-minded conviction that they represent the one true path for all
societies and thus possess a monopoly on social, ethical and political truth.
Democrats are in bed with the deep state, take billions from the largest corporations, and
conduct the most undemocratic nominating process ever seen in the US, but thank god they are
not fascists!
Trezrek500 , 2 hours ago
It is amazing, Bezos becomes the richest guy in the world and the delivery of his packages
is subsidized by tax payers. The USPS should triple their rates to AMZN. Problem solved.
There seems to be some dispute about whether there is a far Left socialist revolution
unfolding. I can't see much distinction between 'Neoliberalism in its purest form' and
authoritarian Communism. It boils down to control, whether that is in a 'market' context of
monopoly corporations who are embedded within the state, or whether it is in the context of
'state enterprises' in the USSR.
What seems clear is that the society of the capitalism of small and medium sized businesses,
relatively free movement, civil liberties and an open culture are being wound down and
replaced by a centralised control society organised through the internet. State
administration will matter less. Central banks, Blackrock investor algorithms, automated
private security systems will matter more. This is not an attack on Trump, it is the bringing
down and replacement of the US system per se.
Call it what you want. The jerks on the street have absolutely no idea what is taking place.
They are brainwashed ideologues puppeteered by forces that operate above the distinction
between 'capitalism' and 'communism'.
Why are there so many young people out there available to be radicalized and to just ruin
and riot endlessly? Because American capitalism has devolved into a 'gig economy' where
millions have no real future and nothing much to lose. People face a lifetime of meaningless,
low paid service gigs that will never give them the means to have the standard of living of
the previous generations. All the drug use is symptomatic of that.
Why would media and corporations promote and fund communism, being that they're the
billionaire-corporate capitalist class? It's bait and switch from the class warfare of
communist rhetoric to endless racial leveling and chaos along all social, racial and cultural
lines. This leaves the billionaire benefactors of unisex toilets still in charge.
Small businesses are bankrupted under the guise of fighting the killer virus, their assets
scooped up by the deep pockets. It's a huge transfer of wealth upwards scheme. The economy is
being reset downwards using the ruin caused by these rioters and the killer virus. The mass
of people will learn to adjust their expectations to fit the new grim reality. The commies,
anarchists and whatever else is out there will later be rolled up. What with all the spying
and fusion centers the government knows who they are. They're useful at the moment. It's a
capitalist driven thing. Can't find a job after losing your business? Well here's some new
legalized drugs for you and a welfare, I mean stimulus, check to tide you over at the hobo
camp.
Democracy is incompatible with the global neoliberal empire ruled from Washington. And the
USA is empire now.
Notable quotes:
"... cancel culture is just fine, as long as it's your side doing the cancelling...or if it's Israel or the national security state doing the cancelling ..."
"The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful
ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy."
This sacred cow of illusion is being threatened from all directions it seems. Democracy is
great for whoever owns it, and whoever owns the media owns democracy. A cow well worth
milking.
Norman Finkelstein must be laughing out loud at the sight of so many hypocritical liberals
opposing cancel. Did anyone in this crowd get 150 people to sign a letter of protest when
Finkelstein got cancelled? Or when Phil Donahue got fired for opposing the Iraq war?
IOW, cancel culture is just fine, as long as it's your side doing the cancelling...or
if it's Israel or the national security state doing the cancelling . CountrPunch, a
victim of blacklisting themselves, has a major takedown of the screaming hypocrisy of some of
the signers: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/harpers-and-the-great-cancel-culture-panic/
Orwell called this "newspeak". That's now the language of libtards.
thanks
and not just shitlibs, but across the entire length and breadth of our culture and society
this Ministry of Truth-imposed doublethink masquerades as language intended to inform and
explain, when it does the opposite.
George Will and Sean Hannity use newspeak with the same alacrity as Lawrence O'Donnell or
Rachel Maddow. Israel has to defend itself. Putin's aggression and Russian
meddling in our democracy.
'Quantitative easing' as a doubleplusgood expression for human history's most colossal
case of mass-swindling the world has ever known.
it's everywhere, and the more it isn't noticed, the more sinister and diabolical it
is.
It's like that Twilight Zone episode of the aliens that only wanted to 'serve man'.
'We're here to serve you'.
The writers of that episode certainly must have been thinking of a certain tribe of
'philanthropists' and owners of 'human rights' organizations.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
"... Old saying: A Recession is when your neighbor loses their Job. A Depression is when you lose your Job. ..."
"... A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business. ..."
"... There's a documentary about Wal-Mart that has the best title ever: The High Cost of Low Cost ..."
"... Globalism killed the American dream. We can buy cheap goods made somewhere else if we have a job here that pays us enough money. ..."
You can't just move to American cities to pursue opportunity; even the high wages paid in
New York are rendered unhelpful because the cost of housing is so high.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was vilified and ultimately murdered when he was helping organize
a Poor People's Campaign. Racial justice means economic justice.
A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and
do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into
buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb
thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business.
Nailed it. As a millennial, I'm sick of being told to just "deal with it" when the cards
have always been stacked against me. Am I surviving? Yes. Am I thriving? No.
When the reserve status of the American dollar goes away, then it will become apparent how
poor the US really is. You cannot maintain a country without retention of the ability to
manufacture the articles you use on a daily basis. The military budget and all the jobs it
brings will have to shrink catastrophically.
...and sometimes you CAN'T afford to move. You can't find a decent job. You certainly
can't build a meaningful savings. You can't find an apartment. And if you have kids? That
makes it even harder. I've been trying to move for years, but the conditions have to be
perfect to do it responsibly. The American Dream died for me once I realized that no matter
the choices I made, my four years of college, my years of saving and working hard....I do NOT
have upward mobility. For me, the American Dream is dead. I've been finding a new dream. The
human dream.
This is a very truncated view. You need to expand your thinking. WHY has the system been
so overtly corrupted? It's globalism that has pushed all this economic pressure on the
millennials and the middle class. It was the elites, working with corrupt politicians, that
rigged the game so the law benefited them.
This is all reversible. History shows that capitalism can be properly regulated in a way
that benefits all. The answer to the problem is to bring back those rules, not implement
socialism.
Trump has:
- Ended the free trade deals
- Imposed Protective tarriffs to defend American jobs and workers
- Lowered corporate taxes to incentivize business to locate within us borders.
- Limited immigration to reduce the supply of low skilled labor within US borders.
The result? before COVID hit the average American worker saw the first inflation adjusted
wage increase in over 30 years!
This is why the fake news and hollywood continue to propagandize the masses into hating
Trump.
Trump is implementing economic policies good for the people and bad for the elites
Krystal Ball exposes the delusion of the American dream.
About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of
morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show
leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can
predict what is going to happen.
It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive
news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the
country's most important political newsmakers.
Got my degree just as the great recession hit. Couldn't find real work for 3 years, not
using my degree... But it was work. now after 8 years, im laid off. I did everything "right".
do good in school, go to college, get a job...
I've never been fired in my life. its always,
"Your contract is up" "Sorry we cant afford to keep you", "You can make more money collecting!
but we'll give a recommendation if you find anything."
Now I'm back where i started... only
now I have new house and a family to support... no pressure.
"... Highly recommended. America has been transformed into a public relations image - she no longer has substance. She is like a hologram - reach out to touch her and you find there is nothing there - it's all been taken and replaced with an image. ..."
While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now
producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable
of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local
destination assigned Us by Providence.
But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one
another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation
while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner
the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and
Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World.
Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions
unbridled by eletion, morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would
break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate
to the government of any other
Victor999 , 11 hours ago
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate
to the government of any other
Key statement. Americans are no longer a moral and religious people even though they
present the trappings of such.
Highly recommended. America has been transformed into a public relations image - she no
longer has substance. She is like a hologram - reach out to touch her and you find there is
nothing there - it's all been taken and replaced with an image.
Cook here represents a tradition of progressive pseudo-democracy which contradicts liberal
democracy.
In progressive pseudo-democracy, men "at the side of history" have a privilege in destroying
other people's values.
In liberal democracy, the defenders of the old system are recognized as a legitimate
opposition with the possibility of becoming the government again. so there are no privileges
for "men at the side of history". Of course there can be changes who are, in hindsight,
consensually accepted by both sides. Nearly nobody sees a reason to reestablish slavery
– but the acceptance of a gollywog or the acceptance of a statue is not slavery, not
even similar to it. The "pain" of people who conflate these matters is self-inflicted.
Any article discussing 'democracy' without defining it is the work of a hack.
Oh yes, it's supposed that everyone knows 'democracy'. He doesn't. It's a bullshit word
meant to gloss around the writer's refusal to reason by way of first principles. It's
cowardice.
We are all supposed to accept as the major premise that democracy's good, and thus
desirable. Ergo, if the writer can somehow tie his conclusion to 'democratic' roots, he's
carried the day.
Shameless fraud. Thousands of words of spittle.
Interesting truth: No form of the word 'democracy' is found in the US Declaration of
Independence or Constitution. To the contrary, democracy is forbidden by Constitution Article
IV Section 4.
The Holocaust memorial museum in Washington should be stormed by Americans outraged by
Israel's theft of US resources and its corruption of US politics, and for Israel's attack on
the USS Liberty.
This may or may not include the defenestration of the directors, the casting of exhibits
into the street, and the bulldozing of the entire structure into a landfill.
Yes, more democratic tradition, please, until justice is done and seen to be done.
The Left and Wall Street are not going to go after each because at the moment they are allies
pursuing a common goal; the dismantling of the traditional nation-state and its replacement
by a new transnational system.
Capital wants it because it wants totally free access to markets and resources, both human
and natural. Natural resources and product will flow with no regulation or tariffs. Capital
wants to reduce the cost of labor, at every level from manual day laborers to advanced
engineers and scientists, by forcing everyone to compete with their counterparts worldwide in
a wage race to the bottom. They will do it by shifting business to lower cost areas, and/or
mass immigration. Energy and material resources will be plundered without hindrance from any
corner of the earth. The deracinated new Brown populations will have no coherence or vision
for resistance, instead everyone will be a consumer trying to improve themselves or their
tribe against everyone else. Meanwhile the hyper-competent will claw their way to the top of
meritocratic aristocracy. The rich don't care if police forces are de-funded. Only the middle
class want police. Ancient Rome operated just fine without police. The wealthy had slaves and
hired muscle to guard their person and property. The poor used local gangs to provide
protection.
The Left wants the end of the nation-state because they think it will allow them to end
racism by the simple measure of eliminating race, save the environment by forcing
de-industrialization, and end war by ending nations. Oh, and they will be happy to accept the
role of wise philosopher-kings administering the brave new world.
Both Capital and the Left think they'll suppress the other and be the ones in charge once the
transnational world order is in place.
I think maybe there won't be a final struggle between the winning allies of the Left and
Capital because they are merging. Look at how many plutocrats have the same political beliefs
as Leftists. Try find an inch of daylight between the stated values of the HR department at a
mega-corporation and a modern university.
Neither side gives a rat's ass for the working people.
ori Schake
objects to Biden's foreign policy record on the grounds that he is not hawkish enough and
too skeptical of military intervention. She restates a bankrupt hawkish view of U.S. military
action:
This half-in-half-out approach to military intervention also strips U.S. foreign policy of
its moral element of making the world a better place. It is inadequate to the cause of
advancing democracy and human rights [bold mine-DL].
The belief that military intervention is an expression of the "moral element" of U.S.
foreign policy is deeply wrong, but it is unfortunately just as deeply-ingrained among many
foreign policy professionals. Military intervention has typically been disastrous for the cause
of advancing democracy and human rights. First, by linking this cause with armed aggression,
regime change, and chaos, it tends to bring discredit on that cause in the eyes of the people
that suffer during the war. Military interventions have usually worsened conditions in the
targeted countries, and in the upheaval and violence that result there have been many hundreds
of thousands of deaths and countless other violations of human rights.
Destabilizing other countries, displacing millions of people, and wrecking their
infrastructure and economy obviously do not make anything better. As a rule, our wars of choice
have not been moral or just, and they have inflicted tremendous death and destruction on other
nations. When we look at the wreckage created by just the last twenty years of U.S. foreign
policy, we have to reject the fantasy that military action has something to do with moral
leadership. Each time that the U.S. has gone to war unnecessarily, that is a moral failure.
Each time that the U.S. has attacked another country when it was not threatened, that is a
moral abomination.
Schake continues:
Biden claims that the U.S. has a moral obligation to respond with military force to
genocide or chemical-weapons use, but was skeptical of intervention in Syria. The former vice
president's rhetoric doesn't match his policies on American values.
If Biden's rhetoric doesn't match his policies here, we should be glad that the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president isn't such an ideological zealot that he would insist on
waging wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. If there is a
mismatch, the problem lies with the expansive rhetoric and not with the skepticism about
intervention. That is particularly true in the Syria debate, where interventionists kept
demanding more aggressive policies without even bothering to show how escalation wouldn't make
things worse. Biden's skepticism about intervention in Syria of all places is supposed to be
held against him as proof of his poor judgment? That criticism speaks volumes about the
discredited hawkish crowd in Washington that wanted to sink the U.S. even more deeply into that
morass of conflict.
One of the chief problems with U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades is that it
has been far too militarized. To justify the constant resort to the threat and use of force,
supporters have insisted on portraying military action as if it were beneficent. They have
managed to trick a lot of Americans into thinking that "doing something" to another country is
the same thing as doing good. Interventionists emphasize the goodness of their intentions while
ignoring or minimizing the horrors that result from the policies they advocate, and they have
been able to co-opt the rhetoric of morality to mislead the public into thinking that attacking
other countries is legitimate and even obligatory. This has had the effect of degrading and
distorting our foreign policy debates by framing every argument over war in terms of righteous
"action" vs. squalid "inaction." This turns everything on its head. It treats aggression as
virtue and violence as salutary. Even a bog-standard hawk like Biden gets criticized for
lacking moral conviction if he isn't gung-ho for every unnecessary war.
As for Mr. Biden's "but was skeptical of intervention in Syria", maybe he was aware of
the actual perpetrators of the gas attacks (as several OPCW whistle-blowers testified) and
was maybe uncomfortable being again the spearhead for another war, like he was with Iraq as
the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Biden has been out of office for four years now. If I recall correctly, he didn't say jack
to support Trump's two failed attempts to pull out from Syria.
Kori Schake writes for the British neocon IISS, which has been secretly funded by the Sunni
dictator in Bahrain, who holds down the Shia majority with imported Pakistanis as soldiers
and police. Ordinary Bahrainis are like occupied prisoners in their own country. Everything
is for the small Sunni elite. Though there are also ordinary Sunnis who oppose them.
Kori Schake is simply paid to promote neocon interests, which the Bahraini dictator is
closely aligned with. The Sunni king dissolved parliament and took all the power, aided by
Saudi tanks crushing protesters, who were tortured and had their lives destroyed. The
dictator even destroyed Bahrain's famous Pearl Monument, near which the protesters had
camped out, so it wouldn't be a symbol of resistance. (Forever making it a symbol of
resistance.) The tower was on all the postcards from Bahrain and it appeared on the coins.
It's like destroying the Eiffel Tower. Kori's Sunni paymasters want Shia Iran destroyed as
it speaks up for the oppressed Shias in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen and the
UAE.
Biden is and for over four decades always was an example of all that is worst in
militarized US foreign policy. The idea that he isn't hawkish enough is itself crazy.
Back in the Thatcher/Reagan years there were at people around who genuinely believed in the
superiority of the market, or at least, made the effort to set out an intellectual case for
it.
Now we're in a different era. After 2008, hardly anyone really believes in neoliberal
ideas anymore, not to the point that they'd openly make the case for them anyway. But while
different visions have appeared to some extent on both left and right, most of those in
positions of power and influence have so internalised Thatcher's 'there is no alternative'
that it's beyond their political horizons to treat any alternatives which do emerge as
serious propositions, let alone come up with their own.
So neoliberalism stumbles on almost as a reflex action. Ben Fine calls it a 'zombie' but I
think the better analogy is cannibalism. Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's
barely any pretence these days that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a
quest to find new avenues for profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not
enough places to profitability put it. Because structurally speaking most of the economy is
tapped out.
Privatising public services at this point is just a way to asset strip and/or funnel
public revenue streams to a private sector which has been stuck in neoliberal short-term, low
skill, low productivity, low wage, high debt mode for so long that it has lost the ability to
grow. So now it is eating itself, or at least eating the structures which hold it up and
allow it to survive.
Right-wing ideology is often presented as a natural state and not ideological at all. This
denial is a central feature, acting as a way of abdicating responsibility for harmful and
selfish actions and providing means of fostering intellectual suspicion to prevent challenges
or structured and coherent critiques like your own. The right engenders coalitions of people
disinterested in politics and distrustful of politicians with those who feel intellectually
superior but see politics as an amoral game in the pursuit of "enlightened" self-interest.
As a result, everything about it is disingenous. There is no alternative (that we want you
to choose). It's not racist to (constantly, always negatively and to the expense of
everything else) talk about immigration. Cutting taxes for the rich reduces inequality
(because we change the criteria to exclude the richest from the calculations). This is also
because there are dualities at play. Neoliberalism relies on immigration to increase worker
competition and suppress wage demand but courts the xenophobic vote (which is why even with
reduced EU migration Brexit has so far increased overall immigration and would continue to do
so in the event of no deal or May's deal). Both Remainers and Leavers have accused the other
of being a neoliberal project, and in certain aspects -because of these dualities - both
sides are correct.
I also believe the disdain for "political correctness" is somewhat a result of
neoliberalism, since marketisation is so fundamental to the project and the wedge of the
market is advertising, the language of bullshit and manipulation. People railing against
political correctness feel judged for their automatic thoughts that they identify as natural
instead of culturally determined. Behavioural advertising encourages these thoughts and
suppresses consideration. It is a recipe for resentment.
From comments: "
neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce
wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana
Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through
cybernetic data aggregation."
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and
creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more
oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and
micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and
hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The
introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age
of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom
but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of
freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so
much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
"... The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood. ..."
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation
of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the
Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure
to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from
the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On
the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff
had objected to a decision by the National Health Service
to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private
company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they
said, would put patients at risk. In response,
as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel
if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping
privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech,
promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism
was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a
semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a
Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend
on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down,
hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into
public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is
brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and
silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In
his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he
argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of
the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social
democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that
could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised –
confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be
reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose
liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He
forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And
those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of
Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this
country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony
Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of
freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential
services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly,
which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs
– or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised
by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if
we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services
outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against
this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise,"
he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money".
"Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot
'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his
warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name
of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became
not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving
children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling
patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and
persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their
researchers to
write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores
under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the
destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds
of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system
causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania
claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the
public sector. Amazon has patented
a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from
protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of
voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the
micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul
Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that
reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a
self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be
freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has
created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by
managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency
measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no
argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at
the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true
that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated
drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian
orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become
overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs
collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with
nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final
restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market
and state, just a totalitarian market state.
This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in
general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we
collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To
succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is
not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on
everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not
about 'economics'.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make
privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both
nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my
experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and
CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic
'commercial confidentiality'.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
@vk , hilarious post trying to potray modern day USN as fhe same one who fought japanese..
after WW2 all USN did was doing tag with soviets and today even their skill lost in the
current situation.. The good ole US navy is gone, all that left is aging airframes and ships
and confused doctrine that focused on clearing endless brush fires from restless natives..
USN are not able to fight peer enemy naval force, its man power are not sustainable in
such fight , thus they will resort to military draft system again and pray tell how many
foolish ignorant gung ho flag waving american would enlist ? it is easy for chickenhawks to
scream war war war but when their lives or their kid's lives on the line of fire most will
ran away to canada or mexico
or search Google Scholar for: "van Creveld" Parameters 1996 "Fate of the State"
Classic article, and first mention of the "hollowing out". Current crackdowns are by a
government that has lost most real power (e.g. can't even suppress retail theft and has given
up by making it legal), and is trying to get public submission again by over-enforcing
quarantine / isolation rules. The facade of even this level of control is cracking. The
problem is not an overly controlling government, it is of a government that lacks legitimacy
even from its supporters (one doesn't hear POC or even the Jewish establishments praising the
American form of government, even when they control it; none of them regard it as legitimate.
That's what Postmodernism, for example, is about.
Gladly. The book makes an interesting comparison between New Thought writers like Reverend
Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote a book in 1952 titled The Power of Positive Thinking, and
those who practice chaos magick. Both operate under the principle that there is real power to
effect one's environment through directing one's will, manifesting what you want if your
belief and willpower is strong enough (Peale had a big influence on Trump's dad and Trump
himself).
This concept is like meth to a malignant narcissist .
the author also discusses how post-modernism fits in to creating the condition we have
today. here's an excerpt:
Postmodernism is a philosophical perspective that developed in the late twentieth century,
having its sources in earlier philosophers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, both of whom
cut away at the notion of a stable, "objective" truth, the kind we use in everyday life and
in science. Simply put, the essence of postmodernism -- although it would deny that it
has an "essence"--can be summed up in the phrase "anything goes." For postmodernism the
kind of scientific, rational certainties that built the modern world, as well as
traditional values such as truth, no longer apply; at least they are seen to be much less
certain than was believed.
Well before it became a political buzzword, postmodernism knew all about being
"post-truth," and was aware of the "alternative facts" and "fake news" that accompany that
condition.
It could even be said that postmodernism and related schools like deconstructionism
prepared the ground for the epistemological skepticism pervading western consciousness
today, which Trump both abets and profits by.
Rarified notions of a pliant, flexible, relative "truth" trickled down from the
metaphysical heights, and infected the popular mind with what the philosopher Paul Ricoeur
called the "hermeneutics of suspicion," a kind of cynical nihilism that we take for granted
as part of everyday life, and which Nietzsche, more than a century ago, predicted was on
its way. Hence our conspiracy ridden world, to which Trump himself contributes.
For postmodernism, the dictum "Nothing is true, everything is permitted," attributed
to Hasan bin Sabbah, "the Old Man of the Mountain," leader of the ancient Islamic sect of
Ismailis called the Hashashin, or Assassins, is taken as given. The same goes for chaos
magick.
Since two others have mentioned this, I'll thrown this out.
Hegemonic ideologies tend to naturalize socioculturally-generated pathologies, often
dismissing them as "human nature."
I don't understand you to be necessarily doing this when you identify "human nature" with
callous self-centeredness given your other writing (and generously shared links) but it does
sound like you are using the term too loosely in your post for materialists and others to
philosophically stomach. I am not the only one who objected to the usage upon reading.
Can "human nature" be identified, labeled, discussed separate from historical and material
conditions? Is "human nature" not constituted via dialectical processes at multiple levels
occurring through time and space, not least of all cultural which is shaped by socioeconomic
conditions.
"... DONALD TRUMP: Nobody knew there'd be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. ..."
"... Trump is like the kid who played video games when he should have been doing his homework, then failed miserably on the test and tried to bullshit his way through the essay questions. ..."
"... As you are probably aware, a handful of elected leaders were selling their stock while assuaging the public about the dangers of the pandemic. We've gone from incompetence, to negligence, to outright profiteering. ..."
Last year, the Dept. of Health and Human Services ran a 7 month long exercise code named "Crimson Contagion," a dry run response
to a global pandemic which started in China and expected more than 100 million Americans to become ill.
Trump is like the kid who played video games when he should have been doing his homework, then failed miserably on the test
and tried to bullshit his way through the essay questions.
As you are probably aware, a handful of elected leaders were selling their stock while assuaging the public about the dangers
of the pandemic. We've gone from incompetence, to negligence, to outright profiteering.
dropping bombs and sanctioning free commerce in other countries is the American way of protecting the proceeds of the sociopaths
not such a good way to stop pandemics. Not in my name congress
@QMS
Fifty-six years dumping an untold number of dollars into "keeping us safe" from a foreign invader and the one time it happened,
not any of the resources were worth a damn.
The problem isn't so much that the real threats are unknown, at least not in broad outline form, but they're not "sexy." Not
amenable to what the military and cloak and dagger spy guys are into. And the perpetual USG budgets for the sexy stuff is far
more profitable. And is better suited to hiding all the graft and corruption (and employing the surplus and unskilled labor that
elite universities crank out) that upset ordinary people fearful that some undeserving person would get something for free from
the USG.
supplies, either. Well, given how the govt likely views our soldiers, I guess that's not surprising.
pandemic war games but no money to implement the most basic stockpiles (thermometers, face masks, gloves) that would be
very helpful in containing a virus. The larger serious shortcomings in the US are mostly intractable due to the "best" health
care system that money can buy.
"... 1) Pompeo and Grenell reportedly arguing that coronavirus has created window of opportunity for a direct strike on a weak and divided Iran. ..."
"... Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisian has criticized the #UK for not delivering millions of masks #Iran bought in preparations ahead of #Covid19 outbreak. The London govt. refused to deliver them citing US sanctions! Note that Germany took supplies meant for Switzerland, The US via the Italian Mafia (I suppose) gets masks from Bergamo. etc. ..."
I just think that the US "Intelligence" and most of the US Administration just haven't got it. I suppose when you are waiting
for the "rapture" anything that can add to the chaos is to be included.
1) Pompeo and Grenell reportedly arguing that coronavirus has created window of opportunity for a direct strike on a weak
and divided Iran. They were arguing about the severity of the strike.
2) Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisian has criticized the #UK for not delivering millions of masks #Iran bought in preparations
ahead of #Covid19 outbreak. The London govt. refused to deliver them citing US sanctions! Note that Germany took supplies
meant for Switzerland, The US via the Italian Mafia (I suppose) gets masks from Bergamo. etc. Wonderful show of
world-wide solidarity.
Pompeo should hold his "rapture" in his hot little hand and .....
The explosion of hate and blame and fear flying around online with regard to this pandemic
is more than alarming and ultimately useless and damaging. In a way it scares me more than
the flu itself at the moment because of the implications of how it will hinder our ability
to cooperate and deal with this.
That's a good point. Western society with its twisted guiding philosophy of radical
individualism and competition combined with a supremacist "that could never happen here"
attitude quickly falls into panicked chaos when reality kicks in and reveals the society's
underlying vulnerabilities. Countries with weak social safety nets and an ideological
opposition to social responsibility are extremely vulnerable to systemic breakdown when their
societies are under unexpected stress.
This virus is revealing just how ineffective the neoliberal social Darwinist "every man
for himself" ethos is and how deeply in denial and out of touch with reality these societies
are. Additionally, the house of cards that makes up the global economy has been in crisis
mode since 2008, when it was bailed out by massive money printing in the US and EU and China
pumping billions of dollars into the economy to keep it afloat, simply can't handle any
additional stressors without going into breakdown mode.
In this kind of situation where clear headed cooperation and mutual effort are required
the opposite happens and people go into panic and finger pointing mode looking for some
external enemy to blame. Just imagine what will happen if global warming turns out to be as
serious as many are predicting.
Under neoliberalism inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve: Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of
human relations and redefines citizens as consumers
Notable quotes:
"... Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? ..."
"... Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . ..."
"... Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. ..."
"... Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. ..."
"... Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. ..."
"... Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. ..."
"... It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative' ..."
"... Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating " investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes , protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre. ..."
"... Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one ..."
"... Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one. ..."
"... When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel . ..."
"... Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man. ..."
"... Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". ..."
"... Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant. ..."
"... Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities. ..."
"... The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised". ..."
"... The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years. ..."
"... What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century. ..."
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump –
neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an
alternative? @GeorgeMonbiot
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology
that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be
rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to
define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has
played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8,
the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the
epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . But we respond to these
crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had
– a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even
recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution.
But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of
power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of
human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best
exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It
maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by
planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty.
Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market
distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality
is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to
enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally
corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich
persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages
– such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The
poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their
circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's
because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card
is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a
school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition,
those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What
About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance
anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology
has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe . We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938.
Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations
of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom , published in 1944, Hayek argued
that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian
control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy , The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It
came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to
free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation
that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by
millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view
that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way
– among American apostles such as Milton Friedman
– to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost
its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe
himself as a neoliberal . But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still,
even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not
replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at
the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes 's economic
prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals
in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social
outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and
economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the
mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an
alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and
political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary
policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government
in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have
been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of
the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF,
the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies
were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most
remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the
Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have
been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom
should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a
visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was
comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship
rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that
neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to
mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the
freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers , endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design
exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth
that lifts people out of poverty.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to
impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis/The
Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine ,
neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were
distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane
Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational
system" in New Orleans
.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are
imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "
investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for
the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict
sales of cigarettes ,
protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical
firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is
reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it
rapidly became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition
relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment
and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von
Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead
created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it
rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980
in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich.
Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose
rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents,
privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as
energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up
tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government,
for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a
train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel,
wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel .
In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all phone services
and soon became the world's richest man. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised
services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon
became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the
Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned
income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer,
the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments,
overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to
student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by
a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their
money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned
income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not
only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the
Land , Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which
means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the
risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes.
Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and
re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public
sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the
economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead,
neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to
spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally
distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt
similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of
people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the
politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to
play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people
become responsive instead
to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and
arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between
people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely
to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of
public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey
them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the
zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by
invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them.
We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media
against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that
Charles and David
Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the
Tea
Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks,
noted that "in order
to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be
widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had
inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they
elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like
gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes,
means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful
activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest,
dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the
sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had
inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as
rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style
themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and
placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for
whom they toil ; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so
complex that even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners ; the tax arrangements that bamboozle
governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are
influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today only pejoratively . But they
offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but
these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there
is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom , Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic
work, Capitalism and Freedom .
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal
project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by
a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and
persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.
Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party |
Letters Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left.
When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive
economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s,
there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ...
nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general
framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To
propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious
problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not
gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the
environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic
growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental
destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is
that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For
Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the
21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is
published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
Many of us have come across the term "neoliberal," or "neoliberalism" before, but for all
its use, few have ever taken the chance to actually explain what it is. An inadequate popular
definition has allowed the term to be abused and misrepresented in a variety of ways. Despite
these misrepresentations, however, "neoliberalism" is a concept that is very useful for
understanding the world we live in today.
In simple terms, neoliberalism is a broad ideology that became popular in political,
economic, and governmental circles in the 1970's and reached its peak in global popularity in
the 1980's.
Neoliberalism describes the political paradigm we are in right now, the political conditions of
modern society . As the name suggests, it calls for a revitalization of the classical
liberal view of economic policy. It's important to understand that "classical liberal" here
refers to an older understanding of the word liberal than the one it has in modern America- it
is referencing the liberalism of the Enlightenment era, represented by thinkers like Adam Smith
and John Locke, not modern social liberalism as embodied by Barack Obama and much of the rest
of the Democratic Party. In concrete policy terms, neoliberalism means free trade, low taxes,
deregulation, privatization, and balanced budgets.
Neoliberalism emerged as a reaction to welfare state politics and Keynesian economics that
had become popular in the West following the end of World War II.
What is Keynesian Economics? Two major schools of economic thought are Classical
Economics and Keynesian Economics. Adam Smith's (1723-1790) theory of Classical Economics
asserts that the market is a rapidly-adjusting, self-correcting entity. John Maynard Keynes
(1883-1946) believed that Classical Economics was flawed. If classical economics were true,
Keyes asserted, waves of massive unemployment wouldn't exist, as the market would quickly
self-adjust for the downturn. Keynes theorized that during an economic downturn, consumer
demand tended to drop, causing employers to lay off employees, which would then decrease
overall consumer demand, and the cycle would continue. Keynes concluded that in periods of
economic downturn, government could manipulate demand by hiring, directly or through
policy, unemployed workers and break the cycle.
Following a long period of significant prosperity,
the 1970's brought with it a phenomenon known as "stagflation" - simultaneous stagnation
(where worker wages are kept flat) and inflation (where the cost of living rises). Keynesians,
who had been the dominant group in American economics at the time, believed it was impossible
for stagflation to exist for any extended period of time.
As the Keynesians tried to make sense of economic realities of the day, a new wave of
economists began to create other schools of thought. Milton Friedman (known as "the Chicago
School" or "monetarists") made the case not only for a different approach to monetary policy in
order to solve stagflation, but also for the idea that many forms of governmental involvement
in the economy are in fact harmful. Others, like James Buchanan pioneered a field known as
"public choice theory," which made the case to the economics profession that government
bureaucrats acted in personal self-interest, not in the public interest, and thus that policy
prescriptions should be much more cautious in calling for governmental solutions to economic
issues.
Activist Business
At the same time as the intellectual environment began to shift toward the political right
in economics,
the business community also began to be more aggressive in asserting their interests in
politics. This development was prompted in part by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis
F. Powell, Jr. writing a memo to
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971, arguing that "the American economic system is under
attack" from progressive critics of big business and that the business community should fight
back. A number of conservative and libertarian think tanks and advocacy organizations were
created and expanded during this period in order to make the intellectual case for "freer"
capitalism, including the Heritage Foundation (1973), the Cato Institute (1974), and the
American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 but becoming influential during the
1970′s).
A Radical Message
Combine a turn against government in the field of economics and a growing assertion of
political power by businesses, and throw in increased public skepticism of government after
Vietnam and Watergate, and you have a recipe for fundamental political change. Between the
economic disarray, the public distrust, and both intellectual and financial support for an
alternative to post-war welfare statism, a new ideology became dominant in the political
sphere. This ideology was encapsulated by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who summed it up
perfectly with his famous quote: "in this current crisis, government is not the solution to the
problem; government is the problem."
Such a claim may sound like standard conservative fare today, but
both Reagan and his message were quite radical at the time, even among Republicans. At the
time of his election, Reagan was seen by some (
including Gerald Ford ) as simply too far right to win. The last (elected) Republican
president before him, Nixon, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and a number of other progressive
programs. He also called for healthcare reform that could arguably be called
stronger than Obamacare, and
an expansion of welfare , the latter of which was the inspiration for the Earned Income Tax
Credit, passed shortly after he left office. Pieces of Nixon's economic agenda were noticeably
left-wing, so much so that one journalist at the time noted that he left the
Democrats having to resort to "me-tooism."
Importantly, this era also saw the start of the growth in the importance of campaign
donations. Republicans had not only a strong base of think tanks to provide them with a network
of intellectual support, they also had far more money from the corporate interests they were
serving. Congressional Republicans beat their Democratic counterparts in campaign expenditures in every
election year from 1976 to 1992.
Traditionally, Democrats had relied on unions as a critical source of both campaign
donations and organizational support. With union strength declining (a trend the Reagan
administration encouraged through policy), the Democrats were being totally outgunned.
According to Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's book "Winner-Take-All Politics":
Even with the emergence of conservative "Reagan Democrats" during the 1980's, the game had
changed for the Democratic Party. Recognizing this, a number of Democrats (including Bill
Clinton) joined together in a group called the Democratic Leadership Council with the goal of
dragging the party to the right and boosting campaign contributions. They succeeded.
When Clinton eventually won the presidency, he cemented neoliberalism as the law of the
land by making it clear that the Democrats would not challenge the new fundamental doctrine
of limited government involvement in many parts of the economy, and as a result made the
Democrats politically competitive again. (Both the previously mentioned "Winner-Take-All
Politics" and Thomas Ferguson and Joel Roger's "Right Turn" go more into detail on this issue,
and on neoliberalism more generally).
Instead of challenging the entirety of Reagan's assertion of government-as-problem, Clinton
espoused a "third way" ideology: in his second inauguration, he
said that "Government is not the problem, and Government is not the solution. We -- the
American people -- we are the solution." Though the Clinton White House at times backed
left-liberal policies like mild tax hikes on the wealthy, the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and the Family Medical Leave Act, it also continued the neoliberal march of rolling
back progressive achievements through the deregulation of Wall Street (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act of 1999, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, etc.), conservative welfare
reform in 1996, NAFTA, and the gutting of public housing
.
A One-Party System
Clinton himself was aware of the way that American politics was moving to the right, and he
was sometimes frustrated with it. Allegedly, he once entered a meeting in the Oval Office
complaining : "Where are all the Democrats? I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower
Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We
stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"
Neoliberalism within the Democratic Party looks less like a proposal to privatize or abolish
Social Security as much as it does a commitment to benefit-cutting "entitlement reform." It can
be seen both in language (the constant discussion of education as an "investment" in "skills"
necessary for "improving the workforce," instead of a guaranteed right for all citizens) and in
policy (proposing tax cuts for the middle class instead of social spending even when taxes are
at some of their
lowest rates in decades ; compromis[ing] in advance
on major policy proposals like the 2009 stimulus; advocating piecemeal technocratic reforms to
healthcare and finance instead of deeper, fundamental reform; etc.).
With their opponents on the defensive and partially compliant with their agenda, the
Republicans continued to push further right under the leadership of Newt Gingrich and his
"Contract with America." The Democrats started to dig their heels in and push back a little
for the first time during the later part of the George W. Bush administration as his (and the
wars') approval ratings sank, and they now seem to have more or less stabilized. An
increasingly loud progressive coalition of activists and advocates continues to push for ideas
like single-payer healthcare, often dismissed as radical despite both being an international
norm and the
explicit goal of many mainstream Democratic politicians before neoliberalism's rise. The
Democratic party establishment, on the contrary, is largely fine holding on to ideological
territory that is, in certain areas, to the right of where it was several decades ago.
With the establishment of both major political parties accepting neoliberal ideology, it
became default wisdom among economic, political, and media elites. Because the most powerful
class of America accepted it as fact, it was instilled into the American consciousness as
"common sense" that can't be seriously challenged. Ideas in direct opposition to neoliberalism
were largely marginalized, and as a result, much of our modern debate now takes place within
its bounds. Today, though, this marginalization is rapidly disappearing.
Today, we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism's "common sense" status. Republican
elites took neoliberalism being one of their root organizing principles for granted while
running campaigns using dog-whistle racism, never realizing that they were attracting a base of
voters who hated immigrants a lot more than they hated regulation. The Republicans have drifted
so far to the right that unabashed nationalists like Trump can now take the lead of the party,
even as he espouses racist xenophobia-inspired protectionism that are in conflict with the
neoliberal ideals of the party's business wing.
Even during their neoliberalization, the Democrats always had a left-wing occupied by social
democrats. Today they largely occupy the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They were empowered
by both opposition to the Iraq War late in the Bush era and the subsequent economic crash that
occurred as a result of neoliberal deregulation of the finance sector. Obama ran as a
semi-progressive but governed as a standard Democrat, leaving progressive disappointment and
frustration to rise to the surface again once a primary was held to determine who would be the
Democratic candidate after Obama: thus, the Bernie phenomenon.
Globalism &
Neoliberalism
It seems as though the extinction of neoliberalism is embedded in the formula of
neoliberalism itself.
Neoliberalism and accompanying globalization have resulted in inequality and poverty for
significant portions of the population, leaving many people economically impoverished and
politically alienated. This prompts an inevitable political reaction, angry and populist in
nature. The center-left (ex. Hillary Clinton) and center-right (ex. Jeb Bush) sing the praises
of neoliberal globalization, while the left (ex. Bernie Sanders) vigorously attacks the
"neoliberal" part of it, and the far-right (ex. Donald Trump) vigorously attack the
"globalization" part of it. Today, progressives dislike neoliberalism, but also believe that
the far-right's disdain for all forms of globalization is a distraction and misidentification
of the root issue, using foreigners and people of color as scapegoats.
The problem is not globalization, but globalization implemented in such a way so as to benefit
the wealthy and powerful.
Neoliberalism is a powerful ideology and way of looking at the world. The neoliberal views
most government involvement in the economy as harmful, and seeks to leave social problems to be
solved by private enterprise and markets whenever possible. This is an idea that, over the last
several decades, has become widely accepted to varying degrees by people across the political
spectrum, and as such has been embedded into modern government and public policy.
A number of other industrialized countries have undergone neoliberalization on roughly the
same time frame as the US, and are now experiencing similar backlashes: the U.K.,
neoliberalized under Margaret Thatcher and others, now has UKIP on its right and Jeremy Corbyn
and social democratic Scottish nationalists on its left. France has witnessed the rise of not
only the National Front on its far-right, but also the rise of populist socialists like
Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Germany has the AfD and Pegida on its right and Die Linke on its
left. New Zealand has New Zealand First. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Spain has Podemos.
Additionally, backlash against "Washington Consensus" neoliberalism in Latin America
contributed to a revitalization of left-populism in many countries. Though there are some
nations that have experienced some form of neoliberalism without such political effects, a
definite connection between neoliberalism and the emergence of anti-neoliberal populism
certainly seems to exist.
"... The eventual point of neoliberalism, then, is to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are superior. ..."
"... Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core ..."
"... The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the regime in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with high death tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it. ..."
Cassiodorus
on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 5:00pm The neoliberals' cultural stuck is in decline. When they had
that suave dude Barack Obama telling everyone he was like Gandhi or Mandela, that was totally a
thing. Cultural neoliberalism was rockin' da house as every branch of government, both state
and Federal, was being
awarded to Republicans . Then they put all of their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket,
waging a rather nasty campaign to get everyone to step in line while Clinton was and is very
much about money and about the society of her John Birch Society daddy. (She and Bill did make
great-looking hippies in the Sixties though, but you only see that in old photos.) Vote for her
because Trump is Hitler or something.
Now they have what? Pete Buttigieg, who is smarter than you and who reeks insincerity from
every pore of his skin as he delivers wooden imitations of Obama speeches? Michael Bloomberg,
who brags about what he can buy? Grandpa Joe Biden, with initial-stage dementia? Hallmark card
cop Amy Klobuchar, who will work with Republicans while helping maybe five or six people as she
promised? Elizabeth "I'm in it for me" Warren? It's not like these people come naturally to
cultural efflorescence -- they, after all, ran John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis -- but
this has got to be a new low for them, expanding the field to twenty-plus candidates only to
find themselves facing Super Tuesday with only this.
Philosophically, neoliberalism is a form of antihumanism . In an
article in "American Affairs" (which I suggest you all read from beginning to end) the
economist Philip
Mirowski suggests several principles common to neoliberal thought. I'll just post one
through four so as not to freak anyone out while making the point just as effectively:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated
by the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
This then, is the core of neoliberal culture. The eventual point of neoliberalism, then,
is to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are
superior. It took a rabid nationalist like Donald Trump to end the war in Afghanistan , whereas
faithful neoliberal Barack Obama kept the war around because it provided "markets" for weapons
corporations. Neoliberals hate Bernie Sanders because he wants to get rid of some of the
markets for health insurance -- as long as people are buying health insurance, the neoliberals
don't care if anyone dies because they can't afford to use it.
... ... ...
Neoliberalism has been the dominant doctrine throughout the world's universities since the
Eighties. Academic vogues such as "postmodernism" can serve as Trojan Horse concepts for
hegemonic neoliberalism. Postmodernism, to own a definition, is an aesthetic concept involving
the juxtaposition of radically differing aesthetic concepts and celebrating surface
observations over "deeper meanings." The postmodern essence of visual art is in collage; the
postmodern musical form is the medley. Postmodernism is innocuous when it combines medieval
architecture with Frank Lloyd Wright, or when it combines classical music with rock and roll.
Neoliberalism, however, sees in postmodernism a market, something to create new products and
separate people from their money. Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core
.
The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the
regime in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real
September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the
University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to
help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about
democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with
high death
tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or
if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it.
The task of replacing neoliberalism with something else will be a daunting one. Neoliberals
rule the planet today. It appears at this point that our primary weapon is the fact that the
neoliberals don't really have any specific culture; instead, they speculate in culture for the
sake of the fetishes of markets and money and property through which they destroy the planet,
us, and ultimately themselves.
"... Corbyn's weakness was always the elephant in the room but was fully revealed when he had to step up to plate and fight. No leader can survive without being able to fight his enemies and no country should be led by such a person. Saddly he squandered the enormous opportunity handed to him in the last election: in hindsight, that opportunity was handed to him by an electorate steeped in wishful thinking ..."
"... Of course it's criticism of the state of Israel. And of course that's not anti-Semitism. But the label "anti-Semitism" is the kiss of death to the executive class i.e. that middle layer who "inform" the masses. If you are one of them and you get called "anti-Semitic", it's the equivalent of your boss saying, "I want a word – and bring your coat!" ..."
"... Corbyn seems like a nice enough guy, an honest, yet unremarkable footsoldier MP, but the idea he was suited to leading the Labour Party into an epic struggle with a revitalised Tory Party under a strong leader like Boris Johnson, is a fantastic notion. Johnson had to be cut down to size, before the election. ..."
"... And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy that's required. That strategy is the one Donald Trump employed, taking on the media and identifying them as the enemy and explaining why they publish lies. Corbyn should have publically taken on both the Guardian and the BBC, rather than appeasing them, unsuccessfully, because appeasing them isn't possible. ..."
"... Why didn't Corbyn express anger and shock when he was accused of being a paedophile, sorry, an anti-Semite? Those MPs who went along with that sordid narrative, should have been kicked out of Labour immediately by Corbyn himself. ..."
"... "A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on Brexit. The left were supposed to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which would have benefited the people. Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to globalist mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them. ..."
"... The point about the EU not being directly responsible for Tory austerity is technically true but it is nonetheless a neo liberal monster crushing the shit out of the most vulnerable ..."
"... Especially when it comes to countries like Greece. I don't understand the constant veneration of the EU. By design, our membership did nothing to protect us from the carnage of this Tory crime wave. The EUs constitutional arrangements contains baked in obligations to maintain permanent austerity in the service of ever greater corporate profit. ..."
No one feels like recalling, for example, that more people voted against the Tories than for them (13.9mn for and 16.2mn against).
Or that 10.3 million people still voted Labour despite the entirety of the unprecedentedly vicious and Stalinist hate campaign
conducted against them – and Corbyn in particular – since the latter became leader in 2015.
Which fact, along with Labour's near-win in 2017 and the surprise Brexit victory in 2016, implies the mainstream media's ability
to direct and manipulate public opinion is a lot less wholesale and guaranteed than we oftentimes assume, and that this is unlikely
to be a single explanation for yesterday's result.
More importantly, no one – even those who are boggling at the implausibility – is questioning the validity of the result.
No one.
It's as if even suggesting election fraud can happen in a nice majority-white western country like the UK is improper and disrespectful.
Election fraud is – as every good racist knows – done by brown people or Orientals, or 'corrupt' eastern European nations, not by
fine upstanding empire builders like the British.
This seems to be so much of a given that the results of any vote are simply accepted as 100% valid – no matter how improbable
they may seem.
And apparently even in the face of clear evidence for at least some level of shady activity.
Remember this? It only happened on Wednesday but it's already some way down the Memory Hole.
There's been a lot of effort expended in
minimising the significance of this in social media and in the mainstream press – and indeed by resident trolls on OffG. There
have been claims it's 'routine' – as if that somehow makes it ok. Or that Kuenssberg was misinformed, or 'tired'.
And after all this, Labour heartlands – red since World War 2, through Thatcher and Foot and every anti-Labour hate campaign the
media could muster – all voted Conservative?
Does that seem likely?
I don't know, all I do know is I think that discussion needs to start. I think it's time to think the unthinkable, and at least
open the prospect of electoral fraud up for real discussion.
How secure is our electoral process? Can results be stage-managed, massaged or even rigged? What guarantees do we have that this
can't happen here? In an age of growing corruption and decay at the very top, do the checks and balances placed to safeguard our
democracy sill work well, or even at all?
This Friday the Thirteenth, with BoJo the Evil Clown back in Downing Street, looks like a good moment to get it going.
aspnaz ,
Corbyn's weakness was always the elephant in the room but was fully revealed when he had to step up to plate and fight. No
leader can survive without being able to fight his enemies and no country should be led by such a person. Saddly he squandered
the enormous opportunity handed to him in the last election: in hindsight, that opportunity was handed to him by an electorate
steeped in wishful thinking. Should he apologise to his supporters, probably not, they backed the wrong horse but the limp
was visible from day one.
That inequality and poverty will continue increasing under neoliberal economic policies, and the majority of us will continue
being ground into the dirt, or that Julian Assange will end up in the U.S for certain to face a Stalinesque show trial, or the
observation about George Galloway.
George Mc ,
I know it's bad for my health but oh I just can't stop myself. Had another Groan trip. Here's one from that good time gal Jess
Phillips:
I only supply the link to see if anyone can see any actual content in this. I suppose it must be a real cushy number to get
paid for pitching in a lot of foaming waffle that feels purposeful but remains totally non-commital. That and those nice cheques
rolling in from that Hyslop and Merton quiz fluff.
George Mc ,
You have to understand that it's all showbiz. Why did the Tories prefer Boris to Jeremy Hunt? Because Hunt looked and sounded
like the oily little tyke everyone wanted to kick. Whereas Boris was the cutesie country womble from a Two Ronnies sketch. When
Boris appeared on his test outing as host for Hignfy, all he had to do was to be incompetent i.e. all he had to do was turn up.
Oh how we all laughed.
As for Jess – well, she's the ballsy fake prole tomboy – like a WOKE verson of Thatcha. I doubt anyone is "buying this" (to
use one of the Americanisms we'll all be spouting as we become the 51st state) but it's all part of "the movie".
ricked by its sharp thorn anywhere near the heart. Don't know what the street name will be for it but it has two current codewords
i heard 'stellar' & 'jessa'.
George Mc ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When+I+said+%26%238220%3Bcome+clean%26%238221%3B+I+meant+as+...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F13%2Fboris-johnsons-incredible-landslide%2F%23comment-106199">
When I said "come clean" I meant as in "reveal yourself". I really think you should calm down. Take some deep breaths. Have a
nice cup of tea.
By all means comment, but when you slander those who actually felt it important that their vote counted, that their opinion
mattered and then were told to fuck off by the very people asking them for their opinion, its expected you get blow back, which
is what has happened.
Now, may i enquire, do you have a belief in democracy and upholding democratic outcomes, do you believe that Russian interference
actually resulted in the Brexit vote itself, and do you believe that the working class is so fucking pig ignorant that it should
never be allowed to vote.
In summation, are you a Blairite by any chance as they way you communicate shows an utter contempt for those poor sods slagged
off by Remainiacs for so long to just fuck off.
As for economic decline, strange, but the UK is one of the top 10 wealthy nations globally, much of said wealth now from the
FIRE Economy, which means its extractive and put to no real purpose, whilst the break-up of the Union is up to the constituent
parts itself – as i support Irish reunification, i don't weep for Northern Ireland, whilst the Scots have every right o be free
of Westminster, its not as if they held an actual Referedum on it prior to the signing of the Act of Union is it.
And as for wales, well, here's a small country who's political establishment are incapable of recognising it elected to Leave
the EU, which sometimes has aspirations itself to Independence, an Independence it will never gain due to the fact nearly 800K
English live within our lands, but the fantasists persist none the less.
Now, as the EU, via the Treaty named after Lisbon is very much a neoliberal organisation, one that puts monetary union above
the welfare of its own citizens, please explain why I must support such an Institution that does not benefit the average Joe in
most member States?
Alan Tench ,
What you must remember is that a democratic decision isn't always a good one. In my view, the current one concerning Brexit, is
a bad one. The fact that a majority support it doesn't make it good or right. We just have to live with it. Consider the death
penalty. I'm sure the vast majority of voters in this country would vote in favour of it. Would that might it right?
Ruth ,
Don't blame them. In all likelihood they had their votes hijacked by MI5
Alan Tench ,
All this anti-Semitism stuff – anyone know what it's about? I assume it had zero influence on the electorate. Just how does it
manifest itself? Is most of it – maybe nearly all of it – concerned with criticism of the state of Israel? If so, it's not anti-Semitism
.
George Mc ,
Of course it's criticism of the state of Israel. And of course that's not anti-Semitism. But the label "anti-Semitism" is
the kiss of death to the executive class i.e. that middle layer who "inform" the masses. If you are one of them and you get called
"anti-Semitic", it's the equivalent of your boss saying, "I want a word – and bring your coat!"
MichaelK ,
I think the Labour Party's election strategy, and long before, was fatally flawed. I'm shocked by it. How bad it was. First they
should never have agreed to an election at this time. Wait, at least until Spring. The idea, surely, was to keep weakening Johnson's
brand and splitting the Tories apart. Johnson wanted an election for obvious reasons, that alone should have meant that one did
everything in one's power not to give him what he wanted. Labour did the exact opposite of what they should have done, march onto
a battleground chose by Johnson.
Of course one can argue that the liberals and the SNP had already hinted that they would support Johnson's demand, but Labour
could have 'bought them off' with a little effort. Give the SNP a pledge on a second referendum and give the Liberals a guarantee
of electoral reform, whatever.
The Liberals actually had an even more stupid and incompetent leadership than Labour and suffered a terrible defeat too. Why
is it that it's only the Tories who know how to play the election game, usually?
Corbyn seems like a nice enough guy, an honest, yet unremarkable footsoldier MP, but the idea he was suited to leading
the Labour Party into an epic struggle with a revitalised Tory Party under a strong leader like Boris Johnson, is a fantastic
notion. Johnson had to be cut down to size, before the election.
Allowing the Tories to become the People's Party, the Brexit Party in all but name; was a catastrohic mistake by Labour; unforegivabel
really.
And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy
that's required. That strategy is the one Donald Trump employed, taking on the media and identifying them as the enemy and explaining
why they publish lies. Corbyn should have publically taken on both the Guardian and the BBC, rather than appeasing them, unsuccessfully,
because appeasing them isn't possible.
Why didn't Corbyn express anger and shock when he was accused of being a paedophile, sorry, an anti-Semite? Those MPs who
went along with that sordid narrative, should have been kicked out of Labour immediately by Corbyn himself. He needed to
be far more aggressive and proactive, taking the fight to his enemies and using his position to crush them at once. Call me a
kiddy fiddler and I'll rip your fucking throat out! Only Corbyn was passive, defencesive, apathetic and totally hopeless when
smeared so terribly. People don't respect a coward, they do respect someone who fights back and sounds righteously angry at being
smeared so falsely. Corbyn looked and sounded like someone who had something to hide and appologise about, which only encouraged
the Israeli lobby to attack him even more! Un-fuckin' believable.
What's tragic is that the right understood Corbyn's weaknesses and character far better than his supporters, and how to destroy
him.
Ruth ,
I agree with you about the election timing
Derek ,
And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy that's
required.
Yes you are absolutely right, he should have stolen a journalists phone or hid in a fridge, maybe stare at the ground when
shown a picture of a child sleeping on a hospital floor. Now that's turning turning events to your advantage right?
He made many mistakes and you are right, but caving into "remain" the perceived overturning of the referendum by the Labour
party is what dunnit, the final nail in his coffin. I am sorry to see him go.
tonyopmoc ,
Judging by the spelling of "Labour", I guess an American wrote this on The Moon of Alabama's blog. It is however very accurate
and I know that MOA is a German man, running his blog from Germany. His analyses, are some of the best in the world.
Tony
"A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on Brexit. The left were supposed
to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which
would have benefited the people. Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to globalist
mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them.
Posted by: Russ | Dec 13 2019 7:09 utc | 33″
MichaelK ,
I thought the left were supposed to be internationalists too? I dunno. I think they should never have supported the referendum
scam in the first place. If the Tories wanted it, that alone should have made them oppose it. Look at what's happened, the referendum
and Brexit have massively benefitted the Tories and crushed everyone else. Isn't that an objective fact, or am I missing something;
seriously?
What does 'anti-globalist' really mean? The tragedy was allowing the Tories to blame Europe for the devastating consequences
of their own 'austerity' policies which hit the North so hard. These policies originated in London, not Bruxelles!
The truth is harsh. Corbyn was a terrible leader with awfully confused policies that he couldn't articulate properly and a
team around him that were just as bad.
Pam Ryan ,
The point about the EU not being directly responsible for Tory austerity is technically true but it is nonetheless a neo liberal
monster crushing the shit out of the most vulnerable.
Especially when it comes to countries like Greece. I don't understand the constant veneration of the EU. By design, our
membership did nothing to protect us from the carnage of this Tory crime wave. The EUs constitutional arrangements contains baked
in obligations to maintain permanent austerity in the service of ever greater corporate profit.
Thom ,
'Incredible' is the word. We're expected to believe that for all his personal and intellectual flaws, Johnson achieved a landslide
on the scale of Blair and Thatcher; that he drew in Leave supporters from traditional Labour voters while holding on to Remain
Tories; that all three major UK opposition parties flopped, including the one party pushing for outright Remain; and that turnout
fell even though millions registered just before the election. Sorry, but it doesn't add up.
nottheonly1 ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What+just+happened+was+an+inverted+U.S.+selectio...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F13%2Fboris-johnsons-incredible-landslide%2F%23comment-106262">
What just happened was an inverted U.S. selection. In the U.S., a confused rich man got elected, because the alternative was a
psychopathic war criminal. In the U.K. a confused upper class twat got elected, because the alternative was too good to be true.
Something like that?
tonyopmoc ,
Something strange going on in Sedgefield. What the hell is Boris Johnson doing there today? Tony Blair Labour, Boris Johnson
Tory. What's the difference? Same neocons. Same sh1t?
tonyopmoc ,
Dungroanin, Jeremy Corbyn is 70 now. He's done his bit. Now its time for him to take it easy.
Incidentally "Viscount Palmerston was over 70 when he finally became Prime Minister: the most advanced age at which anyone
has ever become Prime Minister for the first time."
George Mc ,
The Groan is keen to highlight the sheer thanklessness of the BBC's undying fight to objectively bring The Truth to the masses:
And for all the tireless work they do, they are open to accusations of "conspiracy theory" and worse:
"The conspiracy theories that abound are frustrating. And let's be clear – some of the abuse which is directed at our journalists
who are doing their best for audiences day in, day out is sickening. It shouldn't happen. And I think it's something social
media platforms really need to do more about."
Sickening social media abuse? Echoes of all those frightfully uncivil – and never verified – messages that wrecked poor little
Ruth Smeeth's delicate health.
Thom ,
The only way the BBC and Guardian will understand if people don't pay the licence fee and don't click on their articles (and obviously
don't contribute!). Hit them in the pockets.
George Mc ,
It didn't take long for the Groaniad to "dissect" the Labour defeat. Here we get THE FIVE REASONS Labour lost the election:
Interesting. Note the space given to Blairite toadies Ruth Smeeth and Caroline Flint. Note the disingenuousness of this:
"In London, antisemitism and what people perceived as the absence of an apology appeared to be a key issue."
It's always suspicious when we get that expression "what people perceived". What "people"? And note that the dubiousness relates
to the absence of an apology for anti-Semitism – not the anti-Semitism itself which is, of course, taken for granted.
Also note the conclusion:
"With a new Conservative government led by Boris Johnson poised for office, the Guardian's independent, measured, authoritative
reporting has never been so vital."
Yes – The Groaniad is yer man, yer champion, yer hero!
From the issue dated September 10, 2004 by MICHAEL P. LYNCH<
Notable quotes:
"... To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth may be good, but why not sometimes take untruth if it gets you where you want to go? ..."
"... These are important questions. At the end of the day, is it always better to believe and speak the truth? Does the truth itself really matter? While generalizing is always dangerous, the above responses to the Iraq affair indicate that many Americans would look at such questions with a jaundiced eye. We are rather cynical about the value of truth. ..."
"... what we call truth is just another name for power. ..."
In early 2003 President Bush claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. Although
White House officials subsequently admitted they lacked adequate evidence to believe that was true, various members of the administration
dismissed the issue, noting that the important thing was that the subsequent invasion of Iraq achieved stability of the region and
the liberation of the country.
Many Americans apparently agreed. After all, there were other reasons to depose the Hussein regime. And the belief that Iraq was
an imminent nuclear threat had rallied us together and provided an easy justification to doubters of the nobility of our cause. So
what if it wasn't really true?
To many, it seemed naïve to worry about something as abstract as the truth or falsity of our claims when we could concern ourselves
with the things that really mattered -- such as protecting ourselves from terrorism and ensuring our access to oil.
To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth may be good, but why not sometimes take untruth if it gets you where you want to go?
These are important questions. At the end of the day, is it always better to believe and speak the truth? Does the truth itself
really matter? While generalizing is always dangerous, the above responses to the Iraq affair indicate that many Americans would
look at such questions with a jaundiced eye. We are rather cynical about the value of truth.
Politics isn't the only place that one finds this sort of skepticism. A similar attitude is commonplace among some of our most
prominent intellectuals. Indeed, under the banner of postmodernism, cynicism about truth and related notions like objectivity and
knowledge has become the semiofficial philosophical stance of many academic disciplines. Roughly speaking, the attitude is that objective
truth is an illusion and what we call truth is just another name for power.
Consequently, if truth is valuable at all, it is valuable -- as power is -- merely as means.
"... The rundown is that a pseudointellectual retreat from rationalism invited its well-deserved ridicule too late, and may have been responsible for the needless and terrible demise of a great world civilization's halcyon era, for which the whole world suffers to this day. We need to learn from that. ..."
"... If you're wondering why you're suddenly being barraged with Orwellian jargon, charged with crimethink, seeing the issues you've been harping on for years suddenly turned against you as though you've never even heard of them, get aggressively assigned identities you've never had in your life and told that the person you've always been can't possibly exist, and that the consensus, however flawed and incomplete, of the past 50 years on many hard-fought issues is quite suddenly being treated as though it was all a nefarious lie (a la 9/11-flashback), here's the root of who and what to blame: ..."
"... "Postmodernism" as sociology, on the other hand, with its denial of the very existence of the individual, and obscene redefinitions of such sacred words as "Justice", is just all but explicitly totalitarian, and would have us believe that the entire 20th Century, with all its hard-fought, bitter-bought victories and miracles, was all for nothing. ..."
"... I don't think the establishment Democrats - spineless, capitalist, militarist, insular, and ultimately authoritarian - deserve to be let anywhere near the label "liberal". ..."
The rundown is that a pseudointellectual retreat from rationalism invited its well-deserved ridicule too late, and may have
been responsible for the needless and terrible demise of a great world civilization's halcyon era, for which the whole world suffers
to this day. We need to learn from that.
Everyone here needs to be aware of this, I'm afraid: The modern Western equivalent of The Incoherence . It explains so,
so much.
If you're wondering why you're suddenly being barraged with Orwellian jargon, charged with crimethink, seeing the issues you've
been harping on for years suddenly turned against you as though you've never even heard of them, get aggressively assigned identities
you've never had in your life and told that the person you've always been can't possibly exist, and that the consensus, however flawed
and incomplete, of the past 50 years on many hard-fought issues is quite suddenly being treated as though it was all a nefarious
lie (a la 9/11-flashback), here's the root of who and what to blame:
The fact that institutions of higher learning have been coddling this for so long, despite the special treatment it could not
survive without, and despite the fact that it bears the mantle and exploits the public clout of science, education, liberalism, and
diversity, just to destroy all those things, is particularly shameful. They might as well allow Dianetics as a legitimate
alternative to psychology.
Below is what I personally maintain is the Greatest Political Cartoon In American History. Though it refers to only one issue,
it elegantly explains nearly everything wrong with American political thought.
When in doubt, scream and shout, run around in circles, and panic! Uh-huh. Postmodernism was the solution to an academic problem
which arose in the Eighties with the proliferation of Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in the humanities. Nobody wanted to read another
thesis or dissertation on Shakespeare, and all of the academic work had to be strictly original and pass increasingly onerous
originality tests of the type employed by turnitin.com . Meanwhile the authors
had to write these damn things if they were to receive diplomas and move on to teaching jobs. Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism
as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition of everything in an era in which everything
was a commodity. Postmodernism is the Hamburger Helper of the academic humanities, a solution to a purely practical matter.
But Pluckrose continues to panic. Here she is characterizing the postmodern perspective:
Therefore the author of a text is not the authority on its meaning.
So? Perhaps Pluckrose needs to read more undergraduate papers, in which their authors evoke an eternal authorial struggle.
"Say what you mean!" my teacherly red ink continually shouts at these undergraduates. Of course this is a problem when one's undergraduates
write run-on sentences or sentence fragments. But does anyone really say what they mean? I suppose we can at least try harder.
Meanwhile original meanings get lost in the procession of history. A prima facie example of this is "originalism" in Constitutional
jurisprudence, which claims ultimate reliance on an "original meaning" of the Constitution -- you know, that one and only one
original meaning the Founders intended. Never mind that said Founders were walking contradictions. Take for instance Thomas Jefferson,
that eloquent waxer upon the virtues of freedom. Now ask
Sally Hemings about him.
Let's skip to Pluckrose's conclusion:
In order to regain credibility, the Left needs to recover a strong, coherent and reasonable liberalism.
I don't see why. How about if we figure out what sort of utopian dream would be appropriate for our world in our day and age,
and then decide afterward if we want to call it "liberalism"? Isn't the point of the "science" which Pluckrose regards
so highly to put the conclusion at the end of one's research, rather than at the beginning?
I could go on, but this is long enough for a comment in a diary. up 0 users have voted. --
"The only possible good outcome for most Americans is a Sanders win. No other path leads anywhere decent." -- Ian Welsh
Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition
of everything in an era in which everything was a commodity.
That's a different kind of "Postmodernism" altogether, the kind associated with (if I'm not mistaken) such Chaotic gems as
MAD Magazine, Monty Python, The Far Side , and the vibrant, innovative weirdness of a wide array of 1990s art, literature,
and pop culture. My very bones are built on such things.
There's also "postmodern architecture", best known for being boring (my mother has been known to call it "post-architecture").
This, though? This is something entirely anathema. The aesthetic we call "postmodern" is liberating and innovative (at least
as long as it stays in the hands of people who "get it"); it teaches that there are no rules, that life is a strange and beautiful
carnival, that we can be whatever we want to be, and the world can be whatever we want it to be.
"Postmodernism" as sociology, on the other hand, with its denial of the very existence of the individual, and obscene redefinitions
of such sacred words as "Justice", is just all but explicitly totalitarian, and would have us believe that the entire 20th Century,
with all its hard-fought, bitter-bought victories and miracles, was all for nothing.
At any rate, to deal with the objections to postmodernism: it's a performative contradiction to be an academic writing against
the idea of the individual, for higher-level academia exists to adorn the resumes of self-proclaimed individuals. I just don't
see postmodernism, of whatever kind you care to distinguish, as anything but harmless, useless, and pointless outside of its obvious
role in contributing to the resume-building efforts of professors in the humanities, and I haven't seen anything here to change
my mind about that.
Rather, the problem is that the liberals have run out of new mechanisms whereby the liberal utopia might bear fruit. The liberal
trend peaked a long time ago. And, in the meantime, liberal objections to the neoliberal utopia, the utopia of total market existence
for everyone as enforced by government diktat, have become toothless. In the US context the liberals appear either blind to or
despairing of the fact that the best they had for politics was Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that their hero Bernie
Sanders nullified himself by endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the French contest the best they had was Macron. I suppose that
there are a few islands of sanity elsewhere. But liberalism does not contribute substantially to the longevity of such islands.
@Cassiodorus
To me it just means...well, kind of just being a good, intelligent, and independent-minded person who learns from history and
builds on it. If, as I've read the claim, "conservatism is the negation of ideology", I'd venture to describe liberalism as the
absence of externally-derived ideology.
I don't think the establishment Democrats - spineless, capitalist, militarist, insular, and ultimately authoritarian -
deserve to be let anywhere near the label "liberal".
The difference, of course, is that the postcapitalists want to jettison capitalism whereas most of the liberals want to "build
on it."
"A well-regulated capitalism," they tell us, is the way to go, because history declares "Communism" anathema. Now perhaps not
all liberals agree with this well-recited dogma, but its primary problem is that it does not touch capitalism's commodification
of everything including governments. Thus liberals who believe in this dogma claim that they seek the best-possible accommodation
with capitalism, and "well-regulated" means "regulated enough to look good." Politicians with the endorsement of liberals must
keep the air and water clean in areas where the residents are rich enough to buy politicians.
Now of course the liberals will protest this characterization of them, proclaiming once again that they are "good, intelligent,
and independent-minded." But where can they be seen imagining the world after capitalism? Kim Stanley Robinson at least tries:
My attitude has since spread to much of the rest of that which bills itself as "social science" - sociology's one thing, of
course, and so is modern psychology, having dumped Freud, but I think the notion of "social science" is finally revealing itself
to mostly be just another disastrous 19th-Century conceit. Free will is kryptonite to science. "The economy", "society", "culture",
people labor under these things because they believe they're unavoidably real, but it's really all just a game , and the
rules can be almost whatever we want them to be.
You can try to make anything into a "science" - but not everything can or should. Case in point: After World War II, the Soviet
Union decided that military strategy and tactics were a science, and that it had natural laws or whatever that could be honed
to the same degree of precision as the laws of physics; with time, they believed, they'd be able to predict the outcome of a battle
before a single shot had been fired. This "science" crashed and burned when they invaded Afghanistan.
As to the question of "what do we replace capitalism with?", my honest answer is: Nothing. Stop believing in "economics", and
just do what makes sense based on situational necessity and a long-term vision of what we want. A "mixed economy" like those of
Norway, 1970s Britain, or (arguably) New Deal America is really just an economy that has broken free of the religion of "economics,"
and plays by its own, common sense/common morality rules. The best economic policy MO I've ever heard of is Finland's: "Let's
do what makes our people HAPPY!" (I read a dandy article about that a while back, but I can't seem to find it now).
The best economic policy MO I've ever heard of is Finland's: "Let's do what makes our people HAPPY!" (I read a dandy article
about that a while back, but I can't seem to find it now).
TLM, if you recall that article, I'd be interested in reading it. You can shoot me a PM here.
I have seen his books for a long time, but never was that interested. Now that I know he is a politically active sci-fi writer
- who is not a screaming libertarian fuckhead like Neal Stephenson or Vernor Vinge - I will pick up one of his books.
He says some very radical things (nationalize the banks, end austerity, stop burning fossil fuels), but he does so in such
a droning, sophorific manner that you don't quite appreciate how extreme his stance is. Perhaps that is an intentional tactic.
I enjoyed a museum visit in Sharza, where one section of the complex had displays of incredible scientific contributions I
had never associated with this part of the world.
When I left that section, everything became examples and displays of Islam. Korans, proper clothing, a few weapons. Thinking
back, the science section pre-dated this philosopher.
I saw his influence, just didn't know it until today. Very interesting essay.
I never could understand Postmodernism. Is this because I am a white male or because I find Enlightenment concepts more coherent
and more useful in my everyday life and politics ?
Whatever, I remain happily stuck in the late 18th century.
Good to see a mention of Alan Sokal in the linked
article.
And other literature courses was that the classes were about the schools of literary criticism on Shakespeare, rather than
about the students doing a close reading of Shakespeare. And then of course, critiques on the schools of literary criticism.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "and forgive them their debts": Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year ..."
"... Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting class? ..."
"... This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent. ..."
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again. ..."
"... So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another day. ..."
"... Trump may or may not win. But if he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton. ..."
"... And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops Richie Rich gets uneasy. ..."
"... I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom Perez. ..."
"... I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings? ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for
a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class,
the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg
has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great
question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will
the Donor Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the
DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No
Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC.
The way Rome's constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their
way through a series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected
to the position of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's
neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative
bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was
a way of keeping decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius
Caesar and others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging
games that would demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their
financial liability to their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing
private enabled the leading oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates.
That was Rome's version of Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention
would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American
voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting
that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times
have been busy spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot,
"Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders, immediately."[1]Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN
warned, the race suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election
returns. That means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will
have a chance to deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop
him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem . Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen
with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's
not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the
courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the
voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the
superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation
contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
This problem would not exist if the United States had a European-style parliamentary system
that would enable a third party to obtain space on the ballots in all 50 states. If this were
Europe, the new party of Bernie Sanders, AOC et al. would exceed 50 percent of the
votes, leaving the Wall Street democrats with about the same 8 percent share that similar
neoliberal democratic parties have in Europe ( e.g ., Germany's hapless neoliberalized
Social Democrats), that is, Klobocop territory as voters moved to the left. The "voting
Democrats," the 99 Percent, would win a majority leaving the Old Neoliberal Democrats in the
dust.
The DNC's role is to prevent any such challenge. The United States has an effective
political duopoly, as both parties have created such burdensome third-party access to the
ballot box in state after state that Bernie Sanders decided long ago that he had little
alternative but to run as a Democrat.
The problem is that the Democrat Party does not seem to be reformable. That means that
voters still may simply abandon it – but that will simply re-elect the Democrats' de
facto 2020 candidate, Donald Trump. The only hope would be to shrink the party into a shell,
enabling the old guard to go way so that the party could be rebuilt from the ground up.
But the two parties have created a legal duopoly reinforced with so many technical barriers
that a repeat of Ross Perot's third party (not to mention the old Socialist Party, or the Whigs
in 1854) would take more than one election cycle to put in place. For the time being, we may
expect another few months of dirty political tricks to rival those of 2016 as Obama appointee
Tom Perez is simply the most recent version of Florida fixer Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (who gave
a new meaning to the Wasserman Test).
So we are in for another four years of Donald Trump. But by 2024, how tightly will the U.S.
economy find itself tied in knots?
The Democrats' Vocabulary of Deception
How I would explain Bernie's program. Every economy is a mixed economy. But to hear Michael
Bloomberg and his fellow rivals to Bernie Sanders explain the coming presidential election, one
would think that an economy must be either capitalist or, as Bloomberg put it, Communist. There
is no middle ground, no recognition that capitalist economies have a government sector, which
typically is called the "socialist" sector – Social Security, Medicare, public schooling,
roads, anti-monopoly regulation, and public infrastructure as an alternative to privatized
monopolies extracting economic rent.
What Mr. Bloomberg means by insisting that it's either capitalism or communism is an absence
of government social spending and regulation. In practice this means oligarchic financial
control, because every economy is planned by some sector. The key is, who will do the planning?
If government refrains from taking the lead in shaping markets, then Wall Street takes over
– or the City in London, Frankfurt in Germany, and the Bourse in France.
Most of all, the aim of the One Percent is to distract attention from the fact that the
economy is polarizing – and is doing so at an accelerating rate. National income
statistics are rigged to show that "the economy" is expanding. The pretense is that everyone is
getting richer and living better, not more strapped. But the reality is that all the growth in
GDP has accrued to the wealthiest 5 Percent since the Obama Recession began in 2008. Obama
bailed out the banks instead of the 10 million victimized junk-mortgage holders. The 95
Percent's share of GDP has shrunk.
The GDP statistics do not show is that "capital gains" – the market price of stocks,
bonds and real estate owned mainly by the One to Five Percent – has soared, thanks to
Obama's $4.6 trillion Quantitative Easing pumped into the financial markets instead of into the
"real" economy in which wage-earners produce goods and services.
How does one "stay the course" in an economy that is polarizing? Staying the course means
continuing the existing trends that are concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the
One Percent, that is, the Donor Class – while loading down the 99 Percent with more debt,
paid to the One Percent (euphemized as the economy's "savers"). All "saving" is at the top of
the pyramid. The 99 Percent can't afford to save much after paying their monthly "nut" to the
One Percent.
If this economic polarization is impoverishing most of the population while sucking wealth
and income and political power up to the One Percent, then to be a centrist is to be the
candidate of oligarchy. It means not challenging the economy's structure.
Language is being crafted to confuse voters into imagining that their interest is the same
as that of the Donor Class of rentiers , creditors and financialized corporate
businesses and rent-extracting monopolies. The aim is to divert attention from voters' their
own economic interest as wage-earners, debtors and consumers. It is to confuse voters not to
recognize that without structural reform, today's "business as usual" leaves the One Percent in
control.
So to call oneself a "centrist" is simply a euphemism for acting as a lobbyist for siphoning
up income and wealth to the One Percent. In an economy that is polarizing, the choice is either
to favor them instead of the 99 Percent.
That certainly is not the same thing as stability. Centrism sustains the polarizing dynamic
of financialization, private equity, and the Biden-sponsored bankruptcy "reform" written by his
backers of the credit-card companies and other financial entities incorporated in his state of
Delaware. He was the senator for the that state's Credit Card industry, much as former
Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman was the senator from Connecticut's Insurance
Industry.
A related centrist demand is that of Buttigieg's and Biden's aim to balance the federal
budget. This turns out to be a euphemism for cutting back Social Security, Medicare and relate
social spending ("socialism") to pay for America's increasing militarization, subsidies and tax
cuts for the One Percent. Sanders rightly calls this "socialism for the rich." The usual word
for this is oligarchy . That seems to be a missing word in today's mainstream
vocabulary.
The alternative to democracy is oligarchy. As Aristotle noted already in the 4 th
Confusion over the word "socialism" may be cleared up by recognizing that every economy
is mixed, and every economy is planned – by someone. If not the government in the public
interest, then by Wall Street and other financial centers in their interest. They
fought against an expanding government sector in every economy today, calling it socialism
– without acknowledging that the alternative, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, is
barbarism.
I think that Sanders is using the red-letter word "socialism" and calling himself a
"democratic socialist" to throw down the ideological gauntlet and plug himself into the long
and powerful tradition of socialist politics. Paul Krugman would like him to call himself a
social democrat. But the European parties of this name have discredited this label as being
centrist and neoliberal. Sanders wants to emphasize that a quantum leap, a phase change is in
order.
If he can be criticized for waving a needlessly red flag, it is his repeated statement
that his program is designed for the "working class." What he means are wage-earners and this
includes the middle class. Even those who make over $100,000 a year are still wage earners, and
typically are being squeezed by a predatory financial sector, a predatory medical insurance
sector, drug companies and other monopolies.
The danger in this terminology is that most workers like to think of themselves as
middle class, because that is what they would like to rise into. That is especially he case for
workers who own their own home (even if mortgage represents most of the value, so that most of
the home's rental value is paid to banks, not to themselves as part of the "landlord class"),
and have an education (even if most of their added income is paid out as student debt service),
and their own car to get to work (involving automobile debt).
The fact is that even $100,000 executives have difficulty living within the limits of
their paycheck, after paying their monthly nut of home mortgage or rent, medical care, student
loan debt, credit-card debt and automobile debt, not to mention 15% FICA paycheck withholding
and state and local tax withholding.
Of course, Sanders' terminology is much more readily accepted by wage-earners as the
voters whom Hillary called "Deplorables" and Obama called "the mob with pitchforks," from whom
he was protecting his Wall Street donors whom he invited to the White House in 2009. But I
think there is a much more appropriate term: the 99 Percent, made popular by Occupy Wall
Street. That is Bernie's natural constituency. It serves to throw down the gauntlet between
democracy and oligarchy, and between socialism and barbarism, by juxtaposing the 99 Percent to
the One Percent.
The Democratic presidential debate on February 25 will set the stage for Super
Tuesday's "beauty contest" to gauge what voters want. The degree of Sanders' win will help
determine whether the byzantine Democrat party apparatus that actually will be able to decide
on the Party's candidate. The expected strong Sanders win is will make the choice stark: either
to accept who the voters choose – namely, Bernie Sanders – or to pick a candidate
whom voters already have rejected, and is certain to lose to Donald Trump in
November.
If that occurs, the Democrat Party will evaporate as its old Clinton-Obama guard is no
longer able to protect its donor class on Wall Street and corporate America. Too many Sanders
voters would stay home or vote for the Greens. That would enable the Republicans to maintain
control of the Senate and perhaps even grab back the House of Representatives.
But it would be dangerous to assume that the DNC will be reasonable. Once again, Roman
history provides a "business as usual" scenario. The liberal German politician Theodor Mommsen
published his History of Rome in 1854-56, warning against letting an aristocracy block
reform by controlling the upper house of government (Rome's Senate, or Britain House of Lords).
The leading families who overthrew the last king in 509 BC created a Senate chronically prone
to being stifled by its leaders' "narrowness of mind and short-sightedness that are the proper
and inalienable privileges of all genuine patricianism."[2]
These qualities also are the distinguishing features of the DNC. Sanders had better win
big!
I wonder how much of the rot at the top of the Dem party is simple dementia. By
the age of 70, half of people have some level of dementia. Consider Joe Biden – is
anyone in the public sphere going to state the obvious – that he has dementia and as
such is unfit for office?
First, my priors. I voted for Sanders in 2016, will vote for him in 2020, and
expect him to be elected president. Further I believe that where we find ourselves today is
the result of at least 40 years of intentional bi-partisan policies. Both parties are
responsible.
If Sanders, upon being elected, were able to snap his fingers and call into
existence his entire program, it would immediately face a bi-partisan opposition that would
be funded by billions of dollars, which would be willing to take as long as necessary, even
decades, to roll it back.
Just electing Sanders is only the first step. There must be a committed,
determined follow through that must be willing to last decades as well for his program to
stick. And there will be defeats along the way.
Several observations. If Hillary had beaten Trump, Sanders would have trudged
back to Vermont and would never have been heard from again. The MSM would have dismissed his
program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class. But she didn't, so here we are,
which is fantastic.
Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will
win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again
dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would
trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again.
So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least
bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has
far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the
two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another
day.
If he loses to Trump, but closely, which can mean a lot of different things,
his program would live to fight another day. Moreover, if the D's are seen to actively
collude with Trump, this less bad outcome would be even better.
I am an old geezer and don't expect to live long enough to see how all of this
plays out. But I am very optimistic about his program's long term prospects. There is only
one bad outcome, a Trump 48 state sweep, which I consider very unlikely. But most
importantly, the best outcome, his election, and the two least bad outcomes, the D's stealing
the nomination from him or his losing a close general election, all still will require a
decades long commitment to make his program permanent.
Where do people get this? Take a deep breath. Trump may or may not win. But if
he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the
popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton.
And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops
Richie Rich gets uneasy.
Hammered by a 5 star general. The Deplorables kids were raised to look up to
generals, not New Yawk dandys. How does this affect them? And it's still
February.
Just an FYI: The five-volume Mommsen "History of Rome" referenced in the text
is available in English on Project Gutenberg, free and legal to download. Probably everyone
here knows this, but just in case
How about Bernie call himself "Roosevelt Democrat" instead of "Democratic
Socialist". It would give all those in the senior demographic a better understanding of what
Sander's policies mean to them as opposed to the scary prospect of the "Socialist"
label.
The Democrats should have been slowly disarming the word "socialist" for at
least the last decade. In principle, it's not difficult – as Michael Hudson says
– "Every economy is a mixed economy" – and in a very real sense everyone's a
socialist (even if only unconsciously). I'm not saying that bit of rhetorical jujitsu would
magically turn conservative voters progressive but you'll never get to the point where you
can defend socialist programs on the merits if you always dodge that fight. It's just a shame
that Bernie Sanders has to do it all in a single election cycle and I don't think choosing a
different label now would help him much.
He could even compare himself to the earlier Roosevelt: Teddy
Roosevelt.
By 1900 the old bourbon Dem party was deeply split between its old, big
business and banking wing – the bourbons – and the rising progressive/populist
wing. It was GOP pres Roosevelt who first pushed through progressive programs like breaking
up railroad and commodity monopolies, investigating and regulating meat packing and
fraudulent patent medicines, etc. Imagine that.
I just finished Stoller's book Goliath and according to him, Teddy
wasn't quite as progressive as we are often led to believe. He wasn't so much opposed to
those with enormous wealth – he just wanted them to answer to him. He did do the things
you mentioned, but after sending the message to the oligarchs, he then became friendly with
them once he felt he'd brought them to heel. He developed quite the soft spot for JP Morgan,
according to Stoller.
TR wanted to be the Boss, the center of attention with everyone looking up to
him. As one of his relatives said, he wanted to be the baby at every christening and the
corpse at every funeral.
I have a sense that changing his party affiliation label at any point in time
since Sanders began running for president in 2016 would be a godsend to his enemies in both
hands of the Duopoly. They'd tar him loudly as a hypocrite without an ounce of integrity,
using personal politics to distract from the issues.
Meanwhile, we can expect to see the Socialist (and Communist, and
Russia-Russia-Russia) nonsense reiterated as long as Sanders has strong visibility. He's
extremely dangerous to both parties and their owners. I don't' believe the DNC will let him
take the convention, but if he does, I'll bet the Dems give him minimal support and hope he
fails–better the devil you know, etc.
It's time to put your money in reality futures by putting all that you can into
supporting Bernie, AOC, etc. and all your local candidates that support at least democratic
socialism and ourrevolution the DSA Justice Dems or other groups that have people but need
money. I was having a conversation with a friend who was complaining that he was getting too
many emails from Bernie asking for money after he had given the campaign a "modest amount".
My suggestion was in honor of his children and grandchildren he should instead GIVE 'TIL IT
FEELS GOOD. My spouse and I, I told him, gave the max to Bernie and now we don't give upset
when he asks for more. There will likely never be a moment like this in history and there may
not be much of a history if things go the wrong way now. He agreed.
Exactly right. I gave Bernie the max in 2019 and will keep giving throughout
2020. This campaign is about not just me, but all of us. It's now. We must fight for this
change as has always been the historical precedent.
I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and
support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not
to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom
Perez.
I am coming to understand that might have been necessary within the context of
one last desperate attempt to work with the Democratic party. But now I find myself
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely
clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe
even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street
lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings?
Little as it has been the answer has a lot to do with my willingness to pour
more money into repetitively self-defeating behavior.
I am a somewhat old geezer, too, who caucused for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. This
article is very good and helps me understand why I feel the way I do. I was disappointed in
Obama, who didn't follow through on the things I cared about, and I was devastated when
Clinton was crowned the Democratic nominee well before the Convention, all the while holding
onto a smidgen of hope that somehow Bernie would pull through as the
nominee.
I was ecstatic when Bernie announced his candidacy for 2020. He is our only
hope, and now we have a second chance. But now I am spending half my time screaming at people
on tv and online who can't even hear me, and even if they could, they don't give a s–t
what I think. It's Clinton 2.0–same thing all over again, four years later. Just who do
these people (DNC, MSM, and others with a voice) think they are, to decide for the Democratic
voters which candidate will be the nominee, who won't be the nominee, without regard to what
the voters want? They are a bunch of pompous as–s who have some other motive that I am
not savvy enough to understand. Is it about money in their pockets or what?
It should be as simple as this–Bernie is leading in the polls, if they
are to be believed, and good people of all demographics want him to be our next President. He
is a serious contender for the nomination. Show the man some much-earned respect and put
people on MSM and publish articles by writers who help us understand what the anti-Bernie
panic is about and why we shouldn't panic. Help us to explain his plans if he hasn't
explained it thoroughly enough instead of calling him crazy. But to dismiss him as if he has
the plague is not furthering the truth, and it is a serious injustice to the voting public.
Naked Capitalism can't do it alone.
There is a lot of good analysis out there, mainly on Youtube. I particularly
like The Hill's Rising. A young progressive Democrat and a young progressive Republican (who
even knew there was such a thing!) 'splain a lot of the antipathy. Another good source is
Nomiki Konst, who is working on reforming the Dem party from within. Here she talks to RJ
Eskow about how the DNC is structured and how she hopes to provide tools for rank-and-file
Dems to wrest the levers of power from the establishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ7wm6DCPV4
Private sector cannot operate without same. Harrold
The problem is that the population, including FDR in his time, have been duped
into believing that the private sector REQUIRES government privileges for private depository
institutions, aka "the banks."
So currently we have no truly private sector to speak of but businesses and
industry using the public's credit but for private gain.
Last night's Democracy Now was interesting. Amy seems to be less of a commie
hater than she recently was with her participation in the Russia-Russia-Russia smears against
Trump. She held court last night with Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff discussing just exactly
what "socialism" means. It was a great performance.
Krug seemed a little shellshocked about the whole discussion and he said we
shouldn't even use the term "socialism" at all because all the things Bernie wants are just
as capitalist – that capitalism encompasses socialism. But he stuttered when he
discussed "single-payer" which he claimed he supported – his single payer is like Pete
Buttigieg's single-payer-eventually. He tried to change the subject and Amy brought him
straight back.
Then Wolff, who was in excellent form, informed the table that "socialism" is a
moveable feast because it can be and has been many things for the advancement of societies,
etc. But the term always means the advancement of society. Then Krug dropped a real bomb
– he actually said (this is almost a quote) that recently he had been informed by
Powell that debt isn't really all that important.
Really, Krug said that. And he tried to exetend that thought to the argument
that anybody can provide social benefits – it doesn't require a self-proclaimed
"socialist".
Richard Wolff confronted that slide with pointing out that it hasn't happened
yet – and he left Krug with no excuses. It was quite the showdown. Nice Richard Wolff
is so firmly in Bernie's camp.
Krug looked evasive – and I kept wishing they had invited Steve Keen to
participate.
In her fourth book Mayer draws on court records, extensive
interviews, and many private archives to examine the growing political influence of extreme libertarians among the one percent,
such as the Koch brothers, tracing their ideas about taxation and government regulation and their savvy use of lobbyists to
further an agenda that advances their own interests at the expense of meaningful economic, environmental, and labor reform. Mayer
is in conversation with James Bennet, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
People elected a
billionaire that is appointing other billionaires to fix the system that made them billionaires .... thats a special kind
of stupid !!!
Neoliberalism
opened the public sector up to the predatory capitalists. Financial markets love sick and violent people to increase
healthcare profits and keep the slave wage prison factories pumping. This is why Thatcher had to say "there's no such thing
as society" so she could embark on this fascist agenda to decimate the middle class. Fast forward 40 years, we now have
tent villages, medical bankruptcies, opioid suicides, increased school shootings, mass incarceration, media consolidated
Pentagon mouthpieces, educational corrosion and "market ideology" professors, fracking, poisoned aquifers, a defunct voting
system, career politicians who no longer write legislation, a bloated administrative unelected bureaucracy of agencies
addicted to the MIC budget. The Kochs choked democracy, nearly drowned government in the bathtub, as was their wish.
i've often
wondered how certain memes seem to pop up out of thin air and take on a life of their own, ever notice when a democrat
is in the white house the biggest concern is the debt and federal budget? republicans use this non-stop rhetoric to
stop any social programs, even gut them. this stuff goes back a while like the "liberal media", this election cycle i
was repeatedly confronted with "taxes are theft" when defending social programs, and during the health care debate there
was this "ayn rand" renaissance of "greed is good" taking hold. mayer is dead on with the corporate elites buying our
government, it's nothing less than a coup of our democracy, and they are shredding it to pieces.
Why haven't the
Kochs been arrested yet? They've been prosecuted dozens of times for violating government regulations and
pollution requirements. It does explain their economic libertarianism though, the sociopathic businessmen like the
Koch's want to get away with unreasonable pollution and paying workers 3 dollars an hour.
Earned income and capital gains should be taxed at the same
MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE RATE, and at this point in our monstrous debt we need to consider a surcharge on huge wealth.
This situation has been brought about by the extreme right wingers like the Koch Brothers to try to bandrupt the
country into shutting down the whole social spending aspect of government ... which is basically fascist and
anti-democratic. Want to do the right thing. I think you create a list of human rights, and back up it but a UBI
Universal Basic Income, and then get rid of the minimum wage and let people find out where they stand in the economy
on their own merits. BUT, they also need free education and an infrastructure of government jobs to offer some
competition and experience to people so they can if they want and show the aptitude for private for-profit work.
Very interesting that you say that the Devos family is very
much involved in changing the education system to a right wing system... And Trump has Betsy Devos as his education
head. But I would say that public schooling has been degraded and moved to privately owned and run Charter Schools
since the first Bush President - and continued under Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Both Democrats and Republicans
have been pushing the agenda to the right - where education is concerned. It is an illusion to believe that the
Democrats would move the needle in the opposite direction. The goal is to enslave all middle and working class people
with student debt. Student debt is the only debt you cannot extinguish through bankruptcy... it stays with you until
death. This debt enslavement then creates a society of desperate and compliant workers. This is the goal and it is an
agenda that corporations want - served by both democrats and republicans. And for most part it the agenda has been
achieved. So the dark money does coalesce for certain agendas. But the Devos's have a religious agenda where
education is concerned... they want to make sure Genesis is taught as science and ban the teaching of evolution and
things like that.
1984. Truly the symbolic year that the Orwellian
neoliberal war on Americans began. Why? To "lower our expectations" of the 60's decade. Democracy is fine until
it's been activated. Then the hammer comes down. But other countries enjoy a high quality of life, no threats of
revolt or overthrow, so why does this unnecessarily continue? It must just be greed. Exploiting the public sector
for profit.
I think the key
strategic 'leverage point' is the money, specifically the money system. We need to elect a Congress and President
ethical enough to pass the NEED Act which would create a public for-care money system, stop banks from creating
our money for profit and establish a monetary authority that would only be tasked with determining the amount of
new money required each year to support public objectives determined by Congress, like healthcare, education,
infrastructure and a citizen's dividend.
Excellent review
and information on KOCH BROS. Enjoyed. Thank you. Hope more people listen MORE about these Brothers (2) knowing
how they have infiltrated into our GOVT and now own GOP Congress/PENCE (lobbied for them w/Manafort) and TRUMP.
The are also friends w/Bush. Hence, Kavanaugh was put in as SCOTUS. Citizens United MUST BE REMOVED! Our democracy
is in danger. Hope it's not too late. I want my country back.
"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of
the fate of human beings and their natural environment ...would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl
Polanyi, 1944 We've had a President Koch for 40 years now. This book explains their takeover of government so that
predatory capitalists could turn social services into financial markets for exploitation and profit. This destroys
society but they didn't care.
Fred Koch made
his money building an oil industry for Stalin, then became anti-communist after returning with the money? Sounds like
guilt to me. Then Fred Koch worked for Hitler's war efforts. Fred became a John Bircher and his money went to his
four trust fund sons, the Koch Bros. who now stealth control U.S. politics and Republican politicians from the Cato
Institute, Heritage Foundation, Tea Party with black money support, including funding rightwing chairs and think
tanks .at all the Ivy League universities.They have much, much, much too much money. it's time to tax their pants off
so they understand what work. is.
- Koch brothers
story is hillarious , just for example Charles Koch got Defender of Justice award from the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers , LOL
- Koch brothers
story is hillarious , just for example Charles Koch got Defender of Justice award from the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers , LOL
It's fascinating
the Koch Brothers do not truly believe their own philosophy, because if they did they would go all the way in and
champion worker cooperatives = complete freedom, freedom from government and freedom from a dictator boss. Like
all ideologues with a quasi-engineering view of human relations and a Freudian fear of communism, they are blinded
by the merits of anything that sounds remotely like socialism even when it logically matches their more reasonable
libertarian ideals. In other words, they are fake libertarians, they are rank abusive authoritarian oligarchs,
wannabe plutocrats. Ironically the Koch Bros are closer to Stalin in their ideology than they are to Reagan.
Albert Morris, 1 year ago
Jane Mayer is in a class all her own as a journalist. God bless her. I hope her next project is on the corporate media itself
and its shameful railroading of Julian Assange. We need all the good journalism we can get.
James Gillis, 2 years ago
"Free Market is a utopia". I'm glad you said that so I can read your book knowing your political philosophy...
She does not use the term neoliberalism but she provide interesting perspective about
connection of neoliberalism and Trotskyism. It is amazing fact that most of them seriously
studied communist ideology at universities.
Trotskyites are never constrained by morality and they are obsessed with raw power
(especially political power) and forceful transformation of the society. They are for global dominance so they were early
adherents of "Full spectrum Dominance" doctirne approporitated later be US neocons. Their Dream -- global run from Washington
neoliberal empire is a mirror of the dream of Trotskyites of global communist empire run from Moscow (Trotsky "Permanent war" till
the total victory of communism idea)
Inability to understand that neoliberal is undermines Diana West thinking, but still she is a good researcher and she managed
to reveal some interesting facts and tendencies. She intuitively understand that both are globalist ideologies, but that
about all she managed to understand. Bad for former DIA specialist on the USSR and former colleague of Colonel Lang (see
Sic Semper Tyrannis)
It is funny that Sanders is being accused of being a 'self-identified' socialist, while neoliberal elite is shoulder-deep in socialism for the 1%
and enjoy almost unlimited access to free Fed funds.
I received my copy just a few days before the Mueller investigation closed shop. There is
an old saying "You can't tell the players without a program." As the aftermath of the Mueller
investigation begins, you need this book. Some pundits and observers of the political scene
have observed that the Mueller investigation didn't come about because of any real concern
about "Trump Russia collusion," it was manufactured to protect the deep state from a
non-political interloper. That's the case Diana West makes and does it with her exceptional
knowledge of the Cold War and the current jihad wars. Not to mention her deadly aim with her
rhetorical darts.
The Red Thread by Diana West
Diana states, "the anti-Trump conspiracy is not about Democrats and Republicans. It is not
about the ebb and flow of political power, lawfully and peacefully transferred. It is about
globalists and nationalists, just as the president says. They are locked in the old and
continuous Communist/anti-Communist struggle, and fighting to the end, whether We, the
anti-Communists, recognize it or not."
Diana traces the Red Thread running through the swamp, she names names and relates the
history of the Red players. She asks the questions, Why? Why so many Soviet-style acts of
deception perpetrated from inside the federal government against the American electoral
process? Why so many uncorroborated dossiers of Russian provenance influencing our politics?
Why such a tangle of communist and socialist roots in the anti-Trump conspiracy?
In this book, these questions will be answered.
If you have read her book "American Betrayal," I'm sure you will have a good idea about
what is going on. I did. I just didn't know the major players and the red history behind each
of them.
The book is very interesting and short, only 104 pages, but it is not finished yet. Easy
to read but very disturbing to know the length and width of the swamp, the depth, we may not
know for a long time. I do feel better knowing that there are people like Diana uncovering
and shining a light into the darkness. Get the book, we all need to know why this is
happening and who the enemies are behind it. Our freedom depends on it.
"In America moral relativism is now so deeply embed that there is no ideology, including
communism, that can bar you from joining our most powerful intelligence agency (which was
essentially stood up to fight communism) and even rise to control it and all of its secrets."
–Diana West, The Red Thread
I think Diana West might want to consider the "just war" theory as something Niebuhr.would
have been talking about. I do not know the writings of either Niebuhr or Tillich well but it
is my understanding that both did much good in the world so I wouldn't write them off without
very careful consideration. Many deeply religious people I know consider some of the ideas
contained within socialism to be Christian friendly. Thank you for considering my
statements.
For 3 years i argued with my Left wing friend. One day he called out "I just want to
control people". Talk about 'the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks'. I finally worked
out what made my friend consider government programs as the solution to every problem: He is
a closet control freak! Every person on the Left is a control freak hiding in the closet!!
Beware of these dictators coming to control your life!!!
Yes pft, the favored candidate of the DNC is clearly Trump.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 6 2020 19:25 utc | 58
Only if the ungrateful commoners who identify as Democrats or moderates can't be brought to
heel and give their full throated support for the DNC's favoured Cookie Cutter candidate who
might as well be one of those dolls with a string and a recording you hear when you pull the
string.
Then yes, they would prefer 'fore moar years!!' of the Ugliest American ever to be
installed as President of the United States.
One of things I respect about Tulsi Gabbard is she ain't no Doll with a string attached.
When she made the comment about cleaning out the rot in the Democratic Party, she left no
doubt her intent and goals. And to take on hillary, the Red Queen to boot, why that was
simply delicious.
Alas, the View, the DNC, it's web of evil rich and the media will never forgive her for
Soldiering for her Country.
The democratic party must be thee only political party in all world history that actively
suppresses people who want to vote for them.
Looks like the democrats are set to lose the same way they did in 2016. Basically as Matt
Bruenig wrote in his article "The Boring Story
of the 2016 Election
Donald Trump did not win because of a surge of white support. Indeed he got less white
support than Romney got in 2012. Nor did Trump win because he got a surge from other
race+gender groups. The exit polls show him doing slightly better with black men, black
women, and latino women than Romney did, but basically he just hovered around Romney's
numbers with every race+gender group, doing slightly worse than Romney overall.
However, support for Hillary was way below Obama's 2012 levels, with defectors turning
to a third party. Clinton did worse with every single race+gender combo except white women,
where she improved Obama's outcome by a single point. Clinton did not lose all this
support to Donald. She lost it into the abyss. Voters didn't like her but they weren't
wooed by Trump .
The Third Wave neocons pointed out an interesting fact. Clinton won bigly CA, NY, and MA
which gave her something like 7 million votes. However, Trump won the remaining 47 states by
four million.
"... How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and file? ..."
Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To LoseTrisha , Feb 6 2020 16:12 utc
|
6
The Democratic Party seems to intend to lose the 2020 elections.
The idiotic impeachment attempt against Trump ended just
as we predicted at its beginning:
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia [the Democrats]
now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the
Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently
preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves
to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's
policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about
'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would
never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump
will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is
the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Senate acquitted Trump of all the nonsense the Democrats have thrown against him.
The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving @BernieSanders
delegates to @DevalPatrick who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can dm
me.
We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that @BernieSanders won
the #iacaucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 County Delegates. #NotMeUs
#IowaCaucuses
The whole manipulation was intended to enable Buttigieg to claim that he led in Iowa even
though it is clear that Bernie Sanders won the race. It worked:
If a progressive is about to win #IowaCaucuses:
- remove final polls
- use mysterious app created by former Clinton staffers
- Funnel results thru untested app
- Claim app fails
- Hold results
- Reveal only 62% to give false impression of who won
- Refuse to reveal final results
But the cost of such open manipulations is the
loss of trust in the Democratic Party and in elections in general:
In sum: We are 24 hours into the 2020 campaign, and Democrats have already humiliated their
party on national television, alienated their least reliable progressive supporters,
demoralized their most earnest activists, and handed Trump's campaign a variety of potent
lines of attack.
The other leading candidates are not much better. Sanders might have a progressive agenda
in domestic policies, but his foreign policies are fully in line with his party. Matt Duss,
Sanders' foreign policy advisor, is the son of a lifelong key front man for CIA
proxy organizations. He spills out mainstream imperial blabber:
The only thing that Trump's Venezuela regime change policy achieved is giving Russia an
opportunity to screw with the US in our own hemisphere. That's what they were
applauding.
Giving a standing ovation to Trump's SOTU remarks on Venezuela were of course the
Democratic "resistance" and Nancy Pelosi . That was before she theatrically ripped up her
copy of Trump's speech, the show act of a 5 year old and one which
she had trained for . She should be fired.
Impeachment, the Iowa disaster and petty show acts will not win an election against Donald
Trump. While they do not drive away core Democratic voters, they do make it difficult to get
the additional votes that are needed to win. Many on the left and the right who dislike Trump
will rather abstain or vote for a third party than for a party which is indistinguishable
from the currently ruling one.
Either the Democrats change their whole course of action or they will lose in November to
an extend that will be breathtaking. It would be well deserved.
Posted by b on February 6, 2020 at 15:57 UTC |
Permalink The donor class owners of the "Democratic" party have every incentive to
support Trump, who has cut their taxes, hugely inflated the value of their assets, and
mis-directed attention away from substantial issues that might degrade either their assets or
their power, by focusing on identity politics.
It's obvious to me that the two war parties function as one. The Democrats have been winning
since Trump took office--they get their money and they get their wars. If Trump wins, the
Democrats win as billionaires flood more money into the DNC. If Trump loses, the Republicans
win for the same reasons.
The behavior of a five year old is an appropriate reference point for most of the people
working in DC, albeit engaged parents expect more of their children. This vaudeville routine
is giving satisfaction to Republicans, Trump supporters, and those who have been looking for
a clearer opportunity to say "I told you so" to diehard Democratic believers (who will
continue to refuse to listen).
For an American, even one who has always been somewhat cynical regarding cultural notions of
democracy and the "American Way," the show has become patently and abusively vulgar and
revulsive. It does not appear to be anywhere near "hitting bottom." There can be no recovery
without emotional maturity, and the leaders in Washington exhibit nothing of the kind. The
level of maturity and wisdom of the individuals involved is determinative of the political
result, not the alleged quality of the politics they purport to sell. Right now we don't have
that.
"Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To Lose"
Aren't there 2 levels of "change"?
1. How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling
class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and
file? If you thought anything like that, you should try to find one single instance, in
all history, of this "party" ever having done anything at all out of line with the express
policy of the owners of the country (the high level of people-friendly noise, intended for
the voting peons, never translates into any action of that sort.)
2. If you mean change the electoral policy to win this election, how could they
conceivably manage to change this late? Like a supertanker launched at full speed trying to
make a sharp turn a few seconds before hitting the shore, you mean?
Anyway, in both cases forget what it "deserves", it should be destroyed and buried under,
not only lose.
It would take extreme mental contortions to take U.S. "democracy" seriously at this
point.
I would like to believe that it makes some difference who is elected, but increasingly
doubtful.
How different would it really have been had Hillary been elected (much as it pains me to
consider such a scenario)?
Trump was elected (aside from interference from AIPAC) partly because he was republican
candidate and for some that's all it takes but aside from that because;
- end pointless wars
- improve healthcare
- control immigration
- jobs for coal miners
- somehow address corruption and non-performance of government
- improve US competitiveness, bring back jobs, promote business, improve economy
He claims having improved the economy but more likely is done juice from the FED.
So really, what grade does he deserve?
And yet people are rallying to his side.
Personally I think that the entrenched interests have moulded Trump to meet their
requirements and now it is inconvenient to have to start work on a new president, unless it
would be one of their approved choices.
I voted for Trump because of Hillary.
Now I would not vote for Trump given a decent choice. Fortunately there is an excellent
alternative.
All who count have known for a long time that Trump will have a second term. Baked in. (1)
The Dems agitate and raucously screech and try to impeach to distract or whatever to show
da base that they hate Trump and hope to slaughter! him! a rapist! mysoginist! racist!
liar ! He is horrors! in touch with the malignant criminal authoritarian ex-KGB Putin! Russia
Russia Russia - and remember Stormy Daniels! ( :) ! )
The top corp. Dems prefer to lose to Trump, I have said this for years, as have many
others. In rivalry of the Mafia type, it is often better to submit to have a share of the
pie. Keep the plebs on board with BS etc. Victim status, underdog pretense, becomes ever more
popular.
1. Trump might fall ill / dead / take Melania's advice and wishes into account, or just
quit.
People still talk like democracy really exists in USA.
They channel their anger toward Party and personality.
If only the democrats would ... If only Sanders would ... If only people would see that
...
A few understand the way things really are, but most are still hoping that
somehow that the bed-time stories and entertaining kayfabe are a sort of
democracy that they can live with.
But the is just normalcy bias. A Kool-Aid hang-over. This is not democracy. It is a soft
tyranny encouraged by Empire stooges, lackeys, and enabled by ignorance.
The lies are as pervasive as they are subtle: half-truths; misdirection; omitting facts
like candidate/party affiliations with the Zionist/Empire Death Cult.
The REAL divide among people in the West is who benefits from an EMPIRE/ZIONIST FIRST
orientation that has polluted our politics and our culture and the rest of us.
Wake up. War is on the horizon. And Central Banks can't print money forever.
After watching Pelosi it reminded me that during the Geo. W. Bush era the Democrats were
always claiming to be the adults in the room. It's odd that Mayo Pete's 'husband' is never
seen or heard from. I wonder why? Biden's toast and Epstein didn't kill himself. AND Seth
Rich leaked Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.
-- --
The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the
Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination.
As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family,
himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably
Mossad.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Trump is an installment of The Mossad via blackmail and media manipulation, check "Black
Cube Intelligence", a Mossad front operating from City of London. It would make sense the
establishment in the US would eavesdrop on him. Mossad on the other hand would wiretap the
wiretapers and give feedback on Trump. The Podesta you mentioned once threatened the factions
with "disclosure" possibly to keep the runaway black projects crazies in check not that I
wish to play advocate of these people.
-- --
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to terrorize
the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real suicides.
So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Yes, what we need is just a nazi party in the US to keep communism in check, right? We are
half way there with Trump already aren't we? "Black Sun" technologies (which a part off I
described above) already there, leaking to anyone interested enough that would aid in the
great outsourcing for the Yinon project, so why not? "Go Trump 2020"! (sarcasm)
For whatever reason the only thing the Dems seem to find more terrible than a loss to Trump
is a win with Bernie. I'm no fan of Bernie but it's clear they're out to sabotage the one guy
that would actually beat Trump in an election
While I have no illusions that a Sanders administration will have good foreign policy
objectives, is there not something to be said for shifting money away from the
military-industrial complex in the US? In general Sanders gives me the impression that he
wants to reduce US intervention in foreign affairs in favor of spending more money on
domestic issues. Even a slight reduction in pressure is helpful for giving other countries
the ability to expand their spheres of influence and becoming more legitimate powers in
opposition to the US and EU. Based on this I still see voting for Sanders as helpful even if
he won't bring about any meaningful change in the US's foreign policy.
it's not an actual Stalin quote, but often used as such
he did say something in the same vein, though.
it IS absolutely spot on here:
"It's not who vote that counts, it's who counts the votes"
congratulations, DNC, you're on a par with Joseph Stalin; the most ruthless chairman the
Sovyets have ever had.
so here is your real Russia Gate.
oh, come and smell the Irony. In fake wrestling the producers determine the winner in advance
and the wrestlers ate given their script to follow. The Dems have no intention to win this,
look at the clowns they have running the show not to mention the flawed candidates . The
script calls for the king of fake wrestling, Trump himself, to win yet again. Only a
concerted effort by the Dems and Deep State media, along with some tech help from Bibis crew
can engineer this result, but they are all on board. Dems willing to wait for 2024 when the
producers will write them in for a big Win over somebody not named Trump. The world will be
ready for a Green change by then, and Soros/Gates boys will have their chance to step up to
the plate again.
Enjoy the show if you wish, I'm changing the channel.
It should be clear on what the fight is really about in the US. It's about stopping the rise
of socialism. Regardless of party affiliation, the elites know what the populace wants and
are desperately trying to stop it. I refuse to accept that the Democrats have no idea what
they're doing.
I honestly can't see Sanders getting the nomination with all the corruption openly being
displayed. I would be pleasantly surprised if Sanders did manage to get it, but he still have
to deal with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC). The Electors have the final say. Yes, one can point
out that some States have laws forcing Electors to vote what the populace wants, but that is
being challenged in court. The debate on whether such laws are unconstitutional or not,
remains to be seen. It's too late now to deal with the EC for this election, but people need
to be more active in politics at the State level as that's where Electors are (s)elected.
IF Sanders is genuine then he should prepare to run as an independent just to get the EC
attention.
RR @ 14;
Everything in the U$A today, is driven by the unofficial Party of $, and it's reach
transcends both Dems & repubs. It's cadre is the majority of the D.C. "rule makers", so
we get what they want, not what "we the people" want or need.
They own the banks, MSM media, and even our voting systems.
IMO, to assume one party is to blame for conditions in the U$A is a bit naive.
Question is, can anything the masses do, change the system? Or is rank and file America
just along for the ride?
I'm assuming us peons will get what the party of $ wants this November also.
P.S. If any blame is given, it needs to go to the American public, because " you get the
kind of Gov. you deserve" through your inactions...
It's a lot like living, death is certain, but until that occurs, I'll move forward trying
to mitigate current paradigms.
Another Trotskyist attempt at convincing people they don't need nations anymore. No need to
feel proud in your cultural difference which makes the world a beautiful and ineffable place.
Instead, they want monoculture ruled by Technocrats. How "eastern."
I don't mind, because I know that in Christianity's early days, many converts had to hide
to preserve the faith.
Indeed, Philip K. Dick had fever dreams about being a Christian in ancient MENA and hiding
himself amongst the Romans. Jews, similarly, I am sure, felt something akin during the war in
Germany and occupied territory.
A German panel of linguists which decides on a new word to 'ban' every year has announced
the 'un-wording' of the term "climate hysteria" because it undermines propaganda about man-made
global warming.
First of all, just let it sink in that there is an organization comprised of linguists which
exists solely to 'ban' words and terms that they don't like. Their action is known as
'Un-word of the
year' .
They're literally attempting to re-create 1984's Newspeak dictionary
, which shrank in size year after year in order to eliminate language and limit free thought
and free speech, making it harder for the plebs to vocalize their opposition to The Party.
As you may have suspected, every word or term already 'banned' by the group in recent years
are ones used by conservatives to challenge leftist political tropes. Imagine my shock.
Terms 'un-worded' in recent years include "alternative facts," "do-gooder,"
"Lügenpresse" (liar press) and "welfare tourism" (referring to "foreigners in Germany
allegedly leeching on the welfare system.")
The panel says it exists to discourage the use of words that "discriminate against societal
groups or may be euphemistic, disguising or misleading."
Perhaps nervous that more Germans appear to be rejecting the cult of man-made climate change
despite vociferous propaganda, this year the panel has chosen to 'un-word' the term "climate
hysteria."
According to the panel, which contains no scientists, the term "defames climate protection
efforts and the climate protection movement, and discredits important discussions about climate
protection."
"Keeping the Newspeak Dictionary as thin as possible in hopes that this will narrow our
range of thought is a progressive priority," writes Dave Blount .
"Any word or term that can be used to undermine leftist ideology will eventually be
removed from the permissible vocabulary. That's the point of having a Newspeak
Dictionary."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/qX86OnqAxBs
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me
disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter
here . Donate to me on
SubscribeStar here . Support my sponsor –
Turbo Force – a supercharged
boost of clean energy without the comedown.
"In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles
of the world, and beyond them is more than memory."
J.R.R. Tolkien
"We were promised sufferings. They were part of the program. We were even told, 'Blessed are
they that mourn,' and I accept it. I've got nothing that I hadn't bargained for. Of course it
is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not
imagination."
C.S. Lewis
"If the devil tells you something is too fearful to look at, look at it. If he says
something is too terrible to hear, hear it. If you think some truth unbearable, bear it."
G.K. Chesterton
"The barbarian hopes -- and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it
too. He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and
effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of
the virtue that has brought them into being.
We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are
not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes; we
laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces
there are no smiles."
Hilaire Belloc
"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they
would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and
that nothing was true. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the
dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and
false, no longer exists."
"... a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are a sign of loneliness. ..."
"... And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago–chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the WWW all by themselves. ..."
"... The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to practice it is galling. ..."
"... Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation. ..."
"... So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church. ..."
George Monbiot on human loneliness and its toll. I agree with his observations. I have been cataloguing them in my head for
years, especially after a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are
a sign of loneliness.
A couple of recent trips to Rome have made that point ever more obvious to me: Compared to my North Side neighborhood in Chicago,
where every other person seems to have a dog, and on weekends Clark Street is awash in dogs (on their way to the dog boutiques
and the dog food truck), Rome has few dogs. Rome is much more densely populated, and the Italians still have each other, for good
or for ill. And Americans use the dog as an odd means of making human contact, at least with other dog owners.
But Americanization advances: I was surprised to see people bring dogs into the dining room of a fairly upscale restaurant
in Turin. I haven't seen that before. (Most Italian cafes and restaurants are just too small to accommodate a dog, and the owners
don't have much patience for disruptions.) The dogs barked at each other for while–violating a cardinal rule in Italy that mealtime
is sacred and tranquil. Loneliness rules.
And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago–chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the
WWW all by themselves.
That's why the comments about March on Everywhere in Harper's, recommended by Lambert, fascinated me. Maybe, to be less lonely,
you just have to attend the occasional march, no matter how disorganized (and the Chicago Women's March organizers made a few
big logistical mistakes), no matter how incoherent. Safety in numbers? (And as Monbiot points out, overeating at home alone is
a sign of loneliness: Another argument for a walk with a placard.)
In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles – at school, at college, at the bar, in parliament – instruct
us to stand on our own two feet.
With different imagery, the same is true in this country. The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to
practice it is galling.
Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living
at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation.
So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines
preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church.
Scott P@26 :
...a true believer who's spent too long in echo chambers which recognize the US's foreign policy as selfish and destructive, but
then make the entirely unwarranted leap that because it's so bad, any actor that opposes them is morally neutral, or at least
not subject to the same degree of scrutiny and criticism.
It's a bizarre worldview that seems to want to ignore the possibility that every actor in an interaction is a bad actor, or
at the bare minimum confuses the idea of it can be useful for a third party to weaken and distract a common enemy with the idea
that this makes the third party succeeding in their broader aims desirable without considering what those aims are.
It's schadenfreude combined with tunnel vision, and its appeal seems to lie in its creation of a personally satisfying narrative
which demonizes the near enemy – their centrist political rivals – as hopeless authoritarians.
Manipulation of the language is one of the most powerful Propaganda tool. See the original Orwell essay at George Orwell Politics
and the English Language. among other things he stated "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
Notable quotes:
"... we were set a writing task as a follow-up, reporting on the same story using the same facts, from completely opposing points of view, using euphemism and mind-numbing cliches. Teach children to do this themselves and they can see how language can be skewed and facts distorted and misrepresented without technically lying. ..."
"... It might be taught in Media Studies, I suppose - but gosh, don't the right really hate that particular subject! Critical thinking is anathema to them. ..."
I remember at school we read Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language in an English class and then we were set
a writing task as a follow-up, reporting on the same story using the same facts, from completely opposing points of view, using
euphemism and mind-numbing cliches. Teach children to do this themselves and they can see how language can be skewed and facts
distorted and misrepresented without technically lying.
How many children in schools are taught such critical thinking these days, I wonder? It might be taught in Media Studies,
I suppose - but gosh, don't the right really hate that particular subject! Critical thinking is anathema to them.
"If this succeeds, we'll be well on the path to dictatorship." This seems predicated on
the idea that 'whites' will only be able to hold onto power by Dictatorship. Population
trends suggest whites will still be the largest group [just under half] in 2055. A
considerable group given their, to borrow the phrase, 'privilege'. Add conservative Asian and
even Catholic Latino voters, is it that difficult to envisage a scenario where Republicans
sometimes achieve power without Dictatorship? They are already benefiting from the radical
left helping drive traditional working class white voters to the right [helped by
Republican/Fox etc hyperbole].
Radical left is either idiots of stooges of intelligence agencies and always has been.
IMHO the idea that " whites" are or will be the force behind the move to the dictatorship is
completely naïve. Dictatorship is needed for financial oligarchy and it is the most
plausible path of development due to another factor -- the collapse of neoliberal ideology and
complete discrediting of neoliberal elite. At least in the USA. Russiagate should be viewed as
an attempt to stage a color revolution and remove the President by the USA intelligence
agencies (in close cooperation with the "Five eyes") .
I would view Russiagate is a kind of Beer Hall Putsch with intelligence agencies instead of
national-socialist party. A couple conspirators might be jailed after Durham investigation is
finished (Hilter was jailed after the putsch), but the danger that CIA will seize the political
power remains. After all KGB was in this role in the USSR for along time. Is the USA that
different? I don't think so. There is no countervailing force: the number of people with
security clearance in the USA exceed five million. This five million and not "whites" like some
completely naïve people propose is the critical mass for the dictatorship. https://news.yahoo.com/durham-surprises-even-allies-statement-202907008.html
The potential explosiveness of Durham's mission was further underscored by the disclosure
that he was examining the role of John O. Brennan, the former CIA director, in how the
intelligence community assessed Russia's 2016 election interference.
BTW "whites" are not a homogeneous group. There is especially abhorrent and dangerous
neoliberal strata of "whites" including members of financial oligarchy, the "professional
class" and "academia" (economics department are completely infected.) as well as MIC
prostitutes in MSM.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the collective net worth of the 500
wealthiest people on the planet soared by $1.2 trillion in 12 months, totaling $5.9
trillion.
Billionaires in the US alone added $500bn to their wealth, with Facebook founder Mark
Zuckerberg increasing his wealth by $27.3bn while Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates adding
$22.7bn.
As Trump once said, his government is the best time ever to fullfill the American
Dream...
--//--
@ Posted by: migueljose | Dec 29 2019 14:44 utc | 85
Most people here in this blog seem to be from First World countries, so it's important to
make this observation about the Latin American middle classes.
Latin American middle classes have a different societal and historical origin from the
First World middle classes. Instead of being highly specialized, highly skilled workers, the
middle classes from Latin America (or any other Third World country, for that matter) come
not from high education, but from the oligarchic State apparatus.
That's because the nation-State formation in Latin America was very different from the
nation-State formation of the USA, Canada or Western Europe. They became independent through
their oligarchies, mainly through negotiations from the top. As a result, what happened in
Latin America was simply a legal transformation of the colonial machine into an independent
nation-State machine.
As a result, the middle classes in Latin America are not doctors, engineers,
scientists, CEOs etc. etc., but judges, politicians, high officers of the government,
descendents of the old local oligarchies etc. etc. They are intrinsically connected and
dependent on the State to survive as middle classes.
This results in an extremely reactionary and parasitic middle class. They act as
legitimate shock troops of the bourgeoisie.
(Translation of the article's title: Bellum omnium contra omnes and the Car Wash
Operation: the Brazilian crisis and cpt. Jair Bolsonaro's victory )
This articles indicates that what happened in Brazil was the disintegration of its State,
typical of Third World nations in the neocolonialist period. Another important factor the
article highlights is that this counter-revolution was spearheaded by the Brazilian middle
class, and not the capitalist class. This resulted in a chaotic counter-revolution where
short-term individual interests of the middle upper class members (mainly from the judiciary
power) predominate. The exact same modus operandi occured in Bolivia.
If this pattern repeats elsewhere in the Third World, then we would be witnessing a new
tactic chosen by the USA on its color revolutions in its backyard: use well-positioned middle
class members to act as a semi-military harmost, in order to fight on two fronts at the same
time - to destroy the bourgeoisie that's on the way of American interests while guaranteeing
the supression of working class uprisings.
That the USA is having to resort to the middle classes of the Third World countries to
quell revolts and guarantee anti-working class structural reforms is very revealing: it is a
clear sign of desperation by Washington, a sign that it is not being able to keep the
comprador elites of Latin American happy anymore.
If you've ever wanted to understand what neoliberalism is, this is
the series for you.
Neoliberalism is an economic ideology that exists within the framework of capitalism. Over
four decades ago, neoliberalism become the dominant economic paradigm of global society.
In this video series, we'll trace the history of neoliberalism, starting with a survey of
neoliberal philosophy and research, a historical reconstruction of the movement pushing
for neoliberal policy solutions, witnessing the damage that neoliberalism did to its first
victims in the developing world, and then charting neoliberalism's infiltration of the
political systems of the United States and the United Kingdom. Learn how neoliberalism is
generating crises for humanity at an unprecedented rate.
Our "education" system has raised generations of useful idiots, unable to fight back
or even recognize the threat of the establishments breakaway civilization.
Good video. Reminded me of this bit I saved from Twitter some time ago:
"Probably
no man in history has had so little understanding of the workings of his own society
– and hence so little power to effect change – as liberal democratic man. We talk
about this with regard to capitalism – we're (supposedly) buffeted by impersonal and
unaccountable 'market forces' – but not with liberal democratic politics, although
it's fundamentally the same thing. Even if you could organize an angry mob, whose
residence would you march on? The serf knew, the slave knew. You do not. You have no
idea who your masters are or where they live. A 'liberal democracy' is a political
system where you have no idea who's in charge, no idea what they're planning, no
idea why they have the policies they have, and no idea of how to change any of it."
"free traders mistake money for wealth, wealth is derived from making things, money
is just a medium of exchange: any government that prints money with no regard to its
material basis in commodity production risks disaster."
"Whenever you hear the words "a country has to be competitive," it's not more
competition among businesses, it's that every country has to do whatever it can to
make available the closest thing to slave labor as possible. Period. No wishy-washy
jargon needed to cover the basic fact"
Excellent vid. Really puts it all together well. The Neoliberals are sucking as much
money and work out of us folks as they can get away with before they kill us all off
and use robots.
I love the content, just not the pacing. If you listen to most documentaries, you
will notice the is a pacing or cadence in the spoken narrative. Speak a little, then
give some time to absorb. This series would be a lot easier to listen to with some
added space... thanks. Look forward to this series.
"one of the main reasons why even sophisticated societies fall into this suicidal
spiral is the conflict between the short-term interests of decision-making elites
and the long-term interests of society as a whole, especially if the elites are able
to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. the reason why even
sophisticated societies fail is because the elites are never made to pay a price for
their follies"
What's not mentioned is this second phase of "liberalism" is the most dangerous
because we are more dependent on capitalist production than ever before. People
exist on a razors edge.
"All this is contrary to what classical economists urged. Their objective was for
governments elected by the population at large to receive and allocate the economic
surplus. Presumably this would have been to lower the cost of living and doing
business, provide a widening range of public services at subsidized prices or
freely, and sponsor a fair society in which nobody would receive special privileges
or hereditary rights. Financial sector advocates have sought to control democracies
by shifting tax policy and bank regulation out of the hands of elected
representatives to nominees from world's financial centers.
The aim of this planning
is not for the classical progressive objectives of mobilizing savings to increase
productivity and raise populations out of poverty.
The objective of finance
capitalism is not capital formation, but acquisition of rent-yielding privileges for
real estate, natural resources and monopolies. These are precisely the forms of
revenue that centuries of classical economists sought to tax away or minimize. By
allying itself with the rentier sectors and lobbying on their behalf – so as to
extract their rent as interest – banking and high finance have become part of the
economic overhead from which classical economists sought to free society.
The result
of moving into a symbiosis with real estate, mining, oil, other natural resources
and monopolies has been to financialize these sectors. As this has occurred, bank
lobbyists have urged that land be un-taxed so as to leave more rent (and other
natural resource rent) "free" to be paid as interest – while forcing governments to
tax labor and industry instead. To promote this tax shift and debt leveraging,
financial lobbyists have created a smokescreen of deception that depicts
financialization as helping economies grow. They accuse central bank monetizing of
budget deficits as being inherently inflationary – despite no evidence of this, and
despite the vast inflation of real estate prices and stock prices by predatory bank
credit.
Money creation is now monopolized by banks, which use this power to finance
the transfer of property – with the source of the quickest and largest fortunes
being infrastructure and natural resources pried out of the public domain of debtor
countries by a combination of political insider dealing and debt leverage – a merger
of kleptocracy with the world's financial centers. The financial strategy is capped
by creating international financial institutions (the International Monetary Fund,
European Central Bank) to bring pressure on debtor economies to take fiscal policy
out of the hands of elected parliaments and into those of institutions ruling on
behalf of bankers and bondholders. This global power has enabled finance to override
potentially debtor-friendly governments." Excerpt From Killing the Host Michael
Hudson
16:23
"Chile experienced a peaceful democratic rule for 41 years, that now has
violently come to an end. Pinochet and his followers described the coup as 'a war'.
It definitely looked that way. It was a Chilean example of 'instilling shock and
awe'. The days thereafter saw 13000 opposers arrested and locked up ." may be too
much of a literal translation but Dutch isn't my first language. (edited the time
stamp)
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone is one of those books you
might want to get in its physical form so you can shove it full of bookmarks, highlight
sentences, write notes, stick little sticky arrows to note something special, and generally
leave it in unfit condition for anyone but you, but that will be okay because you will be
going back to it again and again whenever you want to argue about something. Yes, it's that
good.
Astra Taylor does the difficult job examining democracy, something we talk about a lot
without ever completely understanding its full implications. To do this, she examines eight
tensions that pull democracies in different directions and are critical to balance or at
least understand when understanding democracy. These tensions are interrogated in separate
chapters, looking at history, research, and political experience that impinge on them. The
vast research involved in these explorations is astonishing.
In the first chapter she examines the tension between freedom and equality and notes
that once upon a time we thought they went hand in hand, but that they have become
oppositional thanks to political movements that serve the powerful who define freedom in
terms of making money and avoidance of regulation rather than freedom from want, hunger, or
fear. Equality has become, to American eyes, the enemy of freedom. The second chapter looks
at decision-making, the tension of conflict and consensus. This includes the understanding
of loyal opposition, something that seems to be lost with a president who calls his
political opponents traitors. I appreciated her taking on how consensus can become
anti-democratic and stultifying.
The third chapter looks at the tension of inclusion and exclusion, who is the demos, to
whom is the democracy accountable. In the fourth, the balance between choice and coercion
is explored. Pro-corporate theorists talk about government coercion and attacks on liberty
when they are not allowed to poison our drinking water and make government the enemy of the
people. She also explores how we seem to think freedom is the be all, end all except at
work. Chapter Five looks at spontaneity versus structure. This has an important analysis of
organizing versus activism and how the focus on youth movements has weakened social justice
movements overall as the energy dissipates after college without the labor and community
organizations to foster movement energy. Chapter Six explores the balance between mass
opinion and expertise and how meritocracy works against democracy. This chapter looks at
how education functions to keep the powerful powerful from generation to generation, "the
paradoxical, deeply contradictory role of education under capitalism , which facilitates
the ascension of some while preparing a great many more for lowly positions of
servitude."
Chapter Seven looks at the geography of democracy, not just in terms of federalism and
the federal, state, and local levels of participating in democracy but also the
supranational entities like the World Trade Organization and how they undercut democracy
and the integrity of the state. Chapter Eight considers what we inherit from the past, the
traditions and norms of democracy and what we owe the future, including our obligations to
pass on a livable planet.
Needless to say, this is all very discouraging in its totality, but the final chapter
encourages us to balance pessimism with optimism just as democracy must balance all those
other tensions.
It took me forever to read Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone.
That is because after I read a chapter I needed to think about it before I moved on to the
next. I took sixteen pages of notes while reading it. I hate taking notes, but I did not
want to lose the ideas.
This is also a book you might want to read with some other people, perhaps discussing a
chapter at a time. I do not think it is a book you can read passively, without stopping to
talk to someone, tweet, or reread. It's that good.
That does not mean I agree with every word of the book, but then the author does an
excellent job of interrogating her own ideas. She might seem to be asserting an opinion,
and then offer a counter-example because she is rigorous like that. She perhaps places too
much faith in Marxist theory from time to time, but then that may be because like
democracy, it has never really existed except in conceptual form.
Taylor does not offer a simple answer because there are no simple answers. She does not
pretend to know how to, or even if we can, fix democracy. She gives us the questions, the
problems, and some ideas, but as someone who truly believes in government by the people,
she asks us to take up the challenge.
I received an e-galley of Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone from
the publisher through NetGalley.
According to "Electoral Reform Society", all votes are not equal in UK:
Across Britain, it took...
🗳️864,743 votes to elect 1 Green MP
🗳️642,303 votes to elect 0 Brexit Party MPs
🗳️334,122 votes to elect a Lib Dem
🗳️50,817 votes for a Labour MP
🗳️38,316 votes for a Plaid Cymru MP
🗳️38,300 votes for a Con. MP
🗳️25,882 votes for a SNP MP
But then again, who said Britain with its monarchy, is a democracy?
The problem is that in a disunited kingdom, Conservatives with Tories only represent the
English and the Northern Ireland Oranje (through Unionists). Corbyn's problem was that he
didn't rid of his Rightwing faction, including "Friends of Israel" in Leadership
positions.
He grew Labor more than the Neo-Liberal Blair did.
You make the same mistake that Democrats did after 2016. It is not about the total number
of votes. Britain has a parliamentary system. It is about winning each parliamentary seat.
Just as in the US, it is about winning the electoral votes in each state. Boris won a
landslide according to the electoral rules that was the same for each party contesting the
election.
The question that Labor needs to ask is why did they lose seats that Labor has held for 50
or more years? Not whining about the rules of the election.
Labour won a single seat in London, in a wealthy neighborhood, and lost dozens in some of
the poorest parts of the U.K. that have endured years of economic decline. Left-wing
parties across the west have lost touch with actual marginalized communities.
Reflection is not a quality that mainstream politicians have. Got to blame someone else.
Surprised they haven't blamed Putin or Ukraine yet :-)
That tweet thread was very instructive. Amazing that areas that were solid Labor for so
long deserted them this election. Something they should really think hard about.
The first person who brought the Russians in to this discussion is Blue Peacock, except the
CONSERVATIVES who convicted the Skripal Affair. Indeed, reflection IS rear
You are making a mistake. Corbyn grew the Labor party MORE than Blair, Kinnock,...
The flair you described in British electoral system is by design to ensure the rule of the
crown, neo-feudal minions, nobility & "novo-nobility" with an appearance of consent. The
"redistricting" in Britain is similar to US & different in the sense that is permanent
(contradiction in terms) due to the the immigration- & social mobility differences.
Also, Scotland, one of Labor's main bastions, is sick & tired of the waiting to reform
the Albion and understandably just wants to separate their ways. I observe, but do not judge,
the fact of the matter being that the vote of the majority of Britain's doesn't count towards
determining the rule of the land. Similar to a LOT of countries but dissimilar in the sense
that their ruling class uses the "voting spectacle" as a public patch to lecture the others
about democracy (electoral college) & human rights (Assange torture).
You are right in the sense that Corbyn was not firm enough to get ride of the Trojan
Blairites. He needed to be less compromising and at least "market" (whether to deliver or
not, is another matter) a more radical solution as Boarish Johnson did: E.g. a terrorist act
happens on London bridge, by a Jihadist - on parole (??) during election time - under
Israel-Firster Priti Patel & Corbyn gets the blame!? Conservatives were in power and run
the prisons and the judiciary. Corbyn missed the necessary viciousness and was weak,
considering he did not make a HUGE scandal out of this with Johnson being weak on terrorism
(which is true, as we all know that MI-5/6 exports Jihadists to Syria and runs NGO's to the
benefit of Jihadis).
On a "two tier" or "multi tier" EU, that is a possibility sometimes mentioned. I recollect it
was mentioned by the German Ambassador at a talk he gave a while ago, and there is sometimes
press reference to the idea. It would get over the Target 2 problem and also make the problem
of fiscal transfer less urgent.
The question is, how would one get to two tier? Last time I looked the Target 2 balances
were around a trillion and represented one half of Germany's foreign assets. The Southern
countries couldn't pay that back and the German public would not accept, I think, half their
foreign assets being written off.
This is the problem with the EU. It's not a single unified country. Nor is it merely a
loose trading association. It's half way between the two and it is forced to keep moving
towards further unification simply because remaining as it is is untenable.
But moving either way is difficult too. There are the populist movements that either
threaten the integrity of the EU or at least hold it back from further unification. There are
the structural problems of the EZ that could only be resolved by further unification. And
that resolution would require the taxpayers in the richer countries to pay far more to the
poorer countries. Certainly in Germany that would prove politically difficult.
Brussels has committed itself to fast track further unification. It looks to me like
someone on ice having to run faster and faster to keep his balance. That view might be
coloured by the fact that I like neither the political side of the EU nor its effect on the
peripheral countries, but it's important to recognise that in addition to the financial
bubble problems all Western countries or entities face, the EU/EZ has deep structural
problems that will not be easy to resolve.
Well, Corbyn grew Labour between in 2015-2017, before outing himself as a closet-Remainer.
After that, he lost it all between 2017-2019.
On the second point, you are quite correct: far from ridding Labour of its "Friends of
Israel" wing, he actually allowed them to force him to rid Labour of his own pro-Palestinian
allies!
Any way you slice it, Corbyn was just weak and pathetic.
It is very difficult to collect my thoughts into something coherent after four hours sleep
in the last 48 hours, but these are heads of key issues to be developed later.
I have no doubt that the Johnson government will very quickly become the most unpopular in
UK political history. The ultra-hard Brexit he is pushing will not be the panacea which the
deluded anticipate. It will have a negative economic impact felt most keenly in the remaining
industry of the Midlands and North East of England. Deregulation will worsen conditions for
those fortunate enough to have employment, as will further benefits squeezes. Immigration will
not in practice reduce; what will reduce are the rights and conditions for the immigrants.
Decaying, left-behind towns will moulder further. The fishing industry will very quickly be
sold down the river in trade negotiations with the EU – access to fishing (and most of
the UK fishing grounds are Scottish) is one of the few decent offers Boris has to make to the
EU in seeking market access. His Brexit deal will take years and be overwhelmingly fashioned to
benefit the City of London.
There is zero chance the Conservatives will employ a sizeable number of extra nurses: they
just will not be prepared to put in the money. They will employ more policemen. In a couple of
years time they will need them for widespread riots. They will not build any significant
portion of the hospitals or other infrastructure they promised. They most certainly will do
nothing effective about climate change. These were simply dishonest promises. The NHS will
continue to crumble with more and more of its service provision contracted out, and more and
more of its money going into private shareholders' pockets (including many Tory MPs).
The disillusionment will be on the same scale as Johnson's bombastic promises. The
Establishment are not stupid and realise there will be an anti-Tory reaction. Their major
effort will therefore be to change Labour back into a party supporting neo-liberal economic
policy and neo-conservative foreign (or rather war) policy. They will want to be quite certain
that, having seen off the Labour Party's popular European style social democratic programme
with Brexit anti-immigrant fervour, the electorate have no effective non-right wing choice at
the next election, just like in the Blair years.
To that end, every Blairite horror has been resurrected already by the BBC to tell us that
the Labour Party must now move right – McNicol, McTernan, Campbell, Hazarayika and many
more, not to mention the platforms given to Caroline Flint, Ruth Smeeth and John Mann. The most
important immediate fight for radicals in England is to maintain Labour as a mainstream
European social democratic party and resist its reversion to a Clinton style right wing ultra
capitalist party. Whether that is possible depends how many of the Momentum generation lose
heart and quit.
Northern Ireland is perhaps the most important story of this election, with a seismic shift
in a net gain of two seats in Belfast from the Unionists, plus the replacement of a unionist
independent by the Alliance Party. Irish reunification is now very much on the agenda. The
largesse to the DUP will be cut off now Boris does not need them.
For me personally, Scotland is the most important development of all. A stunning result for
the SNP. The SNP result gave them a bigger voter share in Scotland than the Tories got in the
UK. So if Johnson got a "stonking mandate for Brexit", as he just claimed in his private school
idiom, the SNP got a "stonking mandate" for Independence.
I hope the SNP learnt the lesson that by being much more upfront about Independence than in
the disastrous "don't mention Independence" election of 2017, the SNP got spectacularly better
results.
I refrained from criticising the SNP leadership during the campaign, even to the extent of
not supporting my friend Stu Campbell when he was criticised for doing so (and I did advise him
to wait until after election day). But I can say now that the election events, which are
perfect for promoting Independence, are not necessarily welcome to the gradualists in the SNP.
A "stonking mandate" for Independence and a brutal Johnson government treating Scotland with
total disrespect leaves no room for hedge or haver. The SNP needs to strike now, within weeks
not months, to organise a new Independence referendum with or without Westminster
agreement.
If we truly believe Westminster has no right to block Scottish democracy, we need urgently
to act to that effect and not just pretend to believe it. Now the election is over, I will
state my genuine belief there is a political class in the SNP, Including a minority but
significant portion of elected politicians, office holders and staff, who are very happy with
their fat living from the devolution settlement and who view any striking out for Independence
as a potential threat to their personal income.
You will hear from these people we should wait for EU trade negotiations, for a decision on
a section 30, for lengthy and complicated court cases, or any other excuse to maintain the
status quo, rather than move their well=paid arses for Independence. But the emergency of the
empowered Johnson government, and the new mandate from the Scottish electorate, require
immediate and resolute action. We need to organise an Independence referendum with or without
Westminster permission, and if successful go straight for UDI. If the referendum is blocked,
straight UDI it is, based on the four successive election victory mandates.
With this large Tory majority, there is nothing the SNP MPs can in practice achieve against
Westminster. We should now withdraw our MPs from the Westminster Parliament and take all
actions to paralyse the union. This is how the Irish achieved Independence. We will never get
Independence by asking Boris Johnson nicely. Anyone who claims to believe otherwise is a fool
or a charlatan.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the
Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no
source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary
subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every
article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Corbyn's defeat was entirely due to the treachery of the engrained leadership of the Labour
Party.
While the membership is generally radical and socialist, 80% of the MPs, local
councillors, Union Officers and party officials were put there by the Blairites and are
almost impossible to remove from the offices in which they have enormous potential
influence.
Corbyn was in an almost impossible position but his mistake was, characteristically, to
assume a higher degree of good will and loyalty to the 'cause' than most MPs, careerists,
contemptuous of ordinary people and desperate for the approval-in a society which is famous
for its social snobbery- of the ruling Establishment.
It is significant that, whereas Johnson expelled dozens of MPs from the Tory party, Labour
expelled only one-Chris Williamson on the basis of an obviously idiotic charge of
antisemitism on his part.
Sometimes left wing winners have to be ready to fight to the death to secure the mandates
they are given and in doing so to damage the opposition. In this case the Blairites.
Sometimes betraying the working class and the poor takes the form of refusing to be
ruthless.
The irony is that Corbyn is by far the longest standing critic of the EU in British public
life, as the Blairites very quickly charged when the referendum on the EU (" a highly
democratic organisation" in Laguerre's astonishing judgement) was won by the 'wrong side'.
And in 2017 he campaigned on the promise to 'get Brexit done". It was only out of a refusal
to confront the Remainers, including most of his Shadow Cabinet, that the hybrid policy to
implement the Blairite Peoples Vote was adopted.
I imagine that the Remainers in the Labour Party and the Blairites of every sort will be
saddened by the public's renewed mandate for Brexit, but their dominant emotion will be
euphoria that the left was defeated, neo-liberalism still reins unchallenged and imperialism
maintained in British Foreign Policy.
If the Labour Party now sticks to its principles it will purge itself of its Fifth Columns
and use the breathing space before the next election to re-organise itself as a socialist
party.
To do this it needs firstly, to establish a newspaper, secondly to build a Youth wing,
thirdly to institute a national system of political education so that every member
understands what socialism is and takes a part in its construction. And fourthly that Labour
becomes the organising focus for both Unions organising the unorganised and social movements
defending tenants, the poor, disabled and vulnerable.
But this is all very unlikely, the party structure is biassed against democracy, it is
almost impossible to impose the will of the membership on the people who run the party. And
ought to be run out of it.
JC was crucified, by authority of the Empire, at the urging of the Israeli authorities in
Jerusalem and with the invaluable assistance of corrupt traitors among his own people
I get the question often, though one would think it's obvious - Who are these "globalists"
we refer to so much in the liberty movement? Sometimes the request comes from honest people who
only want to learn more. Sometimes it comes from disinformation agents attempting to mire
discussion on the issue with assertions that the globalists "don't exist". The answer to the
question can be simple and complex at the same time. In order to understand who the globalists
are, we first have to understand what they want.
We talk a lot about the "globalists" because frankly, their agenda has become more open than
ever in the past ten years. There was a time not long ago when the idea of the existence of
"globalists" was widely considered "conspiracy theory". There was a time when organizations
like the Bilderberg Group did not officially exist and the mainstream media rarely ever
reported on them. There was a time when the agenda for one world economy and a one world
government was highly secretive and mentioned only in whispers in the mainstream. And, anyone
who tried to expose this information to the public was called a "tinfoil hat wearing
lunatic".
Today, the mainstream media writes puff-pieces about the Bilderberg Group and even jokes
about their secrecy. When members of Donald Trump's cabinet, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner,
attended Bilderberg in 2019, the mainstream media was wallpapered with
the news .
When the World Government Summit meets each year in Dubai, attended by many of the same
people that attend Bilderberg as well as shady mainstream icons and gatekeepers like Elon Musk
and Neil deGrasse Tyson, they don't hide their discussions or their goals, they post them on
YouTube .
I remember when talking about the US dollar being dethroned and replaced with a new one
world currency system and a cashless society controlled
by the IMF was treated as bizarre theory. Now it's
openly called for by numerous leaders in
the financial industry and in
economic governance . The claim that these things are "conspiracy theory" no longer holds
up anymore. In reality, the people who made such accusations a few years ago now look like
idiots as the establishment floods the media with information and propaganda promoting
everything the liberty movement has been warning about.
The argument on whether or not a globalist agenda "exists" is OVER. The liberty movement and
the alternative media won that debate, and through our efforts we have even forced the
establishment into admitting the existence of some of their plans for a completely centralized
global system managed by them. Now, the argument has changed. The mainstream doesn't really
deny anymore that the globalists exist; they talk about whether or not the globalist agenda is
a good thing or a bad thing.
First , I would point out the sheer level of deception and disinformation used by the
globalists over the past several decades. This deceptions is designed to maneuver the public
towards accepting a one world economy and eventually one world governance . If you have to
lie consistently to people about your ideology in order to get them to support it, then there
must be something very wrong with your ideology.
Second , the establishment may be going public with their plans for globalization, but
they aren't being honest about the consequences for the average person. And, there are many
misconceptions out there, even in the liberty movement, about what exactly these people
want.
So, we need to construct a list of globalist desires vs globalist lies in order to define
who we are dealing with. These are the beliefs and arguments of your run-of-the-mill
globalist:
Centralization
A globalist believes everything must be centralized, from finance to money to social
access to production to government. They argue that centralization makes the system "more
fair" for everyone, but in reality they desire a system in which they have total control over
every aspect of life. Globalists, more than anything, want to dominate and micro-manage every
detail of civilization and socially engineer humanity in the image they prefer.
One
World Currency System And Cashless Society
As an extension of centralization, globalists want a single currency system for the world.
Not only this, but they want it digitized and easy to track. Meaning, a cashless society in
which every act of trade by every person can be watched and scrutinized. If trade is no
longer private, preparation for rebellion becomes rather difficult. When all resources can be
manged and restricted to a high degree at the local level, rebellion would become unthinkable
because the system becomes the parent and provider and the source of life. A one world
currency and cashless system would be the bedrock of one world governance. You cannot have
one without the other.
One World Government
Globalists want to erase all national borders and sovereignty and create a single elite
bureaucracy, a one world empire in which they are the "philosopher kings" as described in
Plato's Republic.
As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International
Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in
the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation's (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg.
558) in an article titled
'The Hard Road To World Order' :
" In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather
than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use
William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal
assault."
This system would be highly inbred, though they may continue to give the masses the
illusion of public participation and "democracy" for a time. Ultimately, the globalists
desire a faceless and unaccountable round table government, a seat of power which acts as an
institution with limited liability, much like a corporation, and run in the same sociopathic
manner without legitimate public oversight. In the globalist world, there will be no redress
of grievances.
Sustainability As Religion
Globalists often use the word "sustainability" in their white papers and agendas, from
Agenda 21 to Agenda 2030. Environmentalism is the facade they employ to guilt the population
into supporting global governance, among other things. As I noted in my recent article
'Why Is The Elitist Establishment So Obsessed With Meat' , fake environmentalism and
fraudulent global warming "science" is being exploited by globalists to demand control over
everything from how much electricity you can use in your home, to how many children you can
have, to how much our society is allowed to manufacture or produce, to what you are allowed
to eat.
The so-called carbon pollution threat, perhaps the biggest scam in history, is a key
component of the globalist agenda. As the globalist organization The Club Of Rome, a
sub-institution attached to the United Nations, stated in their book 'The First Global
Revolution' :
" In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would
fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a
common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these
dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about,
namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in
natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be
overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."
In other words, by presenting human beings as a species as the great danger, the
globalists hope to convince humanity to sublimate itself before the mother earth goddess and
beg to be kept in line. And, as the self designated "guardians" of the Earth, the elites
become the high priests of the new religion of sustainability. They and they alone would
determine who is a loyal servant and who is a heretic. Carbon pollution becomes the new
"original sin"; everyone is a sinner against the Earth, for everyone breaths and uses
resources, and we must all do our part to appease the Earth by sacrificing as much as
possible, even ourselves.
The elites don't believe in this farce, they created it. The sustainability cult is merely
a weapon to be used to dominate mass psychology and make the populace more
malleable.
Population Control
Globalists come from an ideological background which worships eugenics – the belief
that genetics must be controlled and regulated, and those people they deem to be undesirables
must be sterilized or exterminated.
The modern eugenics movement was launched by
the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 1900's in America , and was treated a a
legitimate scientific endeavor for decades. Eugenics was taught in schools and even
celebrated at the World's Fair. States like California that adopted eugenics legislation
forcefully sterilized tens of thousands of people and denied thousands of marriage
certificates based on genetics. The system was transferred to Germany in the 1930's were it
gained world renown for its inherent brutality.
This ideology holds that
4% or less of the population is genetically worthy of leadership, and the elites
conveniently assert that they represent part of that genetic purity.
After WWII the public developed a distaste for the idea of eugenics and population
control, but under the guise of environmentalism the agenda is making a comeback, as
population reduction in the name of "saving the Earth" is in the
mainstream media once again . The Question then arises - Who gets to decide who lives and
who dies? Who gets to decide who is never born? And, how will they come to their decisions?
No doubt a modern form of eugenics will be presented as the "science" used to "fairly"
determine the content of the population if the elites get their way.
Narcissistic
Sociopathy
It is interesting that the globalists used to present the 4% leadership argument in their
eugenics publications, because 4% of the population is also consistent with the number of
people who have
inherent sociopathy or narcissistic sociopathy , either in latent or full-blown form,
with 1% of
people identified as full blown psychopaths and the rest as latent. Coincidence?
The behavior of the globalists is consistent with the common diagnosis of full-blown
narcopaths, a condition which is believed to be inborn and incurable. Narcopaths
(pyschopaths) are devoid of empathy and are often self obsessed. They suffer from delusions
of grandeur and see themselves as "gods" among men. They believe other lowly people are tools
to be used for their pleasure or to further their ascendance to godhood. They lie incessantly
as a survival mechanism and are good at determining what people want to hear. Narcopaths feel
no compassion towards those they harm or murder, yet crave attention and adoration from the
same people they see as inferior. More than anything, they seek the power to micro-manage the
lives of everyone around them and to feed off those people like a parasite feeds off a host
victim.
Luciferianism
It is often argued by skeptics that psychopaths cannot organize cohesively, because such
organizations would self destruct. These people simply don't know what they're talking about.
Psychopaths throughout history organize ALL THE TIME, from tyrannical governments to
organized crime and religious cults. The globalists have their own binding ideologies and
methods for organization. One method is to ensure benefits to those who serve the group (as
well as punishments for those who stray). Predators often work together as long as there is
ample prey. Another method is the use of religious or ideological superiority; making
adherents feel like they are part of an exclusive and chosen few destined for greatness.
This is a highly complicated issue which requires its own essay to examine in full. I
believe I did this effectively in my article
'Luciferians: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System' . Needless to say,
this agenda is NOT one that globalists are willing to admit to openly very often, but I have
outlined extensive evidence that luciferianism is indeed the underlying globalist cult
religion. It is essentially an ideology which promotes moral relativism, the worship of the
self and the attainment of godhood by any means necessary – which fits perfectly with
globalism and globalist behavior.
So, now that we know the various agendas and identifiers of globalists, we can now ask "Who
are the globalists?"
The answer is – ANYONE who promotes the above agendas, related arguments, or any
corporate or political leader who works directly with them. This
includes presidents that claim to be anti-globalist while also filling their cabinets with
people from globalist organizations.
To make a list of names is simple; merely study the membership rosters of globalists
organizations like the Bilderberg Group, the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral
Commission, Tavistock Institute, the IMF, the BIS, World Bank, the UN, etc. You will find a
broad range of people from every nation and every ethnicity ALL sharing one goal – A
world in which the future for every other person is dictated by them for all time; a world in
which freedom is a memory and individual choice is a commodity only they have the right to
enjoy.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on
advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The
Wild Bunch Dispatch . Learn more about it
HERE .
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
"... As the Gramscian theorists Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau observed, our political identities are not a 'given' – something that emerges directly from the objective facts of our situation. We all occupy a series of overlapping identities in our day-to-day lives – as workers or bosses, renters or home-owners, debtors or creditors. Which of these define our politics depends on political struggles for meaning and power. ..."
"... The architects of neoliberalism understood this process of identity creation. By treating people as selfish, rational utility maximisers, they actively encouraged them to become selfish, rational utility maximisers. As the opening article points out, this is not a side effect of neoliberal policy, but a central part of its intention. As Michael Sandel pointed out in his 2012 book 'What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets' , it squeezes out competing values that previously governed non-market spheres of life, such as ethics of public service in the public sector, or mutual care within local communities. But these values remain latent: neoliberalism does not have the power to erase them completely. This is where the hope for the left lies, the crack of light through the doorway that needs to be prised open. ..."
"... More generally, there is some evidence that neoliberalism didn't really succeed in making us see ourselves as selfish rational maximisers – just in making us believe that everybody else was . For example, a 2016 survey found that UK citizens are on average more oriented towards compassionate values than selfish values, but that they perceive others to be significantly more selfish (both than themselves and the actual UK average). Strikingly, those with a high 'self-society gap' were found to be less likely to vote and engage in civic activity, and highly likely to experience feelings of cultural estrangement. ..."
"... Perhaps a rational system is one that accepts selfishness but keeps it within limits. Movements like the Chicago school that pretend to reinvent the wheel with new thinking are by this view a scam. As J.K. Galbraith said: "the problem with their ideas is that they have been tried." ..."
"... They tried running an economy on debt in the 1920s. The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into the debt deflation of the Great Depression. No one realised the problems that were building up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private debt, neoclassical economics. ..."
"... Keynes looked at the problems of the debt based economy and came up with redistribution through taxation to keep the system running in a sustainable way and he dealt with the inherent inequality capitalism produced. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, which has influenced so much of the conventional thinking about money, is adamant that the public sector must not create ('print') money, and so public expenditure must be limited to what the market can 'afford.' Money, in this view, is a limited resource that the market ensures will be used efficiently. Is public money, then, a pipe dream? No, for the financial crisis and the response to it undermined this neoliberal dogma. ..."
"... The financial sector mismanaged its role as a source of money so badly that the state had to step in and provide unlimited monetary backing to rescue it. The creation of money out of thin air by public authorities revealed the inherently political nature of money. But why, then, was the power to create money ceded to the private sector in the first place -- and with so little public accountability? ..."
Lambert here: Not sure the soul is an identity, but authors don't write the headlines. Read
on!
By Christine Berry, a freelance researcher and writer and was previously Director of
Policy and Government for the New Economics Foundation. She has also worked at ShareAction and
in the House of Commons.
Originally published at Open Democracy .
"Economics is the method: the object is to change the soul." Understanding why Thatcher said
this is central to understanding the neoliberal project, and how we might move beyond it.
Carys Hughes and Jim Cranshaw's opening article poses a crucial challenge to the left in
this respect. It is too easy to tell ourselves a story about the long reign of neoliberalism
that is peopled solely with all-powerful elites imposing their will on the oppressed masses. It
is much harder to confront seriously the ways in which neoliberalism has manufactured popular
consent for its policies.
The left needs to acknowledge that aspects of the neoliberal agenda have been overwhelmingly
popular: it has successfully tapped into people's instincts about the kind of life they want to
lead, and wrapped these instincts up in a compelling narrative about how we should see
ourselves and other people. We need a coherent strategy for replacing this narrative with one
that actively reconstructs our collective self-image – turning us into empowered citizens
participating in communities of mutual care, rather than selfish property-owning individuals
competing in markets.
As the Gramscian theorists Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau observed, our political
identities are not a 'given' – something that emerges directly from the objective facts
of our situation. We all occupy a series of overlapping identities in our day-to-day lives
– as workers or bosses, renters or home-owners, debtors or creditors. Which of these
define our politics depends on political struggles for meaning and power.
Part of the job of politics – whether within political parties or social movements
– is to show how our individual problems are rooted in systemic issues that can be
confronted collectively if we organise around these identities. Thus, debt becomes not a source
of shame but an injustice that debtors can organise against. Struggles with childcare are not a
source of individual parental guilt but a shared societal problem that we have a shared
responsibility to tackle. Podemos were deeply influenced by this thinking when they sought to
redefine Spanish politics as 'La Casta' ('the elite') versus the people, cutting across many of
the traditional boundaries between right and left.
The architects of neoliberalism understood this process of identity creation. By treating
people as selfish, rational utility maximisers, they actively encouraged them to become
selfish, rational utility maximisers. As the opening article points out, this is not a side
effect of neoliberal policy, but a central part of its intention. As Michael Sandel pointed out
in his 2012 book 'What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets' , it squeezes out
competing values that previously governed non-market spheres of life, such as ethics of public
service in the public sector, or mutual care within local communities. But these values remain
latent: neoliberalism does not have the power to erase them completely. This is where the hope
for the left lies, the crack of light through the doorway that needs to be prised open.
The Limits of Neoliberal Consciousness
In thinking about how we do this, it's instructive to look at the ways in which neoliberal
attempts to reshape our identities have succeeded – and the ways they have failed. While
Right to Buy might have been successful in identifying people as home-owners and stigmatising
social housing, this has not bled through into wider support for private ownership. Although
public ownership did become taboo among the political classes for a generation – far
outside the political 'common sense' – polls consistently showed that this was not
matched by a fall in public support for the idea. On some level – perhaps because of the
poor performance of privatised entities – people continued to identify as citizens with a
right to public services, rather than as consumers of privatised services. The continued
overwhelming attachment to a public NHS is the epitome of this tendency. This is partly what
made it possible for Corbyn's Labour to rehabilitate the concept of public ownership, as the
2017 Labour manifesto's proposals for public ownership of railways and water – dismissed
as ludicrous by the political establishment – proved overwhelmingly popular.
More generally, there is some evidence that neoliberalism didn't really succeed in making us
see ourselves as selfish rational maximisers – just in making us believe that
everybody else was . For example, a 2016 survey found that UK citizens
are on average more oriented towards compassionate values than selfish values, but that they
perceive others to be significantly more selfish (both than themselves and the actual UK
average). Strikingly, those with a high 'self-society gap' were found to be less likely to vote
and engage in civic activity, and highly likely to experience feelings of cultural
estrangement.
This finding points towards both the great conjuring trick of neoliberal subjectivity and
its Achilles heel: it has successfully popularised an idea of what human beings are like that
most of us don't actually identify with ourselves. This research suggests that our political
crisis is caused not only by people's material conditions of disempowerment, but by four
decades of being told that we can't trust our fellow citizens. But it also suggests that deep
down, we know this pessimistic account of human nature just isn't who we really are – or
who we aspire to be.
An example of how this plays out can be seen in academic studies showing that, in game
scenarios presenting the opportunity to free-ride on the efforts of others, only economics
students behaved as economic models predicted: all other groups were much more likely to pool
their resources. Having been trained to believe that others are likely to be selfish,
economists believe that their best course of action is to be selfish as well. The rest of us
still have the instinct to cooperate. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising: after all, as
George Monbiot argues in 'Out of the Wreckage' , cooperation is our species' main
survival strategy.
What's Our 'Right to Buy?'
The challenge for the left is to find policies and stories that tap into this latent sense
of what makes us human – what Gramsci called 'good sense' – and use it to overturn
the neoliberal 'common sense'. In doing so, we must be aware that we are competing not only
with a neoliberal identity but also with a new far-right that seeks to promote a white British
ethno-nationalist group identity, conflating 'elites' with outsiders. How we compete with this
is the million dollar question, and it's one we have not yet answered.
Thatcher's use of flagship policies like the Right to Buy was a masterclass in this respect.
Deceptively simple, tangible and easy to grasp, the Right to Buy also communicated a much
deeper story about the kind of nation we wanted to be – one of private, property-owning
individuals – cementing home-ownership as a cultural symbol of aspiration (the right to
paint your own front door) whilst giving millions an immediate financial stake in her new
order. So what might be the equivalent flagship policies for the left today?
Perhaps one of the strongest efforts to date has been the proposal for ' Inclusive Ownership
Funds ', first developed by Mathew Lawrence in a report for the New Economics Foundation,
and announced as
Labour policy by John McDonnell in 2018. This would require companies to transfer shares
into a fund giving their workers a collective stake that rises over time and pays out employee
dividends. Like the Right to Buy, as well as shifting the material distribution of wealth and
power, this aims to build our identity as part of a community of workers taking more collective
control over our working lives.
But this idea only takes us so far. While it may tap into people's desire for more security
and empowerment at work, more of a stake in what they do, it offers a fairly abstract benefit
that only cashes out over time, as workers acquire enough of a stake to have a meaningful say
over company strategy. It may not mean much to those at the sharpest end of our oppressive and
precarious labour market, at least not unless we also tackle the more pressing concerns they
face – such as the exploitative practices of behemoths like Amazon or the stress caused
by zero-hours contracts. We have not yet hit on an idea that can compete with the
transformative change to people's lives offered by the Right to Buy.
So what else is on the table? Perhaps, when it comes to the cutting edge of new left
thinking on these issues, the workplace isn't really where the action is – at least not
directly. Perhaps we need to be tapping into people's desire to escape the 'rat race'
altogether and have more freedom to pursue the things that really make us happy – time
with our families, access to nature, the space to look after ourselves, connection with our
communities. The four day working week (crucially with no loss of pay) has real potential as a
flagship policy in this respect. The Conservatives and the right-wing press may be laughing it
down with jokes about Labour being lazy and feckless, but perhaps this is because they are
rattled. Ultimately, they can't escape the fact that most people would like to spend less time
at work.
Skilfully communicated, this has the potential to be a profoundly anti-neoliberal policy
that conveys a new story about what we aspire to, individually and as a society. Where
neoliberalism tapped into people's desire for more personal freedom and hooked this to the
acquisition of wealth, property and consumer choice, we can refocus on the freedom to live the
lives we truly want. Instead of offering freedom through the market, we can offer
freedom from the market.
Proponents of Universal Basic Income often argue that it fulfils a similar function of
liberating people from work and detaching our ability to provide for ourselves from the
marketplace for labour. But in material terms, it's unlikely that a UBI could be set at a level
that would genuinely offer people this freedom, at least in the short term. And in narrative
terms, UBI is actually a highly malleable policy that is equally susceptible to being co-opted
by a libertarian agenda. Even at its best, it is really a policy about redistribution of
already existing wealth (albeit on a bigger scale than the welfare state as it stands). To
truly overturn neoliberalism, we need to go beyond this and talk about collective
ownership and creation of wealth.
Policies that focus on collective control of assets may do a better job of replacing
a narrative about individual property ownership with one that highlights the actual
concentration of property wealth in the hands of elites – and the need to reclaim these
assets for the common good. As well as Inclusive Ownership Funds, another way of doing this is
through Citizens' Wealth Funds, which socialise profitable assets (be it natural resources or
intangible ones such as data) and use the proceeds to pay dividends to individuals or
communities. Universal Basic Services – for instance, policies such as free publicly
owned buses – may be another.
Finally, I'd like to make a plea for care work as a critical area that merits further
attention to develop convincing flagship policies – be it on universal childcare, elderly
care or support for unpaid carers. The instinctive attachment that many of us feel to a public
NHS needs to be widened to promote a broader right to care and be cared for, whilst firmly
resisting the marketisation of care. Although care is often marginalised in political debate,
as a new mum, I'm acutely aware that it is fundamental to millions of people's ability to live
the lives they want. In an ageing population, most people now have lived experience of the
pressures of caring for someone – whether a parent or a child. By talking about these
issues, we move the terrain of political contestation away from the work valued by the market
and onto the work we all know really matters; away from the competition for scarce resources
and onto our ability to look after each other. And surely, that's exactly where the left wants
it to be.
The problem is that people are selfish–me included–and so what is needed is
not better ideas about ourselves but better laws. And for that we will need a higher level of
political engagement and a refusal to accept candidates who sell themselves as a "lesser
evil." It's the decline of democracy that brought on the rise of Reagan and Thatcher and
Neoliberalism and not some change in public consciousness (except insofar as the general
public became wealthier and more complacent). In America incumbents are almost universally
likely to be re-elected to Congress and so they have no reason to reject Neoliberal
ideas.
So here's suggesting that a functioning political process is the key to reform and not
some change in the PR.
Carolinian, like you, I try to include myself in statements about "the problem with
people." I believe one of the things preventing progress is our tendency to believe it's only
those people that are the problem.
Human nature people are selfish. It's like the Christian marriage vow – which I understand is a Medieval invention
and not something from 2,000 years ago – for better or worse, meaning, we share (and
are not to be selfish) the good and the bad.
"Not neoliberals, but all of us." "Not the right, but the left as well." "Not just Russia, but America," or "Not just America, but Russia too."
Perhaps a rational system is one that accepts selfishness but keeps it within limits.
Movements like the Chicago school that pretend to reinvent the wheel with new thinking are by
this view a scam. As J.K. Galbraith said: "the problem with their ideas is that they have
been tried."
My small brain got stuck on your reference to a 'Christian marriage vow'. I was just
sitting back and conceiving what a Neoliberal marriage vow would sound like. Probably a cross
between a no-liabilities contract and an open-marriage agreement.
"people are selfish"?; or "people can sometimes act selfishly"? I think the latter is the
more accurate statement. Appeal to the better side, and more of it will be forthcoming.
Neolib propaganda appeals to trivial, bleak individualism..
I'm not sure historic left attempts to appeal to "the better angels of our nature" have
really moved the ball much. It took the Great Depression to give us a New Deal and WW2 to
give Britain the NHS and the India its freedom. I'd say events are in the saddle far more
than ideas.
I rather look at it as a "both and" rather than an "either or." If the political
groundwork is not done beforehand and during, the opportunity events afford will more likely
be squandered.
And borrowing from evolutionary science, this also holds with the "punctuated equilibrium"
theory of social/political change. The strain of a changed environment (caused by both events
and intentionally created political activity) for a long time creates no visible change to
the system, and so appears to fail. But then some combination of events and conscious
political work suddenly "punctuates the equilibrium" with the resulting significant if not
radical changes.
Chile today can be seen as a great example of this: "Its not 30 Pesos, its 30 Years."
Carolinian, you provide a good illustration of the power of the dominant paradigm to make
people believe exactly what the article said–something I've observed more than enough
to confirm is true. People act in a wide variety of ways; but many people deny that altruism
and compassion are equally "human nature". Both parts of the belief pointed out
here–believing other people are selfish and that we're not–are explained by
projection acting in concert with the other parts of this phenomenon. Even though it's flawed
because it's only a political and not a psychological explanation, It's a good start toward
understanding.
"You and I are so deeply acculturated to the idea of "self" and organization and species
that it is hard to believe that man [sic] might view his [sic] relations with the environment
in any other way than the way which I have rather unfairly blamed upon the nineteenth-century
evolutionists."
Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, p 483-4
This is part of a longer quote that's been important to me my whole life. Worth looking up.
Bateson called this a mistake in epistemology–also, informally, his definition of
evil. http://anomalogue.com/blog/category/systems-thinking/
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of
time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that
glorifies it."
― Frédéric Bastiat
Doesn't mean it's genetic. In fact, I'm pretty sure it means it's not.
The Iron Lady once proclaimed, slightly sinisterly: "Economics is the method. The object
is to change the soul." She meant that British people had to rediscover the virtue of
traditional values such as hard work and thrift. The "something for nothing" society was
over.
But the idea that the Thatcher era re-established the link between virtuous effort and
just reward has been effectively destroyed by the spectacle of bankers driving their
institutions into bankruptcy while being rewarded with million-pound bonuses and munificent
pensions.
The dual-truth approach of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (thanks, Mirowski) has been
more adept at manipulating narratives so the masses are still outraged by individuals getting
undeserved social benefits rather than elites vacuuming up common resources. Thanks to the
Thatcher-Reagan revolution, we have ended up with socialism for the rich, and everyone else
at the mercy of 'markets'.
Pretending that there are not problems with free riders is naive and it goes against
people's concern with justice. Acknowledging free riders on all levels with institutions that
can constantly pursue equity is the solution.
At some points in life, everyone is a free rider. As for the hard workers, many of them
are doing destructive things which the less hard-working people will have to suffer under and
compensate for. (Neo)liberalism and capitalism are a coherent system of illusions of virtue
which rest on domination, exploitation, extraction, and propaganda. Stoking of resentment (as
of free riders, the poor, the losers, foreigners, and so on) is one of the ways those who
enjoy it keep it going.
The Iron Lady once proclaimed, slightly sinisterly: "Economics is the method. The object
is to change the soul." She meant that British people had to rediscover the virtue of
traditional values such as hard work and thrift. The "something for nothing" society was
over.
But the idea that the Thatcher era re-established the link between virtuous effort and
just reward has been effectively destroyed by the spectacle of bankers driving their
institutions into bankruptcy while being rewarded with million-pound bonuses and munificent
pensions.
The dual-truth approach of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (thanks, Mirowski) has been
more adept at manipulating narratives so the masses are still outraged by individuals getting
undeserved social benefits rather than elites vacuuming up common resources. Thanks to the
Thatcher-Reagan revolution, we have ended up with socialism for the rich, and everyone else
at the mercy of 'markets'.
Pretending that there are not problems with free riders is naive and it goes against
people's concern with justice. Acknowledging free riders on all levels with institutions that
can constantly pursue equity is the solution.
The Iron Lady had a agenda to break the labor movement in the UK.
What she did not understand is Management gets the Union (Behavior) it deserves. If there
is strife in the workplace, as there was in abundance in the UK at that time, the problem is
the Management, (and the UK class structure) not the workers.
As I found out when I left University.
Thatcher set out to break the solidarity of the Labor movement, and used the neo-liberal
tool of selfishness to achieve success, unfortunately,
The UK's poor management practices, (The Working Class can kiss my arse) and complete
inability to form teams of "Management and Workers" was, IMHO, is the foundation of today's
Brexit nightmare, a foundation based on the British Class Structure.
And exploited, as it ever was, to achieve ends which do not benefit workers in any
manner.
The left needs to acknowledge that aspects of the neoliberal agenda have been
overwhelmingly popular: it has successfully tapped into people's instincts about the kind
of life they want to lead, and wrapped these instincts up in a compelling narrative about
how we should see ourselves and other people.
Sigh, no this is not true. This author is making the mistake that everyone is like the top
5% and that just is not so. Perhaps she should get out of her personal echo chamber and talk
to common people.
In my travels I have been to every state and every major city, and I have worked with just
about every class of people, except of course the ultra wealthy and ultra powerful –
they have people to protect them from the great unwashed like me – and it didn't take
me long to notice that the elite are different from the rest of us but I could never explain
exactly why. After I retired, I started studying and I've examined everything from Adam
Smith, to Hobbes, to Kant, to Durkheim, to Marx, to Ayn Rand, to tons of histories and
anthropologies of various peoples, to you name it and I've come to the conclusion that most
of us are not neoliberal and do not want what the top 5% want.
Most people are not overly competitive and most do not seek self-interest only. That is
what allows us to live in cities, to drive on our roadways, to form groups that seek to
improve conditions for the least of us. It is what allows soldiers to protect each other on
the battlefield when it would be in their self interest to protect themselves. It is what
allowed people in Europe to risk their own lives to save Jews. And it is also what allows
people to live under the worst dictators without rebelling. Of course we all want more but we
have limits on what we will do to get that more – the wealthy and powerful seem to have
no limits. For instance, most of us won't screw over our co-workers to make ourselves look
better, although some will. Most of us won't turn on our best friends even when it would be
to our advantage to do so, although some will. Most of us won't abandon those we care about,
even when it means severe financial damage to us, although some will.
For lack of a better description, I call what the 5% have the greed gene – a gene
that allows them to give up empathy and compassion and basic morality – what some of us
call fairness – in the search for personal gain. I don't think it is necessarily
genetic but there is something in their makeup that cause them to have more than the average
self interest. And because most humans are more cooperative than they are competitive, most
humans just allow these people to go after what they want and don't stand in their way, even
though by stopping them, they could make their own lives better.
Most history and economics are theories and stories told by the rich and powerful to
justify their behavior. I think it is a big mistake to attribute that behavior to the mass of
humanity. Archeology is beginning to look more at how average people lived instead of seeking
out only the riches deposited by the elite, and historians are starting to look at the other
side of history – average people – to see what life was really like for them, and
I think we are seeing that what the rulers wanted was never what their people wanted. It is
beginning to appear obvious that 95% of the people just wanted to live in their communities
safely, to have about what everyone else around them had, and to enjoy the simple pleasures
of shelter, enough food, and warm companionship.
I'm also wondering why the 5% think that all of us want exactly what they want. Do they
really think that they are somehow being smarter or more competent got them there while 95%
of the population – the rest of us – failed?
At this point, I know my theory is half-baked – I definitely need to do more
research, but nothing I have found yet convinces me that there isn't some real basic
difference between those who aspire to power and wealth and the rest of us.
" ..and I've come to the conclusion that most of us are not neoliberal and do not want
what the top 5% want. Most people are not overly competitive and most do not seek
self-interest only. That is what allows us to live in cities, to drive on our roadways, to
form groups that seek to improve conditions for the least of us. It is what allows soldiers
to protect each other on the battlefield when it would be in their self interest to protect
themselves. "
I really liked your comment Historian. Thanks for posting. That's what I've felt in my gut
for a while, that the top 5% and the establishment are operating under a different mindset,
that the majority of people don't want a competitive, dog eat dog, self interest world.
I agree with Foy Johnson. I've been reading up on Ancient Greece and realizing all the
time that 'teh Greeks' are maybe only about thirty percent of the people in Greece. Most of
that history is how Greeks were taking advantage of each other with little mention of the
majority of the population. Pelasgians? Yeah, they came from serpents teeth, the end.
I think this is a problem from the Bronze Age that we have not properly addressed.
Mystery Cycles are a nice reminder that people were having fun on their own.
I have more or less the same view. I think the author's statement about neoliberalism
tapping into what type of life people want to lead is untenable. Besides instinct (are we all
4-year olds?), what people want is also very much socially constructed. And what people do is
also very much socially coerced.
One anecdote: years ago, during a volunteer drive at work, I worked side by side with the
company's CEO (company was ~1200 headcount, ~.5bn revenue) sorting canned goods. The guy was
doing it like he was in a competition. So much so that he often blocked me when I had to
place something on the shelves, and took a lot of space in the lineup around himself while
swinging his large-ish body and arms, and wouldn't stop talking. To me, this was very rude
and inconsiderate, and showed a repulsive level of disregard to others. This kind of behavior
at such an event, besides being unpleasant to be around, was likely also making work for the
others in the lineup less efficient. Had I or anyone else behaved like him, we would have had
a good amount of awkwardness or even a conflict.
What I don't get is, how does he and others get away with it? My guess is, people don't
want a conflict. I didn't want a conflict and said nothing to that CEO. Not because I am not
competitive, but because I didn't want an ugly social situation (we said 'excuse me' and
'sorry' enough, I just didn't think it would go over well to ask him to stop being obnoxious
and dominant for no reason). He obviously didn't care or was unaware – or actually, I
think he was behaving that way as a tactical habit. And I didn't feel I had the authority to
impose a different order.
So, in the end, it's about power – power relations and knowing what to do about
it.
Yep, I think you've nailed it there deplorado, types like your CEO don't care at all
and/or are socially unaware, and is a tactical habit that they have found has worked for them
in the past and is now ingrained. It is a power relation and our current world unfortunately
is now designed and made to suit people like that. And each day the world incrementally moves
a little bit more in their direction with inertia like a glacier. Its going to take something
big to turn it around
I too believe "most of us are not neoliberal". But if so, how did we end up with the kind
of Corporate Cartels, Government Agencies and Organizations that currently prey upon
Humankind? This post greatly oversimplifies the mechanisms and dynamics of Neoliberalism, and
other varieties of exploitation of the many by the few. This post risks a mocking tie to
Identity Politics. What traits of Humankind give truth to Goebbels' claims?
There definitely is "some real basic difference between those who aspire to power and
wealth and the rest of us" -- but the question you should ask next is why the rest of us
Hobbits blindly follow and help the Saurons among us. Why do so many of us do exactly what
we're told? How is it that constant repetition of the Neoliberal identity concepts over our
media can so effectively ensnare the thinking of so many?
Maybe it's something similar to Milgram's Experiment (the movie the Experimenter about
Milgram was on last night – worth watching and good acting by Peter Sarsgaard, my kind
of indie film), the outcome is just not what would normally be expected, people bow to
authority, against their own beliefs and interests, and others interests, even though they
have choice. The Hobbits followed blindly in that experiment, the exact opposite outcome as
to what was predicted by the all the psychology experts beforehand.
people bow to authority , against their own beliefs and interests, and others
interests, even though they have choice
'Don't Make Waves' is a fundamentally useful value that lets us all swim along. This can
be manipulated. If everyone is worried about Reds Under the Beds or recycling, you go along
to get along.
Some people somersault to Authority is how I'd put it.
Yep, don't mind how you put that Mo, good word somersault.
One of the amusing tests Milgram did was to have people go into the lift but all face the
back of the lift instead of the doors and see what happens when the next person got in. Sure
enough, with the next person would get in, face the front, look around with some confusion at
everyone else and then slowly turn and face the back. Don't Make Waves its instinctive to let
us all swim along as you said.
And 'some people' is correct. It was actually the majority, 65%, who followed directions
against their own will and preferred choice in his original experiment.
That's a pretty damn good comment that, Historian. Lots to unpick. It reminded me too of
something that John Wyndham once said. He wrote how about 95% of us wanted to live in peace
and comfort but that the other 5% were always considering their chances if they started
something. He went on to say that it was the introduction of nuclear weapons that made
nobody's chances of looking good which explains why the lack of a new major war since
WW2.
Good comment. My view is that it all boils down to the sociopathic personality disorder.
Sociopathy runs on a continuum, and we all exhibit some of its tendencies. At the highest end
you get serial killers and titans of industry, like the guy sorting cans in another comment.
I believe all religions and theories of ethical behavior began as attempts to reign in the
sociopaths by those of us much lower on the continuum. Neoliberalism starts by saying the
sociopaths are the norm, turning the usual moral and ethical universe upside down.
Your theory is not half-baked; it's spot-on. If you're not the whatever it takes, end
justifies the means type, you are not likely to rise to the top in the corporate world. The
cream rises to the top happens only in the dairy.
Your 5% would correspond to Altemeyer's "social dominators". Unfortunately only
75% want a simple, peaceful life. 20% are looking for a social dominator to follow. It's
psychological.
Excellent comment. Take into consideration the probability that the majority of the top 5%
have come from a privileged background, ensconced in a culture of entitlement. This "greed"
gene is as natural to them as breathing. Consider also that many wealthy families have
maintained their status through centuries of calculated loveless marriages, empathy and other
human traits gene-pooled out of existence. The cruel paradox is that for the sake of riches,
they have lost their richness in character.
This really chimes with me. Thanks so much for putting it down in words.
I often encounter people insisting humans are selfish. It is quite frustrating that this
more predominant side of our human nature seems to become invisible against the
propaganda.
I'm barely into Jeremy Lent's The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity's
Search for Meaning , but he's already laid down his central thesis in fairly complete
form. Humans are both competitive and cooperative, he says, which should surprise no one.
What I found interesting is that the competitive side comes from primates who are more
intensely competitive than humans. The cooperation developed after the human/primate split
and was enabled by "mimetic culture," communication skills that importantly presuppose that
the object(s) of communication are intentional creatures like oneself but with a somewhat
different perspective. Example: Human #1 gestures to Human #2 to come take a closer look at
whatever Human #1 is examining. This ability to cooperate even came with strategies to
prevent a would-be dominant male from taking over a hunter-gatherer band:
[I]n virtually all hunter-gatherer societies, people join together to prevent powerful
males from taking too much control, using collective behaviors such as ridicule, group
disobedience, and, ultimately, extreme sanctions such as assassination [This kind of
society is called] a "reverse dominant hierarchy because rather than being dominated, the
rank and file manages to dominate.
yes, this chimes in with what I`ve been thinking for years after puzzling about why
society everywhere ends up as it does – ie the fact that in small groups as we evolved
to live in, we would keep a check on extreme selfish behaviour of dominant individuals. In
complex societies (modern) most of us become "the masses" visible in some way to the system
but the top echelons are not visible to us and are able to amass power and wealth out of all
control by the rest of us. And yes, you do have to have a very strange drive (relatively
rare, ?pathological) to want power and wealth at everyone else`s expense – to live in a
cruel world many of whose problems could be solved (or not arise in the first place) by
redistributing some of your wealth to little palpable cost to you
Africa over a few million years of Ice Ages seems to have presented our ancestors with the
possibility of reproducing only if you can get along in close proximity to other Hominids
without killing each other. I find that a compelling explanation for our stupidly big brains;
it's one thing to be a smart monkey, it's a whole different solution needed to model what is
going on in the brain of another smart monkey.
And communications: How could spoken language have developed without levels of trust and
interdependence that maybe we can not appreciate today? We have a word for 'Blue' nowadays,
we take it for granted.
There is a theory that language originated between mothers and their immediate progeny,
between whom either trust and benevolence exist, or the weaker dies. The mother's chances for
survival and reproduction are enhanced if she can get her progeny to, so to speak, help out
around the house; how to do that is extended by symbolism and syntax as well as example.
I recall the first day of Econ 102 when the Prof. (damned few adjuncts in those days)
said, "Everything we discuss hereafter will be built on the concept of scarcity." Being a
contrary buggah' I thought, "The air I'm breathing isn't scarce." I soon got with the program
supply and demand upward sloping, downward sloping, horizontal, vertical and who could forget
kinked. My personal favorite was the Giffen Good a high priced inferior product. Kind of like
Micro Economics.
Maybe we could begin our new Neo-Economics 102 with the proviso, "Everything we discuss
hereafter will be based on abundance." I'm gonna' like this class!
Neo-lib Econ does a great job at framing issues so that people don't notice what is
excluded. Think of them as proto-Dark Patternists.
If you are bored and slightly mischievous, ask an economist how theory addresses
cooperation, then assume a can opener and crack open a twist-top beer.
Isn't one of the problems that it's NOT really built on the concept of scarcity? Most
natural resources run into scarcity eventually. I don't know about the air one breaths,
certainly fish species are finding reduced oxygen in the oceans due to climate change.
If you would like that class on abundance you would love the Church of Abundant Life which
pushes Jesus as the way to Abundant Life and they mean that literally. Abundant as in Jesus
wants you to have lots of stuff -- so believe.
I believe Neoliberalism is a much more complex animal than an economic theory. Mirowski
builds a plausible argument that Neoliberalism is a theory of epistemology. The Market
discovers Truth.
Had a lovely Physics class where the first homework problem boiled down to "How often do
you inhale a atom (O or N) from Julius Caesar's last breath". Great little introduction to
the power and pratfalls of 'estimations by Physicists' that xkcd likes to poke at. Back then
we used the CRC Handbook to figure it out.
Anyway, every second breath you can be sure you have shared an atom with Caesar.
I don't think Maggie T. or uncle Milty were thinking about the future at all. Neither one
would have openly promoted turfing quadriplegic 70-year-olds out of the rest home. That's how
short sighted they both were. And stupid. We really need to call a spade a spade here. Milty
doesn't even qualify as an economist – unless economics is the study of the destruction
of society. But neoliberalism had been in the wings already, by the 80s, for 40 years. Nobody
took into account that utility-maximizing capitalism always kills the goose (except Lenin
maybe) – because it's too expensive to feed her. The neoliberals were just plain dumb.
The question really is why should we stand for another day of neoliberal nonsense? Albeit
Macht Frei Light? No thanks. I think they've got the question backwards – it shouldn't
be how should "we" reconstruct our image now – but what is the obligation of all the
failed neoliberal extractors to right society now? I'd just as soon stand back and watch the
dam burst as help the neolibs out with a little here and a little there. They'll just keep
taking as long as we give. This isn't as annoying as Macron's "cake" comment, but it's close.
I did like the last 2 paragraphs however.
Here's a sidebar. A universal one. There is an anomaly in the universe – there is
not enough accumulated entropy. It screws up theoretical physics because the missing entropy
needs to be accounted for for their theories to work to their satisfaction. It seems to be a
phenomenon of evolution. Thus it was recently discovered by a physics grad student that
entropy by heat dissipation is the "creator" of life. Life almost spontaneously erupts where
it can take advantage of an energy source. And, we are assuming, life thereby slows entropy
down. There has to be another similar process among the stars and the planets as well, an
evolutionary conservation of energy. So evolution takes on more serious meaning. From the
quantum to the infinite. And society – it's right in the middle. So it isn't too
unreasonable to think that society is extremely adaptable, taking advantage of any energy
input, and it seems true to think that. Which means that society can go long for its goal
before it breaks down. But in the end it will be enervated by lack of "resources" unless it
can self perpetuate in an evolving manner. That's one good reason to say goodbye to looney
ideologies.
For a view of humanity that is not as selfish, recommend "The Gift" by Marcel Mauss.
Basically an anthropological study of reciprocal gift giving in the oceanic potlatch
societies. My take is that the idea was to re-visit relationships, as giving a gift basically
forces a response in the receiver, "Am I going to respond in kind, perhaps even upping what
is required? Or am I going to find that this relationship simply isn't worth it and walk
away?"
Kind of like being in a marriage. The idea isn't to walk away, the idea is you constantly
need to re-enforce it. Except with the potlatch it was like extending that concept to the
clan at large, so that all the relationships within the clan were being re-enforced.
"Kind of like being in a marriage. The idea isn't to walk away, the idea is you constantly
need to re-enforce it. "
amen.
we, the people, abdicated.
as for humans being selfish by default i used to believe this, due to my own experiences
as an outlaw and pariah.
until wife's cancer and the overwhelming response of this little town,in the "reddest"
congressional district in texas.
locally, the most selfish people i know are the one's who own everything buying up their
neighbor's businesses when things get tough.
they are also the most smug and pretentious(local dems, in their hillforts come a close
second in this regard) and most likely to be gop true believers.
small town and all everybody literally knows everybody, and their extended family and those
connections are intertwined beyond belief.
wife's related, in some way, to maybe half the town.
that matters and explains my experience as an outcast: i never belonged to anything like that
and such fellowfeeling and support is hard for people to extend to a stranger.
That's what's gonna be the hard sell, here, in undoing the hyperindividualist, "there is no
such thing as society" nonsense.
I grew up until Junior High in a fishing village on the Maine coast that had been around
for well over a hundred years and had a population of under 1000. By the time I was 8 I
realized there was no point in being extreme with anyone, because they were likely to be
around for the rest of your life.
I fell in love with sun and warmth when we moved away and unfortunately it's all
gentrified now, by the 90s even a tar paper shack could be sold for a few acres up in
Lamoine.
Yep, small towns are about as close as we get to clans nowadays. And just like clans, you
don't want to be on the outside. Still when you marry in, it would be nice if the town would
make you feel more a member like a clan should / would. ;-)
But outside of the small town and extended families I think that's it. We've been atomized
into our nuclear families. Except for the ruling class – I think they have this quid
pro quo gift giving relationship building figured out quite nicely. Basically they've formed
their own small town – at the top.
By the way, I understand Mauss was an influence on Baudrillard. I could almost imagine
Baudrillard thinking how the reality of the potlatch societies was so different than the
reality of western societies.
That's the big problem I see in this discussion. We know, or at least think we know,
what's wrong, and what would be better; but we can't get other people to want to do something
about it, even those who nominally agree with us. And I sure don't have the answer.
Neoliberalism, in its early guise at least, was popular because politicians like Thatcher
effectively promised something for nothing. Low taxes but still decent public services. The
right to buy your council house without putting your parents' council house house in
jeopardy. Enjoying private medical care as a perk of your job whilst still finding the NHS
there when you were old and sick. And so on. By the time the penny dropped it was too
late.
If the Left is serious about challenging neoliberalism, it has to return to championing the
virtues of community, which it abandoned decades ago in favour of extreme liberal
individualism Unfortunately, community is an idea which has either been appropriated by
various identity warriors (thus fracturing society further) or dismissed (as this author
does) because it's been taken up by the Right. A Left which explained that when everybody
cooperates everybody benefits, but that when everybody fights everybody loses, would sweep
the board.
If the Left is serious about challenging neoliberalism, it has to return to championing
the virtues of community
I agree. The tenuous suggestions offered by the article are top down. But top-down
universal solutions can remove the impetus for local organization. Which enervates the power
of communities. And then you can't do anything about austerity, because your Rep loves the
PowerPoints and has so much money from the Real Estate community.
Before one experiences the virtue, or power, of a community, one has to go through the
pain in the ass of contributing to a community. It has to be rewarding process or it won't
happen.
"An example of how this plays out can be seen in academic studies showing that, in game
scenarios presenting the opportunity to free-ride on the efforts of others, only economics
students behaved as economic models predicted: all other groups were much more likely to pool
their resources. Having been trained to believe that others are likely to be selfish,
economists believe that their best course of action is to be selfish as well. The rest of us
still have the instinct to cooperate. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising: after all, as
George Monbiot argues in 'Out of the Wreckage', cooperation is our species' main survival
strategy."
Since so many people believe their job is their identity, would be interssting to know
what the job training or jobs were of the "others."
>so many people believe their job is their identity
Only because the social sphere, which in the medium and long term we *all depend
on* to survive, has been debased by 24/7/365 neolib talking points, and their purposeful
economic constrictions..
How many people have spent their lives working for the "greater good"? How many work
building some transcendental edifice from which the only satisfaction they could take away
was knowing they performed a part of its construction? The idea that Humankind is selfish and
greedy is a projection promoted by the small part of Humankind that really is selfish and
greedy.
Where does wealth creation actually occur in the capitalist system?
Nations can do well with the trade, as we have seen with China and Germany, but this comes
at other nation's expense.
In a successful global economy, trade should be balanced over the long term.
Keynes was aware of this in the past, and realised surplus nations were just as much of a
problem as deficit nations in a successful global economy with a long term future.
Zimababwe has lots of money and it's not doing them any favours. Too much money causes
hyper-inflation.
You can just print money, the real wealth in the economy lies somewhere else.
Alan Greenspan tells Paul Ryan the Government can create all the money it wants and there is
no need to save for pensions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU
What matters is whether the goods and services are there for them to buy with that money.
That's where the real wealth in the economy lies.
Money has no intrinsic value; its value comes from what it can buy.
Zimbabwe has too much money in the economy relative to the goods and services available in
that economy. You need wheelbarrows full of money to buy anything.
It's that GDP thing that measures real wealth creation.
GDP does not include the transfer of existing assets like stocks and real estate.
Inflated asset prices are just inflated asset prices and this can disappear all too easily as
we keep seeing in real estate.
1990s – UK, US (S&L), Canada (Toronto), Scandinavia, Japan
2000s – Iceland, Dubai, US (2008)
2010s – Ireland, Spain, Greece
Get ready to put Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Hong Kong on the list.
They invented the GDP measure in the 1930s, to track real wealth creation in the economy
after they had seen all that apparent wealth in the US stock market disappear in 1929.
There was nothing really there.
How can banks create wealth with bank credit?
The UK used to know before 1980.
https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/uploads/monthly_2018_02/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13_53_09.png.e32e8fee4ffd68b566ed5235dc1266c2.png
Before 1980 – banks lending into the right places that result in GDP growth (business
and industry, creating new products and services in the economy)
After 1980 – banks lending into the wrong places that don't result in GDP growth (real
estate and financial speculation)
What happened in 1979?
The UK eliminated corset controls on banking in 1979 and the banks invaded the mortgage
market and this is where the problem starts.
Real estate does make the economy boom, but there is no real wealth creation in inflating
asset prices.
What is really happening?
When you use bank credit to inflate asset prices, the debt rises much faster than GDP.
https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/uploads/monthly_2018_02/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13_53_09.png.e32e8fee4ffd68b566ed5235dc1266c2.png
The bank credit of mortgages is bringing future spending power into today.
Bank loans create money and the repayment of debt to banks destroys money.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
In the real estate boom, new money pours into the economy from mortgage lending, fuelling a
boom in the real economy, which feeds back into the real estate boom.
The Japanese real estate boom of the 1980s was so excessive the people even commented on the
"excess money", and everyone enjoyed spending that excess money in the economy.
In the real estate bust, debt repayments to banks destroy money and push the economy towards
debt deflation (a shrinking money supply).
Japan has been like this for thirty years as they pay back the debts from their 1980s
excesses, it's called a balance sheet recession. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk
Bank loans effectively take future spending and bring it in today.
Jam today, penury tomorrow.
Using future spending power to inflate asset prices today is a mistake that comes from
thinking inflating asset prices creates real wealth.
GDP measures real wealth creation.
Did you know capitalism works best with low housing costs and a low cost of living?
Probably not, you are in the parallel universe of neoliberalism.
William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years
ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics.
He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years.
Some very important things got lost 100 years ago.
The Mont Pelerin society developed the parallel universe of neoliberalism from
neoclassical economics.
The CBI (Confederation of British Industry) saw the light once they discovered my equation
(Michael Hudson condensed)
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
"Wait a minute, employees get their money from wages and businesses have to cover high
housing costs in wages reducing profit" the CBI
It's all about the economy, and UK businesses will benefit from low housing costs. High housing costs push up wages and reduce profits. Off-shore to make more profit, you can pay lower wages where the cost of living is lower,
e.g. China; the US and UK are rubbish.
What was Keynes really doing?
Creating a low cost, internationally competitive economy. Keynes's ideas were a solution to the problems of the Great Depression, but we forgot why
he did, what he did.
They tried running an economy on debt in the 1920s. The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into
the debt deflation of the Great Depression. No one realised the problems that were building
up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private debt, neoclassical
economics.
Keynes looked at the problems of the debt based economy and came up with redistribution
through taxation to keep the system running in a sustainable way and he dealt with the
inherent inequality capitalism produced.
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food + other
costs of living
Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living)
High progressive taxation funded a low cost economy with subsidised housing, healthcare,
education and other services to give more disposable income on lower wages.
Employers and employees both win with a low cost of living.
Keynesian ideas went wrong in the 1970s and everyone had forgotten the problems of
neoclassical economics that he originally solved.
Classical economics – observations and deductions from the world of small state,
unregulated capitalism around them
Neoclassical economics – Where did that come from?
Keynesian economics – observations, deductions and fixes for the problems of
neoclassical economics
Neoclassical economics – Why is that back?
We thought small state, unregulated capitalism was something that it wasn't as our ideas
came from neoclassical economics, which has little connection with classical economics.
On bringing it back again, we had lost everything that had been learned in the 1930s, by
which time it had already demonstrated its flaws.
Ultimately, neoliberalism is about privatization and ownership of everything. This is why
it's so important to preserve the Common Good, the vital resources and services that support
earthly existence. The past 40 years has shown what happens when this falls out of balance.
Our value system turns upside down – the sick become more valuable than the healthy, a
violent society provides for the prisons-for-profit system and so on. The biggest upset has
been the privatization of money creation.
This latest secret bank bailout (not really secret as Dodd-Frank has allowed banks to
siphon newly created money from the Fed without Congressional approval. No more public
embarrassment that Hank Paulson had to endure.) They are now up to $690 billion PER WEEK
while the media snoozes. PPPs enjoy the benefits of public money to seed projects for private
gain. The rest of us have to rely on predatory lenders, sinking us to the point of Peak Debt,
where private debt can never be paid off and must be cancelled, as it should be because it
never should've happened in the first place.
"Neoliberalism, which has influenced so much of the conventional thinking about money,
is adamant that the public sector must not create ('print') money, and so public
expenditure must be limited to what the market can 'afford.' Money, in this view, is a
limited resource that the market ensures will be used efficiently. Is public money, then, a
pipe dream? No, for the financial crisis and the response to it undermined this neoliberal
dogma.
The financial sector mismanaged its role as a source of money so badly that the
state had to step in and provide unlimited monetary backing to rescue it. The creation of
money out of thin air by public authorities revealed the inherently political nature of
money. But why, then, was the power to create money ceded to the private sector in the
first place -- and with so little public accountability?And
if money can be created to serve the banks, why not to benefit people and the
environment? "
The Commons should have a shot at revival as the upcoming generation's desires are
outstripped by their incomes and savings. The conflict between desires and reality may give a
boost to alternate notions of what's desirable. Add to this the submersion of cities under
the waves of our expanding oceans, and one gets yet another concrete reason to think that
individual ownership isn't up to the job of inspiring young people.
A Commons of some sort
will be needed to undo the cost of generations of unpaid negative externalities. Fossil
fuels, constant warfare, income inequality, stupendous idiocy of kleptocratic government
these baked in qualities of neo-liberalism are creating a very large, dissatisfied, and
educated population just about anywhere one looks. Suburbia will be on fire, as well as
underwater. Farmlands will be parched, drenched, and exhausted. Where will Larry Summers dump
the garbage?
Political theorist Wendy Brown's latest book, In the Ruins of
Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West , traces the intellectual
roots of neoliberalism and reveals how an anti-democratic project unleashed monsters –
from plutocrats to neo-fascists – that its mid-20 th century visionaries
failed to anticipate. She joins the Institute for New Economic Thinking to discuss how the
flawed blueprint for markets and the less-discussed focus on morality gave rise to threats to
democracy and society that are distinct from what has come before.
Lynn Parramore: To many people, neoliberalism is about economic agendas. But your book
explores what you describe as the moral aspect of the neoliberal project. Why is this
significant?
Wendy Brown: Most critical engagement with neoliberalism focuses on economic policy
– deregulation, privatization, regressive taxation, union busting and the extreme
inequality and instability these generate. However, there is another aspect to neoliberalism,
apparent both in its intellectual foundations and its actual roll-out, that mirrors these moves
in the sphere of traditional morality. All the early schools of neoliberalism (Chicago,
Austrian, Freiburg, Virginia) affirmed markets and the importance of states supporting without
intervening in them.
But they also all affirmed the importance of traditional morality (centered in the
patriarchal family and private property) and the importance of states supporting without
intervening in it. They all supported expanding its reach from the private into the civic
sphere and rolling back social justice previsions that conflict with it. Neoliberalism thus
aims to de-regulate the social sphere in a way that parallels the de-regulation of markets.
Concretely this means challenging, in the name of freedom, not only regulatory and
redistributive economic policy but policies aimed at gender, sexual and racial equality. It
means legitimating assertions of personal freedom against equality mandates (and when
corporations are identified as persons, they too are empowered to assert such freedom). Because
neoliberalism has everywhere carried this moral project in addition to its economic one, and
because it has everywhere opposed freedom to state imposed social justice or social protection
of the vulnerable, the meaning of liberalism has been fundamentally altered in the past four
decades.
That's how it is possible to be simultaneously libertarian, ethnonationalist and patriarchal
today: The right's contemporary attack on "social justice warriors" is straight out of
Hayek.
LP: You discuss economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek at length in your book.
How would you distribute responsibility to him compared to other champions of conservative
formulations for how neoliberalism has played out? What were his blind spots, which seem
evidenced today in the rise of right-wing forces and angry populations around the world?
WB: Margaret Thatcher thumped Hayek's The Constitution of
Liberty and declared it the bible of her project. She studied it, believed it, and
sought to realize it. Reagan imbibed a lot of Thatcherism. Both aimed to implement the Hayekian
view of markets, morals and undemocratic statism. Both accepted his demonization of society
(Thatcher famously quotes him, "there's no such thing") and his view that state policies aimed
at the good for society are already on the road to totalitarianism. Both affirmed traditional
morality in combination with deregulated markets and attacks on organized labor.
I am not arguing that Hayek is the dominant influence for all times and places of
neoliberalization over the past four decades -- obviously the Chicago Boys [Chilean economists of the '70s
and '80s trained at the University of Chicago] were key in Latin America while Ordoliberalism [a German
approach to liberalism] has been a major influence in the European Union's management of the
post-2008 crises. "Progressive neoliberals" and neoliberalized institutions hauled the project
in their own direction. But Hayek's influence is critical to governing rationality of
neoliberalism in the North and he also happens to be a rich and complex thinker with a fairly
comprehensive worldview, one comprising law, family, morality, state, economy, liberty,
equality, democracy and more.
The limitations? Hayek really believed that markets and traditional morality were both
spontaneous orders of action and cooperation, while political life would always overreach and
thus required tight constraints to prevent its interventions in morality or markets. It also
needed to be insulated from instrumentalism by concentrated economic interests, from aspiring
plutocrats to the masses. The solution, for him, was de-democratizing the state itself. He was,
more generally, opposed to robust democracy and indeed to a democratic state. A thriving order
in his understanding would feature substantial hierarchy and inequality, and it could tolerate
authoritarian uses of political power if they respected liberalism, free markets and
individual freedom.
We face an ugly, bowdlerized version of this today on the right. It is not exactly what
Hayek had in mind, and he would have loathed the plutocrats, demagogues and neo-fascist masses,
but his fingerprints are on it.
LP: You argue that there is now arising something distinct from past forms of fascism,
authoritarianism, plutocracy, and conservatism. We see things like images of Italian right groups giving Fascist
salutes that have been widely published. Is that merely atavism? What is different?
WB: Of course, the hard right traffics in prior fascist and ultra-racist iconography,
including Nazism and the Klan. However, the distinctiveness of the present is better read from
the quotidian right than the alt-right.
We need to understand why reaction to the neoliberal economic sinking of the middle and
working class has taken such a profoundly anti-democratic form. Why so much rage against
democracy and in favor of authoritarian statism while continuing to demand individual freedom?
What is the unique blend of ethno-nationalism and libertarianism afoot today? Why the
resentment of social welfare policy but not the plutocrats? Why the uproar over [American
football player and political activist] Colin Kaepernick but not the Panama Papers [a massive
document leak pointing to fraud and tax evasion among the wealthy]? Why don't bankrupt workers
want national healthcare or controls on the pharmaceutical industry? Why are those sickened
from industrial effluent in their water and soil supporting a regime that wants to roll back
environmental and health regulations?
Answers to these questions are mostly found within the frame of neoliberal reason, though
they also pertain to racialized rancor (fanned by opportunistic demagogues and our mess of an
unaccountable media), the dethronement of white masculinity from absolute rather than relative
entitlement, and an intensification of nihilism itself amplified by neoliberal
economization.
These contributing factors do not run along separate tracks. Rather, neoliberalism's aim to
displace democracy with markets, morals and liberal authoritarian statism legitimates a white
masculinist backlash against equality and inclusion mandates. Privatization of the nation
legitimates "nativist" exclusions. Individual freedom in a world of winners and losers assaults
the place of equality, access and inclusion in understandings of justice.
LP: Despite your view of democratized capitalism as an "oxymoron," you also observe that
capitalism can be modulated in order to promote equality among citizens. How is this feasible
given the influence of money in politics? What can we do to mitigate the corruption of
wealth?
WB: Citizens United certainly set
back the project of achieving the political equality required by and for democracy. I
wrote about this in a previous book, Undoing the Demos , and Timothy
Kuhner offers a superb account of the significance of wealth in politics in Capitalism V. Democracy: Money in Politics
and the Free Market Constitution. Both of us argue that the Citizens
United decision, and the several important campaign finance and campaign speech decisions
that preceded it, are themselves the result of a neoliberalized jurisprudence. That is,
corporate dominance of elections becomes possible when political life as a whole is cast as a
marketplace rather than a distinctive sphere in which humans attempt to set the values and
possibilities of common life. Identifying elections as political marketplaces is at the heart
of Citizens United.
So does a future for democracy in the United States depend on overturning that decision?
Hardly. Democracy is a practice, an ideal, an imaginary, a struggle, not an achieved state.
It is always incomplete, or better, always aspirational. There is plenty of that aspiration
afoot these days -- in social movements and in statehouses big and small. This doesn't make the
future of democracy rosy. It is challenged from a dozen directions – divestment
from public higher education, the trashing of truth and facticity, the unaccountability of
media platforms, both corporate and social, external influence and trolling, active voter
suppression and gerrymandering, and the neoliberal assault on the very value of democracy we've
been discussing. So the winds are hardly at democracy's back.
I think Milton Friedman was vastly more important than Hayek is shaping the worldview of
American conservatives on economic policy. Until Hayek won the Nobel he was virtually
forgotten in the US. Don't know about the UK, but his leaving the London School of Economics
undoubtedly reduced his influence there. Hayek was very isolated at the University of Chicago
even from the libertarians at the Department of Economics, largely due to methodological
issues. The Chicago economists thought was really more of as philosopher, not a real
economist like them.
Friedman was working for Hayek, in the sense that Hayek instigated the program that
Friedman fronted.
I was amused by a BBC radio piece a couple of years ago in which some City economist was
trying to convince us that Hayek was a forgotten genius who we ought to dig up and worship,
as if he doesn't already rule the World from his seat at God's right hand.
Citizens United: The conservative originalists keep whining about activist judges making
up rights, like the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade. Yet they were able to come up with
Citizens United that gave a whole new class of rights to corporations to effectively give
them the rights of individuals (the People that show up regularly in the Constitution,
including the opening phrase). If you search the Constitution, "company", "corporation" etc.
don't even show up as included in the Constitution. "Commerce" shows up a couple of times,
specifically as something regulated by Congress. Citizens United effectively flips the script
of the Constitution in giving the companies doing Commerce the ability to regulate Congress.
I think Citizen's United is the least conservative ruling that the conservative court could
have come up with, bordering on fascism instead of the principles clearly enunciated
throughout the Constitution. It is likely to be the "Dred Scott" decision of the 21st
century.
2. Neo-liberalism is like Marxism and a bunch of other isms, where the principles look
fine on paper until you apply them to real-world people and societies. This is the difference
between Thaler's "econs" vs "humans". It works in theory, but not in practice because people
are not purely rational and the behavioral aspects of the people and societies throw things
out of kilter very quickly. That is a primary purpose of regulation, to be a rational
fly-wheel keeping things from spinning out of control to the right or left. Marxism quickly
turned into Stalinism in Russia while Friedman quickly turned into massive inequality and
Donald Trump in the US. The word "regulate" shows up more frequently in the Constitution than
"commerce", or "freedom" (only shows up in First Amendment), or "liberty" (deprivation of
liberty has to follow due process of law which is a form of regulation). So the Constitution
never conceived of a self-regulating society in the way Hayek and Friedman think things
should naturally work – writing court rulings on the neo-liberal approach is a radical
activist departure from the Constitution.
The foundation was laid for Citizens United long before, I think, when the Supreme
Court decided that corporations were essentially people, and that money was essentially
speech. It would be nice if some justice started hacking away at those erroneous decisions
(along with what they did with the 2nd Amendment in D.C. v Heller .)
I honestly think the corporations are people was good and the money is speech is terrible.
If most of the big corporations were actually treated like people those people would be in
jail. They are treated better than people are now. Poor people, anyway. When your corporation
is too big not to commit crimes, it's too big and should go in time out at least.
My understanding is that corporate personhood arose as a convenience to allow a
corporation to be named as a single entity in legal actions, rather than having to name every
last stockholder, officer, employee etc. Unfortunately the concept was gradually expanded far
past its usefulness for the rest of us.
"If most of the big corporations were actually treated like people those people would be
in jail."
Thats part of the problem: Corporations CANNOT be put in jail because they are
organizations, not people, but they are given the same 'rights' as people. That is
fundamentally part of the problem.
True, but corporations are directed by people who *can* be jailed. Often they are
compensated as if they were taking full liability when in fact they face none. I think its
long past time to revisit the concept of limited liability.
"Limited Liability" is basic to the concept of the corporation. How about some "limited
liability" for individuals? The whole point of neo-liberalism is "lawlessness" or the "Law of
the Jungle" in unfettered markets. The idea is to rationalize raw power, both over society
and the family, the last stand of male dominance, the patriarchy. The women who succeed in
this eco-system, eschew the nurturing feminine and espouse the predatory masculine. "We came,
we saw, he died." Psychopaths all!
The executives need to go to jail. Until then, corporate fines are just a cost of doing
business and white collar lawbreaking will continue. Blowing up the world's financial system
has less legal consequence than doing 80 in a 65 mph zone. Even if they just did civil asset
forfeiture on executives based on them having likely committed a crime while in their house
and using their money would go along ways to cleaning things up.
The whittling away of white collar crime by need to demonstrate intent beyond reasonable
doubt means the executives can just plead incompetence or inattention (while collecting their
$20 million after acquittal). Meanwhile, a poor person with a baggie of marijuana in the
trunk of their car goes to jail for "possession" where intent does not need to be shown, mere
presence of the substance. If they used the same standard of the mere presence of a fraud to
be sufficient to jail white collar criminals, there wouldn't be room in the prisons for poor
people picked up for little baggies of weed.
Actually, if you research the history, the court DID NOT decide that corporations are
people. The decision was made by the secretary to the court, who included the ruling in the
headnote to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886. The concept was not
considered in the case itself nor in the ruling the judges made. However, it was so
convenient for making money that judges and even at least one justice on the supreme court
publicized the ruling as if it were an actual legal precedent and have followed it ever
since. I am not a lawyer, but I think that ruling could be changed by a statute, whereas
Citizens United is going to require an amendment to the constitution. On the other hand, who
knows? Maybe the five old, rich, Republican, Catholic Men will rule that it is embedded in
the constitution after all. I think it would be worth a try.
"Neo-liberalism is like Marxism and a bunch of other isms, where the principles look fine
on paper until you apply them to real-world people and societies."
Marx analysed 19th Century capitalism; he wrote very little on what type of system should
succeed capitalism. This is in distinct contrast to neo-liberalism which had a well plotted
path to follow (Mirowski covers this very well). Marxism did not turn into Stalinism; Tsarism
turned into Leninism which turned into Stalinism. Marx had an awful lot less to do with it
than Tsar Nicholas II.
+1000. I think it was Tsar Nicholas II who said, L'etat, c'est moi"./s; Lenin just
appropriated this concept to implement his idea of "the dictatorship of the proletariat."
"Neo-liberalism is like Marxism and a bunch of other isms, where the principles look fine
on paper until you apply them to real-world people and societies."
I'm sorry, but this is fundamentally intellectually lazy. Marxism isn't so much a way to
structure the world, like Neoliberalism is, but a method of understanding Capitalism and
class relations to capitalism.
Edit: I wrote this before I saw New Wafer Army's post since I hadnt refreshed the page
since I opened it. They said pretty much what I wanted to say, so kudos to them.
These critiques of neoliberalism are always welcome, but they inevitably leave me with
irritated and dissatisfied with their failure or unwillingness to mention the political
philosophy of republicanism as an alternative, or even a contrast.
The key is found in Brown's statement " It also needed to be insulated from
instrumentalism by concentrated economic interests, from aspiring plutocrats to the masses.
The solution, for him [von Hayek], was de-democratizing the state itself. He was, more
generally, opposed to robust democracy and indeed to a democratic state."
Contrast this to Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison's famous discourse on factions.
Madison writes that 1) factions always arise from economic interests ["But the most common
and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."],
and 2) therefore the most important function of government is to REGULATE the clash of these
factions ["The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task
of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and
ordinary operations of the government."
In a very real sense, neoliberalism is an assault on the founding principles of the
American republic.
Which should not really surprise anyone, since von Hayek was trained as a functionary of
the Austro-Hungarian empire. And who was the first secretary of the Mont Pelerin Society that
von Hayen founded to promote neoliberalist doctrine and propaganda? Non other than Max Thurn,
of the reactionary Bavarian Thurn und Taxis royal family.
Madison's Federalist 10 is much like Aristotle's Politics and the better Roman historians
in correctly tracing back the fundamental tensions in any political community to questions of
property and class.
And, much like Aristotle's "mixed regime," Madison proposes that the best way of
overcoming these tensions is to institutionalize organs of government broadly representative
of the two basic contesting political classes–democratic and oligarchic–and let
them hash things out in a way that both are forced to deal with the other. This is a
simplification but not a terribly inaccurate one.
The problem though so far as I can tell is that it almost always happens that the
arrangement is set up in a way that structurally privileges existing property rights
(oligarchy) over social freedoms (democracy) such that the oligarchic class quickly comes to
dominate even those governmental organs designed to be "democratic". In other words, I have
never seen a theorized republic that upon closer inspection was not an oligarchy in
practice.
1) Support welfare for the banks (e.g. deposit guarantees) and the rich (e.g. non-negative
yields and interest on the inherently risk-free debt of monetary sovereigns).
2) Seek to regulate the thievery inherent in 1).
3) Bemoan the inevitable rat-race to the bottom when 2) inevitably fails because of
unenforceable laws, such as bans on insider trading, red-lining, etc.
Shorter: Progressives ENABLE the injustice they profess, no doubt sincerely at least in
some cases, to oppose.
Rather stupid from an engineering perspective, I'd say. Or more kindly, blind.
I'm fine with the federal government providing basic banking services (which would
inherently protect depositors) but your initial post didn't say anything about that. If we
continue with a private banking system I want deposit guarantees even if they somehow
privilege the banks better than nothing
I have read that originally conservatives (including many bankers) opposed deposit
insurance because it would lead people to be less careful when they evaluated the banking
institution they would entrust with their money. They did not seem to notice that however
much diligence depositors used, they ended up losing their life's savings over and over. Just
as they do not seem to notice that despite having employer-provided insurance tens of
thousands of people every year go bankrupt because of medical bills. Funny how that
works.
Adding that rather than deposit guarantees, the US government could have expanded the
Postal Savings Service to provide the population with what private banks had so miserably
failed to provide – the safe storage of their fiat.
The banking system was failing in 1932, as was the financial system in 2008, not
necessarily because of any lack of solvency of an individual business although some were, but
because of the lack of faith in the whole system; bank panics meant that every depositor was
trying to get their money out at the same time. People lost everything. It is only the faith
in the system that enables the use of bits of paper and plastic to work. So having a
guarantee in big, bold letters of people's savings is a good idea.
Personally, I see little distance between the Neo Liberal treatment of Market and Naked
Greed, coupled with a complete rejection of Rule of Law for the Common Good.
" It means legitimating assertions of personal freedom against equality mandates (and when
corporations are identified as persons, they too are empowered to assert such freedom)."
"We need to understand why reaction to the neoliberal economic sinking of the middle and
working class has taken such a profoundly anti-democratic form." Really? Does anybody here
believe that? This reads like another clumsy attempt to dismiss actual popular anger against
neoliberalism in favour of pearl-clutching progressive angst, by associating this anger with
the latest target for liberal hate, in this case blah blah patriarchy blah blah. The reality
is that liberalism has always been about promoting the freedom of the rich and the strong to
do whatever they feel like, whilst keeping the ordinary people divided and under control.
That's why Liberals have always hated socialists, who think of the good of the community
rather than of the "freedom" of the rich, powerful and well connected.
The "democracy" that is being defended here is traditional elite liberal democracy, full of
abstract "rights" that only the powerful can exert, dominated by elite political parties with
little to choose between them, and indifferent or hostile to actual freedoms that ordinary
people want in their daily lives. Neoliberalism is simply a label for its economic views
(that haven't changed much over the centuries) whereas social justice is the label for its
social wing (ditto).
I think of this every time I wall home through the local high street, where within thirty
metres I pass two elderly eastern European men aggressively begging. (It varies in France,
but this is slightly closer than the average for a city). I reflect that twenty years of
neoliberal policies in France have given these people freedom of movement, and the freedom to
sit there in the rain with no home, no job and no prospects. Oh, and now of course they are
free to marry each other.
I agree with your analysis and assessment of Wendy Brown, as she is portrayed in her
statements in this post. However I quibble your assertion: "Neoliberalism is simply a label
for its economic views (that haven't changed much over the centuries) whereas social justice
is the label for its social wing (ditto)." The word "Neoliberalism" is indeed commonly used
as a label as you assert but Neoliberalism as a philosophy is obscured in that common
usage.
At its heart I believe Neoliberalism might best be characterized as an epistemology based
on the Market operating as the all knowing arbiter of Truth. Hayek exercises notions of
'freedom' in his writing but I believe freedom is a secondary concern once it is defined in
terms of its relation to the decisions of the Market. This notion of the Market as
epistemology is completely absent from Wendy Brown's discussion of her work in this post.
Her assertion that "neoliberalism's aim [is] to displace democracy with markets, morals
and liberal authoritarian statism legitimates a white masculinist backlash against equality
and inclusion mandates" collapses once the Market is introduced as epistemology.
Neoliberalism does not care one way or another about any of Wendy Brown's concerns. Once the
Market decides -- Truth is known. As a political theorist I am surprised there is no analysis
of Neoliberalism as a tool the Elite have used to work their will on society. I am surprised
there is no analysis of how the Elites have allowed themselves to be controlled within and
even displaced by the Corporate Entities they created and empowered using their tool. I am
surprised there is no analysis of the way the Corporate Entities and their Elite have worked
to use Neoliberalism to subordinate nation states under a hierarchy driven by the decisions
of the World Market.
[I admit I lack the stomach to read Hayek -- so I am basing my opinions on what I
understand of Phillip Mirowski's analysis of Neoliberalism.]
I don't disagree with you: I suppose that having been involved in practical politics
rather than being a political theorist (which I have no pretensions to being) I am more
interested of the reality of some of these ideas than their theoretical underpinnings. I have
managed to slog my way through Slobodian's book, and I think your presentation of Hayek's
writing is quite fair: I simply wonder how far it is actually at the origin of the
destruction we see around us. I would suggest in fact that, once you have a political
philosophy based on the value-maximising individual, rather than traditional considerations
of the good of society as a whole, you eventually wind up where we are now, once the
constraints of religious belief, fear of popular uprisings , fear of Communism etc. have been
progressively removed. It's for that reason that I argue that neoliberalism isn't really new:
it represents the essential form of liberalism unconstrained by outside forces – almost
a teleological phenomenon which, as its first critics feared, has wound up destroying
community, family, industries, social bonds and even – as you suggest – entire
nation states.
Your response to my comment, in particular your assertion "neoliberalism isn't really new"
coupled with your assertion apparently equating Neoliberalism with just another general
purpose label for a "political philosophy based on the value-maximizing individual, rather
than traditional ", is troubling. When I put your assertions with Jerry B's assertion at 6:58
pm:
" many people over focus on a word or the use of a word and ascribe way to literal view of a
word. I tend to view words more symbolically and contextually."
I am left wondering what is left to debate or discuss. If Neoliberalism has no particular
meaning then perhaps we should discuss the properties of political philosophies based on the
value-maximizing-individual, and even that construct only has meaning symbolically and
contextually, which is somehow different than the usual notion of meaning as a denotation
coupled with a connotation which is shared by those using a term in their discussion -- and
there I become lost from the discussion. I suppose I am too pedantic to deviate from the
common usages of words, especially technical words like Neoliberalism.
Considering how elites throughout history have used religion as a bulwark to guard their
privileges, it should be of no surprise that they are building a new one, only this time they
are building one that appeals to the religious and secular alike. Neoliberalism will be very
difficult to dismantle.
But what ironies we create. Citizens United effectively gave political control to the big
corporations. In a time when society has already evolved lots of legislation to limit the
power and control of any group and especially in commercial/monopoly cases. So that what CU
created was a new kind of "means of production" because what gets "produced" these days is at
least 75% imported. The means of production is coming to indicate the means of political
control. And that is fitting because ordinary people have become the commodity. Like
livestock. So in that sense Marx's view of power relationships is accurate although
civilization has morphed. Politics is, more and more, the means of production. The means of
finance. Just another reason why we would achieve nothing in this world trying to take over
the factories. What society must have now is fiscal control. It will be the new means of
production. I'm a dummy. I knew fiscal control was the most important thing, but I didn't
quite see the twists and turns that keep the fundamental idea right where it started.
Exactly. The writer seems determined to tie in neoliberalism with a broader conservative
opposition to modern social justice movements, when in reality neoliberalism (the 'neo' part
anyway) was more than happy to co-opt feminism, anti-racism, etc., into its narrative. The
more the merrier, as 'rights' became associated entirely with social issues, and not economic
rights.
The co-optation neoliberalism has exacted on rights movements has dovetailed nicely with
postmodernism's social-constructivism, an anti-materialist stance that posits discourse as
shaping the world and one that therefore privileges subjectivity over material reality.
What this means in practice is that "identity" is now a marketplace too, in which
individuals are naming their identities as a form of personal corporate branding. That's why
we have people labeling themselves like this: demisexual queer femme, on the spectrum, saying
hell no to my tradcath roots, into light BDSM, pronouns they/them.
And to prove this identity, the person must purchase various consumer products to garb and
decorate themselves accordingly.
So the idea of civil rights has now become utterly consumerist and about awarding those
rights based on subjective feelings rather than anything to do with actual material
exploitation.
The clue is in the way the words "oppression" and "privilege" are used. Under those words,
exploitation, discrimination, disadvantage, and simple dislike are conflated, though they're
very different and involve very different remedies.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under
bridges and stealing bread = classical Liberalism.
The bizarre thing is to meet younger neoliberal middle class people whom neoliberalism has
priced out of major cities, who have hardly any real savings, and who still are on board with
the project. The dream dies hard.
David – I enjoy reading your comments on NC as they are well reasoned and develop an
argument or counter argument. The above comment reads more like a rant. I do not disagree
with most of your comment. From my experience with Wendy Brown's writing your statement below
is not off base.:
This reads like another clumsy attempt to dismiss actual popular anger against
neoliberalism in favour of pearl-clutching progressive angst, by associating this anger with
the latest target for liberal hate, in this case blah blah patriarchy blah blah
However, in reading Wendy Brown's comments I did not have the same emotional reaction that
comes across in your comment. I have read the post twice to make sure I understand the points
Wendy Brown is trying to make and IMO she is "not wrong" either. . I would advise you to not
"throw out the baby with the bathwater".
As KLG mentions below, WB is a very successful academic at Berkeley who worked with
Sheldon Wolin as a graduate student IIRC (Sheldon Wolin wrote a terrific book entitled
Democracy Incorporated), so she is not just some random journalist.
Much of WB's writing has gender themes in it and there are times I think she goes over the
top, BUT, IMO there is also some truth to what she is saying. Much of the political power and
economic power in the US and the world is held by men so that may be where WB's reference to
patriarchy comes in.
How could there be patriarchy with men begging in the streets is a valid point. And that
is where I divert with WB, in that the term patriarchy paints with too broad a brush. But
speaking specifically to neo-liberalism and not liberalism as you refer to it, that is where
WB's reference to patriarchy may have some merit. Yes, there are many exceptions to the
neoliberalism and patriarchy connection such as Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, etc., so
again maybe painting with too broad a brush, but it would be wise not to give some value.
The sociologist Raewyn Connell has written about the connection between neoliberalism and
version of a certain type of masculinity embedded with neoliberalism. Like Wendy Brown,
Connell seems to gloss over the examples of Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, and the class
based elite bourgeois feminism as counterpoints to neoliberal patriarchy. There are
exceptions to every rule.
Women have made enormous strides in politics and the boardroom. But in the halls of political
and economic power the majority of the power is still held by men, and until women become
close to 50% or more of the seats of power, to ignore the influence of patriarchy/oligarch
version of masculinity(or whatever term a person is comfortable with) on neoliberalism would
be foolish.
Neoliberalism is simply a label for its economic views (that haven't changed much over
the centuries) whereas social justice is the label for its social wing (ditto).
I disagree. IMO, neoliberalism is a different animal than the "traditional elite liberal
democracy", and neoliberalism is much darker and as WB mentions "Neoliberalism thus aims to
de-regulate the social sphere in a way that parallels the de-regulation of markets".
If you have not I would highly recommend reading Sheldon Wolin's Democracy Incorporated:
Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism It is an excellent book.
I haven't read that book by Wolin, though his Politics and Vision is in the bookcase next
to me. I'll try to get hold of it. I didn't know she was his student either.
I think the issues she raises about gender are a different question from neoliberalism
itself, and that it's not helpful to believe that you can fight neoliberalism by
"legitimating assertions of personal freedom against equality mandates" whatever that means.
Likewise, it's misleading to suggest that "Privatization of the nation legitimates "nativist"
exclusions", since the actual result is the opposite, as you will realise when you see that
London buses have the same logo as the ones in Paris, and electricity in the UK is often
supplied by a French company, EDF. Indeed, to the extent that there is a connection with
"nativism" it is that privatisation has enabled an international network of distant and
unaccountable private companies to take away management of national resources and assets from
the people. Likewise, neoliberalism is entirely happy to trample over traditional gender
roles in the name of efficiency and increasing the number of workers chasing the same
job.
In other words, I was irritated (and sorry if I ranted a bit, I try not to) with what I saw
as someone who already knows what the answer is, independent of what the question may be. I
suspect her analysis of, say, Brexit, would be very similar. I think that kind of person is
potentially dangerous.
==I think the issues she raises about gender are a different question from neoliberalism
itself==
Again as I said in my comment I would agree in a theoretical sense that gender and
neoliberalism are different issues but again I believe there is a thread of gender, i.e.
oligarchic patriarchy, of the type of neoliberalism that WB talks about.
===not helpful to believe that you can fight neoliberalism by "legitimating assertions of
personal freedom against equality mandates" whatever that means===
What I think that means is the more libertarian version of neoliberalism. That maybe where
our differences lie, in that my sense is WB is talking about a specific form of neoliberalism
and your view is broader.
===it's misleading to suggest that "Privatization of the nation legitimates "nativist"
exclusions"===
On this I see your disagreement with WB and understand your reference to "that
privatisation has enabled an international network of distant and unaccountable private
companies to take away management of national resources and assets from the people".
Where I think WB is coming from is the more nationalistic, Anglosphere that the Trump
administration is pushing with his border wall, etc. In this WB does expose her far left
priors but again there is some value in her points. From her far left view my sense it Wendy
Brown is reacting to the sense that Trump wants to turn the US into the US of the 1950's and
60's and on many fronts that ship has sailed.
=== Indeed, to the extent that there is a connection with "nativism" it is that
privatisation has enabled an international network of distant and unaccountable private
companies to take away management of national resources and assets from the people. Likewise,
neoliberalism is entirely happy to trample over traditional gender roles in the name of
efficiency and increasing the number of workers chasing the same job. ===
Excellent point and having read some of Wendy Brown's books and paper is a point she would
agree with while still seeing some patriarchial themes running through neoliberalism. To your
point above I would recommend reading some of Cynthia Enloe's work specifically Bananas,
Beaches and Bases.
====I think that kind of person is potentially dangerous====
Wow. Dangerous??? Clearly the post has hit a nerve. Many people in our current society are
dangerous but IMO Wendy Brown is not one of them. A bit hyperbolic in her focus on gender?
Maybe but not wrong. A bit too far left (of the bleeding heart kind)? Maybe. But to call
someone who worked for Sheldon Wolin dangerous. C'mon man.
I have gotten into disputes on NC as IMO many people over focus on a word or the use of a
word and ascribe way to literal view of a word. I tend to view words more symbolically and
contextually. I do not overreact to the use a word and instead try to step back and glean a
message or the word in context of what is the person trying to say? So for instance when WB
uses the phrase "Privatization of the nation" I am not going to react because my own
interpretation is WB is reacting to Trump's nationalism and not to the type of privatization
that your example of London shows.
I am disappointed that most of the comments to this post seem to take a critical view of
Wendy Brown's comments. Is she a bit too far left and gender focused (identity political) for
my tastes? Yes and that somewhat hurts her overall message and the arguments she is trying to
discuss which are not unlike her mentor Sheldon Wolin.
Thanks for the reply David. My sense is we have what I call a "positional" debate (i.e.
Tastes Great! Less Filling!). And positional debates tend to go nowhere.
When WB speaks of gender, note that she then mentions sex, followed by race. By "gender"
she is NOT talking about the rights and power of female people under neoliberalism.
She is speaking of the rights of people to claim, that they are the opposite sex and
therefore entitled to the rights, set-asides and affirmative discrimination permitted that
sex -- for instance, to compete athletically on that sex's sports teams, to be imprisoned if
convicted in that sex's prisons, to be considered that sex in instances where sex matters in
employment such as a job as a rape counselor or a health care position performing intimate
exams where one is entitled to request a same-sex provider, and to apply for scholarships,
awards, business loans etc. set aside for that sex.
WB, in addition to being a professor at Berkeley, is also the partner of Judith Butler,
whose book "Gender Trouble" essentially launched the postmodern idea that subjective sense of
one's sex and how one enacts that is more meaningful than the lived reality people experience
in biologically sexed bodies.
By this reasoning, a male weightlifter can become a woman, can declare that he's in fact
always been a woman -- and so we arrive at the farce of a male weightlifter (who, granted,
must under IOC policy reduce his testosterone for one year to a low-normal male range that is
5 standard deviations away from the female mean) winning a gold medal in women's
weightlifting in the Pan-Pacific games and likely to win gold again in the 2020 Olympics.
If that's not privileging individual freedom over collective rights, I don't know what
is.
>That's how it is possible to be simultaneously libertarian, ethnonationalist and
patriarchal today: The right's contemporary attack on "social justice warriors" is straight
out of Hayek.
Anyone who could write such a statement understands neither libertarianism nor
ethnonationalism. The last half-decade has seen a constant intellectual attack by
ethnonationalists against libertarianism. An hour's examination of the now-defunct Alt
Right's would confirm this.
Similarly, the contemporary attack on SJW's comes not out of Hayek, but from Gamergate. If
you do not know what Gamergate is, you do not understand where the current rightwing and
not-so-rightwing thrust of contemporary white identity politics is coming from. My guess is
Brown has never heard of it.
Far from trying to uphold patriarchy, Contemporary neoliberalism seeks a total atomization
of society into nothing but individual consumers of product. Thus what passes for
liberalization of a society today consists in little more than staging sham elections,
opening McDonalds, and holding a gay pride parade.
This is why ethnonationalism and even simple nationalism poses a mortal threat to
neoliberalism, in a way that so-called progressives never will: both are a threat to
globalization, while the rainbow left has shown itself to be little more than the useful
idiots of capital.
Brown strikes me as someone who has a worldview and will distort the world to fit that
view, no matter how this jibes with facts or logic. The point is simply to array her bugbears
into a coalition, regardless of how ridiculous it seems to anyone who knows anything about
it.
Actually, maybe not "Bingo," if by that you mean Wendy Brown is a typical representative
of "pearl clutching progressive angst." Yes, WB is a very successful academic at Berkeley who
worked with Sheldon Wolin as a graduate student IIRC (who was atypical in just about every
important way), but this book along with its predecessor Undoing the Demos are much
stronger than the normative "why are the natives so restless?" bullshit coming from my
erstwhile tribe of "liberals," most of whom are incapacitated by a not unrelated case of
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Hayek was eloquent. Too bad he didn't establish some end goals. Think of all the misery
that would have been avoided. I mean, how can you rationalize some economic ideology to
"deregulate the social sphere" – that's just the snake eating its tail. That's what
people do who don't have boundaries. Right now it looks like there's a strange bedfellowship,
a threesome of neoliberal nazis, globalists, and old communists. Everybody and their dog
wants the world to work – for everyone. But nobody knows how to do it. And we are
experiencing multiple degrees of freedom to express our own personal version of Stockholm
syndrome. Because identity politics. What a joke. Maybe we need to come together over
something rational. Something fairly real. Instead of overturning Citizens United (which is
absurd already), we should do Creatures United – rights for actual living things on
this planet. And then we'd have a cause for the duration.
Well stated. The -isms seem like distractions, almost red herrings leading us down the
primrose path to a ceaseless is/ought problem. Rather than discuss the way the world is, we
argue how it ought to be.
Not to say theory, study, and introspection aren't important. More that we appear
paralyzed into inaction since everyone doesn't agree on the One True Way yet.
Let us not get to simplistic here. It helps to understand the origins of political,
economic, and even social ideals. The origin of modern capitalism, for there were
different and more limited earlier forms, was in the Dutch Republic and was part of the
efforts of removing and replacing feudalism; liberalism arose from the Enlightenment, which
itself was partly the creation of the Wars of Religion, which devastated Europe. The Thirty
Years War, which killed ½ of the male population of the Germanies, and is considered
more devastating to the Germans than both world wars combined had much of its energy from
religious disagreements.
The Age of Enlightenment, along with much of political thought in the Eighteenth Century,
was a attempt to allow differences in belief, and the often violent passions that they can
cause, to be fought by words instead of murder. The American Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, the whole political worldview, that most Americans unconsciously have, comes from
from those those times.
Democracy, Liberalism, even Adam Smith's work in the Wealth of Nations were
attempts to escape the dictatorship of kings, feudalism, serfdom, violence. Unfortunately,
they have all been usurped. Adam Smith's life's work has been perverted, liberalism has been
used to weaken the social bonds by making work and money central to society. Their evil child
Neoliberalism, a creation of people like Hayek, was supposed to reduce wars (most of the
founders were survivors of the world wars) and was supposed to be be partly
antidemocratic.
Modern Neoliberalism mutates and combines the partly inadvertent atomizing effects of the
ideas of the Enlightenment, Liberalism, Dutch and British Capitalism, the Free Markets of
Adam Smith, adds earlier mid twentieth century Neoliberalism as a fuel additive, and creates
this twisted flaming Napalm of social atomizing; it also clears out any challenges to money
is the worth of all things. Forget philosophy, religion, family, government, society. Money
determines worth. Even speech is only worth the money spent on it and not any inherent worth.
Or the vote.
"liberalism has been used to weaken the social bonds by making work and money central to
society"
I think you may have swapped the cart and the horse.
Money evolved as a way of aiding and organizing useful interactions within groups larger
than isolated villages of a hundred people.
It also enabled an overall increase in wealth through specialization.
Were it not for money, there would be a difficult mismatch between goods of vastly
differing value. A farmer growing wheat and carrots has an almost completely divisible supply
of goods with which to trade. Someone building a farm wagon a month, or making an iron plough
every two weeks has a problem exchanging that for items orders of magnitude less
valuable.
Specialization is a vital step in improving resources and capabilities within societies.
I've hung out with enough friends who are blacksmiths to know that every farmer hammering out
their own plough is a non-starter, for many reasons.
And I've followed enough history to know that iron ploughs mean a lot more food, which
allows someone to specialize in making ploughs rather than growing food for personal
consumption.
The obvious need is for a way of dividing the value of the plough into many smaller
amounts that can be used to obtain grain, cloth, pottery, and so on.
While the exact form of money is not rigidly fixed, at lower technological levels one
really needs something that is portable, doesn't spontaneously self destruct, and has a
clearly definable value . and exists in different concentrations of worth, to allow
flexibility in transport and use.
Various societies have come up with various tokens of value, from agricultural products to
bank drafts, each with different advantages and disadvantages, but for most of history,
precious metals, base metals, and coinage have been the most practical representation of
exchangeable value.
Money is almost certainly an inevitable and necessary consequence of the invention of
agriculture, and the corresponding increase in population density.
Agreed, but as I've suggested elsewhere liberalism always had the capacity within it to
destroy social bonds, societies and even nations, it's just that, at the time, this was
hidden behind the belief that a just God would not allow it to happen. I see liberalism less
as mutating or being usurped than finally being freed of controls. Paradoxically, of course,
this "freedom" requires servitude for others, so that no outside forces (trades unions for
example) can pollute the purity of the market. It's the same thing with social justice:
freedom for identity group comes through legal controls over the behaviour of others, which
is why the contemporary definition of a civil rights activist is someone who wants to
introduce lots of new laws to prevent people from doing things.
frankly, I don't believe the "monsters" neoliberalism has helped create are an unwanted
side effect of their approach, on the contrary, neoliberalism needs those "monsters", like
the authoritarian state, to impose itself on society (ask the mutilated gilets jaunes).
Repression, inequality, poverty, abuse, dispossession, disfranchisement, enviromental
degradation are certainly "monstrous" to those who have to endure them, but not to those who
profit the most from the system and sit on the most powerful positions. Of course, the degree
of exposure to those monstrosities is dependent on the relative position in the pyramid
shaped neoliberal society, the bottom has to endure the most. On the other side, the middle
classes tend to support the neoliberal model as long as it ensures them a power position
relative to the under classes, and the moment those middle classes feel ttheir position
relative to the under classes threatened, the switch to open fascism is not far, we can see
this in Bolivia.
"neoliberalism needs those "monsters", like the authoritarian state, to impose itself on
society"
If I understood Quinn Slobodian's "Globalists" correctly it was precisely this -- that the
neoliberal project while professing that markets were somehow "natural" spent an inordinate
amount of time working to ensure that legal structures be created to insulate them from the
dirty demos.
Their actions in this respect don't square with a serious belief that markets are natural
at all -- if they were, they wouldn't need so damned much hothousing, right?
I think the argument was that markets were "natural", but vulnerable to interference, and
so had to be protected by these legal structures. There's a metaphor there, but it's too late
here for me to find it.
===spent an inordinate amount of time working to ensure that legal structures be created
to insulate them from the dirty demos===
I enjoyed Slobodian's book as well. Interestingly, there is a new book out called The Code
of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality by Katharina Pistor that discusses
those "legal structures".
If you check out Katharina Pistor on Twitter, you can also find good commentaries and even
videos of talks discussing the book and the matter – it is very edifying to open your
eyes to the fundamental role of law in creating such natural phenomena as markets and, among
other things, billionaires.
Thanks deplorado. I do not frequent Pistor's twitter page as much as I would like.
In reading Pistor's book and some of the interviews with Pistor and some of her papers
discussing the themes in the book, I had the same reaction as when I read some of Susan
Strange's books such as The Retreat of the State: complete removal of any strand of
naïveté I may have had as to how the world works. And how hard it will be to undo
the destruction.
As you mention the "dirty demos" above, one of Wendy Brown's recent books was Undoing the
Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution.
Never having read any of Susan Strange's writings, I decided to find a book review of The
Retreat of the State. I found this one and found it very interesting, enough so that I'll go
to abebooks.com and get a copy to read.
Hmm. Definitely Monsters from the Id at work here. I am going with the theory that the
wealthier class pushed this whole project all along. In the US, Roosevelt had cracked down
and imposed regulations that stopped, for example, the stock market from being turned into a
casino using ordinary people's saving. He also pushed taxes on them that exceeded 90% which
tended to help keep them defanged.
So lo and behold, after casting about, a bunch of isolated rat-bag economic radicals was
found that support getting rid of regulations, reducing taxes on the wealthy and anything
else that they wanted to do. So money was pumped into this project, think tanks were taken
over or built up, universities were taken over to teach this new theories, lawyers and future
judges were 'educated' to support their fight and that is what we have today.
If WW2 had not discredited fascism, the wealthy would have use this instead as both Mussolini
and Hitler were very friendly to the wealthy industrialists. But they were so instead they
turned to neoliberalism instead. Yes, definitely Monsters from the Id.
William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years
ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iXBQ33pBo&t=2485s
He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years.
This is why we think small state, unregulated capitalism is something it never was when it
existed before.
We don't understand the monetary system or how banks work because:
Our knowledge of privately created money has been going backwards since 1856.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial intermediation
theory
"A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence" Richard
A. Werner http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477
This is why we come up with crazy ideas like "financial liberalisation".
If corporations are to be people, then they, like the extremely wealthy, need to be reined
in politically. One step we could take is to only allow money donations to political
campaigns to take place when the person is subject or going to be subject to the politicians
decisions. I live in Illinois, I should be able to donate money to the campaigns of those
running for the U.S> Senate from Illinois, but Utah? If I donate money to a Utah candidate
for the Senate, I am practicing influence peddling because that Senator does not represent
me.
If corporations are to be people, they need a primary residence. The location of their
corporate headquarters should suffice to "place" them, and donations to candidates outside of
their set of districts would be forbidden.
Of course, we do have free speech, so people are completely free to speak over the
Internet, TV, hire halls in the district involved and go speak in person. They just couldn't
pay to have someone else do that for them.
To allow unfettered political donations violates the one ma, one vote principle and also
encourages influence peddling. In fact, it seems as if our Congress and Executive operates
only through influence peddling.
"... Neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. ..."
"... This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair. ..."
"... Liberal democracies across the globe appeared out of touch with not only the misery and suffering caused by neoliberal policies, they also produced an insular and arrogant group of politicians who regarded themselves as an enlightened political formation that worked " on behalf of an ignorant public ." ..."
"... As a regime of affective management, neoliberalism created a culture in which everyone was trapped in his or her own feelings, emotions and orbits of privatization. One consequence was that legitimate political claims could only be pursued by individuals and families rather than social groups. ..."
Talk of a looming recession is heating up as the global economy slows and President Trump's tiff with China unsettles financial
markets. As world trade contracts, stock markets drop, the manufacturing sector in the United States is
in decline for the first time in a decade , and farmers and steel workers continue losing their income and jobs.
Rumors of a coming recession accentuate fears about the further deterioration of conditions faced by workers and the poor, who
are already suffering from precarious employment, poverty, lack of meaningful work and dwindling pensions. A global economic slump
would make living standards for the poor even worse. As
Ashley Smith points out
, levels of impoverishment in the United States are already shocking, with "four out of every ten families [struggling] to meet the
costs of food, housing, health care, and utilities every month."
Just as the 2008 global economic crisis revealed the failures of liberal democracy and the scourge of neoliberalism, a new economic
recession in 2019 could also reveal how institutions meant to serve the public interest and offer support for a progressive politics
now serve authoritarian ideologies and a ruling elite that views democracy as the enemy of market-based freedoms and white nationalism.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive
politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive
public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected
anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis
of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in
profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such
as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down
wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith
in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed.
In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth
and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment
in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate
and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers
and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their
pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
Neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism's overheated emphasis on individual
liberties "made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed," as
noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely
by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made "it possible for haters
to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble." This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism
produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that
shared a skepticism
of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim
and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism
and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism,
such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and
burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that
extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education. Under such circumstances, democratic narratives, values
and modes of solidarity, which traded in shared responsibilities and shared hopes, were replaced by a market-based focus on a regressive
notion of hyper-individualism, ego-centered values and a view of individual responsibility that eviscerated any broader notion of
social, systemic, and corporate problems and accountability.
Ways of imagining society through a collective ethos became fractured, and a comprehensive understanding of politics as inclusive
and participatory morphed into an anti-politics marked by an investment in the language of individual rights, individual choice and
the power of rights-bearing individuals.
Under the reign of neoliberalism, language became thinner and more individualistic, detached from history and more self-oriented,
all the while undermining viable democratic social spheres as spaces where politics bring people together as collective agents and
critically engaged citizens. Neoliberal language is written in the discourse of economics and market values, not ethics. Under such
circumstances, shallowness becomes an asset rather than a liability. Increasingly, the watered-down language of liberal democracy,
with its over-emphasis on individual rights and its neoliberal coddling of the financial elite, gave way to a regressive notion of
the social marked by rising authoritarian tendencies, unchecked nativism, unapologetic expressions of bigotry, misdirected anger
and the language of resentment-filled revolt. Liberal democracies across the globe appeared out of touch with not only the misery
and suffering caused by neoliberal policies, they also produced an insular and arrogant group of politicians who regarded themselves
as an enlightened political formation that worked "
on behalf of an ignorant public ."
The ultimate consequence was to produce later what Wolfgang Merkel describes as "a rebellion of the disenfranchised." A series
of political uprisings made it clear that neoliberalism was suffering from a crisis of legitimacy further accentuated by the Brexit
vote in the United Kingdom, the election of Donald Trump, support for the National Rally (
formerly known as the
National Front ) in France, and the emergence of powerful right-wing populist movements across the globe.
What has been vastly underestimated in the rise of right-wing populism is the capture of the media by authoritarian populists.
As a regime of affective management, neoliberalism created a culture in which everyone was trapped in his or her own feelings,
emotions and orbits of privatization. One consequence was that legitimate political claims could only be pursued by individuals and
families rather than social groups. In this instance, power was removed from the social sphere and placed almost entirely in
the hands of corporate and political demagogues who used it to enrich themselves for their own personal gain.
Power was now used to produce muscular authority in order "to secure order, boundaries, and to divert the growing anger of a declining
middle and working-class," Wendy Brown observes . Both
classes increasingly came to blame their economic and political conditions that produced their misery and ravaged ways of life on
"'others': immigrants, minority races, 'external' predators and attackers ranging from terrorists to refugees." Liberal-individualistic
views lost their legitimacy as they refused to indict the underlying structures of capitalism and its winner-take-all ethos.
Functioning largely as a ruthless form of social Darwinism, economic activity was removed from a concern with social costs, and
replaced by a culture of cruelty and resentment that disdained any notion of compassion or ethical concern for those deemed as "other"
because of their class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion. This is a culture marked by gigantic hypocrisies, "the
gloomy tabulation of unspeakable violent events," widespread viciousness, "great concentrations of wealth," "surveillance overkill,"
and the "unceasing despoliation of biospheres for profit."
George Monbiot sums up well some of the more toxic elements of neoliberalism, which remained largely hidden since it was in the
mainstream press less as an ideology than as an economic policy. He
writes :
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose
democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains
that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical
to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimized, public services should be privatized. The organization of labor and collective
bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and
losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone.
Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets
what they deserve.
In the neoliberal worldview, those who are unemployed, poor consumers or outside of the reach of a market in search of insatiable
profits are considered disposable. Increasingly more people were viewed as anti-human, unknowable, faceless and symbols of fear and
pathology. This included undocumented immigrants in the United States and refugees in Europe, as well as those who were considered
of no value to a market society, and thus eligible to be deprived of the most basic rights and subject to the terror of state violence.
Marking selected groups as disposable in both symbolic and material forms, the neoliberal politics of disposability became a machinery
of political and social death -- producing spaces where undesirable members are abused,
put in cages
, separated from their children and subject to a massive violation of their human rights. Under a neoliberal politics of disposability,
people live in spaces of ever-present danger and risk where nothing is certain; human beings considered excess are denied a social
function and relegated to what Étienne Balibar calls the "death zones
of humanity." These are the 21st century workstations designed for the creation and process of elimination; a death-haunted mode
of production rooted in the "absolute triumph of irrationality."
Economic and cultural nationalism has become a rallying cry to create the conditions for merging a regressive neoliberalism and populism
into a war machine.
Within this new political formation, older forms of exploitation are now matched, if not exceeded, by a politics of racial and
social cleansing, as entire populations are removed from ethical assessments, producing zones of social abandonment. In this new
world, there is a merging of finance capital and a war culture that speaks to a moral and political collapse in which the welfare
state is replaced by forms of economic nationalism and a
burgeoning carceral state .
Furthermore, elements of this crisis can be seen in the ongoing militarization of everyday life as more and more institutions
take on the model of the prison. Additionally, there is also the increased arming of the police, the criminalization of a wide range
of behaviors related to social problems, the rise of the surveillance state, and the ongoing war on youth, undocumented immigrants,
Muslims and others deemed enemies of the state.
Under the aegis of a neoliberal war culture, we have witnessed increasing immiseration for the working and middle classes, massive
tax cuts for the rich, the outsourcing of public services, a full-fledged attack on unions, the defunding of public goods, and the
privatization of public services extending from health and education to roads and prisons. This ongoing transfer of public resources
and services to the rich, hedge fund managers, and corporate elite was matched by the corporate takeover of the commanding institutions
of culture, including the digital, print and broadcast media. What has been vastly underestimated in the rise of right-wing populism
is the capture of the media by authoritarian populists and its flip side, which amounts to a full-fledged political attack on independent
digital, online and oppositional journalists.
While it is generally acknowledged that neoliberalism was responsible for the worldwide economic crisis of 2008, what is less
acknowledged is that structural crisis produced by a capitalism on steroids was not matched by subjective crisis and consequently
gave rise to new reactionary political populist movements. As economic collapse became visceral, people's lives were upended and
sometimes destroyed. Moreover, as the social contract was shredded along with the need for socially constructed roles, norms and
public goods, the "social" no longer occupied a thick and important pedagogical space of solidarity, dialogue, political expression,
dissent and politics.
As public spheres disappeared, communal bonds were weakened and social provisions withered. Under neoliberalism, the social sphere
regresses into a privatized society of consumers in which individuals are atomized, alienated, and increasingly removed from the
variety of social connections and communal bonds that give meaning to the degree to which societies are good and just.
Establishment politics lost its legitimacy, as voters rejected the conditions produced by financialized capitalism.
People became isolated, segregated and unable "
to negotiate democratic dilemmas in a democratic
way " as power became more abstract and removed from public participation and accountability. As the neoliberal net of privilege
was cast wider without apology for the rich and exclusion of others, it became more obvious to growing elements of the public that
appeals to liberal democracy had failed to keep its promise of a better life for all. It could no longer demand, without qualification,
that working people should work harder for less, and that democratic participation is exclusively about elections. What could not
be hidden from many disenfranchised groups was that ruling elites produced what
Adam Tooze describes
as "a disastrous slide from the hypocrisies and compromises of the previous status quo into something even [more dangerous]."
As the global crisis has intensified since 2008, elements of a political and moral collapse at the heart of an authoritarian society
are more obvious and find their most transparent expression of ruthlessness, greed and unchecked power in the rule of Donald Trump.
As Chris Hedges points out :
The ruling corporate elites no longer seek to build. They seek to destroy. They are agents of death. They crave the unimpeded
power to cannibalize the country and pollute and degrade the ecosystem to feed an insatiable lust for wealth, power and hedonism.
Wars and military "virtues" are celebrated. Intelligence, empathy and the common good are banished. Culture is degraded to patriotic
kitsch . Those branded as unproductive or redundant are discarded and left to struggle in poverty or locked away in cages.
The slide into authoritarianism was made all the easier by the absence of a broad-based left mass movement in the United States,
which failed to provide both a comprehensive vision of change and an alignment of single-issue groups and smaller movements into
one mass movement. Nancy Fraser
rightly observes that following Occupy, "potential links between labour and new social movements were left to languish. Split
off from one another, those indispensable poles of a viable left were miles apart, waiting to be counterposed as antithetical."
Since the 1970s, there has been a profound backlash by economic, financial, political and religious fundamentalists and their
allied media establishments against labor, an oppositional press, people of color and others who have attempted to extend the workings
of democracy and equality.
As the narrative of class and class struggle disappeared along with the absence of a vibrant socialist movement, the call for
democracy no longer provided a unifying narrative to bring different oppressed groups together. Instead, economic and cultural nationalism
has become a rallying cry to create the conditions for merging a regressive neoliberalism and populism into a war machine. Under
such circumstances, politics is imagined as a form of war, repelling immigrants and refugees who are described by President Trump
as "invaders," "vermin" and "rapists." The emergence of neoliberalism as a war machine is evident in the current status of the Republican
Party and the Trump administration, which wage assaults on anything that does not mimic the values of the market. Such assaults take
the form of fixing whole categories of people as disposable, as enemies, and force them into conditions of extreme precarity -- and
in increasingly more instances, conditions of danger. Neoliberal capitalism radiates violence, evident in its endless instances of
mass shooting, such as those that took place most recently in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. This should not be surprising for
a society that measures power by the speed that it removes itself from any sense of ethical and social responsibility. As Beatrix
Campbell puts it ,
The richest society on the planet is armed. And it invests in one of the largest prison systems in the world. Violence circulates
between state and citizen. Drilled to kill, doomed to die: mastery and martyrdom is the heartbreaking dialectic of the manufacture
of militarized, violent masculinity . The making and maintaining of militarised masculinities is vital to these new modes of armed
conflict that are proliferating across the flexible frontiers of globalized capitalism, between and within states.
What has become clear is that
the neoliberal agenda has been a spectacular failure . Moreover, it has mobilized on a global level the violent political, social,
racial and economic energies of a resurgent fascist politics. Across the globe, right-wing modes of governance are appearing in which
the line collapses between "outside foreign enemies" such as refugees and undocumented immigrants, on the one hand, and on the other,
inside "dangerous" or "treasonous" classes such as critical journalists, educators and dissidents.
As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as
violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics
as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced]
into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency,
and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in
the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism's promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing
populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason
notes , "capped health and welfare
spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability
benefits from one million former workers below retirement age."
Across the globe, a series of uprisings have appeared that signal new political formations that rejected the notion that there
was no alternative to neoliberal hegemony. This was evident not only with the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote in the
United Kingdom, but also with the election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and support for popular movements such as the National Rally
in France. Establishment politics lost its legitimacy, as voters rejected the conditions produced by financialized capitalism.
In the United States, both major political parties were more than willing to turn the economy over to the bankers and hedge fund
managers while producing policies that shaped radical forms of industrial and social restructuring, all of which caused massive pain,
suffering and rage among large segments of the working class and other disenfranchised groups. Right-wing populist leaders across
the globe recognized that national economies were in the hands of foreign investors, a mobile financial elite and transnational capital.
In a masterful act of political diversion, populist leaders attacked all vestiges of liberal capitalism while refusing to name neoliberal
inequities in wealth and power as a basic threat to their societies. Instead of calling for an acceleration of the democratic ideals
of popular sovereignty and equality, right-wing populist leaders, such as Trump, Bolsonaro and Hungary's Viktor Orbán defined democracy
as the enemy of those who wish for unaccountable power. They also diverted genuine popular anger into the abyss of cultural chauvinism,
anti-immigrant hatred, a contempt of Muslims and a targeted attack on the environment, health care, education, public institutions,
social provisions and other basic life resources. As Arjun Appadurai
observes , such authoritarian leaders
hate democracy, capture the political emotions of those treated as disposable, and do everything they can to hide the deep contradictions
of neoliberal capitalism.
In this scenario, we have the resurgence of a fascist politics that capitalizes on the immiseration, fears and anxieties produced
by neoliberalism without naming the underlying conditions that create and legitimate its policies and social costs. While such populists
comment on certain elements of neoliberalism such as globalization, they largely embrace those ideological and economic elements
that concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a political, corporate and financial elite, thus reinforcing in the end an extreme
form of capitalism. Moreover, right-wing populists may condemn globalization, but they do so by blaming those considered outside
the inclusive boundaries of a white homeland even though
the same forces victimize them . At the same
time, such leaders mobilize passions that deny critical understanding while simultaneously creating desires and affects that produce
toxic and hypermasculine forms of identification.
Authoritarian leaders hate democracy and do everything they can to hide the deep contradictions of neoliberal capitalism.
In this instance, an oppressive form of education becomes central to politics and is
used as a tool of power in the struggle over
power, agency and politics. What is at stake here is not simply a struggle between authoritarian ideas and democratic ideals, but
also a fierce battle on the part of demagogues to destroy the institutions and conditions that make critical thought and oppositional
accounts of power possible. This is evident, for example, in Trump's constant attack on the critical media, often
referring to them as "'the enemy of the people' pushing 'Radical Left Democrat views,'" even as journalists are subject to expulsion,
mass jailing and assassination across the world by some of Trump's allies.
Waging war on democracy and the institutions that produce it, neoliberalism has tapped into a combination of fear and cathartic
cruelty that has once again unleashed the mobilizing passions of fascism, especially the historically distinct registers of extreme
nationalism, nativism, white supremacy, racial and ethnic cleansing, voter suppression, and an attack on a civic culture of critique
and resistance. The result is a new political formation that I have called neoliberal fascism, in which the principles and practices
of a fascist past and neoliberal present have merged, connecting the worst dimensions and excesses of gangster capitalism with the
fascist ideals of white nationalism and racial supremacy associated with the horrors of a fascist past.
Neoliberal fascism hollows out democracy from within, breaks down the separation of power while increasing the power of the presidency,
and saturates cultural and social life with its ideology of self-interest, a survival-of-the-fittest ethos, and regressive notions
of freedom and individual responsibility.
What needs to be acknowledged is that neoliberalism as an extreme form of capitalism has produced the conditions for a fascist
politics that is updated to serve the interest of a concentrated class of financial elite and a rising tide of political demagogues
across the globe.
The mass anger fueling neoliberal fascism is a diversion of genuine resistance into what amounts to a pathology, which empties
politics of any substance. This is evident also in its support of a right-wing populism and its focus on the immigrants and refugees
as "dangerous outsiders," which serves to eliminate class politics and camouflage its own authoritarian ruling class interests and
relentless attacks on social welfare.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy.
In the face of a looming global recession, it is crucial to understand the connection between the rise of right-wing populism
and neoliberalism, which emerged in the late 1970s as a commanding ideology fueling a punitive form of globalization. This historical
moment is marked by unique ideological, economic and political formations produced by ever-increasing brutal forms of capitalism,
however diverse.
Governing economic and political thinking everywhere, neoliberalism's unprecedented concentration of economic and political power
has produced a toxic state modeled after the models of finance and unchecked market forces. It has also produced a profound shift
in human consciousness, agency and modes of identification. The consequences have become familiar and include cruel austerity measures,
adulation of self-regulating markets, the liberating of capital from any constraints, deregulation, privatization of public goods,
the commodification of everyday life and the gutting of environmental, health and safety laws. It has also paved the way for a merging
of extreme market principles and the sordid and mushrooming elements of white supremacy, racial cleansing and ultranationalism that
have become specific to updated forms of fascist politics.
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering,
the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and
an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history
and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism
and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful
anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for
new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair
for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar
in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket 2014), The Violence of Organized
Forgetting (City Lights 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2015), America's Addiction to
Terrorism (Monthly Review Press, 2016), America at War with Itself (City Lights, 2017), The Public in Peril (Routledge, 2018) and
American Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (City Lights, 2018) and The Terror of the Unforeseen (LARB Books, 2019). Giroux is also a member of Truthout 's Board of Directors.
Are we starting to witness some state cinture in Spain?
After yesterday warning, is the socialist government of Sánchez turning, at least a
bit, if only in form, socialist?
( after the advance of the "devotes of Trump´s night worship" in yesterday elections
and probably progession of Spanish policy investigation on Barcelona riots, two events that
reinforced each other? )
Spain criticizes the role of the Bolivian Army and Police in the resignation of President
Evo Morales, after protests against his re-election.
Spain joins the avalanche of international comdenations before the proceeding of the
Bolivian Army and Police at the juncture that the Latin American country is going through,
since, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in this regard, that proceeding reminds past times in Latin American history, even more
when President Evo Morales opted for a new call for elections.
"Spain condemns that the process opened yesterday towards a new electoral call has been
distorted by the intervention of the Armed Forces and the Police, suggesting to Evo Morales
to submit his resignation", the note said.
Likewise, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls "all actors to avoid resorting
to violence" and "to guarantee the security of all Bolivians (...) including former
President Morales himself, his relatives and members of his administration".
For his part, the general secretary of the Spanish Unidas Podemos party, Pablo
Iglesias, has written on his Twitter account that "Coup d'etat in Bolivia. Shameful that
there are media that say the army makes the president resign. In the last 14 years Bolivia
has improved all its social and economic indicators. All our support to the Bolivian people
and Evo Morales".
The style of scaring the people is a total imitation from post-Maidan Ukraine, where
communists and other opposed factions in Rada were beaten, covered in paint and thrown in
waste containers...until they left the country...
Then Myrotvorets was launched and the first killings on those who dared to quition
Euromaydan events... Recall Alex Buzina... Any compromised intellectual will suffer the same
fate in Bolivia...
Guess who is behind this coup at the letter of the book...
Don't get me wrong Sasha, I don't think Evo's team objective, 2 weeks after they've win them,
was to repeat elections so soon. This is likely their best approach right now, for the sake
of Bolivians and their supporters. Not mentioning possible reaction a la Caracas.
#InfoMV Evo Morales denounced that his security personnel were offered 50 thousand dollars
for him to be delivered to violent opposition groups. He held Fernando Camacho and Carlos
Mesa responsible for what would happen to him or García Linera.
@Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 10 2019 23:43 utc | 53
You seem to be unaware of the developments of events to this time, Evo called for
elections BEFORE he was oblied to resign by police and military rebels, and made leave the
country...
Elections now with every Evo´s supporter under menace of death would only throw a fake
result favourable to the opposition who did not manage to win elections democratically...
This is the same scenario than in the Ukraine, where representatives of the working people
were never more able to concur to elections and had to leave the country, remaining to be
elected only those puppets of oligarchs or the US...
Pasquinades posted by coupist opposition before Efvo´s resignation what ccan illustrate
why the government has resigned so fast...
Pure fascism....
What I told you? Here you have the Bolivian Myrotvorets .....
Traitor Tracking The population is asked to register all the social network publications of
the "Cyber llunkus". Take screenshots and copy the links of the publications and profiles
of the "Cyber Llunkus".
The M.A.S. ( Evo´s party ) is a criminal organization.
Once Evo Morales falls, a rake will be made to identify the traitorous of the people "Cyber
Llunkus" and imprison them through the location of their mobile devices.
Fake profiles will not save them.
#Civil Resistance Bolivia
Now that the US tells us the tale of democratic elections in Bolivia now...
A people's Counter-revolution that sweeps the Reactionaries down the drain once and for
all.
Chavez was keen to the CIA's modus and thus reformed the military in numerous respects,
particularly by making it impervious to corruption--AND--instituting the uniquely structured
Bolivarian Constitution. Evo's problems stem from the lack of extensive public support as
proven by the election results that kept him from instituting the sort of reforms Chavez
accomplished; and the same goes for all other Latin American nations. In a nutshell, the
Bolivian people squabbled too much amongst themselves and never constructed the type of
Revolutionary constitution and social system required to be resilient to outside
manipulation. Yes, Venezuela was very much a Bottom->Up remaking of society to the point
where the Comprador upper 10% didn't matter, which is why Chavez then Maduro left them to
their own devices. But elsewhere, the popular masses never generated the required solidarity
to prevent losing their hard won freedoms. Sure, it's possible to regain power through the
ballot box, but it can be just as easily lost as is happening now in Bolivia if preventative
measures aren't taken beforehand.
Nations must have constitutions that don't allow for rich minorities to gain control or to
allow them to begin in control as in the USA's case. But to institute such an instrument, the
popular masses must act as one and cast their factionalisms aside until this primary aspect
of consolidating power in their hands becomes the law of their land. Plus, they must again
drop their in-fighting when confronted by any reactionary threat and remember what the main
task is at all times--Maintenance of Freedom.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
Look that this people ransacking Evo´s home, they are not white patricios ...but
those who they have payed to do the dirty work...indigenous people poorly
dressed...collaborating in ovrthrowing the legitimate democratically elected from their
own...
Yeah..this time is no different from others, they always go straight to the throat of the
weak and poor...Totally depsicable...
To their own, earning points in the view of the world...
@ Sasha who wrote
"
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
"
I agree, thank you for your commenting and want to add my perspective to that.
If you read many who come and comment at MoA that supposedly are "educated" you will
notice that they continue to think and write in terms of the conflict being between socialism
and capitalism in spite of myself, karlof1 and others that continually point out that China
is 80% capitalistic as are other "socialistic" countries but what matters is what part of the
social economy is socialism versus capitalism. That is why I continue to beat my drum about
the evil of global private finance that is the core problem with the social contract of the
West. Look at how many in the West are brainwashed to not understand the difference between
public/private finance and its effects on the whole culture and aggressive nature of the
society under that meme.
That, IMO, is the core education that all those in the West and all striving to throw off
the chains/economic jackboot of the West must learn and take to heart.
Very disappointing to hear about Evo...but this is just one round in a very long fight...
In Argentina we have a new government for the people...in Mexico also...Lula is out of
jail now in Brazil so eventually that will turn also...
The empire is rotting but is very dangerous right now because they are lashing out
everywhere...we see in Lebanon and Iraq they are not succeeding...
This is desperation we see folks...they are losing control quickly and are trying
to forestall the inevitable collapse of their global fascist dictatorship...
I think the end will come much sooner than they expect...the house of cards is teetering
badly...
Maidán script all the way....They do not have enough with hi resigning, they need
to wipe out such honest leader form the face of Earth, at least while the "new fake
elections" to maskerade the take over by the opposition are developed...as happened with
Lula....
Here, US Lawyer sees all the signature of the US around the place...as happens to
me...
A significant factor is that the anti-Morales opposition is based mainly in Santa Cruz
department in eastern Bolivia. This is the largest department (in territory and population)
in Bolivia and has significant natural gas reserves. The indigenous people living in that
department have virtually nothing in common with the highland indigenous people (Aymara and
Quechua speakers) who formed Morales' base.
Morales did not have a military background as Chavez did and we can presume he was never
able to cultivate a network of militias among the urban and rural working class that could
support and defend his government. Significantly it was the armed forces who asked Morales to
resign.
@Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 11 2019 1:34 utc | 72
Sorry...but the conflict is between socialism and capitalism...between the rich and the
working masses, especially those who work and still they remain poor....as has always
been....who says otherwise is only trying to fool the masses...
Of course, you people in this forum who live over the average peer, I do not try that you
understand...
You live in your world, looking your belly button, and the furthest you are willing to go is
complain here about the Outlaw US Empire...
Why do you not damn go tomorrow in the streets to protest this new coup by your fascist
administration?
Do not tell me, that would risk your privileged pensions...and all those expensive things
you do to your bodies...
Excuse me, but today, reading the same stupid things of always make me feel like throwing
up...
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in
#Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will. The
credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
Will he still support new elections in the morning?
Meanwhile the protesters are calling MAS a criminal
organization so no doubt it'll be excluded from the new elections as happened to the
Party Of The Regions in Ukraine. The wonders of American "democracy".
Why was Evo Morales overthrown? He was nationalizing the highly profitable lithium
industry and planning to deal directly on the international market rather than exporting the
commodity at bargain prices to Western corporations"
"Bolivia has %43 of World's Lithium mines. Batteries from smartphones to Electric cars are
all made with Lithium. Evo Morales was investing in facilities to produce Lithium as a high
end export material rather than just exporting the mine itself."
Somewhere on his blog "Sic Semper Tyrannis", maybe earlier this year, Pat relates the tale
of how when working for the US Gov. in Bolivia he gave medical help to someone and was
rewarded with information which led to the capture of Che Guevara. This may be what Sasha is
referring to.
"The Hydrocarbons law (Law 3058, May 2005) and a subsequent Supreme Decree (May 2006)
require that companies sell all production to YPFB and that domestic market demand be met
before exporting hydrocarbons. Furthermore, these laws transfer the entire transport and
sales chain over to state control. After the law was enacted, hydrocarbon companies were
required to sign new contracts with YPFB, agreeing to pay 50 percent of gross production in
taxes and royalties."
"Prepared by our U.S. Embassies abroad. With its network of 108 offices across the United
States and in more than 75 countries, the U.S. Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of
Commerce utilizes its global presence and international marketing expertise to help U.S.
companies sell their products and services worldwide. Locate the U.S. Commercial Service
trade specialist in the U.S. nearest you by visiting http://export.gov/usoffices."
I usually try to read all the comments before making my first of the day, but I have yet to
do so, although I looked to see if anyone had linked to Escobar's
report on Lula and Brazil , which is an extremely important article for events within
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and the rest of the world that's resisting the
Outlaw US Empire and its Neoliberal/Neofascist attack dogs.
The information Pepe provides is very important as it jibes with what Assad averred in
his RT
interview , for which I'm still looking for a transcript. Here's Pepe's warning about the
likely future course of events, which has CIA scrawled over every act:
"With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula's immense social base
all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst,
rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic
cocktail: social 'commotion' allied with 'terrorism' associated with 'organized crime.'
"That's all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore "order" and
finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate
bills are already making their way in Congress).
" This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the
moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty,
convoluted plot for a global audience ." [My Emphasis]
Bolivia coup was orchestrated with direct assist of OAS analysis/report which identified
alleged voting fraud. OAS report focuses on a vote-counting system called TREP, which was
adopted by Bolivia and others in the region on direct advice of OAS. The TREP system is meant
to provide/ publicize initial results, but it is not "official". The official results come
from a slower and more thorough vote count process. The OAS claim of irregularities in the
TREP count is largely irrelevant, as it was never intended to be "official" or legally
reflect official results. There were no irregularities in the official count, won by Morales,
and the so-called "delay" was in fact the natural process of the slower moving count to
produce the official result.
While Trump denounced Morales, the US State Department stepped in to sanitize Washington's
position, with a senior official telling Reuters that the US has "no preference" among
opposition candidates. The spokesperson did say, however, that anyone who tried to
"distort" last month's vote should not be allowed to participate .
That's MAS banned from the election by the cunts in the fucking State Department. Imagine
if the Russian MFA announced that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could field
presidential candidates in 2020. Trump is an idiot but the State Department, DoJ, and
Treasury are the real bastards. Forget the CIA, that's just a bunch of senile tossers who
have wet dreams about Cold War 2.0.
b mentioned lithium with reference to Bolivia in his 139 above
Nov 11, 2019 -- Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational
Firm's Lithium Deal
"Bolivia's lithium belongs to the Bolivian people. Not to multinational corporate
cabals."
The Morales move on Nov. 4 to cancel the December 2018 agreement with Germany's ACI Systems
Alemania (ACISA) came after weeks of protests from residents of the Potosí area. The
region has 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves in the Salar de Uyuni salt flats.
Among other clients, ACISA provides batteries to Tesla; Tesla's stock rose Monday after the
weekend.
As Bloomberg News noted in 2018, that has set the country up to be incredibly important in
the next decade:
Demand for lithium is expected to more than double by 2025. The soft, light mineral is
mined mainly in Australia, Chile, and Argentina. Bolivia has plenty -- 9 million tons that
have never been mined commercially, the second-largest amount in the world -- but until now
there's been no practical way to mine and sell it. . .
here
But Teslas catch fire....from ZPower--
Actually, lithium may be in trouble for vehicle batteries.
Just as lithium-ion (Li-ion) replaced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) before it and nickel
cadmium (NiCd) before that, silver zinc (AgZn) batteries are on track to replace Li-ion too,
according to a McGraw-Hill forecast as far back as 2010. Since then silver zinc has been
perfected and are on the market for rechargeable hearing-aid "button" batteries by ZPower LL
(Camarillo, Calif.) They are nonflammable and could provide up to 40 percent more run time
than lithium-ion batteries. . . here
Credit where its due: both Corbyn and Sanders have issued statements against the coup in
Bolivia.
On the other hand the recently re-elected, appalling government of Canada has backed it to
the hilt. Was probably involved in financing it. See yves engler https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/11/canada-backs-coup-against-bolivias-president/
The State Department which rarely misses a chance to discredit the democracy that it so
hates, is accusing Morales of 'distorting' the election result. Nobody is suggesting that he
didn't win the election, at most it is being claimed that his margin of victory, more than
10%, was exaggerated.
A similar, equally spurious claim was used to justify the coup against Aristide. There it was
not disputed that Lavelan candidates had won their senatorial elections but that their
victories were merely pluralities not majorities.
For this offence Canada, the US and (let it be recalled) Brazil occupied the country,
kidnapped Aristide and banned his party from running in future elections.
On November 7, 2019, the National Court of Justice of Ecuador ratified the preventive
detention of former president Rafael Correa , along with a number of his former officials.
Immediately after the court rendered its decision for pretrial detention, Correa rejected
accusations of bribery, illicit association and contributions to his political campaign between
2012 and 2016, while he was the leader of Alianza Patria Altiva i Soberana (PAIS). Correa
founded Alianza PAIS in 2006, as a democratic socialist political party with an objective to
achieve economic and political sovereignty, and foment a social and economic revolution in the
nation, which came to be known as The Citizens' Revolution (La Revolución
Ciudadana).
During his presidency, which lasted from January 15, 2007 to May 24, 2017, Correa
introduced a brand of 21 st century socialism to Ecuador, with a focus on improving
the living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. His
presidency was part of 'the revolutionary wave' in Latin America, referred to as 'Pink tide',
where a number of left-wing and socialist governments swept into power throughout the continent
during the 2000s, including Cristina Néstor Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner in
Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Manuel Zelaya in
Honduras, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, and Hugo Chávez in
Venezuela. All of these governments were opposed to neo-liberal economic policies and American
imperialism.
While he was president, Correa raised taxes on the rich and cut down on tax evasion, and
increased public investment on infrastructure and public services, including publicly-funded
pensions, housing, free health care and education. His government ended up building many
schools in different parts of the nation, particularly the countryside, and provided students
with nearly all of the materials needed to further their studies. President Correa also more
than doubled the minimum wage, which contributed to significantly reducing socioeconomic
inequality. In 2018, a World Bank report explained that:
Ecuador has made notable improvements in reducing poverty over the last decade. Income
poverty decreased from 36.7 percent in 2007 to 21.5 percent in 2017. In addition, the share
of the population living in extreme poverty fell by more than half, from 16.5 percent in 2007
to 7.9 percent in 2017, representing an average annual drop of 0.9 percentage points. In
absolute numbers, these changes represent a total of 1.6 million individuals exiting poverty,
and about one million exiting extreme poverty over the last decade.[i]
Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from an 'all time high of 11.86 percent in the first
quarter of 2004' to 'a record low of 4.54 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014'[ii]. The World
Bank also reported that Ecuador posted annual economic growth of '4.5 percent during 2001-2014,
well above the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region of 3.3 percent.
During this period, real GDP doubled and real GDP per capita increased by 50 percent.'[iii]
On October 1, 2016, Correa announced the nomination of Lenín Boltaire Moreno
Garcés , who served as his vice president from 2007 to 2013, as his party's candidate
for the 2017 presidential election at the conference of Alianza PAIS. Moreno was elected
president, and it was expected that he would continue and build on Correa's left-wing economic
policies. However, within a few months of winning the election, president Moreno began to
dismantle many of the social, economic and political reforms enacted by Correa during his
decade as president. Contrary to Correa's government, many of the domestic policies pursued by
president Moreno included reducing public spending, weakening worker rights, and providing
significant tax cuts to the rich and large corporations. In other words, president Moreno has
gradually shifted Ecuador's left-wing policies to the political centre-right.
Moreno's presidency also shifted Ecuador's foreign policy stance, giving it a more
neo-liberal and pro-American orientation. When Correa's socialist government was in power,
Ecuador enjoyed close diplomatic and economic relations with Venezuela, and was more
independent of American hegemony. For example, president Correa closed a US military base in
Manta, Ecuador when Washington's lease expired in 2009. Prior to that, in 2007, Correa
stated:
We'll renew the [Manta air] base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami --
an Ecuadorean base if there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely,
they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.[iv]
Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, he also said:
As long as I am president, I will not allow foreign bases in our homeland, I will not
allow interference in our affairs, I will not negotiate our sovereignty and I will not accept
guardians of our democracy.
Contrary to Correa, the US-Ecuador military relationship has expanded under the Moreno
government 'through training, assistance, and the reestablishment of an Office of Security
Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Quito.'[v]Ecuador and the US have also signed deals for the
purchase of weapons and other military equipment, and agreed to cooperate more closely in the
areas of security, intelligence, and counter-narcotics.
In 2011, president Correa expelled US ambassador Heather Hodges from Quito. Subsequently, in
2014, his government expelled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
from the country, where it had been operating since 1961 as part of John F. Kennedy's Alliance
for Progress (AFP)[vi]. USAID regularly exercises 'soft power' in Latin American nations in
order to help the US establish itself as an 'international police power'[vii]. In May 2019,
Moreno's government announced that USAID would return to Ecuador.
President Correa also became renowned for providing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with
political asylum in Ecuador's London embassy in 2012 to prevent his arrest and possible
extradition to the US. However, shortly after his election, there were indications that Moreno
might be willing to hand him over to authorities in the UK. In addition to calling Assange an
'inherited problem,' a 'spoiled brat' and a 'miserable hacker', Moreno accused him of
repeatedly violating his asylum conditions and of trying to use the embassy as a 'centre for
spying'[viii]. Then, on April 11, Assange's political asylum was revoked, which allowed him to
be forcibly removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police.In response, Correa called
Moreno 'the greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history' for committing 'a crime
humanity will never forget'[ix].
President Correa's government supported the integration of South America countries into a
single economic and political bloc. However, since Moreno came to power, Ecuador has distanced
itself from the Venezuelan government, and withdrew from the Bolivarian Alternative for the
Americas[x](ALBA) in August 2018, as well as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in
September 2019. UNASUR was established by 12 South American countries in 2008to address
important issues in the region without the presence of the United States. Currently, only five
members remain: Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. The other seven members,
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay, agreed to create the Forum for
the Progress of South America (PROSUR) in March 2019. The goal of this alternative organization
is to achieve the right-wing agenda in Latin America, as its members support neo-liberal
austerity measures and closer ties with Washington. It could be said that PROSUR aligns well
with the goals and objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.
Another major shift in president Moreno's political stance pertains to lawsuits brought
against Texaco/Chevron by the Correa government to obtain compensation for environmental
damages caused when the operations of Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) dumped 16 billion
gallons of toxic wastewater in the Amazon region of Ecuador between 1964 and 1992, affecting
more than 30,000 Indigenous people and Campesinos in the area. 'Chevron left 880 pits full of
crude oil which are still there, the rivers are still full of hydrocarbon sediment and polluted
by the crude oil spills in Amazonia, which is one of the most biodiversity rich regions in the
world'[xi], and 'the damage has been left unrepaired for more than 40 years'[xii]. To raise
public awareness about this environmental disaster, president Correa's government established
an international campaign called the 'Dirty Hand of Chevron'. In 2011, the Ecuadorian
Constitutional Court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in compensation for social and
environmental damages it caused.
In September 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an agency of the United Nations
based in the Hague, Netherlands, ruled that the Ecuadorian court decision against Chevron was
illegal, because it was an outcome of fraud, bribery, and corruption. The PCA 'also ruled that
Ecuador will have to pay economic compensation'[xiii]to Chevron. 'The amount has not been
established yet, but Chevron requested that Ecuador assume the US$9.5 billion' awarded to
affected communities by the Ecuadorean court.[xiv]Following the PCA decision, the government of
president Moreno announced that:
the state will sue former President Rafael Correa and his government officials if Ecuador
lost the international arbitration process.[xv]
In this matter, president Moreno also accused Correa of 'failing to defend the country's
interests correctly and spending money on "The Dirty Hand of Chevron" campaign, which according
to the government sought to "manipulate national and international public opinion."'[xvi] In
reality, president Moreno supports the PCA decision, thereby prioritizing the interest of
Texaco/Chevron over those of his own citizens . In fact, his government has been attempting
to nullify the Constitutional Court ruling against Chevron. In response, former president
Correa has accused the Moreno government of 'doing homework ordered by (the United States Vice
President Mike) Pence'. Even some of Moreno's own cabinet ministers condemned the PCA ruling
and expressed their support for Ecuador's Constitutional Court for defending of the country's
nationals interest and the rights of the people of the Amazon.
Correa exhibited a hostile attitude towards the Bretton Woods Institutions during his
presidency. He sought to renegotiate Ecuador's external debt of US$10.2 billion, which he
called 'illegitimate' because 'it was accrued during autocratic and corrupt regimes of the
past. Correa threatened to default on Ecuador's foreign debt, and ordered the expulsion of the
World Bank's country manager'[xvii], which was carried out on April 26, 2007. His government
also opposed the signing of any agreements that would permit the IMF to monitor Ecuador's
economic plan. As a result of such actions on the part of Correa's government, 'Ecuador was
able to renegotiate its debt with its creditors and redirect public funds towards social
investments.'[xviii]
To the contrary, Moreno has enthusiastically embraced the IMF during his short time as
president. On March 1, 2019, Ecuador's central bank manager, Verónica Artola
Jarrín, and economy and finance minister, Richard Martínez Alvarado,submitted a
letter of intent to the IMF requesting a three-year $4.2 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF)
agreement. An EFF allows the IMF to assist countries that are facing 'serious medium-term
balance of payments problems.' More precisely, EFF is designed to:
to provide assistance to countries: (i) experiencing serious payments imbalances because
of structural impediments; or (ii) characterized by slow growth and an inherently weak
balance of payments position. The EFF provides assistance in support of comprehensive
programs that include policies of the scope and character required to correct structural
imbalances over an extended period.[xix]
The IMF agreement signed in March allowed Ecuador to borrow $4.2 billion. However, as is
always the case, the IMF agreement was not without conditionalities, as it required the
Ecuadorian government to implement a series of neo-liberal economic reforms. According to IMF
statements, these reforms aim to transform Ecuador's fiscal deficit into a surplus, reduce the
country's debt-to-GDP ratio, and increase foreign investment. On March 11, 2019, Christine
Lagarde, former Managing Director of the IMF, claimed that:
The Ecuadorian authorities are implementing a comprehensive reform program aimed at
modernizing the economy and paving the way for strong, sustained, and equitable
growth.[xx]
On March 11, 2019, Christine Lagarde also explained that:
Achieving a robust fiscal position is at the core of the authorities' program, which will
be supported by a three-year extended arrangement from the IMF. The aim is to reduce
debt-to-GDP ratio through a combination of a wage bill realignment, a careful and gradual
optimization of fuel subsidies, a reprioritization of capital and goods and services
spending, and a tax reform. The savings generated by these measures will allow for an
increase in social assistance spending over the course of the program. The authorities will
continue their efforts to strengthen the medium-term fiscal policy framework, and more
rigorous fiscal controls and better public financial management will help to enhance the
effectiveness of fiscal policy.[xxi]
Protecting the poor and most vulnerable segments in society is a key objective of the
authorities' program. In this context, the authorities plan to extend the coverage of, and
increase the nominal level of benefits under the existing social protection programs. Work is
also underway to improve the targeting of social programs.[xxii]
Ecuador's participation in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
represents another point of contention between Correa and the Moreno government. Ecuador was a
member of OPEC from 1973 and 1992. After a period of absence, it rejoined the organization in
2007 after Correa became president of the country. However, on October 1 st ,
president Moreno announced that Ecuador would once again end its membership in OPEC effective
January 1, 2020. Given Moreno's penchant for implementing neo-liberal economic policies, this
decision was likely based on the notion that freeing the country from the burden of having to
abide by quotas would bring fiscal sustainability to Ecuador. This is evidenced by the fact
that Ecuador contacted OPEC to request permission to produce above its quota in February 2019,
though it was never confirmed whether a response was received[xxiii]. While increasing
production in its Amazonian oil fields would likely bring more foreign investment to Ecuador
and open up new markets, it would also lead to serious conflicts between the Moreno government
and the indigenous people living in the area, who are strongly opposed to oil extraction.
In addition to announcing Ecuador's departure from OPEC, president Moreno also selected
October 1 st as the date to introduce Decree 883, a series of economic measures that
included ending longstanding subsidies for fuel, the removal of some import tariffs, and cuts
to the benefits and wages of public employees. In particular, the elimination of fuel
subsidies, which had been in place for 40 years, was instituted in order to meet IMF
requirements to keep the $4.2 billion programme on track, and to satisfy international
investors. The EFF agreement between the IMF and the Ecuadorean government also called for
thousands of public employees to be laid off, the privatization of public assets, the
separation of the central bank from the government, cutting public expenditures, and raising
taxes over the next three years. IMF representatives claim that these types of reforms bring
more foreign direct investment into the economy.
In fact, a close examination of the neo-liberal economic reforms recommended by the IMF in
many countries reveals that they are almost identical, meaning that they do not take the
diverse needs and realities of each country into account; rather, they are driven by the
interests of the countries and other stakeholders that provide the funds. Generally, the IMF's
recommendations[xxiv]consist of cutting deficits, liberalizing trade, privatizing state-owned
enterprises, reforming the banking and financial systems, increasing taxes, raising interest
rates, and reforming key sectors. However, countless studies have revealed that these types of
reforms, have raised the unemployment rate, created poverty, and have often preceded
recessions. On October 2, 2019, the IMF issued a press release on Ecuador stating that:
The reforms announced yesterday by President Lenin Moreno aim to improve the resilience
and sustainability of Ecuador's economy and foster strong, and inclusive growth. The
announcement included important measures to protect the poor and most vulnerable, as well as
to generate jobs in a more competitive economy.
The authorities are also working on important reforms aimed at supporting Ecuador's
dollarization, including the reform of the central bank and the organic code of budget and
planning.
IMF staff will continue to work closely with the authorities to improve the prospects for
all Ecuadorians. The second review is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board in the
coming weeks.[xxv]
President Moreno's decision to end the subsidies on fuel led to the prices of diesel and
petroleum increasing by 100% and 30%, respectively, overnight, which directly contributed to
significantly raising the costs of public transportation. In response, protests erupted against
Moreno's austerity measures on October 3 rd , featuring students, unions and
indigenous organizations. They declared an indefinite general strike until the government
reversed its neo-liberal adjustment package. Moreno's initial response was to reject the
ultimatum and state that he would 'not negotiate with criminals.'
The following day, on October 4, 2019, president Moreno declared a state of emergency under
the pretext of ensuring the security of citizens and to 'avoid chaos.' Nonetheless, the
protests continued and intensified to the point that the government was forced to relocate to
city of Guayaquil because Quito had been overrun by anti-government protestors. However, this
attempt to escape the protestors proved ineffective as taxi, bus and truck drivers blocked
roads and bridges in Guayaquil, as well as in Quito, which disrupted transportation
nationwide.
In the following days, thousands of demonstrators continued to demand the reversal of
austerity measures, as well as the resignation of the president. However, Moreno remained
defiant, refusing both demands under all circumstances. Subsequently, Ecuador's main oil
pipeline ceased operations after it was seized by indigenous protesters. Petro-Ecuador was
concerned that production losses could reach 165,000 barrels a day. Indigenous protesters also
occupied two water treatment plants in the city of Ambato. Meanwhile, violent clashes between
protesters and police resulted in seven deaths , about 2,000 injuries, and over 1,000
arrests. Eventually, Moreno's government was forced to back down and make concession with the
well -organised protesters.
On October 13, president Moreno agreed to withdraw Decree 883 and replace the IMF-backed
plan with a new proposal, involving negotiations with the Confederation of Indigenous
Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) and other social groups. The following day, president Moreno
signed Decree 894, which reinstated the cancelled fuel subsidies. However, on October 23,
CONAIE released a statement informing the public that 'it paused talks with President Lenin
Moreno because of the government's "persecution" of the group's leaders [Jaime Vargas] since a
halt to violent anti-austerity protests.'[xxvi]
It is unlikely that president Moreno would be willing to give up on his austerity policies
or start the process of cancelling the IMF loan, given his apparent commitment to helping the
US realize the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Many of the reforms and policies that his
government has introduced will help keep Ecuador firmly entrenched in America's backyard for
years to come.
This is not a new development, as history has revealed that, for more than a century
, 'in Latin America there are more than enough of the kind of rulers who are ready to use
Yankee troops against their own people when they find themselves in crisis' (Fidel Castro,
Havana 1962). However, the eruption of protests in response to Moreno's neo-liberal reforms
suggests that he faces an uphill battle, as his fellow Ecuadorians do not appear to share his
enthusiasm for selling his country to external creditors and foreign influences. Although
Moreno has managed to successfully drive Rafael Correa out of Ecuador, the former president's
opposition to capitalism and imperialism remain strong among the population.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Ottawa.
"... From the 1950s, the anti-Soviet fervor of these New York City-based intellectuals prompted support for the early United States intervention in Vietnam. In the 1970s, the Socialist Party split up as some factions aligned with the New Left. The neocons formed the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), only later abandoning their socialist party-building in favor of penetrating both the Democratic and Republican parties. In the 1970s, Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Representative William Hughes hired some leading second-generation neocons as foreign policy staffers, beginning a long, steady penetration of key Congressional committees. ..."
"... Does the permanent warfare of today's neocons differ in any real way from the Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution? Socialism has been replaced by democracy-promotion but that difference is small, particularly as the consequences continue to play out on the world stage. ..."
"... Antonio Gramsci quote" Trotskyist are the whores of the fascists". Globalist are modern day or post modern Trotskyist ..."
As the happy marriage of neoconservatives and Obama-era humanitarian interventionists continues to flourish in defense of American
permanent war deployments around the globe, it is a worthwhile moment to recall the roots of the neocons in the old left of the 1930s.
Neocon founders like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Max Schachtman, Seymour Martin Lipset, Irving Howe, Nathan Glazer, and Gertrude
Himmelfarb were all anti-Soviet socialists from the 1930s, many of whom were followers of Leon Trotsky. Trotsky broke with Stalin
in the late 1930s over his emphasis on permanent world socialist revolution, as Stalin concentrated on the consolidation of "socialist
in one country"--the USSR.
From the 1950s, the anti-Soviet fervor of these New York City-based intellectuals prompted support for the early United States
intervention in Vietnam. In the 1970s, the Socialist Party split up as some factions aligned with the New Left. The neocons formed
the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), only later abandoning their socialist party-building in favor of penetrating both the Democratic
and Republican parties. In the 1970s, Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Representative William Hughes hired
some leading second-generation neocons as foreign policy staffers, beginning a long, steady penetration of key Congressional committees.
At the Gerald Ford White House, successive chiefs of staff Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney organized a series of "intellectual
seminars" by Irving Kristol, further spreading neocon ideology within the foreign policy establishment. As Defense Secretary and
later as Vice President, Cheney continued to promote neocons to key posts and to advocate for neocon permanent warfare.
Early in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan launched "Project Democracy," to spread democracy around the globe through well-funded
programs including the National Endowment for Democracy, led by Carl Gershman, who has headed the NED since its founding in 1984
through to the present. Gershman was previously Executive Director of Social Democrats USA. NED has been a stronghold of neocons
from its inception.
While the anti-Soviet outlook of the neocons continued even after the Berlin Wall and the fall of Soviet communism, the focus
increasingly was on permanent warfare to promote democracy around the globe.
Does the permanent warfare of today's neocons differ in any real way from the Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution? Socialism
has been replaced by democracy-promotion but that difference is small, particularly as the consequences continue to play out on the
world stage.
"Does the permanent warfare of today's neocons differ in any real way from the Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution? Socialism
has been replaced by democracy-promotion but that difference is small, particularly as the consequences continue to play out on
the world stage."
I don't think the Democracy bit is much more than a fig leaf, it can quickly be discarded if votes do not
go as required. The aim seems to have more to do with removing unfriendly regimes and replacing them with compliant ones. It does
not work because the people/'voters' do not like the imposed elites and are inclined to vote by tribe/clan/religion, rather than
any western concept of party, the biggest block wins and lords it over the minority.
Irving was quite a character. A socialist who's eyes were not totally closed to the um, "contradictions" and stagnation inherent
in socialist economies. He spun his wheels mightily in the pages of Dissent trying to reconcile his socialist ideals with it's
fundamental conflict with human nature.
Ok, thus the essence of neoconism is Trotzkism and not Straussianism?
In other words, concerning the neoconservatives it makes no sense to look at the (Leo) Straussian angle? Arbitarily?
Now, considering their (not so prominent???) part in the US Culture War (still ongoing???) I am admittedly puzzled. If they
were leaning towards Strauss at one point in time, they may well have shifted from revolutionaries to counterevolutionaries at
one point in time. No?
They never did? They weren't impressed by their heroes death, but carried his legacy on? Nevertheless?
Actually, this is a recasting of the old Muslim idea of Dar al Salam and Dar al Harb. Western Diocletian states embodying the
House of Peace while the rest of mankind lives in the House of War. For Muslims, the idea was to bring the benefits of Islam to
non-Muslims. Here, it is to bring the benefits of Civilization to the barbarian hordes.
Fundamentally, neocon and their fellow travellers - an assortment of Protestants, Jews, Nihilists, Democrats, and Shoah Cultists
- are waging a relugious war that has failed and will fail against the particularities of mankind. Just like Islam failed to destroy
either Christianity or Hinduism, this Western errand will fail too.
I think these people are the type, subset pseudointellectuals, that just enjoy power and using it to stir the pot of humanity
for self-glorification.
IMO, they really believe in nothing else. They are, by nature, miserable craven control freaks that justify their activities
by hijacking whatever ideology is floating around in the zeitgeist that the dupes will follow; could be Islam, could be Christianity,
could be democracy, could be socialism. Makes no difference to them as long as they get to experience themselves as superior masters
of the world.
In Libya, in 2011, Democracy-promoters destroyed her so that Sarkozy and others in France, Spain, Italy, UK could steal her
wealth; reminiscent of Muslim invasions of India in search of war booty, rapine, and slaves, in the name of Islam.
So? This review of (important) history gives us no insight into why it happened or why we should care today. Yes, I agree that
these were bad people in the 1930s and they remained bad people when they moved (in theory) from the left wing to the right wing.
But that is all you have said. What were the motives? How was it done? Why were they able to find acceptance in both parties with
such a lousy history? How are they able to continue being accepted after such a lousy continuing history.
This account is all ad hominem, all about how a certain strain of ideologue has consistently advocated for policies of world-wide
control. The logical back story would be a Trotskyite coordinating presence, something I don't for a minute believe. Yet people
of this description are undeniably pervasive in the councils of state.
So what is the connection between advocates of US dominion and former advocates of world wide revolution? And, if it is just
a matter of attitudes toward power, why should we care? So some people 70 years ago (bad people, admittedly) had an influence
of some people today (also in my mind bad people). So? Were they the only people from that era who held such attitudes? Could
we not just as easily trace other genealogies for ideas of US domination? Do such ideas ever in history fail to materialize when
the power balances enable them?
So you don't like these people and you don't like where you think they came from. But do you have anything to say about why
they are so pervasive and what could be done about it?
Ah, the good old days. In the early 80's I would stop after work at the local newsstand and pick up Commentary, Dissent, Partisan
Review, National Interest, and so on. Whatever struck my fancy and for some reason, these did even though their circulation was
quite small. At the time I didn't not realize their commonality which came to me later in the 80's. The PBS movie/book, "Arguing
the World," which came out about 20 years ago, has a lot of the backstory.
A common thread is the desire to change the world though they had different views of what that "change" should be.
As for me, I was an accidental entrepreneur and generally liked Hayek's economic views. I'm also highly skeptical of idealist
and messianic movements like Mao's which the 60's had been rife with. But I loved readings all these rags with somewhat different
perspectives but a common thread that each seemed to think their "Truth" should rule. Seems to me the greatest evil gets perpetrated
by those that think they have found "The Way."
How much of neoconservatism cum liberal internationalism (foreign policy idealism aka Wilsonianism) is "spreading freedom and
democracy" and now much is neoliberal globalization as "making the world safe for capitalism"?
In either case the end in view is a Pax Americana where the US has permanent global dominance in accordance with the Wolfowitz
doctrine of not permitting a challenger to arise as a competitor.
If you go no further than Marxism, you will not understand what is happening. But to go further is to engage in thoughtcrime.
Fortunately, the Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones has written a great book on this. It is called The Jewish Revolutionary
Spirit: And Its Impact on World History. Incredibly, it has not been banned from Amazon yet. It is exhaustive, encyclopedic and
documented.
Jones has developed a following among young Catholics appalled at both the corruption in Rome and the corruption in American
society. These kids are the ones digging conservatism's grave, not the left. The left needs Conservative Inc to plays its role
and keep the show going for the benefit of older people who get all their information from television.
It has not been covered much by the media but TPUSA, a Trump-aligned youth organization, has been battered by audience after
audience on its recent campus tour. Yesterday in Los Angeles Donald Trump Jr was booed off the stage as he tried to promote his
latest book.
At first, TPUSA tried to blame campus leftwingers. This was an obvious lie, and so they began to call the audience Nazis. Then,
they accused them of being virgins. They tried to vet and plant questioners but when this failed they eliminated the Q&A altogether.
A similar episode happened the week before when Sebastian Gorka stupidly took on a 20 year-old Youtube personality with an audience
ten times larger than his own.
Post-WW2 Conservatives failed because they never understood what they were fighting, failed to wage culture war, and fooled
themselves into thinking that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant the end of struggle, when it only meant a change of theater.
"...appeared to have fallen from a balcony." I somehow doubt that.
"The NGO's funders currently include the British and German governments. The Trump administration froze US funding, which made
up about one-third of the total, without public explanation in early 2018, but resumed giving financial aid last month amid criticism
of its decision to withdraw US troops from north-eastern Syria."
I bet that pissed off the neocons to no end. He should stop it again. We can use the money at home.
"Does the permanent warfare of today's neocons differ in any real way from the Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution?"
Yes, profoundly. For starters, Permanent Revolution and world revolution were two separate Trotskyist doctrines.
Permanent Revolution was a doctrine eschewing the mainstream social-democratic strategy of supporting bourgeois-democratic revolutions
until the proletariat gained sufficient strength to gain state power. Trotsky contended that socialist - capitalist alliances
were inherently unstable and that bourgeois-democratic forces would inevitably align with the existing ruling order against the
proletariat. World revolution was a doctrine that a socialist revolution in Russia could not survive in isolation and revolutions
had to take place in more advanced countries, particularly Germany. That was given a messianic veneer of "proletarian internationalism"
and "world revolution." Such maximalism was opposed to realist expedients such as the New Economic Policy and the Rapallo Treaty
of 1924 that fostered economic relations between the Soviet Union and capitalist Germany.
Revolutionary movements have always drawn opportunists who saw them mainly as a shortcut to gaining power for themselves. The
ur-neocons were such a group. Their loyalty to Trotskyist ideology only lasted as long as they saw it as something that could
boost them into power. When better means in various apparatuses of US power presented themselves, they latched onto them under
the guise of "spreading democracy." That seems a cynical formulation, since the most consistent neocon ideological theme is that
the great unwashed masses are not to be trusted, so power must be arrogated to themselves.
"... the most consistent neocon ideological theme is that the great unwashed masses are not to be trusted, so power must be arrogated
to themselves." Isn't that the real ideology of all these factions? To my mind the rest is all just tactics.
I am genuinely unsure what the real distinctions are. The present American "conservative" idolizing of democracy and free market
economics seems about as sincere as the Communist ideal of economic control by the working classes. Many years ago I argued with
a (captured) VC political officer that the Vietnam war was just a fight between two elites over who would get to run things. He
was appalled by the idea. His claim to the moral high ground was based on two factors: the personal honesty of the Viet Cong cadre
and the party discipline that that guaranteed it. These seemed plausible at the time. Both went up in smoke almost as soon as
the victory had been won.
How different were the results of the war from those to be expected from a Southern victory? I haven't followed the subsequent
history in detail, but American Vietnamese acquaintances tell me that 40 years later everything is being run by Southerners. Not
identically the same Southerners, but ... And does anyone believe that a southern government securely established would not have
set about expelling the Chinese population that had accumulated during the years when the Vietnamese could not control their own
borders? (American media never said much about it, but the boat people were overwhelmingly Chinese victims of longstanding hatreds.)
So how different is the neocon vision from a Trotskyist vision in a world where direct control is no longer possible?
The dots I have yet to connect are those that trace the path by which the neoconservatives wandered from their socialist roots
to become the enforcers of the Western world's fundamentalist neoliberal ideology of political economy. How many of the dots pertaining
to the latter came to be embedded in the western industrialized world and most of the Global South were tied together for me by
the recent book Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism , by Quinn Slobodian. Several points jump
from the author's narrative. The neoliberal movement traces its origins to two citizens of the Austrian Empire who came of age
in the decades immediately before its collapse: Ludwig von Mises* (b 1881) and Frederick Hayek (b 1899). Both were of un-landed
noble families that had been promoted to that status just a generation or two before. Slobodian argues that the Empire's uniqueness
as a multi-cultural, multi-national entity held together by a common market with no internal tariffs and free migration within
the empire led them (and especially Hayek) to envision a similarly structured world economy. They and their disciples and successors
saw the making of that structure happen as their lives' work. The goal remained constant but the means of achieving it changed
with the times. First they saw the League of Nations as the potential vehicle until its collapse during the Second World War.
Next was the United Nation until it was "overrun" by new nations emerging from colonialism. The goal was largely achieved in the
late 20th century when General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) morphed into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.
The most salient features of a neoliberal political economy are: free movement and safety of capital and protections for the ownership
rights of investors across borders; free migration of people across those same borders; also tariff-free trade among countries;
and the removal of economic policies and relationships from the purviews of sovereign countries and subordinate jurisdictions
within them.
Slobodian elaborates how as the neoliberal ideology became embedded in the world economy during the 20th century it was believed
by the movers and shakers (mostly implicitly but in some cases explicitly) that the lagging development status of the peoples
of the recently decolonized emerging countries were the results of racial and/or cultural weaknesses. There was little recognition
of the impacts of the cultural carnage and wealth extraction that were part and parcel of colonial enterprise. As a result, as
the institutions of radical neoliberalism took shape they consigned a secondary economic status to the countries of what is now
known as the Global South. The USA has been the leader in putting this ideology in place and has been aggressively looking out
for its own interests in the process, which is understandable.* However an unintended consequence has been an economically lagging
global south that has been prevented from industrializing enough to employ the millions of people whose farms have become uncompetitive
with highly industrialized USA and European agribusiness. These folks move off the land either to the growing megacities of the
Global South or, increasingly, into countries of the Global North by means either legal or illegal. Thus the Democratic Party
establishment's Kumbaya on immigration is not all sweetness, light and harmony. They're also doing the bidding of their neoliberal
masters.
On November 7, 2019, the National Court of Justice of Ecuador ratified the preventive
detention of former president Rafael Correa , along with a number of his former officials.
Immediately after the court rendered its decision for pretrial detention, Correa rejected
accusations of bribery, illicit association and contributions to his political campaign between
2012 and 2016, while he was the leader of Alianza Patria Altiva i Soberana (PAIS). Correa
founded Alianza PAIS in 2006, as a democratic socialist political party with an objective to
achieve economic and political sovereignty, and foment a social and economic revolution in the
nation, which came to be known as The Citizens' Revolution (La Revolución
Ciudadana).
During his presidency, which lasted from January 15, 2007 to May 24, 2017, Correa
introduced a brand of 21 st century socialism to Ecuador, with a focus on improving
the living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. His
presidency was part of 'the revolutionary wave' in Latin America, referred to as 'Pink tide',
where a number of left-wing and socialist governments swept into power throughout the continent
during the 2000s, including Cristina Néstor Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner in
Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Manuel Zelaya in
Honduras, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, and Hugo Chávez in
Venezuela. All of these governments were opposed to neo-liberal economic policies and American
imperialism.
While he was president, Correa raised taxes on the rich and cut down on tax evasion, and
increased public investment on infrastructure and public services, including publicly-funded
pensions, housing, free health care and education. His government ended up building many
schools in different parts of the nation, particularly the countryside, and provided students
with nearly all of the materials needed to further their studies. President Correa also more
than doubled the minimum wage, which contributed to significantly reducing socioeconomic
inequality. In 2018, a World Bank report explained that:
Ecuador has made notable improvements in reducing poverty over the last decade. Income
poverty decreased from 36.7 percent in 2007 to 21.5 percent in 2017. In addition, the share
of the population living in extreme poverty fell by more than half, from 16.5 percent in 2007
to 7.9 percent in 2017, representing an average annual drop of 0.9 percentage points. In
absolute numbers, these changes represent a total of 1.6 million individuals exiting poverty,
and about one million exiting extreme poverty over the last decade.[i]
Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from an 'all time high of 11.86 percent in the first
quarter of 2004' to 'a record low of 4.54 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014'[ii]. The World
Bank also reported that Ecuador posted annual economic growth of '4.5 percent during 2001-2014,
well above the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region of 3.3 percent.
During this period, real GDP doubled and real GDP per capita increased by 50 percent.'[iii]
On October 1, 2016, Correa announced the nomination of Lenín Boltaire Moreno
Garcés , who served as his vice president from 2007 to 2013, as his party's candidate
for the 2017 presidential election at the conference of Alianza PAIS. Moreno was elected
president, and it was expected that he would continue and build on Correa's left-wing economic
policies. However, within a few months of winning the election, president Moreno began to
dismantle many of the social, economic and political reforms enacted by Correa during his
decade as president. Contrary to Correa's government, many of the domestic policies pursued by
president Moreno included reducing public spending, weakening worker rights, and providing
significant tax cuts to the rich and large corporations. In other words, president Moreno has
gradually shifted Ecuador's left-wing policies to the political centre-right.
Moreno's presidency also shifted Ecuador's foreign policy stance, giving it a more
neo-liberal and pro-American orientation. When Correa's socialist government was in power,
Ecuador enjoyed close diplomatic and economic relations with Venezuela, and was more
independent of American hegemony. For example, president Correa closed a US military base in
Manta, Ecuador when Washington's lease expired in 2009. Prior to that, in 2007, Correa
stated:
We'll renew the [Manta air] base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami --
an Ecuadorean base if there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely,
they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.[iv]
Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, he also said:
As long as I am president, I will not allow foreign bases in our homeland, I will not
allow interference in our affairs, I will not negotiate our sovereignty and I will not accept
guardians of our democracy.
Contrary to Correa, the US-Ecuador military relationship has expanded under the Moreno
government 'through training, assistance, and the reestablishment of an Office of Security
Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Quito.'[v]Ecuador and the US have also signed deals for the
purchase of weapons and other military equipment, and agreed to cooperate more closely in the
areas of security, intelligence, and counter-narcotics.
In 2011, president Correa expelled US ambassador Heather Hodges from Quito. Subsequently, in
2014, his government expelled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
from the country, where it had been operating since 1961 as part of John F. Kennedy's Alliance
for Progress (AFP)[vi]. USAID regularly exercises 'soft power' in Latin American nations in
order to help the US establish itself as an 'international police power'[vii]. In May 2019,
Moreno's government announced that USAID would return to Ecuador.
President Correa also became renowned for providing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with
political asylum in Ecuador's London embassy in 2012 to prevent his arrest and possible
extradition to the US. However, shortly after his election, there were indications that Moreno
might be willing to hand him over to authorities in the UK. In addition to calling Assange an
'inherited problem,' a 'spoiled brat' and a 'miserable hacker', Moreno accused him of
repeatedly violating his asylum conditions and of trying to use the embassy as a 'centre for
spying'[viii]. Then, on April 11, Assange's political asylum was revoked, which allowed him to
be forcibly removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police.In response, Correa called
Moreno 'the greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history' for committing 'a crime
humanity will never forget'[ix].
President Correa's government supported the integration of South America countries into a
single economic and political bloc. However, since Moreno came to power, Ecuador has distanced
itself from the Venezuelan government, and withdrew from the Bolivarian Alternative for the
Americas[x](ALBA) in August 2018, as well as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in
September 2019. UNASUR was established by 12 South American countries in 2008to address
important issues in the region without the presence of the United States. Currently, only five
members remain: Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. The other seven members,
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay, agreed to create the Forum for
the Progress of South America (PROSUR) in March 2019. The goal of this alternative organization
is to achieve the right-wing agenda in Latin America, as its members support neo-liberal
austerity measures and closer ties with Washington. It could be said that PROSUR aligns well
with the goals and objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.
Another major shift in president Moreno's political stance pertains to lawsuits brought
against Texaco/Chevron by the Correa government to obtain compensation for environmental
damages caused when the operations of Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) dumped 16 billion
gallons of toxic wastewater in the Amazon region of Ecuador between 1964 and 1992, affecting
more than 30,000 Indigenous people and Campesinos in the area. 'Chevron left 880 pits full of
crude oil which are still there, the rivers are still full of hydrocarbon sediment and polluted
by the crude oil spills in Amazonia, which is one of the most biodiversity rich regions in the
world'[xi], and 'the damage has been left unrepaired for more than 40 years'[xii]. To raise
public awareness about this environmental disaster, president Correa's government established
an international campaign called the 'Dirty Hand of Chevron'. In 2011, the Ecuadorian
Constitutional Court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in compensation for social and
environmental damages it caused.
In September 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an agency of the United Nations
based in the Hague, Netherlands, ruled that the Ecuadorian court decision against Chevron was
illegal, because it was an outcome of fraud, bribery, and corruption. The PCA 'also ruled that
Ecuador will have to pay economic compensation'[xiii]to Chevron. 'The amount has not been
established yet, but Chevron requested that Ecuador assume the US$9.5 billion' awarded to
affected communities by the Ecuadorean court.[xiv]Following the PCA decision, the government of
president Moreno announced that:
the state will sue former President Rafael Correa and his government officials if Ecuador
lost the international arbitration process.[xv]
In this matter, president Moreno also accused Correa of 'failing to defend the country's
interests correctly and spending money on "The Dirty Hand of Chevron" campaign, which according
to the government sought to "manipulate national and international public opinion."'[xvi] In
reality, president Moreno supports the PCA decision, thereby prioritizing the interest of
Texaco/Chevron over those of his own citizens . In fact, his government has been attempting
to nullify the Constitutional Court ruling against Chevron. In response, former president
Correa has accused the Moreno government of 'doing homework ordered by (the United States Vice
President Mike) Pence'. Even some of Moreno's own cabinet ministers condemned the PCA ruling
and expressed their support for Ecuador's Constitutional Court for defending of the country's
nationals interest and the rights of the people of the Amazon.
Correa exhibited a hostile attitude towards the Bretton Woods Institutions during his
presidency. He sought to renegotiate Ecuador's external debt of US$10.2 billion, which he
called 'illegitimate' because 'it was accrued during autocratic and corrupt regimes of the
past. Correa threatened to default on Ecuador's foreign debt, and ordered the expulsion of the
World Bank's country manager'[xvii], which was carried out on April 26, 2007. His government
also opposed the signing of any agreements that would permit the IMF to monitor Ecuador's
economic plan. As a result of such actions on the part of Correa's government, 'Ecuador was
able to renegotiate its debt with its creditors and redirect public funds towards social
investments.'[xviii]
To the contrary, Moreno has enthusiastically embraced the IMF during his short time as
president. On March 1, 2019, Ecuador's central bank manager, Verónica Artola
Jarrín, and economy and finance minister, Richard Martínez Alvarado,submitted a
letter of intent to the IMF requesting a three-year $4.2 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF)
agreement. An EFF allows the IMF to assist countries that are facing 'serious medium-term
balance of payments problems.' More precisely, EFF is designed to:
to provide assistance to countries: (i) experiencing serious payments imbalances because
of structural impediments; or (ii) characterized by slow growth and an inherently weak
balance of payments position. The EFF provides assistance in support of comprehensive
programs that include policies of the scope and character required to correct structural
imbalances over an extended period.[xix]
The IMF agreement signed in March allowed Ecuador to borrow $4.2 billion. However, as is
always the case, the IMF agreement was not without conditionalities, as it required the
Ecuadorian government to implement a series of neo-liberal economic reforms. According to IMF
statements, these reforms aim to transform Ecuador's fiscal deficit into a surplus, reduce the
country's debt-to-GDP ratio, and increase foreign investment. On March 11, 2019, Christine
Lagarde, former Managing Director of the IMF, claimed that:
The Ecuadorian authorities are implementing a comprehensive reform program aimed at
modernizing the economy and paving the way for strong, sustained, and equitable
growth.[xx]
On March 11, 2019, Christine Lagarde also explained that:
Achieving a robust fiscal position is at the core of the authorities' program, which will
be supported by a three-year extended arrangement from the IMF. The aim is to reduce
debt-to-GDP ratio through a combination of a wage bill realignment, a careful and gradual
optimization of fuel subsidies, a reprioritization of capital and goods and services
spending, and a tax reform. The savings generated by these measures will allow for an
increase in social assistance spending over the course of the program. The authorities will
continue their efforts to strengthen the medium-term fiscal policy framework, and more
rigorous fiscal controls and better public financial management will help to enhance the
effectiveness of fiscal policy.[xxi]
Protecting the poor and most vulnerable segments in society is a key objective of the
authorities' program. In this context, the authorities plan to extend the coverage of, and
increase the nominal level of benefits under the existing social protection programs. Work is
also underway to improve the targeting of social programs.[xxii]
Ecuador's participation in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
represents another point of contention between Correa and the Moreno government. Ecuador was a
member of OPEC from 1973 and 1992. After a period of absence, it rejoined the organization in
2007 after Correa became president of the country. However, on October 1 st ,
president Moreno announced that Ecuador would once again end its membership in OPEC effective
January 1, 2020. Given Moreno's penchant for implementing neo-liberal economic policies, this
decision was likely based on the notion that freeing the country from the burden of having to
abide by quotas would bring fiscal sustainability to Ecuador. This is evidenced by the fact
that Ecuador contacted OPEC to request permission to produce above its quota in February 2019,
though it was never confirmed whether a response was received[xxiii]. While increasing
production in its Amazonian oil fields would likely bring more foreign investment to Ecuador
and open up new markets, it would also lead to serious conflicts between the Moreno government
and the indigenous people living in the area, who are strongly opposed to oil extraction.
In addition to announcing Ecuador's departure from OPEC, president Moreno also selected
October 1 st as the date to introduce Decree 883, a series of economic measures that
included ending longstanding subsidies for fuel, the removal of some import tariffs, and cuts
to the benefits and wages of public employees. In particular, the elimination of fuel
subsidies, which had been in place for 40 years, was instituted in order to meet IMF
requirements to keep the $4.2 billion programme on track, and to satisfy international
investors. The EFF agreement between the IMF and the Ecuadorean government also called for
thousands of public employees to be laid off, the privatization of public assets, the
separation of the central bank from the government, cutting public expenditures, and raising
taxes over the next three years. IMF representatives claim that these types of reforms bring
more foreign direct investment into the economy.
In fact, a close examination of the neo-liberal economic reforms recommended by the IMF in
many countries reveals that they are almost identical, meaning that they do not take the
diverse needs and realities of each country into account; rather, they are driven by the
interests of the countries and other stakeholders that provide the funds. Generally, the IMF's
recommendations[xxiv]consist of cutting deficits, liberalizing trade, privatizing state-owned
enterprises, reforming the banking and financial systems, increasing taxes, raising interest
rates, and reforming key sectors. However, countless studies have revealed that these types of
reforms, have raised the unemployment rate, created poverty, and have often preceded
recessions. On October 2, 2019, the IMF issued a press release on Ecuador stating that:
The reforms announced yesterday by President Lenin Moreno aim to improve the resilience
and sustainability of Ecuador's economy and foster strong, and inclusive growth. The
announcement included important measures to protect the poor and most vulnerable, as well as
to generate jobs in a more competitive economy.
The authorities are also working on important reforms aimed at supporting Ecuador's
dollarization, including the reform of the central bank and the organic code of budget and
planning.
IMF staff will continue to work closely with the authorities to improve the prospects for
all Ecuadorians. The second review is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board in the
coming weeks.[xxv]
President Moreno's decision to end the subsidies on fuel led to the prices of diesel and
petroleum increasing by 100% and 30%, respectively, overnight, which directly contributed to
significantly raising the costs of public transportation. In response, protests erupted against
Moreno's austerity measures on October 3 rd , featuring students, unions and
indigenous organizations. They declared an indefinite general strike until the government
reversed its neo-liberal adjustment package. Moreno's initial response was to reject the
ultimatum and state that he would 'not negotiate with criminals.'
The following day, on October 4, 2019, president Moreno declared a state of emergency under
the pretext of ensuring the security of citizens and to 'avoid chaos.' Nonetheless, the
protests continued and intensified to the point that the government was forced to relocate to
city of Guayaquil because Quito had been overrun by anti-government protestors. However, this
attempt to escape the protestors proved ineffective as taxi, bus and truck drivers blocked
roads and bridges in Guayaquil, as well as in Quito, which disrupted transportation
nationwide.
In the following days, thousands of demonstrators continued to demand the reversal of
austerity measures, as well as the resignation of the president. However, Moreno remained
defiant, refusing both demands under all circumstances. Subsequently, Ecuador's main oil
pipeline ceased operations after it was seized by indigenous protesters. Petro-Ecuador was
concerned that production losses could reach 165,000 barrels a day. Indigenous protesters also
occupied two water treatment plants in the city of Ambato. Meanwhile, violent clashes between
protesters and police resulted in seven deaths , about 2,000 injuries, and over 1,000
arrests. Eventually, Moreno's government was forced to back down and make concession with the
well -organised protesters.
On October 13, president Moreno agreed to withdraw Decree 883 and replace the IMF-backed
plan with a new proposal, involving negotiations with the Confederation of Indigenous
Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) and other social groups. The following day, president Moreno
signed Decree 894, which reinstated the cancelled fuel subsidies. However, on October 23,
CONAIE released a statement informing the public that 'it paused talks with President Lenin
Moreno because of the government's "persecution" of the group's leaders [Jaime Vargas] since a
halt to violent anti-austerity protests.'[xxvi]
It is unlikely that president Moreno would be willing to give up on his austerity policies
or start the process of cancelling the IMF loan, given his apparent commitment to helping the
US realize the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Many of the reforms and policies that his
government has introduced will help keep Ecuador firmly entrenched in America's backyard for
years to come.
This is not a new development, as history has revealed that, for more than a century
, 'in Latin America there are more than enough of the kind of rulers who are ready to use
Yankee troops against their own people when they find themselves in crisis' (Fidel Castro,
Havana 1962). However, the eruption of protests in response to Moreno's neo-liberal reforms
suggests that he faces an uphill battle, as his fellow Ecuadorians do not appear to share his
enthusiasm for selling his country to external creditors and foreign influences. Although
Moreno has managed to successfully drive Rafael Correa out of Ecuador, the former president's
opposition to capitalism and imperialism remain strong among the population.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Ottawa.
Are we starting to witness some state cinture in Spain?
After yesterday warning, is the socialist government of Sánchez turning, at least a
bit, if only in form, socialist?
( after the advance of the "devotes of Trump´s night worship" in yesterday elections
and probably progession of Spanish policy investigation on Barcelona riots, two events that
reinforced each other? )
Spain criticizes the role of the Bolivian Army and Police in the resignation of President
Evo Morales, after protests against his re-election.
Spain joins the avalanche of international comdenations before the proceeding of the
Bolivian Army and Police at the juncture that the Latin American country is going through,
since, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in this regard, that proceeding reminds past times in Latin American history, even more
when President Evo Morales opted for a new call for elections.
"Spain condemns that the process opened yesterday towards a new electoral call has been
distorted by the intervention of the Armed Forces and the Police, suggesting to Evo Morales
to submit his resignation", the note said.
Likewise, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls "all actors to avoid resorting
to violence" and "to guarantee the security of all Bolivians (...) including former
President Morales himself, his relatives and members of his administration".
For his part, the general secretary of the Spanish Unidas Podemos party, Pablo
Iglesias, has written on his Twitter account that "Coup d'etat in Bolivia. Shameful that
there are media that say the army makes the president resign. In the last 14 years Bolivia
has improved all its social and economic indicators. All our support to the Bolivian people
and Evo Morales".
The style of scaring the people is a total imitation from post-Maidan Ukraine, where
communists and other opposed factions in Rada were beaten, covered in paint and thrown in
waste containers...until they left the country...
Then Myrotvorets was launched and the first killings on those who dared to quition
Euromaydan events... Recall Alex Buzina... Any compromised intellectual will suffer the same
fate in Bolivia...
Guess who is behind this coup at the letter of the book...
Don't get me wrong Sasha, I don't think Evo's team objective, 2 weeks after they've win them,
was to repeat elections so soon. This is likely their best approach right now, for the sake
of Bolivians and their supporters. Not mentioning possible reaction a la Caracas.
#InfoMV Evo Morales denounced that his security personnel were offered 50 thousand dollars
for him to be delivered to violent opposition groups. He held Fernando Camacho and Carlos
Mesa responsible for what would happen to him or García Linera.
@Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 10 2019 23:43 utc | 53
You seem to be unaware of the developments of events to this time, Evo called for
elections BEFORE he was oblied to resign by police and military rebels, and made leave the
country...
Elections now with every Evo´s supporter under menace of death would only throw a fake
result favourable to the opposition who did not manage to win elections democratically...
This is the same scenario than in the Ukraine, where representatives of the working people
were never more able to concur to elections and had to leave the country, remaining to be
elected only those puppets of oligarchs or the US...
Pasquinades posted by coupist opposition before Efvo´s resignation what ccan illustrate
why the government has resigned so fast...
Pure fascism....
What I told you? Here you have the Bolivian Myrotvorets .....
Traitor Tracking The population is asked to register all the social network publications of
the "Cyber llunkus". Take screenshots and copy the links of the publications and profiles
of the "Cyber Llunkus".
The M.A.S. ( Evo´s party ) is a criminal organization.
Once Evo Morales falls, a rake will be made to identify the traitorous of the people "Cyber
Llunkus" and imprison them through the location of their mobile devices.
Fake profiles will not save them.
#Civil Resistance Bolivia
Now that the US tells us the tale of democratic elections in Bolivia now...
A people's Counter-revolution that sweeps the Reactionaries down the drain once and for
all.
Chavez was keen to the CIA's modus and thus reformed the military in numerous respects,
particularly by making it impervious to corruption--AND--instituting the uniquely structured
Bolivarian Constitution. Evo's problems stem from the lack of extensive public support as
proven by the election results that kept him from instituting the sort of reforms Chavez
accomplished; and the same goes for all other Latin American nations. In a nutshell, the
Bolivian people squabbled too much amongst themselves and never constructed the type of
Revolutionary constitution and social system required to be resilient to outside
manipulation. Yes, Venezuela was very much a Bottom->Up remaking of society to the point
where the Comprador upper 10% didn't matter, which is why Chavez then Maduro left them to
their own devices. But elsewhere, the popular masses never generated the required solidarity
to prevent losing their hard won freedoms. Sure, it's possible to regain power through the
ballot box, but it can be just as easily lost as is happening now in Bolivia if preventative
measures aren't taken beforehand.
Nations must have constitutions that don't allow for rich minorities to gain control or to
allow them to begin in control as in the USA's case. But to institute such an instrument, the
popular masses must act as one and cast their factionalisms aside until this primary aspect
of consolidating power in their hands becomes the law of their land. Plus, they must again
drop their in-fighting when confronted by any reactionary threat and remember what the main
task is at all times--Maintenance of Freedom.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
Look that this people ransacking Evo´s home, they are not white patricios ...but
those who they have payed to do the dirty work...indigenous people poorly
dressed...collaborating in ovrthrowing the legitimate democratically elected from their
own...
Yeah..this time is no different from others, they always go straight to the throat of the
weak and poor...Totally depsicable...
To their own, earning points in the view of the world...
@ Sasha who wrote
"
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
"
I agree, thank you for your commenting and want to add my perspective to that.
If you read many who come and comment at MoA that supposedly are "educated" you will
notice that they continue to think and write in terms of the conflict being between socialism
and capitalism in spite of myself, karlof1 and others that continually point out that China
is 80% capitalistic as are other "socialistic" countries but what matters is what part of the
social economy is socialism versus capitalism. That is why I continue to beat my drum about
the evil of global private finance that is the core problem with the social contract of the
West. Look at how many in the West are brainwashed to not understand the difference between
public/private finance and its effects on the whole culture and aggressive nature of the
society under that meme.
That, IMO, is the core education that all those in the West and all striving to throw off
the chains/economic jackboot of the West must learn and take to heart.
Very disappointing to hear about Evo...but this is just one round in a very long fight...
In Argentina we have a new government for the people...in Mexico also...Lula is out of
jail now in Brazil so eventually that will turn also...
The empire is rotting but is very dangerous right now because they are lashing out
everywhere...we see in Lebanon and Iraq they are not succeeding...
This is desperation we see folks...they are losing control quickly and are trying
to forestall the inevitable collapse of their global fascist dictatorship...
I think the end will come much sooner than they expect...the house of cards is teetering
badly...
Maidán script all the way....They do not have enough with hi resigning, they need
to wipe out such honest leader form the face of Earth, at least while the "new fake
elections" to maskerade the take over by the opposition are developed...as happened with
Lula....
Here, US Lawyer sees all the signature of the US around the place...as happens to
me...
A significant factor is that the anti-Morales opposition is based mainly in Santa Cruz
department in eastern Bolivia. This is the largest department (in territory and population)
in Bolivia and has significant natural gas reserves. The indigenous people living in that
department have virtually nothing in common with the highland indigenous people (Aymara and
Quechua speakers) who formed Morales' base.
Morales did not have a military background as Chavez did and we can presume he was never
able to cultivate a network of militias among the urban and rural working class that could
support and defend his government. Significantly it was the armed forces who asked Morales to
resign.
@Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 11 2019 1:34 utc | 72
Sorry...but the conflict is between socialism and capitalism...between the rich and the
working masses, especially those who work and still they remain poor....as has always
been....who says otherwise is only trying to fool the masses...
Of course, you people in this forum who live over the average peer, I do not try that you
understand...
You live in your world, looking your belly button, and the furthest you are willing to go is
complain here about the Outlaw US Empire...
Why do you not damn go tomorrow in the streets to protest this new coup by your fascist
administration?
Do not tell me, that would risk your privileged pensions...and all those expensive things
you do to your bodies...
Excuse me, but today, reading the same stupid things of always make me feel like throwing
up...
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in
#Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will. The
credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
Will he still support new elections in the morning?
Meanwhile the protesters are calling MAS a criminal
organization so no doubt it'll be excluded from the new elections as happened to the
Party Of The Regions in Ukraine. The wonders of American "democracy".
Why was Evo Morales overthrown? He was nationalizing the highly profitable lithium
industry and planning to deal directly on the international market rather than exporting the
commodity at bargain prices to Western corporations"
"Bolivia has %43 of World's Lithium mines. Batteries from smartphones to Electric cars are
all made with Lithium. Evo Morales was investing in facilities to produce Lithium as a high
end export material rather than just exporting the mine itself."
Somewhere on his blog "Sic Semper Tyrannis", maybe earlier this year, Pat relates the tale
of how when working for the US Gov. in Bolivia he gave medical help to someone and was
rewarded with information which led to the capture of Che Guevara. This may be what Sasha is
referring to.
"The Hydrocarbons law (Law 3058, May 2005) and a subsequent Supreme Decree (May 2006)
require that companies sell all production to YPFB and that domestic market demand be met
before exporting hydrocarbons. Furthermore, these laws transfer the entire transport and
sales chain over to state control. After the law was enacted, hydrocarbon companies were
required to sign new contracts with YPFB, agreeing to pay 50 percent of gross production in
taxes and royalties."
"Prepared by our U.S. Embassies abroad. With its network of 108 offices across the United
States and in more than 75 countries, the U.S. Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of
Commerce utilizes its global presence and international marketing expertise to help U.S.
companies sell their products and services worldwide. Locate the U.S. Commercial Service
trade specialist in the U.S. nearest you by visiting http://export.gov/usoffices."
I usually try to read all the comments before making my first of the day, but I have yet to
do so, although I looked to see if anyone had linked to Escobar's
report on Lula and Brazil , which is an extremely important article for events within
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and the rest of the world that's resisting the
Outlaw US Empire and its Neoliberal/Neofascist attack dogs.
The information Pepe provides is very important as it jibes with what Assad averred in
his RT
interview , for which I'm still looking for a transcript. Here's Pepe's warning about the
likely future course of events, which has CIA scrawled over every act:
"With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula's immense social base
all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst,
rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic
cocktail: social 'commotion' allied with 'terrorism' associated with 'organized crime.'
"That's all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore "order" and
finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate
bills are already making their way in Congress).
" This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the
moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty,
convoluted plot for a global audience ." [My Emphasis]
Bolivia coup was orchestrated with direct assist of OAS analysis/report which identified
alleged voting fraud. OAS report focuses on a vote-counting system called TREP, which was
adopted by Bolivia and others in the region on direct advice of OAS. The TREP system is meant
to provide/ publicize initial results, but it is not "official". The official results come
from a slower and more thorough vote count process. The OAS claim of irregularities in the
TREP count is largely irrelevant, as it was never intended to be "official" or legally
reflect official results. There were no irregularities in the official count, won by Morales,
and the so-called "delay" was in fact the natural process of the slower moving count to
produce the official result.
While Trump denounced Morales, the US State Department stepped in to sanitize Washington's
position, with a senior official telling Reuters that the US has "no preference" among
opposition candidates. The spokesperson did say, however, that anyone who tried to
"distort" last month's vote should not be allowed to participate .
That's MAS banned from the election by the cunts in the fucking State Department. Imagine
if the Russian MFA announced that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could field
presidential candidates in 2020. Trump is an idiot but the State Department, DoJ, and
Treasury are the real bastards. Forget the CIA, that's just a bunch of senile tossers who
have wet dreams about Cold War 2.0.
b mentioned lithium with reference to Bolivia in his 139 above
Nov 11, 2019 -- Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational
Firm's Lithium Deal
"Bolivia's lithium belongs to the Bolivian people. Not to multinational corporate
cabals."
The Morales move on Nov. 4 to cancel the December 2018 agreement with Germany's ACI Systems
Alemania (ACISA) came after weeks of protests from residents of the Potosí area. The
region has 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves in the Salar de Uyuni salt flats.
Among other clients, ACISA provides batteries to Tesla; Tesla's stock rose Monday after the
weekend.
As Bloomberg News noted in 2018, that has set the country up to be incredibly important in
the next decade:
Demand for lithium is expected to more than double by 2025. The soft, light mineral is
mined mainly in Australia, Chile, and Argentina. Bolivia has plenty -- 9 million tons that
have never been mined commercially, the second-largest amount in the world -- but until now
there's been no practical way to mine and sell it. . .
here
But Teslas catch fire....from ZPower--
Actually, lithium may be in trouble for vehicle batteries.
Just as lithium-ion (Li-ion) replaced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) before it and nickel
cadmium (NiCd) before that, silver zinc (AgZn) batteries are on track to replace Li-ion too,
according to a McGraw-Hill forecast as far back as 2010. Since then silver zinc has been
perfected and are on the market for rechargeable hearing-aid "button" batteries by ZPower LL
(Camarillo, Calif.) They are nonflammable and could provide up to 40 percent more run time
than lithium-ion batteries. . . here
Bolsonaro's government tried to auction Brazil's remaining unexplored (but already mapped,
so it's certain there's oil there) presalt lots. The expectation was to raise some R$ 109
billion, but it only rose R$ 69 billion. To make things even worse, half of those came from
the Brazilian State-owned oil company itself, Petrobras.
There's strong evidence this fiasco came from the international oil cartel; they think
they can get the presalt oil for a (much) better price:
The pressure seems to be working. The government has already stated it will do another
auction, this time with "changed rules", in order to "estimulate competition between the
interested companies".
Another similar episode had already happened during usurper Brazilian president Michel
Temer, when, in 2017, he tried to privatize the country's State-owned electricity company
(Eletrobras). The auction was "desert" (i.e. no bids).
Why is this happening?
The problem with today's neoliberals is that the capitalist world is completely different
from the one of the end of the 1980s and 1990s. In that era, there was excess liquidity from
the First World countries -- specially USA and Japan pension funds -- which was purchasing
fabulous profit rates in order to stay competitive in the recently-privatized world (pension
funds in the USA had to profit at least 7% from each investment in their portfolio to reach
ends meet in 2006, according to Dumenil & Levy).
After 2008, there was a crisis followed by a depression characterized by a credit crunch.
Reverse stagflation happened (and still happens), where unemployment fell but inflation
continued to fall. To put it simply, there's no more foreign money for Latin American
neoliberal dictators to grab through the simple liquidation of public assets anymore -- at
least not nearly enough to reach fiscal equilibrium (see Argentina for the more spectacular
example).
So, yes, there was a cartel arranging for the presalt reserves failure, but this cartel
only had to do what it did because -- you're already tired to read it from me -- the
profit rates in the capitalist world are secularly falling . Were the profit rates high,
the cartel would've already bought the presalt whatever the conditions. They are only
bargaining with the already very submissive Brazilian government because they need to:
presalt reserves, albeit abundant in good oil, require a unique and pretty advanced
technology which was developed by Petrobras. If they invest, profit rate will fall even
further, so they must get the oil, but free of investment (after the 2016 coup, they got
their hands on the platforms -- but only those who were already installed by Petrobras).
That's also the reason the USA-backed New Silk Road will fail: Western capital won't
invest in SE Asia because that would mean money spent to infrastructure (i.e. invesment), and
that would erode their profit rates even more. And, sincerely, why would they? They had 70
years to invest there, and 100 years before that (during the colonial times), to do it. Why
will they do now, when they are much weaker?
Brazil's Supreme Court rules Lula must be released from prison ASAP. But, will this
decision meet the criteria he set to accept being released? I checked Pepe Escobar's Facebook
but he's not written anything there for 7 hours. I asked him the same question.
Right now, Lula is speaking to the people and his supporters in the street outside
Curitiba prison, and already in freedom.
To clarify on the Court's ruling: the decision says that the accused, with processes which
have not exhausted all appealings, therefore have not yet been ultimately condemned, may not
be kept in prison. A previous judgement allowed for this to happen if there had been a
reversal of judgement along the court instances of the process ( LavaJato - corruption
process ). It should be added that this is not exclusive to Lula, eight other accused,
including one Lula's minister may be freed pending appropriate legal petition from defense,
and any other current prisoner under similar circumstances in Brazil's justice system.
The Supreme Court only re-established the Constitutional order, following on the petitions
to constitutional review by legal council association and the communist party.
Keep in mind that Lula is still under several accusations and may not while these
processes are not finished to present himself for political offices.
Thanks for your reply! I was about to answer my own question that Lula agreed to be let
out. As I understand the situation, Lula still has to battle in court to keep his freedom;
and he might also be targeted for elimination given the murderous nature of those associated
with Bolsonaro. As Lula said upon release, they tried to imprison an idea by imprisoning a
man; ideas cannot be imprisoned. For me, it's an excellent birthday gift!
Lcchearn @32--
Yes, I've contemplated starting my own blog, but most platforms are owned or affiliated in
some manner with Google, so I stopped looking. I know non-affiliated hosts exist and will
likely resume looking upon the turn of the year. I agree about writing longer essays as there
are a few topics I'm into that demand expansion. I've been and continue to be impressed with
Caitlin Johnstone's success as well as with other younger idealistic, truth-seeking
journalists like those inhabiting The
Grayzone . In fact, given its content, Grayzone's one site I'll ask who hosts them.
Thanks very much for your interest and the support that goes with it!
karlof1, I'll drink to that too. Keep the good spirits and health. Cheers!
Bolsonaro, and their supporters are dwindling, the initial success of anti-social media
platforms was only that: initial, sufficient to swindle brasilean people in the election
alone. This had all the hallmarks of a Cambridge Analytica type campaign, which if not
sustained serves only to expose the maracutaia (fraud) before everyone. I think the signs are
getting positive, even the media, quite condescending during the campaign now take hard jabs
at Bolsonaro and his quadrilha (gang).
It seems to me an important tenet of the neoliberal ideology is the arbiter (or
auctioneer) role it gives the state and other political institutions with respect to markets.
Markets are the locus of justice and efficiency, but political institutions have the
essential task of organizing them and the competitions that takes place within them,
supposedly at least.
In practice, this translated in a central role of political power not only in privatizing
and breaking state monopolies, but also in the creation, sometimes ex nihilo, of markets
supervised by state or quasi-state agencies (shielded of electoral choices by regulatory or
ideally constitutional provisions) whose role was to organize concurrence in domains
classical liberal economic theory would consider natural monopolies or natural public
properties (education, health service, energy distribution, infrastructure of transportation,
telecommunication, postal and banking service etc.)
What an excellent and deep observation ! Thank you ! This is the essence of the compromises
with financial oligarchy made by failing social democratic parties. Neoliberalism is kind of
Trotskyism for the rich in which the political power is used to shape the society "from above".
As Hayek remarked on his visit to Pinochet's Chile – "my personal preference leans toward
a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism".
George Monblot observed that "Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket [of
the financial oligarchy], but it rapidly became one." ( The Guardian, Apr 15, 2016):
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and
selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the
market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation
should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and
collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the
formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a
reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts
to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market
ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
The free (as in absence of regulation for FIRE) market produces a tiny cadre of winners and
an enormous army of losers (10% vs 90%) – and the losers, looking for revenge, have
turned to Trump. Now entrenched centers of "resistance" (and first of all CIA, the Justice
Department, The Department of State and a part of Pentagon) are trying to reverse the
situation. Failing to understand that they created Trump and each time will reproduce it in
more and more dangerous variant.
Trumpism is the inevitable result of the gap between the utopian ideal of the free (for the
FIRE sector only ) market and the dystopian reality for the majority of the population
("without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape" Pope Francis, "Evangelii
Gaudium")
The situation in which the financial sector generates just 4% of employment, but accounts
for more than 25% of corporate profits is unsustainable. It should be reversed and it will be
reversed.
"... Robert Pfaller: Until the late 1970s, all "Western" (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970ies, stated, "We are all Keynesians"). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII, as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists. ..."
"... Whenever the social-democratic left came into power, for example with Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schroeder, they proved to be the even more radical neoliberal reformers. As a consequence, leftist parties did not have an economic alternative to what their conservative and liberal opponents offered. Thus they had to find another point of distinction. This is how the left became "cultural" (while, of course, ceasing to be a "left"): from now on the marks of distinction were produced by all kinds of concerns for minorities or subaltern groups. And instead of promoting economic equality and equal rights for all groups, the left now focused on symbolic "recognition" and "visibility" for these groups. ..."
"... Thus not only all economic and social concerns were sacrificed for the sake of sexual and ethnic minorities, but even the sake of these minorities itself. Since a good part of the problem of these groups was precisely economic, social and juridical, and not cultural or symbolic. And whenever you really solve a problem of a minority group, the visibility of this group decreases. But by insisting on the visibility of these groups, the policies of the new pseudo-left succeded at making the problems of these groups permanent – and, of course, at pissing off many other people who started to guess that the concern for minorities was actually just a pretext for pursuing a most brutal policy of increasing economic inequality. ..."
"... The connection to neoliberalism is the latter's totalitarian contention of reducing the entirety of human condition into a gender-neutral cosmopolitan self expressing nondescript market preferences in a conceptual vacuum, a contention celebrated by its ideologues as "liberation" and "humanism" despite its inherent repression and inhumanity. ..."
"... "..'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that is substantively political.." ..."
"... Agreed. And the truth is that the message is much clearer than that of the critics, below. So it ought to be for the world, sliding into fascism, in which we live in might have been baked by the neo-liberals but it was iced by 57 varieties of Blairites . The cowards who flinched led by the traitors who sneered. ..."
"... 'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that is substantively political, namely, the fight for an equitable production and distribution of goods, both material and cultural, ensuring a decent life for all. ..."
"... Why bother getting your hands dirty with an actual worker's struggle when you can write yet another glamorously "radical" critique of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (which in truth just ends up as another advert for it)? ..."
"... The One Per Cent saw an opportunity of unlimited exploitation and they ran with it. They're still running (albeit in jets and yachts) and us Proles are either struggling or crawling. Greed is neither Left or Right. It exists for its own self gratification. ..."
"... Actually, post-modernism doesn't include everybody -- just the 'marginalized' and 'disenfranchised' minorities whom Michel Foucault championed. The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the old capitalist strategy of playing off the Lumpenproletariat against the proletariat, to borrow the original Marxist terminology. ..."
"... if you don't mind me asking, exactly at what point do you feel capitalism was restored in the USSR? It was, I take it, with the first Five Year Plan, not the NEP? ..."
"... Also, the Socialist or, to use your nomenclature, "Stalinist" system, that was destroyed in the the USSR in the 1990s–it was, in truth, just one form of capitalism replaced by another form of capitalism? ..."
Robert Pfaller interviewed by Kamran Baradaran, via
ILNA
The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological embellishment
that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain
a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face.
Robert Pfaller is one of the most distinguished figures in today's radical Left. He teaches at the University of Art and Industrial
Design in Linz, Austria. He is a founding member of the Viennese psychoanalytic research group 'stuzzicadenti'.
Pfaller is the author of books such as On the Pleasure Principle in Culture: Illusions Without Owners , Interpassivity:
The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment , among others. Below is the ILNA's interview with this authoritative philosopher on
the Fall of Berlin Wall and "Idea of Communism".
ILNA: What is the role of "pleasure principle" in a world after the Berlin Wall? What role does the lack of ideological
dichotomy, which unveils itself as absent of a powerful left state, play in dismantling democracy?
Robert Pfaller: Until the late 1970s, all "Western" (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic
policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970ies, stated, "We are
all Keynesians"). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII,
as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to
appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists.
Ironically one could say that it was precisely Western workers who profited considerably of "real existing socialism" in the
Eastern European countries.
At the very moment when the "threat" of real existing socialism was not felt anymore, due to the Western economic and military
superiority in the 1980ies (that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall), the economic paradigm in the Western countries shifted.
All of a sudden, all governments, left or right, pursued a neoliberal economic policy (of privatization, austerity politics, the
subjection of education and health sectors under the rule of profitability, liberalization of regulations for the migration of
capital and cheap labour, limitation of democratic sovereignty, etc.).
Whenever the social-democratic left came into power, for example with Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schroeder, they proved to
be the even more radical neoliberal reformers. As a consequence, leftist parties did not have an economic alternative to what
their conservative and liberal opponents offered. Thus they had to find another point of distinction. This is how the left became
"cultural" (while, of course, ceasing to be a "left"): from now on the marks of distinction were produced by all kinds of concerns
for minorities or subaltern groups. And instead of promoting economic equality and equal rights for all groups, the left now focused
on symbolic "recognition" and "visibility" for these groups.
Thus not only all economic and social concerns were sacrificed for the sake of sexual and ethnic minorities, but even the
sake of these minorities itself. Since a good part of the problem of these groups was precisely economic, social and juridical,
and not cultural or symbolic. And whenever you really solve a problem of a minority group, the visibility of this group decreases.
But by insisting on the visibility of these groups, the policies of the new pseudo-left succeded at making the problems of these
groups permanent – and, of course, at pissing off many other people who started to guess that the concern for minorities was actually
just a pretext for pursuing a most brutal policy of increasing economic inequality.
ILNA: The world after the Berlin Wall is mainly considered as post-ideological. Does ideology has truly decamped from our
world or it has only taken more perverse forms? On the other hand, many liberals believe that our world today is based on the
promise of happiness. In this sense, how does capitalism promotes itself on the basis of this ideology?
Robert Pfaller: The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological
embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in
order to attain a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face. This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest
of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism".
It consists of neoliberalism, plus postmodernism as its ideological superstructure.
The ideology of postmodernism today has some of its most prominent symptoms in the omnipresent concern about "discrimination"
(for example, of "people of color") and in the resentment against "old, white men". This is particularly funny in countries like
Germany: since, of course, there has been massive racism and slavery in Germany in the 20th century – yet the victims of this
racism and slavery in Germany have in the first place been white men (Jews, communists, Gypsies, red army prisoners of war, etc.).
Here it is most obvious that a certain German pseudo-leftism does not care for the real problems of this society, but prefers
to import some of the problems that US-society has to deal with. As Louis Althusser has remarked, ideology always consists in
trading in your real problems for the imaginary problems that you would prefer to have.
The general ideological task of postmodernism is to present all existing injustice as an effect of discrimination. This is,
of course, funny again: Since every discrimination presupposes an already established class structure of inequality. If you do
not have unequal places, you cannot distribute individuals in a discriminating way, even if you want to do so. Thus progressive
neoliberalism massively increases social inequality, while distributing all minority groups in an "equal" way over the unequal
places.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Abbreviate & reduce to lowest common denominator which is hyperinflation by today's standards given that we are indeed all
Keynesians now that leveraged debt no longer suffices to prop Wall Street up.
Welcome to the New World Disorder. Screw 'postmodernism' & Chicago School 'neoliberalism'!
MOU
Danubium
There is no such thing as "post-modernism".
The derided fad is an organic evolution of the ideologies of "modernity" and the "Enlightenment", and represents the logical
conclusion of their core premise: the "enlightened self" as the source of truth instead of the pre-modern epistemologies of
divine revelation, tradition and reason.
It does not represent any "liberation" from restrictive thought, as the "self" can only ever be "enlightened" by cult-like
submission to dogma or groupthink that gives tangible meaning to the intangible buzzword, its apparent relativism is a product
of social detachment of the intellectual class and its complete and utter apathy towards the human condition.
The connection to neoliberalism is the latter's totalitarian contention of reducing the entirety of human condition into
a gender-neutral cosmopolitan self expressing nondescript market preferences in a conceptual vacuum, a contention celebrated
by its ideologues as "liberation" and "humanism" despite its inherent repression and inhumanity.
The trend is not to successor or opponent, but rather modernism itself in its degenerative, terminal stage.
Monobazeus
Well said
bevin
"..'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little
of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics'
that has been emptied of all that is substantively political.."
Agreed. And the truth is that the message is much clearer than that of the critics, below.
So it ought to be for the world, sliding into fascism, in which we live in might have been baked by the neo-liberals but it
was iced by 57 varieties of Blairites . The cowards who flinched led by the traitors who sneered.
So cutting through all of the verbiage, the upshot of Pfaller's contentions seems to be that 'identity politics,' which pretty
much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into
the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that
is substantively political, namely, the fight for an equitable production and distribution of goods, both material and cultural,
ensuring a decent life for all.
Difficult not to agree.
For indeed, "If you do not have unequal places, you cannot distribute individuals in a discriminating way, even if you want
to do so."
Capricornia Man
You've nailed it, Norman. In many countries, the left's obsession with identity politics has driven class politics to the periphery
of its concerns, which is exactly where the neoliberals want it to be. It's why the working class just isn't interested.
Martin Usher
It must be fun to sit on top of the heap watching the great unwashed squabbling over the crumbs.
Red Allover
The world needs another put down of postmodern philosophy like it needs a Bob Dylan album of Sinatra covers . . .
maxine chiu
I'm glad the article was short .I don't think I'm stupid but too much pseudo-intellectualism makes me fall asleep.
Tim Jenkins
Lol, especially when there are some galling glaring errors within " too much pseudo-intellectualism "
Thanks for the laugh, maxine,
Let them stew & chew (chiu) on our comments 🙂
Bootlyboob
As with any use of an -ism though, you need sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to using 'postmodernism'. Do you mean
Baudrillard and Delueze? or do you mean some dirty cunt like Bernard Henri-Levy. There is a bit of a difference.
Bootlyboob
Ok, so Levi is not really a postmodernist. But still, there are philosphers of postmodernism that were, and still are, worth
reading.
BigB
Postmodernism: what is it? I defy anyone to give a coherent and specific definition. Not least, because the one 'Classical
Liberal' philosopher who did – Stephen Hicks – used the term as a blanket commodification of all post-Enlightenment thought
starting with Rousseau's Romanticism. So PoMo has pre-Modern roots? When the left start playing broad and wide with political
philosophical categories too – grafting PoMo onto post-Classical roots as a seeming post-Berlin Wall emergence what actually
is being said? With such a depth and breadth of human inquiry being commodified as 'PoMo' – arguably, nothing useful.
Neoliberalism is Classic Liberalism writ large. The basic unit of Classicism is an individuated, independent, intentional,
individual identitarianism as an atom of the rational ('moral') market and its self-maximising agency. Only, the 'Rights of
Man' and the 'Social Contract' have been transfered from the Person (collectively: "We the People " as a the democratic sovereign
power) to the Corporation as the new 'Neo-Classicist' supranational sovereign. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.
As pointed out below: this was already well underway by November 1991 – as a structural-function of the burgeoning Euromarkets.
These were themselves on the rise as the largest source of global capital *before* the Nixon Shock in 1971. There is an argument
to be made that they actually caused the abandoning of Breton Woods and the Gold Standard. Nonetheless, 1991 is a somewhat
arbitrary date for the transition from 'High Modernity' to 'PostModernity'. Philosophers. political, and social scientists
– as Wittgenstein pointed out – perhaps are victims of their own commodification and naming crisis? Don't get me started on
'post-Humanism' but what does PoMo actually mean?
As the article hints at: the grafting of some subjectivist single rights issues to the ultra-objectivist core market rationality
of neoliberalism is an intentional character masking. Even the 'neoliberal CNS' (central nervous system) of the WEF admits
to four distinct phases of globalisation. The current 'Globalisation 4.0' – concurrent with the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution'
– is a further development of this quasi-subjectivist propagandic ploy. Globalisation is now humanist, sovereigntist, environmentalist,
and technologist (technocratic). Its ultimate *telos* is 'fully automated luxury communism' or the harmoniousness of man and
nature under an ecolological *Tianxia* the sustainable 'Ecological Civilisation'. Which, I would hope, absolutely nobody is
gullible enough to believe?
Who says the leopard cannot change its spots? It can, and indeed does. Neoliberalism is a big-data micromarketing driven
technocratic engine of reproduction tailored to the identitarian individual. PoMo – in one sense – is thus the logical extremisation
of Classical Liberalism which is happening within the Classical Liberal tradition. It is certainly not a successor state or
'Fourth Political Theory' which is one of the few things Aleksandr Dugin gets right.
This is why the term needs defintion and precisification or, preferably, abandoning. If both the left and right bandy the
term around as a eupehemism for what either does not like – the term can only be a noun of incoherence. Much like 'antisemitism':
it becomes a negative projection of all undesirable effects onto the 'Other'. Which, when either end of the political spectrum
nihilates the Other leaves us with the vicious dehumanisation of the 'traditional' identitarian fascist centre. All binary
arguments using shared synthetic terminology – that are plastic in meaning depending on who is using the term – cancel each
other out.
Of which, much of which is objectified and commodified as 'PoMo' was a reaction against. A reaction that anticipated the
breakdown of the identitarian and sectarian 'technological postmodern' society. So how can that logically be a 'reaction against'
and an 'embelishment to' neoliberalism'?
This is not a mere instance of pedantry: I/we are witnessing the decoherence of language due to an extremisation of generalisation
and abstraction of sense and meaning. That meaning is deferred is a post-structuralist tenet: but one that proceeds from the
extreme objectivisation of language (one to one mapping of meaning as the analytical signified/signifier relationship) and
the mathematicisation of logic (post-Fregian 'meta-ontology') not its subjectivisation.
If PoMo means anything: it is a rich and authentic vein of human inquiry that was/is a creative attempt to rescue us from
a pure objectivist Hell (David Ray Griffin's "positive postmodernism"). One that was/is not entirely satisfactory; merely because
it has not yet completed. In the midst: we have the morbid hybrid symptomatology of the old Classical Libertarian fascism trying
to recuperate the new Universal Humanism for which PoMo is a meaningless label. Especially if it is used to character masque
the perennial philosophy of Humanism that has been dehumanised and subjugated by successive identitarian regimes of knowledge
and power since forever in pre-Antiquity.
We are all human: only some humans are ideologically more human than others is the counter-history of humanity. When we
encounter such ideologically imprecise degenerative labels as 'PoMo' – that can mean anything to anyone (but favours the status
quo) this makes a nonsense of at least 5,000 years of thought. Is it any wonder that we are super-ordinated by those who can
better dictate who we are? Language is overpower and writing is supra-sovereign administration and bureaucracy over the 'owness'
of identity. Its co-option by the pseudoleft is a complete denigration and betrayal of the potential of a new Humanism. The
key to which is the spiritual recovery and embodiment of who we really are – proto-linguistically and pre-ontologically – before
all these meaningless labels get in the way.
Bootlyboob
You said it better than I ever could.
Stephen Hick's book is quite the laugh. I tried to read it but it made no sense. From memory, it starts at Kant and Hegel
and gets them completely wrong, (he even draws little charts with their ideas in tabulated form, WTF?) so I quickly deleted
the .pdf. Any book that begins with a summary of these two philosophers and then thinks they can hold my attention until they
get to their take on 'postmodernism' is sorely mistaken. Postmodernism is a made up label for about four or five French intellectuals
in the 1970's that somehow took over the world and completely fucked it up. Why do I somehow not follow this line of 'thought'?
Reg
No, Postmodernism is a real thing, it is the capitalist assimilation of situationism to overcome the crisis of profit in the
70s caused by overproduction and the attempt by the 1% to recapture a greater a greater % of GDP that they had lost due to
the post war settlement. This was an increasingly a zero sum game economy after Germany and Japan had rebuilt their manufacturing
capacity, with the US constrained by a widening trade deficit and the cost of the cold and Vietnam war increasing US debt.
The inflation spikes in the 70s is only reflective of these competing demands.
The problem of modernism is than peoples needs are easily saited, particularly in conditions of overproduction. Postmodern
production is all about creating virtual needs that are unsatisfied. The desire for status or belonging or identity are infinite,
and overcomes the dead time of 'valourisation' (time taken for investment to turn into profit) of capital by switching to virtual
production of weightless capitalism. The creation of 'intangible asset's such as trade marks, while off shoring production
is central. This is a form of rentier extraction, as the creation of a trade mark creates no real value if you have offshored
not only production but R&D to China. This is why fiance, and free movement of capital supported by monetary policy and independent
central banks are central to Postmodern neo-liberal production. The problem being that intangible assets are easy to replace
and require monopoly protection supported by a Imperial hegemon to maintain rentier extraction. Why does China need a US or
UK trade mark of products where both innovation and production increasingly come from China? How long can the US as a diminishing
empire maintain rentier extraction at the point of a military it increasingly cannot afford, particularly against a military
and economic superpower like China? It is no accident US companies that have managed to monetise internet technologies are
monopolies, google, microsoft, Apple. An operating system for example has a reproduction cost of zero, the same can be said
of films or music, so the natural price is zero, only a monopoly maintains profit.
The connection to situationism is the cry of May 68 'Make your dreams reality', which was marketised by making peoples dreams
very interesting ones about fitted kitchens, where even 'self actualisation was developed into a product, where even ones own
body identity became a product to be developed at a price. This is at the extreme end of Marxist alienation as not only work
or the home becomes alienated, but the body itself.
David Harvey covers some of this quite well in his "The condition of Postmodernity". Adam Curtis also covers quite well in
'The Trap' and the 'Century of the self'.
BigB
I'm inclined to agree with everything you write. It would fall into what I called 'precisification' and actual definition.
What you describe is pure Baudrillard: that capitalism reproduces as a holistic system of objects that we buy into without
ever satisfying the artificial advertorial need to buy. What we actually seek is a holism of self that cannot be replaced by
a holism of objects hence an encoded need for dissatisfaction articulated as dissatisfaction a Hyperrealism of the eternally
desiring capitalist subject. But Baudrillard rejected the label too.
What I was pointing out was the idea of 'contested concept'. Sure, if we define terms, let's use it. Without that pre-agreed
defintion: the term is meaningless. As are many of our grandiloquent ideas of 'Democracy', 'Freedom', 'Prosperity', and especially
'Peace'. Language is partisan and polarised. Plastic words like 'change' can mean anything and intentionally do. And the convention
of naming creates its own decoherence sequence. What follows 'postmodernism'? Post-humanism is an assault on sense and meaning.
As is the current idea that "reality is the greatest illusion of all".
We are having a real communication breakdown due to the limitations of the language and out proliferation of beliefs. Baudrillard
also anticipated the involution and implosion of the Code. He was speaking from a de Saussurian (semiologic) perspective. Cognitive
Linguistics makes this ever more clear. Language is maninly frames and metaphors. Over expand them over too many cognitive
domains: and the sense and meaning capability is diluted toward meaninglessnes – where reality is no longer real. This puts
us in the inferiorised position of having our terms – and thus our meaning – dictated by a cognitive elite a linguistic 'noocracy'
(which is homologous with the plutocracy – who can afford private education).
Capitalism itself is a purely linguistic phenomena: which is so far off the beaten track I'm not even going to expand on
it. Except to say: that a pre-existing system of objects giving rise to a separate system of thoughts – separate objectivity
and subjectivity – is becoming less tenable to defend. I'd prefer to think in terms of 'embodiment' and 'disembodiment' rather
than distinct historical phases. And open and closed cognitive cycles rather than discreet psycholgical phases. We cannot be
post-humans if we never embodied our humanism fully. And we cannot be be post-modern when we have never fully lived in the
present having invented a disembodied reality without us in it, which we proliferated trans-historically the so-called 'remembered
present'.
Language and our ideas of reality are close-correlates – I would argue very close correlates. They are breaking down because
language and realism are disembodied which, in itself is ludicrous to say. But we have inherited and formalised an idealism
that is exactly that. Meaning resides in an immaterial intellect in an intangible mind floating around in an abstract neo-Platonic
heaven waiting for Reason to concur with it. Which is metaphysical bullshit, but it is also the foundation of culture and 'Realism'.
Which makes my position 'anti-Realist'. Can you see my problem with socio-philosophical labels now!? They can carry sense if
used carefully, as you did. In general discourse they mean whatever they want to mean. Which generally means they will be used
against you.
Ramdan
"the SPIRITUAL RECOVERY and embodiment of who we really are – PROTO-LINGUISTICALLY and PRE-ONTOLOGICALLY – BEFORE all these
MEANINGLESS LABELS get in the way."
Thanks BigB. I just took the liberty to add emphasis.
Robbobbobin
Smarty pants (label).
Robert Laine
A reply to the article worthy of another Off-G article (or perhaps a book) which would include at a minimum the importance
of non-dualistic thinking, misuse of language in the creation of MSM and government narratives and the need to be conscious
of living life from time to time while we talk about it. Thankyou, BigB.
Don't you love how all these people discuss postmodernism without ever bothering to define what it is. How confused. Hicks
and Peterson see postmodernists as Neo-Marxists and this guy sees them as Neoliberals. None of the main theorists that have
been associated with Postmodernism and Post-Structuralism and I'm thinking Derrida, Baudrillard and Foucault here (not that
I see Foucault as really belonging in the group) would not even accept the term 'postmodernism' as they would see it as an
inappropriate form of stereo-typography with no coherent meaning or definition and that presupposing that one can simply trade
such signifiers in 'transparent' communication and for us all to think and understand the same thing that 'postmodernism' as
a body of texts and ideas might be 'constituted by' is a large part of the problem under discussion. I often think that a large
question that arises from Derrida's project is not to study communication as such but to study and understand miss-communication
and how and why it comes about and what is involved in our misunderstandings. If people don't get that about 'postmodern' and
post-structuralist theories then they've not understood any thing about it.
BigB
You are absolutely right: the way we think in commodities of identities – as huge generalizations and blanket abstractions
– tends toward grand narration and meaninglessness. Which is at once dehumanising, ethnocentric, exceptionalist, imperialist
in a way that favours dominion and overpower. All these tendencies are encoded in the hierarchical structures of the language
– as "vicious" binary constructivisms. In short, socio-linguistic culture is a regime of overpower and subjugation. One that
is "philosopho-political" and hyper-normalises our discrimination.
Deleuze went further when he said language is "univocal". We only have one equiprimordial concept of identity – Being. It
is our ontological primitive singularity of sense and meaning. Everything we identity – as "Difference" – is in terms of Being
(non-Being is it's binary mirror state) as an object with attributes (substances). Being is differentiated into hierarchies
(the more attributes, the more "substantial"- the 'greater' the being) which are made "real" by "Repetition" hence Difference
and Repetition. The language of Dominion, polarization, and overpower is a reified "grand ontological narrative" constructivism.
One dominated by absolutised conceptual Being. That's all.
[One in which we are naturally inferiorised in our unconscious relationship of being qua Being in which we are dominated
by a conceptual "Oedipal Father" – the singularity of the Known – but that's another primal 'onto-theocratic' narrative the
grandest of then all].
One that we are born and acculturated into. Which the majority accept and never question. How many people question not just
their processes of thought but the structure of their processes of thought? A thought cannot escape its own structure and that
structure is inherently dominative. If not in it's immediacy then deferred somewhere else via a coduit of systemic violence
structured as a "violent hierarchy" of opposition and Othering.
Which is the ultimate mis-communication of anything that can be said to be "real" non-dominative, egalitarian, empathic,
etc. Which, of course, if we realise the full implications we can change the way we think and the "naturalised" power structures
we collectively validate.
When people let their opinions be formed for them, and commodify Romanticism, German Idealism, Marxism, Phenomenology, Structuralism,
Post-Structuralism, Existentialism, etc as the pseudo-word "PoMo" – only to dismiss it they are unbeknowingly validating the
hegemony of power and false-knowledge over. Then paradoxically using those binary power structures to rail about being dominated!
Those linguistic power structures dominate politics too. The "political unconscious" is binary and oppositional which tends
toward negation and favours the status quo but how many people think in terms of the psychopolitical and psycholinguistic algorithms
of power and politics?
Derrida's project is now our project and it has hardly yet begun. Not least because cognitive linguistics were unkown to
Derrida. That's how knowledge works by contemporising and updating previous knowledge from Structuralism to Post-Structuralism
to
Nihilating anything that can be called "PoMo" (including that other pseudo-label "Cultural Marxism") condemns us to another
200 years of Classical Liberalism which should be enough impetus to compel everyone to embrace the positive aspects of PoMo!
Especially post-post-structuralism that stupid naming convention again
I think a lot of people forget that both Derrida and Baudrillard died before the financial crisis. I don't think either of
them like myself at that time paid much attention to economics and markets as they worked within very specific and focused
fields. Derrida spent his whole life analysing phonocentrism and logocentrism throughout the history of philosophy and Baudrillard
was more a cultural sociologist then anything else. They like most people assumed that neoliberalism was working and they enjoyed
well paid jobs and great celebrity so they didn't have much cause to pay that much attention to politics. Following the Invasion
of Iraq Derrida did come out very strongly against the US calling it the biggest and most dangerous rogue state in the world
and he cited and quoted Chomsky's excellent work. We should also include the UK as the second biggest rogue state.
Once the GFC happened I realized that my knowledge on those subjects was virtually zero and I have since spent years looking
at them all very closely. I think Derrida and Baudrillard would have become very political following the GFC and even more
so now given current events with the yellow vests in France. Shame those two great thinkers died before all the corruption
of neoliberalism was finally revealed. I believe that would have had a great deal to say about it Derrida at least was a very
moral and ethical man.
Bootlyboob
I think you would like this essay if you have not read it already.
If anyone wants a good overview of postmodernism and post-structuralism Cuck philosophy has has some excellent videos covering
the subject matter and ideas. He explains how postmodernism has nothing to do with identity politics and shows how Hick and
Peterson have fundamentally misunderstood postmodernism. He also has 3 videos covering postmodern basics and some others on
Derrida and Baudrillard. You will not find the concepts explained better though one can never give a comprehensive review as
such things are essentially beyond us.
He puts too much weight on Foucault for my liking but that's just the fact that my understanding of postmodernism is obviously
different to his because all of our largely chance encounters with different texts at different times, which mean that we all
come away with slightly different ideas about what these things might mean at any given time. Even in relation to differences
in our own ideas from day to day or year to year.
Bootlyboob
Yes, that's why I mentioned the article in relation to your earlier comment. I don't think any of these philosophers would
have changed their stances based on the events 20 or 30 post their deaths. They essentially predicted the course that society
has taken.
Judith Butler took part in the occupy wall street movement and she's a post-structuralist so she has clearly changed her mind
since the GFC. Deleuze may have to a certain extent have predicted such things but that doesn't necessarily mean they would
have been happy about them. Derrida always spoke of the 'democracy' to come. Instead what we are looking forward to is tech
based technocratic totalitarianism. I don't go along with Deleuze on that matter anyway. I don't see a discreet transition
from one to the other but rather see us having to endure the combined worst of both scenarios.
Bootlyboob
In relation to Peterson. I did write an email to him once and he wrote back to me saying he does indeed like the writings of
Deleuze and Baudrillard. But it was a one line response. I'm still assuming he merely uses a false reading of Derrida as a
prop to advance his own arguments.
Peterson doesn't understand that postmodernism is not the source of identity politics or cultural marxism. That source is Anglo
sociology. I was doing an MSc in sociology back in 1994/95 and they had been transitioning away from Marx and class conflict
to Nietzsche and power conflicts understood within a very simplistic definition of power as a simple binary opposition of forces
between and 'oppressor' and a 'resistor'.
They borrow a bit from Foucault but they cannot accept his postmodern conclusions as power is necessarily revealed as a
positive force that actually constructs us all: in which case one cannot really object to it on political grounds. Let's face
it, these cultural ex-Marxists (now actually an elitist Nietzschean ubermench) don't seem to object to power's miss-functioning
at all on any kind of institutional level but solely concentrate on supposed power relations at the personal level.
That's all if you buy into 'power'at all as such. Baudrillard wrote 'Forget Foucault' and that 'the more one sees power
everywhere the less one is able to speak thereof'. I try and stay clear of any theory that tries to account for everything
with a single concept or perspective as they end up over-determining and reductionist.
A major benefit (for the elites) of postmodernism is its epistemological relativism, which denies the fundamentally important
commitments to objectivity, to facts and evidence. This results in the absurd situation where all the matters is the narrative.
This obvious fact is partially obscured by the substitution of emotion for evidence and logic.
https://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/06/emotion-substitutes-for-evidence-and.html
Seamus Padraig
Yup. Among other things, po-mo 'theory' enables Orwell's doublethink .
BigB
This is exactly the misunderstanding of a mythical "po-mo 'theory'" – if such a thing exists – that I am getting at. 'Po-mo
theory' is in fact a modernity/postmodernity hybrid theory. Pomo theory is yet to emerge.
For instance: Derrida talked of the 'alterity' of language and consciousness that was neither subjectivist nor objectivist.
He also spoke of 'inversion/subversion' – where one bipolar oppositional term becomes the new dominant ie 'black over white'
or 'female over male'. This, he made specifically clear, was just as violent a domination as the old normal. How is this enabling
'doublethink'.
If you actually study where Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze; etc where taking their 'semiotics' it was to the 'Middle Way'
of language – much the same destination as Buddhism. This is the clear and precise non-domination of either extreme of language.
Only, they never supplied the praxis; and their followers and denigrators where not as prescient.
There is so much more to come from de Saussurian/Piercian semiotics and Bergsonian/Whiteheadian process philosophy. We have
barely scratched the surface. One possibility is the fabled East/West synthesis of thought that quantum physics and neuroscience
hint at.
What yo do not realise is that our true identity is lost in the language. Specifically: the Law of Identity and the Law
of the Excluded Middle of our current Theory of Mind prevent the understanding of consciousness. To understand why you actually
have to read and understand the linguistic foundations of the very theory you have just dismissed.
Robbobbobin
"Specifically: the Law of Identity and the Law of the Excluded Middle of our current Theory of Mind prevent the understanding
of consciousness."
Yes, but. What do you mean by " our current Theory of Mind"?
Tim Jenkins
Was that a promo for Po-mo theory, BigB ? (chuckle)
BigB
In fact: if followed through – PoMo leads to the point of decoherence of all narrative constructivism. Which is the same point
the Buddhist Yogacara/Madhyamaka synthesis leads to. Which is the same point quantum physics and contemporary cognitive neuroscience
leads to. The fact of a pre-existent, mind-independent, objective ground for reality is no longer tenable. Objectivism is dead.
But so is subjectivism.
What is yet to appear is a coherent narrative that accommodates this. Precisely because language does not allow this. It
is either subjectivism or objectivism tertium non datur – a third is not given. It is precisely within the excluded middle
of language that the understanding of consciouness lies. The reason we have an ontological cosmogony without consciousness
lies precisely in the objectification and commodification of language. All propositions and narratives are ultimately false
especially this one.
Crucially, just because we cannot create a narrative construction or identity for 'reality' – does not mean we cannot experience
'reality'. Which is what a propositional device like a Zen koan refers to
All linguistic constructivism – whether objective or subjective – acts as a covering of reality. We take the ontological
narrative imaginary for the real 'abhuta-parikalpa'. Both object and subject are pratitya-samutpada – co-evolutionary contingent
dependendencies. The disjunction of all dualities via ersatz spatio-temporality creates Samsara. The ending of Samsara is the
ending and re-uniting of all falsely dichotomised binary definitions. About which: we can say precisely nothing.
Does this mean language is dead? No way. Language is there for the reclamation by understanding its superimpositional qualitiy
(upacara). A metaphoric understanding that George Lakoff has reached with Mark Johnston totally independently of Buddhism.
I call it 'poetic objectivism' of 'critical realism' which is the non-nihilational, non-solipsistic, middle way. Which precisely
nihilates both elitism and capitalism: which is why there is so much confusion around the language. There is more at stake
than mere linguistics. The future of humanity will be determined by our relationship with our languages.
vexarb
@BigB: "The fact of a pre-existent, mind-independent, objective ground for reality is no longer tenable. Objectivism is dead."
Do you mean that there is more to life than just "atoms and empty space"? Plato, Dante and Blake (to name the first 3 who
popped into my head) would have agreed with that: the ground of objective reality is mind -- the mind of God.
"The atoms of Democritus, and Newton's particles of Light,
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore, Where Israel's tents do shine so bright".
Tim Jenkins
Funnily enough, I was only writing just yesterday on OffG's 'India's Tryst with Destiny' article, just what poor standards
we have in the Education of our children today, in urgent need of massive revisions, which I've highlighted and how the guilt
lays squarely on the shoulders of Scientists & Academia in our Universities, from Physics to History & Law & the 'Physiology
of Psychology' these guys really just don't 'cut it' anymore resting on Laurels, living in Fear and corrupted by capitalism
>>> wholly !
Somebody should be shot, I say for Terrorist Acts !
Corruption is the Destruction of Culture &
"The Destruction of Culture is a Terrorist Act", now officially,
in international Law @UNESCO (thanks, Irina Bokova)
Would the author of this piece like to review & correct some obviously glaring errors ?
George
Good article. On this topic, I read an essay by the late Ellen Meiksins Wood where she noted that our splendid "new Left" are
all at once too pessimistic and too optimistic. Too pessimistic because they blandly assume that socialism is dead and so all
struggles in that direction are futile. Too optimistic because they assume that this (up till now) bearable capitalism around
them can simply continue with its shopping sprees, pop celebrity culture, soap operas, scandal sheets, ineffectual though comfortable
tut-tutting over corrupt and stupid politicians and – best of all – its endless opportunity for writing postmodernist deconstructions
of all those phenomena.
Why bother getting your hands dirty with an actual worker's struggle when you can write yet another
glamorously "radical" critique of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (which in truth just ends up as another advert for it)?
Fair Dinkum
During the 50's and 60's most folks living in Western cultures were happy with their lot: One house, one car, one spouse, one
job, three or four kids and enough money to live the 'good life'
Then along came Vance Packard's 'Hidden Persuaders' and hell broke loose.
The One Per Cent saw an opportunity of unlimited exploitation and they ran with it.
They're still running (albeit in jets and yachts) and us Proles are either struggling or crawling.
Greed is neither Left or Right.
It exists for its own self gratification.
Seamus Padraig
Excellent article and very true. Just one minor quibble:
This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to
"include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism".
Actually, post-modernism doesn't include everybody -- just the 'marginalized' and 'disenfranchised' minorities whom
Michel Foucault championed. The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the old capitalist strategy of playing off the
Lumpenproletariat against the proletariat, to borrow the original Marxist terminology.
Stephen Morrell
The following facile claim doesn't bear scrutiny: "At the very moment when the "threat" of real existing socialism was not
felt anymore, due to the Western economic and military superiority in the 1980ies (that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall),
the economic paradigm in the Western countries shifted."
The economic paradigm shifted well before the 1980s and it had nothing to do with "Western economic and military superiority
in the 1980ies". The death knell of Keynesianism was sounded with the de-linking of the US dollar and the gold standard in
1971 and the first oil crisis of 1973. Subsequently, the 1970s were marked by a continuous and escalating campaign of capital
strikes which produced both high inflation and high unemployment ('stagflation') in the main imperial centres. These strikes
persisted until the bourgeoisie's servants were able to implement their desired 'free market' measures in the 1980s, the key
ones being smashing of trade union power and consequent devastation of working conditions and living standards, privatisation
of essential services, dissolution of social welfare and all the rest. All in the name of 'encouraging investment'.
The fear of 'existing socialism' (and of the military might of Eastern Europe and the USSR) persisted right up to the restoration
of capitalism in the USSR in 1991-92. The post-soviet triumphalism (to that moronic and ultimate post-modernist war cry, 'The
End of History') only opened the floodgates for the imposition of the neoliberal paradigm over the whole globe. The real essence
of the 'globalisation' ideology has been this imposition of imperial monopoly and hegemony on economically backward but resource-rich
countries that hitherto could gain some respite or succour from the USSR and Eastern Europe as an alternative to the tender
mercies of the World Bank and IMF whose terms correspondingly centred on the neoliberal paradigm.
The key class-war victories of the 1980s by the ruling class, especially in the main Anglophone imperial centres (exemplified
by the air traffic controllers strike in Reagan's US and the Great Coal Strike in Thatcher's England), were the necessary condition
to them getting their way domestically. However, the dissolution of the USSR not only allowed the imperialists to rampage internationally
(through the World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc) but gave great fillip to their initial class-war victories at home to impose with impunity
ever more grinding impoverishment and austerity on the working class and oppressed -- from the 1990s right up to fraught and
crisis-ridden present. The impunity was fuelled in many countries by that domestic accompaniment to the dissolution of the
USSR, the rapidly spiralling and terminal decline of the mass Stalinist Communist parties, the bourgeoisie's bogeyman.
Finally, productivity in the capitalist west was always higher than in post-capitalist countries. The latter universally
have been socialised economies built in economically backward countries and saddled with stultifying Stalinist bureaucracies,
including in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Capitalist productivity didn't suddenly exceed that in the USSR or Eastern Europe
in the 1980s.
So, overall, the 'triumph' of the neoliberal paradigm didn't really have much to do with the imperialist lie of "Western
economic and military superiority in the 1980ies". That fairytale might fit into some post-modernist relativist epistemology
of everything being equally 'true' or 'valid', but in the real world it doesn't hold up empirically or logically. In Anglophone
philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and hyper-objectivist
structuralism correspondingly was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism.
Seamus Padraig
The death knell of Keynesianism was sounded with the de-linking of the US dollar and the gold standard in 1971 and the
first oil crisis of 1973.
Not really, no. In fact, we still do have Keynesianism; but now, it's just a Keynsianism for the banks, the corporations
and the MIC rather than the rest of us. But check the stats: the governments of West are still heavily involved in deficit
spending–US deficits, in fact, haven't been this big since WW2! Wish I got some of that money
Tim Jenkins
I find this kind of a pointless discussion on Keynes & so on
"Capitalism has Failed." Christine Lagarde 27/5/2014 Mansion House
"Socialism for the Rich" (Stiglitz: Nobel Economic laureate, 2008/9)
More important is the structuring of Central Banks to discuss and
Richard A. Werner's sound observations in the link
Riddle me this Seamus: this year we just got a new statue of Woodrow Wilson in Plovdiv BG.
Last year we got a statue of John no-name McCain in Sofia Bulgaria
See the patterns in the most poverty stricken EU nation ?
Not difficult !
vexarb
Seamus, me too! At least, wish I could get some of my own money back.
Tim Jenkins
Whenever I think about some serious R.O.I. of time & money & family contributions to Tech. Designs, lost in the '80's, I have
to play some music or switch to Zen mode 🙂
vexarb
@Tim: "R.O.I (Return On Investment)". The first time I have come across that P.O.V (Point Of View) on this site. The essence
of Darwin's theory of evolutionary progress: to slowly build on an initial slight advantage. The 80s (I was there), Maggie
Snatcher, Baroness Muck, no such thing as Society, the years that the Locust has eaten. Little ROI despite a tsunami of fiat
money swirling around the electronic world. Where is the ROI from capital in the WC.Clinton / B.Liar / Brown regimes, that
were so boastful of their economic policies. Where are the snows of yesteryear?
Tim Jenkins
Well said, Stephen: this wholly weird wee article certainly begs the question, how old is & where was this tainted memory &
member of academia in the 'Winter of '79' ? and how could he have possibly missed all the denationalisation/privatisation,
beginning with NFC and onwards, throughout the '80's, under Thatcher ? Culminating in screwing UK societal futures, by failing
to rollout Fibre Optic Cable in the UK, (except for the Square Mile city interests of London) which Boris now promises to do
today, nationwide,
a mere 30 years too damn late, when it would have been so cheap, back then and production costs could have been tied to
contracts of sale of the elite British Tech. at that time
Worth reading both part one & two of that link, imo scandalous !
Nice wholly suitable reference to Althusser 😉 say no more.
Talk about 'Bonkers' 🙂 we shan't be buying the book, for sure 🙂
Your comment was way more valuable. Do people get paid for writing things like this, these days. I was just outside Linz
for 2 months, just before last Christmas and I found more knowledgeable people on the street, in & around Hitler's ole' 'patch',
during his formative years, on the streets of Linz: where the joke goes something along the lines of
"If a homeless unemployed artist can't make it in Austria, he has nothing to fear, knowing that he can be on the road to
becoming the Chancellor of Germany in just another year "
BigB
I was right with you to the end, Stephen. Althusser killed his wife for sure: but he was deemed insane and never stood trial.
He was almost certainly suffering from a combination of conditions, exacerbated by a severe form of PTSD, as we would call
it now.
Whether or not one has sympathy for this has become highly politicised. Classic Liberals, anti-communists, and radical feminists
always seem to portray the 'murder' as a rational act of the misogynistic male in the grips of a radical philosophy for which
wife murder is as natural a consequence as the Gulag. His supporters try to portray the 'mercy' killing of Helene as an 'act
of love'. It wasn't that simple though, was it? Nor that black and white.
I cannot imagine what life was like in a German concentration camp for someone who was already suffering from mental illness.
From what I have read: the 'treatment' available in the '50s was worse than the underlying condition. He was also 'self-medicating'.
I cannot imagine what the state of his mind was in 1980: but I am inclined to cut him some slack. A lot of slack.
I cannot agree with your last statement. Althusser's madness was not a global trigger event – proceeding as a natural consequence
from "hyper-subjectivist post-modernism". Which makes for a literary original, but highly inaccurate metaphor. Not least because
Althusser was generally considered as a Structuralist himself.
Other than that, great comment.
Stephen Morrell
I understand your sentiments toward Althusser, and am sorry if my remarks about him were insensitive or offensive. However,
I know from personal experience of hardline Althusserian academic philosophers who suddenly became post-modernists after the
unfortunate incident. The point I was trying to make was that his philosophy wasn't abandoned for philosophical reasons but
non-philosophical, moral ones. It wasn't a condemnation of Althusser. It was a condemnation of many of his followers.
I made no claim that this was some kind of 'global trigger event'. Philosophy departments, or ideas as such, don't bring
change. If post-modernism didn't become useful to at least some sectors of the ruling class at some point, then it would have
remained an academic backwater (as it should have). Nor that post-modernism was some kind of 'natural consequence' of structuralism
(which is what I think you meant). Philosophically, it was a certainly one reaction to structuralism, one among several. Other
more rational reactions to structuralism included EP Thompson's and Sebastiano Timpinaro's.
As Marx said, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" [German Ideology], and if the ruling class
finds some of them useful they'll adopt them. Or as Milton Friedman, one of the main proponents of neoliberalism, proclaimed:
"Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on
the ideas that are lying around." Post-modernism, as a philosophy 'lying around', serves as a nice philosophical/ideological
fit for the intelligentsia to rationalise the anti-science ideology the ruling class today is foisting on rest of the population.
Politically, Althusser was disowned by many French leftists for his support of the thoroughly counter-revolutionary role
of the Stalinist PCF in the 1968 May events. His authority lasted for over a decade longer in the Anglophone countries.
Lochearn
"In Anglophone philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and
hyper-objectivist structuralism correspondingly was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism."
Wonderful sentence. I'll keep that – if I may – for some imaginary dinner table with some imaginary academic friends.
Tim Jenkins
I was thinking exactly the same and imagining the window of opportunity to provoke some sound conversation, after some spluttering of red w(h)ine
Stephen Morrell
Thank you. I'll rephrase it to improve it slightly if you like:
In Anglophone philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and
in revenge hyper-objectivist structuralism was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism.
Red Allover
Mr. Morrell's use of the phrase "stultifying Stalinist bureaucracies," to describe the actually existing Socialist societies
of the Eastern bloc, indicates to me that he is very much of the bourgeois mind set that he purports to criticize. This "plague
on both your houses" attitude is very typical of the lower middle class intellectual in capitalist countries, c.f. Chomsky,
Zizek, etc.
Stephen Morrell
On the contrary, all the remaining workers states (China, North Korea, Viet Nam, Laos and Cuba) must be defended against imperialist
attack and internal counterrevolution despite the bureaucratic castes that hold political power in these countries. Political,
not social, revolutions are needed to sweep away these bureaucracies to establish organs of workers democracy and political
power (eg soviets) which never existed in these countries (unlike in the first years of the USSR).
To his last days, the dying Lenin fought the rising bureaucracy led by Stalin, but Russia's backwardness and the failure
of the revolution to spread to an advanced country (especially Germany, October 1923) drove its rise. Its ideological shell
was the profoundly reactionary outlook and program of 'Socialism in One Country' (and only one country). And while Stalin defeated
him and his followers, it was Trotsky who came to a Marxist, materialist understanding of what produced and drove the Soviet
Thermidor. Trotsky didn't go running off to the bourgeoisie of the world blubbering about a 'new class' the way Kautsky, Djilas,
Shachtman, Cliff, et al. did.
The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union was a profound defeat for the working class worldwide, as it would be
for the remaining workers states. Now if that's a 'bourgeois mindset' of a 'lower middle class intellectual', be my guest and
nominate the bourgeois or petty bourgeois layers that hold such views. Certainly Chomsky, Zizek et al. couldn't agree with
such an outlook, but it's only the bourgeoisie and the Stalinists who contend that the workers states are 'socialist' or 'communist'.
Only a true post-modernist could delude themselves into concurring, or claim that the political repression, censorship and
corrupting bureaucratism of the Stalinist regimes were indeed not stultifying.
Red Allover
Thanks for your intelligent response. I am very familiar with the Trotskyist positions you outline. I could give you the Leninist
rebuttal to each of them, but you are probably familiar with them as well. I don't want to waste your time, or mine. However,
if you don't mind me asking, exactly at what point do you feel capitalism was restored in the USSR? It was, I take it, with
the first Five Year Plan, not the NEP?
Also, the Socialist or, to use your nomenclature, "Stalinist" system, that was destroyed in the the USSR in the 1990s–it was,
in truth, just one form of capitalism replaced by another form of capitalism? Would this summarize your view accurately?
Stephen Morrell
Capitalism was restored in the USSR in 1991-92. Stalinism was not another form of capitalism, as the Third Campists would contend.
The Stalinist bureaucracy rested on exactly the same property relations a socialist system would which were destroyed with
Yeltsin's (and Bush's) counterrevolution. Last, I've never labelled the Stalinist bureaucracy as a 'system'.
Perhaps if you changed your moniker to: "Troll Allover" one could take you seriously, well, not really – 'seriously' – but
at least in a sort of weird, twisted & warped post-modern sense – eh?
Red Allover
I'm sorry, what is the argument you are making? I know name calling is beneath intelligent, educated people.
Reverting to the first point, my main problem with your explanation of how you use the
term 'neoliberal' is that your definition of 'neoliberal' depends on your definition of
'classical liberal', and you haven't explained how you use the term 'classical
liberal'.
IMHO, neoliberalism has probably closer connection to Trotskyism then to the classic
liberalism and Mont Pelerin Society can be renamed into "The Committee for the adaptation of
Trotskyism for the needs of financial oligarchy"
Some commonalities (in no particular order, or importance):
-- The brutal suppression of organized labor
-- Rampant militarism as the method of controlling of the population; outsized role on
intelligence agencies in the society; the regime of total surveillance; the conversion of the
state into the national security state
-- Scapegoating and victimization of Untermensch
-- The mantle of inevitability (famous TINA statement of Margaret Thatcher )
-- The concept of the "new class" as the driving force in history which is destined to guide
the humanity forward ( with the replacement of "proletariat" with the "creative class".) See
also Rand positivism with its cult of entrepreneurs.
-- The implicit rejection of the normal interpretation of the rule of the law for "The
Masters of the Universe" and the idea of "neoliberal justice" (tough justice for Untermensch
only).
-- Messianic zeal and hate for the "old order"
-- Rejection of the ideas of universal truth, adoption of variation of "a class truth" via
postmodernism; neoliberals reject the idea that there are any universal and/or religious (for
example Christian) moral values and the concept of truth.
-- Implicit denial of the idea of "free press". The press is converted into neoliberal
propaganda machine and journalists, writers, etc are viewed as "the solders of the ideology"
who should advance neoliberalism
-- The use of university economics courses for the indoctrination
-- Pervasive use of academic science and "think tanks" for brainwashing of the
population.
-- The idea of the Uniparty -- a single party system, with the ruling party serves as the
vanguard of the hegemonic neoliberal class (top 1%) and represents only its interests. Which
was adapted in the USA to a two Party system to preserve the illusion of democracy.
-- Economic fetishism, the deliberate conversion of the ideology into a secular religion,
questioning postulates of which can lead to ostracism. Neoliberals see the market as a sacred
element of human civilization. Like is the case with Marxism, "Neoliberal rationality" is
heavily tilted toward viewing the people as "homo economicus". (See Professor Wendy Brown
discussion on the subject)
-- Cult of GDP with GDP growth as the ultimate goal of any society. Measurement of GDP became
"number racket" and is distorted for political gains. Like Marxism, neoliberalism reduces
individuals to statistics contained within aggregate economic performance.
-- Justification of the use of violence as the political tool. The idea of Permanent
[neoliberal] revolution to bring to power the new hegemonic class in all countries of the
globe despite the resistance of the population. Like Trotskyism, neoliberalism consider wars
to impose a neoliberal society on weaker countries (which in modern times are countries
without nuclear weapons) which cannot give a fair fight to Western armies as inherently
just
-- The idea of artificial creation of the "revolutionary situation" for overthrow of
"unfriendly" regimes ( via color revolution methods); assigning similar roles to students and
media in such a coup d'état.
-- Reliance on international organizations to bully countries into submission (remember
Communist International (aka Comintern) and its network of spies and Communist Parties all
over the world).
gjohnsit on Sat,
11/02/2019 - 11:42pm We all know that the millions of protesters out in the streets of
Latin America couldn't possibly have legitimate grievances against neoliberalism.
Obviously it's all about Putin , but he also has
evil
allies .
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez denied Friday that the country is behind recent social
unrest in Latin America and rejected US allegations that it is supporting Venezuela President
Nicolas Maduro.
"Maliciously people are accusing Cuba of being behind what is happening in Venezuela and
the recent popular protests against the pitiless neoliberalism that's advancing in this
region," said Rodriguez at an event in Havana, called the Anti-imperialist Meeting.
Of course Cuba would deny it. That's the proof of their guilt.
But it's
Venezuela that is most to blame.
Two of his most vocal regional critics -- Ecuadoran President Lenín Moreno and Chile's
Piñera -- have seen serious threats develop against their own administrations in the
form of large-scale street protests this month against price hikes for gas, transit,
electricity and other services.
Argentine President Mauricio Macri, who had called for Maduro to step down, lost his
reelection bid last week to a left-wing Peronista ticket that included former president
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a longtime ally of Venezuela's socialists. Bolivian
President Evo Morales, a steadfast Maduro backer, has claimed victory in his country's
elections.
Maduro's adversaries claim this is no coincidence.
Leftists are winning, neoliberals are losing. Obviously it must be a konspiracy.
Ecuadoran authorities have detained several leftist politicians who attended the Caracas
summit. But they have yet to back up many of their allegations with proof.
...In fact, some allegations have proved to be anything but concrete. Interior Minister
María Paula Romo, for instance, heralded the Oct. 10 arrest of 17 foreigners,
including several Venezuelan nationals, at Quito's airport during the height of the riots in
Ecuador. But all but two were later released by a judge for lack of evidence.
"Some of them were just Venezuelan Uber drivers picking people up at the airport," said
Sebastián Hurtado, president of the Ecuadoran political consultancy Profitas.
...
"What is happening in Chile is happening everywhere," he said. "The system has collapsed
because people aren't eating, or just pasta and rice. They have no housing, no health
care."
Let's be serious for a moment.
Which is more likely?
Millions of people are protesting because they are hungry, sick, and homeless OR it's an
international konspiracy to make capitalists look bad?
'It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost
entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I
have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting,
bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek,
homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know
what else .
In certain kinds of writing it is normal to come across long passages which are almost
completely lacking in meaning .. When one critic writes, 'The outstanding feature of Mr. X's
work is its living quality', while another writes, 'The immediately striking thing about Mr.
X's work is its peculiar deadness', the reader accepts this as a simple difference of
opinion.
If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he
would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are
similarly abused.
The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not
desirable' .Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are:
class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary .' (Orwell).
On October 3rd, countless tens of thousands of Ecuadorian citizens began a general strike
and occupation of public spaces, throughout the country but targeting the capital of Quito.
President Lenin Moreno has made himself one of the most hated men in the history of the country
in the course of his rule, and was forced to flee as a consequence, and re-establish the
capital in Guayaquil. In addition, facing a larger and wider revolution all together, Moreno
was forced to rescind Decree 883 – the new law which appears to have been the straw that
broke the camel's back in Ecuador.
But this is far from over, and Moreno's continued existence as head of government threatens
to see the expansion of this newly awakened movement. Internationally too – for it is
Moreno who also betrayed Julian Assange, after Raphael Correa offered him protection.
Media are accurately reporting the obvious, but in limited context: Moreno enacted Decree
883, which brought an end to the popular fuel subsidies. As the story goes, this was part of an
austerity agreement made with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for a loan.
Decree 883 threatens the country's most vulnerable and historically marginalized cross-sections
of Ecuadorian society, indigenous communities in particular. These indigenous communities,
along with labor and citizen's group, were at the forefront of these protests and the general
strike, leading and organizing them. Moreno accuses his popular predecessor Correa for planning
and executing the protests, with assistance from Cuba and Venezuela. The 'random Soros guy'
from Brazil, Juan Guaido, has echoed Moreno's accusation.
The Looming Econocide which Decree 883 Threatened
Beyond this, however, is the real story of Decree 883 and the recent history of Ecuador, and
the real betrayal represented by Mr. Moreno – a visceral hatred he has earned for
himself, which extends far beyond Decree 883.
Mr. Moreno baffled the public when he announced that the subsidies policy introduced in the
70's, which if accounting in a very narrow and segregated way, appear to 'cost' the government
some $1.3bn annually, were no longer affordable. But what macroeconomists and the public both
understood, and what was particularly outrageous, was this: these subsidies, based on Ecuador's
socialized gas industry, in fact made possible all sorts of economic activity; risk taking and
opportunity making, and consumption in other sectors of the economy – not possible
without such a subsidy.
And so the ripple effect of Decree 883 would result in pessimism and a bearish national
economy, all around. The cognitive and theoretical deficiency of believing that one can shore
up nominal debts that exist under certain conditions of subsidy, by eliminating an economy
enhancer like an energy subsidy, without this in turn deleteriously effecting overall GDP
indices, to in turn qualify for a loan which would in all obvious reality create further
balance of payment and debt problems, is itself either negligent, criminal, or both.
The real consequence would be that it would place the Ecuadorian economy further in debt,
which means in further reliance on the IMF, which means further loans will be needed, which
means further austerity, and ultimately privatization of the public weal. Upon such a cycle,
creating permanent servitude and insolvency, the final aim on the part of the IMF cannot be
simply a vicious debt cycle, (as this is ultimately unpayable) but the total private and
foreign ownership of Ecuador, with some sort of mass impoverishment, even genocide of its
indigenous people, as an obvious – if not wanted – consequence. At this point it
becomes perhaps secondary to note that none of these 'IMF loans' will be used to develop the
country's physical economy – the only real signifier of wealth building for a whole
society, if viewed scientifically and rationally as an organic unit with mutually interrelated
symbiotic components.
There are few words to describe such aims as Decree 883 without delving into deep, profound,
philosophical and theological questions about the nature of the forces of good and evil in the
world. Questions was force us to ask what universal principles give meaning to our lives as
human beings, and what really and fundamentally motivates those with such a blatant
misanthropic agenda.
But at any rate, it is more than obvious how this move by Moreno, in the name of Decree 883,
had led to the near toppling of the Ecuadorian government – leading to Moreno declaring a
state of emergency.
Moreno – from Lenin to Judas
A success so far for the people has been the apparent repeal of Decree 883, but why Moreno
is so very much hated deserves our attention, as this is only the beginning. During his tenure,
Moreno has gained himself the nickname among the opposition 'Judas': a name necessary as it
distinguishes that he is 'no Lenin'.
What Moreno has done has resulted in the largest popular uprising the country has seen in
many years. After years of working to reverse the progress and stability brought by the noble
and just government of Raphael Correa, Moreno brought about a condition of instability and
ignobility. Within months of assuming office, he disavowed Correa who had brought him where he
had arrived, and began to work under the orders of Washington to undo Correa's social and
legislative reforms that had been aimed at deepening the strength of Ecuador's civil society,
labor, and justice. Under Correa, poverty would see a 30% decline.
And despite this obvious reality, this obvious truth, Moreno doubles-down on his contempt
for reason and rationality, by accusing the protestors of being agents of Correa, even of
Maduro (!). This affront to the wisdom of the people of Ecuador is comparable to blaming the
blood for the wound, or for blaming the wound for the accident which causes these.
For the latest affront to dignity and fairness, in the form of yet another IMF sell-out from
Moreno, came in the form of the elimination of gas subsidies for people most in need. And one
cannot offer any real logic or reason for ending these subsidies, for the gas itself is largely
owned by and for the people, through EP Petroecuador, the state oil firm.
But this deep-seated scorn is not simply related to contempt for his policies, but much more
profoundly for his betrayal. Because we might expect such austerity from a centrist or
right-wing candidate, given the history of politics in Latin America – there is something
honest in this; they deliver what they campaign on. But given that Correa had essentially
groomed Moreno, and Moreno in turn endorsed the policies of Correa – we encounter the
crux of the matter, and how Moreno turned from Lenin to Judas.
To wit, it was Raphael Correa's broad plan to rescue Ecuador from the predatory claws of the
IMF, by fomenting a public campaign, a brilliant simulacrum strategy of sorts, borrowed from
Venezuela, that an entire program of socialist revolution was underway, such that it had the
effect of lowering the value of Ecuador's bonds, owned by foreign interests. This made it so
that Ecuador was able to succeed in buying back some 91% of these bonds, and made possible
Ecuador's thumbing the IMF and not taking on new debt. This was done by intelligently
weaponizing Ecuador's apparent weakness in not having its own real national currency, as this
was dollarized by corrupt national leaders in 2000, using the excuse of the damage caused by
Hurricane 'El Niño', to eliminate Ecuador's monetary sovereignty. It had been widely
believed that without a national, sovereign currency, that Ecuador could have no sovereign
monetary policy – Correa proved this wrong by turning expectations and dynamics on their
respective heads. While this dictum is true in the long-term, Correa used the dollarized nature
of Ecuador's currency values in a gambit to buy-back Ecuador's bonds.
When Correa was elected president of Ecuador, it had come as the result of years of
struggle by the popular forces of resistance, against all odds, and overcoming a particularly
unstable and disastrous period were Ecuador had seen come and go some ten presidents in the
period of just eleven years.
Correa would go on to serve for a decade, and continued to build popular support, and
this had signaled the realization of an even broader dream of social and economic justice in
Ecuador, but also a visionary long-term plan to integrate the Latin American economy into a
single civilization-wide economic bloc.
The history of modern Ecuador is one of tragedy, hope, and never lacking in contradictions.
During the time of Correa he was faced with the strongest opposition from the most intransigent
and short-term thinking, narrowest in scope and vision, of the country's billionaire class.
And it only so happened to be that this same class, who had been responsible for the years
of instability and rampant poverty, were also those closest to Washington DC and New York City
– placing the country at the hands of the Washington Consensus – the IMF, City
Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and the rest of the "usual suspects".
Rejecting this, in February 2007 that Correa's economy minister Ricardo Patiño
stated: "I have no intention [ ] of accepting what some governments in the past have accepted:
that [the IMF] tell us what to do on economic policy." "That seems unacceptable to us,"
Patiño concluded.
The U.S and the IMF hated this, and hated Correa for this. Correa confused many –at
first seeming to be a center-leaning social-democrat reformist. His biography and optics were
misleading: young and well groomed, with waxed hair and Spanish features, he appeared very much
like the kind of candidate historically installed by Ecuador's wealthy comprador class. His
credentials in governance had come about through being Ecuador's finance minister under the
prior neo-liberal government of Alfredo Palacio. And yet Correa was a man of the people and
once in office quickly became allies with the Castros of Cuba and also Chavez, and then Maduro
of Venezuela.
Correa understood he would be termed-out eventually, under Ecuador's constitutional
provisions, and had worked early on to groom a successor.
Again, the biography and optics were misleading: this successor was Lenin Moreno, the son
of a communist teacher; Moreno inspired empathy with his soulful eyes, reminiscent of Iran's
Ahmadinejad, and being wheelchair-bound, he inspired sympathy.
The people had expected that a man who inspired such sympathy and empathy, would himself be
capable of tremendous sympathy and empathy for the people in turn.
And yet the people were wrong. Instead, what lurked in the heart of Lenin Moreno was so
dark, so depraved, so shallow and so selfish, that it exploded the left's understanding of
character.
It would turn out that Nietzsche's dictum that weakness lays at the root of evil, and
strength at the root of good, was true. If the apparent meekness of Moreno would allow him to
inherit the world of Ecuador, then it was his cruelty and hatred, his Ressentiment born
of weakness, for those healthy and happy people, even if poor, that would threaten to destroy
it.
The government of Moreno has been a betrayal so monumental and significant to the living
history of Ecuador, that it has indeed earned him the name 'Judas Moreno', an allusion both to
Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus Christ to the wishes of the Sanhedrin, and also to Leon
'Judas' Trotsky, who is believed by mainline communists internationally to have conspired to
betray the Russian Revolution through his alleged conspiracy with the forces of Fascism in
Europe.
And this leads us to the real heart of our investigation, for the apparent revolution that
Judas Moreno has betrayed was the popular democratic, electoral 'revolution' of Correa. And
this is why Moreno is so hated, and lacks any mandate. And this is also why his power decreases
by the day, as his legitimacy in question after his first months in office, and his actions
against the people – the repression, arrests, and persecutions which have heightened in
the last ten days of protests against his regime, are only but the culmination of several years
of the same.
Now there are dead, martyrs in this struggle, murdered by Moreno's security forces.
Decree 883 may have been repealed, but coming about on the precipice of a broader
revolution, the coming weeks and months only promises more conflicts, surprises – and we
should expect yet another betrayal from Judas Moreno, and another explosion in response.
"... The argument the Bolivian right-wing is using is exactly the same the Brazilian one used after the 2014 results: election fraud. The vice-president of the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court has already renounced in protest after the institution caved in to the pressure and suspended the publication of the results: ..."
"... Evo Morales is much more fragile than Nicolás Maduro -- even though Bolivia's economy has been much better. The key here is that, in Latin America, every period of economic growth is destined to be followed by a period of economic crisis because it's impelled to follow the neoliberal model of development by the USA. The left-wing presidents are then forced to overcome this through straight up government spending in order to at least alleviate extreme poverty that ravages the subcontinent. ..."
"... But the hardest challenge for the socialists in Latin America are its armed forces: after the 1950s, they were turned into American subsidiaries, each one with a military doctrine that focuses on fighting the "internal enemy" (i.e. the socialists). No Latin American military is able to fight a single conventional war, they are essentially glorified militarized police forces. Maduro has the FANB; Morales doesn't have the Bolivian Armed Forces on his side. ..."
"... Meanwhile, neoliberalism rots. Bolsonaro already know his fate: ..."
"... It must be hard to realize, after years of hallucination and messianic complex, that you were just a disposable puppet of the Americans. ..."
"... A Brazilian prefers to suffer in silence than having to risk his life for a greater cause and, since the 1960s, has an inexplicable fascination with the USA and everything American (Bolsonaro ran his campaign openly as the "Brazilian Trump"). ..."
The argument the Bolivian right-wing is using is exactly the same the Brazilian one used after the 2014 results: election
fraud. The vice-president of the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court has already renounced in protest after the institution caved
in to the pressure and suspended the publication of the results:
Evo Morales is much more fragile than Nicolás Maduro -- even though Bolivia's economy has been much better. The key here
is that, in Latin America, every period of economic growth is destined to be followed by a period of economic crisis because it's
impelled to follow the neoliberal model of development by the USA. The left-wing presidents are then forced to overcome this through
straight up government spending in order to at least alleviate extreme poverty that ravages the subcontinent.
But the hardest challenge for the socialists in Latin America are its armed forces: after the 1950s, they were turned into
American subsidiaries, each one with a military doctrine that focuses on fighting the "internal enemy" (i.e. the socialists).
No Latin American military is able to fight a single conventional war, they are essentially glorified militarized police forces.
Maduro has the FANB; Morales doesn't have the Bolivian Armed Forces on his side.
Let's wait and see how it evolves.
--//--
Meanwhile, neoliberalism rots. Bolsonaro already know his fate:
It must be hard to realize, after years of hallucination and messianic complex, that you were just a disposable puppet
of the Americans.
However, things are not so simple in Brazil: the majority of the Left is reactionary and pacifist; the Brazilian people has
a high tolerance for misery, is very docile and doesn't have a curriculum of violent uprisings or revolutions.
A Brazilian prefers to suffer in silence than having to risk his life for a greater cause and, since the 1960s, has an
inexplicable fascination with the USA and everything American (Bolsonaro ran his campaign openly as the "Brazilian Trump").
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat.
The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened. In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died.
Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things are quiet again,
at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I am shocked that nobody is asking Barr why Epstein's autopsy hasn't been made public.
Also, why is nobody asking Acosta who
told him that Epstein should be treated gently because he "belongs to intelligence" and what they meant by that. Rumor is that
Mueller told him. So, Mueller has been making the rounds, yet nobody asks him.
Also, Epstein's seized video collection shows various individuals committing serious crimes so why is nobody going through
it and charging those individuals who can be identified? Is the DOJ now of the opinion that these crimes are not important enough
to pursue? And if they should point to a blackmailing operation involving a major intelligence service, that might be worth exposing?
I feel like I am almost the only person in the world asking.
Society has been corrupted by the promotion of cost-benefit moral thinking to a point where nobody can be trusted to do their
job if they think it might be 'better overall' to act corruptly.
I keep thinking of innocent Joe DiGenova assuring us that however frustrating it has been in the past, the appointment of Bob
Barr will turn everything around. Nonsense. Barr is a fat man, and as James Watson reminds us, you never want to give a fat man
a critical job. So far he is acting like a fat man. Firing a couple minor players is window dressing at best.
Now and again, both in professional political writings and here as I read, the term
Trotskyism is used but though I have looked up the term a few times I have no real idea what
it is supposed to mean. Possibly a reader could explain. After all, the term tankie was
explained by a prominent economist at the University of California only a few days ago and I
realized the term was absurd, simply an empty personal insult. Possibly Trotskyism is as
empty.
You are in a bad position. Generally this needs some acquaintance with Marxism as
Trotskyism is one of the most influential "deviation" from Classic Marxism (Bolshevism was
yet another).
Both used to believe in the special role of "proletariat" as the new class that will
depose older ruling classes all over the globe. Both believed in "class struggle" as the main
force of historical development of humanity. One of the key ideas of Trotskyism was the idea
of Permanent revolution -- forceful introduction of socialist regimes using subversion,
external financial injections, and armed struggle (kind of "regime change" strategy that the
USA practices now for introduction of neoliberal regimes.)
The idea of class struggle transposed as the struggle within the elite and between states
for supremacy was borrowed by the US turncoats from Trotskyism (see for example -- renegade
Trotskyite James Burnham book THE MACHIAVELLIANS: THE DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM ) who later formed
the core of the neocon movement.
Still you might try to read some sources on the WEB like:
Neoliberalism explicitly denies the value of compassion. It considers "wolf eats wolf" type
of competition as the key component of human society that the moral value in itself.
One of the crucial lessons we often fail to impart to our children is that life is not a
zero-sum game; that is, the success of another child is not a corresponding failure for me.
Children ought to learn how to help one another so they can take joy in crossing the finish
line together, building closeness instead of separation, segregation and adversarialism.
And the incessant use of digital media often exacerbates this development.
In a society where we are rewarded for thinking about ourselves first, we disconnect from
one another. Just go to the mall and look for shopping carts and trash strewn across the
parking lot, oversized trucks and SUVs parked across multiple parking spots, non-handicap
vehicles in handicap spots and cars parked in dedicated motorcycle spaces. No consideration for
others.
Gone are the days of compassionate conservatism. "America first" finds a ready breeding
ground in this "me first" mentality. It is finally time to catch up for those left behind by
social progress made in the name of equality. After all, they too are better than others,
better than those abroad and better than those from abroad. The new aMEricaFIRST echoes that
sentiment, segregates American society and separates us from friends and allies around the
world.
How can we get our compassion back? How can we reconnect with each other and engage with the
world? At the personal level, take small steps and start a conversation with someone different
from you, expose yourself to the diversity that makes this country so unique–and involve
your children in that exposure to pluralism, normalizing it, modeling it. Put yourself in the
shoes of someone less fortunate and find the "things that unite."
At the social level, we – including our children – must recognize that the
rights and freedoms we cherish and enjoy also come with responsibilities. Success in America
has focused on maximizing individual freedoms limited only when their exercise encroaches on
the freedoms of others. Today, we need to reconnect and rebuild our communities by focusing on
the needs of others. To achieve this, let's reconsider the idea of mandatory public service:
citizens serving others in need. A public service requirement between the end of high school
and the beginning of college – fulfilled in many ways, including such service
opportunities as AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, Meals on Wheels or other freely helpful
initiatives – brings those in service in contact with those from whom they have been
disconnected, both at home and abroad. Only through connection will we regain compassion and
only then will we be able to make America great again. More articles by: Volker Franke
The question why the USA intelligence agencies were "unaware" about Epstein activities is an interesting one. Similar question can
be asked about Hillary "activities" related to "Clinton cash".
Actually the way the USA elite deal with scandals is to ostracize any whistleblower and silence any media that tryt to dig the story.
Open repression including physical elimination is seldom used those days as indirect methods are quite effective.
Notable quotes:
"... Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall. ..."
"... If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom; 2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward; 3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell and surroundings were "broken." ..."
"... America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security) and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy. ..."
"... Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case. ..."
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
When you discover rot in an apparently sound structure, the first question is: how far has the rot penetrated? If the rot
has reached the foundation and turned it to mush, the structure is one wind-storm from collapse.
How deep has the rot of corruption, fraud, abuse of power, betrayal of the public trust, blatant criminality and insiders protecting
the guilty penetrated America's key public and private institutions? It's difficult to tell, as the law-enforcement and security
agencies are themselves hopelessly compromised.
If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom;
2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward;
3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell
and surroundings were "broken."
If this all strikes you as evidence that America's security and law-enforcement institutions are functioning at a level that's
above reproach, then 1) you're a well-paid shill who's protecting the guilty lest your own misdeeds come to light or 2) your
consumption of mind-bending meds is off the charts.
How deep has the rot gone in America's ruling elite? One way to measure the depth of the rot is to ask how whistleblowers
who've exposed the ugly realities of insider dealing, malfeasance, tax evasion, cover-ups, etc. have fared.
America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security)
and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy.
Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the
few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging
down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case.
The closer wrong-doing and wrong-doers are to protected power-elites, the less attention the mass media devotes to them.
... ... ...
Here are America's media, law enforcement/security agencies and "leadership" class: they speak no evil, see no evil and
hear no evil, in the misguided belief that their misdirection, self-service and protection of the guilty will make us buy the narrative
that America's ruling elite and all the core institutions they manage aren't rotten to the foundations.
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
I think the Car Wash conspiracy against Lula is a bombshell, and Pepe Escobar's prison
interviews with Lula provide insight to the larger global Borgist conspiracy. Check out what
Lula had to say about the JCPOA. Be sure to read partsI I and II as well.
The 80286 Intel processors: The Intel 80286[3] (also marketed as the iAPX 286[4] and often called Intel 286) is a 16-bit
microprocessor that was introduced on February 1, 1982. The 80286 was employed for the IBM PC/AT, introduced in 1984, and then
widely used in most PC/AT compatible computers until the early 1990s.
Notable quotes:
"... The fate of Boeing's civil aircraft business hangs on the re-certification of the 737 MAX. The regulators convened an international meeting to get their questions answered and Boeing arrogantly showed up without having done its homework. The regulators saw that as an insult. Boeing was sent back to do what it was supposed to do in the first place: provide details and analysis that prove the safety of its planes. ..."
"... In recent weeks, Boeing and the FAA identified another potential flight-control computer risk requiring additional software changes and testing, according to two of the government and pilot officials. ..."
"... Any additional software changes will make the issue even more complicated. The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity. All the extras procedures Boeing now will add to them may well exceed the system's capabilities. ..."
"... The old architecture was possible because the plane could still be flown without any computer. It was expected that the pilots would detect a computer error and would be able to intervene. The FAA did not require a high design assurance level (DAL) for the system. The MCAS accidents showed that a software or hardware problem can now indeed crash a 737 MAX plane. That changes the level of scrutiny the system will have to undergo. ..."
"... Flight safety regulators know of these complexities. That is why they need to take a deep look into such systems. That Boeing's management was not prepared to answer their questions shows that the company has not learned from its failure. Its culture is still one of finance orientated arrogance. ..."
"... I also want to add that Boeing's focus on profit over safety is not restricted to the 737 Max but undoubtedly permeates the manufacture of spare parts for the rest of the their plane line and all else they make.....I have no intention of ever flying in another Boeing airplane, given the attitude shown by Boeing leadership. ..."
"... So again, Boeing mgmt. mirrors its Neoliberal government officials when it comes to arrogance and impudence. ..."
"... Arrogance? When the money keeps flowing in anyway, it comes naturally. ..."
"... In the neoliberal world order governments, regulators and the public are secondary to corporate profits. ..."
"... I am surprised that none of the coverage has mentioned the fact that, if China's CAAC does not sign off on the mods, it will cripple, if not doom the MAX. ..."
"... I am equally surprised that we continue to sabotage China's export leader, as the WSJ reports today: "China's Huawei Technologies Co. accused the U.S. of "using every tool at its disposal" to disrupt its business, including launching cyberattacks on its networks and instructing law enforcement to "menace" its employees. ..."
"... Boeing is backstopped by the Murkan MIC, which is to say the US taxpayer. ..."
"... Military Industrial Complex welfare programs, including wars in Syria and Yemen, are slowly winding down. We are about to get a massive bill from the financiers who already own everything in this sector, because what they have left now is completely unsustainable, with or without a Third World War. ..."
"... In my mind, the fact that Boeing transferred its head office from Seattle (where the main manufacturing and presumable the main design and engineering functions are based) to Chicago (centre of the neoliberal economic universe with the University of Chicago being its central shrine of worship, not to mention supply of future managers and administrators) in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over people and performance. ..."
"... For many amerikans, a good "offensive" is far preferable than a good defense even if that only involves an apology. Remember what ALL US presidents say.. We will never apologize.. ..."
"... Actually can you show me a single place in the US where ethics are considered a bastion of governorship? ..."
"... You got to be daft or bribed to use intel cpu's in embedded systems. Going from a motorolla cpu, the intel chips were dinosaurs in every way. ..."
"... Initially I thought it was just the new over-sized engines they retro-fitted. A situation that would surely have been easier to get around by just going back to the original engines -- any inefficiencies being less $costly than the time the planes have been grounded. But this post makes the whole rabbit warren 10 miles deeper. ..."
"... That is because the price is propped up by $9 billion share buyback per year . Share buyback is an effective scheme to airlift all the cash out of a company towards the major shareholders. I mean, who wants to develop reliable airplanes if you can funnel the cash into your pockets? ..."
"... If Boeing had invested some of this money that it blew on share buybacks to design a new modern plane from ground up to replace the ancient 737 airframe, these tragedies could have been prevented, and Boeing wouldn't have this nightmare on its hands. But the corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers, rather than real engineers, had the final word. ..."
"... Markets don't care about any of this. They don't care about real engineers either. They love corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers. They want share buybacks, and if something bad happens, they'll overlook the $5 billion to pay for the fallout because it's just a "one-time item." ..."
"... Overall, Boeing buy-backs exceeded 40 billion dollars, one could guess that half or quarter of that would suffice to build a plane that logically combines the latest technologies. E.g. the entire frame design to fit together with engines, processors proper for the information processing load, hydraulics for steering that satisfy force requirements in almost all circumstances etc. New technologies also fail because they are not completely understood, but when the overall design is logical with margins of safety, the faults can be eliminated. ..."
"... Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics. ..."
"... The problem is not new, and it is well understood. What computer modelling is is cheap, and easy to fudge, and that is why it is popular with people who care about money a lot. Much of what is called "AI" is very similar in its limitations, a complicated way to fudge up the results you want, or something close enough for casual examination. ..."
United Airline and American Airlines furtherprolonged the
grounding of their Boeing 737 MAX airplanes. They now schedule the plane's return to the flight
line in December. But it is likely that the grounding will continue well into the next
year.
After Boeing's
shabby design and lack of safety analysis of its Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation
System (MCAS) led to the death of 347 people, the grounding of the type and billions of losses,
one would expect the company to show some decency and humility. Unfortunately Boeing behavior
demonstrates none.
There is still little detailed information on how Boeing will fix MCAS. Nothing was said by
Boeing about the manual trim system of the 737 MAX that
does not work when it is needed . The unprotected rudder cables of the plane
do not meet safety guidelines but were still certified. The planes flight control computers
can be
overwhelmed by bad data and a fix will be difficult to implement. Boeing continues to say
nothing about these issues.
International flight safety regulators no longer trust the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) which failed to uncover those problems when it originally certified the new type. The FAA
was also the last regulator to ground the plane after two 737 MAX had crashed. The European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) asked Boeing to explain and correct
five major issues it identified. Other regulators asked additional questions.
Boeing needs to regain the trust of the airlines, pilots and passengers to be able to again
sell those planes. Only full and detailed information can achieve that. But the company does
not provide any.
As Boeing sells some 80% of its airplanes abroad it needs the good will of the international
regulators to get the 737 MAX back into the air. This makes the arrogance
it displayed in a meeting with those regulators inexplicable:
Friction between Boeing Co. and international air-safety authorities threatens a new delay in
bringing the grounded 737 MAX fleet back into service, according to government and pilot
union officials briefed on the matter.
The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a
Boeing briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil and
elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details and
answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control
computers.
The fate of Boeing's civil aircraft business hangs on the re-certification of the 737 MAX.
The regulators convened an international meeting to get their questions answered and Boeing
arrogantly showed up without having done its homework. The regulators saw that as an insult.
Boeing was sent back to do what it was supposed to do in the first place: provide details and
analysis that prove the safety of its planes.
What did the Boeing managers think those regulatory agencies are? Hapless lapdogs like the
FAA managers`who
signed off on Boeing 'features' even after their engineers told them that these were not
safe?
Buried in the Wall Street Journal
piece quoted above is another little shocker:
In recent weeks, Boeing and the FAA identified another potential flight-control computer risk
requiring additional software changes and testing, according to two of the government and
pilot officials.
The new issue must be going beyond the flight control computer (FCC) issues the FAA
identified in June .
Boeing's original plan to fix the uncontrolled activation of MCAS was to have both FCCs
active at the same time and to switch MCAS off when the two computers disagree. That was
already a huge change in the general architecture which so far consisted of one active and one
passive FCC system that could be switched over when a failure occurred.
Any additional software changes will make the issue even more complicated. The 80286 Intel
processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity. All the extras procedures
Boeing now will add to them may well exceed the system's capabilities.
Changing software in a delicate environment like a flight control computer is extremely
difficult. There will always be surprising side effects or regressions where already corrected
errors unexpectedly reappear.
The old architecture was possible because the plane could still be flown without any
computer. It was expected that the pilots would detect a computer error and would be able to
intervene. The FAA did not require a high design assurance level (DAL) for the system. The MCAS
accidents showed that a software or hardware problem can now indeed crash a 737 MAX plane. That
changes the level of scrutiny the system will have to undergo.
All procedures and functions of the software will have to be tested in all thinkable
combinations to ensure that they will not block or otherwise influence each other. This will
take months and there is a high chance that new issues will appear during these tests. They
will require more software changes and more testing.
Flight safety regulators know of these complexities. That is why they need to take a deep
look into such systems. That Boeing's management was not prepared to answer their questions
shows that the company has not learned from its failure. Its culture is still one of finance
orientated arrogance.
Building safe airplanes requires engineers who know that they may make mistakes and who have
the humility to allow others to check and correct their work. It requires open communication
about such issues. Boeing's say-nothing strategy will prolong the grounding of its planes. It
will increases the damage to Boeing's financial situation and reputation.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:
"The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity."
You must be joking, right?
If this is the case, the problem is unfixable: you can't find two competent software
engineers who can program these dinosaur 16-bit processors.
You must be joking, right?
If this is the case, the problem is unfixable: you can't find two competent software
engineers who can program these dinosaur 16-bit processors.
One of the two is writing this.
Half-joking aside. The 737 MAX FCC runs on 80286 processors. There are ten thousands of
programmers available who can program them though not all are qualified to write real-time
systems. That resource is not a problem. The processors inherent limits are one.
Thanks b for the fine 737 max update. Others news sources seem to have dropped coverage. It
is a very big deal that this grounding has lasted this long. Things are going to get real bad
for Boeing if this bird does not get back in the air soon. In any case their credibility is
tarnished if not down right trashed.
What ever software language these are programmed in (my guess is C) the compilers still
exist for it and do the translation from the human readable code to the machine code for you.
Of course the code could be assembler but writing assembly code for a 286 is far easier than
writing it for say an i9 becuase the CPU is so much simpler and has a far smaller set of
instructions to work with.
@b:
It was a hyperbole.
I might be another one, but left them behind as fast as I could. The last time I had to deal
with it was an embedded system in 1998-ish. But I am also retiring, and so are thousands of
others. The problems with support of a legacy system are a legend.
I commented when you first started writing about this that it would take Boeing down and
still believe that to be true. To the extent that Boeing is stonewalling the international
safety regulators says to me that upper management and big stock holders are being given time
to minimize their exposure before the axe falls.
I also want to add that Boeing's focus on profit over safety is not restricted to the 737
Max but undoubtedly permeates the manufacture of spare parts for the rest of the their plane
line and all else they make.....I have no intention of ever flying in another Boeing
airplane, given the attitude shown by Boeing leadership.
This is how private financialization works in the Western world. Their bottom line is
profit, not service to the flying public. It is in line with the recent public statement by
the CEO's from the Business Roundtable that said that they were going to focus more on
customer satisfaction over profit but their actions continue to say profit is their primary
motive.
The God of Mammon private finance religion can not end soon enough for humanity's sake. It
is not like we all have to become China but their core public finance example is well worth
following.
So again, Boeing mgmt. mirrors its Neoliberal government officials when it comes to arrogance
and impudence. IMO, Boeing shareholders's hair ought to be on fire given their BoD's behavior
and getting ready to litigate.
As b notes, Boeing's international credibility's hanging by a
very thin thread. A year from now, Boeing could very well see its share price deeply dive
into the Penny Stock category--its current P/E is 41.5:1 which is massively overpriced.
Boeing Bombs might come to mean something vastly different from its initial meaning.
Such seemingly archaic processors are the norm in aerospace. If the planes flight
characteristics had been properly engineered from the start the processor wouldn't be an
issue. You can't just spray perfume on a garbage pile and call it a rose.
In the neoliberal world order governments, regulators and the public are secondary to
corporate profits. This is the same belief system that is suspending the British Parliament
to guarantee the chaos of a no deal Brexit. The irony is that globalist, Joe Biden's restart
the Cold War and nationalist Donald Trump's Trade Wars both assure that foreign regulators
will closely scrutinize the safety of the 737 Max. Even if ignored by corporate media and
cleared by the FAA to fly in the USA, Boeing and Wall Street's Dow Jones average are cooked
gooses with only 20% of the market. Taking the risk of flying the 737 Max on their family
vacation or to their next business trip might even get the credentialed class to realize that
their subservient service to corrupt Plutocrats is deadly in the long term.
"The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a Boeing
BA, -2.66% briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil
and elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details
and answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control
computers."
It seems to me that Boeing had no intention to insult anybody, but it has an impossible
task. After decades of applying duct tape and baling wire with much success, they finally
designed an unfixable plane, and they can either abandon this line of business (narrow bodied
airliners) or start working on a new design grounded in 21st century technologies.
Boeing's military sales are so much more significant and important to them, they are just
ignoring/down-playing their commercial problem with the 737 MAX. Follow the real money.
That is unblievable FLight Control comptuer is based on 80286!
A control system needs Real Time operation, at least some pre-emptive task operation, in
terms of milisecond or microsecond.
What ever way you program 80286 you can not achieve RT operation on 80286.
I do not think that is the case.
My be 80286 is doing some pripherial work, other than control.
It is quite likely (IMHO) that they are no longer able to provide the requested
information, but of course they cannot say that.
I once wrote a keyboard driver for an 80286, part of an editor, in assembler, on my first
PC type computer, I still have it around here somewhere I think, the keyboard driver, but I
would be rusty like the Titanic when it comes to writing code. I wrote some things in DEC
assembler too, on VAXen.
arata @16: 80286 does interrupts just fine, but you have to grok asynchronous operation, and
most coders don't really, I see that every day in Linux and my browser. I wish I could get
that box back, it had DOS, you could program on the bare wires, but God it was slow.
Boeing recently lost a $6+Billion weapons contract thanks to its similar Q&A in that
realm of its business. Its annual earnings are due out in October. Plan to short-sell
soon!
I am surprised that none of the coverage has mentioned the fact that, if China's CAAC does
not sign off on the mods, it will cripple, if not doom the MAX.
I am equally surprised that we continue to sabotage China's export leader, as the WSJ
reports today: "China's Huawei Technologies Co. accused the U.S. of "using every tool at its
disposal" to disrupt its business, including launching cyberattacks on its networks and
instructing law enforcement to "menace" its employees.
The telecommunications giant also said
law enforcement in the U.S. have searched, detained and arrested Huawei employees and its
business partners, and have sent FBI agents to the homes of its workers to pressure them to
collect information on behalf of the U.S."
I wonder how much blind trust in Boeing is intertwined into the fabric of civic aviation all
around the world.
I mean something like this: Boeing publishes some research into failure statistics, solid
materials aging or something. One that is really hard and expensive to proceed with.
Everything take the results for granted without trying to independently reproduce and verify,
because The Boeing!
Some later "derived" researches being made, upon the foundation of some
prior works *including* that old Boeing research. Then FAA and similar company institutions
around the world make some official regulations and guidelines deriving from the research
which was in part derived form original Boeing work. Then insurance companies calculate their
tarifs and rate plans, basing their estimation upon those "government standards", and when
governments determine taxation levels they use that data too. Then airline companies and
airliner leasing companies make their business plans, take huge loans in the banks (and banks
do make their own plans expecting those loans to finally be paid back), and so on and so
forth, building the cards-deck house, layer after layer.
And among the very many of the cornerstones - there would be dust covered and
god-forgotten research made by Boeing 10 or maybe 20 years ago when no one even in drunk
delirium could ever imagine questioning Boeing's verdicts upon engineering and scientific
matters.
Now, the longevity of that trust is slowly unraveled. Like, the so universally trusted
737NG generation turned out to be inherently unsafe, and while only pilots knew it before,
and even of them - only most curious and pedantic pilots, today it becomes public knowledge
that 737NG are tainted.
Now, when did this corruption started? Wheat should be some deadline cast into the past,
that since the day every other technical data coming from Boeing should be considered
unreliable unless passing full-fledged independent verification? Should that day be somewhere
in 2000-s? 1990-s? Maybe even 1970-s?
And ALL THE BODY of civic aviation industry knowledge that was accumulated since that date
can NO MORE BE TRUSTED and should be almost scrapped and re-researched new! ALL THE tacit
INPUT that can be traced back to Boeing and ALL THE DERIVED KNOWLEDGE now has to be verified
in its entirety.
Boeing is backstopped by the Murkan MIC, which is to say the US taxpayer. Until the lawsuits
become too enormous.
I wonder how much that will cost. And speaking of rigged markets - why do ya suppose that
Trumpilator et al have been
so keen to make huge sales to the Saudis, etc. etc. ? Ya don't suppose they had an inkling of
trouble in the wind do ya? Speaking of insiders, how many million billions do ya suppose is
being made in the Wall Street "trade war" roller coaster by peeps, munchkins not muppets, who
have access to the Tweeter-in-Chief?
I commented when you first started writing about this that it would take Boeing down and
still believe that to be true. To the extent that Boeing is stonewalling the international
safety regulators says to me that upper management and big stock holders are being given
time to minimize their exposure before the axe falls.
Have you considered the costs of restructuring versus breaking apart Boeing and selling it
into little pieces; to the owners specifically?
The MIC is restructuring itself - by first creating the political conditions to make the
transformation highly profitable. It can only be made highly profitable by forcing the public
to pay the associated costs of Rape and Pillage Incorporated.
Military Industrial Complex welfare programs, including wars in Syria and Yemen, are
slowly winding down. We are about to get a massive bill from the financiers who already own
everything in this sector, because what they have left now is completely unsustainable, with
or without a Third World War.
It is fine that you won't fly Boeing but that is not the point. You may not ever fly again
since air transit is subsidized at every level and the US dollar will no longer be available
to fund the world's air travel infrastructure.
You will instead be paying for the replacement of Boeing and seeing what google is
planning it may not be for the renewal of the airline business but rather for dedicated
ground transportation, self driving cars and perhaps 'aerospace' defense forces, thank you
Russia for setting the trend.
As readers may remember I made a case study of Boeing for a fairly recent PHD. The examiners
insisted that this case study be taken out because it was "speculative." I had forecast
serious problems with the 787 and the 737 MAX back in 2012. I still believe the 787 is
seriously flawed and will go the way of the MAX. I came to admire this once brilliant company
whose work culminated in the superb 777.
America really did make some excellent products in the 20th century - with the exception
of cars. Big money piled into GM from the early 1920s, especially the ultra greedy, quasi
fascist Du Pont brothers, with the result that GM failed to innovate. It produced beautiful
cars but technically they were almost identical to previous models.
The only real innovation
over 40 years was automatic transmission. Does this sound reminiscent of the 737 MAX? What
glued together GM for more than thirty years was the brilliance of CEO Alfred Sloan who
managed to keep the Du Ponts (and J P Morgan) more or less happy while delegating total
responsibility for production to divisional managers responsible for the different GM brands.
When Sloan went the company started falling apart and the memoirs of bad boy John DeLorean
testify to the complete disfunctionality of senior management.
At Ford the situation was perhaps even worse in the 1960s and 1970s. Management was at war
with the workers, faulty transmissions were knowingly installed. All this is documented in an
excellent book by ex-Ford supervisor Robert Dewar in his book "A Savage Factory."
Well, the first thing that came to mind upon reading about Boeing's apparent arrogance
overseas - silly, I know - was that Boeing may be counting on some weird Trump sanctions
for anyone not cooperating with the big important USian corporation! The U.S. has influence
on European and many other countries, but it can only be stretched so far, and I would guess
messing with Euro/internation airline regulators, especially in view of the very real fatal
accidents with the 737MAX, would be too far.
Please read the following article to get further info about how the 5 big Funds that hold 67%
of Boeing stocks are working hard with the big banks to keep the stock high. Meanwhile Boeing
is also trying its best to blackmail US taxpayers through Pentagon, for example, by
pretending to walk away from a competitive bidding contract because it wants the Air Force to
provide better cost formula.
So basically, Boeing is being kept afloat by US taxpayers because it is "too big to fail"
and an important component of Dow. Please tell. Who is the biggest suckers here?
re Piotr Berman | Sep 3 2019 21:11 utc
[I have a tiny bit of standing in this matter based on experience with an amazingly similar
situation that has not heretofore been mentioned. More at end. Thus I offer my opinion.]
Indeed, an impossible task to design a workable answer and still maintain the fiction that
737MAX is a hi-profit-margin upgrade requiring minimal training of already-trained 737-series
pilots , either male or female.
Turning-off autopilot to bypass runaway stabilizer necessitates :
[1]
the earlier 737-series "rollercoaster" procedure to overcome too-high aerodynamic forces
must be taught and demonstrated as a memory item to all pilots.
The procedure was designed
for early Model 737-series, not the 737MAX which has uniquely different center-of-gravity and
pitch-up problem requiring MCAS to auto-correct, especially on take-off.
[2] but the "rollercoaster" procedure does not work at all altitudes.
It causes aircraft to
lose some altitude and, therefore, requires at least [about] 7,000-feet above-ground
clearance to avoid ground contact. [This altitude loss consumed by the procedure is based on
alleged reports of simulator demonstrations. There seems to be no known agreement on the
actual amount of loss].
[3] The physical requirements to perform the "rollercoaster" procedure were established at a
time when female pilots were rare.
Any 737MAX pilots, male or female, will have to pass new
physical requirements demonstrating actual conditions on newly-designed flight simulators
that mimic the higher load requirements of the 737MAX . Such new standards will also have to
compensate for left vs right-handed pilots because the manual-trim wheel is located between
the .pilot/copilot seats.
================
Now where/when has a similar situation occurred? I.e., wherein a Federal regulator agency
[FAA] allowed a vendor [Boeing] to claim that a modified product did not need full
inspection/review to get agency certification of performance [airworthiness].
As you may know, 2 working, nuclear, power plants were forced to shut down and be
decommissioned when, in 2011, 2 newly-installed, critical components in each plant were
discovered to be defective, beyond repair and not replaceable. These power plants were each
producing over 1,000 megawatts of power for over 20 years. In short, the failed components
were modifications of the original, successful design that claimed to need only a low-level
of Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight and approval. The mods were, in fact, new
and untried and yet only tested by computer modeling and theoretical estimations based on
experience with smaller/different designs.
<<< The NRC had not given full inspection/oversight to the new units because of
manufacturer/operator claims that the changes were not significant. The NRC did not verify
the veracity of those claims. >>>
All 4 components [2 required in each plant] were essentially heat-exchangers weighing 640
tons each, having 10,000 tubes carrying radioactive water surrounded by [transferring their
heat to] a separate flow of "clean" water. The tubes were progressively damaged and began
leaking. The new design failed. It can not be fixed. Thus, both plants of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station are now a complete loss and await dismantling [as the courts will
decide who pays for the fiasco].
In my mind, the fact that Boeing transferred its head office from Seattle (where the main
manufacturing and presumable the main design and engineering functions are based) to Chicago
(centre of the neoliberal economic universe with the University of Chicago being its central
shrine of worship, not to mention supply of future managers and administrators) in 1997 says
much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised
technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of
emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the
people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over
people and performance.
Good article. Boeing is, or used to be, America's biggest manufacturing export. So you are
right it cannot be allowed to fail. Boeing is also a manufacturer of military aircraft. The
fact that it is now in such a pitiful state is symptomatic of America's decline and decadence
and its takeover by financial predators.
They did the same with Nortel, whose share value exceeded 300 billion not long before it was
scrapped. Insiders took everything while pension funds were wiped out of existence.
It is so very helpful to understand everything you read is corporate/intel propaganda, and
you are always being setup to pay for the next great scam. The murder of 300+ people by
boeing was yet another tragedy our sadistic elites could not let go to waste.
For many amerikans, a good "offensive" is far preferable than a good defense even if that
only involves an apology. Remember what ALL US presidents say.. We will never apologize.. For
the extermination of natives, for shooting down civilian airliners, for blowing up mosques
full of worshipers, for bombing hospitals.. for reducing many countries to the stone age and
using biological
and chemical and nuclear weapons against the planet.. For supporting terrorists who plague
the planet now. For basically being able to be unaccountable to anyone including themselves
as a peculiar race of feces. So it is not the least surprising that amerikan corporations
also follow the same bad manners as those they put into and pre-elect to rule them.
People talk about Seattle as if its a bastion of integrity.. Its the same place Microsoft
screwed up countless companies to become the largest OS maker? The same place where Amazon
fashions how to screw its own employees to work longer and cheaper? There are enough examples
that Seattle is not Toronto.. and will never be a bastion of ethics..
Actually can you show
me a single place in the US where ethics are considered a bastion of governorship? Other than
the libraries of content written about ethics, rarely do amerikans ever follow it. Yet expect
others to do so.. This is getting so perverse that other cultures are now beginning to
emulate it. Because its everywhere..
Remember Dallas? I watched people who saw in fascination
how business can function like that. Well they cant in the long run but throw enough money
and resources and it works wonders in the short term because it destroys the competition. But
yea around 1998 when they got rid of the laws on making money by magic, most every thing has
gone to hell.. because now there are no constraints but making money.. anywhich way.. Thats
all that matters..
You got to be daft or bribed to use intel cpu's in embedded systems. Going from a motorolla
cpu, the intel chips were dinosaurs in every way. Requiring the cpu to be almost twice as
fast to get the same thing done.. Also its interrupt control was not upto par. A simple
example was how the commodore amiga could read from the disk and not stutter or slow down
anything else you were doing. I never seen this fixed.. In fact going from 8Mhz to 4GHz seems
to have fixed it by brute force. Yes the 8Mhz motorolla cpu worked wonders when you had
music, video, IO all going at the same time. Its not just the CPU but the support chips which
don't lock up the bus. Why would anyone use Intel? When there are so many specific embedded
controllers designed for such specific things.
Initially I thought it was just the new over-sized engines they retro-fitted. A situation
that would surely have been easier to get around by just going back to the original engines
-- any inefficiencies being less $costly than the time the planes have been grounded. But
this post makes the whole rabbit warren 10 miles deeper.
I do not travel much these days and
find the cattle-class seating on these planes a major disincentive. Becoming aware of all
these added technical issues I will now positively select for alternatives to 737 and bear
the cost.
I'm surprised Boeing stock still haven't taken nose dive
Posted by: Bob burger | Sep 3 2019 19:27 utc | 9
That is because the price is propped up by
$9 billion share buyback per year . Share buyback is an effective scheme to airlift all
the cash out of a company towards the major shareholders. I mean, who wants to develop
reliable airplanes if you can funnel the cash into your pockets?
Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the
company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the
company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics.
Hi , I am new here in writing but not in reading..
About the 80286 , where is the coprocessor the 80287?
How can the 80286 make IEEE math calculations?
So how can it fly a controlled flight when it can not calculate its accuracy......
How is it possible that this system is certified?
It should have at least a 80386 DX not SX!!!!
moved to Chicago in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a
culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential
functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards
and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which
profits prevail over people and performance.
Jen @ 35
< ==
yes, the morally of the companies and their exclusive hold on a complicit or
controlled government always defaults the government to support, enforce and encourage the
principles of economic Zionism.
But it is more than just the corporate culture => the corporate fat cats
1. use the rule-making powers of the government to make law for them. Such laws create high
valued assets from the pockets of the masses. The most well know of those corporate uses of
government is involved with the intangible property laws (copyright, patent, and government
franchise). The government generated copyright, franchise and Patent laws are monopolies. So
when government subsidizes a successful outcome R&D project its findings are packaged up
into a set of monopolies [copyrights, privatized government franchises which means instead of
50 companies or more competing for the next increment in technology, one gains the full
advantage of that government research only one can use or abuse it. and the patented and
copyrighted technology is used to extract untold billions, in small increments from the
pockets of the public.
2. use of the judicial power of governments and their courts in both domestic and
international settings, to police the use and to impose fake values in intangible property
monopolies. Government-rule made privately owned monopoly rights (intangible property rights)
generated from the pockets of the masses, do two things: they exclude, deny and prevent would
be competition and their make value in a hidden revenue tax that passes to the privately held
monopolist with each sale of a copyrighted, government franchised, or patented service or
product. .
Please note the one two nature of the "use of government law making powers to generate
intangible private monopoly property rights"
There is no doubt Boeing has committed crimes on the 737MAX, its arrogance & greedy
should be severely punished by the international commitment as an example to other global
Corporations. It represents what is the worst of Corporate America that places profits in
front of lives.
How the U.S. is keeping Russia out of the international market?
Iran and other sanctioned countries are a potential captive market and they have growth
opportunities in what we sometimes call the non-aligned, emerging markets countries (Turkey,
Africa, SE Asia, India, ...).
One thing I have learned is that the U.S. always games the system, we never play fair. So
what did we do. Do their manufacturers use 1% U.S. made parts and they need that for
international certification?
Ultimately all of the issues in the news these days are the same one and the
same issue - as the US gets closer and closer to the brink of catastrophic collapse they get
ever more desperate. As they get more and more desperate they descend into what comes most
naturally to the US - throughout its entire history - frenzied violence, total absence of
morality, war, murder, genocide, and everything else that the US is so well known for (by
those who are not blinded by exceptionalist propaganda).
The Hong Kong violence is a perfect example - it is impossible that a self-respecting
nation state could allow itself to be seen to degenerate into such idiotic degeneracy, and so
grossly flaunt the most basic human decency. Ergo , the US is not a self-respecting
nation state. It is a failed state.
I am certain the arrogance of Boeing reflects two things: (a) an assurance from the US
government that the government will back them to the hilt, come what may, to make sure that
the 737Max flies again; and (b) a threat that if Boeing fails to get the 737Max in the air
despite that support, the entire top level management and board of directors will be jailed.
Boeing know very well they cannot deliver. But just as the US government is desperate
to avoid the inevitable collapse of the US, the Boeing top management are desperate to avoid
jail. It is a charade.
It is time for international regulators to withdraw certification totally - after the
problems are all fixed (I don't believe they ever will be), the plane needs complete new
certification of every detail from the bottom up, at Boeing's expense, and with total
openness from Boeing. The current Boeing management are not going to cooperate with that,
therefore the international regulators need to demand a complete replacement of the
management and board of directors as a condition for working with them.
If Boeing had invested some of this money that it blew on share buybacks to design a new
modern plane from ground up to replace the ancient 737 airframe, these tragedies could have
been prevented, and Boeing wouldn't have this nightmare on its hands. But the corporate
cost-cutters and financial engineers, rather than real engineers, had the final word.
Markets don't care about any of this. They don't care about real engineers either. They
love corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers. They want share buybacks, and if
something bad happens, they'll overlook the $5 billion to pay for the fallout because it's
just a "one-time item."
And now Boeing still has this plane, instead of a modern plane, and the history of this
plane is now tainted, as is its brand, and by extension, that of Boeing. But markets blow
that off too. Nothing matters.
Companies are getting away each with their own thing. There are companies that are losing
a ton of money and are burning tons of cash, with no indications that they will ever make
money. And market valuations are just ludicrous.
======
Thus Boeing issue is part of a much larger picture. Something systemic had to make
"markets" less rational. And who is this "market"? In large part, fund managers wracking
their brains how to create "decent return" while the cost of borrowing and returns on lending
are super low. What remains are forms of real estate and stocks.
Overall, Boeing buy-backs exceeded 40 billion dollars, one could guess that half or
quarter of that would suffice to build a plane that logically combines the latest
technologies. E.g. the entire frame design to fit together with engines, processors proper
for the information processing load, hydraulics for steering that satisfy force requirements
in almost all circumstances etc. New technologies also fail because they are not completely
understood, but when the overall design is logical with margins of safety, the faults can be
eliminated.
Instead, 737 was slowly modified toward failure, eliminating safety margins one by
one.
Boeing has apparently either never heard of, or ignores a procedure that is mandatory in
satellite design and design reviews. This is FMEA or Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. This
requires design engineers to document the impact of every potential failure and combination
of failures thereby highlighting everthing from catastrophic effects to just annoyances.
Clearly BOEING has done none of these and their troubles are a direct result. It can be
assumed that their arrogant and incompetent management has not yet understood just how
serious their behavior is to the future of the company.
Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the
company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the
company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics.
Computer modelling is what they are talking about in the cliche "Garbage in, garbage out".
The problem is not new, and it is well understood. What computer modelling is is cheap,
and easy to fudge, and that is why it is popular with people who care about money a lot. Much
of what is called "AI" is very similar in its limitations, a complicated way to fudge up the
results you want, or something close enough for casual examination.
In particular cases where you have a well-defined and well-mathematized theory, then you
can get some useful results with models. Like in Physics, Chemistry.
And they can be useful for "realistic" training situations, like aircraft simulators. The
old story about wargame failures against Iran is another such situation. A lot of video games
are big simulations in essence. But that is not reality, it's fake reality.
@ SteveK9 71 "By the way, the problem was caused by Mitsubishi, who designed the heat
exchangers."
Ahh. The furriners...
I once made the "mistake" of pointing out (in a comment under an article in Salon) that the
reactors that exploded at Fukushima was made by GE and that GE people was still in charge of
the reactors of American quality when they exploded. (The amerikans got out on one of the
first planes out of the country).
I have never seen so many angry replies to one of my comments. I even got e-mails for several weeks from angry Americans.
@Henkie #53
You need floating point for scientific calculations, but I really doubt the 737 is doing any
scientific research.
Also, a regular CPU can do mathematical calculations. It just isn't as fast nor has the same
capacity as a dedicated FPU.
Another common use for FPUs is in live action shooter games - the neo-physics portions
utilize scientific-like calculations to create lifelike actions. I sold computer systems in
the 1990s while in school - Doom was a significant driver for newer systems (as well as hedge
fund types).
Again, don't see why an airplane needs this.
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F09%2Fstarving-seniors-how-america-fails-to-feed-its-aging.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
By Laura Ungar, who health issues out of Kaiser Health News' St. Louis office, and Trudy
Lieberman, a journalist for more than 45 years, and a past president of the Association of
Health Care Journalists. Originally published by Kaiser Health
News .
MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- Army veteran Eugene Milligan is 75 years old and blind. He uses a
wheelchair since losing half his right leg to diabetes and gets dialysis for kidney
failure.
And he has struggled to get enough to eat.
Earlier this year, he ended up in the hospital after burning himself while boiling water for
oatmeal. The long stay caused the Memphis vet to fall off a charity's rolls for home-delivered
Meals on Wheels , so he had
to rely on others, such as his son, a generous off-duty nurse and a local church to bring him
food.
"Many times, I've felt like I was starving," he said. "There's neighbors that need food too.
There's people at dialysis that need food. There's hunger everywhere."
Indeed, millions of seniors across the country quietly go hungry as the safety net designed
to catch them frays. Nearly 8% of Americans 60 and older were "food insecure" in 2017,
according to a recent study released
by the anti-hunger group Feeding America. That's 5.5 million seniors who don't have
consistent access to enough food for a healthy life, a number that has more than doubled since
2001 and is only expected to grow as America grays.
While the plight of hungry children elicits support and can be tackled in schools, the
plight of hungry older Americans is shrouded by isolation and a generation's pride. The problem
is most acute in parts of the South and Southwest. Louisiana has the highest rate among states,
with 12% of seniors facing food insecurity. Memphis fares worst among major metropolitan areas,
with 17% of seniors like Milligan unsure of their next meal.
And government relief falls short. One of the main federal programs helping seniors is
starved for money. The Older Americans Act -- passed more than half a century ago as part of
President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society reforms -- was amended in 1972 to provide for
home-delivered and group meals, along with other services, for anyone 60 and older. But its
funding has lagged far behind senior population growth, as well as economic inflation.
The biggest chunk of the act's budget, nutrition services, dropped by 8% over the past 18
years when adjusted for inflation, an AARP report
found in February. Home-delivered and group meals have decreased by nearly 21 million since
2005. Only a fraction of those facing food insecurity get any meal services under the act; a
U.S. Government
Accountability Office report examining 2013 data found 83% got none.
With the act set to expire Sept. 30, Congress is now considering its reauthorization and how
much to spend going forward.
Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only 45% of eligible adults 60
and older have signed up for another source of federal aid: SNAP, the food stamp program for
America's poorest. Those who don't are typically either unaware they could qualify, believe
their benefits would be tiny or can no longer get to a grocery store to use them.
Even fewer seniors may have SNAP in the future. More than 13% of SNAP households with
elderly members would lose benefits under a recent Trump administration proposal.
For now, millions of seniors -- especially low-income ones -- go without. Across the nation,
waits are common to receive home-delivered meals from a crucial provider, Meals on Wheels, a
network of 5,000 community-based programs. In Memphis, for example, the wait to get on the
Meals on Wheels schedule is more than a year long.
"It's really sad because a meal is not an expensive thing," said Sally Jones Heinz,
president and CEO of the Metropolitan
Inter-Faith Association , which provides home-delivered meals in Memphis. "This shouldn't
be the way things are in 2019."
Since malnutrition exacerbates diseases and prevents healing, seniors without steady,
nutritious food can wind up in hospitals, which drives up Medicare and Medicaid costs, hitting taxpayers with an even
bigger bill . Sometimes seniors relapse quickly after discharge -- or worse.
Widower Robert Mukes, 71, starved to death on a cold December day in 2016, alone in his
Cincinnati apartment.
The Hamilton County Coroner listed the primary cause of death as "starvation of unknown
etiology" and noted "possible hypothermia," pointing out that his apartment had no electricity
or running water. Death records show the 5-foot-7-inch man weighed just 100.5 pounds.
A Clear Need
On a hot May morning in Memphis, seniors trickled into a food bank at the Riverside
Missionary Baptist Church, 3 miles from the opulent tourist mecca of Graceland. They picked up
boxes packed with canned goods, rice, vegetables and meat.
Marion Thomas, 63, placed her box in the trunk of a friend's car. She lives with chronic
back pain and high blood pressure and started coming to the pantry three years ago. She's
disabled, relies on Social Security and gets $42 a month from SNAP based on her income,
household size and other factors. That's much less than the average $125-a-month benefit for
households with seniors, but more than the $16 minimum that one in five such households get.
Still, Thomas said, "I can't buy very much."
A day later, the Mid-South Food Bank brought a "mobile pantry" to Latham Terrace, a senior
housing complex, where a long line of people waited. Some inched forward in wheelchairs; others
leaned on canes. One by one, they collected their allotments.
The need is just as real elsewhere. In Dallas, Texas, 69-year-old China Anderson squirrels
away milk, cookies and other parts of her home-delivered lunches for dinner because she can no
longer stand and cook due to scoliosis and eight deteriorating vertebral discs.
As seniors ration food, programs ration services.
Although more than a third of the Meals on Wheels money comes from the Older Americans Act,
even with additional public and private dollars, funds are still so limited that some programs
have no choice but to triage people using score sheets that assign points based on who needs
food the most. Seniors coming from the hospital and those without family usually top waiting
lists.
More than 1,000 were waiting on the Memphis area's list recently. And in Dallas, $4.1
million in donations wiped out a 1,000-person waiting list in December, but within months it
had crept back up to 100.
Nationally, "there are tens of thousands of seniors who are waiting," said Erika
Kelly , chief membership and advocacy officer for Meals on Wheels America. "While they're
waiting, their health deteriorates and, in some cases, we know seniors have died."
Edwin Walker, a deputy assistant secretary for the federal Administration on Aging,
acknowledged waits are a long-standing problem, but said 2.4 million people a year benefit from
the Older Americans Act's group or home-delivered meals, allowing them to stay independent and
healthy.
Seniors get human connection, as well as food, from these services. Aner Lee Murphy, a
102-year-old Meals on Wheels client in Memphis, counts on the visits with volunteers Libby and
Bob Anderson almost as much as the food. She calls them "my children," hugging them close and
offering a prayer each time they leave.
But others miss out on such physical and psychological nourishment. A devastating phone call
brought that home for Kim Daugherty, executive director of the Aging Commission of the
Mid-South , which connects seniors to service providers in the region. The woman on the
line told Daugherty she'd been on the waiting list for more than a year.
"Ma'am, there are several hundred people ahead of you," Daugherty reluctantly explained.
"I just need you all to remember," came the caller's haunting reply, "I'm hungry and I need
food."
A Slow Killer
James
Ziliak , a poverty researcher at the University of Kentucky who worked on the Feeding
America study, said food insecurity shot up with the Great Recession, starting in the late
2000s, and peaked in 2014. He said it shows no signs of dropping to pre-recession levels.
While older adults of all income levels can face difficulty accessing and preparing healthy
food, rates are highest among seniors in poverty. They are also high among minorities. More
than 17% of black seniors and 16% of Hispanic seniors are food insecure, compared with fewer
than 7% of white seniors.
A host of issues combine to set those seniors on a downward spiral, said registered
dietitian Lauri Wright , who
chairs the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of North Florida. Going to
the grocery store gets a lot harder if they can't drive. Expensive medications leave less money
for food. Chronic physical and mental health problems sap stamina and make it tough to cook.
Inch by inch, hungry seniors decline.
And, even if it rarely kills directly, hunger can complicate illness and kill slowly.
Malnutrition blunts immunity, which already tends to weaken as people age. Once they start
losing weight, they're more likely to grow frail and are more likely to die within a year, said
Dr. John Morley, director of the division of geriatric medicine at Saint Louis University.
Seniors just out of the hospital are particularly vulnerable. Many wind up getting
readmitted, pushing up taxpayers' costs for Medicare and Medicaid. A
recent analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that Medicare could save $1.57 for
every dollar spent on home-delivered meals for chronically ill seniors after a
hospitalization.
Most hospitals don't refer senior outpatients to Meals on Wheels, and advocates say too few
insurance companies get involved in making sure seniors have enough to eat to keep them
healthy.
When Milligan, the Memphis veteran, burned himself with boiling water last winter and had to
be hospitalized for 65 days, he fell off the Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association's radar. The
meals he'd been getting for about a decade stopped.
Heinz, Metropolitan's CEO, said the association is usually able to start and stop meals for
short hospital stays. But, Heinz said, the association didn't hear from Milligan and kept
trying to deliver meals for a time while he was in the hospital, then notified the Aging
Commission of the Mid-South he wasn't home. As is standard procedure, Metropolitan officials
said, a staff member from the commission made three attempts to contact him and left a card at
the blind man's home.
But nothing happened when he got out of the hospital this spring. In mid-May, a nurse
referred him for meal delivery. Still, he didn't get meals because he faced a waitlist already
more than 1,000 names long.
After questions from Kaiser Health News, Heinz looked into Milligan's case and realized
that, as a former client, Milligan could get back on the delivery schedule faster.
But even then the process still has hurdles: The aging commission would need to conduct a
new home assessment for meals to resume. That has yet to happen because, amid the wait,
Milligan's health deteriorated.
A Murky Future
As the Older Americans Act awaits reauthorization this fall, many senior advocates worry
about its funding.
In June, the U.S. House passed a $93 million increase to the Older Americans Act's nutrition
programs, raising total funding by about 10% to $1 billion in the next fiscal year. In
inflation-adjusted dollars, that's still less than in 2009. And it still has to pass in the
Republican-controlled Senate, where the proposed increase faces long odds.
U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Civil Rights and Human
Services Subcommittee, expects the panel to tackle legislation for reauthorization of the act
soon after members return from the August recess. She's now working with colleagues "to craft a
strong, bipartisan update," she said, that increases investments in nutrition programs as well
as other services.
"I'm confident the House will soon pass a robust bill," she said, "and I am hopeful that the
Senate will also move quickly so we can better meet the needs of our seniors."
In the meantime, "the need for home-delivered meals keeps increasing every year," said
Lorena Fernandez, who runs a meal
delivery program in Yakima, Wash. Activists are pressing state and local governments to
ensure seniors don't starve, with mixed results. In Louisiana, for example, anti-hunger
advocates stood on the state Capitol steps in May and unsuccessfully called on the state to
invest $1 million to buy food from Louisiana farmers to distribute to hungry residents.
Elsewhere, senior activists across the nation have participated each March in "March for Meals"
events such as walks, fundraisers and rallies designed to focus attention on the problem.
Private fundraising hasn't been easy everywhere, especially rural communities without much
wealth. Philanthropy has instead tended to flow to hungry kids, who outnumber hungry seniors
more than 2-to-1, according to Feeding America.
"Ten years ago, organizations had a goal of ending child hunger and a lot of innovation and
resources went into what could be done," said Jeremy Everett, executive director of Baylor
University's Texas Hunger Initiative. "The same thing has not happened in the senior adult
population." And that has left people struggling for enough food to eat.
As for Milligan, he didn't get back on Meals on Wheels before suffering complications
related to his dialysis in June. He ended up back in the hospital. Ironically, it was there
that he finally had a steady, if temporary, source of food.
It's impossible to know if his time without steady, nutritious food made a difference. What
is almost certain is that feeding him at home would have been far cheaper.
Essentially it was a threat of military dictatorship that allow right wing forces to
neutralise Brazilian left; in reality national neoliberalism regime that was installed was very
close to the prototypical military dictatorships.
Notable quotes:
"... The internal redistributions and the geopolitical realignments displeased greatly both the United States and Brazil's right-wing forces. One thing that made it difficult for them to counter Lula was the fact that the state of the world-economy in the first decade of the twenty-first century was very favorable to the so-called newly-emerging economies, also known as the BRICS (B for Brazil). ..."
"... The right found a renewed opening in the financial squeeze that ensued. They blamed economic difficulties on corruption and fostered a judicial drive called lava jato (car wash), which evoked the issue of laundering money, something that was indeed widespread . ..."
"... Once Lula was threatened with immediate imprisonment, Brazil's two major popular forces expressed their strong opposition to what they asserted was a political coup d'état. One was the Central Ùnica dos Trabalhadores (CUT), which Lula had once led, and the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), Brazil's largest rural organization. ..."
"... The MST and CUT organized significant mobilizations against his imprisonment. But, faced with the threat of the armed forces to intervene (and possibly restore a military regime again), Lula decided to present himself for arrest. He has now been imprisoned. ..."
"... The question today is whether this right-wing coup can succeed. This no longer depends on Lula personally. History may absolve him but the current struggle in Brazil and in Latin America as a whole depends on political organization at the base . ..."
"... In short, the outlook for Brazil and for Latin America as a whole is highly uncertain. Brazil, given its size and its history, is a key zone of the middle-run struggle for a progressive outcome of the struggle between the global left and the global right for resolving the structural crisis in their favor. ..."
On April 7, 2018 in Brazil Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva was arrested and taken to prison in
Curitiba to begin a twelve-year sentence. He was Brazil's president from January 2003 to
January 2011. He was so popular that when he left office in 2011, he had a 90% approval
rate.
Soon afterwards, he was charged with corruption while in office. He denied the charge. He
was however convicted of the charge, a conviction that was sustained by an Appeals Court. He
is still appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court.
Lula was a trade-union leader who founded a workers' party, the Partido dos Trabalhadores
(PT). It was the party of the underclass and one that stood for fundamental change both in
Brazil and in Latin America as a whole.
The internal redistributions and the geopolitical realignments displeased greatly both the
United States and Brazil's right-wing forces. One thing that made it difficult for them to
counter Lula was the fact that the state of the world-economy in the first decade of the
twenty-first century was very favorable to the so-called newly-emerging economies, also known
as the BRICS (B for Brazil).
However, the winds of the world-economy turned, and suddenly revenue for the Brazilian
state (and of course many other states) became scarcer.
The right found a renewed opening in the financial squeeze that ensued. They blamed
economic difficulties on corruption and fostered a judicial drive called lava jato (car
wash), which evoked the issue of laundering money, something that was indeed widespread .
Once Lula was threatened with immediate imprisonment, Brazil's two major popular forces
expressed their strong opposition to what they asserted was a political coup d'état.
One was the Central Ùnica dos Trabalhadores (CUT), which Lula had once led, and the
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), Brazil's largest rural organization.
The MST and CUT organized significant mobilizations against his imprisonment. But, faced
with the threat of the armed forces to intervene (and possibly restore a military regime
again), Lula decided to present himself for arrest. He has now been imprisoned.
The question today is whether this right-wing coup can succeed. This no longer depends on
Lula personally. History may absolve him but the current struggle in Brazil and in Latin
America as a whole depends on political organization at the base .
One of the principal characteristics of the structural crisis of the modern
world-system in which we find ourselves is the high volatility of the world-economy .
Should it run even further downward than it is at present, there may well be an upsurge
of popular sentiment against the regime. If it began to include large parts of the
professional strata, an alliance with the underclasses is quite possible.
Even then it will not be easy to change the political realities of Brazil. The army stands
ready probably to prevent a left government from coming to power. Nonetheless one should not
despair. The army was defeated once before and evicted from power. It could be again.
In short, the outlook for Brazil and for Latin America as a whole is highly
uncertain. Brazil, given its size and its history, is a key zone of the middle-run struggle
for a progressive outcome of the struggle between the global left and the global right for
resolving the structural crisis in their favor.
Once again, the proof is in the pudding. But volatility? Yes, indeed. And blowback, too.
Thatcher was an English politico. It is not what she said, but what she did that counts. She is probably down in Dante's Inferno,
Ring 8, sub-rings 7-10. (Frauds and false councilors.) See, oh wayward sinners:
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8b.html
Ah, you think that Milton should be at the bottom, eh? Then, I hope that he knows how to ice skate. (He was the worst kind
of 'class traitor.' [His parents were small store owner/managers.])
Ring 8 of the Inferno is for 'frauds' of all sorts, sub-rings 7-10 are reserved for Thieves, Deceivers, Schismatics, and Falsifiers.
Maggie should feel right at home there.
"It's almost as though the disreputable younger sons of the Establishment, sent off to make money in Hong Kong after some
scandal, had all returned to run the country"
Notable quotes:
"... I hate to say this, as a lifelong Socialist from a very modest background, but the British system worked in the past because it was pretty homogeneous. I don't mean literally everyone came from the same background (they let me in, after all) but rather there was a cultural homogeneity in the civil service, in politics, and even partly in the media, which had its origin in a certain upper middle class sense of duty, honesty and competence, inherited from the serious professional classes of the nineteenth century. (It had its analogue in the ethos of the honest tradesman, which we've lost as well). This culture was never universal , of course, but it was very powerful, and it coped quite well with the social changes after 1945, as more women and people from much more diverse backgrounds entered the public sphere. ..."
"... You can mock the old High Seriousness of the public sphere if you like (too white! too male!) but the fact is that it wouldn't have got us in the mess we are in today, because it had both the scruples and the competence to avoid it. Now, it's open season. I remember thinking how bitterly ironic it was that the government which got the country into the worst peacetime crisis in modern history was also the most inclusive, and led by a woman at that. ..."
"... The "greed is good" ethos took hold in the 1980s. I don't think Reagan was so much a cause as a symptom, but it's clearly visible in how US healthcare costs diverge from the rest of the world, as shown by Hans Rösling's famous chart . ..."
"... per Margaret Thatcher and the neoliberal ascendancy: "There is no society " ..."
This post is certain to do short shrift to the topic of individual character and cultural values. As you'll see
in due course, a long-standing friend, Professor Amar Bhide, sent me an encomium for a mentor of his, John
McArthur, who among other things, was the Dean of Harvard Business School from 1980 to 1995.
What is striking about Amar's description isn't simply how rare it is for America to produce someone who was
deeply engaged with the people around him, yet was also a first-class mind with wide-ranging interest, but that
we no longer seem to aspire to produce people (outside immediate families) whose attentiveness and concern can
and often does have a fundamental, positive impact on those around them. Amar points out that McArthur knew the
names of all of the service staff in every restaurant and club he frequented. Now that I am in the South, one
thing that really is different is that most people are courteous almost out of habit. Some of it can be a bit
tricky, like men who seem overly eager to behave chivalrously, particularly in public spots like restaurants.
But the behavior isn't a regional variant to the grating "Have a nice day" that too many hotel and restaurant
managers require employees to say (and it shows). Even if the attention is fleeting, the desire to make contact
is genuine.
Admittedly, few are in the sort of career or societal role to have the impact that McArthur did. But there
doesn't seem to be much societal interest in producing elder statesmen or rabbis or pastors or skilled
counselors, or individuals who could sometimes play pieces of those roles in narrower circumstances. Instead,
too many people simply want to get theirs and devil take the hindmost.
And the costs when this posture become acceptable, as opposed to marginal, are significant. As David put it
in our latest
post on Brexit
:
I hate to say this, as a lifelong Socialist from a very modest background, but the British system worked
in the past because it was pretty homogeneous. I don't mean literally everyone came from the same background
(they let me in, after all) but rather there was a cultural homogeneity in the civil service, in politics,
and even partly in the media, which had its origin in a certain upper middle class sense of duty, honesty
and competence, inherited from the serious professional classes of the nineteenth century. (It had its
analogue in the ethos of the honest tradesman, which we've lost as well). This culture was never universal ,
of course, but it was very powerful, and it coped quite well with the social changes after 1945, as more
women and people from much more diverse backgrounds entered the public sphere.
It changed not because the origin of its members was different (May and Johnson both came from Oxford, as
did Blair, and for that matter Thatcher) but because their ethos came from elsewhere. It came from the City,
from Management Consultancy, and from that part of the British Establishment which was always more
interested in Making Money than in Doing Things. It's almost as though the disreputable younger sons of the
Establishment, sent off to make money in Hong Kong after some scandal, had all returned to run the country.
You can mock the old High Seriousness of the public sphere if you like (too white! too male!) but the fact
is that it wouldn't have got us in the mess we are in today, because it had both the scruples and the
competence to avoid it. Now, it's open season. I remember thinking how bitterly ironic it was that the
government which got the country into the worst peacetime crisis in modern history was also the most
inclusive, and led by a woman at that.
I'm not sure the end of homogeneity was the driver of diminished respect for what was once called character.
In the US, I hazard that a bigger factor was the widespread acceptance of libertarian/neoliberal values. As
we've documented, that world view was marketed aggressively and very successfully by a loosely coordinated but
well funded right wing campaign, whose seminal document was the Powell Memo of 1971 which laid out the vision
and many of the tactics for their war on the New Deal and the community values that supported it. For instance,
it would have been well-nigh impossible for a Mike Milken, who'd gone to prison for securities law violations
(and was widely believed to have engaged in considerably more questionable conduct) to have rehabilitated
himself to the degree he did.
From Amar:
John McArthur, in memoriam
He was one of a kind -- and his kindness and empathy (a much used word I know) was unbounded. It touched
all from dining and custodial staff to taxi drivers. My parents apart, few other people have had such an
influence on me. (And he did me the honor of reading everything I read: every book every article, every
draft, the pages a sea of yellow highlight)
He was also astute, ruthless and got things done. His mind was extraordinary and his reading voracious
and eclectic -- although you would never guess it from his aw shucks manner and country bumpkin style.
I first actually talked to him in my second year as assistant professor. We had a long long lunch at his
corner table in the faculty club. We talked about everything -- except why we were having lunch. At the end
he said, "Perhaps you'd like to know why i asked you to lunch. Well I've been reading your stuff and I
wanted to put a face to the writing, to know who this person was who was writing this stuff."
A few days later a copy of Knight's Risk Uncertainty and Profit arrived in interoffice mail with one of
John's classic handwritten notes, which went something along the following lines. "I think this will suit
the way you think of the world."
I had never encountered the book in my doctoral studies, and it was revelatory.
We had lunches, lasting 2-3 hours nearly every year for the last 20 years after I left HBS. Always at the
Charles ("If we ate at HBS there would be someone stopping by every minute" he said. At the Charles it was
only every 10 minutes. And of course he knew every single waiter and waitress by name).
The stories he told at the lunches.. Such a pity he did not put his wisdom into a memoir. But that was
not his way.
The benefits of a "classical" education.
One of the main supports of the 'civilized' social interactions that you observe here 'Down South' is a
stubborn refusal to put a price on everything. It is not universal, but it lingers in pockets of calm salted
among the storms of modern living.
Welcome to the South.
I have some neighbors who are the opposite of me politically (in fact most of my neighbors) but are
wonderfully nice people on a personal level. Some of us who grew up here have had the opposite experience of
Yves and lived for awhile in the North where all that politeness is dismissed as a false front.
Which in many cases it is, but the usefulness of all that unthinking social glue should not be dismissed
out of hand. After decades of elites in thrall to Ayn Rand the country may be in need a few of those social
norms that beatnik rebels in the 1950s found so stultifying. Perhaps the most amazing thing about Epstein
was how all those rich people around him thought that his three teenager a day habit was perfectly
acceptable.
I don't know anything about anything, but after living in the Northeast for my whole life I spent 10
years in North Carolina. After a decade, I realized that I was
never
going to stop being a
Yankee, and that I detested "Southern courtesy" which mostly involved people telling me to "Have a
Blessed Day!"
I take part of this back: My favorite item of Southern Courtesy is that you can slander anyone as long
as you end the sentence with " bless his heart!"
Seriously, it's a different culture, and not one that I was ever comfortable with.
There is a great scene in the film "Terms of Endearment" where John Lithgow's character is in a
check out line at a grocery store. He encounters a rude cashier and remarks; "[She] must be from New
York."
The whole scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF8AZ-t2_Aw
The "blessed day" kick seems to have faded–haven't heard it in awhile.
But you are certainly right about the different cultures, although lots of people from up north are
moving down here so it's not as separated as it once was. Given that–per this blog–Wall Street culture
is driving the country into the ground all that polite Southern conservatism may begin to seem less
bad by comparison. There is certainly a religious context and a xenophobic context given Southerners'
general support for the military.
The "greed is good" ethos took hold in the 1980s. I don't think Reagan was so much a cause as a symptom, but
it's clearly visible in how US healthcare costs diverge from the rest of the world, as shown by Hans Rösling's
famous chart
.
Mohammed Ali wrote a poem about this that Guiness says is the world's shortest: "I; we". That civicness is
what we've lost. To me the downward trajectory steepened with Reagan/ Gordon Gecko/Greed is good. Then was
amplified and cemented by Bush: you're with us or against us; and the policy to fling bombs at any nation or
actor "anytime we feel like it" with absolutely no regard for any notion of common (global, societal,
collective) good. And thats the opposite of "civilization". Toss in a little post-meta-narcissism and the
cocktail is for the law of the jungle. When JFK was killed Hunter Thompson wrote that "the scum have murdered
the myth of American decency". Writ large now, across the world
Our elites became historically obsolete around the 1960s. The counter-attack on the attempted cultural
revolution that was The Sixties had no moral basis. It had and has nothing to fight
for
. It
only had There Is No Alternative and I'm Sorry, You Must Have Mistaken Me for Someone Who Gives a Sh_t. The
moral decay of such elites is unavoidable. The only solution is for them to no longer be the elites.
Further, we have reached a point in human development where no new elite of the previous type can fully unleash
the capacities that we have developed. This is part of why the wannabe replacements in the top 10% themselves
are so easily corrupted.
The good news is that we don't need any of them. Convincing each other of that will be quite helpful.
i remember reading a computer guy's victory article over the hippies. Ken Burns story of Woodstock shed
some interesting perspectives on those days. It was a real crack in the American veneer of "dirty hippies".
The elders of the time had bought into the military industrial complex idea that Ike had warned.
Wops. I can't let that Eisenhower quote pass uncommented on. In reading lots of history in my
retirement, I have read several books on the CIA. It seems that Ike didn't like wars, so he gave Allen
Dulles full rein. Iran remembers.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we seek at the first ourselves to deceive"
. "For when thou hast been false to thine own self, thou canst not be true to any man"
Principles can be valuable in that I will still do business and have a discussion with a man that I
strongly disagree with, but I will have nothing to do with the unprincipled. My experience is that the
unprincipled are simply animals and nothing good but aggravation can come of it.
But there doesn't seem to be much societal interest in producing elder statesmen or rabbis or pastors or
skilled counselors, or individuals who could .
per Margaret Thatcher and the neoliberal ascendancy: "There is no society "
There's active discouragement of recognizing the essential equality of people no matter what their station
in life; this absolute discounting of "less important" people is a new thing in the last 20 – 30 years or so,
imo. At first I though it was simple snobbery, but it's too wide spread for that to be the explanation, imo.
Thatcher was an English politico. It is not what she said, but what she did that counts.
She is probably down in Dante's Inferno, Ring 8, sub-rings 7-10. (Frauds and false councilors.)
See, oh wayward sinners:
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8b.html
Ah, you think that Milton should be at the bottom, eh? Then, I hope that he knows how to ice
skate. (He was the worst kind of 'class traitor.' [His parents were small store owner/managers.])
Ring 8 of the Inferno is for 'frauds' of all sorts, sub-rings 7-10 are reserved for Thieves,
Deceivers, Schismatics, and Falsifiers. Maggie should feel right at home there.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There
are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through
people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then,
also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987
And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves
first.
Oh, the subtle slyness of that formulation; it suggests first that democratic govt is the servant
of the will of the whole of the people, or society, and in the next breath suggests there is no whole
of the will of the people or unity or society. It suggests what is truly important are atomized
individuals and 'greed is good' and 'look out for number one' – the antithesis of society and unity
and democratic govt.
Thanks for this quotation. It appears to me to be classic case of pretzel logic. " It is our duty
to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." And who are "our neighbours"?
They are society – of which there is, according to Thatcher, "no such thing".
Once again, form totally swamps substance and leaves us treading water in a sea of nonsense. Have
we always allowed our leaders this much leeway with logic? Of course next to the statements of the
current US President, this statement appears perfectly logical.
Have you considered that perhaps the simplified "There is no society" rendering of what Ms. Thatcher
said has become the de facto standard because it captures the toxic antisocial policies she actually
practiced?
If someone would lie to themselves in order to be able to lie to others, then why should I respect them?
There is a large difference between respect and fear, just like there is a difference between jealousy and
anger. You know I have observed all of this among my C-level acquaintances ( 50 to 150 million ..)
Perhaps there is something to be said for leaving the Big Apple. And yes folks can seem to be more polite in
the fly over country.
I'd guess that the real divider is that the politeness is driven in part by the realization that we need
each other to a greater degree more in smaller communities.
I disagree about small communities. Plenty are subservient to a powerful interest with no scruples. It's
always been about accountability. Scale and speed have reduced the ability to hold bad actors accountableif
they are elite. The homogenized British civil service would naturally hold bad actors accountable if not
through legal means then exclusion.
Ostracism and other forms of social control were ruthlessly used by the in-group to keep its members'
behavior within a narrow range. Is it the methods of social control that have changed or the range of
behavior deemed acceptable to the dominant group?
As Lord Boothby's life illustrates, if certain behavior was deemed helpful to the state or otherwise
within bounds, then all sorts of behavior offensive to a common dustman's definition of "middle class
morality" would be tolerated. That suggests a parallel with the arc of Jeffrey Epstein's career.
Compare Epstein and his associate's behaviour with that of the English aristocracy during the
Edwardian era. I'll posit that this range of behaviours is class mediated, not era or milieu mediated.
With this as the 'face' of the 'ruling class,' is it any wonder that movements such as Calvinism and
Puritanism gained such popular support?
One suspects that Wilde's
Dorian Gray
struck a chord among the upper classes, the
scions of which must have remembered more than bad food and cold showers at their elite boarding
schools. Indoctrination always begins with the young.
I got my first full-time job in science in 1975. I was 19 and had to make a living while going to school.
The head of my lab, which was a leader in our field, and his colleagues in the department were very serious
about their work, but not about themselves. Most, but certainly not all, of them took their roles as exemplars
of how science should be very seriously, and it showed. Their mentorship has extended into the future, which is
now, but more on that later. My boss at the time is 93 and not in particularly good health. Earlier this month
I sent him a video of a talk in which our work was mentioned, as the close brush with a later Nobel Prize that
it was. None of that particular group is still in the field, but he was happy to see, again, how far reaching
our work has been. In a subsequent email I listed the 15 or so people I overlapped with in my 15 years in that
smallish lab, and the list is replete with very successful men and women. We were taught well.
My time there didn't end particularly well, though. There is one fundamental reason for that: The Bayh-Dole
Act of 1980. By the late-1980's our research had been completely co-opted by the desire to build a "start-up"
using our science as the foundation. This quite naturally attracted a gaggle of half-assed "entrepreneurs"
whose only thought was "how fast how much money?" The science suffered, those who knew how to make it work as
an important technology were ignored, and the whole apparatus collapsed in a heap of squandered money taken
from people who couldn't afford to lose it and recriminations that have still not abated, much. My boss retired
in the aftermath. He was a good scientist and a good person, but he was unable to see where he was headed. I
got axed, basically for not "liking" the lead half-assed entrepreneur, to which I responded, "I like him just
fine, but I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, and you shouldn't either." Q.E.D.
Now, 40+ years later the molecular and biomedical sciences are in crisis. Discoveries that will make a
difference are left undiscovered while "entrepreneurs" collect multiple research grants from NIH and NSF but
never, really, seem to get anywhere. Data from NIH show that the law of diminishing returns sets in as soon as
an academic scientist gets his or her second grant. There is no room for the next generation to begin, while
they have energy and vision (though older scientists have as much of both, if there were a future in it, and
the experience to get something done while mentoring the next generations).
Anyway, there is an important book to be written by someone who reads naked capitalism about the deleterious
effects of the neoliberal infestation of basic biomedical research that began with the Bayh-Dole Act; hmm what
else happened in 1980? I cannot see any prospect of recovery of the good will, good science, and ethos of
discovery that existed before, but until biomedical scientists understand what has happened to their world,
there is really no hope. They will continue to scrape for scraps, act in ways that should be foreign to them,
and soon forget why they became scientists in the first place. It has been my experience that "scientists" as a
group pay little attention to politics, and view that as a mark of distinction. Pity. It is said that Trotsky
IIRC wrote (paraphrase), "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you."
Yes, indeed.
And I think the speed part of the equation may have a lot to do with the way we no longer value integrity
in people or in processes.
Yves cites the Powell memo as a cause, but I have to wonder if speed is the major cause of overall
decline. After all, humans were largely agrarian. One must be patient to grow things and get your reward
from that process on a regular yearly basis. In your field, painstaking research was the norm.
Now, so much is instant, and I think speed has caused much breakdown in human relations.
That is an amazing anecdote. Thank you very much for taking the time to post. Would you consider writing
an article on the topic? I am sure that Naked Capitalism would publish it. It is very important to get this
stuff documented for the record. Hope to hear more from you.
I will occasionally tell a cashier or greeter/security person who gives me the canned "have a blessed
day" spiel that; "I'm not from around here. You can tell me to have a rotten day. I won't complain." Sadly,
only about one in ten gets the joke and responds accordingly.
My best response to this gambit was from an older, "Traditionalist Evangelical" style woman at the gates of
the local WalMart. "That's okay. You are leaving this store. Your bad luck for the day is now over."
I have mentioned before how Stephen Covey – author of the "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" – did a
study of American self-help books for his doctoral dissertation. He found that until about the 1920s, most
American self-help books were about developing your character and Ben Franklin's books were typical of these.
However, about the 1920s on, there was a very noticeable shift in the emphasis of these books. Now it was all
about image and putting on a front. Books like "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie and
"Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill are typical here. So if you wanted to identify an inflexion point for
the importance of character in our culture, you would have to say that it started about a century ago.
This seems like the contrasts noted in David Riesman's
The Lonely Crowd
between the
'tradition-directed', 'inner-directed', and 'other-directed' character types. But are these fashions, or a
reflection of cultural needs driven by the movement from a largely agricultural society to an industrial
one? Can the poor afford good character? The yeoman on his plot can perhaps defy his society for a long
time, whereas the industrial worker or manager needs his job every day and must get along to keep it.
Thank you, Yves Smith. David's comment about his own rise caught my eye the other day, and I have been
thinking about it, too. I don't know David's exact circumstances in the U.K, but I was as scholarship boy in
high school and college in the U S of A. So here I am, with an "influential" job in publishing, which still can
be very Waspy. (And that includes the women.)
The current issue in some respects is not that the homogeneity produced such perfect results (for instance,
we should not forget longstanding problems like discrimination against Jews in academia and the CIA as a kind
of Waspy adventure-fantasyland). Our current moral dilemma is that no one talks about character. In that
"homogeneous" time, one could get rid of a troublesome man by noting that he wasn't a serious man. Not being a
"serious man" was a major impediment. Now, we think that everyone is serious, with serious opinions, which we
may not judge. Marianne Moore reputedly "did not suffer fools gladly." Now she would be considered an uptight
collaborator with patriarchy.
The language for assessing character is no longer used: Probity. Thrift. Reliability. Consistency. Taking
the long view. Equanimity. Justice (without qualifiers like "social"). Discernment. Good judgment. Think about
how little one sees these words used these days in discussing chararcter. Instead, we get hagiographies of John
McCain, a spoiled child, blowhard veteran, and lousy politician. We get Madeleine Albright discoursing on
special places in hell where any woman with her own point of view can be consigned.
Many of the agreements that held U.S. society together had to be dismantled: That is part of what the New
Deal was for. FDR knew that the discrimination against its own citizens wasn't going to last and that the
economic collapse made it all worse. And yet even he couldn't eliminate racial discrimation.
Nevertheless, we are a long way from FDR, a man of character, and Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman revered for her
character, when we now pretend that celebrities like McCain and Hillary Clinton are worthy of leading us, let
alone respect.
> FDR knew that the discrimination against its own citizens wasn't going to last and that the economic
collapse made it all worse. And yet even he couldn't eliminate racial discrimation.
I have read that FDR tried to break with the Southern Democrats in 1937, but I need to hunt down the
reference. If so, good for him.
I can't find easy to access articles, but I seem to remember this book, "Roosevelt's Purge."
The influence of the South on the Democratic caucus was known and complained about. LBJ's pitch in the
1956 convention was that he could control the South if need be.
Didn't that wonderfully collegial bunch include the Best and Brightest who killed over 3 million Southeast
Asians and some 10000s of Americans in the 1960s-1970s? Or is this a later age cohort? New Deal/Great Society
liberalism's strategic interventions killed more people than neoliberalism's endless wars, lest we forget.
Not certain the purpose of the comparison, but the Colonists, the Revolutionaries, and Blue and Grey
federalist armies, the MIC, etc. have been eliminating "others" since forever.
The dictionary definition of
character
is "the mental and moral qualities distinctive of an
individual."
I associate the term with a kind of neo-Victorian anglophile section of the US political right who put it
around starting in the 1980s as a kind of synonym for social conformity and obedience to authority. I hate to
admit it, but I have never really been able to figure out what it means, and have regarded it as hot air.
The dictionary definition suggests it could just be equal to the word
individual
, since the
qualities of an individual are equal to an individual. In this case, as Mark Twain put it, "Why write
'metropolis' when you get the same pay for 'city?"
If the word is meant to draw attention to the qualities of a person as separate from their individuality,
then it gets a little more interesting. Then you get to identify and name the qualities and what they mean, and
you get to find out who has the power to do that. I remember our neo-Victorians were big on using very
conventional abstract universals to corral social behavior. One of my current favorites is "personal
responsibility," which is often employed by congress persons as a rationale for policies in support of debt
peonage and medical bankruptcy, but not applied to their own role in mass murders.
The colloquial meaning of
character
seems to be the only one that carries a meaning that goes
beyond any synonym. There are plenty of real characters out there, still. (One of my favorites was the subject
of the film
Dirtbag
.)
This article takes the word in a direction I haven't seen before: that full engagement with others is a
quality necessary to full individuality. That seems like a much less dubious use of the word.
"I associate the term with a kind of neo-Victorian anglophile section of the US political right who put
it around starting in the 1980s as a kind of synonym for social conformity and obedience to authority."
Were he still around, the late Martin Luther King Jr. might take issue with that, pardon the pun,
characterization. Which is not to say that, as with any other word, it is not subject to misuse by those of
ill intent.
I often think that the quote of MLK about the "content of their character" is such a good example of
how we are living in a bizarro world when people talk about Obama .
Talk about a person whose only good quality is the color of his skin.
A "black" man became president. Which is a good thing that broke one tradition .. but that "man" was in
no way possessing of any "good" character.
Like a carnival trick . a major schmuck was promoted in the cultural ethos as having been good, merely
because he is black . but without any thought as to the POOR quality of his character.
In a reasonable world, no one would allow obama to be proclaimed in any way , as an example of MLK's
vision of a man being judged by "the content of his character, and not the color of his skin."
No, because Amar is an academic, so unless one said otherwise, "read everything I wrote" would mean
published work only. Reading every draft is extraordinary.
Some years ago, the president of a small liberal arts college began to get to know his new home. His
predecessors normally did this at faculty teas, president's dinners for donors, the odd picnic with students,
and informal gatherings among staff. In a world before deanlets, assistant assistants, and chiefs of staff,
that was a small world.
But this new president inverted the pyramid. His first gathering was with the custodial and kitchen staffs,
groundskeepers, and the like, whom he eventually got to know on a first name basis. They took note, as did the
faculty, who still ran the place.
Fast forward a few decades. Another new president's first task – backed by a like-minded board – was to
outsource all those jobs. In a small college town, losing its other large employers to shutdowns and
consolidations, scores more people were thrown out of work, adding to town-and-gown tensions.
An alternative for staff tossed out of work and with few options was to become a local hire for the
out-of-town outsourced employer. That meant doing the same job for less pay, without benefits, with no union or
worker protections, and without a relationship with their absentee employer. Profits left the local economy as
fast as those employer-employee relations at the college. But the new president checked a box on his CEO-like
resume.
A modest example, it captures several of neoliberalism's core objectives: imposing business priorities and
methods on cultural institutions, outsourcing, union busting, and aggregating revenue and profits in a handful
of distant locations.
The same work got done, often by the same people, but the culture was irrevocably weakened. All for a few
dollars more, fewer than were paid to the plethora of new staff and their myriad of business plans, intended to
make faculty and students responsible for nothing but themselves.
And, sadly, the only people utilizing "direct action" remedies for these systemic maladies are lone
nutter types.
Imagine America with a well organized and militant underground movement.
The present day 'Masters of the Universe' are building up their organs of opression to combat such an
eventuality. This will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There is a sort of world underground, as noted in this very publication ('Add Oil', a few days ago).
It seems to be 'open source' as 'Add Oil' says, and constantly evolving. Random other examples: Gilets
Jaunes, Occupy Wall Street, Tahrir. As the system of the Ruling Class weakens and casts more people off,
they become available for this sort of activity.
What character is, is wanting and trying to have character – we all know what that means and know it is a
tough row to hoe! So it was gotten rid of by those unwilling to make the effort – sort of like "memorising" was
gotten rid of with clever attacks on its "efficacy". Katy, bar the door!
Civility and character are often aligned but when civility is chiefly a cultural pose it says next to
nothing about how repressed, angry, selfish or incompetent someone is. The following is a synopsis of Marilynne
Robinson's remarkable book "Mother Country" published in the 1999 (Britain has a minimum wage now).
'So asks a book-within-the-book where Robinson looks to the past, even unto Poor Law of the 14th Century,
for the secrets of national character. What does she find? That beneath the famous civility the British have
always wasted lives and credited the idea of human surplus; that there have in the past been policies of
depopulation. That there is a lack "of positive, substantive personal and political rights." That industrial
illness and accident are common and customary. That there has never been a minimum wage. That many factors,
including the Official Secrets Act, restrict the flow of information. That the (non-elected) Permanent Civil
Service is professional and very powerful. That bumbling amateurism is still respectable, with chilling
ramifications–an inability to gather meaningful statistics, for instance, or to keep track of such crucial
documents as half the mortality data on workers at Windscale. That the citizenry is passive. That it is hard to
locate responsibility, and that profit is motive and justification enough for almost anything.'
So I am here wondering where I obtained my sense of "morality" and "ethical" behaviour. My mother emphasized
that truthfulness and honesty were imperative. I rarely lied to her or stole from her. My primary teachers
emphasized working hard and finishing work to the point that it was the best I could do (one teacher especially
said that I should work to my best abilities and I tried to do that). My secondary teachers taught me how to
study for tests, how to memorize poetry and what was worth learning (via the curriculum). My university
professors talked about analyzing works of literature and how such analysis helped us understand life as lived
by all of us. My marriage taught me how to put others' physical and emotional needs ahead of my own. My old age
revealed to me that knowing oneself was a most frightful thing to engage in.
I never thought that I would have to learn about how greed works in the banking system; how false prophets
are everywhere; how great wealth pollutes the character as well as the environment; that pornography is
considered entertainment; that politics has its very own pollutants that taint our shared world; and so on. I
think it is well past time to leave.
I'd love to join you in exploring that 'Great Void' but I have too many responsibilities left here in the
'Realm of Maya.'
That's the lesson I did not expect to learn in my middle age; that there is always going to be some
responsibility needing one's attention and effort.
I am relearning with a vengeance the marriage lesson you mention.
As for knowing myself, well, the older I get, the more I realize that I know nothing.
Keep the faith!
Very nice eulogy. It makes me remember people with that inner strength in my life. There have been quite a
few. The difference between an ordinary good character and a great one is energy, imo. People who have the
energy to share their good thinking and the patience to listen are the best. They just operate on a slightly
higher frequency. McArthur may have been one in a million, but he influenced millions. So it consoles me to
think that there are enough people of good character in this world to turn things around. Just because I wasn't
personally acquainted with them, doesn't mean I wasn't influenced by them. The very function of society.
When I was hired for a non-management position several years ago, the CEO of my company came up to me on my
first day and addressed me by name to welcome me to the job. I was rather shocked that she even knew I'd been
hired. She was a 30+ year employee of the company who had worked her way up from being a freelance writer. Many
of my coworkers then had been with the company for decades too.
She retired a few years into my tenure and the place really hasn't been the same since she left – the kind
of neoliberal MBA mentality well known to NC readers has come to the forefront. Pretty sure I'm not the only
one who misses her leadership and character.
I'm all in favor of gentlemanly manners and am trying to teach them to my son. On the other hand, there have
been a lot of people who could be flawed in their personal dealings but dedicated to the greatest good. And
many slave owners who were courtly and thoughtful, especially regarding the opposite sex.
I'm sure that Mr. McArthur was a great guy. But what was the HBS up to while he was dean and what did that say
about his deeper values? This is from a Newsweek story from a couple years ago about the evolution of
shareholder primacy:
" the new belief that the shareholder was supreme, absolving managers of responsibility to any
"stakeholder" -- employees, communities, society itself -- except shareholders. The bottom line was all that
mattered.
John McArthur, then dean of HBS, liked Jensen's message and invited him to HBS as a visiting professor in 1984.
In a 1999 vanity project about McArthur's tenure, The Intellectual Venture Capitalist, HBS trotted out a
rationale for hiring him: "Jensen had been interested in testing his unorthodox ideas against the experiences
of practitioners and had agreed to come to HBS on a temporary basis to get increased access to high-level
decision makers in business." Hogwash. "Theory of the Firm" was testable only in the sense that Keynesian
economics is testable, or a theory of whether a hurricane might sweep beachfront houses out to sea is
testable -- you can debate the issues until you're blue in the face, but at some point, you just have to see what
happens.A course grounded in agency theory that Jensen developed at HBS -- The Coordination and Control of Markets
and Organizations -- was designed to make students more "tough-minded" and shift them from the "stakeholder model"
of organizational purpose. It became one of the most popular electives at the school. Agency theory wasn't new,
but Jensen's resurrected form of it provided academic justification for the takeover movement, and HBS provided
its revolutionary soldiers."
Yves, this post and Jerri-Lynn's companion post of Bill Black on corruption, are important discussions of
our dishonorable libertarian zeitgeist.
Ironically, I think that the origins of modern neoliberal libertarianism can be traced back to Woodstock and
its evil double Altamont. It can be no coincidence that Trump was played off the convention stage by a
recording of the Stones'
You Can't Always Get What You Want
.
I think that George Monbiot describes it well:
It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over
everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others.
Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality,
hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and
selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power.
George Monbiot,
Why Libertarians Must Deny Climate Change
The Guardian, January 6, 2012
Just because something is counterintuitive does not mean it´s insightful – mostly it means that it is
just plain wrong! In this case, trotting out Woodstock as the root of neoliberal anything is absurd. The
anti-corporation, anti-war, anti-empire feelings were palpable (I was there – you can hear them paging my
twin brother "Alan Fay" on the album). The sense of community and brotherly love was REAL – as was the
incipient reactionary response. Can´t have those kinds of ideas gaining traction in a capitalist society!
I travel to Georgia frequently. I've seen that state's rural and urban and in between. While I did encounter
some of the "southern hospitality" people so often cite, it was usually present in an upper-class milieu and
did not leave much of an impression on me, as it felt "church-smile" inflected.
What did leave an impression on me was the homelessness and vagrancy, especially in Atlanta, where on my way
back to the airport, I had a man practically beg me to let him carry my luggage so as to have a reason to give
him alms. I had, on that same trip and on subsequent trips to the state, many similar encounters. These people
were rather pushy–it was disturbing to me in that their hustle was driven by obvious desperation.
I currently live in Indiana, in a relatively affluent town, though I'm working class and reside in a modest
apartment. Until recently, I did not own a car. I would walk to the grocery store a couple times a week. On one
such walk, a homeless man asked if I had a light for his cigarette. I didn't, but we walked together for about
twenty minutes. During our walk, I asked him about his life.
According to this man, the homeless in our town live in a tent settlement in the woods, which is the only
place the police will tolerate such a gathering because it's out of sight (and therefore out of mind for the
people that matter). He explained to me that, whatever the hardships for the homeless in our town, it was
nothing compared to Atlanta, where he lived prior. He described the city as having the "hardest" streets he'd
ever experienced. I should probably mention that this man was likely in his late 40s or early 50s, meaning he'd
experienced a lot! It was so terrifying, he had to flee north.
That's what comes vividly to mind when I think of the "South". The politeness stuff hardly rates in
comparison.
as a total outsider, i feel that the veneer of the "southern hospitality" is intentionally to paper over
and ignore the continuation of unjust systems.
this kind of "treating people with basic human decency" can and does very easily morph into "be quiet and
say nothing while your social betters ride roughshod over everyone because you have no standing yourself to
oppose them and it is considered impolite for YOU to point out these discrepancies".
i am torn between enjoying the image of sociability and detesting it. i know for a fact that most of it
is a front, and that many people are talked badly about behind closed doors and over back fences, and that
many people are shut out through these "kindnesses" (you can't complain as long as they didn't spit in your
face). a lot of it is about maintaining pecking order. is -that- character? i think not.
but what do i know?
Alabama doesn't have that many homeless because housing (particularly trailers) are cheap. Not saying
those homeless are treated well, but there are shelters and services.
Atlanta is also an Old South city whereas Birmingham grew up after the Civil War.
As a Southern exile of Faulkner's second type, now living in the UK, I respectfully disagree slightly with
the statement:
.cultural homogeneity in the civil service, in politics, and even partly in the media, which had its
origin in a certain upper middle class sense of duty, honesty and competence, inherited from the serious
professional classes of the nineteenth century.
I think it goes much deeper than that back to a perhaps medieval sense of
noblesse oblige
.
You see this most starkly in the difference between Kate Middleton, who appears all over the place at the
most mundane functions, allowing herself to be photographed with all and sundry, and Meghan Markle, who jets
about in private planes on vacations and demands an entire section for herself at Wimbledon, asking guards to
stop people photographing her.
Like so many of the 1%, I think her attitude could best be summed up as
noblesse oublier
.
I've been under the impression that character was quite valuable to those who assume to be my superiors,
particularly at work. "Builds character" they'd say. After about 30 years of that bullshit, I finally had the
gall to ask the CEO about why he doesn't he build his *own* character, as opposed to building everyone elses.
They love building character, as long as it's someone elses.
Nope, don't work there anymore.
I have always wondered why there are so many shootings today. The AR-15 came out in the 60s and I felt no
fear going through a public high school in the late 70s. Now, it's "gun control/do something" vs improving the
character of our country's citizens. Yeah, I know – trying to improve the character of our citizens is not very
hash tag-able/ would be extremely difficult to do. But gun control is made for hashtags. We are doomed.
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
The IMF loan seems designed to get Macri past the election. It has been used to support
capital flight: to support the peso, the Central Bank sells dollars to "importers" that then
stash the money abroad. This is illegal according to IMF loan terms but the IMF is looking the
other way. It has been granted unprecedented authority to oversee and overrule the Central Bank,
so its failure to act is really suspicious, and reeks of political pressure to crush the left in
Latin America.
Notable quotes:
"... The government also wasted more than $16 billion in unsuccessful attempts to keep the peso from falling, and greatly increased the more problematic foreign component of the public debt. The result has been near-constant recession and high inflation, enormous interest rates, peso depreciation, financial instability, and the huge run-up in public debt. The debt increase is particularly noteworthy because Mr. Macri inherited a low level of public debt. ..."
"... Ironically, the IMF is well-known in Argentina for promoting similarly unworkable policies during the deep depression of 1998 to 2002 -- comparable to America's Great Depression of the 1930s. Yes, history is repeating itself, although in this case the IMF has a stronger partnership with the government than it had 20 years ago. ..."
"... Millions of Argentines remember the last depression and the role the IMF played. Many also remember the rapid improvement in people's lives over the ensuing decade. This collective memory and consciousness may now determine the outcome of this recurring debate over the economy, and with it, the October election, and possibly much of Argentina's future. ..."
"... The IMF loan seems designed to get Macri past the election. It has been used to support capital flight: to support the peso, the Central Bank sells dollars to "importers" that then stash the money abroad. This is illegal according to IMF loan terms but the IMF is looking the other way. It has been granted unprecedented authority to oversee and overrule the Central Bank, so its failure to act is really suspicious, and reeks of political pressure to crush the left in Latin America. ..."
Who is to Blame for Argentina's Economic Crisis?
By Mark Weisbrot - New York Times
What are we to make of Argentina's surprise election results on Monday, which jolted
pollsters and analysts alike, and roiled the country's financial markets? In the presidential
primary for the country's October election, the opposition ticket of Alberto Fernández
trounced the incumbent president Mauricio Macri by an unexpected margin of 47.7 to 32.1
percent.
The Fernández coalition attributes their victory to Mr. Macri's failed economic
policies, blaming him for the current economic crisis, recession, and high inflation. Mr.
Macri, by contrast, blames the fear of a future government of Kirchnerism -- his label for
the opposition -- for both the postelection financial turbulence and also the problems of the
economy since he took office more than three and a half years ago. He argues that both the
markets and the people have everything to fear from such an outcome.
This disagreement is not just an academic argument, nor one specific to Argentina. It is a
recurring, almost archetypical debate during economic crises that spill over into political
contests. In recent years -- in the UK, Spain, France, Greece, and other countries where
failed economic policies faced left-of-center challengers -- Macri's refrain was a frequent
line of attack by incumbents.
Financial markets can move for many reasons, which can be unclear or even based on
misperceptions of reality. In the case of this week's news, we have electoral losses by a
government whose economic policies have clearly failed; and gains by challengers who hail
from a period of strong and widely shared economic growth. This is not something that is
inherently bad for the economy.
With Kirchnerism, Mr. Macri refers to the policies, followers, and presidential
administrations of the Kirchner family, which held office from 2003 to 2015 -- first
Néstor Kirchner, and then Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The latter is running
as vice-presidential candidate of Alberto Fernández, and is a prominent leader of the
opposition coalition -- although this coalition is much larger and broader than the
"kirchnerista" base.
From the point of view of an economist or social scientist, it's not clear why Kirchnerism
should inspire fear. Looking at the most important economic and social indicators, the
government of the Kirchner presidencies was one of the most successful in the Western
Hemisphere during this period.
Independent estimates show a decline of 71 percent in poverty, and an 81 percent decline
in extreme poverty. The government instituted one of the biggest conditional cash transfer
programs for the poor in Latin America. According to the International Monetary Fund, gross
domestic product per person grew by 42 percent, almost three times the rate of Mexico.
Unemployment fell by more than half, and inequality also fell considerably.
Although economic growth waned in the last few years, and the government made some
mistakes, the result of these two administrations delivered large increases in living
standards for the vast majority of Argentines, by any reasonable comparison.
Economic growth waned in the last few years of her presidency and her government was dealt
an external economic blow. A 2012 ruling of a federal appeals court in New York, widely
regarded dubious and political, took more than 90 percent of Argentina's creditors hostage in
order to force payment to a small group of "vulture funds," who refused to join the debt
restructuring of the early 2000s. The United States government blocked loans from
international lenders such as the Inter-American Development Bank, at a time when the economy
needed the foreign exchange.
By comparison, poverty has increased significantly, income per person has fallen, and
unemployment has increased during Mr. Macri's term, which began in December 2015. Short-term
interest rates, have shot up from 32 percent to 75 percent today; inflation has risen from 18
percent to 56 percent. The public debt has grown from 53 percent of GDP to more than 86
percent last year.
How much of this economic crisis and poor performance is his predecessor's fault?
In 2018 Mr. Macri signed an agreement for a $57 billion loan -- the largest bailout in
history. The loan agreement, along with the reviews since, spell out the government's
economic goals, strategy, and implementation. There is a lot of information publicly
available that details what went wrong.
The main strategy of the program was to restore investor confidence through tighter fiscal
and monetary policy. But, as has often happened, these measures slowed the economy and
undermined investor confidence. By October, the results were vastly worse than the IMF had
projected. The government and IMF doubled down by increasing both fiscal and monetary
tightening, but this did not help.
The government also wasted more than $16 billion in unsuccessful attempts to keep the peso
from falling, and greatly increased the more problematic foreign component of the public
debt. The result has been near-constant recession and high inflation, enormous interest
rates, peso depreciation, financial instability, and the huge run-up in public debt. The debt
increase is particularly noteworthy because Mr. Macri inherited a low level of public
debt.
Ironically, the IMF is well-known in Argentina for promoting similarly unworkable policies
during the deep depression of 1998 to 2002 -- comparable to America's Great Depression of the
1930s. Yes, history is repeating itself, although in this case the IMF has a stronger
partnership with the government than it had 20 years ago.
The Fernández candidates will have to outline how they would get out of this mess.
They can explain how Argentina exited from a much more severe economic crisis, with an
unemployment more than twice as high, and millions of previously middle class people having
fallen into poverty. They can assure creditors that there is no need for default on the
public debt today, as there was then, because it was completely unpayable. But, as in 2003,
the economy cannot recover under the conditions agreed upon with the IMF, and these will have
to be renegotiated.
Millions of Argentines remember the last depression and the role the IMF played. Many also
remember the rapid improvement in people's lives over the ensuing decade. This collective
memory and consciousness may now determine the outcome of this recurring debate over the
economy, and with it, the October election, and possibly much of Argentina's future.
The IMF has learned nothing since the Washington Consensus started being implemented in the
1980s but at least Argentines are quickly repudiating the neoliberals and their savage
policies, until they forget again in a generation.
The IMF loan seems designed to get Macri past the election. It has been used to support
capital flight: to support the peso, the Central Bank sells dollars to "importers" that then
stash the money abroad. This is illegal according to IMF loan terms but the IMF is looking
the other way. It has been granted unprecedented authority to oversee and overrule the
Central Bank, so its failure to act is really suspicious, and reeks of political pressure to
crush the left in Latin America.
Fernandez has already stated that under current terms the loan is unpayable and the terms
will have to be renegotiated.
The situation is similar to Greece and shows that, absent capital controls and decreased
dependency on imports, having your own currency is not enough protection against bondage to
multinational banks.
The situation is similar to Greece and shows that, absent capital controls and decreased
dependency on imports, having your own currency is not enough protection against bondage to
multinational banks....
[ This was the lesson taught and learned by a few countries in the wake of the Asian
currency crises that developed from 1996-1997. These were really Asian, Latin American
currency crises, but the lesson was indelibly learned in Asia.
There is a reason China and Japan and Korea increased foreign currency reserves from
1997-1998.
This title symbolizes the new, preferential relationship that Brazil has been pursuing with
the U.S. as a result of the continued efforts by far-right President Jair Bolsonaro to
inaugurate a new phase in Brazil's global role.
Bolsonaro's presidency has initiated deep changes in Brazilian foreign policy, which was
traditionally based on multilateralism, non-interventionism, and a commitment to universal
human rights. Bolsonaro's abandonment of that traditional foreign policy is driven by his
belief that despite changes in the world order, the future will remain U.S.-led -- and, as
such, a partnership with Washington is essential.
With this partnership, however, Brazil is relinquishing its position as a global leader to
become a junior follower of Donald Trump's foreign policy.
Ideological affinity is a major component of Bolsonaro's foreign policy, which has had
practical and immediate consequences for Brazil. For example, due to Trump's trade war with
China, Beijing
has been downgraded in the priorities of Bolsonaro's government despite being Brazil's main
trading partner, and opportunities to increase trade in Asia are now willfully overlooked.
Brazil's prominent leadership role in Latin America is also being sacrificed as a result of
its enthusiastic promotion of U.S. interests in the region.
Ideological Crusade and the U.S.
The new vision guiding Brazilian foreign policy is centered around anti-globalism and
presumptions of Western cultural superiority.
According to this worldview, Bolsonaro's rise to power represents a unique opportunity to
restore traditional moral values that will somehow help Brazil in its mission to save "Western
Civilization" from decline. As such, a partnership with the like-minded Trump is imagined as a
means by which to reaffirm the supremacy of the West.
These ideas form part of the broader ideological agenda which the current Brazilian Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Ernesto Araújo, has put forward in various articles. In one of his
most notorious pieces, a journal article entitled
"Trump and the West," Araújo lays bare the version of Brazilian nationalism he aims
to pursue: a national mission to, in essence, recover Brazil's "Western soul."
The
traditional nuclear family and Christian values -- perceived as the hallmarks of "Western
civilization" -- are the central pillars of Araújo's moral nationalism and, as such,
should be seen as the foundation of Brazil's new foreign policy orientation.
Consequences of Brazil's Foreign Policy Shift
If Brazil's new ideological position represents a stark renunciation of its previously
active role in the building of a liberal world order, it is also becoming increasingly clear
that the country will now abandon its previoously progressive contributions to solving major
global problems.
As a consequence, Brazil will no longer be seen as a leader among developing countries -- a
widely-respected role that the country has played since 2003, when Brazilian governments
prioritized South-South cooperation.
Brazil's radical shift in foreign policy orientation is already causing shockwaves at home
and abroad. Bolsonaro often flirts with the idea of potentially
withdrawing from the Paris Environmental Accord , having already
abandoned the Marrakesh Migration Pact . Additional uproar emerged in Brazil due to
Bolsonaro's close ties to Israel and his promise to recognize Jerusalem as its capital and to
close Brazil's embassy in Palestine . In the past, Brazil has systematically defended the
creation of a Palestinian state, and was among the first countries to open an embassy in
Palestine.
Being averse to both multilateralism and cooperation with developing countries, Bolsonaro
seeks to keep his distance from the United Nations and the BRICS. More concretely, Bolsonaro
considers the deepening or even the maintenance of established diplomatic ties with the BRICS
group as detrimental to the new Brazil's alliance with the U.S. Indeed, under Brazil's new
foreign policy priorities, China
and Russia are now perceived as potential adversaries .
In attempting to recover Brazil's "Western soul," Bolsonaro's government hopes to receive
U.S. support in its efforts to become a permanent member of the OECD. The Trump administration
has indicated that
the U.S. will support Brazil's bid to gain admission to the OECD .
In Bolsonaro's evolving geopolitical map, Brazil is slowly abandoning its regional
leadership to align with the U.S.'s interests in Latin America. In this context, Brazil's
engagement with other Latin American countries is mainly based on ideological affinity. Hence
Brazil is showing interest in strengthening bilateral relations with Chile, a country that
Bolsonaro admires principally due to his admiration for Pinochet's brutal dictatorship
(1973-1989) , and with Argentina, with which bilateral relations remain warm as long as the
conservative-minded President Macri remains in power .
The rationale for and discourse surrounding Brazil's blind alignment to the U.S. is facing
heavy criticism from parts of Bolsonaro's own government. These dissident voices can be heard
in the agribusiness sector, the military, and the Brazilian diplomatic corps.
Operating as they do within a clear set of international interests, agribusiness is a pragmatic
group of actors who understand that Bolsonaro's rhetorical tactics are harming their
international interests. Those who consider China a pivotal player in the expansion of
Brazilian agricultural exports are understandably disturbed by Brazil's increasing distance
from the BRICS.
Bolsonaro's foreign policy also faces opposition from within Brazil's Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, where
career diplomats are increasingly voicing their concerns over the president's wanton
abandonment of the multilateralism that Brazil has historically and effectively used to engage
with the rest of the world.
In an increasingly dog-eat-dog world, Bolsonaro hopes that Brazil can establish itself as a
privileged U.S. partner. However, given the waning support for Bolsonaro's foreign policy at
home, as well as its fundamental lack of pragmatism, these radical shifts in Brazil's
international affairs may ultimately prove to be ephemeral.
Helder F. do Vale is an Associate Professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in
South Korea.
"... The ideal modern subject is the 'consumer/spectator' who exercises their anti-capitalism by consuming a more ethical brand of product. In which way: capitalism subsumes its anti-capitalist antithesis TINA. If you have a new idealism: you have to market it and so it becomes just another brand of capitalism. It becomes a new consumerism. That's capitalist realism. TINA. ..."
"... That which we are when we turn away – and ultimately turn off – the consumer spectacle. We are not rational self-maximisers seeking maximum market access only for ourselves. Our idolatry of greed will not provide a Kantian *summum bonum* of objective market values of welfare and wellbeing for all. That is a mendacious lie only a utopian 'capitalist realist' could believe. We have to seek the alternative. Now: while we are already crossing the event horizon of yet another crisis of capitalism entering the black hole at the heart of overfinancialisation and debt deflation. We have yet to admit that it is entropy dragging us in. It's gonna have to more than a "beautiful, illuminating, and heart-rending" story. It's gonna have to be real world relevant and credible too. ..."
"... Capitalism does not work as a culturally conditioned psychology; an ecology; or even as an economy. Each time it fails: it is restarted by a massive, never before known, transference of wealth from the poor to rich ..."
"... Only utopian capitalist realists can ever believe that any of this pseudo-wealth will trickle down in any meaningful way. ..."
Ed nails it: everyone gets the Debordian Spectacle angle. I, for one, need no more
convincing of the true nature of capitalism. Which brings me back to Pfaller's meaningless
usage of the term 'Postmodernism'. We had this discussion last week: so I will only re-iterate
this. The blanket use of the term says nothing useful at all. For 'progressive neoliberalism':
I propose Mark Fisher's term – "Capitalist Realism". Mainly because it does supply
valuable conceptual and semantic framing of sense and meaning.
As given most succinctly in the book's (it's an essay really) subtitle and Thatcher's mantra
– TINA (There Is No Alternative). Capitalism has totally colonised culture – in
roughly the same timescale Pfaller is indicating (perhaps a bit earlier) – and shaped
contemporary consciousness by commodifying and consumerising it.
The ideal modern subject is the 'consumer/spectator' who exercises their anti-capitalism
by consuming a more ethical brand of product. In which way: capitalism subsumes its
anti-capitalist antithesis TINA. If you have a new idealism: you have to market it and so it
becomes just another brand of capitalism. It becomes a new consumerism. That's capitalist
realism. TINA.
This double-bind situationism speaks more eloquently to me than the pseudo-label 'PoMo'
– which can mean anything to anyone – and therefore means nothing to everyone.
Which brings me back to the point, as I see it, that Ed is making. We need a new alternative.
Bauman, Pfaller, Zizek, Giddens, etc can argue to the cows come home about when 'high
modernity' became 'postmodernity' or did it just continue as 'liquid modernity' (to which I
would concur) if not that these damn meaningless terms offer little of a counterculture or
liberational praxis. One that defies consumerisation.
I give you us as the answer. That which we are when we turn away – and ultimately turn
off – the consumer spectacle. We are not rational self-maximisers seeking maximum market
access only for ourselves. Our idolatry of greed will not provide a Kantian *summum bonum* of
objective market values of welfare and wellbeing for all. That is a mendacious lie only a
utopian 'capitalist realist' could believe. We have to seek the alternative. Now: while we are
already crossing the event horizon of yet another crisis of capitalism entering the black hole
at the heart of overfinancialisation and debt deflation. We have yet to admit that it is
entropy dragging us in. It's gonna have to more than a "beautiful, illuminating, and
heart-rending" story. It's gonna have to be real world relevant and credible too.
Capitalism does not work as a culturally conditioned psychology; an ecology; or even as an
economy. Each time it fails: it is restarted by a massive, never before known, transference of
wealth from the poor to rich. These are waves and cycles of 'primitive accumulation' and
'accumulation by dispossession'.
Only utopian capitalist realists can ever believe that any of
this pseudo-wealth will trickle down in any meaningful way. How can it ever be meaningful if it
is essentially a meaningless inescapable void of exponential and entropic debt deflation?
Capitalism is the biggest anti-utopian social engineering project in history. One that offers
only a soulless, submissive Void for the consumer/spectator – TINA. That's capitalist
realism.
Nothing else matters other than avoiding this Void of capitalist realist nihilisation of
humanity. Nothing. Jeffrey who?
"... To say "we will never know" is the mantra of a postmodern culture created to keep people running in circles. (Note the commentaries about the Jeffrey Epstein case.) Elusive and allusive indeterminacy characterizes everything in the culture of postmodernity. ..."
"... The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face. ..."
"... This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism". It consists of neoliberalism, plus postmodernism as its ideological superstructure. ..."
"... Money buys souls, and the number of those who have sold theirs is numerous, including those leftists who have been bought by the CIA, as Cord Meyer, the CIA official phrased it so sexually in the 1950s: we need to "court the compatible left." He knew that drawing leftists into the CIA's orbit was the key to efficient propaganda. ..."
"... For so many of the compatible left, those making a lot of money posing as opponents of the ruling elites but taking the money of the super-rich, the JFK assassination and the truth of September 11, 2001 are inconsequential, never to be broached, as if they never happened, except as the authorities say they did. ..."
"... By ignoring these most in-your-face events with their eyes wide shut, a coterie of influential leftists has done the work of Orwell's crime-stop and has effectively succeeded in situating current events in an ahistorical and therefore misleading context that abets U.S. propaganda. ..."
People hunger for these stories, not for the real truth that impacts their lives, but for
the titillation that gives a frisson to their humdrum lives. It is why post-modern detective
stories are so popular, as if never solving the crime is the point.
To say "we will never know" is the mantra of a postmodern culture created to keep people
running in circles. (Note the commentaries about the Jeffrey Epstein case.) Elusive and
allusive indeterminacy characterizes everything in the culture of postmodernity.
Robert Pfaller, a professor at the University of Art and Industrial Design in Linz, Austria
and a founding member of the Viennese psychoanalytic research group "stuzzicandenti,"
put it clearly in a recent interview :
The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism.
This is the ideological embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies'
welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain a "human",
"liberal" and "progressive" face.
This coalition between an economic policy that serves the
interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what
Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism". It consists of neoliberalism, plus
postmodernism as its ideological superstructure.
The propagandists know this; they created it. They are psychologically astute, having hijacked many intelligent but soul-less people of
the right and left to do their handiwork.
Money buys souls, and the number of those who have sold theirs is numerous, including those
leftists who have been bought by the CIA, as Cord Meyer, the CIA official phrased it so
sexually in the 1950s: we need to "court the compatible left." He knew that drawing
leftists into the CIA's orbit was the key to efficient propaganda.
For so many of the compatible left, those making a lot of money posing as opponents of the
ruling elites but taking the money of the super-rich, the JFK assassination and the truth of
September 11, 2001 are inconsequential, never to be broached, as if they never happened, except
as the authorities say they did.
By ignoring these most in-your-face events with their eyes wide shut, a coterie of
influential leftists has done the work of Orwell's crime-stop and has effectively succeeded in
situating current events in an ahistorical and therefore misleading context that abets U.S.
propaganda.
George
The use of the word "hate" has become another thought-stopper. It's like calling something "Evil" without further explanation.
I first realised this when I found the following article which is specifically about Off-Guardian:
The title is in the URL itself but it's worth emphasising since it headlines the article:
"Russian trolls exiled from Guardian find home for their hate"
And there it is – the simple assertion "hate". It's so crass. It's like cartoon propaganda – which may well be the most
effective kind. And it echoes that old staple, "They just hate us!", "They are haters!" and, best of all, "Hatred of the good
for being good." That last one is a masterstroke since it absolves one side of investigation while shoving all blame onto the
other side. Best of all, the more "they" hate us, the more "good" we must be!
19
0
Reply
Aug 22, 2019 5:25 PM
Reader
Ramdan
F*** . am I russian now? ..and where can we pick our passports??
Capricornia Man
The article you provide a link to offers the following wisdom:
'In line with the Kremlin's goals, OffGuardian seeks to undermine trust in the "mainstream media".'
Capricornia Man
Wanted to finish my above post by observing that, for anyone capable of a moderate level of independent
thought, the "mainstream media" have done a brilliant job of forfeiting trust all by themselves.
Elementor
LOL – my favorite bit of that article is where they cite Kit's use of the internet-4Chan meme "accidentally
the " as evidence English isn't his first language!!!!
ROFL I literally nearly fell of my chair laughing.
This lady is revealed as either truly ancient, a cultural hermit or or herself a non-native English
speaker.
Also she lies her ancient ass off about Ukraine.
Roland Spansky
That is fricken priceless
Rhys Jaggar
The real difficulty with all 'hate crime' stuff is proving that a hating state of mind exists. The key point
here is that those offended by statements or those victimised may assume hate to be present when it may be
hatred of an individual, not their sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.
Here are few hard questions:
1. If I state, correctly, that several leaders of Russian mob families are- or have been Jewish, does that
make me antisemitic?
I say absolutely it does not. I would back that up by saying that several other crime overlords profess to
have Christian ancestry. So not all mob capos are Jewish ..and being Jewish does not make you more likely to
lead a life of crime .
2. So what about if I killed a Jewish mobster because his hoods sexually abused my daughter? Does that make
me antisemitic??
Absolutely not. I would kill any mob capo whose vermin attacked my daughter. Jewishness does not come into
it. I certainly hated the mobster, but I did not hate his Jewishness .
3. What about if I say that the Israeli Secret Service, the Mossad, is a terrorist organisation?
Here we are talking about the official Intelligence Service of the Jewish State. Those folks are going to be
Jews, representing Jewry. Is that anti-semitic?
Why?? Being a terrorist basically means you have either a very violent religion or you do not uphold the
principles of a less violent one. I would point to the known terrorism in the histories of MI6, the CIA, the
OSS and several others to prove that it is not Jewishness that drives the terror, rather the precepts under
which Intelligence agencies are run.
4. What if I say that Jews are over-represented amongst the Western media and banking elites? Is that
anti-semitic??
Well, firstly the data suggests I am being factual, namely that the actual number of Jews in such positions
is far higher than might be expected on a population-based pro rata outcome. Secondly, have I said it is either
good or bad? I think I am suggesting that society might discuss why that has come about, whether any
consequences have ensued and whether the majority in a society consider those consequences to be appropriate.
It is not anti-semitic to ask if a small minority holding inordinate influence/power is aggreable to the
majority of the citizenry. After all, we are continually suggesting that white, public-school-educated male
graduates of Oxbridge should not dominate UK society in this day and age .
5. What if I say that a small minority of Jews proclaim the Jewish people to be superior to all goyim? Is
that factual or anti-semitic??
What if I say to hold such a view makes that subset of Jews to be racist?
My view again is that that is factually accurate. It does not imply all Jews think like that, does it? It is
like saying in the 1970s that the National Front was racist: said nothing about the majority of British people,
did I?
I would really dare some Jewish people to challenge those arguments.
Not by smearing, scaremongering, bursting into tears or any other melodrama.
Nor by power plays, threats, blackmail or libel.
By cool, reasoned argument .
OffG
Can we try to keep at least one thread free from discussing the antisemitism issue.
If you want to debate that subject there is an ongoing and currently civilised discussion between Mark
and Mandy Miller on one of the Epstein threads. Feel free to re-post this comment there.
This article is about the media manipulation of the concept of 'hate'.
wardropper
I share Norman Finkelstein's view that the appropriate response, both by us and by the Labour Party, for
example, is to funnel any such accusations to a small unit which will answer any serious charges in
detail, leaving the rest of us to state quite clearly, "It's over. We're not having our wide political
and global interests forced into an endless, energy-sapping and time-wasting series of protests against
ridiculous charges. We are not answering them any more. Take them to the relevant unit, and leave our
free speech alone."
That said, Rhys does a great job of making his point, and perhaps the concept of "hate" is not so
irrelevant to that point.
Martin Usher
Antisemitism is not what's being discussed, its just a well known example of 'hate' that we can all more
or less agree on. Its a tricky subject to discuss because its the closest thing that we have to
Thoughtcrime in contemporary society so we need some sort of ground state we can work from.
The example
of Jewish mob bosses is useful but we could have chosen American ones rather than Russian ones -- the
Jewish 'mob' was preeminent in US cities before being displaced by the Italians/Sicilians. What I think
is important, though, isn't stated and that's the idea that tribal identity has gradually been made
important with our identity is inextricably bound up with our tribe, a tribe differentiated by religion,
race or orientation but not notably by our economic class. The question shouldn't be to argue among
ourselves about details and crumbs but to ask why allowing ourselves to sliced and diced into potentially
warring groups. The media is full of it (literally and metaphorically) -- if its not race or gender then
its the latest millennial versus baby boomer BS. To me the answer is obvious -- you don't want people
uniting around common goals and expectations, you need to have them at each other's throats, fighting for
those crumbs.
Incidentally, having to put up with racist jerks is the unfortunate side effect of espousing free
speech. There's no easy way to winnow the good from the bad and you just know that if you let Big Brother
decide for you then sooner rather than later it will be *you* that they'll be coming for.
Obviously, it must be a legality
because these events are so full of obvious holes they have to be deliberate and in some cases what happens is
virtually impossible such as in the event that happened in my own city last week. Mert Ney brandishes a knife
in the middle of an amazingly empty Clarence St with BROWN EYES but when we see him pinned ludicrously under
the milk crate he has BLUE EYES, a change in eye-colour obviously effected with blue-tinted contact lenses.
Does anyone seriously believe that a dextrous Mert pulled out and inserted these contact lenses between his
knife-brandishing and being pinned?
Scrutinise the media stories. Notice all the contradictions in the various versions of the story. Notice all
the misspellings, the inappropriate tone and register of language. The phony loved ones and witnesses. The
nauseating heroes pimping their employer on morning TV. The complete absence of any sense of reality to these
highly improbable crimes. What will it take for the recognition of these events to catch on? I simply do not
understand.
Here is the word "Staged" inserted incongruously into this text. "Must have been a hell of a drug bender
"?????? How much clearer do they have to make it?
Sydney stabbing LIVE: NSW Police confirm body found in Clarence Street unit linked to attack
BREAKING: We can confirm the death of the woman in the Clarence Street unit in Sydney's CBD is linked to the
stabbing on the street below.
Staged
Must have been a hell of a drug bender
The blue/brown eyes thing is a non-issue, it can be created simply by changes in lighting levels or
resolution. We pointed this out to you once already.
If you genuinely want to engage people and are not – as many claim – a troll please take some advice:
Add the words 'I think' or 'could be' occasionally.
Don't comport like a missionary trying to convert unbelievers.
Put forward suggestions rather than pronouncements of dogma.
That way your posts might provoke some genuine discussion. If you ignore these suggestions and continue
with these repeat-posted manifestos of certitude it's going to start looking as if the claims of trollery
are not misplaced.
PS –
this commenter below
is inviting discussion of potential hoax shootings – why not engage with him ?
PPS – The link you added to the alleged contact lenses is broken, so we're removing it. Add another below
and we'll add it to this post of yours
The blue/brown eyes thing is a non-issue, it can be created simply by changes in lighting levels or
resolution. We pointed this out to you once already.
Apologies, I do not remember seeing that, however, I'm not sure your assertion is valid – you'd have
to show an example that matches mine. When you say the link didn't work I wonder if you copied the entire
link or just clicked because obviously the link wasn't underlined for its entirety and for it to work you
needed to copy and paste it. In any case I found a better link – see below.
As usual, OffG, you select one item only – which you don't manage to debunk in any case. There are so
very many things wrong with the stabbing incident story. Unsurprisingly, you fail to make a comment on
the word "Staged" appearing incongruously for example. Please, I beg you, OffG, what is your explanation
for the word "Staged" appearing incongruously in the middle of a paragraph on this story and are you
going to tell me that it is just sloppy journalism to say " must have been a hell of a drug-bender" when
a woman has just been knifed to death and another woman injured? Are you going to tell me, "sloppy
journalism"?
You seem unable to confront evidence, OffG. I have the feeling that you believe it is more scientific
to reserve judgement, that one must always sit on the fence about evidence. This is a fallacy. When all
the evidence points in a certain direction and none points in any other direction, the scientific thing
to do is to call it. It is sitting on the fence that is unscientific.
I wonder what you actually call. Do you think that it might have been 19 terrorists armed with
boxcutters responsible for 9/11 after all? Perhaps you do.
INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT
No one, despite the offer to choose your own judge, has responded to my 10-point Occam's Razor challenge
for 5 separate events nor has anyone come up with even a single point. The fact that that to you is
insignificant means you do not know how to judge logic and evidence. I have put my money where my mouth
is but, OffG, you never, ever do that.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
different frank
Just because there are uniforms, it does not mean they are cops.
No, but I think they often are because these events are really drills pushed out as real and response
agencies are key players. In this video, the very observant Woodrow Wobbles identifies training going on.
He notices one guy hanging around the milk crate who looks like a guy at an event in Melbourne and he
identifies the words, "Lock it, lock it, lock it Let go," suggesting the police are being trained.
I am in agreement with you Flax. Definitely looks like a training drill.
Doctortrinate
Flaxgirl: I looked at the Philly cop video you posted – very interesting, as am also unsure of it's
authenticity – though perhaps not for the same reason as yourself .as to myself , the drops/drips and
dribbles themselves seem to be counterfeit, possibly edited into the film – and detectable by slowly (frame
by frame) playing through it revealing some unusual and seemingly unfeasible characteristics ..of couse,
would still be fakery , but with a twist – Media created even.
Elementor
Agree. It looks at first glance as if those dots just appear, which leads to thinking the cop "sprays"
them or something similar, but on close analysis it looks wrong. I suspect it's been faked, a honeypot
for the unwary hoax-buff.
Doctortrinate
precisely Elementor – well seen and put " a honeypot for the unwary hoax-buff"
quite possibly.
Cheers.
Seamus Padraig
'Hate crimes' are just
thought-crimes
, pure and simple. They are now criminalizing political points of
view. The Constitution is dead.
even though the once-revered ACLU does not oppose the Second Amendment.
Of course the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't oppose the Second Amendment–it's a civil liberty! That
being said, with things going the way they're going, I wouldn't be at all surprised in the ACLU eventually
does
turn against the Second Amendment. Once upon a time, not so many years ago, they were free speech
absolutists as well–does anyone else here remember the infamous Skokie Nazis? The ACLU actually argued their
case pro bono! But in more recent times, they have succumbed to the logic of the campus 'hate speech' craze.
Many legal scholars would respond that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due
Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment already provides all American citizens with the guaranteed right to
equal protection under the law
And they would, too, if only the US government still followed its own constitution.
Harry Stotle
"Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit
hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly,
decisively, and without years of needless delay" – unless they are neocons in which case they can kill with
impunity under the usual rubrics – 'liberal intervention', 'bringing democracy' or 'humanitarian aid'.
Hell,
we can even stage pop-festivals and invite grotesque figures like Sir Richard to belt out 'Imagine' while the
local militia tool up with CIA hardware before wreaking havoc on unarmed civilians.
If western audiences become slightly sceptical the MSM will do its usual job of reassuring them that mass
murder is an inconvenient externality when it comes to building a brighter future.
Elementor
Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be a 'hate'
crime without providing evidence of the hate
Terrific point. Where do we draw the line on skepticism about official narratives? How much do we really
know about these shootings, the identities of the shooters, even the reality of the crimes?
I don't want to get into full "it's a hoax" mode, but surely it's only intelligent to recall there are
documented cases of fake events and therefore being prepared to allow the possibility any event may be fake is
objectively the only rational response. What stops us? Nothing more than the same kneejerk rejection that makes
other people refuse to consider 9/11 may have been an inside job or JFK may not have been shot by LHO.
It's not per se crazy to entertain the possibility, or per se offensive either. Fakery happens, we are
constantly being manipulated, being aware of all possibilities is our only defense.
The same intelligence entities that coined the phrase "conspiracy theory" have also closed down any Youtube
channels that dare to question, even in the most restrained and respectful way, the reality of any mass
shooting. But sites like this condone that censorship, not seeing the connection.
Is it possible to have a non-binary, rational, fact-based discussion about the possibility some mass
shootings may be fake?
I invite thoughts
John Thatcher
The old adage,"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" comes immediately to mind,and that particularly
applies to government and government action.As you rightly point out,there have been too many examples of
fake events and official lies for anybody to be complacent.Treat all with caution and judge on the weight
and quality of the evidence.If the evidence is not conclusive in any direction maintain a sceptical state of
mind.
Elementor
So very true. And yet so many of the enlightened are unwilling to assimilate this into their thinking.
You can call it laziness maybe. It's tempting to simply replace the received wisdom of the mainstream
media with the received wisdoms of the alternative media. But in this case what are we doing? More is
needed of us, as you so rightly say.
How many are prepared for the continuous effort of questioning and
skepticism required in order to be a truly independent and responsible human being?
The lack of responses so far here is not a good sign.
Hey there OffG columnists Phil Roddis, Ed Curtin, CJ Hopkins, Eric Zuesse, Renee Parsons, and hey
there BigB, Jen, Maggie, Antonym, Mark, and other "stars" of this forum. People actually come here to
read what you guys have to say. This question of fakery is a major subject impinging on our future
freedom.
Who of you dares to address it?
edited by Admin at author's request to correct typo
Elementor
So no one wants to have a serious non-kerazee debate about the
potential
for fake shootings?
Too far outside the Overton Window? How disappointing. It's bizarre, even flaxgirl would rather troll
the admins that just have a sensible debate with someone who'd like to talk to her.
Anna
Very good and valid question Elementor.
Not so very long ago, I happily dismissed most 'fake
shooting' narratives as either merely far-right/lumpen (sorry for such a crass
term)-baiting/monetising, conspiracy theories – of the Alex Jones variety.
However, after about two-three years of observing media biases, I find it so much easier to spot
where the overriding narratives appear to reside. However the actual events unfold is often less
important than their ultimate goal, which is of course mass censorship and getting round that
terribly inconvenient Second Amendment. This is I believe, the main agenda of the so-called Hate
Crime. Yes, I am aware that this makes me appear to some rather Info-Wars but that's the joy of
shedding my own confirmation bias!
I do now assume that there is state or states involvement in all these terror events. They are
manipulated/controlled (of sorts), whether the perpetrator knows of it or not. Some may indeed be
fake from the onset.
Empty vessels make the most noise and that is I'm afraid the state of corporate 'journalism',
who mostly whore themselves for the state/oligarchy narrative. Be very aware of ANY story that is
shilled verboten by these hacks, as they are awfully telling in the identification of agendas and
the direction of our further enslavement.
The world all over is beginning to stand up in unison against the extreme right and enemy of
environment which is the Brazilian government. a govt elected by a collective hallunation we
can t conceive or explain.
Their greedy farmers won a big congressual mass of support.
However nearly all of Brazilian agricultural exports are easily subject to substitution.
There s simply no time left for organizing economic sanctions: the forest cannot wait. It s
time simply for European, Japanese consumers to boycott everything Brazilian.
Their
supermarket chains should at once give the first shot in the battle to eliminate this threat
called Bolsonaro.
"... Ex-IMF president, and soon to be head of the ECB, Christine Lagarde personally staked her support for President Mauricio Macri's pro-market government when she steamrollered through the IMF's biggest ever bailout of $56 billion for Argentina last year ..."
"... In return for the 2018 Bailout, the IMF demanded its usual pound of flesh policies: Austerity, Austerity and Austerity, spiced with inflation-targeted monetary policy, fiscal tightening, currency controls, and the keys to the Peso printing presses. Give Lagarde some credit -- she did give lip service to the people with a smattering of minor austerity mitigants in terms of gender equality and social provision. But, essentially the IMF's answer to yet another predictable Argentinian crisis was more of the same programme. You know the definition of madness ..."
"... While the new Macri government was welcomed by markets in 2015 -- it was immediately clear it didn't have widespread and deep-rooted political support. His government was perceived as a tool of global investment banks, global money and the supranationals. The electorate went along with it for a while, but the results of "neo-liberalising" the economy were disastrous; killing jobs, creating a balance of payments crisis, devaluation, driving inflation, and yet another flirtation with default -- hence the new IMF bailout. ..."
"... Macri failed to deliver on his promises to the electorate: inflation wasn't reined in, but soared to 60-70. Instead of growth the economy tumbled into recession. And more and more people fell into extreme poverty. Compare and contrast with the experience of Argentina under the populist Peronistas, the Kirchners, who drove recovery in the early 2000s via easy monetary and a massive fiscal spending initiatives. These didn't work so well when commodities declined, recession struck the currency sagged and massive monetary corruption followed. Argentina came close to default in 2012, and a naval vessel was actually seized by one creditor! ..."
"... The answer is not Austerity, Austerity, Austerity -- but that's her most likely only weapon in the ECB's armoury. There are clear parallels between Argentina and Europe -- much to be learnt in how not to handle recovery in the face of populism and undeliverable political promises. ..."
This morning's headlines are screaming how Argentina and President Mauricio Macri have precipitated yet another crisis on the
stressed geopolitical battlefront Relax. We are more than used to dealing with Argentina defaults But, its far more complex than
that. The latest Argentina Dance Macabre is all about Global Credibility. It's another Massive Fail!
What does it say about the credibility of Global Institutions and Policy when Argentina's whole market collapsed following a primary
for an election in December? Ex-IMF president, and soon to be head of the ECB, Christine Lagarde personally staked her support
for President Mauricio Macri's pro-market government when she steamrollered through the IMF's biggest ever bailout of $56 billion
for Argentina last year .
It now looks an extremely poor call on Lagarde's part. Macri won a mere 32% of the vote, while former president Cristina Fernandez
de Kirchner won 47%. Don't Cry for Me Argentina indeed Domestic Argentine Politics have left the IMF looking stupid.
There are three major issues to consider here:
First there is the absolute predictability of what's just happened in Argentina:
In return for the 2018 Bailout, the IMF demanded its usual pound of flesh policies: Austerity, Austerity and Austerity, spiced
with inflation-targeted monetary policy, fiscal tightening, currency controls, and the keys to the Peso printing presses. Give Lagarde
some credit -- she did give lip service to the people with a smattering of minor austerity mitigants in terms of gender equality
and social provision. But, essentially the IMF's answer to yet another predictable Argentinian crisis was more of the same programme.
You know the definition of madness
The programme did achieve some minor success: bringing down Argentina's primary deficit and putting the trade balance in to surplus
-- but only because they spent IMF money supporting the peso. "Surprisingly" Austerity wasn't to the electorate's taste -- inflation
remains out of control and poverty is rising allowing politicians to exploit the widening income-gap divide. What a complete shock!
Who could have possibly predicted an unhappy electorate would damn Macri at the polls and favour former Peronista's from the last
century instead? (US Readers -- Massive Sarcasm Alert.)
While the new Macri government was welcomed by markets in 2015 -- it was immediately clear it didn't have widespread and deep-rooted
political support. His government was perceived as a tool of global investment banks, global money and the supranationals. The electorate
went along with it for a while, but the results of "neo-liberalising" the economy were disastrous; killing jobs, creating a balance
of payments crisis, devaluation, driving inflation, and yet another flirtation with default -- hence the new IMF bailout.
Macri failed to deliver on his promises to the electorate: inflation wasn't reined in, but soared to 60-70. Instead of growth
the economy tumbled into recession. And more and more people fell into extreme poverty. Compare and contrast with the experience
of Argentina under the populist Peronistas, the Kirchners, who drove recovery in the early 2000s via easy monetary and a massive
fiscal spending initiatives. These didn't work so well when commodities declined, recession struck the currency sagged and massive
monetary corruption followed. Argentina came close to default in 2012, and a naval vessel was actually seized by one creditor!
The Macri programme effectively went to the dogs y'day. The laughable Argie Century Bond crashed as low as 60 y'day. Default swaps
are 40 cents upfront (pay $40mm to insure $100mm). Short-term debt is yielding near 40%. Argentinians voted for former leftist politician
Kirchner instead, despite the widespread accusations of corruption, and the likelihood her election will simply deepen ongoing crisis.
The second point to this on-going Argentine Crisis is what does it say about Lagarde?
She is a gifted politician, a former French finance and apparently very efficient. She is not a trained central banker, but give
her credit for being self-aware. She recently admitted : "The Argentine economic situation has proved incredibly complicated and
I dare say that many of those involved, including us, underestimated a bit, when we started with the Argentine authorities building
the programme."
Her new job at the ECB is going to be a political minefield. She will need to draw Europe into agreement on fiscal policy support
for Southern European Economies -- which is a massive political issue when she's seen as Macron's candidate, Merkel is about to exit
the stage, and the next crop of German Leader's look crushingly incompetent in the leadership department. The Italian League has
already thrown down it's gauntlet -- if they don't get permission to start spending their way out of recession, they are going to
do it anyway.
Lagarde has to balance the economic conservatism of Europe's strongest economy, Germany, against the risks of "free-spending"
other European's creating further debt crisis. And she has to do it while holding the Euro together, dealing with consequences of
Brexit, and being a distinct number 2 on the priority list for national governments. Is she up to it?
If Lagarde thinks Argentina's economic situation is complex, wait till she tries to balance the ECB. Her job is not to simply
continue the "do-what-ever-it-takes" Mario Draghi "keep-the-Euro-going" mantras, but to actually move the European economy forward
in a political vacuum. The answer is not Austerity, Austerity, Austerity -- but that's her most likely only weapon in the ECB's
armoury. There are clear parallels between Argentina and Europe -- much to be learnt in how not to handle recovery in the face of
populism and undeliverable political promises.
The third point to learnt from the new Argentina crisis is who leads the IMF now that Legarde is off to Frankfurt?
The European's have decided they want their compromise candidate, Kristalina Georgieva, to lead the institution. Its always been
led by a European. Rest of world don't like that. While I'm sure Ms. Georgieva of the World Bank is an excellent candidate I am sure
there are better. Mark Carney -- Canadian and Irish. Why Not. He's a proper banker..
Bravo Argentina! They know how to play the game. He who defaults first can default the most. Get money, pass it around the
corrupt establishment, default again, get mo money!
"... Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name. ..."
"... In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets, also funded by the FO. ..."
"... "The Guardian is struggling for money" Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets. ..."
OffGuardian already covered the Global Media Freedom Conference, our article
Hypocrisy Taints UK's
Media Freedom Conference , was meant to be all there was to say. A quick note on the obvious hypocrisy of this event. But, in
the writing, I started to see more than that. This event is actually creepy. Let's just look back at one of the four "main themes"
of this conference:
Building trust in media and countering disinformation
"Countering disinformation"? Well, that's just another word for censorship. This is proven by their refusal to allow Sputnik or RT
accreditation. They claim RT "spreads disinformation" and they "countered" that by barring them from attending. "Building trust"?
In the post-Blair world of PR newspeak, "building trust" is just another way of saying "making people believe us" (the word usage
is actually interesting, building trust not earning trust). The whole conference is shot through with this language
that just feels off. Here is CNN's
Christiane Amanpour :
Our job is to be truthful, not neutral we need to take a stand for the truth, and never to create a false moral or factual equivalence."
Being "truthful not neutral" is one of Amanpour's
personal sayings
, she obviously thinks it's clever. Of course, what it is is NewSpeak for "bias". Refusing to cover evidence of The White
Helmets staging rescues, Israel arming ISIS or other inconvenient facts will be defended using this phrase – they will literally
claim to only publish "the truth", to get around impartiality and then set about making up whatever "truth" is convenient. Oh, and
if you don't know what "creating a false moral quivalence is", here I'll demonstrate: MSM: Putin is bad for shutting down critical
media. OffG: But you're supporting RT being banned and Wikileaks being shut down. BBC: No. That's not the same. OffG: It seems the
same. BBC: It's not. You're creating a false moral equivalence . Understand now? You "create a false moral equivalence" by
pointing out mainstream media's double standards. Other ways you could mistakenly create a "false moral equivalence": Bringing up
Gaza when the media talk about racism. Mentioning Saudi Arabia when the media preach about gay rights. Referencing the US coup in
Venezuela when the media work themselves into a froth over Russia's "interference in our democracy" Talking about the invasion of
Iraq. Ever. OR Pointing out that the BBC is state funded, just like RT. These are all no-longer flagrant examples of the media's
double standards, and if you say they are , you're "creating a false moral equivalence" and the media won't have to allow
you (or anyone who agrees with you) air time or column inches to disagree. Because they don't have a duty to be neutral or show both
sides, they only have a duty to tell "the truth" as soon as the government has told them what that is. Prepare to see both those
phrases – or variations there of – littering editorials in the Guardian and the Huffington Post in the coming months. Along
with people bemoaning how "fake news outlets abuse the notion of impartiality" by "being even handed between liars the truth tellers".
(I've been doing this site so long now, I have a Guardian-English dictionary in my head).
Equally dodgy-sounding buzz-phrases litter topics on the agenda. "Eastern Europe and Central Asia: building an integrated support
system for journalists facing hostile environments" , this means pumping money into NGOs to fund media that will criticize our
"enemies" in areas of strategic importance. It means flooding money into the anti-government press in Hungary, or Iran or (of course),
Russia. That is ALL it means. I said in my earlier article I don't know what "media sustainability" even means, but I feel I can
take a guess. It means "save the government mouthpieces". The Guardian is struggling for money, all print media are, TV news
is getting lower viewing figures all the time. "Building media sustainability" is code for "pumping public money into traditional
media that props up the government" or maybe "getting people to like our propaganda". But the worst offender on the list is, without
a doubt "Navigating Disinformation"
"Navigating Disinformation" was a 1 hour panel from the second day of the conference. You can watch it embedded above if you really
feel the need. I already did, so you don't have to. The panel was chaired by Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister. The
members included the Latvian Foreign Minister, a representative of the US NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Ukrainian
Deputy Minister of Information
Have you guessed what "disinformation" they're going to be talking about? I'll give you a clue: It begins with R. Freeland, chairing
the panel, kicks it off by claiming that "disinformation isn't for any particular aim" . This is a very common thing for establishment
voices to repeat these days, which makes it all the more galling she seems to be pretending its is her original thought. The reason
they have to claim that "disinformation" doesn't have a "specific aim" is very simple: They don't know what they're going to call
"disinformation" yet. They can't afford to take a firm position, they need to keep their options open. They need to give themselves
the ability to describe any single piece of information or political opinion as "disinformation." Left or right. Foreign or domestic.
"Disinformation" is a weaponised term that is only as potent as it is vague. So, we're one minute in, and all "navigating disinformation"
has done is hand the State an excuse to ignore, or even criminalise, practically anything it wants to. Good start. Interestingly,
no one has actually said the word "Russia" at this point. They have talked about "malign actors" and "threats to democracy", but
not specifically Russia. It is SO ingrained in these people that "propaganda"= " Russian propaganda" that they don't need
to say it.
The idea that NATO as an entity, or the individual members thereof, could also use "disinformation" has not just been dismissed
it was literally never even contemplated. Next Freeland turns to Edgars Rinkēvičs, her Latvian colleague, and jokes about always
meeting at NATO functions. The Latvians know "more than most" about disinformation, she says. Rinkēvičs says disinformation is nothing
new, but that the methods of spreading it are changing then immediately calls for regulation of social media. Nobody disagrees. Then
he talks about the "illegal annexation of Crimea", and claims the West should outlaw "paid propaganda" like RT and Sputnik. Nobody
disagrees. Then he says that Latvia "protected" their elections from "interference" by "close cooperation between government agencies
and social media companies". Everyone nods along. If you don't find this terrifying, you're not paying attention. They don't say
it, they probably don't even realise they mean it, but when they talk about "close cooperation with social media networks", they
mean government censorship of social media. When they say "protecting" their elections they're talking about rigging them. It only
gets worse. The next step in the Latvian master plan is to bolster "traditional media".
The problems with traditional media, he says, are that journalists aren't paid enough, and don't keep up to date with all the
"new tricks". His solution is to "promote financing" for traditional media, and to open more schools like the "Baltic Centre of Media
Excellence", which is apparently a totally real thing .
It's a training centre which teaches young journalists about "media literacy" and "critical thinking". You can read their depressingly
predictable list of "donors" here . I truly wish I was joking. Next
up is Courtney Radsch from CPJ – a US-backed NGO, who notionally "protect journalists", but more accurately spread pro-US propaganda.
(Their token effort to "defend"
RT and Sputnik when they were barred from the conference was contemptible).
She talks for a long time without saying much at all. Her revolutionary idea is that disinformation could be countered if everyone
told the truth. Inspiring. Beata Balogova, Journalist and Editor from Slovakia, gets the ship back on course – immediately suggesting
politicians should not endorse "propaganda" platforms. She shares an anecdote about "a prominent Slovakian politician" who gave exclusive
interviews to a site that is "dubiously financed, we assume from Russia". They assume from Russia. Everyone nods.
It's like they don't even hear themselves.
Then she moves on to Hungary. Apparently, Orban has "created a propaganda machine" and produced "antisemitic George Soros posters".
No evidence is produced to back-up either of these claims. She thinks advertisers should be pressured into not giving money to "fake
news sites". She calls for "international pressure", but never explains exactly what that means. The stand-out maniac on this panel
is Emine Dzhaparova, the Ukrainian First Deputy Minister of Information Policy. (She works for the Ministry of Information – nicknamed
the Ministry of Truth, which was formed in 2014 to "counter lies about Ukraine". Even
The Guardian thought that sounded dodgy.)
She talks very fast and, without any sense of irony, spills out a story that shoots straight through "disinformation" and becomes
"incoherent rambling". She claims that Russian citizens are so brainwashed you'll never be able to talk to them, and that Russian
"cognitive influence" is "toxic like radiation." Is this paranoid, quasi-xenophobic nonsense countered? No. Her fellow panelists
nod and chuckle. On top of that, she just lies. She lies over and over and over again. She claims Russia is locking up Crimean Tartars
"just for being muslims", nobody questions her. She says the war in Ukraine has killed 13,000 people, but doesn't mention that her
side is responsible for over 80% of civilian deaths.
She says only 30% of Crimeans voted in the referendum, and that they were "forced". A fact not supported by
any polls done by either side in the last
four years, and any referenda held
on the peninsula any time in the last last 30 year. It's simply a lie. Nobody asks her about the journalists
killed in Ukraine since their
glorious Maidan Revolution . Nobody questions the fact that she works for something called the "Ministry of Information". Nobody
does anything but nod and smile as the "countering disinformation" panel becomes just a platform for spreading total lies.
When everyone on the panel has had their ten minutes on the soapbox, Freeland asks for recommendations for countering this "threat"
– here's the list:
Work to distinguish "free speech" from "propaganda", when you find propaganda there must be a "strong reaction".
Pressure advertisers to abandon platforms who spread misinformation.
Regulate social media.
Educate journalists at special schools.
Start up a "Ministry of Information" and have state run media that isn't controlled, like in Ukraine.
This is the Global Conference on Media Freedom and all these six people want to talk about is how to control what can be said,
and who can say it. They single only four countries out for criticism: Hungary, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia .and Russia takes
up easily 90% of that. They mention only two media outlets by name: RT and Sputnik. This wasn't a panel on disinformation, it was
a public attack forum – a month's worth of 2 minutes of hate. These aren't just shills on this stage, they are solid gold idiots,
brainwashed to the point of total delusion.
They are the dangerous glassy eyes of a Deep State that never questions itself, never examines itself, and will do anything it
wants, to anyone it wants whilst happily patting itself on the back for its superior morality. They don't know, they don't care.
They're true believers. Terrifyingly dead inside. Talking about state censorship and re-education camps under a big sign that says
"Freedom". And that's just one talk. Just one panel in a 2 day itinerary filled to the brim with similarly soul-dead servants of
authority. Truly, perfectly Orwellian.
Read and be appalled at what America is up to .keep for further reference. We are in danger.
Tim Jenkins
It would serve Ms. Amanpour well, to relax, rewind & review her own interview with Sergei Lavrov:-
Then she might see why Larry King could stomach the appalling corporate dictatorship, even to the core of False & Fake recording
of 'our' "History of the National Security State" , No More
Amanpour was forced to laugh uncontrollably, when confronted with Lavrov's humorous interpretations of various legal aspects
of decency & his Judgement of others' politicians and 'Pussy Riots' >>> if you haven't seen it, it is to be recommended, the whole
interview, if nothing else but to study the body language and micro-facial expressions, coz' a belly up laugh is not something
anybody can easily control or even feign that first spark of cognition in her mind, as she digests Lavrov's response :- hilarious
Einstein
A GE won't solve matters since we have a Government of Occupation behind a parliament of puppets.
Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which
is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name.
In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business
of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign
countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets,
also funded by the FO.
Pryce's ventriloquist's dummy in parliament, the pompous Alan Duncan, announced another £10 million of public money for this
odious brainwashing programme.
Tim Jenkins
That panel should be nailed & plastered over, permanently:-
and as wall paper, 'Abstracts of New Law' should be pasted onto a collage of historic extracts from the Guardian, in
offices that issue journalistic licenses, comprised of 'Untouchables' :-
A professional habitat, to damp any further 'Freeland' amplification & resonance,
of negative energy from professional incompetence.
Francis Lee
Apropos of the redoubtable Ms Freeland, Canada's Foreign Secretary.
The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland's maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)
Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by
the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor
in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper
publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp. During the German Army's winning phase of the war, Chomiak
celebrated in print the Wehrmacht's "success" at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat
by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda,
at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against
Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero.
Those Ukrainian 'Refugees' admitted to Canada in 1945 were almost certainly members of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizia 1.
These Ukie collaboraters – not to be confused with the other Ukie Nazi outfit – Stepan Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army -were
held responsible for the massacre of many Poles in the Lviv area the most infamous being carried out in the Polish village of
Huta Pienacka. In the massacre, the village was destroyed and between 500] and 1,000 of the inhabitants were killed. According
to Polish accounts, civilians were locked in barns that were set on fire while those attempting to flee were killed. That's about
par for the course.
Canada's response was as follows:
The Canadian Deschênes Commission was set up to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the collaborators
Memorial to SS-Galizien division in Chervone, Lviv Oblast, western Ukraine
The Canadian "Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes" of October 1986, by the Honourable Justice Jules Deschênesconcluded that in
relation to membership in the Galicia Division:
''The Galicia Division (14. Waffen grenadier division der SS [gal.1]) should not be indicted as a group. The members of Galicia
Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada. Charges of war crimes of Galicia Division
have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this
Commission. Further, in the absence of evidence of participation or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia
Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.''
However, the Commission's conclusion failed to acknowledge or heed the International Military Tribunal's verdict at the Nuremberg
Trials, in which the entire Waffen-SSorganisation was declared a "criminal organization" guilty of war crimes. Also, the Deschênes
Commission in its conclusion only referenced the division as 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1), thus in legal
terms, only acknowledging the formation's activity after its name change in August 1944, while the massacre of Poles in Huta Pieniacka,
Pidkamin and Palikrowy occurred when the division was called SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien". Nevertheless, a subsequent review
by Canada's Minister of Justice again confirmed that members of the Division were not implicated in war crimes.
Yes, the west looks after its Nazis and even makes them and their descendants political figureheads.
mark
Most of these people are so smugly and complacently convinced of their own moral superiority that they just can't see the hypocrisy
and doublethink involved in the event.
Meanwhile Owen Jones has taken to Twitter to rubbish allegations that a reign of terror exists at Guardian Towers – the socialist
firebrand is quoted as saying 'journalists are free to say whatever they like, so long as it doesn't stray too far from Guardian-groupthink'.
Good analysis Kit, of the cognitive dissonant ping pong being played out by Nazi sympathisers such as Hunt and Freeland.
The echo chamber of deceit is amplified again by the selective use of information and the ignoring of relevant facts, such
as the miss reporting yesterday by Reuters of the Italian Neo-Nazi haul of weapons by the police, having not Russian but Ukrainian
links.
Not a word in the WMSM about this devious miss-reporting as the creation of fake news in action. But what would you expect?
Living as I do in Russia I can assure anyone reading this that the media freedom here is on a par with the West and somewhat
better as there is no paranoia about a fictitious enemy – Russians understand that the West is going through an existential crisis
(Brexit in the UK, Trump and the Clinton war of sameness in the US and Macron and Merkel in the EU). A crisis of Liberalism as
the failed life-support of capitalism. But hey, why worry about the politics when there is bigger fish to fry. Such as who will
pay me to dance?
The answer is clear from what Kit has writ. The government will pay the piper. How sweet.
I'd like to thank Kit for sitting through such a turgid masquerade and as I'm rather long in the tooth I do remember the old
BBC schools of journalism in Yelsin's Russia. What I remember is that old devious Auntie Beeb was busy training would be hopefuls
in the art of discretion regarding how the news is formed, or formulated.
In other words your audience. And it ain't the public
The British government's "Online Harms" White Paper has a whole section devoted to "disinformation" (ie, any facts, opinions,
analyses, evaluations, critiques that are critical of the elite's actual disinformation). If these proposals become law, the government
will have effective control over the Internet and we will be allowed access to their disinformation, shop and watch cute cat videos.
Question This
The liberal news media & hypocrisy, who would have ever thought you'd see those words in the same sentence.
But what do you expect from professional liars, politicians & 'their' free press?
Can this shit show get any worse? Yes, The other day I wrote to my MP regards the SNP legislating against the truth, effectively
making it compulsory to lie! Mr Blackford as much as called me a transphobic & seemed to go to great length publishing his neo-liberal
ideological views in some scottish rag, on how right is wrong & fact is turned into fiction & asked only those that agreed with
him contact him.
Tim Jenkins
"The science or logical consistency of true premise, cannot take place or bear fruit, when all communication and information is
'marketised and weaponised' to a mindset of possession and control."
B.Steere
Mikalina
I saw, somewhere (but can't find it now) a law or a prospective law which goes under the guise of harassment of MPs to include
action against constituents who 'pester' them.
I only emailed him once! That's hardly harassment. Anyway I sent it with proton-mail via vpn & used a false postcode using only
my first name so unlikely my civil & sincere correspondence will see me locked up for insisting my inalienable rights of freedom
of speech & beliefs are protected. But there again the state we live in, i may well be incarcerated for life, for such an outrageous
expectation.
Where to?
"The Guardian is struggling for money"
Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets.
Harry Stotle
Its the brazen nature of the conference that is especially galling, but what do you expect when crooks and liars no longer feel
they even have to pretend?
Nothing will change so long as politicians (or their shady backers) are never held to account for public assets diverted toward
a rapacious off-shore economic system, or the fact millions of lives have been shattered by the 'war on terror' and its evil twin,
'humanatarian regime change' (while disingenuous Labour MPs wail about the 'horrors' of antisemitism rather than the fact their
former leader is a key architect of the killings).
Kit remains a go-to voice when deconstructing claims made by political figures who clearly regard the MSM as a propaganda vehicle
for promoting western imperialism – the self-satisfied smugness of cunts like Jeremy Cunt stand in stark contrast to a real journalist
being tortured by the British authorities just a few short miles away.
It's a sligtly depressing thought but somebody has the unenviable task of monitoring just how far our politicians have drifted
from the everyday concerns of the 'just about managing' and as I say Mr Knightly does a fine job in informing readers what the
real of agenda of these media love-ins are actually about – it goes without saying a very lengthy barge pole is required when
the Saudis are invited but not Russia.
Where to?
This Media Freedom Conference is surely a creepy theatre of the absurd.
It is a test of what they can get away with.
Mikalina
Yep. Any soviet TV watcher would recognise this immediately. Message? THIS is the reality – and you are powerless.
mark
When are they going to give us the Ministry of Truth we so desperately need?
Is this the end of the neoliberal counterrevolution in Argentina ? Moor did its duty moor has
to go -- Macri converted Argentina into the Debt slave again and now to get out of this situation
is nest to impossible.
Argentine president suffers crushing defeat in key primaries ahead of general election
Argentina's President Mauricio Macri suffered a crushing defeat as people voted in party
primaries on Sunday ahead of October's general election.
Given that all of the recession-hit South American country's major parties have already
chosen their presidential candidates, the primaries effectively served as a nationwide
pre-election opinion poll.
Center-left nominee Alberto Fernandez led by around 15 points after partial results were
revealed. Center-right Pro-business Macri admitted it had been "a bad election."
The first round of the presidential election will be held on October 27, with a run-off
– if needed – set for November 24.
With 87 percent of polling station results counted, Fernandez had polled 47.5 percent with
Macri on a little more than 32 percent and centrist former finance minister Roberto Lavagna a
distant third on just 8.3 percent.
Macri had been hoping to earn a second mandate, but his chances appear all but over.
If Fernandez was to register the same result in October, he would be president as
Argentina's electoral law requires a candidate to gain 45 percent for outright victory, or 40
percent and a lead of at least 10 points over the nearest challenger.
Inflation and poverty
"We've had a bad election and that forces us to redouble our efforts from tomorrow," said
Macri, whose popularity has plunged since last year's currency crisis and the much-criticized
56 billion U.S.-dollar bail-out loan he secured from the International Monetary Fund.
"It hurts that we haven't had the support we'd hoped for," he added.
Argentina is currently in a recession and posted 22 percent inflation for the first
half of the year – one of the highest rates in the world. Poverty now affects 32
percent of the population.
Backed by the IMF, Macri has initiated an austerity plan that is deeply unpopular among
ordinary Argentines, who have seen their spending power plummet.
The peso lost half of its value against the dollar last year. The Buenos Aires stock
exchange actually shot up eight percent on Friday amid expectation that Macri would do well
in Sunday's vote.
An important task now is to understand why the IMF assistance to Argentina proved damaging to
the economy from the beginning; the data showed the damage being done. However, there was
almost no mention of the problems that developed outside Argentina and there was surprise
when the failure of the economy was reflected in the serious vote against the current
president.
Of course, Joseph Stiglitz watched the same sort of problems unfold in Argentina almost 20
years ago and was severely criticized for discussing them. How did the problems recur so
readily now? Why is IMF national assistance seemingly so dangerous economically?
"Thus we see how the neoliberal utopia tends to embody itself in the reality of a kind of infernal machine, whose necessity imposes
itself even upon the rulers. Like the Marxism of an earlier time, with which, in this regard, it has much in common, this utopia
evokes powerful belief - the free trade faith - not only among those who live off it, such as financiers, the owners and managers
of large corporations, etc., but also among those, such as high-level government officials and politicians, who derive their justification
for existing from it.
For they sanctify the power of markets in the name of economic efficiency, which requires the elimination of administrative or
political barriers capable of inconveniencing the owners of capital in their individual quest for the maximisation of individual
profit, which has been turned into a model of rationality. They want independent central banks.
And they preach the subordination of nation-states to the requirements of economic freedom for the masters of the economy, with
the suppression of any regulation of any market, beginning with the labour market, the prohibition of deficits and inflation, the
general privatisation of public services, and the reduction of public and social expenses."
Estou procurando o primeiro mundo para explorar essas áreas em parceria e agregando
valor. Por isso, a minha aproximação com os Estados Unidos
[ I'm asking the First World to exploit these areas in partnership and aggregating value.
Hence my approximation with the USA ]
This makes it very clear Bolsonaro is not choosing his economic partners on the basis of
what is better for Brazil, but for what is better to the (neo)liberal order (i.e. the West).
His usage of Cold War propaganda terminology ("First World" as a synonym to "USA") gives him
up.
The Brazilian government knows there's a massive mineral reserve in Amazon territory
(Serra dos Carajás, eastern Amazon rainforest) since the times of the military
dictatorship (1964-1985); however, the importance of the rainforest in the ecological
regulation of the world kept them from fully exploiting them -- until now.
There are plenty of minerals the Americans can get their hands at in the Serra dos
Carajás (mainly iron, but also rare metals and uranium), but Pepe Escobar rose an
interesting hypothesis in
a recent article for the Asia Times , where he stated that:
And then there's the crucial – for the industrialized West – niobium angle (a
metal known for its hardness). Roughly 78% of Brazilian niobium reserves are located in the
southeast, not in the Amazon, which accounts at best for 18%. The abundance of niobium in
Brazil will last all the way to 2200 – even taking into consideration non-stop,
exponential Chinese GDP growth. But the Amazon is not about niobium. It's about gold
– to be duly shipped to the West.
We already know Russia and China have been stocking up gold to their reserves in order to
prepare a dedollarization process. Gold is the shortest path to dedollarize a national and/or
regional financial system because, traditionally, it served as universal money until the fiat
currency era (1971-). It's a universal language in the financial world to tell another
country that you ultimately have the leverage to do finance outside the American system (i.e.
that you're not bullshitting).
With this seemingly rushed decision to seize Amazonic gold from the Brazilians -- and
right after the last disappointing 2.1% GDP growth in this last quarter -- it looks like the
dedollarization enforced by China and Russia is finally beginning to bite in the USA.
But we must not get to the illusion the gold standard will come back: if this is the
beginning of a new Gold Rush, then it will not last for much, since most geologists agree the
world reserves of gold are almost all exploited (they can do a good extrapolation to the gold
available in the Earth thanks to some cosmologogical science about the origins of the planet
that I don't understand very well, so this diagnosis is -- contrary to the infamous oil
predictions -- pretty much definitive). The gold standard, by the way, was terrible: it was a
deflationary system that led to periodical famine in Europe during the Industrial Revolutions
(gold could not be produced, so production stopped when prices went down too much) and
probably was the main factor that triggered the French Revolution of 1789.
@ vk with the report on the empire rape of Brazil and words about gold as a value attached to
"money"
Sorry about what is slated to happen to the Amazon region.
Gold has been historically attached to the "value" of money and silver as well to a lesser
degree. That said, they represent physical value to the specie of exchange, if attached.
Specie with physical value is one step removed from barter. If/when the specie becomes
fiat, meaning no more connection to physical value then it becomes debt at its core unless
you and others have faith that it has more than the "paper printed on".
And that is where we are at today. In 1971, gold was removed from connection to the global
Reserve Currency which then made "money" fiat and it has been that way until the present.
But that debt laden fiat money system is a cancer on the lifeblood of human interactions
and China and other countries are saying to the elite that own global Western private finance
that they want to return to value associated money AND the controls over the
manipulation/elimination of that value.
Socialism or barbarism is the question on the table.
"... The nationalist faction of the party played a critical role. The Greek media begun a new round of propaganda against Tsipras administration. They managed to persuade many Greeks that the agreement for the name of North Macedonia was an act of treason against Greece's national interest. And that, New Democracy, the traditional right, is still patriotic and would had never sign such an agreement. This was actually the epicenter of propaganda. Of course, the truth is that the neoliberal New Democracy would had sign whatever the Western imperialists wanted. It's ideologically identical with them, after all. ..."
The result of the recent Greek national elections will puzzle future historians for decades. The Greek voters gave a clear victory
to the conservative right party, New Democracy, which will govern with 158 seats, without the need to make any coalitions.
It could be characterized a "paradoxical" result mainly for two reasons:
First, the voters gave a clear governmental order to one of the traditional powers of the old political system, which are highly
responsible for the Greek crisis that erupted in 2010. Several top names of the new government, and even New Democracy leader, Kyriakos
Mitsotakis, have been accused of being involved in various corruption scandals, in the not so distant past.
Second, the fact that the voters elected perhaps the most fanatically neoliberal government ever. This means that Mitsotakis administration
is expected to implement the brutal neoliberal policies imposed by Greece's creditors to the letter. Recall that those policies deepened
the recession and made things worse for the economy.
It is now well-known that Greece's creditors sacrificed the country to save the banks. Yet, after nine years of brutal austerity
measures, the economy is not looking good at all. Debt has reached 180% of GDP from 120% when Greece entered the bailout program.
Banks have been bailed-out with billions and still are not lending money to real economy and especially the small-medium business
sector.
Yet, right before the election day, a New Democracy member (Babis Papadimitriou) who got elected,
suggested that the 'safety pillow' of 37 billion - which the Greek government managed to collect through the brutal
implementation of insane surpluses - should be given to the banks!
Note that Babis Papadimitriou is a former journalist worked for the Skai TV station. The station openly supported New Democracy,
and its owners are part of the oligarchy that was very displeased with the SYRIZA administration. That's because Tsipras was not
willing to succumb to oligarchy's interests.
The current New Democracy party is a product of the Greek oligarchy establishment. The party - especially after the eruption of
the Greek crisis in 2010 - has been transformed into an unprecedented and peculiar mixture of some of the most fanatic neoliberals
and some of the most fanatic nationalists.
The nationalist faction of the party played a critical role. The Greek media begun a
new round
of propaganda against Tsipras administration. They managed to persuade many Greeks that the agreement for the name of
North Macedonia was an act of treason against Greece's national interest. And that, New Democracy, the traditional right, is still
patriotic and would had never sign such an agreement. This was actually the epicenter of propaganda. Of course, the truth is that
the neoliberal New Democracy would had sign whatever the Western imperialists wanted. It's ideologically identical with them, after
all.
The bad news for the neoliberal establishment is that SYRIZA managed to maintain a significant portion of its power (31.53%).
This has brought a kind of embarrassment to the establishment because SYRIZA is still not under full control. It is not accidental
that various circles close to New Democracy were implying that apart from a clear victory, another target would be the strategic
defeat of SYRIZA. Meaning, the return of SYRIZA to its pre-crisis 3% level.
So, the establishment sense that there is a 'danger' that the party could slip again away from the neoliberal order imposed by
the power centers inside and outside Greece. Maintaining such a power, it may become a real threat to the neoliberal order again.
However, many of these things probably won't matter because now New Democracy has four years to implement the most devastating
neoliberal program, without any significant resistance. This is its sole mission. To transform the country into a neoliberal paradise
for the oligarchs and the foreign investment 'predators'. And this 'brilliant' plan will be paid one more time by the Greeks, who
will see the destruction of public health and education. The destruction of social state. The complete looting of public property.
The destruction of whatever has left from labor rights and social security.
The Greeks have just committed suicide by electing the most fanatically neoliberal government ever.
"... There's a curious alliance occurring between right-wing authoritarianism and neoliberalism, which is very very troubling. ..."
"... When the neoliberal ethic was first being proposed, it was very much being proposed to the generation of 68 and saying to that generation, 'Look, you want individual liberty and freedom. OK, we'll give it to you in this neoliberal form, which is a very political, economic form, and you have to forget other issues, like social justice and the like.' So, it seeped its way into the discourse of much of the Left and this creates a sort of tolerance for some neoliberal practices. ..."
"... The first revolt against the neoliberal order was Seattle, which was the anti-globalization movement and then all of the picketing of the IMF and G20's meetings. At that point, the ruling class has started to say 'well this could get out of hand, we need a government structure that's gonna sit on these people and do it really, really hard.' ..."
"... So, when Occupy Wall Street came along, which was a fairly small and fairly innocent kind of movement, Wall Street got paranoid. And basically summoned the New York mayor at the time - who was the Wall Street character Bloomberg - to say 'squash these people.' And so, at this point, the perpetuation of the neoliberal order starts to become more and more guaranteed by state authoritarianism and neoconservatism. Which now, has morphed a little bit into this kind of right-wing populism. ..."
"... Indeed, in the early 70s, right after the 1968 movement and when neoliberalism starts to become the dominant ideology, the Left retreated and retired from the idea of a collective struggle. ..."
David Harvey speaks with Greg Wilpert and describes how neoliberalism neutralized the Left
in the early 70s and why now there is a peculiar alliance between neoliberalism and right-wing
authoritarianism.
As Harvey points out:
There's a curious alliance occurring between right-wing authoritarianism and neoliberalism,
which is very very troubling.
When the neoliberal ethic was first being proposed, it was very much being proposed to the
generation of 68 and saying to that generation, 'Look, you want individual liberty and freedom.
OK, we'll give it to you in this neoliberal form, which is a very political, economic form, and
you have to forget other issues, like social justice and the like.' So, it seeped its way into
the discourse of much of the Left and this creates a sort of tolerance for some neoliberal
practices.
Neoliberalism has a very clever way of turning things around and blaming the victim. And we
saw that in the foreclosures of the housing and all this kind of stuff. Many people who were
foreclosed upon, didn't blame the system. What they blamed was themselves.
When Clinton came in promising all kinds of benefits and gave us all these neoliberal reforms,
at that point, people kind of said 'you know, this is not really working for me, and what's
more, there's something going on here which is not right.'
The first revolt against the neoliberal order was Seattle, which was the anti-globalization
movement and then all of the picketing of the IMF and G20's meetings. At that point, the ruling
class has started to say 'well this could get out of hand, we need a government structure
that's gonna sit on these people and do it really, really hard.'
So, when Occupy Wall Street came along, which was a fairly small and fairly innocent kind of
movement, Wall Street got paranoid. And basically summoned the New York mayor at the time - who
was the Wall Street character Bloomberg - to say 'squash these people.' And so, at this point,
the perpetuation of the neoliberal order starts to become more and more guaranteed by state
authoritarianism and neoconservatism. Which now, has morphed a little bit into this kind of
right-wing populism.
So, in a sense the neoliberal order is being perpetuated by this authoritarian shift. And that
should give the Left a good possibility to mount a counter-attack in certain parts of the
world.
Indeed, in the early 70s, right after the 1968 movement and when neoliberalism starts to
become the dominant ideology, the Left retreated and retired from the idea of a collective
struggle.
As Adam Curtis describes
in his film, HyperNormalisation :
The extraordinary thing was that no one opposed the bankers. The radicals and the Left
wingers who, ten years before, had dreamed of changing America through revolution, did nothing.
They had retreated and were living in abandoned buildings in Manhattan. The singer Patti Smith
later described the mood of disillusion that had come over them. "I could not identify with the
political movements any longer," she said. "All the manic activity in the streets. In trying to
join them, I felt overwhelmed by yet another form of bureaucracy." What she was describing was
a rise of a new, powerful individualism that could not fit with the idea of collective
political action. Instead, Patti Smith and many others became a new kind of individual radical,
who watched the decaying city with a cool detachment. They didn't try to change it. They just
experienced it.
So, the critical question today is whether the time has come for the Left to revive and
exterminate the neoliberal/far-right authoritarian beast.
"... The biggest economic problem is "corporate welfare" find out how much subsidy the UK government 'gives' to profitable corporations, the ordinary taxpayers loss. ..."
Marx, Engels and Gramsci all died before the second world war began. I doubt they had much to
say about what caused it.
Regarding the posited failure of "neoliberalism", if you want to know what real failure of
a political and economic system looks like, have a look at the consequences of Marxism for
every country where it held sway in the 20th century.
A recession followed by a few years of sluggish growth is hardly catastrophic
Democratic socialism must take the place of this capitalist system where 50% of the global
economy is owned by just 1% of the population, patently unfair for billions of people. To
have 1% having more than they could possibly spend in a lifetime is ludicrous while we have
others starving and millions of "people" living below the poverty line.
The capitalist (USA) system diverts huge amounts of money via corporations 50% of
the global economy to just 1% of the global population, which is patently unfair. The 1%
ownership grows every day because these 1% people have a mental illness called insatiable
greed, where enough is never enough. Yes 'fair trade' would help, but what must be broken is
the compliance of conservative governments around the world who fail to tax these
corporations a 'fair share' of taxation to help "the people" to raise their living standards.
We must adopt democratic socialism with million of USA citizens voted for with Bernie
Sanders, and as is practiced in the Nordic countries, who tax corporations fairly and obtain
a good standard of living for "their people."
What comes next? Hopefully some kind of neo-nationalistic Westernism in which the societies
that, up until the turmoil of the 60s and 70s shaped the course of global affairs, rediscover
their roots and identifies.
If "neoliberalism" seems to be in retreat, perhaps the simplest explanation is that the
cultures that gave rise to it - western, Christian, often English-speaking cultures - most
certainly ARE in retreat.
How can we answer questions like "what is happening to us?" or "How should we react?" When
we can't even identify the "us" or the "we"?
We need government that will restrain capitalism and use the system for the benefit of "the
people" not the corporations. Which in practice means "don't vote conservative."
Yes, the point is that unrestrained capitalism does wreck lives, but continues to
feed the 1% with mare more than they could ever spend. This is precisely why we need a system
of democratic socialism as practiced on the Nordic countries, where "the people" come first
and the corporations run a distant second.
However if the UK continues to elect conservative
governments the reverse will always be the case, with "the people" running a distant second.
Globalization, capitalist society in the 70s quickly became ownership of 50% (and continuing
to grow) of the global economy by just 1% of the population. We need to change to democratic
socialism as practiced by the Nordic countries.
The biggest economic problem is "corporate welfare" find out how much subsidy the UK
government 'gives' to profitable corporations, the ordinary taxpayers loss.
How we got here was via the capitalist system whereby 50% of the global economy is now owned
bt just 1% of the global population. A collection of individuals who are filthy rich but who
also have the mental illness of insatiable greed, and who won't be satisfied until they own
60% and so on. They avoid paying tax, and conservative governments help them by providing
loop holes in taxation legislation so their corporations can avoid paying tax or pay up to 5%
of their huge incomes in a token gesture. In Australia out of 1,500 corporations surveyed 579
have not paid a cent since at least 2013. The Australian people should be marching in the
streets for a 'fair go' but the apathy prevents that. They probably won't get angry until
such time as they realize that the 1% own 70% of the global economy and they are being
squeezed even harder into 14 hour days without a break, only then will they crack, if at all.
Quantitative easing first upped the stock market and therefore the retirement portfolios of
the US middle class as well as the portfolios of the wealthy, and now the US economy is
finally producing middle class jobs (recent report, NY Times) and not just the upper middle
class.
------------------
Rubbish!
QE is just the creation of trillions more in debt. Artificially raising asset prices is not a
free market. A free market depends on people being able to pay the prices. But today in the
UK, people require three loans to buy a house the price of which has been artificially raised
by QE. That enriches the homeowner, the bank, and estate agent. but in equal measure, it
impoverishes the house buyer.
the blowing up of asset prices will have to go on forever (still, not one penny of QE has
been repaid), or the system will collapse. But that is impossible. It will destroy the value
of money. See what happens to stock prices each time the US "threatens" to raise interest
rates and stop QE programmes. And just check out personal debt levels in the UK and US. It is
unsustainable.
The basic problem of neoliberalism is that it demands low pay as a competitive measure.
But that means people have less money to spend in the consumer economy. So neoliberalism
requires deregulated banking, pushing up asset prices, so people feel wealthy and take on
more debt with which to compensate their low pay, and so they can shop. But that in turn
leads to higher debts until the debts are not likely to be repaid. Banks collapse.
The bailouts and money printing has raised asset prices as you say. So now they are at
record highs. And if the system demands they go higher while keeping down pay. Who the Fuck
is going to pay?
The system is designed to collapse. It only exists today thanks to the creation of money
that does not really exist. We may as well adopt grass as money as keep this system
going.
The flipside of artificial growth in asset prices is the falling value of earnings.
in 1996, UK average pay equalled 30-35% of a typical house. Today, it is only 10% of a
house, and in London, 7%. And for the system to function, that percentage must fall.
No, quite a lot of people have been writing about it. Marx, Engels and Gramski all discussed
the tendency of free market economics to lead to conflict. More recently you could look at
the work of Galbraith, Sachs and Frank Stilwell, just off the top of my head.
You failed to understand the article. It says the post war period (1945-70s) was the longest
and most successful economic run, especially for working classes, in history.
It is "neoliberalism" since the late 70s that led to the trebling of personal debts on
stagnant wages, and finally the collapse of the banks. And ever since the whole economic show
has only been kept alive with life-saving drugs (QE which is basically pretending there is a
cash flow rather than reality of a solvency crisis, govt set zero interest rates, bailouts).
But we have merely got stagnation.
And your last point is a straw man. Hardly anyone wants to replace this failing system
with Stalinism.
We have had two contrasting economic systems in the West since the War. The one had far
more regulation, and stronger wage growth for workers, the latter since 1979 has been
neoliberalism.
The first collapsed in the stagnation of the 70s. The latter died in 2008, and has been
kept going through state support and printing trillions more in debt. But the bailouts are
failing. They are failing because it was never a cash flow crisis. It was a solvency crisis.
Now the debts are even greater.
Selective description posing as analysis and allowing the emotional triggers of a couple of
key phrases to justify the selectiveness. It sounds magisterial but it ain't and, as others
have pointed out, it gives us little on where do we go from here. This is precisely because
he has really not told us what he thinks here is, how we got here, and why we got here.
The last thing a capitalist corporation wants is to compete (i.e. having actual competition).
What they want is monopoly. That's why they "rig" the markets - among others by merging with
and acquiring their competitors until they reach near monopoly in their industry (or
industries).
That's the essence of the statement that "there never have been free markets, only rigged
markets". And there never will be. "Free markets" are transient phenomena that exist only for
relatively short time periods during which the leading players do the rigging. The only
factor that could keep free markets "free" is government - and that's why it is hated so much
by corporations and is rendered practically toothless in the US. It limits their ability to
rig and to loot.
The only form the phrase "free markets" exist for prolonged periods of time is when it is
used as a propaganda slogan by neoliberal ideologues (even though it is the exact opposite of
what really happens).
And why has it taken so long for such an article to be published? Many of the points in this
article should have been apparent to intelligent commentators right after the 2008 crisis.
Why has it taken so long for political fallout?
The major reason is cited: Parties such as New Labour, supposedly of the Left that
continued to support this failing system. Gordon Brown bailed out the banks, claimed to save
the world, and then let it all go on as before. A Disgrace of a leader that history will
condemn as a fool. And how many commentators of the time lauded him for it? Far too many. And
many of them still in the jobs. Jesus Wept!
What the writer understands and too many are in denial about is this. New Labour is dead.
It died in 2007-8 with the collapse of the banks.
Then the amazing coincidence that the third party (the Lib Dems) was taken over by the
neoliberals just before the Financial Crisis brought the neoliberal age to an end, and which
went onto support the True Neoliberal party (the Tories). In the US, a man who ran on a
candidacy of Change only for the world to find out it was bluster and rhetoric! Obama will
not go down as a Great President at all. He tried to bail out a failing system. He will be a
footnote in history.
Then those bloody bailouts. They not only bailed out the bankers and the rich. They bailed
out millions of largely older voters, artificially pumping up house prices. The old vote. And
they voted to back this grand theft against Reason, and the younger generations. The result
of the bailouts will be a far greater Financial Crisis than 2008. The disconnect between
people's debts and wages is worse today than in 2006. That can mean only one thing. Collapse
is coming. And now the debts are even bigger. Bailouts are wrong, have failed, and will not
be politically acceptable again.
Conservative parties will be repositories for those afraid of change, and those happy to
be bailed out until the crisis explodes again. On the change side, if we do not have Left
Populism, we will get nationalism.
In terms of stronger border controls there is no doubt this is happening. The US, Europe and
here in Australia the governments grip on border entries has only got tighter. As for
international labour migration, Trump, Brexit and the European refugee crisis will see
increasing pressure on lowering the numbers of migrant workers.
Increasing labour migration has been a ploy by government to try and make globalisation work,
as globalisation requires the free flow of labour across international borders. The political
pressure to reduce migrant numbers will be too much to resist, and greater controls will be
put in place.
This is not a choice between A or B. Stop fighting yesterday's battles. Its over, just as the
article declares. What is developing as we speak will steer tomorrow's civilization and it
will be neither of the old paradigms. We have to come to a consensus about where we want to
go. What principles do we have faith in to inform our assessments of what we keep or alter?
What roles will we play? What will our purpose(s) be? That is the business we need to be
about to arrive at an orderly, deliberate future, prepared for a long journey to a better
world. Or we push and pull in all different directions and go round and round the same old
ground making the same old mistakes until the world moves on and leaves us behind. We will
need to work together or fail each alone. Are you ready?
"... The idea of the 'American dream' seems to have morphed into a nasty belief that if you're poor it's your own fault. You didn't 'want it enough'. You must be secretly lazy and undeserving, even if you're actually working three jobs to survive, or even if there are no jobs. ..."
"... It always seems very odd to me that so many people who think like that profess to be Christian. 'Poverty equals moral failure' is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ got into so much trouble for saying. ..."
The idea of the 'American dream' seems to have morphed into a nasty belief that if
you're poor it's your own fault. You didn't 'want it enough'. You must be secretly lazy and
undeserving, even if you're actually working three jobs to survive, or even if there are no
jobs.
This view has taken hold in the UK too, where the tabloids peddle the view that anyone who
claims state benefits must be a fraud. But at least, people here and in mainland Europe have
the direct experience of war within living memory and we understand that you can lose
everything through no fault of your own. In the US, even when there's a natural disaster like
Katrina it seems to be the poor people's fault for not having their own transport and money
to go and stay somewhere else.
It always seems very odd to me that so many people who think like that profess to be
Christian. 'Poverty equals moral failure' is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ got
into so much trouble for saying.
"... Both neoliberal-driven governments and authoritarian societies share one important factor: They care more about consolidating power in the hands of the political, corporate and financial elite than they do about investing in the future of young people and expanding the benefits of the social contract and common good. ..."
"... Michael Yates (economist) points out throughout his book 'The Great Inequality', capitalism is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to accumulate capital at all costs. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either exploit or consider disposable. ..."
"... At bottom, neoliberals believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology which all boils down to the cheap labor they depend on to make their fortunes. ..."
"... The ugly truth is that cheap-labour conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. "Corporate lords" have a harder time kicking them around. ..."
Both neoliberal-driven governments and authoritarian societies share one important factor:
They care more about consolidating power in the hands of the political, corporate and
financial elite than they do about investing in the future of young people and expanding the
benefits of the social contract and common good.
Michael Yates (economist) points out throughout his book 'The Great Inequality', capitalism
is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to
accumulate capital at all costs. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling
elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either
exploit or consider disposable.
At bottom, neoliberals believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They have
taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology
which all boils down to the cheap labor they depend on to make their fortunes.
The ugly truth is that cheap-labour conservatives just don't like working people. They
don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. "Corporate lords"
have a harder time kicking them around.
Once you understand this about the cheap-labor
conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember,
cheap-labour conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity
they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits those who
work for an hourly wage.
You also need to remember that voting the coalition out, which you need to do, will not
necessarily give you a neoliberal free zone; Labor needs to shed some the dogma as well.
"... More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. ..."
"... Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option. ..."
"... A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense. ..."
"... "Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences." ..."
"... Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". ..."
"... Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq. ..."
"... All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger ..."
"... Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents? ..."
"... instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. ..."
"... funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America. ..."
"... if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important ..."
"... As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member ..."
"... Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out. ..."
"... All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden. ..."
After getting curb stomped on the debate
stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan
posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's
desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was
interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11
attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know
who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and
her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators
like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we
weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly
shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately
claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between
the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a
costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything
other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak
paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable
opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative
agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In
his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled "
Non-Interventionism
is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which
simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest
form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be
mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists
share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with
all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing
nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within
nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling
itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and
non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic
consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia".
Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination,
or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus
"war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism;
Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to
withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm
not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this
while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending
disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible
circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated
violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed
by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably
join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally
never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because
they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances.
This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan
is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the
help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is
opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of
Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi
Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes
closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand
that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas
grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't
have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism
we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will
and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending
them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing
list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything
I publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , purchasing some of my
sweet merchandise , buying my new book
Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ,
or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click
here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed
before the US decided to 'free' it.
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our
buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." –
Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can
you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus
as a sniper?
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my
shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're
glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neocon
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY
projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban
on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad
who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out
who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer
peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has
developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the
Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths.
Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital
banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated
and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed
on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly
has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist
you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** up
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or
something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where
does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal
strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all
like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and
banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong:
I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's
also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask
myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism?
How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn
the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She
would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a
new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried
Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a
Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly
shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
300,000 demonstrate in Prague against right-wing Czech government
An estimated 300,000 people protested in the Czech capital of Prague last Sunday against
the right-wing government of Prime Minister Andrei Babiš. At what was the biggest
demonstration in the Czech Republic since the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989, protesters
demanded the resignation of the billionaire founder of the right-wing neo-liberal party
ANO.
After the approximately 750-meter-long Wenceslas Square was determined to be too small to
hold the protest, the demonstration was moved to the Letná Plateau on the banks of the
Vltava, the site of the mass protests against the Stalinist regime 30 years ago. Three
decades later it has become clear that the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe has
not brought the promised prosperity and freedom. Instead, unprecedented levels of social
inequality are being overseen by a thoroughly corrupt, authoritarian elite.
For seven weeks, thousands of Czechs have protested against Babiš, who is accused
of corruption and of using his political power for private, business purposes. The protests
are also directed against Czech Justice Minister Marie Benešova, who is accused of
obstructing investigations against Babiš. According to Forbes magazine, the assets of
the Czech Prime Minister are estimated at around 3.3 billion euros, making him the second
richest man in the country.
The participants in Sunday's demonstration were overwhelmingly workers, youth and
pensioners, the majority of whom have suffered from the incessant attacks on social rights
and benefits carried out by successive Czech governments. Posters at the demo read
"Disappear" and "Babiš resign." Further protests have been announced for August, and
could continue up to the date planned to celebrate the toppling of the former Stalinist
regime in 1989.
The mass protests in the Czech Republic are yet another indication of the international
resurgence of the class struggle. Particularly in Eastern Europe, more and more people have
taken to the streets or gone on strike in recent months to protest against catastrophic
living conditions, poor wages and corrupt governments. The recent strike by Polish teachers
was the largest in Poland in 30 years, and a strike by Hungarian auto workers nearly
paralysed European production at Volkswagen. In Serbia and Albania thousands have taken to
the streets to vent their opposition to their corrupt right-wing governments.
While the Czech and European press crows about continuing economic growth and low
unemployment, the reality for ordinary people is very different. Rapidly rising rents in the
cities and price increases for food, electricity and gasoline are driving many families to
desperation. Prague is already one of the most expensive cities in Europe. In 2018, around 17
percent of Czechs lived in poverty.
The precarious economic reality becomes clear once one examines the increase in private
indebtedness. As Radio Praha reported, around ten percent of the population can no longer pay
their debts and must forfeit their property and possessions. This total includes around
10,000 persons aged between 18 and 29, and around 400 debtors under 18. Against such a
background of social misery the Babiš government has pledged to implement further
social cuts.
A number of right-wing, pro-European Union forces are seeking to exploit the legitimate
protests against the hated billionaire for their own purposes. These forces are opposed to
toppling the government and any expansion of the protests. Several representatives of these
organisations have openly declared they do not seek to reverse the outcome of the 2017
election, which resulted in Babiš's party as frontrunner. Instead they would be
satisfied instead with his removal as head of government.
In particular, the organizers of "One Million Moments for Democracy," who are close to
social-democratic and conservative pro-EU forces, want to force the government to adopt a
stronger pro-European policy. "We are not making a revolution, but rather returning to the
legacy and values of 1989," said one of the initiators, Benjamin Roll.
These forces base themselves entirely on the criticism of Babiš made by Brussels. A
recent European Commission audit report concluded that Babiš exerted huge influence
over his holding, Agrofert, which he officially outsourced to two trust funds. On the basis
of numerous examples, the 71-page report explained how EU subsidies finished up in the
coffers of Babis' company. A demand has been raised for the return of over 17 million
euros.
Babiš responded by calling the Brussels report an "attack on the Czech Republic,"
raising the prospect that the Czech Republic may prove to be as difficult for the EU as
Hungary under its right-wing Prime Minister Victor Orban.
The Babiš government typifies all those forces that committed themselves to
capitalism thirty years ago and shamelessly plundered the economy at the expense of the
people. The son of a functionary of the Communist Party, Babiš studied in Paris and
Geneva. From 1985 to 1991 he was head of the Czechoslovak commercial agency in Morocco.
During this time, he is said to have worked under the code name "Bures" for the Stalinist
secret service, a claim Babiš denies. The files kept in the Slovakian capital
Bratislava have been falsified, he argues. What is clear is that he had close contacts to the
former state leadership and in the early 1990s used his links to consolidate Agrofert into a
billion-dollar company.
Babiš entered politics in 2011 with the ANO party, which is completely geared to
his person and interests. Babiš founded the party after both the social-democratic and
conservative parties had become increasingly discredited. He won the 2017 general election
with a clear majority but less than two years later he faces the protest of hundreds of
thousands.
Sorry, but this is very inaccurate. The government is not right-wing, but sort of a weird
centrist muddle. CSSD is by no means a "successor to the Stalinist state party" – in
fact, it was banned under the previous regime and its members exiled or imprisoned. And the
protests, most importantly, are not against the government as such, but specifically
against the prime minister and the minister of justice. The organisers keep repeating they
consider the government to be legitimate but that these two people specifically
should resign.
I see those developments in Czech Republic along lines of that of Hungary, Romania or
Poland where right wing nationalist parties are forming some sort of united front of anti
EU block against policies of more EU independence from US spreading broadly in western EU.
Such anti EU submission to US politics is publicly peddled mostly under anti-Russian
political stand of national security, that still resonate strongly on Eastern Europe while
old existential imperative of accommodation with Russia is still entrenched within western
establishment.
All that is a part of US meddling into EU to assert direct and overwhelming control over
EU in sociopolitical and financial realm and weaken orbcutting them from economic relations
with Russia and China, both targets of US frontal imperial assault for the same reason of
direct subjugation to US dictate.
But all that is not as much aimed at removal of local oligarchic elites but to demand
class discipline, to make them realize that close coordination and integration of global
counterrevolutionary offensive led by US is critical to suppressing of exploding global
class struggle worldwide that severely threatens them all.
Make no mistake. The revealed supposed acute conflicts among global elites are solely
based on mistrust of how to deal with exploding class struggle best, in most effective ways
while assuring that their power and position among global ruling elite is enhanced or
remain unchanged while they are all solidly united against international working class.
This time is no different than in last millennium when despite seemingly mortal
conflicts among ruling elites they always united and supported each other in one united
political/economic/military block to defeat working class revolution.
Late last
year, I
linked to a review of John Patrick Leary's Keywords: The New Language of Capitalism
(Haymarket Books), and put it on my list of "one more book to read." And now I've finally
gotten around to it! Which is no reflection on the book, or its cover; merely on my own
scattered-brained schedule.
Leary describes (page 180) the genesis of Keywords as follows:
The project began when I was walking through a downtown Chicago food court with Lara Cohen
and Christine Evans, complaining at length about how the word "innovation" seemed to be
everywhere.
Who among us! More:
Christine suggested that instead of just getting mad, I make some small effort at getting
even by writing up my criticisms this turned into a blog chronicling the other terms that
celebrated profit and the rule of the market with guileless enthusiasm. This book is the
product of her suggestion. Lara has been the first reader of virtually everything in book and
its most important critic.
"Getting even" is certainly a strange motivation for starting a blog! MR SUBLIMINAL
[snort!] And, after the usual list of thank-yous that befit an Acknowledgements section,
this:
Thank you to my Wayne State students for your hopeful example of a generation unimpressed
by the promises of an innovation economy.
Let us, indeed, hope! Here is the list of terms that Leary, er, curated; I am sure, readers,
that many will provoke a thrill -- or shudder -- of recognition in you all:
Table 1: Leary's Word List
Accountability
Grit
Artisanal
Hack
Best practices
Human capital
Brand
Innovation
Choice
Leadership
Coach
Lean
Collaboration
Maker
Competency
Market
Conversation
Meritocracy
Content
Nimble
Creative
Outcome
Curator
Passion
Data
Pivot
Design
Resilience
Disruption
Robust
DIY
Share
Ecosystem
Smart
Empowerment
Solution
Engagement
Stakeholder
Entrepreneur
Sustainable
Excellence
Synergy
Fail
Thought leader
Flexible
Wellness
Free
Continuing along with those who have not run screaming from the room: From Leary's list, I
have picked three words: Our favorite, innovation , and then market , and
smart . I'll provide an extract of the definition of each term, followed by a brief
comment. I'll conclude with some remarks on the book as a whole.
Innovation
From page 114 et seq.:
For most of its early life, "innovation" was a pejorative, used to denounce false prophets
and political dissidents. Thomas Hobbes used innovator in the seventeenth century as a
synonym for a vain conspirator [Joseph Schumpeter], in his 1911 book The Theory of
Economic Development used "innovation" to describe capitalism's tendnecy toward tumult
and and transformation. He understood innovation historically, as a process of economic
transformation, but for him this historical process relied upon a creative, private agent to
carry it out [T]he entrepreneur. s
Other than mystifying creativity [another term] itself -- which now looks like an
intuitive blast of inspiration, like a epiphany, and less like work -- "innovation" gives
creativity a specific professional, class dimension. It almost always applies to white-collar
and profit-seeking activities Rarely do we hear of the innovative carpenter, plumber, or
homemaker .
The innovator is a model capitalist citizen for our times. But the object of most
innovations today is more elusive [than in the days of Bell and Edison]: you can touch a
telephone or a phonograh, but who can lay hands on an Amazon algorithm, a credit default
swap, a piece of proprietary Uber code, or an international free trade agreement? As an
intangible, individualistic, yet strictly white-collar trait, innovation reframes the cruel
fortunes of an unequal global economy as the logical products of a creative, visionary
brilliance. In this new guise, the innovator retains both a touch of the prophet and the hint
of the confidence man.
That's the stuff to give the troops! I especially like the part about innovative plumbing;
after all, potable water and indoor plumbing have probably saved more lives than all the Lords
of Silicon Valley combined! However, I could wish for the class analysis to be sharpened with
respect to finance: For credit default swaps, to the executives (not just "white collar"
workers) who committed accounting control fraud; for Uber, the executive crooks and liars who
run the never-to-be profitable business. The intangibles are listed without being categorized
in terms of political economy.
Market
From page 132 et seq.:
The market is both a widely dispersed metaphor of exchange and an economic term often used
a a shorthand for capitalist forms of exchange, especially when modified by the word free
[another term].
The word's oldest meaning is its simplest: "A place where trade is conducted," a meaning
that appears in Old English as far back as the twelfth century. This spatial menaing of the
market place obviously persists in farmer's markets, stock markets, and supermarkets,
but today the market is something more abstract. The most recent definition given by the OED
is "the competive free market; the operation of supply and demand." Its first example of this
usage comes from 1970, at the rough beginning of the neoliberal era .
When politicians speak of "market forces" they presume their autonomy; we are creatures of
the market rather than the other way around. [But] in key moments of recent economic history
-- the United States Troubled Asset Relief Program, the European austerity measures to
enforce "market discipline" on Greece -- market autonomy is nowhere to be seen
A synonym for exchange, whether intellectual or economic, an ontological feature of human
social, an implacable natural force, or a cybernetic network reliant on a strong state: The
market can be whatever you need it to be.
Once again, I would quarrel with the financial detail of the glossary item; the Treasury's
TARP, at $700 billion, was
dwarfed
by the real bailout outlay from the Fed , which has been estimated at $7.7
(Bloomberg) to $29 trillion (Levy Institute). Further, European austerity measures damaged not
only Greece, but the EU's entire southern tier, most definitely including Italy and Spain.
Finally -- although this may seem like a debater's point -- if "market" can be "whatever you
need it to be," then why can't the left repurpose it? Leary himself instances the Communist
Party of the USA's ludicrous coinage of "the marketplace of ideas"; on the editorial pages of
the New York Times, no less!) So "market" may be malleable, but it's not that malleable.
Why?
Smart
Finally, from page 158 et seq.:
Smart, used as an adjective modifying a technology, connotes an efficeint, clean, orderly
pragmatism . Smartness just works . Smart technologies, from munitions to ID cards to
refrigerators to mattresses, usually do one of three related things, and often all three:
they allow (or require) a user to remotely access a computer-linked network, they generate
data [a term] about that user, and they act autonomously, or seem to do so . In addition,
smart means moderr. The six thousand dollar smart refrigerator that tells you when you're out
of milk shows that the key to a smart technology isn't whether it is, in fact, a wise idea.
To be smart is simply to belong ti the new age, . Smart therefore presumes the political
neutrality of the technologies we use.
I think Leary could have leaned a little harder on how crapified most "smart" technology is;
readers will be familiar with the material we periodically post on the Internet of Sh*t. More
centrally, I'm a bit stunned that Leary has limited smart to technology, foregoing the
opportunity to perform a class analysis, as Thomas Frank did in Listen, Liberal! . From
page 22:
Professionals are a high-status group, but what gives them their lofty position is
learning, not income. They rule because they are talented, because they are smart
. A good sociological definition of professionalism is "a second hierarchy" -- second to the
main hierarchy of money, that is -- "based on credentialed expertise
presumed to be politically neutral, exactly as smart technology is. I think expanding the
glossary to "smart" in Frank's sense would have enriched the book. (Frank goes on to use
"smart" throughout the book, with varying degrees of scorn and derision; used without irony,
it's a veritable tocsin of bad faith.)
Conclusion
Leary's Keywords is definitely stimulating and well worth a read (and at $16.00,
within reach for most). At the very least, you should run a mile from any public figure --
whether executive or politician -- who takes the words listed in Leary's keywords (see Table 1)
seriously.
My criticism takes the form of Table 2, which is the list of terms from the great Raymond
Williams, whose book, also entitled Keywords ( PDF ),
was published in 1977, in the Eoneoliberal Period, and which Leary describes as a "classic".
Here are the terms defined by Williams:
Table 2: Williams' Word List
Aesthetic
Exploitation
Originality
Alienation
Family
Peasant
Anarchism
Fiction
Personality
Anthropology
Folk
Philosophy
Art
Formalist
Popular
Behaviour
Generation
Positivist
Bibliography
Genetic
Pragmatic
Bourgeois
Genius
Private
Bureaucracy
Hegemony
Progressive
Capitalism
History
Psychologica
Career
Humanity
Racial
Charity
Idealism
Radical
City
Ideology
Rational
Civilization
Image
Reactionary
Class
Imperialism
Reader's
Collective
Improve
Realism
Commercialism
Individual
References
Common
Industry
Reform
Communication
Institution
Regional
Communism
Intellectual
Representative
Community
Interest
Revolution
Consensus
Isms
Romantic
Consumer
Jargon
Science
Conventional
Labour
Select
Country
Liberal
Sensibility
Creative
Liberation
Sex
Criticism
Literaturw
Socialist
Culture
Man
Society
Democracy
Management
Sociology
Determine
Masses
Standards
Development
Materialism
Status
Dialect
Mechanical
Structural
Dialectic
Media
Subjective
Doctrinaire
Mediation
Taste
Dramatic
Medieval
Technology
Ecology
Modern
Theory
Educated
Monopoly
Tradition
Elite
Myth
Unconscious
Empirical
Nationalist
Underprivileged
Equality
Native
Unemployment
Ethnic
Naturalism
Utilitarian
Evolution
Nature
Violence
Existential
Notes
Wealth
Experience
Ordinary
Welfare
Expert
Organic
Western
Work
If you compare the tables, you will see that Williams' list of keywords is both more
abstract and more powerful, although some that we would expect to see today ("identity,"
"rentier") are missing. Of course, it's extremely unfair of me to make compare Leary's and
Williams' lists in this way; in fact, I admonish others not to complain that the author did not
write a book about penguins, when the author plainly intended to write a book about crows.
Leary promised a "field guide to the capitalist present, and he has delivered. Nevertheless, it
would be nice to have a second edition of Keywords , written with Leary's clarity,
knowledgeability, and verve, and containing more powerful terms[1], most of which have been
erased. Starting, perhaps, with "class."
NOTES
[1] To be fair, Leary writes (page 5): "The words in my collection are generally more
specific to the contemporary moment. They can also be understood as blockages -- that is, they
are the words we use when we aren't calling things by their proper name. William's collection
has "management" and "labor"; this one has "leadership" and "human capital." Tacklage is, I
suppose, what happens, in addition to blockage, if some prole of an analyst uses the wrong
(that is, the right) words. That said, can the truth be reverse engineered out of bullshit? One
for the judges.
What, no "muscular"? Hillary probably like muscular because it made her sound more
threatening. Nikki Haley took up the same gig with her stilletto heels.
Thanks for this post. Leary's list looks like TED talk word cloud, imo. Ad speak. ha.
I don't know if Williams' word list was based on ad speak of the 1970s. Maybe not.
Many of Williams' words place people in relation to each other or to the society, within
society. Not getting that same larger society idea from the words in Leary's ad speak list;
it's more 'rational man' alone against the world. Maybe that's the essence of ad speak. "Army
of one." "Be all YOU can be." etc.
Or now: Be all the smart, innovative, creative, nimble, passionate leader YOU can be."
;)
I am not 100% certain of this; everybody should read Tufte's ESSAY:
THE COGNITIVE STYLE OF POWERPOINT: PITCHING OUT CORRUPTS WITHIN , but the exact quote
does not appear in there. The quote does occur in Tufte's 2003 Wired essay , but as a deck beneath
the headline, and not in the body of the article. Therefore, I am not sure whether Tufte
coined the phrase, or some anonymous editor. Can any readers clarify?
"And that's how it is
That's what we got
If the president wants to admit it or not
You can read it in the paper
Read it on the wall
Hear it on the wind
If you're listening at all
Get out of that limo
Look us in the eye
Call us on the cell phone
Tell us all why"
Thank you Lambert. You manage to keep me sane. This exposure to and of nonsense is very
timely now. In the end all we have is a set of words which allow us to trust each other. We
need to find them.
Most of Leary's list is familiar from events I occasionally attended as a government IT
specialist. "Wellness" overlaps with what I call the language of therapy (don't know the
"correct" term) e.g. "conversation", "healing" which if anything is even more grating
Never thought about it before but in the use of the word 'market' today, it is like it is
trying to replace the word 'society' and how it was used before. Is that what Thatcher meant?
That there was no society but a 'market' instead?
I was just thinking that maybe we need rehabilitate the phrase (which appears in some
famous document which we in theory revere) 'promote the general welfare'. This connotes of
course citizenship, commons, community. Everything that we desperately need.
Nowadays, "community" really means something that you pay for. Or, if you're not paying
for it, well, you're the product.
Take, for example, online groups. They're often called communities. You may have to pay to
belong, but if you don't, the data that you and your fellow "members" produce is being sold
and resold.
In the offline world, there are businesses that refer to their customers as members. And
what are they members of? Well, my dear, that is a community.
So, add these two words to the list of words that need to be taken outside and shot:
Sounds like a great book; anyhow a superb post. I'd have liked to see what Mr Leary has to
say about 'associate' (noun; see also employee [archaic]) and service (noun; as in "software
as a service"). Perhaps also "industry" (as in "the payday loans industry") – which now
I think has senses that Williams could not have imagined. Oh, and why not "Crapification?" On
a more serious note, there is "Inequality." (Hat tip to Tom, above, for the peerless
"Vibrant.")
Perhaps worth adding: "gig economy," "[education/health care, etc.] reform."
Yesterday I read a story in the NYT ["Love" section, formerly "Weddings"] about an
Instagram "Influencer couple."
Some terms are euphemisms; others are buzzwords for the increasing privatization /
shrinking of public space/services/goods (what was once known in some circles as the "theft
of the commons," but hey, I'm old).
Such terms deserve to be called out repeatedly, with their actual meaning helpfully
provided in (). Thus "ed reformers" (i.e. privatizers through various means such as ESAs,
ETCs, vouchers) or "right to work," which I finally decided to define as "right to fire at
will." Far-right think tanks are great sources of such terms; the bills ALEC writes for state
legislatures are, too.
My own special bugbear is "grit" (someone who still demonstrates faith in the system which
has betrayed them).
OTOH, such words are helpful in identifying the ideological perspective an author is
coming from.
I was wondering where the use of the phrase, "We need to have a conversation about " In
place of " we should discuss" or "let's talk about" came from. I find it " to be a given"
that anything that Kamala Harris says is meaningless noise these days. She seems to have
acquired this mea!y mouth way of avoiding taking a position after only a short time in the
Senate. She's well on her way to being permanently inconsequential.
"We need to" or "you need to" is one of my pet peeves, because of the power-tripping
assumption that my interlocutor gets to determine my needs (all for the greater good ,
of course! Always for the good!)
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard was both pilloried and held in uncertain awe
for his contribution to the English lexicon of 'incentivising', as in 'incentivising and
rewarding hard work'.
Etymology shows that word meanings can change and even invert over time. Floyd Merrell
looked at the poetics of ambiguity, where 1:1 is unambiguous, 1:2 can have two meanings (a
dog growling may be warning or playing), to n:n where meaning is entirely contextual.
There are people, and places, and objects which have changed in affect for me, usually
through an aversive experience. We see this with words; for example, 'socialist' will always
carry resonances of fascism since Adolph called his thing 'National Socialism'. As useful as
'class' is it, carries Marxist overtones, which causes reflexive affect for some. 'Well'
carries positive connotation in some evangelical circles.
Words can get stink on them from dogwhistles. Will you argue about old words, or avoid
quagmires with Smart Innovative people by creating clever and fresh new words with less
historical accretion? That's what Shakespeare did and we're still looking at him four hundred
years later. As a friend said to me in a conversation about demented mothers, "You've got to
let'em go." You can still love them, but if they control the conversation, there madness
lies.
I'm guessing: aside from acceptance, involvement & touch from loving, comforting,
equanamous parents (community integration amongst disparate peers), the sociopathic/ somatic
neuroses evinced in this addiction to euphamism, platitude and obfuscatory pleonasm as glib,
off-handed, day-to-day BS subterfuge, reflects cytokine imbalances, resulting from unresolved
childhood trauma and fast-food diets, deficient in pre-biotics? Not enough roughage, huh?
The ones that turn my stomach the most are "influencer," "maker," and "ask" as a noun (as
in, "Hey, I know it's a big ask, but I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday "). Oh! And
also "content" used to mean information. A friend who is a university professor said the
administration are now referring to faculty as "content distributors." Barf.
Ever had a conversation with a Teacher? Oh excuse me; an "educator" LOL. They use so many
sucky phrases and words that you can't even remember what the discussions were about in the
first place. It's bad enough in secondary schools but now in pre-school (early learning
centres) you need an interpretation booklet to make any sense of what your child is up to in
the damn place. I must confess that my MBA taught me a whole bunch of weasel words and
obscure terminology so that my management reports were rarely tested for veracity. And
therein lies the issue. Words were once used to impart knowledge, whereas now, as the article
alludes to, words and phrases are redesigned and reoriented to avoid, obfuscate, marginalise,
confuse etc you get the picture.. Look no further than your local politician for tricky word
speak – it makes Trump's burbling seem almost sensible by contrast. At least we know
what a pussy is now!
I took a trip last weekend to Palm Springs, CA. and Laughlin, NV. and everywhere I went I
was inundated with offers for "handcrafted" margaritas and coffees and various food
stuffs.
"Men make their own history vocabulary, but they do not make it as they please;
they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing
already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs
like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
"... Friedrich von Hayek, one of the creed's most revered economic gurus, spent his productive years railing against government old age pension and medical insurance schemes. When he became old and infirm, he signed on for both social security and medicare. ..."
Friedrich von Hayek, one of the creed's most revered economic gurus, spent his productive
years railing against government old age pension and medical insurance schemes. When he
became old and infirm, he signed on for both social security and medicare.
Love it. When push comes to shove all those ideologies and beliefs crumble into the dust of
practical needs. Another individual who cloaked the self-interest of the rich and
powerful into some kind of spurious ideology.
George wrote a rather good article about Von
Hayek a few years ago I seem to remember.
"... "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" - Alexis de Toqueville ..."
The problem is that as De Toqueville realises (his quote below) most of the people
commenting here are simply living a parasitic existence benefiting from state largesse -
sucking the teat of a bloated and overburdened state caring not whether their sustenance is
remotely sustainable and just voting for ever more
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the
public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" -
Alexis de Toqueville
"... Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies for electricity, fuel and transportation, causing prices to skyrocket, and recently prompting Ms. Genovesi, 48, to cut off her gas service, rendering her stove lifeless. Like most of her neighbors, she illegally taps into the power lines that run along the rutted dirt streets. ..."
"... "It's a neoliberal government," she says. "It's a government that does not favor the people." ..."
"... The tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri's turn away from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina's monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. The trouble is that Argentines have yet to collect on the other element the president promised: the economic revival that was supposed to follow the pain. ..."
"... But as Mr. Macri seeks re-election this year, Argentines increasingly lament that they are absorbing all strife and no progress. Even businesses that have benefited from his reforms complain that he has botched the execution, leaving the nation to confront the same concoction of misery that has plagued it for decades. The economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck above 9 percent ..."
"... Poverty afflicts a third of the population, and the figure is climbing. ..."
"... Mr. Macri sold his administration as an evolved form of governance for these times, a crucial dose of market forces tempered by social programs. ..."
"... In the most generous reading, the medicine has yet to take effect. But in the view of beleaguered Argentines, the country has merely slipped back into the rut that has framed national life for as long as most people can remember. ..."
"... "We live patching things up," said Roberto Nicoli, 62, who runs a silverware company outside the capital, Buenos Aires. "We never fix things. I always say, 'Whenever we start doing better, I will start getting ready for the next crisis.'" ..."
"... "When our president Cristina was here, they sent people to help us," she says. "Now, if there's problems, nobody helps us. Poor people feel abandoned." ..."
On the ragged streets of the shantytown across the road, where stinking outhouses sit alongside shacks fashioned from rusted sheets
of tin, families have surrendered hopes that sewage lines will ever reach them.
They do not struggle to fashion an explanation for their declining fortunes: Since taking office more than three years ago, President
Mauricio Macri has broken with the budget-busting populism that has dominated Argentina for much of the past century, embracing the
grim arithmetic of economic orthodoxy.
Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies for electricity, fuel and transportation, causing prices to skyrocket, and recently prompting
Ms. Genovesi, 48, to cut off her gas service, rendering her stove lifeless. Like most of her neighbors, she illegally taps into the
power lines that run along the rutted dirt streets.
"It's a neoliberal government," she says. "It's a government that does not favor the people."
The tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri's turn away
from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina's monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. The trouble
is that Argentines have yet to collect on the other element the president promised: the economic revival that was supposed to follow
the pain.
Mr. Macri's supporters heralded his 2015 election as a miraculous outbreak of normalcy in a country with a well-earned reputation
for histrionics. He would cease the reckless spending that had brought Argentina infamy for defaulting on its debts eight times.
Sober-minded austerity would win the trust of international financiers, bringing investment that would yield jobs and fresh opportunities.
But as Mr. Macri seeks re-election this year, Argentines increasingly lament that they are absorbing all strife and no progress.
Even businesses that have benefited from his reforms complain that he has botched the execution, leaving the nation to confront the
same concoction of misery that has plagued it for decades. The economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and
joblessness is stuck above 9 percent.
Poverty afflicts a third of the population, and the figure is climbing.
Far beyond this country of 44 million people, Mr. Macri's tenure is testing ideas that will shape economic policy in an age of
recrimination over widening inequality. His presidency was supposed to offer an escape from the wreckage of profligate spending while
laying down an alternative path for countries grappling with the worldwide rise of populism. Now, his presidency threatens to become
a gateway back to populism. The Argentine economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck
above 9 percent. Poverty afflicts a third of the population. Credit Sarah Pabst for The New York Times
Image
The Argentine economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck above 9 percent. Poverty afflicts
a third of the population. Credit Sarah Pabst for The New York Times
As the October election approaches, Mr. Macri is contending with the growing prospect of a challenge from the president he succeeded,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who faces a
series of criminal indictments for corruption . Her unbridled spending helped deliver the crisis that Mr. Macri inherited. Her
return would resonate as a rebuke of his market-oriented reforms while potentially yanking Argentina back to its accustomed preserve:
left-wing populism, in uncomfortable proximity to insolvency.
The Argentine peso lost half of its value against the dollar last year, prompting the central bank to lift interest rates to a
commerce-suffocating level above 60 percent. Argentina was forced to secure a $57 billion
rescue from the International
Monetary Fund , a profound indignity given that the fund is widely despised here for the austerity it imposed in the late 1990s,
turning an economic downturn into a depression.
For Mr. Macri, time does not appear to be in abundant supply. The spending cuts he delivered hit the populace immediately. The
promised benefits of his reforms -- a stable currency, tamer inflation, fresh investment and jobs -- could take years to materialize,
leaving Argentines angry and yearning for the past.
In much of South America, left-wing governments have taken power in recent decades as an angry corrective to dogmatic prescriptions
from Washington, where the Treasury and the I.M.F. have focused on the confidence of global investors as the key to development.
Left-wing populism has aimed to redistribute the gains from the wealthy to everyone else. It has aided the poor, while generating
its own woes --
corruption and depression in
Brazil , runaway inflation and financial ruin in Argentina. In Venezuela, uninhibited spending has turned the country with the
world's largest proven oil reserves into a land where
children starve .
Mr. Macri sold his administration as an evolved form of governance for these times, a crucial dose of market forces tempered
by social programs.
In the most generous reading, the medicine has yet to take effect. But in the view of beleaguered Argentines, the country
has merely slipped back into the rut that has framed national life for as long as most people can remember.
"We live patching things up," said Roberto Nicoli, 62, who runs a silverware company outside the capital, Buenos Aires. "We
never fix things. I always say, 'Whenever we start doing better, I will start getting ready for the next crisis.'"
Cultivating wealth
... ... ...
In the beginning, there was Juan Domingo Perón, the charismatic Army general who was president from 1946 to 1955, and then again
from 1973 to 1974. He employed an authoritarian hand and muscular state power to champion the poor. He and his wife, Eva Duarte --
widely known by her nickname, Evita -- would dominate political life long after they died, inspiring politicians across the ideological
spectrum to claim their mantle.
Among the most ardent Peronists were Néstor Kirchner, the president from 2003 to 2007, and his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner,
who took office in 2007, remaining until Mr. Macri was elected in 2015.
Their version of Peronism -- what became known as Kirchnerism -- was decidedly left-wing, disdaining global trade as a malevolent
force. They expanded cash grants to the poor and imposed taxes on farm exports in a bid to keep Argentine food prices low.
As the country's farmers tell it, Kirchnerism is just a fancy term for the confiscation of their wealth and the scattering of
the spoils to the unproductive masses. They point to Ms. Kirchner's 35 percent tax on soybean exports.
"We had a saying," Mr. Tropini says. "'For every three trucks that went to the port, one was for Cristina Kirchner.'"
reduction in export taxes.
"You could breathe finally," Mr. Tropini, the farmer, says.
He was free of the Kirchners, yet stuck with nature. Floods in 2016 wiped out more than half of his crops. A drought last year
wreaked even more havoc.
"This harvest, this year," he says, "is a gift from God."
But if the heavens are now cooperating, and if the people running Buenos Aires represent change, Mr. Tropini is critical of Mr.
Macri's failure to overcome the economic crisis.
A weaker currency makes Argentine soybeans more competitive, but it also increases the cost of the diesel fuel Mr. Tropini needs
to run his machinery. High interest rates make it impossible for him to buy another combine, which would allow him to expand his
farm.
In the first years of Mr. Macri's administration, the government lifted controls on the value of the peso while relaxing export
taxes. The masters of international finance delivered a surge of investment. The economy expanded by nearly 3 percent in 2017, and
then accelerated in the first months of last year.
But as investors grew wary of Argentina's deficits, they fled, sending the peso plunging and inflation soaring. As the rout continued
last year, the central bank mounted a futile effort to support the currency, selling its stash of dollars to try to halt the peso's
descent. As the reserves dwindled, investors absorbed the spectacle of a government failing to restore order. The exodus of money
intensified, and another potential default loomed, leading a chastened Mr. Macri to accept a rescue from the dreaded IMF.
Administration officials described the unraveling as akin to a natural disaster: unforeseeable and unavoidable. The drought hurt
agriculture.
Money was flowing out of developing countries as the Federal Reserve continued to lift interest rates in the United States, making
the American dollar a more attractive investment.
But the impact of the Fed's tightening had been widely anticipated. Economists fault the government for mishaps and complacency
that left the country especially vulnerable.
.... ... ...
Among the most consequential errors was the government's decision to include Argentina's central bank in a December 2017 announcement
that it was raising its inflation target. The markets took that as a signal that the government was surrendering its war on inflation
while opting for a traditional gambit: printing money rather than cutting spending.
... ... ...
The government insists that better days are ahead. The spending cuts have dropped the budget deficit to a manageable 3 percent
of annual economic output. Argentina is again integrated into the global economy.
"We haven't improved, but the foundations of the economy and society are much healthier," said Miguel Braun, secretary of economic
policy at the Treasury Ministry. "Argentina is in a better place to generate a couple of decades of growth."
... ... ...
Their television flashes dire warnings, like "Danger of Hyper Inflation." Throughout the neighborhood, people decry the sense
that they have been forsaken by the government.
Trucks used to come to castrate male dogs to control the packs of feral animals running loose. Not anymore. Health programs for
children are less accessible than they were before, they said.
Daisy Quiroz, 71, a retired maid, lives in a house that regularly floods in the rainy season.
"When our president Cristina was here, they sent people to help us," she says. "Now, if there's problems, nobody helps us.
Poor people feel abandoned."
... ... ...
Daniel Politi contributed reporting from Buenos Aires. Peter S. Goodman is a London-based European economics correspondent.
He was previously a national economic correspondent in New York. He has also worked at The Washington Post as a China correspondent,
and was global editor in chief of the International Business Times. @
petersgoodman
Another very informative article from one of the few writers with any sense of having a
'finger on the pulse.'
It's sad that it's taken over 30 years for the real shaping influences behind the current
system to be identified and discussed outside the boundaries of a few university
conferences.
The Right have been absolutely brilliant at media control and obfuscation. Their gurus
have been camouflaged and the whole process of influencing Reagan and Thatcher's governments
from the late 1970's has escaped exactly the kind of scrutiny that George gives Rand.
We might also investigate the influence of John Nash's (A Beautiful Mind) 'Gameplay'
experiments in a similar fashion along with the economic gurus who followed Hayek so
slavishly.
It has been known for years that the neo liberal project was designed not just to under
mine democracy and convert people into passive cloned market junkies, but to put an end to
the whole of the Enlightenment Project, which perhaps naively saw human development,. growth
and other human qualities totally savaged and defeated by this poisonous evil, which emulates
all the worst aspects of Fascism without the flags and theatre.
Sadly, this is not a 'this is happening' phenomenon; it's a 'this has happened
phenomenon.' The taint and viral effect of its impact on uk and usa political structures has
already caused major damage. All three major political parties in the uk have for 30 years
subscribed to its tenets though they were no doubt not presented in such a flagrant form as
Rand's writing.
How problematic is it to now look at the polity and rescue it from such a major
ideological shift? Certainly, the major parties cannot shuck off the cape of their key
beliefs after promoting Right wing ideologies for so long, and the traditional Left is no
more.
However, it is good to see some pithy journalism that goes to the heart of the matter -
those of us who have been pleading for less x factor celebrity worshipping of politicians can
at least feel as though this shifts the spectrum to real and significant issues that have
affected the lives of everyone for so long.
I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that
towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security.
In case nobody mentioned this book before, which is relevant to the theme:
These submerged policies, Mettler shows, obscure the role of government and
exaggerate that of the market. As a result, citizens are unaware not only of the benefits
they receive, but of the massive advantages given to powerful interests, such as insurance
companies and the financial industry. Neither do they realize that the policies of the
submerged state shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans, exacerbating
inequality.
"... If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to legitimise itself. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. ..."
"... Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. ..."
"... Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices, they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know there would be socialism. ..."
"... This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is, neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t totalitarianism. ..."
"... It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal. ..."
"... However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes that Hayek railed against. ..."
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism.
In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath
discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue.
Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become
synonymous with nationhood. A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of
democracy.
The final restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no
separate market and state, just a totalitarian market state.
Yes, the EU is an ordoliberal institution - the state imposing rules on the market from
without. Thus, it is not the chief danger. The takeover of 5G, and therefore our entire
economy and industry, by Huawei - now that would be a loss of state sovereignty. But because
Huawei is nominally a corporation, people do not think about is a form of governmental
bureaucracy, but if powerful enough that is exactly what it is.
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Neoliberalism allows with impunity pesticide businesses to apply high risk toxic pesticides
everywhere seriously affecting the health of children, everyone as well as poisoning the
biosphere and all its biodiversity. This freedom has gone far too far and is totally
unacceptable and these chemicals should be banished immediately.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives.
Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'.
Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism.
This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism.
Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
"... The second narrative -- further substantiated by recent reporting from The Intercept of collusion between the main judges in the case against Lula -- shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated attempt to stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the country's progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges against Lula were manufactured in order to recover the right-wing's control of the government, despite a lack of evidence against him. ..."
"... Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister of justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that Bolsonaro won the election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro's conviction delivered the presidency to Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with the ministry appointment. ..."
"... Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato team led by Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and scrutinized by a range of forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the judge and the prosecutor colluded to find Lula guilty and lock him away. ..."
"... The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely about Brazil. This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have sought to use the shell of democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of the people. It is the methodology of democracy without democracy, a Potemkin Village of liberalism. ..."
Clarity emerges around the political persecution of Lula, Brazil's former president. But
what is still blurry for many is the actual case against him, writes Vijay Prashad.
Brazil's former President Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva has now been in prison since April 2018. More than 400 Brazilian lawyers have signed a
statement that expresses alarm at what they see as procedural irregularities in the case
against him. They call for the immediate release of Lula. The Asociación Americana de
Juristas – a non-governmental organization with consultative status at the United
Nations – has called Lula a political prisoner. Lula was convicted of corruption and
money-laundering, despite a lack of solid evidence. Two lawsuits against him remain
unfinished.
Now, more evidence emerges about the collusion of the lead judge and the lead investigator
in the prosecution of Lula thanks to excellent reporting from The Intercept . The political motivations are now on the
record: they, on behalf of the oligarchy, did not want Lula – who remains hugely popular
– to be the 2018 presidential candidate of the Workers' Party (PT). Brazil's right-wing
has begun a horrible campaign to malign the journalists of The Intercept , notably its
editor Glenn Greenwald. Using the same tactics of hate, misogyny, and homophobia to defame
their journalists, they hope, will distract from and delegitimise the damning evidence of their
corrupt tactics.
Clarity now emerges around the political persecution of Lula. But what is still blurry for
many is the actual case against him. The details of his case remain murky, with many who
sympathise with Lula unsure of how to understand the corruption charges and his apparent
conviction. This newsletter is dedicated to providing a primer on Lula and the case against
him.
Who is Lula?
Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva (73 years old), a metalworker and trade union leader, helped found the PT, Brazil's
main left party. He won two consecutive elections to govern Brazil from 2003 to 2010. At the
close of his second term, Lula had an approval rating of 86 percent – the highest in the
country's history. His poverty reduction programs – particularly his hunger alleviation
schemes – earned his government praise from around the world, which is why some are
calling
for him to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Income redistribution through social
programs such as Bolsa Família, Brasil sem Miseria, the expansion of credit, the
increase in decent work, and the increase in the minimum wage lifted almost 30 million (out of
209 million) Brazilians out of poverty. The number of public university campuses more than
doubled, leading to a 285
percent increase in Afro-Brazilians attending institutes of higher education. Brazil paid
off its debts to the IMF and the government discovered a massive new oil reserve in the Santos
Basin, off the coast of São Paulo. This oil will eventually change Brazil's strategic
position in the world.
Why was Lula arrested?
There are two narratives that exist to answer this question. The first -- the official
narrative, propagated by the bourgeoise -- is that Lula is in prison on charges of corruption
and money laundering. His cases remain pending before the courts. Curitiba's Public
Prosecutor's Office – led by Deltan Dallagnol – was in charge of an investigation
around corruption allegations at Brazil's state energy firm, Petrobras. Because a car wash
became part of the money laundering investigation, the Task Force was known as Lava Jato (Car
Wash). The Task Force uncovered activity by contractors such as OAS and Odebrecht, who had
– it turns out – remodelled an apartment on the coast and a farm in the interior
that were supposedly owned by Lula. These firms, it was said by the Task Force, had gained
concessions from Petrobras. The Task Force argued that Lula benefited from the contractors, who
in turn benefitted from state largess. This was the allegation.
The second narrative -- further
substantiated by recent reporting from The Intercept of collusion between the main
judges in the case against Lula -- shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated
attempt to stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the country's
progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges against Lula were
manufactured in order to recover the right-wing's control of the government, despite a lack of
evidence against him.
Lola Alvarez Bravo, "Unos Suben y Otros Bajan," 1940.
Is there evidence against Lula?
Actually, no. The prosecutors could not prove that Lula had ever owned the apartment or the
farm. Nor could they prove any benefit to the contractors. Lula was convicted – bizarrely
– of unspecified acts . Former OAS director Léo Pinheiro, who had been
convicted of money laundering and corruption in 2014 and was to serve 16 years, gave evidence
against Lula; for this evidence, his sentence was reduced. There was no material evidence
against Lula.
Who convicted Lula?
Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister of
justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that Bolsonaro won the
election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro's conviction delivered the presidency to
Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with the ministry appointment.
Moro not only tried Lula in
his court, but also in the court of public opinion. The corporate media was on the side of the
prosecution, and leaks from the court created an image of Lula as the enemy of the people.
Bizarrely, the press often seemed to have information from the court before Lula's defence
attorneys. When Lula's lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition to get him out of jail, the
army's commander-in-chief sent the Supreme Court a message on Twitter to instructing them not
to grant the petition. The petition was denied.
Should Lula have been allowed to run for president?
The Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure says that one can only go to prison when their
appeals run out. Article 5 of the Constitution notes,"No one shall be considered guilty before
the issuance of a final and unappealable prison sentence." Why Lula went to jail in the first
place requires an investigation. Judge Moro argued that it was because he was found guilty in
the Appeal Court based on a plea bargain. This is murky. The UN's Human Rights Committee said
that Lula should have been allowed to run for president last year because his appeals had not
been exhausted. Not only did the judiciary and the prosecutors not allow Lula to run, but they
also did not allow him to meet the press and so influence the election.
What has been the role of the United States in the Lava Jato investigation?
Odd how the US Department of Justice officials visited Judge Moro during the investigation,
and how US Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco said in 2017 that the
U.S. justice officials had "informal communications" about the removal of Lula from the
presidential race. On 6 March 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice said
that it would transfer 80 percent of the fines it received from Petrobras to the Public
Prosecutor's Office to set up an "anti-corruption investment fund." It is fair to say that this
is a payment to the Lava Jato
team for its work on removing Lula from the presidential race.
What was the real corruption in this case?
Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato team led by
Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and scrutinized by a range of
forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the judge and the prosecutor colluded to find
Lula guilty and lock him away. The first instance of corruption is this brazen collusion
between two parts of the government. The second instance of corruption is the role of the
United States in this case, and the pay-out to Dallagnol's department for services
rendered.
The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely about Brazil.
This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have sought to use the shell of
democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of the people. It is the methodology of
democracy without democracy, a Potemkin Village of liberalism.
At Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, we are studying this phenomenon closely.
You have already seen our dossier
on the hybrid war against Venezuela and our dossier on lawfare
in Brazil. The arrest of human rights defenders from Julian Assange to Ola Bini as well as the
arrest of whistle-blowers from Chelsea Manning to David McBridge are part of this chilling
effect against the sentinels of democracy.
We are taking seriously this evisceration of democracy. We are going to look at the role of
money in elections (test case: India) and voter suppression, as well as the reduction of
'politics' to the festival of elections, the allowance of states to crush the basic
institutions of civil society, and the role of immiseration in the defeat of the democratic
spirit. We need a new theory of actually-existing democracy.
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, journalist, commentator and a Marxist intellectual. He
is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and the chief editor
of LeftWord Books.
"... In layman's terms, American intelligence agencies meddled in Brazil's democracy by selectively leaking purported evidence of serious corruption by the then-ruling party, which predictably set into motion a self-sustaining inquisitional cycle that led to Rousseff's impeachment, Lula's imprisonment, and ultimately Bolsonaro's "dark horse" victory after he was presented to the people as the only non-corrupt candidate capable of restoring order out of the chaos that the socialists were blamed for causing. ..."
"... This externally triggered regime change was intended to create the domestic political conditions that were thought to make a Leftist revival impossible in the future and thereby indefinitely perpetuate the restoration of US influence in Brazil, with the Right's victory legitimized at the ballot after the majority of the population was successfully led by these foreign-manufactured events to conclude that Bolsonaro was the only person capable of changing the system. Upon entering office, he did exactly as he promised and began to push forward his controversial neoliberal reforms that provoked the latest strike. ..."
"... Bolsonaro and his US buddies obviously underestimated the Left's resilience and therefore weren't prepared for the massive pushback that this move provoked, but the public's anger last weekend was also fueled by The Intercept's leaked revelations that "Operation Car Wash's" top judge and the country's current Justice Minister colluded with prosecutors to convict Lula and therefore prevent him from running for President (which in turn greatly facilitated Bolsonaro's rise to power). ..."
"... It's important to point out that the conversation was leaked and not hacked, strongly suggesting dissident within the deepest ranks of the regime change movement for reasons that can only be speculated upon at this time but which nevertheless motivated the whistleblower to share the evidence in their possession with society in order to catalyze grassroots pressure against the government. ..."
"... It's therefore not an exaggeration to say that Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never really went away, it just took a few months for it to change form and turn against its original initiators after they failed to close the Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that they opened at the US' behest. Bolsonaro's rise to power was shady from the get-go and only made possibly by Lula's conviction and the consequent banning of the country's most popular political candidate from the presidential race ..."
"... Although some of the protesters are employing classic Color Revolution tactics during their anti-government demonstrations, this political technology isn't black and white because it could conceivably be used by anyone in pursuit of any end. ..."
Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never really went away, it just took a few months
for it to change form and turn against its original initiators after they failed to close the
Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that they opened at the US' behest.
The Bolsonaro government is coming under intense grassroots pressure as two crises continue
to converge within the country and threaten to spiral out of the authorities' control. An
estimated 45
million people just participated in a massive strike over the weekend against the proposed
neoliberal pension reforms that would increase both the age of retirement and contributions for
ordinary workers, which tens of millions of people feel is unfair but which the state says is
needed in order to fix the failing system that it inherited as a result of its predecessors'
corrupt mismanagement. Brazil has a history of seemingly irreconcilable political polarization
between the Left and Right like all Latin American countries do, but this fault line was
exacerbated to the fullest extent throughout the course of the long-running Hybrid
War on Brazil , which was waged via the NSA-facilitated "Operation Car Wash" that served as
a pretext for carrying out a preplanned pro-American regime change that represented the
crowning achievement of Obama's " Operation Condor 2.0
" and made Trump's "
Fortress America " hemispheric vision possible.
In layman's terms, American intelligence agencies meddled in Brazil's democracy by
selectively leaking purported evidence of serious corruption by the then-ruling party, which
predictably set into motion a self-sustaining inquisitional cycle that led to Rousseff's
impeachment, Lula's imprisonment, and ultimately Bolsonaro's "dark horse" victory after he was
presented to the people as the only non-corrupt candidate capable of restoring order out of the
chaos that the socialists were blamed for causing.
This externally triggered regime change was
intended to create the domestic political conditions that were thought to make a Leftist
revival impossible in the future and thereby indefinitely perpetuate the
restoration of US influence in Brazil, with the Right's victory legitimized at the ballot
after the majority of the population was successfully led by these foreign-manufactured events
to conclude that Bolsonaro was the only person capable of changing the system. Upon entering
office, he did exactly as he promised and began to push forward his controversial neoliberal
reforms that provoked the latest strike.
Bolsonaro and his US buddies obviously underestimated the Left's resilience and therefore
weren't prepared for the massive pushback that this move provoked, but the public's anger last
weekend was also fueled by The
Intercept's leaked revelations that "Operation Car Wash's" top judge and the country's
current Justice Minister colluded with prosecutors to convict Lula and therefore prevent him
from running for President (which in turn greatly facilitated Bolsonaro's rise to power).
Many
Brazilians had long suspected as much, but this was the first time that messages from a private
Telegram group consisting of the regime change collaborators were made public to corroborate
this theory. It's important to point out that the conversation was leaked and not hacked,
strongly suggesting dissident within the deepest ranks of the regime change movement for
reasons that can only be speculated upon at this time but which nevertheless motivated the
whistleblower to share the evidence in their possession with society in order to catalyze
grassroots pressure against the government.
It's therefore not an exaggeration to say that Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never
really went away, it just took a few months for it to change form and turn against its original
initiators after they failed to close the Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that
they opened at the US' behest. Bolsonaro's rise to power was shady from the get-go and only
made possibly by Lula's conviction and the consequent banning of the country's most popular
political candidate from the presidential race, which has now been proven without any
reasonable doubt to have been part of an actual conspiracy by some members of the permanent
bureaucracy ("deep state") against him.
This throws into question the electoral legitimacy of
Brazil's latest leader and therefore sets up the scenario of having every one of his political
moves invalidated if he's ever removed from office on this pretext, including the controversial
pension reform that he's trying to push through. Naturally, the labor crisis is merging with
the political one and creating a critical mass of regime change unrest.
Although some of the protesters are employing classic
Color Revolution tactics during their anti-government demonstrations, this political
technology isn't black and
white because it could conceivably be used by anyone in pursuit of any end. In this case,
the nascent movement has the same regime change objective as its pro-American antecedent and is
similarly relying on overwhelming popular support to legitimize its goals, albeit the defining
difference in this Hybrid War is that it isn't tied to any foreign power (both in terms of its
inception and development unlike "Operation Car Wash") except if one cynically traces its
origin to the US' NSA meddling many years ago. In fact, what's happening in Brazil right now is
nothing less than blowback against Bolsonaro after his conspiratorial US-backed rise to power
and the consequent pension controversy that he's since caused. The protest organizers want to
return the country to the pre-crisis status quo of being led by Lula and the Left, though they
might also embrace some mild reforms to appeal to the moderate Right that arose in recent years
if they ever end up succeeding in reversing the effects of the US' Hybrid War on Brazil.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the
relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's One Belt One Road global vision
of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
Once declared by The New York Times to be,
"the most important intellectual alive," a quote it surely regrets, prolific gadfly Noam
Chomsky has said that, "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S.
media." How true. However, the same dictator might find the sloppy, often incoherent work of
that uniform press to be a problem in need of a solution, especially at a time when it finds
itself assaulted on all sides by alternative media. The mainstream finds itself desperately
waging rearguard actions as it stumbles beyond the shadow of respectability. As it retreats
into a shell of reactionary conformity, the mainstream has become a parody of itself. Once, its
propaganda was well-crafted and replete with nuance and high-quality dissimulation, such that
the average American reader could be duped regardless of his or her preconceived notions.
That is no longer the case. The demise of authority in the mainstream is thanks largely to
the relentless round-the-clock news cycle and a deep bias in favor of sound bytes and
sensationalism. How ironic that the collapse of faith in western media is caused by its own
relentless fealty to profitability. The corporate press has now become, for vast segments of
the population, a transparently deceitful congeries of second-rate pseudo-journalists who
traffic in base fictions at the behest of elite capital. Meanwhile, ranks of first-rate
independent journalists now dot the coarse hide of the staggering beast of the mainstream, more
woodpeckers than parasites, slowly penetrating the dense carapace of falsehood that coarsens
the consciousness of western citizenry. Only relentless infusions of capital are keeping the
beast alive. Quantitative easing for the propaganda class.
If you want a nice index of the abysmal depths to which modern political discourse has sunk,
there are dozens of pristine examples on YouTube. In fact, the site is in some sense a
junk-strewn wasteland of western cultural debris, each piece of trash boasting thousands of
views. I recently watched an episode of the BBC's, "The Daily Politics",
now mercifully discontinued after 15 years of spreading disinformation disguised as "in depth"
coverage of political events. Last July, just before being shuttered for good,, the show hosted
the communist Aaron Bastani. (Perhaps this was another effort to align Labour's Jeremy Corbyn
with the fraudulent effigies of Stalin and Mao.)
This show is a particularly good example of what happens when a freethinker is for some
reason permitted time on a mainstream network and utters viewpoints that are well outside the
Overton Window of acceptable opinion. The airing of such thinkers is not, as most suspect, an
example of an open press, but rather a calculated effort to censor unacceptable ideas. On a
psychological level, it serves the same purpose of unifying the herd as burning witches did in
the medieval epoch. There is some sort of malign catharsis in communal attacks on ideological
enemies. Just look at the vicious historical Hindu violence against minority Muslims in India.
Communalism, they call it. In any event, this collection of pseudo-journalists, arrayed around
a table in comfortable chairs, was an especially nice representation of the idiocy of our
current political dialogue. Four neoliberals had to be brought on to collectively mock,
browbeat, and quiz the good-natured YouTube host
of "The Bastani Factor" on his bizarre communist politics.
Theater of the Absurd
The stage is set by show producers when they cast a giant image of a yellow hammer and
sickle against a vast background of red (gulag blood, no doubt). This farcical backdrop covers
half the set. The "guest" Bastani is first mocked for handing out a t-shirt that says, "I'm
literally a communist." Then he is asked by moderator Jo Coburn, a haughty establishment tool
with a penchant for constant interruptions, whether or not Bastani is simply whitewashing "a
murderous ideology."
After Bastani finishes describing communism for the panel, Laura Hughes of the highly
esteemed Financial Times declares that she felt like she'd just sat through her high
school history class all over again, and that what was really needed was, "a new word" other
than communism, since the latter was obviously so freighted with capitalist propaganda (she
didn't exactly say that). Political pundit and Tory Matthew Parris then jumps in to say he's
perfectly comfortable with the current word, and that Marx was perfectly clear about what he
meant by it. Hughes gazes at Parris, nodding with a condescending smile, before Coburn leaps in
to ask again about the supposedly nine million slaughtered at the hands of Stalin's purges,
gulags, and induced famines. Parris laughs uncomfortably and defensively remarks, "Well, I'm
not a communist!" But the bloodthirsty Coburn isn't satisfied. Is understanding communism
not, in effect, trivializing its crimes? Parris then confirms for all and sundry that the
practice of communism will most certainly require mass slaughter.
Coburn jumps back to Bastani, asking whether it requires violence. Rather than say it
requires the seizure of property from the ruling class, and that this act might inspire violent
resistance, as it did from the kulaks following the Bolshevik revolution, Bastani attempts to
smooth it all over with an anecdote from the 14th century, which appeases no one and distracts
everyone. Here another conservative journalist, Suzanne Evans, declares, in reference to the
disturbing t-shirt, to say, "I'm literally a communist" is tantamount to saying, "I'm literally
a fascist." Hughes bounces up and down in her chair and reminds the panel that communism
"didn't work!" She then reiterates her call for "a new word." Someone then asks whether Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn would wear Bastani's communist t-shirt, prompting Bastani to point out
that Corbyn isn't actually a communist. Evans smugly replies, "He's 90 percent a communist" (to
guffaws in the gallery).
Parris has by this point recovered from the dreadful insinuation that he was a tankie. He
then announces that one of the main problems with communism, aside from the mass slaughter, is
that it still has a "student Che Guevara mystique about it." This insight is met with knowing
nods and throaty growls from the panel. He then bafflingly adds that free marketers (like
himself) "haven't been robust enough in defending what we believe in." Bastani might have noted
that a century of nonstop laissez faire propaganda from the business press should surely
have squelched a few noisy gangs of undergrads in Che t-shirts. Alas, the show then dribbled to
a close, everyone declining the offer of the t-shirt as though it were smallpox-infested
blanket from colonial times.
The comments section beneath the YouTube video was largely sympathetic to Bastani, but in
places typically descended into an intra-communist debate about what communism actually is,
with one ideologue insisting that, "The USSR was not remotely Marxist!" Several naysayers
chimed in with the usual boilerplate about how everything we enjoy today is a product of
capitalism and how capitalism is "by far" the best system ever conceived for human prosperity,
etc. As usual, the capitalists take credit for everything except the death toll.
Punching Back
Unfortunately, this is garden variety stuff on mainstream television. One hardly utters a
non-mainstream perspective before opposition pundits have their hackles up and are firing off
stock phrases about the glories of the free market. There are numberless responses to this kind
of commercial pablum, of which a handful come to mind.
First, no one is saying capitalism isn't a great engine of material production. Even Marx
praised it on that count. But we should never tire of pointing out that capitalism isn't about
markets; it's the division of resources between capital and labor, the latter of which get
brutally exploited by the former. As for markets, there were plenty of slave markets in the
ancient world, and plenty of markets under feudalism, and there have been plenty of markets in
socialist economies. Second, the numerous social advances made in the US were made in
spite of capitalism, not because of it. It's not as though the franchise, the eight-hour work
day, or the social safety net were commodities distributed by profit-seeking capitalists in
some magically humane laissez faire agora.
Third, the Soviet Union was a demonstrable success, achieving some remarkable industrial
gains during just the Thirties alone, before western jackals watched while the Nazi
Wehrmacht rolled into Russia, and was finally unraveled by pro-western factions within
the Soviet state. The German Democratic Republic is another example of a profoundly different,
and generally more humane, kind of social organization, that is continuously given the short
shrift by ideologues hurling their "Stasi state" jibes into the bristling ether of social
media. Fourth, we'd have never even begun to exit the Great Recession of 2008 without China's
command economy, with its various socialist aims and government controlled production.
Fifth, no one bothers to investigate the propaganda surrounding communism, referred to in
this awful BBC show
as a "murderous ideology". The purge and gulag and famine death figures were popularly
disseminated largely by Robert Conquest, a British propagandist, and are suspect at best, and
at worst fraudulent. The majority of the left won't even go there for fear of crossing the
threshold into pariah status, and being thrust into that burgeoning cultural pen of actual
socialists and communists. Sixth, there are thought to be
some 20 million people since the end of WWII who have died at the hands of imperial
capitalism, and its unquenchable thirst for new markets. Those figures are not likely to be
falsified, at least partially because they are not the product of a ferociously anti-Communist
propaganda system, but rather independent alternative journalists without a bourgeois mandate
to romanticize neoliberalism and demonize communism. Nor are those numbers likely to stall; the
implacable drive for hegemony promises much more slaughter, with many more million brown men,
women, and children adding to the figures, plenty of them doubtless LGBTQ+ and trans. Seventh,
India, for instance, is hardly better off than it was before the capitalist invasion by
Britain. Same goes for the Congo or anyplace else capital has reached for market access. Life
in the metropole is considerably different than life in the ransacked provinces.
Eighth, when you argue for the current system, you're arguing for a capitalist oligarchy in
which 1 percent of humanity controls more than half the world's wealth, and 30 percent control
95 percent of the wealth, leaving 70 percent of the world's population to support itself on 5
percent of the world's resources, access to which are nevertheless being hotly contested by
capital. Ninth, recent studies have shown marked rises in suicides as neoliberal austerity
takes hold in the metropole itself, while hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers have taken
their own lives thanks to neoliberal structural reforms in a story that provoked meager
interest in western capitals. Tenth, it's been conclusively shown that we are heading into the
sixth mass extinction event in history, produced by capitalist industrialization. Yet almost
all of us are in denial, either as Republicans hastily summoning their liberal conspiracy
talking points, or as neoliberal Democrats who still cling to the meager thread of the Obama
era and the Paris Accords, as if Obama and Paris were really going to address climate change
the way it needs to be addressed.
Alas, these responses might have short-circuited the hive mind of the BBC panel. Facts,
hurled into a pandemonium of deceits, can have that effect. Of course, Bastani was shuttled
away before any of these considerations were tabled, the benighted doxies of imperialism happy
to have had another go at the far left before decamping for their next bourgeois dinner party,
anxious to don their own 'most important intellectual' attire and regale placid peers of the
intelligentsia with tales of ideology run amuck.
Jason Hirthler is a writer, political commentator, and veteran of the communications
industry. He has written for many political communities. He is the recent author of Imperial Fictions, a collection of essays from between 2015-2017. He lives in
New York City and can be reached at[email protected] . Read other articles by Jason .
Leaked
Messages Confirm: Imprisonment of Brazil's Lula da Silva was Politically Motivated
Posted on
June 13, 2019 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield This week
Glenn Greenwald and colleagues published in The Intercept articles based on initial analysis of
a massive trove of internal communications between prosecutors and judges involved in Brazil's
corruption cases. An anonymous source had provided the material. To no one's great surprise,
these documents revealed that former president Lula da Silva's prosecution and conviction were
politically motivated ( part one ;
part
two ; part
three , with more to follow).
GREG WILPERT: It's The Real News Network. And I'm Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.
The website The Intercept released a series of articles last Sunday which provides strong
evidence that last year's conviction and imprisonment of Brazil's former president Lula da
Silva was politically motivated. The articles are based on an enormous archive of internal
communications conducted by prosecutors and judges that The Intercept received from an
anonymous source. The Intercept says that they will be publishing many more articles as they
proceed to analyze the archive.
Lula da Silva has been in prison for just over a year now, serving a 24-year prison sentence
on corruption charges relating to the so-called Lava Jato, or Car Wash, corruption
investigation, in which the construction companies Grupo OAS and Odebrecht were at the center.
Lula was convicted shortly before last year's presidential campaign, in which he was the
leading candidate. It is generally believed that Lula's disqualification from the race is what
enabled far right politician Jair Bolsonaro to win Brazil's presidency.
Joining me now from Florianapolis, Brazil to discuss the latest revelations contained in The
Intercept's reporting is Mike Fox. Mike is a freelance reporter for The Real News Network, and
for many other media outlets. Thanks for joining us today, Mike.
MICHAEL FOX: Thanks for having me, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: So, the articles that were published in The Intercept raise two main
issues with regard to Lula's conviction and his presidential run last year. Let's take them one
at a time. Now, first there is the issue of how prosecutors tried to prevent Lula from giving
an interview to Brazil's largest newspaper, Folha de Sao Paolo. What is the revelation here,
and what is the significance of what prosecutors did?
MICHAEL FOX: Right. So, in September 28 of last year the Supreme Court ruled that
Lula would be allowed to give this interview. Almost immediately thereafter, what we've seen
from these telegram messages is that prosecutors in the Lava Jato task force kind of blew up,
scheming for the next 24 hours about how they could possibly stop this. They called this
mafioso, they called this ridiculous, insane. It was very clear about their political
identification and what they were trying to do to in order to move to block this interview, for
their fear that the Workers Party, this could kind of lift the Workers Party forward into the
first round and into the second round elections to potentially win the election.
In the end the interview itself was blocked by an appeal from Novo, one of the right-wing
political parties. So they–and they were, again, they expressed that they were relieved
in these, these telegram messages. So this is a very clear, one clear example, of a situation
where these prosecutors were actively plotting to try and block as much as possible the Workers
Party from potentially returning to power.
GREG WILPERT: So, the second issue that The Intercept articles highlight has to do
with the evidence against Lula, and how the judge in Lula's case, Sergio Moro, and the main
prosecutor, Deltan Dallagnol, communicated with each other to make a case against Lula. Now,
what did The Intercept find here?
MICHAEL FOX: Right, so this is–this is potentially even more damning. It's
important to remember that the Brazilian justice system is very similar to the United States. A
judge is supposed to be impartial. He accepts the information from the prosecution, and then
from the defense, and makes his decision. But what's clear from these telegram messages is that
he was actually working hand in hand with the prosecutors in the case against Lula. What came
out from here is he was, he was helping to collaborate. He was kind of making recommendations
that Delton and his team should maybe reinvert the direction of the investigations that they
were going onto. At one point in the messages he says, you know, nothing's happened for a
month. You guys need to get moving. You guys need to get out in the street and continue these
investigations. And so he was actually collaborating with the prosecution. There's even one
point which he says "we." You know, we need to work harder. I don't remember the exact quote
that he used. But using the 'we' means that he is actually in collaboration with the
prosecution's case.
And he is himself supposed to be an independent judge. That's what he always said. He always
called himself impartial. And in fact, there was an interview that was tweeted out by Glenn
Greenwald yesterday or today in which–it was a piece of a speech that he gave in which he
said, listen, I'm completely impartial. I'm completely impartial in this situation. But here
from these messages it becomes very clear that that is not the case. And this is not something
that's absolutely new. I mean, we've known around this in Brazil. Many people have known this
for a very long time. But what's so clear about this is it's on paper. We now see the messages
and we see the collaboration. What you also have is a situation where Deltan Dallagnol, who's
the lead prosecutor with the task force, actually came out at one point in messaging with
Sergio Moro, saying, listen, I don't think there's there's enough evidence to convict Lula. And
he was also concerned about the location, why Lula would be tried within the larger Lava Jato
investigation; so why would it be Sergio Moro that would be trying him?
So this is another thing that became very clear within these messages, that even the lead
prosecutor didn't think they had enough evidence in order to be able to convict.
GREG WILPERT: And I think it's also important to note that Sergio Moro himself, then,
after prosecuting Lula–I mean, not prosecuting. Convicting Lula. He then went on to
become a justice minister for Jair Bolsonaro. Which also, again, would not have been possible
if Lula hadn't been convicted. Or presumably wouldn't, because Lula might have won the
presidential election.
MICHAEL FOX: Absolutely. And there's a very–I think we're going to see more
about that specific point in the coming weeks. I mean, we know that The Intercept has only gone
through roughly 1 percent of the total messages that they've received. So this is the tip of
the iceberg. And Glenn Greenwald has alluded to the fact that they may have some information
that even before the elections Sergio Moro had already spoken with Bolsonaro about this
potential Minister of Justice position, and that he may have already accepted.
GREG WILPERT: Now, what have been the reactions to this in Brazil? No doubt, of
course, Lula's supporters feel vindicated. But what are his opponents saying about the
revelations, and what has been the media's reaction to it?
MICHAEL FOX: Well, Sergio Moro obviously has come out defending himself. He said that
A, on one hand, the leaks were made illegally; so they were acquired illegally, and that The
Intercept should not have published it without naming who actually acquired the documents, the
messages. And that has been kind of overall they've been talking about how since these leaks,
since we don't know who gave them, they've been really focusing on kind of the illegality of
acquiring the leaks. Many other people; for instance, Bolsonaro's own son Eduardo has come out
and basically called them fake news. He's been talking about how he believes they may be
manipulated, or just a move in order to try and taint the Bolsonaro government at a moment in
which it's fairly weak. Obviously there have been the very large protests that have been
growing against the education cuts. We've got a general strike planned for this Friday. And so
they kind of see within that context.
In that same–in the same interview, Eduardo Bolsonaro also admitted that he hadn't
read these leaks. And that's been one of the things that's come out. For the very first day,
these were released on Sunday, and that very same day the Lava Jato prosecution team came out
and basically confirmed that these were legitimate messages. They denied that they were
scathing. They deny that they were in any, in way show that there was collusion between the
prosecution and the judge in this case. But they–but they admitted that they were
legitimate. And that's one thing that a lot of people who are kind of Bolsonaro supporters,
supporters of Judge Sergio Moro, have not been talking about.
And obviously the Bolsonaro supporters have been very, very vocal on on social media,
defending the Lava Jato, defending the investigations, defending Sergio Moro, and defending
Bolsonaro. It's important to put into context how important Sergio Moro is for recent years in
Brazil. This is the man who led the largest corruption investigation in the history of Brazil.
And for the right he was very much seen as kind of a superhero. I mean, he was expected to be
the man who would get the next post on the Supreme Court. And his name has even been floated
for potential presidency for the 2022 elections. Obviously in this case right now, as many
analysts have been talking about, those chances are becoming extremely decreased, because Moro
is–and this is what analysts are saying–is that he of everyone, of all kind of the
scandal, the leaks that have come out of this, he's the one who's really become most wrapped up
in this. And that means that they're questioning his agenda as minister of justice. And I mean,
even questions about the decisions he made while he was a judge at the head of this
investigation. So this is really huge. And it goes across the board going back years.
GREG WILPERT: And so, finally, how do you think this might–is there any
indication how this might influence Lula's case, and possibly his appeals?
MICHAEL FOX: It's a great question. We have–just this morning one of the
Supreme Court justices said that the evidence released in these leaks could potentially be used
in order to question or overturn decisions by Judge Sergio Moro when he was a judge at the head
of the Lava Jato investigation. So that is one very important detail. The Supreme Court is
literally this afternoon supposed to be hearing a case, an appeal, over freeing Lula, over
Lula's case. So that's something that's coming up. We're going to be watching very closely.
It's really hard to say where things go from here. Overall, obviously, like I mentioned,
only 1 percent of the messages have been–not the messages have been released, but only 1
percent of the messages have been gone through. So there's a lot of information. We know that
five different political parties, the major left parties, the PP, the PSOL, have already said
that they're not going to–they're going to block anything they possibly can in Congress
until steps have been taken against prosecutors in the Lava Jato team that had been doing the
investigations here. We know that the Public Prosecutor's Office, the National Council for
Public Prosecutor's Office, has already moved to sanction some of those prosecutors. That was
as of this morning. They began the investigations yesterday. They said that five people have
been temporarily suspended. So we know that that is happening. The bar association, the
Brazilian bar association, has called for both Moro and Deltan Dallagnol to step down because
of their implications within all this. And like I said, this is just the beginning. It is the
major news. And we believe it's going to continue to grow in the coming days and coming
weeks.
GREG WILPERT: And we'll definitely come back to you as this case develops and as it
explodes in Brazil. We're going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Mike Fox,
freelance reporter based in Florianopolis, Brazil. Thanks again, Mike, for having joined us
today.
MICHAEL FOX: Thanks, Greg.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
This won`t be the first, the second, 3rd example on how the rigth/conservatives use
illegal/corrupt methods to prevent access of progressives to power. In a few particular cases
I know, when the illegal practice was uncovered, this didn't have any consequence because the
conservatives are already in power and block any initiative except, perhaps, blaming it all
on a single person that will therefore be pardoned with gratitude. Will this case be
different?
Taking out 'left' leaders in Latin America judicially is a real thing, funded amongst
others by Koch brothers subsidiaries.
My guess is that the new phase of savage neoliberalism is going to roll this
anti-progressive PR-judicial weaponry out on a vast scale everywhere in future, particularly
as climate change activism and progressive leadership attached to that movement comes more
and more to the fore..
My guess is also that people like Jeremy Corbyn are going to fall foul of this
industrial-intelligence complex weaponry using a range of apparently unrelated 'moral'
issues, viz the recent 'Labour antisemitism' bullshit and the revelations in Haaretz about
the activities of Mossad on social media against the BDS movement.
Los Angeles had nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine, but about a century ago, Hollywood
was feeling teething pains
I always liked the reverse (the back) of this coin, with stylized women representing North
America & South America touching, ala the Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel.
In 1922, the motion picture industry was faced with a number of scandals, including
manslaughter charges against star Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. Although Arbuckle was eventually
acquitted, motion picture executives sought ways of getting good publicity for Hollywood.
One means was an exposition, to be held in Los Angeles in mid-1923. To induce Congress to
issue a commemorative coin as a fundraiser for the fair, organizers associated the
exposition with the 100th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, and legislation for a
commemorative half dollar for the centennial was passed.
Bending the arch of human destructiveness must be a common goal moving forward. Doing good
works not dedicated to achieving profit being the guiding principle. This sorts people out
fairly clearly.
To drive this point home, I can't help but think that Greenwald's really important work is
his current project with dogs and the poor. That work has a direct effect on making a better
future. His other work exposing corruption, while important, only serves to drive social
evolution to greater complexity.
One cannot fight corruption. One succumbs to it or not. Corruption eventually burns itself
out.
If more people figure out for themselves that good works are most important in life, then
the flames of corruption won't burn the entire world.
I think MMT makes understanding major government corruption much easier.
If they were filching pens from the office cupboard they could be caught easily, but since
they're stealing something that can be made out of thin air for a long time without anyone
noticing
Taking a long view it was very astute and cleverly conceived plan to to present
counter-revolution as revolution; progress as regress; the new order 1980- (i.e.,
neoliberalism) was cool, and the old order 1945-1975 (welfare-capitalism) was fuddy-duddy.
Thus:
Capital controls = fuddy duddy Capital Account liberalisation = cool Worker's
Rights = fuddy duddy Flexible Labour markets = cool World Peace -- fuddy duddy War = Cool
National Sovereignty = fuddy duddy Globalization = Cool Social Mobility = fuddy duddy
Inequality = cool Respect for elections/referenda = fuddy-duddy Flexible referenda/elections
= cool Social solidarity = fuddy-duddy Rampant nihilistic invidualism = cool Respect for
human rights and the UN International Law = fuddy-duddy Blatant Imperialism = cool
And so the agenda goes on. Counter-revolution qua revolution
"... put some trigger words than inhibit zombies brains: racist, antisemite, populist, fascist, white, sexist, ..."
"... There can be no debates without first pointing out objective reality (factual observations). Long logical expositions often turn out to be dissimulation.. ..."
"... Objective reality, based on history, suggests that human beings are irrational at best, and depraved at worst. The issue is not one of swaying folks, it's one of asking them to place themselves in the shoes of their opponents. ..."
To deny debate.. they simply engineer language.. and put some trigger words than inhibit
zombies brains: racist, antisemite, populist, fascist, white, sexist, ...
There can be no debates without first pointing out objective reality (factual
observations). Long logical expositions often turn out to be dissimulation..
Objective reality, based on history, suggests that human beings are irrational at best,
and depraved at worst. The issue is not one of swaying folks, it's one of asking them to
place themselves in the shoes of their opponents.
It's not about religion either, but about what's been proven to work, and what's not
worked. Neither is it about winning arguments, that's just ego stroking.
What it's about, is how to get along even when there's disagreement on issues, and that
requires the maturity to first, acknowledge when one may be wrong, questioning one's
assumptions, and allowing others their beliefs provided it reduces or prevents harm to
others.
Concisely, the core issue is about the minimization of harm to others, especially
conscious harm. Everything else is just details. Expositions that rely extensively on theory
are dissimulations, stories, short stories, are way more effective especially when they're
relatable.
Technical expositions are for professional debaters (academics), stories are for people,
those who truly wish to get along..
"... You point out that our entertainment industry focuses its plots on strong leaders, and Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and we definitely internalize that, especially when our overlords want to demonize another country, and use our entertainment-induced perspective as a shortcut. ..."
"... But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town square. ..."
"... We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it, Doublethink. ..."
You point out that our entertainment industry focuses its plots on strong leaders, and
Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and we definitely internalize that, especially when our overlords want
to demonize another country, and use our entertainment-induced perspective as a shortcut.
They tell us that the leader of the targeted country is a Bad Guy and we must kill the
people in order to save them. And Americans nod and comply. Except for the 5% that prefers
peace, and they argue that the leader is not a Bad Guy, so we shouldn't kill the people to
save them.
No American ever thinks to argue international law or basic morality, we just argue about the
plot lines.
But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a
puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town
square.
We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it,
Doublethink.
The concept of hate speech is a form of censorship, but censorship is not 'one size fit all" phenomenon. Something
is is justified and even necessary. Sometimes it is just a demonstration of raw political power ("Might makes right") and
suppressing of the dissent.
In any case the neoliberal interpretation of "hurt feelings" as justification for censorship is open to review.
Notable quotes:
"... It’s the greatest power of an ideology that it can seep into the worldview of those who claim to oppose it. ..."
I’m reading
another article about debates over free speech on campus, this time at Williams College, an elite school in the northwestern
corner of Massachusetts. A faculty petition asks to formalize and tighten the college’s policy on free speech by adopting the
Chicago Principles, which state that “concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for
closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.” Over
three hundred students, however, have signed a counterpetition arguing that speech which harms minorities should not be
allowed.
... ... ...
Peter Dorman
I fear my post was overly subtle. Let me be more explicit and see if that helps. My
argument was not about “free speech versus social justice warriors” or anything
of the sort. It was about a relatively new response to politics I saw first hand at Evergreen
and have read about at other institutions.
I lived through the experience of hearing activists protesting against emails and
statements at public meetings on the grounds they (the activists) were being subjected to
emotional distress. Even more remarkably, no one else openly questioned the basis on which
this argument rested. The whole tenor of discussion had shifted, and the line between public
and private had apparently been redrawn such that the private criterion of “how does
this make me feel” could be employed as a reason to suppress, or at least discourage,
political action.
It struck me that this was the characteristic shift of neoliberalism, reinterpreting the
public sphere as simply another venue for applying the hedonic calculus of individual
pleasure/pain. (Virginia-style public choice theory does something similar but in a very
different way.) I grant that much more was entailed at Evergreen, just as neoliberalism
entails far more than this one characteristic; nevertheless, the it-makes-me-feel-bad
argument for narrowing the public sphere is historically new—yes?—and coincides
with the more general neoliberal view that “the political is personal”.
Our feelings of personal well-being become political criteria of what is right and wrong
for the community, just as our political agency is reduced to personal choice. (What am I not
supposed to buy? What is the right language for me to use when talking to someone of identity
X?)
I don’t want to add more to the stew, but one further point is relevant. The
stories, all of them, that have been disseminated about what happened at Evergreen during
2017 and the runup to those events are incomplete if not simply false. This includes the
testimony of Bret Weinstein, who is factually correct about the direct experiences he
underwent but has no clue about the forces and interests that instigated them. Suffice it to
say that the faculty and perhaps students of the political left were mostly bystanders in
this imbroglio. (Anecdotal evidence: my radical students were not involved, and my students
who were involved were not the radicals.)
They may have taken sides after the event, but the
conflict was not about leftism, Marxism, radicalism or even social justice in any substantive
sense. That’s worth pointing out because it provides a further dimension to the
argument I made in my post. No significant political change was either proposed during or
eventuated from the 2017 protests, except the ongoing dismantling of some of the
college’s more experimental features in the face of a devastating budget crisis.
I am trying to understand how an ostensibly political event could be so deeply
anti-political. There are structural aspects I haven’t brought up and don’t have
time or space for: who did what and through what institutional mechanisms, etc. In this post
I am simply trying to identify some of the underlying assumptions behind the rhetoric.
This post makes an interesting encapsulation of Neoliberalism: “life is an
accumulation of moments of utility and disutility”. I am not convinced this formulation
is sufficient to characterize Neoliberalism. How well would this formulation distinguish
between Neoliberals and Epicures?
“Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its
sole intrinsic goal, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest
pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from
“hedonism” as colloquially understood.”
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism]
Is ‘utility’ greatly different than ‘pleasure’ as Epicures frame that
word?
I do like the last sentence of the post: “It’s the greatest power of an
ideology that it can seep into the worldview of those who claim to oppose it.”...
The topic of free speech per se free speech was excellently covered by Howard Zinn in his
talk “Second Thoughts on the First Amendment”. [I received a copy of the mp3 of
this speech as a premium from my contribution to Pacifica Radio WBAI. The lowest price mp3 or
written transcript for the speech was at https://www.alternativeradio.org/products/zinh006/
transcript for $3 or mp3 download for $5.]
Zinn’s speech made it clear that free speech was no simple matter contained within
the meaning of the words ‘free speech’. There are questions of the intent of
speech — the effects of a speech … bad feelings? … inciting a riot
— capacity for speech that spreads fear … spreading unwarranted panic the
classic yelling “Fire” in a crowded building — questions of the forum?
There is free speech on a street corner and free speech on television, and they differ
greatly in kind, and there is defamatory and slanderous speech.
...The equation between speech and money
our ‘Supremes’ made is little short of the complete debasement of the Supreme
Court as a forum of jurisprudence. The ‘prudence’ must be expunges from any
characterizations of their judgements FAVORABLE or otherwise. The Supreme Court does not
interpret the laws of the land. Like our Legislatures they are ‘bought’ and
‘bot’ to the whims of money.
Adam Eran April 26, 2019 at 7:06 pm
I’d suggest the dispute is theological. Everyone wants a “higher power” to bless their particular approach. The neoliberal
preference for comparing measurable effects, scoring them as costs or benefits, is the standard MBA religion. Why if you
can’t measure it, it mustn’t exist!
The whole approach doesn’t require too much thinking, and has the imprimatur of “science” and “reason” both… Excellent gods,
all. Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years makes a good case for the way our confusion of monetary with ethical comparisons
has managed to bamboozle humanity for literally thousands of years. You see rich people deserve their wealth. They are good,
and you can tell by the amount of money they have. See!
Code Name D, April 26, 2019 at 7:14 pm
Some speech has as its primary purpose making others suffer, through insult or instigating fear, and has little or no
persuasive intent. That’s hate speech, and I don’t see a problem with curtailing it.
The problem is just about anything “becomes” “hate speach” as a means of censorship. Calling out Isrial’s influence on US
politics becomes antisimitism. Being critical of Hillary is misogany. Hell, not liking Campain Marvel is an example of hate
speach. Recently negative reviews of the movie were removed from Rotten Tomatos as an example.
You might imagin that a line could be drawn some where. But when ever you draw that line, it always migrates over time.
Neoliberalism destroys itself, don't panic. A ridiculous economic model was rolled out globally that had no long term future. The standard debt fuelled growth model of neoliberalism. The UK:
China has seen their Minsky Moment coming and the debt fuelled growth model can no longer
be used. Adair Turner took over at the FSA when Lehman Brothers collapsed and this gave him the
incentive to find out what was going on.
Adair Turner has looked at the situation prior to the crisis where advanced economies were
growing by 4 – 5%, but the debt was rising at 10 – 15%. This always was an unsustainable growth model; it had no long term future.
After 2008, the emerging markets adopted the unsustainable growth model and they too have
now reached the end of the line. We are trying to maintain an economic model that never had a long term future as it only
worked by adding more and more debt in an unsustainable way. The debt didn't grow with
GDP. How can banks grow GDP with bank credit?
I have a problem with any argument based upon hurt feelings. Just what the heck are "hurt
feelings?" How do we tell when someone is sincere or faking said? How do we tell when someone
is emotionally fragile? How do we tell when someone has distorted values (But Hitler is my
hero!)? How do we shock college students out of their complacency? How do we challenge them
with new ideas? Are we to stop talking about the theory of evolution because someone's
religious sensibilities are offended?
Having said that it is my generation that jettisoned good manners and we are now suffering
the affects of that. The foundation of communication is knowing your audience and how much
information that can receive at a time and some forgoe any consideration of that effect to
make a controversy where there is none. And political free speech is absolutely necessary if
we are to be a country that governs ourselves.
The free exchange of ideas, and the evolution of ideas via exposure of new facts and
interpretations and disagreements is vitally important; all progress comes from this. However
fake news, bullshit arguments, and its long lasting effects cannot be underestimated. An easy
example of is the 'the measles vaccine causes autism' bullshit debacle, which both caused
numerous children and adults to now needlessly contract measles and more importantly, caused
ordinary people to doubt the integrity of the medical professionals, and even science in
general.. the discussion needs to expand from between speaker and the hurt listener, to third
parties who are listening, who may or may not have their agendas, but whose opinion can be
shifted based on the debate.
Btw, tobacco industry bullshit, climate change denial bullshit, are other huge sources of
untruth which has polluted the discussions of today
We need to have a discussion/teaching on how we can again have truthful debate, however
painful, and be able to distinguish from bald lies , false narratives or bullshit which
unfortunately clouds many debates.
We need to accept that the truth exists and that we must seek to discern it. We need a
deep discussion on what is truth and how to search for it and understand it, realizing that
although the truth exists, that one person's perception and experience of it may differ from
that of Another persons. And we need this discussion and skill set to be widely distributed,
in a sense like a mental vaccine to help combat against the Bullshit virus that pervades the
discussion today.
I too have noticed a shift in rhetoric. A recent incident at my own institution comes to
mind. A letter appeared in the student newspaper complaining about an awards ceremony for
university athletes. Apparently, a male tennis player of color had given a speech in which he
thanked the university for having provided him with the opportunity to sleep with lots of
white women. The author of the letter of complaint, a female student-athlete of color who'd
attended the ceremony, claimed that this made her feel "unsafe," and wondered why the
university president, who was in attendance, had not put a stop to the offending speech. In
the course of the discussion which followed publication of the letter, no university official
publicly questioned whether the complaining student should have felt afraid in that setting
(an awards ceremony on a university campus with hundreds of people, including the university
president, in attendance). No university official publicly questioned whether feelings of
fear, reasonable or not, are grounds for stopping a speech. Some faculty members did however
create a circular letter supporting the complaining student and at least strongly suggesting
official punitive actions against the offending student and his coaches. Debate then focused
on whether his coaches should be fired.
Note that in this case the feelings in question are not just any unpleasant feelings. The
problem with the offending speech was not that it provoked anger or sorrow. The problem was
that it made her afraid. So, I'm skeptical of the explanation for the shift in rhetoric
offered above, the one having to do with neoliberal habits of thought. Its not specific
enough.
Thanks for giving me a chance to take up a tangent I left out of the post in the interest
of curtailing sprawl. The safety version of the I-feel-bad argument is interesting.
Here is one interpretation, very provisional. Despite its increasing popularity, the
general claim that certain types of political debate or social expression should be off
limits because it makes me feel uncomfortable has an uncertain status. Institutions don't
have an explicit obligation to promote the moment-to-moment subjective well-being of
participants. (Even neoliberal approaches to governance, like cost-benefit analysis, avoid
this by basing their justification on postulates that identify current and prospective
"utility", however dicey they may be in practice.)
Into the breach jumps the safety trope. Institutions do have an obligation to protect the
safety of those they include and touch. Movements against rape and domestic violence as well
as pathological police violence have invoked this responsibility, and rightly so. And student
movements, in an apparent effort to establish a parallel, have expressed the feeling-bad
argument as feeling-unsafe.
The problem, as you point out, is the difference between feeling and being unsafe. I'm not
in a position to question whether you feel bad (I'm sure I would have felt furious if I had
been in the awards ceremony you describe and heard a predatory remark like the athlete's),
but I can question whether you really are as unsafe as you claim. (I agree with your point
about the objective safety of being in the awards audience.) The catch, however, is that
there is another cultural trope at work, the conflation of belief and knowledge. This is now
firmly ensconced in the worldview of much of the left, or "left" as I would put it. It
underlies the doctrine of positionality, transforming it from a version of ideology theory
(which I respect) to an epistemology (which is preposterous). Come to think of it, its
failure to admit the enormous sphere of intersubjectivity, the portion of reality we share
and is subject to the rules of evidence, has a sort of neoliberal (specifically Hayekian)
tinge to it.
So no, you don't get to say, "Actually, you are quite safe here." There is no shared
reality to examine that could possibly overrule someone's feeling that they are unsafe. I
have had this exact conversation with several students, but I also see versions of it in the
popular media and even in a lot of "scholarly" work. The mantra of those faculty and
administrators supporting (or in some cases collaborating with) protesters at Evergreen was
"listen to the students", as if what we hear -- and yes, of course we should listen to them
-- was thereby the factual state of the college we had to respond to. It's also a reason why
about a tenth of the student body, which excluded many or most of the radicals (see above),
had to be referred to as "the students". The "subjective perception = reality" formulation is
incoherent in the face of competing, incompatible subjective perceptions.
My reading is that the core psychological principle of neoliberalism, that life is an accumulation of moments of utility
and disutility, is alive and well within certain sectors of the "left". A speech (or email or comment at a meeting) should be
evaluated by how it makes us feel, and no one should have the right to make us feel bad.
Not sure about this "utility/disutility" dichotomy (probably you mean market fundamentalism -- belief that market ( and market
mechanisms) is a self regulating, supernaturally predictive force that will guide human beings to the neoliberal Heavens), but, yes,
neoliberalism infected the "left" and, especially, Democratic Party which was converted by Clinton into greedy and corrupt "DemoRats'
subservient to Wall Street and antagonistic to the trade unions. And into the second War Party, which in certain areas is even more
jingoistic and aggressive then Republicans (Obama color revolution in Ukraine is one example; Hillary Libya destruction is another;
both were instrumental in unleashing the civil war on Syria and importing and arming Muslim fundamentalists to fight it).
It might make sense to view neoliberalism as a new secular religion which displaced Marxism on the world arena (and collapse of
the USSR was in part the result of the collapse of Marxism as an ideology under onslaught of neoliberalism; although bribes of USSR
functionaries and mismanagement of the economy due to over centralization -- country as a single gigantic corporation -- also greatly
helped) .
Neoliberalism demonstrates the same level of intolerance (and actually series of wars somewhat similar to Crusades) as any monotheistic
religion in early stages of its development. Because at this stage any adept knows the truth and to believe in this truth is to be
saved; everything else is eternal damnation (aka living under "authoritarian regime" ;-) .
And so far there is nothing that will force the neoliberal/neocon Torquemadas to abandon their loaded with bombs jets as the tool
of enlightenment of pagan states ;-)
Simplifying, neoliberalism can be viewed an a masterfully crafted, internally consistent amalgam of myths and pseudo theories
(partially borrowed from Trotskyism) that justifies the rule of financial oligarchy and high level inequality in the society (redistribution
of the wealth up). Kind of Trotskyism for the rich with the same idea of Permanent Revolution until global victory of neoliberalism.
That's why neoliberals charlatans like Hayek and Friedman were dusted off, given Nobel Prizes and promoted to the top in economics:
they were very helpful and pretty skillful in forging neoliberal myths. Especially Hayek. A second rate economist who proved to be
the first class theologian .
Promoting "neoliberal salvation" was critical for the achieving the political victory of neoliberalism in late 1979th and discrediting
and destroying the remnants of the New Deal capitalism (already undermined at this time by the oil crisis)
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions. And neoliberalism survived in Russia under Putin and Medvedev as well, despite economic rape that Western
neoliberals performed on Russia under Yeltsin with the help of Harvard mafia.
That's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions.
that's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
Multipolarity has taken a back seat. Iranian economy is bad, turkish economy is bad, India
stopped buying iranian oil, Brazil got taken over via Bolsonaro, China was intimidated to
give better trade conditions, Russian growth rate is weak. Even Khamenei admits that Europe
has left the JCPOA in practice.
Europe remains a vassal. There are no prospects for european independence from the looks
of it.
The growth rates of those who oppose the US have been hit.
Active measures are being taken to oppose multipolarity on all fronts.
The truth is that you guys underestimate the US. They fight good.
Underlying issues though, such as changing demographics and inreasing debt levels are
still weakening the US in the long run.
But they are not out of the game and they won't be for at least another 20 years. The US
decline is going to be slower that you thought.
"... Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake. ..."
"... These conspicuous successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries. ..."
Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the
empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake.
These conspicuous
successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly
change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries.
There will be
backlash against the fascists in Brazil, and the right wing leaderships in governments
elsewhere in Latin America that the US has maneuvered into place as these leaders fail to
deliver material gains to their populations. And fail they will considering we are in
late-stage capitalism.
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services?
Notable quotes:
"... Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? ..."
"... "Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5." ..."
"... Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll. ..."
"... The heart of the secret state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants. ..."
"... As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood at the end of their career". ..."
"... Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance. ..."
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? The following extracts are from
an article at the excellent Medialens
And so to Nottingham University (on Sunday 26 February) for a well-attended conference...
I focus in my talk on the links between journalists and the intelligence services: While it might be difficult to identify precisely
the impact of the spooks (variously represented in the press as "intelligence", "security", "Whitehall" or "Home Office" sources)
on mainstream politics and media, from the limited evidence it looks to be enormous.
As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented:
"Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5."
Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished
journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll.
And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct
Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists.
In their analysis of the contemporary secret state, Dorril and Ramsay gave the media a crucial role. The heart of the secret
state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed
forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants.
As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of
the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood
at the end of their career".
Phillip Knightley, author of a seminal history of the intelligence services, has even claimed that at least one intelligence agent
is working on every Fleet Street newspaper.
A brief history
Going as far back as 1945, George Orwell no less became a war correspondent for the Observer - probably as a
cover for intelligence work. Significantly most of the men he met in Paris on his assignment, Freddie Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Ernest
Hemingway were either working for the intelligence services or had close links to them.
Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf
of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance.
The release of Public Record Office documents in 1995 about some of the operations of the MI6-financed propaganda unit, the
Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, threw light on this secret body - which even Orwell aided
by sending them a list of "crypto-communists". Set up by the Labour government in 1948, it "ran" dozens of Fleet Street journalists
and a vast array of news agencies across the globe until it was closed down by Foreign Secretary David Owen in 1977.
According to John Pilger in the anti-colonial struggles in Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus, IRD was so successful that the journalism
served up as a record of those episodes was a cocktail of the distorted and false in which the real aims and often atrocious behaviour
of the British intelligence agencies was hidden.
And spy novelist John le Carré, who worked for MI6 between 1960 and 1964, has made the amazing statement that the British secret
service then controlled large parts of the press – just as they may do today.
In 1975, following Senate hearings on the CIA, the reports of the Senate's Church Committee and the House of Representatives'
Pike Committee highlighted the extent of agency recruitment of both British and US journalists.
And sources revealed that half the foreign staff of a British daily were on the MI6 payroll.
David Leigh, in The Wilson Plot, his seminal study of the way in which the secret service smeared through the mainstream media
and destabilised the Government of Harold Wilson before his sudden resignation in 1976, quotes an MI5 officer: "We have somebody
in every office in Fleet Street"
Leaker King
And the most famous whistleblower of all, Peter (Spycatcher) Wright, revealed that MI5 had agents in newspapers and publishing
companies whose main role was to warn them of any forthcoming "embarrassing publications".
Wright also disclosed that the Daily Mirror tycoon, Cecil King, "was a longstanding agent of ours" who "made it clear
he would publish anything MI5 might care to leak in his direction".
Selective details about Wilson and his secretary, Marcia Falkender, were leaked by the intelligence services to sympathetic Fleet
Street journalists. Wright comments: "No wonder Wilson was later to claim that he was the victim of a plot". King was also closely
involved in a scheme in 1968 to oust Prime Minister Harold Wilson and replace him with a coalition headed by Lord Mountbatten.
Hugh Cudlipp, editorial director of the Mirror from 1952 to 1974, was also closely linked to intelligence, according
to Chris Horrie, in his recently published history of the newspaper.
David Walker, the Mirror's foreign correspondent in the 1950s, was named as an MI6 agent following a security
scandal while another Mirror journalist, Stanley Bonnet, admitted working for MI5 in the 1980s investigating the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament.
Maxwell and Mossad
According to Stephen Dorril, intelligence gathering during the miners' strike of 1984-85 was helped by the fact that during the
1970s MI5's F Branch had made a special effort to recruit industrial correspondents – with great success.
In 1991, just before his mysterious death, Mirror proprietor Robert Maxwell was accused by the US investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh of acting for Mossad, the Israeli secret service, though Dorril suggests his links with MI6
were equally as strong.
Following the resignation from the Guardian of Richard Gott, its literary editor in December 1994 in the wake of allegations that
he was a paid agent of the KGB, the role of journalists as spies suddenly came under the media spotlight – and many of the leaks
were fascinating.
For instance, according to The Times editorial of 16 December 1994: "Many British journalists benefited from CIA or MI6 largesse
during the Cold War."
The intimate links between journalists and the secret services were highlighted in the autobiography of the eminent newscaster
Sandy Gall. He reports without any qualms how, after returning from one of his reporting assignments to Afghanistan, he was asked
to lunch by the head of MI6. "It was very informal, the cook was off so we had cold meat and salad with plenty of wine. He wanted
to hear what I had to say about the war in Afghanistan. I was flattered, of course, and anxious to pass on what I could in terms
of first-hand knowledge."
And in January 2001, the renegade MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, claimed Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph
and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to
handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain.
Lawson strongly denied the allegations.
Similarly in the reporting of Northern Ireland, there have been longstanding concerns over security service disinformation. Susan
McKay, Northern editor of the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune, has criticised the reckless reporting of material from "dodgy security
services". She told a conference in Belfast in January 2003 organised by the National Union of Journalists and the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission: "We need to be suspicious when people are so ready to provide information and that we are, in fact, not
being used." (www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=635)
Growing power of secret state
Thus from this evidence alone it is clear there has been a long history of links between hacks and spooks in both the UK and US.
But as the secret state grows in power, through massive resourcing, through a whole raft of legislation – such as the Official
Secrets Act, the anti-terrorism legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and so on – and as intelligence moves into
the heart of Blair's ruling clique so these links are even more significant.
Since September 11 all of Fleet Street has been awash in warnings by anonymous intelligence sources of terrorist threats.
According to former Labour minister Michael Meacher, much of this disinformation was spread via sympathetic journalists by
the Rockingham cell within the MoD.
A parallel exercise, through the office of Special Plans, was set up by Donald Rumsfeld in the US. Thus there have been constant
attempts to scare people – and justify still greater powers for the national security apparatus.
Similarly the disinformation about Iraq's WMD was spread by dodgy intelligence sources via gullible journalists.
Thus, to take just one example, Michael Evans, The Times defence correspondent, reported on 29 November 2002: "Saddam Hussein
has ordered hundred of his officials to conceal weapons of mass destruction components in their homes to evade the prying eyes of
the United Nations inspectors." The source of these "revelations" was said to be "intelligence picked up from within Iraq". Early
in 2004, as the battle for control of Iraq continued with mounting casualties on both sides, it was revealed that many of the lies
about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD had been fed to sympathetic journalists in the US, Britain and Australia by the exile group,
the Iraqi National Congress.
Sexed up – and missed out
During the controversy that erupted following the end of the "war" and the death of the arms inspector Dr David Kelly (and the
ensuing Hutton inquiry) the spotlight fell on BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the claim by one of his sources that the government
(in collusion with the intelligence services) had "sexed up" a dossier justifying an attack on Iraq.
The Hutton inquiry, its every twist and turn massively covered in the mainstream media, was the archetypal media spectacle that
drew attention from the real issue: why did the Bush and Blair governments invade Iraq in the face of massive global opposition?
But those facts will be forever secret.
Significantly, too, the broader and more significant issue of mainstream journalists' links with the intelligence services was
ignored by the inquiry.
Significantly, on 26 May 2004, the New York Times carried a 1,200-word editorial admitting it had been duped in its coverage of
WMD in the lead-up to the invasion by dubious Iraqi defectors, informants and exiles (though it failed to lay any blame on the US
President: see Greenslade 2004). Chief among The Times' dodgy informants was Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress
and Pentagon favourite before his Baghdad house was raided by US forces on 20 May.
Then, in the Observer of 30 May 2004, David Rose admitted he had been the victim of a "calculated set-up" devised to foster the
propaganda case for war. "In the 18 months before the invasion of March 2003, I dealt regularly with Chalabi and the INC and published
stories based on interviews with men they said were defectors from Saddam's regime." And he concluded: "The information fog is thicker
than in any previous war, as I know now from bitter personal experience. To any journalist being offered apparently sensational disclosures,
especially from an anonymous intelligence source, I offer two words of advice: caveat emptor."
Let's not forget no British newspaper has followed the example of the NYT and apologised for being so easily duped by the intelligence
services in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
~
Richard Keeble's publications include Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, the Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare (John
Libbey 1997) and The Newspapers Handbook (Routledge, fourth edition, 2005). He is also the editor of Ethical Space: The International
Journal of Communication Ethics. Richard is also a member of the War and Media Network.
"... General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC. MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market. Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women and Children. ..."
"... Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War". ..."
"... The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war. ..."
"... the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark forces. ..."
"... The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening ..."
"... In media universe there is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing. ..."
"... The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. ..."
"... Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department to your favorite media outlet. ..."
"... But all that research from MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and distorts and misrepresents the news every day. ..."
The American Public has gotten exactly what it deserved. They have been dumbed-down in our poor-by-intention school systems. The
moronic nonsense that passes for news in this country gets more sensational with each passing day. Over on Fox, they are making
the claim that ISIS fighters are bringing Ebola over the Mexican Border, which prompted a reply by the Mexican Embassy that won't
be reported on Fox.
We continue to hear and it was even reported in this very fine article by Ms. Benjamin that the American
People now support this new war. Really? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that support anywhere but on the news and I just don't
believe it any more.
There is also the little problem of infiltration into key media slots by paid CIA Assets (Scarborough and brainless Mika are
two of these double dippers). Others are intermarried. Right-wing Neocon War Criminal Dan Senor is married to "respected" newsperson
Campbell Brown who is now involved in privatizing our school system. Victoria Nuland, the slimey State Department Official who
was overheard appointing the members of the future Ukrainian Government prior to the Maidan Coup is married to another Neo-Con--Larry
Kagan. Even sweet little Andrea Mitchell is actually Mrs. Alan Greenspan.
General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC.
MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market.
Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being
CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli
Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women
and Children.
Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is
connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option
discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to
a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior
put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War".
Yesterday there was a coordinated action by all of the networks, which was clearly designed to support the idea that the generals
want Obama to act and he just won't. The not-so-subtle message was that the generals were right and that the President's "inaction"
was somehow out of line-since, after all, the generals have recommended more war. It was as if these people don't remember that
the President, sleazy War Criminal that he is, is still the Commander in Chief.
The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our
various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that
they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war.
Finally, this Sunday every NFL Game will begin with some Patriotic "Honor America" Display, which will include a missing man
flyover, flags and fireworks, plenty of uniforms, wounded Vets and soon-to-be-wounded Vets. A giant American Flag will, once again,
cover the fields and hundreds of stupid young kids will rush down to their "Military Career Center" right after the game. These
are the ones that I pity most.
Let's be frank: powerful interests want war and subsequent puppet regimes in the half dozen nations that the neo-cons have been
eyeing (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan). These interests surely include industries like banking, arms and oil-all of
whom make a killing on any war, and would stand to do well with friendly governments who could finance more arms purchases and
will never nationalize the oil.
So, the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come
back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact
that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark
forces.
IanB52, 10 October 2014 6:57pm
The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening. When I'm down at the gym they always have CNN on (I can
only imagine what FOX is like) which is a pretty much dyed in the wool yellow jingoist station at this point. With all the segments
they dedicate to ISIS, a new war, the "imminent" terrorist threat, they seem to favor talking heads who support a full ground
war and I have never, not once, heard anyone even speak about the mere possibility of peace. Not ever.
In media universe there
is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing.
I'd imagine that these media companies have a lot stock in and a cozy relationship with the defense contractors.
Damiano Iocovozzi, 10 October 2014 7:04pm
The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. The media doesn't report on anything but
relies on repeating manufactured crises, creating manufactured consent & discussing manufactured solutions. Follow the oil, the
pipelines & the money. Both R's & D's are left & right cheeks of the same buttock. Thanks to Citizens United & even Hobby Lobby,
a compliant Supreme Court, also owned by United States of Corporations, it's a done deal.
Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer
have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department
to your favorite media outlet.
Let me give you one clear example. A year ago Barack Obama came very close to bombing Syria to
kingdom come, the justification used was "Assad gassed his own people", referring to a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Well, it
turns out that Assad did not initiate that attack, discovered by research from many sources including the prestigious MIT, it
was a false flag attack planned by Turkey and carried out by some of Obama's own "moderate rebels".
But all that research from
MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written
still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and
distorts and misrepresents the news every day.
"... Yes, Minister was a neoliberal attack on government as such. It set the "entrepreneurial" political hero/leader against the corrupt "civil service". ..."
"... Following this line of reasoning, it seems to me that the US military establishment has been in decline ever since the Pentagon was built and the temporary Navy Dept. buildings erected on the National Mall were razed ..."
"... Being that the Pentagon opened in 1943 and the buildings on the Mall were razed in 1970, which roughly coincides with our costly imperial adventures in Korea and Vietnam, I think Parkinson's Law #6 is dead on here. ..."
Years ago, while working in an Australian state public service department, we considered 'Yes Minister' to be a documentary,
and used it amongst ourselves as training material.
Yes, Minister was a neoliberal attack on government as such. It set the "entrepreneurial" political hero/leader against the
corrupt "civil service". It made the latter the "deep state", thereby tainting forever the welfare state as an evil hidden conspiracy
that (mysteriously) pandered to the meritocratically worthless. If that is what you mean by "Deep State" then you can have it.
It is now known that a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse . [P]erfection
of planning is a symptom of decay. During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters.
The time for that comes later, when all the important work has been done. Perfection, we know, is finality; and finality is
death.
Following this line of reasoning, it seems to me that the US military establishment has been in decline ever since the Pentagon
was built and the temporary Navy Dept. buildings erected on the National Mall were razed.
Being that the Pentagon opened in 1943
and the buildings on the Mall were razed in 1970, which roughly coincides with our costly imperial adventures in Korea and Vietnam,
I think Parkinson's Law #6 is dead on here.
A popular narrative in the West is that the world would be a much better place if all
countries just look and act more like the Western world. Indeed, the West has enjoyed great
wealth and growth over the years. But growing instability in the Western world has also raised
doubts about the Western-style of democratic governance.
In fact, there is a tendency to put Western-style democracy on a pedestal; but by doing so,
we overlook its faults and even potential dangers. From the never-ending gridlock in
Washington, to chaos in the House of Commons of United Kingdom over the Brexit mess, to people
rioting on the streets of Paris, more and more people are calling into question the
effectiveness of Western-style democracy.
Brexit, for some at least, encapsulates the perils and pitfalls of this style of democracy.
In June 2016, the people of the UK voted to leave the European Union and, for now at least, the
UK will leave the EU by March 29 this year, with or without a plan in place. The irrational
jump into the unknown and the chaos that followed has created a troubling situation for the
country, as well as other parts of the world, raising serious questions about the effectiveness
and legitimacy of UK-style democracy.
Whether to leave or stay in the EU is a complicated issue that requires careful study and
rational decisions from knowledgeable, well-informed people. It is irresponsible to just drag
people off the streets for a vote on a major policy issue like Brexit. For example, days after
the UK voted to leave the EU, a commentary on TIME's website wrote that the referendum was not
a triumph of democracy, but an ugly populist fiasco.
Thus, there is good reason why more and more people feel like Western-style democracy has
become a big joke. In the UK, the people voted to "take back control" of their country -- but
without a plan. In the United States, politics has become a soap opera and the system is
pitting Americans against Americans, splitting the country further apart. In fact, the US
government has become so divided and dysfunctional that it recently broke the record for the
longest shutdown in US history, which forced many government employees to turn to food banks to
feed their families.
Yet, a very different story is unfolding in Asia. During the more than month-long government
shutdown in the United States, China made history, too -- by landing the Chang'e-4 spacecraft
on the far side of the moon. As a US senator pointed out during the shutdown, China has
quadrupled its GDP since 2001, but the United States cannot even keep the government up and
running. He called the situation in the United States "ludicrous."
Clearly, Western-style democracy is not "the end of history," as some have predicted and
hoped for. This is not to say that the Western system is a failure or that China's system is
superior to Western-style democracy, but it is fair to say that China's own system is a good
fit for the country and it achieves the best results for the Chinese people.
For example, China has built the largest, most advanced high-speed train network in the
world. It is the envy for many in the world, even for many Americans, including former
President Barack Obama, who, nearly a decade ago, unveiled a plan for a national network of
high-speed passenger rail lines that was envisioned to transform travel in America. The plan,
like many others, turned out to be an American Dream that never came true. Just recently in
California, for example, the state's new governor killed the high-speed rail program that would
link Los Angeles to San Francisco -- a project beloved by the just-retired four-term Governor
Jerry Brown.
And then there is US President Donald Trump's ambitious plan to "Rebuild America," which he
has been unable to deliver. Stuck in an endless battle with Democrats over funding for the
border wall, Trump declared a national emergency to fulfill his pledge to construct a wall
along the US-Mexico border. His decision reflects a difference between the two countries'
models. Whereas the Chinese model is people-centered, the American model is vote-centered. With
regard to the "security and humanitarian crisis" on the country's southern border, the people
are asking, "where is the crisis?" And herein lies the dilemma: Decisions, like Trump's
decision to declare a national emergency, are essentially political stunts for votes. The
Western model reduces people to a source of votes, essentially turning democracy into a game of
likes.
This kind of decision-making is in stark contrast to the decision-making process in China,
which makes annual, five-year, and long-term plans to guide the country forward and conducts
extensive consultations to reach a broad consensus on major issues. A clear advantage of the
Chinese system is that it is constantly exploring ways to adapt to the changing times,
including large-scale reform of Party and government institutions to adapt to internal and
external changes.
Perhaps there was a time when one could argue that the Western model produced the best
results, but that is no longer the case. What we are seeing now is that it is increasingly
difficult for Western countries to reach a consensus on major issues and to form a strategic
plan. Western-style of democracy has become too rigid and Western democratic institutions are
in a state of degradation, making it next to impossible to carry out any substantial reform.
This can be seen in the fact that democracy in the Western world has increasingly become a
fight for money and a game of manipulating people for votes.
In China's socialist democracy, there is a strong and stable political force that represents
the interests of the great majority of the Chinese people. The Chinese government takes a
people-centered approach to politics and good governance ensures that results can be delivered.
It should be no wonder, then, that the Western model is barreling toward a cliff, while China
is making great progress in various aspects, including the nation's ambitious plan to eradicate
poverty by 2020. In a world of turmoil, there is reason for China and the Chinese people to be
confident in its path.
--it is fair to say that China's own system is a good fit for the country and it achieves
the best results for the Chinese people--
Putting it broadly 'One Size does not fit All' - as such values of the society, history of
the society and potential of the society are different everywhere - as such state management
be different. Moroever governance methods be flexible enough so that the decisions be adopted
according to the national and international requirements.
In some Western countries it's not the political system itself that is necessarily bad. In
the case of the present "sole superpower", for example, refusal to change policies based on
the extermination of over 95% of its indigenous population and centuries of inhuman slavery
of black people have perpetuated the present war against oppressed minorities. Further, the
continuation of aggressive wars overseas, a habit that prompted Martin Luther King Jr to call
his country "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" has ensured the neglect of
infrastructure, healthcare, and quality of disenfranchised minorities, especially the
Afro-Americans. It's not surprising that in poll after poll, the US have garnered the most
votes for being the most dangerous country in the world. The much-maligned North Korea was
second.
Millions of poor people of all colours. The Africans used slaves long before the Arabs/
Europeans went to Africa and bought them from Africans, who used them for centuries, rounded
them up, for sale to anyone with trinkets. The A-rabs were real big slavers, real big. Russia
used Swedish slaves as did all nations use their fellow humans as slaves, only the US Negros
get all the publicity.
"... Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value. ..."
"... Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace. The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul. ..."
"... Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood, the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market. ..."
"... The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image. ..."
"... In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering. ..."
"... "The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets, filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction. ..."
"... The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control. ..."
If terms like "populism" and "community" figure prominently in political discourse today, it is because the ideology of the Enlightenment,
having come under attack from a variety of sources, has lost much of its appeal. The claims of universal reason are universally suspect.
Hopes for a system of values that would transcend the particularism of class, nationality, religion, and race no longer carry much
conviction. The Enlightenment's reason and morality are increasingly seen as a cover for power, and the prospect that the world can
he governed by reason seems more remote than at any time since the eighteenth century. The citizen of the world-the prototype of
mankind in the future, according to the Enlightenment philosophers-is not much in evidence. We have a universal market, but it does
not carry with it the civilizing effects that were so confidently expected by Hume and Voltaire. Instead of generating a new appreciation
of common interests and inclinations-if the essential sameness of human beings everywhere-the global market seems to intensify the
awareness of ethnic and national differences. The unification of the market goes hand in hand with the fragmentation of culture.
The waning of the Enlightenment manifests itself politically in the waning of liberalism, in many ways the most attractive product
of the Enlightenment and the carrier of its best hopes. Through all the permutations and transformations of liberal ideology, two
of its central features have persisted over the years: its commitment to progress and its belief that a liberal state could dispense
with civic virtue. The two ideas were linked in a chain of reasoning having as its premise that capitalism had made it reason able
for everyone to aspire to a level of comfort formerly accessible only to the rich. Henceforth men would devote themselves to their
private business, reducing the need for government, which could more or less take care of itself. It was the idea of progress that
made it possible to believe that societies blessed with material abundance could dispense with the active participation of ordinary
citizens in government.
After the American Revolution liberals began to argue-in opposition to the older view that "public virtue is the only foundation
of republics," in the words of John Adams -- that proper constitutional checks and balances would make it advantageous even for bad
men to act for the public good," as James Wilson put it. According to John Taylor, "an avaricious society can form a government able
to defend itself against the avarice of its members" by enlisting the "interest of vice ...on the side of virtue." Virtue lay in
the "principles of government," Taylor argued, not in the "evanescent qualities of individuals." The institutions and "principles
of a society may be virtuous, though the individuals composing it are vicious."
Meeting minimal conditions
The paradox of a virtuous society based on vicious individuals, however agree able in theory, was never adhered to very consistently.
Liberals took for granted a good deal more in the way of private virtue than they were willing to acknowledge. Even to day liberals
who adhere to this minimal view of citizenship smuggle a certain amount of citizenship between the cracks of their free- market ideology.
Milton Friedman himself admits that a liberal society requires a "minimum degree of literacy and knowledge" along with a "widespread
acceptance of some common set of values." It is not clear that our society can meet even these minimal conditions, as things stand
today, but it has always been clear, in any case, that a liberal society needs more virtue than Friedman allows for.
A system that relies so heavily on the concept of rights presupposes individuals who respect the rights of others, if only because
they expect others to respect their own rights in return. The market itself, the central institution of a liberal society, presupposes,
at the very least, sharp-eyed, calculating, and clearheaded individuals-paragons of rational choice. It presupposes not just self
interest but enlightened self-interest. It was for this reason that nineteenth-century liberals attached so much importance to the
family. The obligation to support a wife and children, in their view, would discipline possessive individualism and transform the
potential gambler, speculator, dandy, or confidence man into a conscientious provider. Having abandoned the old republican ideal
of citizenship along with the republican indictment of luxury, liberals lacked any grounds on which to appeal to individuals to subordinate
private interest to the public good.
But at least they could appeal to the higher selfishness of marriage and parenthood. They could ask, if not for the suspension
of self-interest, for its elevation and refinement. The hope that rising expectations would lead men and women to invest their ambitions
in their offspring was destined to be disappointed in the long run. The more closely capitalism came to be identified with immediate
gratification and planned obsolescence, the more relentlessly it wore away the moral foundations of family life. The rising divorce
rate, already a source of alarm in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, seemed to reflect a growing impatience with the constraints
imposed by long responsibilities and commitments.
The passion to get ahead had begun to imply the right to make a fresh start whenever earlier commitments became unduly burden
some. Material abundance weakened the economic as well as the moral foundations of the "well-'ordered family state" admired by nineteenth-century
liberals. The family business gave way to the corporation, the family farm (more slowly and painfully) to a collectivized agriculture
ultimately controlled by the same banking houses that had engineered the consolidation of industry. The agrarian uprising of the
1870s, 1880s, and l890s proved to be the first round in a long, losing struggle to save the family farm, enshrined in American mythology,
even today, as the sine qua non of a good society but subjected into practice to a ruinous cycle of mechanization, indebtedness,
and overproduction.
The family invaded
Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental
veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality
that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value.
In the long run women were forced into the workplace not only because their families needed extra income but because paid labour
seemed to represent their only hope of gaining equality with men. In our time it is increasingly clear that children pay the price
for this invasion of the family by the market. With both parents in the workplace and grandparents conspicuous by their absence,
the family is no longer capable of sheltering children from the market. The television set becomes the principal baby-sitter by default.
Its invasive presence deals the final blow to any lingering hope that the family can provide a sheltered space for children to grow
up in.
Children are now exposed to the out side world from the time they are old enough to be left unattended in front of the tube. They
are exposed to it, moreover, in a brutal yet seductive form that reduces the values of the marketplace to their simplest terms.
Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace.
The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly
cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul.
Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding
its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the
principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore
be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak
for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there
are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood,
the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market.
The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to
principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes:
to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship
into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its
own image.
Weakening social trust
In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves
to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens
social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions
destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between
the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically
by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering.
The main thrust of social policy, ever since the first crusades against child labour, has been to transfer the care of children
from informal settings to institutions designed specifically for pedagogical and custodial purposes. Today this trend continues in
the movement for daycare, often justified on the undeniable grounds that working mothers need it but also on the grounds that daycare
centers can take advantage of the latest innovations in pedagogy and child psychology. This policy of segregating children in age-graded
institutions under professional supervision has been a massive failure, for reasons suggested some time ago by Jane Jacobs in The
Death and Life of Great American Cities, an attack on city planning that applies to social planning in general.
"The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets,
filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt
planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be
taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if
they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns
something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction.
What the child learns is that adults unrelated to one another except by the accident of propinquity uphold certain standards and
assume responsibility for the neighbourhood. With good reason, Jacobs calls this the "first fundamental of successful city life,"
one that "people hired to look after children cannot teach because the essence of this responsibility is that you do it without being
hired."
Neighbourhoods encourage "casual public trust," according to Jacobs. In its absence the everyday maintenance of life has to be
turned over to professional bureaucrats. The atrophy of informal controls leads irresistibly to the expansion of bureaucratic controls.
This development threatens to extinguish the very privacy liberals have always set such store by. It also loads the organizational
sector with burdens it cannot support. The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations
that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control.
The taxpayers' revolt, although itself informed by an ideology of privatism resistant to any kind of civic appeals, at the same
time grows out of a well-founded suspicion that tax money merely sustains bureaucratic self-aggrandizement
The lost habit of self-help
As formal organizations break down, people will have to improvise ways of meeting their immediate needs: patrolling their own
neighbourhoods, withdrawing their children from public schools in order to educate them at home. The default of the state will thus
contribute in its own right to the restoration of informal mechanisms of self-help. But it is hard to see how the foundations of
civic life can be restored unless this work becomes an overriding goal of public policy. We have heard a good deal of talk about
the repair of our material infrastructure, but our cultural infrastructure needs attention too, and more than just the rhetorical
attention of politicians who praise "family values" while pursuing economic policies that undermine them. It is either naive or cynical
to lead the public to think that dismantling the welfare state is enough to ensure a revival of informal cooperation-"a thousand
points of light." People who have lost the habit of self-help, who live in cities and suburbs where shopping malls have replaced
neighbourhoods, and who prefer the company of close friends (or simply the company of television) to the informal sociability of
the street, the coffee shop, and the tavern are not likely to reinvent communities just because the state has proved such an unsatisfactory
substitute. Market mechanisms will not repair the fabric of public trust. On the contrary the market's effect on the cultural infrastructure
is just as corrosive as that of the state.
A third way
We can now begin to appreciate the appeal of populism and communitarianism. They reject both the market and the welfare state
in pursuit of a third way. This is why they are so difficult to classify on the conventional spectrum of political opinion. Their
opposition to free-market ideologies seems to align them with the left, but 'their criticism of the welfare state (whenever this
criticism becomes open and explicit) makes them sound right-wing. In fact, these positions belong to neither the left nor the right,
and for that very reason they seem to many people to hold out the best hope of breaking the deadlock of current debate, which has
been institutionalized in the two major parties and their divided control of the federal government. At a time when political debate
consists of largely of ideological slogans endlessly repeated to audiences composed mainly of the party faithful, fresh thinking
is desperately needed. It is not likely to emerge, however, from those with a vested interest in 'the old orthodoxies. We need a
"third way of thinking about moral obligation," as Alan Wolfe puts it, one that locates moral obligation neither in the state nor
in the market but "in common sense, ordinary emotions, and everyday life."
Wolfe's plea for a political program designed to strengthen civil society, which closely resembles the ideas advanced in The Good
Society by Robert Bellah and his collaborators, should be welcomed by the growing numbers of people who find themselves dissatisfied
with the alternatives defined by conventional debate. These authors illustrate the strengths of the communitarian position along
with some of its characteristic weaknesses. They make it clear that both the market and the state presuppose the strength of "non-economic
ties of trust and solidarity" as Wolfe puts it. Yet the expansion of these institutions weakens ties of trust and thus undermines
the preconditions for their own success. The market and the "job culture," Bellah writes, are "invading our private lives," eroding
our "moral infrastructure" of "social trust." Nor does the welfare state repair the damage. "The example of more successful welfare
states ... suggests that money and bureaucratic assistance alone do not halt the decline of the family" or strengthen any of the
other "sustaining institutions that make interdependence morally significant." None of this means that a politics that really mattered-a
politics rooted in popular common sense instead of the ideologies that appeal to elites-would painlessly resolve all the conflicts
that threaten to tear the country apart. Communitarians underestimate the difficulty of finding an approach to family issues, say,
that is both profamily and profeminist.
That may be what the public wants in theory. In practice, however, it requires a restructuring of the workplace designed to make
work schedules far more flexible, career patterns less rigid and predictable, and criteria for advancement less destructive to family
and community obligations. Such reforms imply interference with the market and a redefinition of success, neither of which will be
achieved without a great deal of controversy.
Right after the seven neoliberal Blairites
left the Labour party towards the formation of a new "independent" party, three
Tories decided to join them.
Three Conservatives have quit their party to join the new
Independent Group of MPs, declaring that hard Brexiters have taken over and that the
modernising wing of the party has been 'destroyed'. Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi
Allen explained their decision to join the new group, founded this week by seven Labour MPs,
who also left their party. "
It all happened too fast and someone would be rather naive to believe that these moves were not
pre-agreed and fully coordinated.
All the picks appear to be carefully selected. The establishment takes back those who has
raised carefully with the 'principles' of the neoliberal ideology in order to save them from
the collapsing conservative party and the Corbynism-'contaminated' Labour. Next step, a third
'independent' party with the mission to save neoliberalism.
It's not hard to guess the source of funding of this new party. It is the part of the big
capital, especially the financial sector and the pro-Israeli lobby in the UK, that benefits
from the neoliberal globalization. Therefore, it is the part of the big capital that seeks to
reverse Brexit at all costs and shares common ideas and interests with the lobbies that control
the EU.
"... It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as have some other communists. ..."
@Commentator Mike
Today's system is a hybrid of a late finance-stage global capitalism and cultural–not
economic–Marxism. Instead of class struggle, we have identity politics. Instead of the
ownership of the means of production, we have tranny bathrooms.
So the right-wingers (like Peter Hitchens) who say that 'Marxism won' are half right
culturally, not economically. What causes all the confusion (among the libertarian types
especially) is that capitalism in reality does not in any way resemble how it ought to
work according to libertarian theories and never did. But when you point out to them
that capitalism never worked in practice to begin with, they answer: 'But true
capitalism has never even been tried!' And of course, they're right. 'True' capitalism (i.e.,
what libertarian theory calls capitalism) really never has been tried, and for exactly the
same reason that perpetual motion machines have never been tried either: they're
impossible.
None of which means I'm a 'pure' socialist. I'm open to mixed-economies and new
experiments. I usually characterize myself more as a national socialist, mostly to
differentiate myself from the 'world revolution' Trotskyite socialists who now predominate on
the far-left.
That means I also take some inspiration from some fascists and national-syndicalists,
although I don't regard any of them as holy writ, either.
In my opinion, the number one success factor for a civilization is not what theory
it professes, but rather who controls it. Theories will always have to be modified to
suit the circumstances; but the character of a people is much harder to change.
China's prospering because it's controlled by Chinese engineers; our civilization is
suffocating because it's controlled by Jew-bankers and Masonic lawyers. Get rid of them
first, and we can debate monetary theory till we're blue in the face.
I think that applying the old concepts of Marxism is no longer possible in the west since
there is hardly a genuine proletariat as a proper class any more with the deindustrialisation
and the transfer of major industries to China and other Asian and Latin American countries.
On the other hand the lumpenproletariat has grown and will grow further with greater
automation in industry.
Many more people are now unemployed, underemployed, in service industries, part-time and
temporary jobs, or ageing old age pensioners and retirees.
With the greater atomisation of the individual, break up of families, greater mobility,
the concept of classes rooted long-term in their communities seems less applicable. You could
say most of the global proletariat is now in China.
It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring
capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as
have some other communists.
Paul Edward Gottfried's "The Strange Death of Marxism" seems to offer some explanations
but is not of much use in developing a new activism capable of taking on the system or
providing a more viable alternative.
classical concepts of socialism and capitalism, and left and right politics
The left/right concept is no longer valid. For one thing, of what use is a $15. minimum
wage (apparently a standard "left" plank) if there aren't any jobs? Take a look at Andrew
Yang. At least he is posing the right questions.
Andrew Yang's Pitch to America – We Must Evolve to a New Form of
Capitalism
The book adhere to "classic" line of critique of neoliberalism as a new "secular religion" ( the author thinking is along the lines
of Gramsci idea of "cultural hegemony"; Gramsci did not use the term 'secular religion" at all, but this close enough concept) that
deified the market. It stress the role of the state in enforcing the neoliberalism.
The book adhere to "classic" line of critique of neoliberalism as a new "secular religion" ( the author thinking is along the
lines of Gramsci idea of "cultural hegemony"; Gramsci did not use the term 'secular religion" at all, but this is close enough
concept) that deified the market. It stresses the role of the state in enforcing the neoliberal ideology much like was the case
with Bolsheviks in the USSR:
Gramsci's question is still pressing: How and why do ordinary working folks come to accept a system where wealth is produced
by their collective labors and energies but appropriated individually by only a few at the top? The theory of hegemony suggests
that the answer to this question is not simply a matter of direct exploitation and control by the capitalist class. Rather,
hegemony posits that power is maintained through ongoing, ever-shifting cultural processes of winning the consent of the governed,
that is, ordinary people like you and me.
According to Gramsci, there was not one ruling class, but rather a historical bloc, "a moving equilibrium" of class interests
and values. Hegemony names a cultural struggle for moral, social, economic, and political leadership; in this struggle, a field
-- or assemblage -- of practices, discourses, values, and beliefs come to be dominant. While this field is powerful and firmly
entrenched, it is also open to contestation. In other words, hegemonic power is always on the move; it has to keep winning
our consent to survive, and sometimes it fails to do so.
Through the lens of hegemony, we can think about the rise of neoliberalism as an ongoing political project -- and class struggle
-- to shift society's political equilibrium and create a new dominant field. Specifically, we are going to trace the shift
from liberal to neoliberal hegemony. This shift is represented in the two images below.
Previous versions of liberal hegemony imagined society to be divided into distinct public and private spheres. The public
sphere was the purview of the state, and its role was to ensure the formal rights and freedoms of citizens through the rule
of law. The private sphere included the economy and the domestic sphere of home and family.
For the most part, liberal hegemony was animated by a commitment to limited government, as the goal was to allow for as
much freedom in trade, associations, and civil society as possible, while preserving social order and individual rights. Politics
took shape largely around the line between public and private; more precisely, it was a struggle over where and how to draw
the line. In other words, within the field of liberal hegemony, politics was a question of how to define the uses and limits
of the state and its public function in a capitalist society. Of course, political parties often disagreed passionately about
where and how to draw that line. As we'll see below, many advocated for laissez-faire capitalism, while others argued for a
greater public role in ensuring the health, happiness, and rights of citizens. What's crucial though is that everyone agreed
that there was a line to be drawn, and that there was a public function for the state.
As Figure 1.1 shows, neoliberal hegemony works to erase this line between public and private and to create an entire society
-- in fact, an entire world -- based on private, market competition. In this way, neoliberalism represents a radical reinvention
of liberalism and thus of the horizons of hegemonic struggle. Crucially, within neoliberalism, the state's function does not
go away; rather, it is deconstructed and reconstructed toward the new' end of expanding private markets.
This view correlates well with the analysis of Professor Wendy Brown book "Undoing the Demos" and her paper "Neoliberalism
and the End of Liberal Democracy" (pdf is freely available)
In this sense neoliberalism are just "Trotskyism for the rich" with the same utopian dream of global neoliberal revolution,
but much more sinister motives. And is as ruthless in achieving its goals, if necessary bring neoliberal "regime change" on the
tips of bayonets, or via 'cultural revolutions".
If we follow the line of thinking put forward by Professor Philip Mirowski's in his book "Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to
Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown," we can say that neoliberals essentially "reverse-engineered" Bolsheviks
methods of acquiring and maintaining political power, replacing "dictatorship of proletariat" with the "dictatorship of financial
oligarchy".
I would say more: The "professional revolutionary" cadre that were the core of Bolshevik's Party were replaced with well paid,
talented intellectual prostitutes at specially created neoliberal think tanks. And later "infiltrated" in economic departments
(kind of stealth coup d'état in academia financed by usual financial players).
Which eventually created a critical mass of ideas which were able to depose New Deal Capitalism ideology, putting forward the
set of remedies that restore the power the financial oligarchy enjoyed in 1920th. Technological changes such as invention of computers
and telecommunication revolution also helped greatly.
At the same time unlike Bolsheviks, neoliberals are carefully hiding their agenda. Funny, neoliberalism is the only known to
me major ideology which the US MSM are prohibited to mention by name ;-)
The role of state under neoliberalism is very close to the role of state under Bolsheviks' "dictatorship of proletariats".
It no way this still a liberal democracy -- this is what Sheldon Wolin called "inverted totalitarism". Less brutal then Bolsheviks'
regime, but still far from real democracy. Under neoliberalism the state is a powerful agent needed to enforce markets on unsuspecting
population in all spheres of life, whether they want it or not (supported by 12" guns of neoliberal MSM battleships):
As Figure 1.1 shows, neoliberal hegemony works to erase this line between public and private and to create an entire society
-- in fact, an entire world -- based on private, market competition. In this way, neoliberalism represents a radical reinvention
of liberalism and thus of the horizons of hegemonic struggle. Crucially, within neoliberalism, the state's function does not
go away; rather, it is deconstructed and reconstructed toward the new' end of expanding private markets. Consequently, contemporary
politics take shape around questions of how best to promote competition. For the most part, politics on both the left and right
have been subsumed by neoliberal hegemony. For example, while neoliberalism made its debut in Western politics with the right-wing
administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leaders associated with the left have worked to further neoliberal
hegemony in stunning ways. As we will explore in more depth below and in die coming chapters, both U.S. presidents Bill Clinton
and Barack Obama have governed to create a privatized, market society. In other words, there is both a left and a right hegemonic
horizon of neoliberalism. Thus, moving beyond neoliberalism will ultimately require a whole new field of politics.
One of the most interesting part of the book is the brief analysis of the recent elections (with very precise characterization
of Hillary Clinton defeat as the defeat of the "neoliberal status quo"). The author claims that Trump supporters were mainly representatives
of the strata of the US society which were sick-and-tied of neoliberalism (note the percentage of Spanish speaking electorate
who voted for Trump), but they were taken for a ride, as instead of rejection of globalism and free movement of labor, Trump actually
represented more right wing, more bastardized version of "hard neoliberalism".
In the period which followed the elections Trump_vs_deep_state emerged as a kind of "neoliberalism in one country" -- much
like Stalin's "socialism in one country". It and did not care one bit about those who voted for him during election . As in classic
"The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go."
So in a way Trump represents the mirror image of Obama who in the same way betrayed his votes (twice) acting from "soft neoliberalism"
position, while Trump is acting from "hard neoliberalism" position.
On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party was critical
of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly
embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-,
it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.
Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering.
Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in
the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories
of good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election,
Trump effectively tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality,
channeling political anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism
(corporate diversity, political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie
Sanders, Trump was a crisis candidate.
... ... ...
In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as
Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism
that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.
We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and
left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here.
As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled
politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized
equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive,
left neoliberalism.
While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking
with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected
the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'
"... While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. ..."
"... Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy. ..."
"... In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism. ..."
"... We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism. ..."
"... While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."' ..."
In Chapter 1, we traced the rise of our neoliberal conjuncture back to the crisis of liberalism during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. During this period, huge transformations in capitalism proved impossible
to manage with classical laissez-faire approaches. Out of this crisis, two movements emerged, both of which would eventually shape
the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The first, and the one that became dominant in the aftermath of the crisis, was the
conjuncture of embedded liberalism. The crisis indicated that capitalism wrecked too much damage on the lives of ordinary citizens.
People (white workers and families, especially) warranted social protection from the volatilities and brutalities of capitalism.
The state's public function was expanded to include the provision of a more substantive social safety net, a web of protections for
people and a web of constraints on markets. The second response was the invention of neoliberalism. Deeply skeptical of the common-good
principles that undergirded the emerging social welfare state, neoliberals began organizing on the ground to develop a "new" liberal
govemmentality, one rooted less in laissez-faire principles and more in the generalization of competition and enterprise. They worked
to envision a new society premised on a new social ontology, that is, on new truths about the state, the market, and human beings.
Crucially, neoliberals also began building infrastructures and institutions for disseminating their new' knowledges and theories
(i.e., the Neoliberal Thought Collective), as well as organizing politically to build mass support for new policies (i.e., working
to unite anti-communists, Christian conservatives, and free marketers in common cause against the welfare state). When cracks in
embedded liberalism began to surface -- which is bound to happen with any moving political equilibrium -- neoliberals were there
with new stories and solutions, ready to make the world anew.
We are currently living through the crisis of neoliberalism. As I write this book, Donald Trump has recently secured the U.S.
presidency, prevailing in the national election over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, I couldn't
help but think back to the crisis of liberalism and the two responses that emerged. Similarly, after the Great Recession of 2008,
we've saw two responses emerge to challenge our unworkable status quo, which dispossesses so many people of vital resources for individual
and collective life. On the one hand, we witnessed the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While many continue to critique the movement for
its lack of leadership and a coherent political vision, Occupy was connected to burgeoning movements across the globe, and our current
political horizons have been undoubtedly shaped by the movement's success at repositioning class and economic inequality within our
political horizon. On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party
was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was
perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-,
it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.
Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering.
Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in
the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories of
good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election, Trump effectively
tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality, channeling political
anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism (corporate diversity,
political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie Sanders, Trump was a crisis
candidate.
Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders'
energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood"
path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy.
Universal health care. Free higher education. Fair trade. The repeal of Citizens United. Trump offered a different response to
the crisis. Like Sanders, he railed against global trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, Trump's
victory was fueled by right neoliberalism's culture of cruelty. While Sanders tapped into and mobilized desires for a more egalitarian
and democratic future, Trump's promise was nostalgic, making America "great again" -- putting the nation back on "top of the world,"
and implying a time when women were "in their place" as male property, and minorities and immigrants were controlled by the state.
Thus, what distinguished Trump's campaign from more traditional Republican campaigns was that it actively and explicitly pitted
one group's equality (white men) against everyone else's (immigrants, women, Muslims, minorities, etc.). As Catherine Rottenberg
suggests, Trump offered voters a choice between a multiracial society (where folks are increasingly disadvantaged and dispossessed)
and white supremacy (where white people would be back on top). However, "[w]hat he neglected to state," Rottenberg writes,
is that neoliberalism flourishes in societies where the playing field is already stacked against various segments of society,
and that it needs only a relatively small select group of capital-enhancing subjects, while everyone else is ultimately dispensable.
1
In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg
argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many
concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.
We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left
neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested
in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right
and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political
philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism.
While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking
with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the
chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'
Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism, put it this way:
The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness
of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately
great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under
capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.4
I think that, for the first time in the history of U.S. capitalism, the vast majority of people might sense the lie of liberal,
capitalist democracy. They feel anxious, unfree, disaffected. Fantasies of the good life have been shattered beyond repair for most
people. Trump and this hopefully brief triumph of right neoliberalism will soon lay this bare for everyone to see. Now, with Trump,
it is absolutely clear: the rich rule the world; we are all disposable; this is no democracy. The question becomes: How will we show
up for history? Will there be new stories, ideas, visions, and fantasies to attach to? How can we productively and meaningful intervene
in the crisis of neoliberalism? How can we "tear a hole in the grey curtain" and open up better worlds? How can we put what we've
learned to use and begin to imagine and build a world beyond living in competition? I hope our critical journey through the neoliberal
conjuncture has enabled you to begin to answer these questions.
More specifically, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, our common-good sensibilities have been channeled
into neoliberal platforms for social change and privatized action, funneling our political energies into brand culture and marketized
struggles for equality (e.g., charter schools, NGOs and non-profits, neoliberal antiracism and feminism). As a result, despite our
collective anger and disaffected consent, we find ourselves stuck in capitalist realism with no real alternative. Like the neoliberal
care of the self, we are trapped in a privatized mode of politics that relies on cruel optimism; we are attached, it seems, to politics
that inspire and motivate us to action, while keeping us living in competition.
To disrupt the game, we need to construct common political horizons against neoliberal hegemony. We need to use our common stories
and common reason to build common movements against precarity -- for within neoliberalism, precarity is what ultimately has the potential
to thread all of our lives together. Put differently, the ultimate fault line in the neoliberal conjiuicture is the way it subjects
us all to precarity and the biopolitics of disposability, thereby creating conditions of possibility for new coalitions across race,
gender, citizenship, sexuality, and class. Recognizing this potential for coalition in the face of precarization is the most pressing
task facing those who are yearning for a new world. The question is: How do we get there? How do we realize these coalitional potentialities
and materialize common horizons?
Ultimately, mapping the neoliberal conjuncture through everyday life in enterprise culture has not only provided some direction
in terms of what we need; it has also cultivated concrete and practical intellectual resources for political interv ention and social
interconnection -- a critical toolbox for living in common. More specifically, this book has sought to provide resources for thinking
and acting against the four Ds: resources for engaging in counter-conduct, modes of living that refuse, on one hand, to conduct one's
life according to the norm of enterprise, and on the other, to relate to others through the norm of competition. Indeed, we need
new ways of relating, interacting, and living as friends, lovers, workers, vulnerable bodies, and democratic people if we are to
write new stories, invent new govemmentalities, and build coalitions for new worlds.
Against Disimagination: Educated Hope and Affirmative Speculation
We need to stop turning inward, retreating into ourselves, and taking personal responsibility for our lives (a task which is ultimately
impossible). Enough with the disimagination machine! Let's start looking outward, not inward -- to the broader structures that undergird
our lives. Of course, we need to take care of ourselves; we must survive. But I firmly believe that we can do this in ways both big
and small, that transform neoliberal culture and its status-quo stories.
Here's the thing I tell my students all the time. You cannot escape neoliberalism. It is the air we breathe, the water in which
we swim. No job, practice of social activism, program of self-care, or relationship will be totally free from neoliberal impingements
and logics. There is no pure "outside" to get to or work from -- that's just the nature of the neoliberalism's totalizing cultural
power. But let's not forget that neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power is also a source of weakness. Potential for resistance
is everywhere, scattered throughout our everyday lives in enterprise culture. Our critical toolbox can help us identify these potentialities
and navigate and engage our conjuncture in ways that tear open up those new worlds we desire.
In other words, our critical perspective can help us move through the world with what Henry Giroux calls educated hope. Educated
hope means holding in tension the material realities of power and the contingency of history. This orientation of educated hope knows
very well what we're up against. However, in the face of seemingly totalizing power, it also knows that neoliberalism can never become
total because the future is open. Educated hope is what allows us to see the fault lines, fissures, and potentialities of the present
and emboldens us to think and work from that sliver of social space where we do have political agency and freedom to construct a
new world. Educated hope is what undoes the power of capitalist realism. It enables affirmative speculation (such as discussed in
Chapter 5), which does not try to hold the future to neoliberal horizons (that's cruel optimism!), but instead to affirm our commonalities
and the potentialities for the new worlds they signal. Affirmative speculation demands a different sort of risk calculation and management.
It senses how little we have to lose and how much we have to gain from knocking the hustle of our lives.
Against De-democratization: Organizing and Collective Coverning
We can think of educated hope and affirmative speculation as practices of what Wendy Brown calls "bare democracy" -- the basic
idea that ordinary' people like you and me should govern our lives in common, that we should critique and try to change our world,
especially the exploitative and oppressive structures of power that maintain social hierarchies and diminish lives. Neoliberal culture
works to stomp out capacities for bare democracy by transforming democratic desires and feelings into meritocratic desires and feelings.
In neoliberal culture, utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective utopian sensibilities are directed
away from the promise of collective governing to competing for equality.
We have to get back that democractic feeling! As Jeremy Gilbert taught us, disaffected consent is a post-democratic orientation.
We don't like our world, but we don't think we can do anything about it. So, how do we get back that democratic feeling? How do we
transform our disaffected consent into something new? As I suggested in the last chapter, we organize. Organizing is simply about
people coming together around a common horizon and working collectively to materialize it. In this way, organizing is based on the
idea of radical democracy, not liberal democracy. While the latter is based on formal and abstract rights guaranteed by the state,
radical democracy insists that people should directly make the decisions that impact their lives, security, and well-being. Radical
democracy is a practice of collective governing: it is about us hashing out, together in communities, what matters, and working in
common to build a world based on these new sensibilities.
The work of organizing is messy, often unsatisfying, and sometimes even scary. Organizing based on affirmative speculation and
coalition-building, furthermore, will have to be experimental and uncertain. As Lauren Berlant suggests, it means "embracing the
discomfort of affective experience in a truly open social life that no
one has ever experienced." Organizing through and for the common "requires more adaptable infrastructures. Keep forcing the existing
infrastructures to do what they don't know how to do. Make new ways to be local together, where local doesn't require a physical
neighborhood." 5 What Berlant is saying is that the work of bare democracy requires unlearning, and detaching from, our
current stories and infrastructures in order to see and make things work differently. Organizing for a new world is not easy -- and
there are no guarantees -- but it is the only way out of capitalist realism.
Getting back democratic feeling will at once require and help us lo move beyond the biopolitics of disposability and entrenched
systems of inequality. On one hand, organizing will never be enough if it is not animated by bare democracy, a sensibility that each
of us is equally important when it comes to the project of determining our lives in common. Our bodies, our hurts, our dreams, and
our desires matter regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship, and regardless of how r much capital (economic,
social, or cultural) we have. Simply put, in a radical democracy, no one is disposable. This bare-democratic sense of equality must
be foundational to organizing and coalition-building. Otherwise, we will always and inevitably fall back into a world of inequality.
On the other hand, organizing and collective governing will deepen and enhance our sensibilities and capacities for radical equality.
In this context, the kind of self-enclosed individualism that empowers and underwrites the biopolitics of disposability melts away,
as we realize the interconnectedness of our lives and just how amazing it feels to
fail, we affirm our capacities for freedom, political intervention, social interconnection, and collective social doing.
Against Dispossession: Shared Security and Common Wealth
Thinking and acting against the biopolitics of disposability goes hand-in-hand with thinking and acting against dispossession.
Ultimately, when we really understand and feel ourselves in relationships of interconnection with others, we want for them as we
want for ourselves. Our lives and sensibilities of what is good and just are rooted in radical equality, not possessive or self-appreciating
individualism. Because we desire social security and protection, we also know others desire and deserve the same.
However, to really think and act against dispossession means not only advocating for shared security and social protection, but
also for a new society that is built on the egalitarian production and distribution of social wealth that we all produce. In this
sense, we can take Marx's critique of capitalism -- that wealth is produced collectively but appropriated individually -- to heart.
Capitalism was built on the idea that one class -- the owners of the means of production -- could exploit and profit from the collective
labors of everyone else (those who do not own and thus have to work), albeit in very different ways depending on race, gender, or
citizenship. This meant that, for workers of all stripes, their lives existed not for themselves, but for others (the appropriating
class), and that regardless of what we own as consumers, we are not really free or equal in that bare-democratic sense of the word.
If we want to be really free, we need to construct new material and affective social infrastructures for our common wealth. In
these new infrastructures, wealth must not be reduced to economic value; it must be rooted in social value. Here, the production
of wealth does not exist as a separate sphere from the reproduction of our lives. In other words, new infrastructures, based on the
idea of common wealth, will not be set up to exploit our labor, dispossess our communities, or to divide our lives. Rather, they
will work to provide collective social resources and care so that we may all be free to pursue happiness, create beautiful and/or
useful things, and to realize our potential within a social world of living in common. Crucially, to create the conditions for these
new, democratic forms of freedom rooted in radical equality, we need to find ways to refuse and exit the financial networks of Empire
and the dispossessions of creditocracy, building new systems that invite everyone to participate in the ongoing production of new
worlds and the sharing of the wealth that we produce in common.
It's not up to me to tell you exactly where to look, but I assure you that potentialities for these new worlds are everywhere
around you.
"... Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, who recently posed the once-blasphemous question: "What comes after capitalism?" ..."
"... He rightly described a global impasse: "Given the political constraints on redistribution and the constraints from capital mobility, we may just not be able to alleviate inequality and insecurity enough to prevent populism and revolutions." ..."
"... Martin Wolf, respected columnist for the Financial Times, recently concluded, if "reluctantly," that "capitalism is substantially broken." This year, many books with titles such as "The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition" and "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" blamed an unjust economic system and its beneficiaries for the rise of demagogues. ..."
"... Reading Mazzucato's book, it is hard not to wonder just how "neoliberal" ideas and values, which uphold the rationality of the market and exclude notions of the common good, came to shape the conduct of individuals and institutions. ..."
"... Neoliberals, he argues, are people who believe that "the market does not and cannot take care of itself," and indeed neoliberalism is a form of regulation -- one that insulates the markets from vagaries of mass democracy and economic nationalism. ..."
...A Western consensus quickly formed after the collapse of communist regimes in 1989. It was widely believed by newspaper editorialists
as well as politicians and businessmen that there was no alternative to free markets, which alone could create prosperity. The government's
traditional attempts to regulate corporations and banks and redistribute wealth through taxes were deemed a problem. As the economist
Milton Friedman put it, "The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests." Neither individuals nor companies needed
to worry much about inequality or social justice. In Friedman's influential view, "There is one and only one social responsibility
of business -- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits."
Political fiascos in the West, following its largest financial crisis -- events accompanied by the emergence of China, a Communist-run
nation-state, as a major economic power, as well as an unfolding environmental calamity -- have utterly devastated these post-1989
assumptions about free markets and the role of governments.
Confessions to this effect come routinely from disenchanted believers. Take, for instance, Olivier Blanchard, former chief
economist of the International Monetary Fund, who recently posed the once-blasphemous question: "What comes after capitalism?"
Blanchard was commenting on the recent demonstrations in France against President Emmanuel Macron. He rightly described a
global impasse: "Given the political constraints on redistribution and the constraints from capital mobility, we may just not be
able to alleviate inequality and insecurity enough to prevent populism and revolutions."
... ... ...
Thus, Martin Wolf, respected columnist for the Financial Times, recently concluded, if "reluctantly," that "capitalism is
substantially broken." This year, many books with titles such as "The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition"
and "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" blamed an unjust economic system and its beneficiaries for the rise
of demagogues.
It is becoming clear that the perennial conflict between democracy, which promises equality, and capitalism, which generates inequality,
has been aggravated by a systemic neglect of some fundamental issues.
... ... ...
Her targets range from pharmaceutical companies, which uphold a heartless version of market rationality, to internet companies
with monopoly power such as Google and Facebook. Her most compelling example, however, is the workings of the financial sector, and
its Friedman-style obsession with "shareholder value maximization," which has infected the corporate sector as a whole.
Reading Mazzucato's book, it is hard not to wonder just how "neoliberal" ideas and values, which uphold the rationality of
the market and exclude notions of the common good, came to shape the conduct of individuals and institutions.
In the conventional account of neoliberalism, Friedman looms large, along with his disciple Ronald Reagan, and Britain's Margaret
Thatcher. Much has been written about how the IMF's structural adjustment programs in Asia and Africa, and "shock-therapy" for post-Communist
states, entrenched orthodoxies about deregulation and privatization.
In these narratives, neoliberalism appears indistinguishable from laissez-faire. In "Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth
of Neoliberalism," Quinn Slobodian briskly overturns this commonplace view. Neoliberals, he argues, are people who believe that
"the market does not and cannot take care of itself," and indeed neoliberalism is a form of regulation -- one that insulates the
markets from vagaries of mass democracy and economic nationalism.
... ... ...
Pankaj Mishra is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. His books include "Age of Anger: A History of the Present," "From the Ruins
of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia," and "Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond."
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion
The near future is more likely to be a neoliberal dystopia than the tech-enabled utopia
conjured up by big business, writes Peter Fleming in The Worst Is Yet to Come: A
Post-Capitalist Survival Guide . He argues that we need "radical pessimism" to aim for the
future we actually want, and aids the effort with sardonic humor that skewers the mythologies
of our exploitative economic system.
In 1949, the right-wing economist F. A. Hayek published an essay entitled "The Intellectuals
and Socialism," which aimed to change the way capitalism thought about itself. Up until then,
he argued, it was mainly the socialists who had claimed the intellectual space of
utopianism.
Hayek sought to rectify this. Free-market conservatives ought to come up with their own
utopias and sell them to the public as glorious futures to come. Capitalist individualism and a
minimal state were prominent components, elevated like secular gods.
As with most utopian blueprints, however, when put into practice, the outcome was frequently
appalling. Yet these failures didn't stop the power elite from trying again, no matter how many
casualties fell along the way. That's why capitalism today consists of an uneasy confluence of
brazen destructiveness and implacable self-confidence, convinced that we will soon be
approaching a Panglossian Best of All Possible Worlds.
The problem is that the worst is yet to come. We therefore require a good understanding of
the ideological terrain upon which that struggle will unfold. Most importantly, we won't
necessarily see the clean death of neoliberalism but an exaggerated and unsustainable deepening
of it. It will then buckle under its own weight, yielding a windswept post-capitalist dystopia
if nothing is done to counteract it now.
Mainstream economic theory might first appear rational and objective, especially given its
clinical quantification of human behavior. The mathematical models and algebraic theorems add
to the veneer of scientificity. But beneath the numbers is an unyielding and often mysterious
faith in the rectitude of monetary individualism. That conviction is conveyed in buzzwords and
fads, many of which have entered daily life, and will only intensify in the next few years. We
require a counter-lexicon. Towards that end, here is my take on some of the key features of the
bad business utopias that are busy colonizing the future.
Glossary
Artificial Intelligence:
Machine learning and robotics that soon may be capable of reflective cognition, with
much attention focusing on work and employment.
Automation of production has defined capitalism from the start. As has the fear (or hope)
that machines will soon replace most of the workforce. The application of Artificial
Intelligence in the "second machine age" will center on routine cognitive work (e.g.,
accountants and airline pilots) and nonroutine manual jobs (e.g., care providers, drivers,
and hairdressers). However, this is where fantasy enters the picture. Namely, capitalism
without laborers, a dream that is integral to neoliberal economics. In reality, AI will
probably follow the same path as previous waves of automation: mechanizing certain parts of a
job rather than replacing it entirely, especially the skilled part that affects wages.
Moreover, the old Keynesian point still holds: Workers are also consumers. Thus, the
disappearance of labor would also eliminate consumption, which is integral to capitalism.
That might not be a bad thing, as advocates of "fully automated luxury communism" suggest.
However, a bleaker scenario is possible. The retention of a highly polarized and class-based
society (as we have today) but without labor or consumption, given the widespread application
of AI. This would represent a kind of inverted rendition of capitalism. High-tech and
primitive. This model of society has no name yet, but something like "Blade Runner
Capitalism" might suffice.
Corporate Social Responsibility:
A concept designed to spread the fallacy that corporations can be driven by
profit-maximization and have a positive ethical role in society; a disavowal of the key
contradictions of capitalism; an idea closely associated with other disingenuous terms such
as "conscious capitalism" and "green capitalism."
Milton Friedman famously argued against Corporate Social Responsibility. Focus on profits,
he said, and let the state and churches deal with human welfare. However, CSR became popular
nevertheless and is now big business. Almost every corporation has a CSR program of some
kind. The concept is fundamental to neoliberal utopianism because it peddles the falsehood
that capitalism can be both ruthlessly profiteering and kind to the planet. Have its
cake and eat it too. As a corollary, governmental regulation is deemed unnecessary. CSR
provides an excuse for corporations to regulate themselves, and we all know where that leads.
It is no surprise that CSR is most visible in controversial industries like mining, oil and
gas, arms manufacturing and tobacco (often involving glossy brochures and websites depicting
happy African children playing in green rainforests). Moreover, the tax benefits enjoyed by
billionaire philanthropists are another good reason they like CSR.
Game Theory:
The use of mathematics to model human reality; one of the more bizarre offshoots
that followed the mathematization of economic thought in the 20th century.
Game theory focuses on strategies used by competing actors to make rational decisions.
What should I do given my opponent may subsequently decide A, B, C, or D? It was pioneered by
John von Neumann, John Nash, and Oskar Morgenstern. The assumption that social life is a game
of logic between conniving actors is foundational to this view of economics. But do we really
behave in such a "me versus you" manner?
Game Theory's rational individualism closely resonates with neoliberal capitalism because
it reconceptualizes everyone as mini corporations who are totally selfish.
Individuals compete rather than share; seek to outsmart the next person rather than
empathize. Proponents of the approach often use the "as if" defense. The model might not
perfectly match reality, but we can approximate how someone behaves in the real world by
assuming they act "as if" they're Nashian plotters.
It's the normative assumptions underlying this "as if" that are problematic that at bottom
we're all greedy and impatient bankers. One could just as well argue that people act "as if"
they're trusting and altruistic socialists, but Game Theory won't have any of that.
Human Resource Management:
An ultra-corporate manifestation of business management; a practice informally
called "Inhuman Resource Management" by workers.
Even the very phrase Human Resource Management sounds weird, like something dreamed up by
extraterrestrials who plan on harvesting mankind. The objectification is important to
understanding HRM. In the old days, most large organizations had personnel departments. They
dealt with payroll and hiring. In the 1980s and 1990s, this role slowly focused in on the
nature of the employee. Testing potential recruits.
Developing employee engagement programs to revive flagging morale and so on. However, the
covert agenda was to replace unions, who had previously fulfilled these functions. As
neoliberalism spread through the economy like wild fire, HRM became a tool for
pathologizing the recalcitrant employee. Rather than view the unhappy worker from a
structural perspective (i.e., low wages, unfair treatment, boring job), it was their
personality that was singled out as a problem. Following the financial crisis, HRM has become
the punitive arm of organizational power. Their main role is to undermine unions, protect
employers from discontented workers and enforce financial miserliness.
Leadership: The assumption that when humans organize they require top-down control and
only special individuals are capable of doing this; the valorization of elitism.
When social actors are encouraged to behave as capsulelike monads -- as they are under
neoliberal capitalism -- then some kind of extra-individual steering mechanism is soon required
to avert chaos. In the workplace, this could include workers' councils. At the societal level,
a democratically elected government. But capitalists naturally distain those options and evoke
the mythology of leadership instead, sold to us as great men and women who've been blessed with
amazing skills. To understand this bizarre veneration of elitism, we might recall Max Weber's
argument about charismatic leaders. These individuals function as supplements to market
rationality rather than replacements, which is why fascism was so attracted to the idea. The
economic system can have bourgeois individualism and an overarching, CEO-like führer at
the same time. The conflation serves to ward off social democratic solutions to economic
coordination.
Lean In: Faux-feminism for the corporate age; an attempt to render feminism
business-friendly; what feminism looks like after patriarchy wins .
Radical gender politics is dangerous to capitalism because it rallies against the
patriarchal structures essential to it. In many ways, neoliberalism is a male-driven horror
show. However, identity politics has severely diluted that radicalism and finally made feminism
palatable to the establishment, including the multinational corporation. Lean In: Women,
Work and the Will to Lead , by Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook's chief operating of officer) is
the end product of that betrayal. Sandberg gives advice to her readers about how to be both a
woman and ruthlessly ambitious in the corporate world. Capitalism and the multinational
corporation are all taken for granted, and feminism becomes a matter of women landing a seat in
the boardroom and getting rich.
Moral Hazard: The cynical belief that you will automatically behave irresponsibly if not
held accountable for your actions, especially in terms of financial responsibility; a moral
pretext for demolishing the public sphere; the belief that everyone is a feckless
opportunist .
The concept of moral hazard originated in insurance economics. It argues that once people
are protected by insurance (say home and contents) they'll automatically engage in riskier
behavior than normal (leaving their homes unlocked, for example). The theory assumes that
people are not only stupid but have no sense of civic responsibility. The rationale has been
deployed by neocons to lay ruin to the welfare state. Unemployment insurance incentivizes work
avoidance. Public health care encourages unhealthy lifestyle choices, etc. We could follow the
rationale reductio ad absurdum : public fire brigades shouldn't be funded because they
inadvertently encourage people to be careless in the kitchen, and might result in them burning
down their homes.
Office Email: An electronic communication system that has become ubiquitous among the
modern workforce; an instrument for spreading wage-theft and unpaid overtime; something 50
percent of the workforce now "check" outside of office hours.
What is colloquially called the "tyranny of email," started life as a cool invention by Ray
Tomlinson in 1971. With the birth of the internet, email rapidly replaced memos and postage. In
the workplace, it was meant to make life easier. However, smartphones turned this tool of
convenience into a slave master, since the office is always there, in your pocket. Not so long
ago, management consultants used to say they loved flying because only then could they turn off
their phone. Now even that respite has disappeared, as Wi-Fi coverage is included in most
methods of travel. Email fits so snugly into the neoliberal order because it exemplifies
individual mobility. You're always switched on no matter what. Work and life merge.
Self-exploitation becomes rife. But does email improve your productivity on the job? One study
decided to find out. A large office was deprived of email access for a day and its productivity
levels actually soared. Therefore, not only does the "tyranny of email" increase our workload
and render us permanently exposed to the supervisor's gaze, it also hinders our ability to get
things done, making life harder for no obvious reason.
Tax Avoidance: How corporations and rich plutocrats sidestep the taxes that you and I
have to pay; a mechanism for increasing wealth inequality to levels unheard of in the modern
era; a method for starving the public sphere of cash; what greed looks like in the end
times.
Neoliberalism has always hated tax, especially corporate tax. Trickle-down economics assumes
that low taxes incentivize employers to hire more workers, invest and grow. Instead, firms
usually keep the extra equity and get richer. Building on that sentiment, corporations have
devised an elaborate international system to facilitate tax avoidance, with the help of
countries like Ireland (the "Double Irish") and Holland (the "Dutch Sandwich"). Corporations
are taxed on profits rather than revenue. They can therefore artificially reduce these profits
by setting up a parent company in Ireland, for example, and then a subsidiary in, say the UK,
which is charged steep licensing and administrative fees. This is how Google can enjoy yearly
sales in the UK of £1.03 billion yet post a pretax profit of £149 million, with a
tax bill of £36.4 million. Some firms might even record a "loss" (despite healthy
revenues), then use the "Double Irish" with a "Dutch Sandwich," and pay no tax whatsoever.
Combined with shadow banking, transfer pricing, trade mis-invoicing and tax havens, here we see
where neoliberal capitalism is heading in the end times. The ultrarich -- and their phalanx --
floating above the state as the public sphere shrinks and society descends into disorder.
Moreover, it is precisely here that neo-feudal social structures make a comeback, linked to
family oligarchies and their tremendous influence over governments, bypassing the democratic
process.
This excerpt is from The Worst Is Yet to Come: A Post-Capitalist Survival Guide by
Peter Fleming. ( Repeater
Books 2019). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
tain those options and evoke the mythology of leadership instead, sold to us as
great men and women who've been blessed with amazing skills. To understand this bizarre
veneration of elitism, we might recall Max Weber's argument about charismatic leaders. These
individuals function as supplements to market rationality rather than replacements, which
is why fascism was so attracted to the idea. The economic system can have bourgeois individualism
and an overarching, CEO-like führer at the same time. The conflation serves to ward off
social democratic solutions to economic coordination.
Lean In: Faux-feminism for the corporate age; an attempt to render feminism
business-friendly; what feminism looks like after patriarchy wins .
Radical gender politics is dangerous to capitalism because it rallies against the patriarchal
structures essential to it. In many ways, neoliberalism is a male-driven horror show. However,
identity politics has severely diluted that radicalism and finally made feminism palatable to the
establishment, including the multinational corporation. Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to
Lead , by Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook's chief operating of officer) is the end product of that
betrayal. Sandberg gives advice to her readers about how to be both a woman and ruthlessly
ambitious in the corporate world. Capitalism and the multinational corporation are all taken for
granted, and feminism becomes a matter of women landing a seat in the boardroom and getting
rich.
Moral Hazard: The cynical belief that you will automatically behave irresponsibly if not
held accountable for your actions, especially in terms of financial responsibility; a moral
pretext for demolishing the public sphere; the belief that everyone is a feckless opportunist
.
The concept of moral hazard originated in insurance economics. It argues that once people are
protected by insurance (say home and contents) they'll automatically engage in riskier behavior
than normal (leaving their homes unlocked, for example). The theory assumes that people are not
only stupid but have no sense of civic responsibility. The rationale has been deployed by neocons
to lay ruin to the welfare state. Unemployment insurance incentivizes work avoidance. Public
health care encourages unhealthy lifestyle choices, etc. We could follow the rationale
reductio ad absurdum : public fire brigades shouldn't be funded because they inadvertently
encourage people to be careless in the kitchen, and might result in them burning down their
homes.
Tax Avoidance: How corporations and rich plutocrats sidestep the taxes that you and I have
to pay; a mechanism for increasing wealth inequality to levels unheard of in the modern era; a
method for starving the public sphere of cash; what greed looks like in the end times.
Neoliberalism has always hated tax, especially corporate tax. Trickle-down economics assumes
that low taxes incentivize employers to hire more workers, invest and grow. Instead, firms
usually keep the extra equity and get richer. Building on that sentiment, corporations have
devised an elaborate international system to facilitate tax avoidance, with the help of countries
like Ireland (the "Double Irish") and Holland (the "Dutch Sandwich"). Corporations are taxed on
profits rather than revenue. They can therefore artificially reduce these profits by setting up a
parent company in Ireland, for example, and then a subsidiary in, say the UK, which is charged
steep licensing and administrative fees. This is how Google can enjoy yearly sales in the UK of
£1.03 billion yet post a pretax profit of £149 million, with a tax bill of
£36.4 million. Some firms might even record a "loss" (despite healthy revenues), then use
the "Double Irish" with a "Dutch Sandwich," and pay no tax whatsoever. Combined with shadow
banking, transfer pricing, trade mis-invoicing and tax havens, here we see where neoliberal
capitalism is heading in the end times. The ultrarich -- and their phalanx -- floating above the
state as the public sphere shrinks and society descends into disorder. Moreover, it is precisely
here that neo-feudal social structures make a comeback, linked to family oligarchies and their
tremendous influence over governments, bypassing the democratic process.
This excerpt is from The Worst Is Yet to Come: A Post-Capitalist Survival Guide by
Peter Fleming. ( Repeater
Books 2019). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
"... By Couze Venn, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Theory in the Media & Communications Department at Goldsmiths, University of London, and Associate Research Fellow at Johannesburg University. His recent book is After Capital, Sage, 2018. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... From working conditions to welfare policies, from immigration to the internet – this zero sum game of winners and losers benefits only the far right. ..."
"... Image: Homeless man with commuters walking past, Waterloo Station, London. Credit: Jessica Mulley/Flickr, CC 2.0. ..."
"... As Ha Joon Chang has shown, by the 1990s, financial capitalism had become the dominant power, prioritising the interest of shareholders, and incentivising managers through share ownership and bonuses schemes. ..."
"... Meanwhile, neoliberal political economy gradually became the new orthodoxy, increasing its impact through right wing thinktanks and government advisors and spreading its influence in academia and economic thought. Its initial success in terms of growth and prosperity in the 1990s and turn of the century consolidated its hold over the economy until the crash of 2008. ..."
"... political economy ..."
"... Neoliberalism has promoted a self-centeredness that pushes Adam Smith-style individualism to an extreme, turning selfishness into a virtue, as Ayn Rand has done. It is a closed ontology since it does not admit the other, the stranger, into the circle of those towards whom we have a duty of responsibility and care. It thus completes capitalism as a zero-sum game of winners and 'losers'. Apart from the alt-right in the USA, we find its exemplary advocates amongst leading Brexiteers in the UK, backed by dark money. It is not the social democratic compromise of capitalism with a human face that could support the welfare state. Seen in this context, there is an essential affinity between alt-right, neoliberal political economy and neo- fascisms, punctuated by aggressivity, intolerance, exclusion, expulsion and generalised hostility. ..."
Neoliberalism puts markets above all else. In this paradigm, you are supposed to uproot
yourself if work dries up where you live or if there are better opportunities elsewhere. The
needs of your family or extended family are treated as secondary. And your community?
Fuggedaboudit. And this attitude has also led to what is arguably the most corrosive practice,
of companies treating employees like tissue paper, to be trashed after use.
Companies have increasingly adopted a transactional posture towards customers. This shift
happened on Wall Street as a result of deregulation in the 1980s (Rule 415; if anyone cares,
I'll elaborate in comments). The reduced orientation towards treating customers well as a sound
business practice, and merely going through the form is particularly pronounced at the retail
level. I can't tell you how many times I have had to go through ridiculous hoops merely to get
a vendor to live up to its agreement, and even though I am plenty tenacious, I don't always
prevail. It didn't used to be anywhere near this bad. And this is corrosive. Not only are
customers effectively treated as if they can be abused, the people in the support ops wind up
being on the receiving end of well deserved anger even though they aren't the proper target.
The phone reps are almost certainly not told that they are perpetrating an abuse (which then
leads to the question of who in the organization has set up the scripts and training with lies
in them) but for certain types of repeat cases, they have to know their employer is up to no
good. I am sure this is the case at Cigna, where at least twice a year, I have a problem with a
claim, the service rep says it should have been paid and puts it in to be reprocessed and I
typically have to rinse and repeat and get stroopy about it, meaning the later reps can see the
pattern of deliberate non-payment of a valid claim and continue to act as if they can do
something about it.
By Couze Venn, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Theory in the Media & Communications
Department at Goldsmiths, University of London, and Associate Research Fellow at Johannesburg
University. His recent book is After Capital, Sage, 2018. Originally published at openDemocracy
From working conditions to welfare policies, from immigration to the internet –
this zero sum game of winners and losers benefits only the far right.
Image: Homeless man with commuters walking past, Waterloo Station, London. Credit:
Jessica Mulley/Flickr, CC 2.0.
The hostile environment is not just about the Windrush generation in the UK, or the
harassment of migrants at the Mexican border in the USA, or the unwelcoming treatment of
refugees trying to reach Europe. It has become ubiquitous and widespread. We encounter it in
many aspects of daily life. In worsening conditions at work such as zero-hour 'contracts'. In
obstacles to accessing social and health services due to cutbacks, making people's lives more
precarious. Online threats and trolling are other signs of this normalisation of hostility.
The normalisation of hostile environments signals a worrying and global shift in values of
tolerance, empathy, compassion, hospitality and responsibility for the vulnerable. It's a
normalisation that was criticised recently in the UK by UN Poverty Rapporteur Philip Alston,
who described how "punitive, mean-spirited, often callous" government welfare policies were
contributing to an "
increasingly hostile and unwelcoming society ".
There's a pattern to hostile environments that harks back to the 1930s and 40s. As we know,
at the time, those targeted were considered as the enemy within, to be subject to expulsion,
exclusion and indeed, genocide, as happened to Jews and other so-called 'inferior races'. In
more recent time, the iterations of this discourse of the alien other who must be expelled or
eliminated to save the 'pure' or 'good race' or ethnicity and reconstitute the broken community
have found traction in Europe, the USA, Rwanda, India, parts of the Middle East. In its wake,
refugees have become asylum seekers, migrants are labelled illegal or criminal, cultural
differences become alien cultures, non-binary women and men are misgendered, and at the
extreme, those targeted for violence become vermin. It marks a shift in political culture that
inscribes elements of fascism.
Why has this atmosphere of hostility become the default position in politics? What have been
the triggers and what are the stakes in this great moving rightwards shift? One may be tempted
to identify the change in mood and attitudes with recent events like the election of Trump in
the USA. But the far right has been on the rise in Europe, the UK and the US for some years, as
seen in movements like the Tea Party, UKIP, or the National Front in France . They
have been given a boost by the flood of refugees generated by wars in the Middle East,
Afghanistan, parts of Africa, as well as by the spread of fundamentalist religious creeds that
have an affinity with forms of fascism.
Why? Two related sets of developments that from the 1970s have gradually altered the
political terrain. Economically, globalisation emerged as an integral part of a transnational
corporate strategy aimed at securing advantageous conditions for the consolidation of global
capital at a time of risky structural changes in the global economy. And politically,
neoliberalism took hold when the crises of the 1970s started to undermine the postwar consensus
in the Keynesian mixed economy and the role of the welfare state.
Globalisation saw the systematic deployment of outsourcing production in countries offering
cheap labour, minimised corporate tax burdens and other incentives for transnational
corporations, and the invention of the trade in derivatives (financial mechanisms intended to
leverage the value of assets and repackaged debts). They contributed to the 2008 crash. The
general public were made to bail out the banks through increased taxation and the establishment
of policies across social services that produce hostile environments for claimants seeking
state support.
As Ha Joon Chang has shown, by the 1990s, financial capitalism had become the dominant
power, prioritising the interest of shareholders, and incentivising managers through share
ownership and bonuses schemes. The disruptions due to this recomposition of capital have
been a global squeeze on income, the creation of a new precariat, and the debt society. People
who feel insecure, abandoned to forces outside their control become easy prey to demagogues and
prophets of deceit who promise the return of good times, provided enemies and outsiders who
wreck things are expelled.
Meanwhile, neoliberal political economy gradually became the new orthodoxy, increasing
its impact through right wing thinktanks and government advisors and spreading its influence in
academia and economic thought. Its initial success in terms of growth and prosperity in the
1990s and turn of the century consolidated its hold over the economy until the crash of
2008.
What is important here is the radical shift in values and attitudes that recall utilitarian
values in the 19th Century. In particular, it is reflected in the neoliberal hostility towards
the poor, the weak, the destitute, the ' losers', expressed in its denial or abnegation of
responsibility for their plight or welfare, and its project of dismantling the welfare or
providential state.
This pervasive atmosphere of hostility is the real triumph of neoliberal political
economy . Not the economy – privatisation, monetisation, deregulation,
generalised competition, and structural adjustments are immanent tendencies in globalised
capitalism anyway. But neoliberal political economy reanimates attitudes and values that
legitimate the consolidation of power over others, evidenced for example in the creation of an
indebted population who must play by the dominant rules of the game in order to survive. It
promotes new servitudes, operating on a planetary scale. What is rejected are ideas of common
interest and a common humanity that support the principle of collective responsibility for
fellow humans, and that radical liberal philosophers like John Stuart Mill defended. They were
the values, along with the principles of fundamental human rights, that informed major reforms,
and inspired socialism. The establishment of the welfare or providential state, and programmes
of redistribution, enshrined in Beveridge or New Deals, draw from these same principles and
values.
Neoliberalism has promoted a self-centeredness that pushes Adam Smith-style
individualism to an extreme, turning selfishness into a virtue, as Ayn Rand has done. It is a
closed ontology since it does not admit the other, the stranger, into the circle of those
towards whom we have a duty of responsibility and care. It thus completes capitalism as a
zero-sum game of winners and 'losers'. Apart from the alt-right in the USA, we find its
exemplary advocates amongst leading Brexiteers in the UK, backed by dark money. It is not the
social democratic compromise of capitalism with a human face that could support the welfare
state. Seen in this context, there is an essential affinity between alt-right, neoliberal
political economy and neo- fascisms, punctuated by aggressivity, intolerance, exclusion,
expulsion and generalised hostility.
There are other important stakes at this point in the history of humanity and the planet. We
tend to forget that support for fundamental human rights, like equality, liberty, freedom from
oppressive power, has long been motivated by the same kind of concern to defend the vulnerable,
the poor, the destitute, the oppressed from the injustices arising from unequal relations of
power. We forget too that these rights have been hard won through generations of emancipatory
struggles against many forms of oppressions.
Yet, it is sad to see many institutions and organisations tolerate intolerance out of
confusion about the principles at stake and for fear of provoking hostile reactions from those
who claim rights that in effect disadvantage some already vulnerable groups. Failure to defend
the oppressed anywhere and assert our common humanity is the slippery slope towards a Hobbesian
state and great suffering for the many.
"... The ruling class has successfully ruled out any concept of consent. Keep bringing consent up and their philosophies will be shown to be the same as gang rapists. ..."
"... They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. ..."
"... They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden ..."
'Liber' in Latin means:
1) free (man)
2) free from tribute
3) independent, outspoken/frank
4) unimpeded
5) void of
The author needs to recheck his definitions. Voluntary exchange, consent, free markets,
free will, etc are just some of the concepts at the heart of the true libertarian thought.
The ruling class has successfully ruled out any concept of consent. Keep bringing consent
up and their philosophies will be shown to be the same as gang rapists.
"The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system
which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of
improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They
call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves
revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings
of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.
Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble
cause to fight!" – Ludwig Von Mises
"... Unfettered individual creativity may have fostered some great – if fetishised – art, as well as rapid mechanical and technological developments. But it has also encouraged unbridled competition in every sphere of life, whether beneficial to humankind or not, and however wasteful of resources. ..."
"... At its worst, it has unleashed quite literally an arms race, one that – because of a mix of our unconstrained creativity, our godlessness and the economic logic of the military-industrial complex – culminated in the development of nuclear weapons. We have now devised the most complete and horrific ways imaginable to kill each other. We can commit genocide on a global scale ..."
"... Those among the elites who understand that neoliberalism has had its day are exploiting the old ideology of grab-it-for-yourself capitalism while deflecting attention from their greed and the maintenance of their privilege by sowing discord and insinuating dark threats. ..."
"... The criticisms of the neoliberal elite made by the ethnic nationalists sound persuasive because they are rooted in truths about neoliberalism's failure. But as critics, they are disingenuous. They have no solutions apart from their own personal advancement in the existing, failed, self-sabotaging system. ..."
"... This trend – what I have previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old neoliberal elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to explore its ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to. ..."
Ok neoliberalism is bad and is collapsing. We all understadn that. The different in opinions
here is only in timeframe of the collapse and the main reason (end of cheap oil, WWIII, etc).
But so far no plausible alternative exists. Canwe return to the New Deal, if top management
betrayed the working class and allied with capital owners in a hope later to became such
capital owners themselves (and many did).
The experience of the USSR tells as that each Nomenklatura (technocratic elite with the goal
of "betterment" of people) degrade very quickly (two generations were enough for Bolshevik's
elite for complete degradation) and often is ready switch sides for the place in neoliberal
elite.
So while after 2008 neoliberalism exist in zombie states (which is more bloodthirsty then
previous) they issue of successor to neoliberalism is widely open.
In one sense, their diagnosis is correct: Europe and the [neo]neoliberal tradition are
coming apart at the seams. But not because, as they strongly imply, European politicians are
pandering to the basest instincts of a mindless rabble – the ordinary people they have so
little faith in.
Rather, it is because a long experiment in Neoliberalism has finally run its course.
Neoliberalism has patently failed – and failed catastrophically.
... ... ...
Neoliberalism, like most ideologies, has an upside. Its respect for the individual and his
freedoms, its interest in nurturing human creativity, and its promotion of "universal values"
over tribal attachment have had some positive consequences.
But neoliberal ideology has been very effective at hiding its dark side – or more
accurately, at persuading us that this dark side is the consequence of neoliberalism's
abandonment rather than inherent to the neoliberal's political project.
The loss of traditional social bonds – tribal, sectarian, geographic – has left
people today more lonely, more isolated than was true of any previous human society. We may pay
lip service to universal values, but in our atomised communities, we feel adrift, abandoned and
angry.
Humanitarian resource grabs
The neoliberal's professed concern for others' welfare and their rights has, in reality,
provided cynical cover for a series of ever-more transparent resource grabs. The parading of
neoliberalism's humanitarian credentials has entitled our elites to leave a trail of carnage
and wreckage in their wake in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and soon, it seems, in Venezuela.
We have killed with our kindness and then stolen our victims' inheritance.
Unfettered individual creativity may have fostered some great – if fetishised
– art, as well as rapid mechanical and technological developments. But it has also
encouraged unbridled competition in every sphere of life, whether beneficial to humankind or
not, and however wasteful of resources.
At its worst, it has unleashed quite literally an arms race, one that – because of
a mix of our unconstrained creativity, our godlessness and the economic logic of the
military-industrial complex – culminated in the development of nuclear weapons. We have
now devised the most complete and horrific ways imaginable to kill each other. We can commit
genocide on a global scale .
Meanwhile, the absolute prioritising of the individual has sanctioned a pathological
self-absorption, a selfishness that has provided fertile ground not only for capitalism,
materialism and consumerism but for the fusing of all of them into a turbo-charged
neoliberalism. That has entitled a tiny elite to amass and squirrel away most of the planet's
wealth out of reach of the rest of humanity.
Worst of all, our rampant creativity, our self-regard and our competitiveness have blinded
us to all things bigger and smaller than ourselves. We lack an emotional and spiritual
connection to our planet, to other animals, to future generations, to the chaotic harmony of
our universe. What we cannot understand or control, we ignore or mock.
And so the neoliberal impulse has driven us to the brink of extinguishing our species and
possibly all life on our planet. Our drive to asset-strip, to hoard resources for personal
gain, to plunder nature's riches without respect to the consequences is so overwhelming, so
compulsive that the planet will have to find a way to rebalance itself. And if we carry on,
that new balance – what we limply term "climate change" – will necessitate that we
are stripped from the planet.
Nadir of a dangerous arrogance
One can plausibly argue that humans have been on this suicidal path for some time.
Competition, creativity, selfishness predate neoliberalism, after all. But neoliberalism
removed the last restraints, it crushed any opposing sentiment as irrational, as uncivilised,
as primitive.
Neoliberalism isn't the cause of our predicament. It is the nadir of a dangerous arrogance
we as a species have been indulging for too long, where the individual's good trumps any
collective good, defined in the widest possible sense.
The neoliberal reveres his small, partial field of knowledge and expertise, eclipsing
ancient and future wisdoms, those rooted in natural cycles, the seasons and a wonder at the
ineffable and unknowable. The neoliberal's relentless and exclusive focus is on "progress",
growth, accumulation.
What is needed to save us is radical change. Not tinkering, not reform, but an entirely new
vision that removes the individual and his personal gratification from the centre of our social
organisation.
This is impossible to contemplate for the elites who think more neoliberalism, not less, is
the solution. Anyone departing from their prescriptions, anyone who aspires to be more than a
technocrat correcting minor defects in the status quo, is presented as a menace. Despite the
modesty of their proposals, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the US have been
reviled by a media, political and intellectual elite heavily invested in blindly pursuing the
path to self-destruction.
Status-quo cheerleaders
As a result, we now have three clear political trends.
The first is the status-quo cheerleaders like the European writers of neoliberalism's latest
– last? –
manifesto . With every utterance they prove how irrelevant they have become, how incapable
they are of supplying answers to the question of where we must head next. They adamantly refuse
both to look inwards to see where neoliberalism went wrong and to look outwards to consider how
we might extricate ourselves.
Irresponsibly, these guardians of the status quo lump together the second and third trends
in the futile hope of preserving their grip on power. Both trends are derided indiscriminately
as "populism", as the politics of envy, the politics of the mob. These two fundamentally
opposed, alternative trends are treated as indistinguishable.
This will not save neoliberalism, but it will assist in promoting the much worse of the two
alternatives.
Those among the elites who understand that neoliberalism has had its day are exploiting
the old ideology of grab-it-for-yourself capitalism while deflecting attention from their greed
and the maintenance of their privilege by sowing discord and insinuating dark threats.
The criticisms of the neoliberal elite made by the ethnic nationalists sound persuasive
because they are rooted in truths about neoliberalism's failure. But as critics, they are
disingenuous. They have no solutions apart from their own personal advancement in the existing,
failed, self-sabotaging system.
The new authoritarians are reverting to old, trusted models of xenophobic nationalism,
scapegoating others to shore up their own power. They are ditching the ostentatious,
conscience-salving sensitivities of the neoliberal so that they can continue plundering with
heady abandon. If the ship is going down, then they will be gorging on the buffet till the
waters reach the dining-hall ceiling.
Where hope can reside
The third trend is the only place where hope can reside. This trend – what I have
previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new
thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old neoliberal
elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to explore its
ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to.
Social media provides a potentially vital platform to begin critiquing the old, failed
system, to raise awareness of what has gone wrong, to contemplate and share radical new ideas,
and to mobilise. But the neoliberals and authoritarians understand this as a threat to their
own privilege. Under a confected hysteria about "fake news", they are rapidly working to snuff
out even this small space.
We have so little time, but still the old guard wants to block any possible path to
salvation – even as seas filled with plastic start to rise, as insect populations
disappear across the globe, and as the planet prepares to cough us out like a lump of infected
mucus.
We must not be hoodwinked by these posturing, manifesto-spouting liberals: the philosophers,
historians and writers – the public relations wing – of our suicidal status quo.
They did not warn us of the beast lying cradled in our midst. They failed to see the danger
looming, and their narcissism blinds them still.
We should have no use for the guardians of the old, those who held our hands, who shone a
light along a path that has led to the brink of our own extinction. We need to discard them, to
close our ears to their siren song.
There are small voices struggling to be heard above the roar of the dying neoliberal elites
and the trumpeting of the new authoritarians. They need to be listened to, to be helped to
share and collaborate, to offer us their visions of a different world. One where the individual
is no longer king. Where we learn some modesty and humility – and how to love in our
infinitely small corner of the universe.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
With the growing movement towards nuclear war, we have indeed reached the nadir. It is
important to see how humanity got here, for the signs are ominous.
The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every
conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war.
Other
cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying
principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite
with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power,
not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war.
Maybe it is just me but I didn't see any actual solution or much of anything in his third
group. You know, the one with all the "correct" answers. All I saw was that it was a glorious
vision without all the failings of the other two while rejecting all the badthink.
Every major tragedy in human history starts out with people thinking they have a system
better than all the previous that ever occurred. It too soon becomes a religion that needs to
defend itself by executing all the blasphemers.
Maybe it is just me but I didn't see any actual solution or much of anything in his
third group. You know, the one with all the "correct" answers. All I saw was that it was a
glorious vision without all the failings of the other two while rejecting all the
badthink.
Exactly.
I've been waiting for the author, or some from his "group", to post here at least a LINK
to that solution, even a suggestion, of theirs. Hell, even the proper analysis of what's not
right. A foundation of sort.
So far, as you said, nothing.
Anon[248], February 3, 2019 at 5:29 am GMT
Levy another Jewish "intellectual" shilling for globalization and open borders - for Western nations only, to hasten their
demise. What else is new?
Orwell, in his book, 1984 wrote that the government had two terms: Oldspeak and Newspeak. One
was not permitted to use old speak.
" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating
undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so
far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be
used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from
weeds."
It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free,"
since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were
therefore of necessity nameless."
Were sliding down a slippery, ever-darkening slope. When I step back and try to examine
the whole picture, it's very concerning. Take, for instance, [MORE]
The article had a link to a WordPress article, penned by John Whitehead, The Rutherford
Institute about what has crept into America, via the Militarization of the Police Force.
I subscribed to his newsletter, years ago when Bush and, then, Obama gave Military
Armament to Civilian Police forces. When the "FBI raids Stone's Home" story hit, complete
with CNN presence, I realized that we do, in fact have policing by fear in the U.S.,
advertised by Cable News. I'm not an alarmist but, I am taking this all in and it doesn't
look good for us. I've also read that millions of Americans are leaving this country, yes, in
droves. I've thought about it, before but, don't know if I can convince Wifey this is what we
need to do since were in our 70s.
Whiteheads sight has an ongoing ledger of Police incompetence, armed to the teeth just to
deliver a warrant, often going to the wrong house, creating chaos, shooting people and their
animals and then finding out that they raided the wrong house and killed the wrong person. A
flash-band grenade was launched into the wrong residence, landed on a toddler in a crib and
burned a hole in its stomach. The scales are tipped in the favor of cops and, if a homeowner
attempts to defend himself, he's prosecuted to the full extent of the "law."
Our 4th amendment is gone. Our First and Second Amendment Rights are under heavy attack.
There's a call for a Constitutional Convention with almost all of the States sign on for an
Article Five Convention.
Were all in deep shit. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of a crime or not. If they'll
go after an unarmed Roger Stone, guns pointed, in front of his family, terrorizing them for
National TV, what do YOU think is their intent? With 10 Zillion Super-Cop shows on TV for the
last forty years, where they always get their man, never make errors and show how violent
they are, legally, what do you think is the intent?
Nothing happens on the government level by accident NOTHING
First, Myspace sucked in all of the youngsters and they learned how easy it was to
communicate, online. Then, Twitter and Facebook arrived as beacons of free speech. Then,
other commentary friendly web site pop up everywhere, allowing you to spew your agitated
heart out and argue with each other and call each other names and then opposite ideologies
manifested in separate sites on the net with "moderators" that throw registrants off
(banning/banishing) them for defending their positions echo chambers for the "alt" Right or
the politically correct Left Trump bashers. Sometime, I suggest you go to these and read the
commenters' remarks. They're literally insane. I was even banned from a DISCUSS site for
suggesting some civil discourse, identifying myself as a Trump Voter.
Do you really believe that all of these issues simply morphed to lock out Conservatives?
No way. This was all planned, possibly to I.D. individuals who are "potential" adversaries of
a different ideology or possible "problem people" that get put on a watch list. If the DNA
Ancestry sights are GIVING your DNA results to the Government, what good can come of it?
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital in
the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Notable quotes:
"... His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the "dung of the devil." He does not simply argue that systemic "greed for money" is a bad thing. He calls it a "subtle dictatorship" that "condemns and enslaves men and women." ..."
"... The Argentine pope seemed to be asking for a social revolution. "This is not theology as usual; this is him shouting from the mountaintop," said Stephen F. Schneck, the director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic studies at Catholic University of America in Washington. ..."
"... Left-wing populism is surging in countries immersed in economic turmoil, such as Spain, and, most notably, Greece . But even in the United States, where the economy has rebounded, widespread concern about inequality and corporate power are propelling the rise of liberals like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who, in turn, have pushed the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the left. ..."
"... Even some free-market champions are now reassessing the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism. George Soros, who made billions in the markets, and then spent a good part of it promoting the spread of free markets in Eastern Europe, now argues that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. ..."
"... Many Catholic scholars would argue that Francis is merely continuing a line of Catholic social teaching that has existed for more than a century and was embraced even by his two conservative predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Leo XIII first called for economic justice on behalf of workers in 1891, with his encyclical "Rerum Novarum" - or, "On Condition of Labor." ..."
"... Francis has such a strong sense of urgency "because he has been on the front lines with real people, not just numbers and abstract ideas," Mr. Schneck said. "That real-life experience of working with the most marginalized in Argentina has been the source of his inspiration as pontiff." ..."
"... In Bolivia, Francis praised cooperatives and other localized organizations that he said provide productive economies for the poor. "How different this is than the situation that results when those left behind by the formal market are exploited like slaves!" he said on Wednesday night. ..."
"... It is this Old Testament-like rhetoric that some finding jarring, perhaps especially so in the United States, where Francis will visit in September. His environmental encyclical, "Laudato Si'," released last month, drew loud criticism from some American conservatives and from others who found his language deeply pessimistic. His right-leaning critics also argued that he was overreaching and straying dangerously beyond religion - while condemning capitalism with too broad a brush. ..."
"... The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies, a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy. ..."
"... "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy," he said on Wednesday. "It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: It is a commandment." ..."
"... "I'm a believer in capitalism but it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice about the kind of capitalist system that we have," said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive government ..."
"... "What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries who come to my neighborhood with the hearts full of hopes and dreams but without any real solution for my problems?" he asked. "A lot! They can do a lot. ..."
ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay - His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis
does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the "dung of the devil."
He does not simply argue that systemic "greed for money" is a bad thing. He calls it a "subtle dictatorship"
that "condemns and enslaves men and women."
Having returned to his native Latin America, Francis has renewed his left-leaning critiques on
the inequalities of capitalism, describing it as an underlying cause of global injustice, and a prime
cause of climate change. Francis escalated that line last week when he made a
historic apology for the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church during the period of Spanish colonialism
- even as he called for a global movement against a "new colonialism" rooted in an inequitable economic
order.
The Argentine pope seemed to be asking for a social revolution. "This is not theology as usual; this is him shouting from the mountaintop," said Stephen F. Schneck,
the director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic studies at Catholic University of
America in Washington.
The last pope who so boldly placed himself at the center of the global moment was John Paul II,
who during the 1980s pushed the church to confront what many saw as the challenge of that era, communism.
John Paul II's anti-Communist messaging dovetailed with the agenda of political conservatives eager
for a tougher line against the Soviets and, in turn, aligned part of the church hierarchy with the
political right.
Francis has defined the economic challenge of this era as the failure of global capitalism to
create fairness, equity and dignified livelihoods for the poor - a social and religious agenda that
coincides with a resurgence of the leftist thinking marginalized in the days of John Paul II. Francis'
increasingly sharp critique comes as much of humanity has never been so wealthy or well fed - yet
rising inequality and repeated financial crises have unsettled voters, policy makers and economists.
Left-wing populism is surging in countries immersed in economic turmoil, such as Spain, and,
most notably, Greece. But even in the United States, where the economy has rebounded, widespread
concern about inequality and corporate power are propelling the
rise of liberals like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts,
who, in turn, have pushed the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
to the left.
Even some free-market champions are now reassessing the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism.
George Soros, who made billions in the markets, and then spent a good part of it promoting the spread
of free markets in Eastern Europe, now argues that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
"I think the pope is singing to the music that's already in the air," said Robert A. Johnson,
executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, which was financed with $50 million
from Mr. Soros. "And that's a good thing. That's what artists do, and I think the pope is sensitive
to the lack of legitimacy of the system."
Many Catholic scholars would argue that Francis is merely continuing a line of Catholic social
teaching that has existed for more than a century and was embraced even by his two conservative predecessors,
John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Leo XIII first called for economic justice on behalf of workers
in 1891, with his encyclical "Rerum Novarum" - or, "On Condition of Labor."
Mr. Schneck, of Catholic University, said it was as if Francis were saying, "We've been talking
about these things for more than one hundred years, and nobody is listening."
Francis has such a strong sense of urgency "because he has been on the front lines with real people,
not just numbers and abstract ideas," Mr. Schneck said. "That real-life experience of working with
the most marginalized in Argentina has been the source of his inspiration as pontiff."
Francis made his speech on Wednesday night, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, before nearly 2,000 social
advocates, farmers, trash workers and neighborhood activists. Even as he meets regularly with heads
of state, Francis has often said that change must come from the grass roots, whether from poor people
or the community organizers who work with them. To Francis, the poor have earned knowledge that is
useful and redeeming, even as a "throwaway culture" tosses them aside. He sees them as being at the
front edge of economic and environmental crises around the world.
In Bolivia, Francis praised cooperatives and other localized organizations that he said provide
productive economies for the poor. "How different this is than the situation that results when those
left behind by the formal market are exploited like slaves!" he said on Wednesday night.
It is this Old Testament-like rhetoric that some finding jarring, perhaps especially so in the
United States, where Francis will visit in September. His environmental encyclical, "Laudato Si',"
released last month, drew loud criticism from some American conservatives and from others who found
his language deeply pessimistic. His right-leaning critics also argued that he was overreaching and
straying dangerously beyond religion - while condemning capitalism with too broad a brush.
"I wish Francis would focus on positives, on how a free-market economy guided by an ethical framework,
and the rule of law, can be a part of the solution for the poor - rather than just jumping from the
reality of people's misery to the analysis that a market economy is the problem," said the Rev. Robert
A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, which advocates
free-market economics.
Francis' sharpest critics have accused him of being a Marxist or a Latin American Communist, even
as he opposed communism during his time in Argentina. His tour last week of Latin America began in
Ecuador and Bolivia, two countries with far-left governments. President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who
wore a Che Guevara patch on his jacket during Francis' speech, claimed the pope as a kindred spirit
- even as Francis seemed startled and caught off guard when Mr. Morales gave him a wooden crucifix
shaped like a hammer and sickle as a gift.
Francis' primary agenda last week was to begin renewing Catholicism in Latin America and reposition
it as the church of the poor. His apology for the church's complicity in the colonialist era received
an immediate roar from the crowd. In various parts of Latin America, the association between the
church and economic power elites remains intact. In Chile, a socially conservative country, some
members of the country's corporate elite are also members of Opus Dei, the traditionalist Catholic
organization founded in Spain in 1928.
Inevitably, Francis' critique can be read as a broadside against Pax Americana, the period of
capitalism regulated by global institutions created largely by the United States. But even pillars
of that system are shifting. The World Bank, which long promoted economic growth as an end in itself,
is now increasingly focused on the distribution of gains, after the Arab Spring revolts in some countries
that the bank had held up as models. The latest generation of international trade agreements includes
efforts to increase protections for workers and the environment.
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital
in the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Mr. Piketty roiled the debate among mainstream economists, yet Francis' critique is more unnerving
to some because he is not reframing inequality and poverty around a new economic theory but instead
defining it in moral terms. "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human
labor is not mere philanthropy," he said on Wednesday. "It is a moral obligation. For Christians,
the responsibility is even greater: It is a commandment."
Nick Hanauer, a Seattle venture capitalist, said that he saw Francis as making a nuanced point
about capitalism, embodied by his coinage of a "social mortgage" on accumulated wealth - a debt to
the society that made its accumulation possible. Mr. Hanauer said that economic elites should embrace
the need for reforms both for moral and pragmatic reasons. "I'm a believer in capitalism but
it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice about the kind of capitalist system that
we have," said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive government policies
like a higher minimum wage.
Yet what remains unclear is whether Francis has a clear vision for a systemic alternative to the
status quo that he and others criticize. "All these critiques point toward the incoherence of the
simple idea of free market economics, but they don't prescribe a remedy," said Mr. Johnson, of the
Institute for New Economic Thinking.
Francis acknowledged as much, conceding on Wednesday that he had no new "recipe" to quickly change
the world. Instead, he spoke about a "process of change" undertaken at the grass-roots level.
"What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries
who come to my neighborhood with the hearts full of hopes and dreams but without any real solution
for my problems?" he asked. "A lot! They can do a lot. "You, the lowly, the exploited, the poor
and underprivileged, can do, and are doing, a lot. I would even say that the future of humanity is
in great measure in your own hands."
Huge external debt plus high unemployment represents two vital preconditions of rise far right nationalism and fascism in all
its multiple incarnations. In this sence Ulrain, Argentina and Brasil are different links of the common chain of
events.
In a way fascism is a way of reaction of nation deeply in crisis. In essence this is introduction of war time
restrictions on political speech and freedoms of the population. The Catch 22 is that often this is done not so much to
fight external threat, but top preserve the power of existing financial oligarchy. Which fascist after coming to power quickly
include in government and and desire of which are disproportionally obeyed by fascist state.
What in new in XXI century is the huge growth of power on intelligence agencies which is way represent crippling fascism or
neofascism. In a way, then intelligence agencies became political kingmakers (as was the case with the assassination of JFK,
impeachment of Nixon, elections of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, as well as establishing Mueller commission after Trump
victory), we can speak about sliding the county of the county toward fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that followed. ..."
"... The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015 ..."
"... Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it forward. ..."
"... The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise. Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power. ..."
"... Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a program called Operation Paperclip . Many were dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist. ..."
"... A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason. Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism. ..."
"... The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism ..."
Missing from explanations of the rise of Mr. Bolsonaro is that for the last decade Brazil
has experienced the worst economic
recession in the country's history (graph below). Fourteen million formerly employed,
working age Brazilians are now unemployed. As was true in the U.S. and peripheral Europe from
2008 forward, the liberal response has been austerity as the Brazilian ruling class was made
richer and more politically powerful.
Since 2014, Brazil's public debt/GDP ratio has climbed from 20% to 75%
proclaims a worried IMF. That some fair portion of that climb came from falling GDP due to
economic austerity mandated by the IMF and Wall Street is left unmentioned. A decade of
austerity got liberal President Dilma Rousseff removed from office in 2016 in what can only be
called a Wall Street putsch. Perhaps Bolsonaro will tell Wall Street where to stick its loans
(not).
Back in the U.S., everyone knows that the liberalization of finance and trade in the 1990s
was the result of political calculations. That this liberalization was/is bipartisan suggests
that maybe the political calculations served certain economic interests. Never mind that these
interests were given what they asked for and crashed the economy with it. If economic problems
result from political calculations, the solution is political -- elect better leaders. If they
are driven by economic interests, the solution is to change the way that economic relationships
are organized.
Between 1928 and 1932 German industrial production fell by 58%. By 1933, six million
formerly employed German workers were begging in the streets and digging through garbage
looking for items to sell. The liberal (Socialist Party) response was half-measures and
austerity. Within the liberal frame, the Depression was a political problem to be addressed in
the realm of the political. Centrist accommodation defined the existing realm. Adolf Hitler was
appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the pit of the Great Depression.
In Brazil in the early-mid 2000s, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula,
implemented a Left program that pulled twenty million Brazilians out of poverty. The Brazilian
economy briefly recovered after Wall Street crashed it in 2008 before Brazilian public debt was
used to force the implementation of austerity. Dilma Rousseff capitulated and Brazil re-entered
recession. Rousseff was removed from power in 2016. Hemmed in by Wall Street and
IMF mandated austerity , any liberal government that might be elected would meet the same
fate as Rousseff.
In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that
preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations
and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to
the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial
economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that
followed.
Since 2008, the fiscal structure of the EU (European Union) combined with wildly unbalanced
trade relationships led to a decade of austerity, recession and depression for the European
periphery. In the U.S., by 2009 Wall Street was pushing austerity and cuts to Social Security
and Medicare as necessary to fiscal stability. The consequences of four decades of
financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external
class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely
distributed busts.
With the presumed shared goal of ending the threat of fascism:
The ideological premises behind the logic that claims fascists as the explanation of fascism
emerge from liberalism. The term here is meant as description. Liberalism proceeds from
specific ontological assumptions. Within this temporal frame, a bit of social logic: If
fascists already existed, why didn't fascism? The question of whether to fight fascists or
fascism depends on the answer. The essentialist view is that characteristics intrinsic to
fascists make them fascists. This is the basis of scientific racism. And it underlies fascist
race theory.
The theory of a strongman who exploits people who have a predisposition towards fascism is
essentialist as well if receptivity is intrinsic, e.g. due to psychology, genetics, etc.
Liberal-Left commentary in recent years has tended toward the essentialist view -- that
fascists are born or otherwise predisposed toward fascism. Unconsidered is that non-fascists
are equally determined in this frame. If 'deplorables' were born that way, four decades of
neoliberalism is absolved.
The problem of analogy, the question of what fascism is and how European fascism of the
twentieth century bears relation to the present, can't be answered in the liberal frame. The
rise and fall of a global radical right have been episodic. It has tied in history to the
development of global capitalism in a center-and-periphery model of asymmetrical economic
power. Finance from the center facilitates economic expansion until financial crisis interrupts
the process. Peripheral governments are left to manage debt repayment with collapsed
economies.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would suggest
the opposite. In 2015, self-identified Marxists in Greece's SYRIZA party capitulated to the
austerity and privatization demands from EU creditors led by Germany. Even Lenin negotiated
with Wall Street creditors (on behalf of Russia) in the months after the October Revolution. In
a political frame, the solution from below is to elect leaders and parties who will act on
their rhetoric.
The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate
their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in
payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist
expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't
serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to
repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable
loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015.
Fascist racialization has analog in existing capitalist class relations. Immigration status,
race and gender define a social taxonomy of economic exploitation. Race was invented decades into the
Anglo-American manifestation of slavery to naturalize exploitation of Blacks. Gender difference
represents the evolution of unpaid to paid labor for women in the capitalist West. Claiming
these as causing exploitation gets the temporal sequence wrong. These were / are exploitable
classes before explanations of their special status were created.
This isn't to suggest that capitalist class relations form a complete explanation of fascist
racialization. But the ontological premise that 'freezes,' and thereby reifies racialization,
is fundamental to capitalism. This relates to the point argued below that the educated German
bourgeois, in the form of the Nazi scientists and engineers brought to the U.S. following WWII,
found Nazi racialization plausible through what has long been put forward as an antithetical
mode of understanding. Put differently, it wasn't just the rabble that found grotesque racial
caricatures plausible. The question is why?
Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson
administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and
in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and
images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it
forward.
The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had
no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise.
Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by
the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power.
Since WWI, commercial propaganda has become ubiquitous in the U.S. Advertising firms hire
psychologists to craft advertising campaigns with no regard for the concern that psychological
coercion removes free choice from capitalism. The distinction between political and commercial
propaganda is based on intent, not method. Its use by Woodrow Wilson (above) is instructive: a
large and vocal anti-war movement had legitimate reasons for opposing the U.S. entry into WWI.
The goal of Bernays and Wilson was to stifle political opposition.
Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their
families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a
program called Operation Paperclip . Many were
dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In
contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi
scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent
contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist.
The problem isn't just that many committed Nazis were scientists. Science and technology
created the Nazi war machine. Science and technology were fully integrated into the creation
and running of the Nazi concentration camps. American race 'science,' eugenics, formed the
basis of Nazi race theory. Science and technology formed the functional core of Nazism. And the
Nazi scientists and engineers of Operation Paperclip were major contributors to American
post-war military dominance.
A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious
past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of
liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason.
Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois
basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project
within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism.
This is no doubt disconcerting to theorists of great difference. If Bolsonaro can impose
austerity while maintaining an unjust peace, Wall Street and the IMF will smile and ask for
more. American business interests are already
circling Brazil, knowing that captive consumers combined with enforceable property rights
and a pliable workforce means profits. Where were liberals when the Wall Street that Barack
Obama saved was squeezing the people of Brazil, Spain, Greece and Portugal to repay debts
incurred by the oligarchs? Liberalism is the link between capitalism and fascism, not its
antithesis.
Having long ago abandoned Marx, the American Left is lost in the temporal logic of
liberalism. The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on
Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... This interview with Henry Giroux was conducted by Mitja Sardoč, of the Educational Research Institute, in the Faculty of the Social Sciences, at University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. ..."
"... Not only does it define itself as a political and economic system whose aim was to consolidate power in the hands of a corporate and financial elite, it also wages a war over ideas. In this instance, it has defined itself as a form of commonsense and functions as a mode of public pedagogy that produces a template for structuring not just markets but all of social life. ..."
"... In this sense, it has and continues to function not only through public and higher education to produce and distribute market-based values, identities, and modes of agency, but also in wider cultural apparatuses and platforms to privatize, deregulate, economize, and subject all of the commanding institutions and relations of everyday life to the dictates of privatization, efficiency, deregulation, and commodification. ..."
"... Since the 1970s as more and more of the commanding institutions of society come under the control of neoliberal ideology, its notions of common sense – an unchecked individualism, harsh competition, an aggressive attack on the welfare state, the evisceration of public goods, and its attack on all models of sociality at odds with market values – have become the reigning hegemony of capitalist societies. ..."
"... What many on the left have failed to realize is that neoliberalism is about more than economic structures, it is also is a powerful pedagogical force – especially in the era of social media – that engages in full-spectrum dominance at every level of civil society. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's promotion of effectiveness and efficiency gives credence to its ability to willingness and success in making education central to politics ..."
"... The Crisis of Democracy, ..."
"... At the core of the neoliberal investment in education is a desire to undermine the university's commitment to the truth, critical thinking, and its obligation to stand for justice ..."
"... Neoliberalism considers such a space to be dangerous and they have done everything possible to eliminate higher education as a space where students can realize themselves as critical citizens ..."
"... It is waging a war over not just the relationship between economic structures but over memory, words, meaning, and politics. Neoliberalism takes words like freedom and limits it to the freedom to consume, spew out hate, and celebrate notions of self-interest and a rabid individualism as the new common sense. ..."
"... Equality of opportunity means engaging in ruthless forms of competition, a war of all against all ethos, and a survival of the fittest mode of behavior. ..."
"... First, higher education needs to reassert its mission as a public good in order to reclaim its egalitarian and democratic impulses. Educators need to initiate and expand a national conversation in which higher education can be defended as a democratic public sphere and the classroom as a site of deliberative inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking, a site that makes a claim on the radical imagination and a sense of civic courage. ..."
"... The ascendancy of neoliberalism in American politics has made visible a plague of deep-seated civic illiteracy, a corrupt political system and a contempt for reason that has been decades in the making. ..."
"... It also points to the withering of civic attachments, the undoing of civic culture, the decline of public life and the erosion of any sense of shared citizenship. As market mentalities and moralities tighten their grip on all aspects of society, democratic institutions and public spheres are being downsized, if not altogether disappearing. ..."
"... First, too little is said about how neoliberalism functions not simply as an economic model for finance capital but as a public pedagogy that operates through a diverse number of sites and platforms. ..."
"... I define neoliberal fascism as both a project and a movement, which functions as an enabling force that weakens, if not destroys, the commanding institutions of a democracy while undermining its most valuable principles ..."
"... As a movement, it produces and legitimates massive economic inequality and suffering, privatizes public goods, dismantles essential government agencies, and individualizes all social problems. In addition, it transforms the political state into the corporate state, and uses the tools of surveillance, militarization, and law and order to discredit the critical press and media, undermine civil liberties while ridiculing and censoring critics. ..."
This interview with Henry Giroux was conducted by Mitja Sardoč, of the Educational Research Institute, in the Faculty of the
Social Sciences, at University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mitja Sardoč: For several decades now, neoliberalism has been at the forefront of discussions not only in the economy and
finance but has infiltrated our vocabulary in a number of areas as diverse as governance studies, criminology, health care, jurisprudence,
education etc. What has triggered the use and application ofthis'economistic'ideologyassociatedwith the promotion of effectiveness
and efficiency?
Henry Giroux: Neoliberalism has become the dominant ideology of the times and has established itself as a central feature
of politics. Not only does it define itself as a political and economic system whose aim was to consolidate power in the hands
of a corporate and financial elite, it also wages a war over ideas. In this instance, it has defined itself as a form of commonsense
and functions as a mode of public pedagogy that produces a template for structuring not just markets but all of social life.
In this sense, it has and continues to function not only through public and higher education to produce and distribute market-based
values, identities, and modes of agency, but also in wider cultural apparatuses and platforms to privatize, deregulate, economize,
and subject all of the commanding institutions and relations of everyday life to the dictates of privatization, efficiency, deregulation,
and commodification.
Since the 1970s as more and more of the commanding institutions of society come under the control of neoliberal ideology,
its notions of common sense – an unchecked individualism, harsh competition, an aggressive attack on the welfare state, the evisceration
of public goods, and its attack on all models of sociality at odds with market values – have become the reigning hegemony of capitalist
societies.
What many on the left have failed to realize is that neoliberalism is about more than economic structures, it is also is a
powerful pedagogical force – especially in the era of social media – that engages in full-spectrum dominance at every level of civil
society. Its reach extends not only into education but also among an array of digital platforms as well as in the broader sphere
of popular culture. Under neoliberal modes of governance, regardless of the institution, every social relation is reduced to an act
of commerce.
Neoliberalism's promotion of effectiveness and efficiency gives credence to its ability to willingness and success in making
education central to politics. It also offers a warning to progressives, as Pierre Bourdieu has insisted that the left has underestimated
the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle and have not always forged appropriate weapons to fight on this front."
Mitja Sardoč: According to the advocates of neoliberalism, education represents one of the main indicators of future economic
growth and individual well-being.How – and why – education became one of the central elements of the 'neoliberal revolution'?
Henry Giroux: Advocates of neoliberalism have always recognized that education is a site of struggle over which there are
very high stakes regarding how young people are educated, who is to be educated, and what vision of the present and future should
be most valued and privileged. Higher education in the sixties went through a revolutionary period in the United States and many
other countries as students sought to both redefine education as a democratic public sphere and to open it up to a variety of groups
that up to that up to that point had been excluded. Conservatives were extremely frightened over this shift and did everything they
could to counter it. Evidence of this is clear in the production of the Powell Memo published in 1971 and later in The Trilateral
Commission's book-length report, namely, The Crisis of Democracy, published in 1975. From the 1960s on the, conservatives,
especially the neoliberal right, has waged a war on education in order to rid it of its potential role as a democratic public sphere.
At the same time, they sought aggressively to restructure its modes of governance, undercut the power of faculty, privilege knowledge
that was instrumental to the market, define students mainly as clients and consumers, and reduce the function of higher education
largely to training students for the global workforce.
At the core of the neoliberal investment in education is a desire to undermine the university's commitment to the truth, critical
thinking, and its obligation to stand for justice and assume responsibility for safeguarding the interests of young as they
enter a world marked massive inequalities, exclusion, and violence at home and abroad. Higher education may be one of the few institutions
left in neoliberal societies that offers a protective space to question, challenge, and think against the grain.
Neoliberalism considers such a space to be dangerous and they have done everything possible to eliminate higher education
as a space where students can realize themselves as critical citizens, faculty can participate in the governing structure, and
education can be define itself as a right rather than as a privilege.
Mitja Sardoč: Almost by definition, reforms and other initiatives aimed to improve educational practice have been one of
the pivotal mechanisms to infiltrate the neoliberal agenda of effectiveness and efficiency. What aspect of neoliberalism and its
educational agenda you find most problematic? Why?
Henry Giroux: Increasingly aligned with market forces, higher education is mostly primed for teaching business principles
and corporate values, while university administrators are prized as CEOs or bureaucrats in a neoliberal-based audit culture. Many
colleges and universities have been McDonalds-ized as knowledge is increasingly viewed as a commodity resulting in curricula that
resemble a fast-food menu. In addition, faculty are subjected increasingly to a Wal-Mart model of labor relations designed as Noam
Chomsky points out "to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility". In the age of precarity and flexibility, the majority
of faculty have been reduced to part-time positions, subjected to low wages, lost control over the conditions of their labor, suffered
reduced benefits, and frightened about addressing social issues critically in their classrooms for fear of losing their jobs.
The latter may be the central issue curbing free speech and academic freedom in the academy. Moreover, many of these faculty are
barely able to make ends meet because of their impoverished salaries, and some are on food stamps. If faculty are treated like service
workers, students fare no better and are now relegated to the status of customers and clients.
Moreover, they are not only inundated with the competitive, privatized, and market-driven values of neoliberalism, they are also
punished by those values in the form of exorbitant tuition rates, astronomical debts owed to banks and other financial institutions,
and in too many cases a lack of meaningful employment. As a project and movement, neoliberalism undermines the ability of educators
and others to create the conditions that give students the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and the civic courage necessary to
make desolation and cynicism unconvincing and hope practical.
As an ideology, neoliberalism is at odds with any viable notion of democracy which it sees as the enemy of the market. Yet, Democracy
cannot work if citizens are not autonomous, self-judging, curious, reflective, and independent – qualities that are indispensable
for students if they are going to make vital judgments and choices about participating in and shaping decisions that affect everyday
life, institutional reform, and governmental policy.
Mitja Sardoč: Why large-scale assessments and quantitative data in general are a central part of the 'neo-liberal toolkit'
in educational research?
Henry Giroux: These are the tools of accountants and have nothing to do with larger visions or questions about what matters
as part of a university education. The overreliance on metrics and measurement has become a tool used to remove questions of responsibility,
morality, and justice from the language and policies of education. I believe the neoliberal toolkit as you put it is part of the
discourse of civic illiteracy that now runs rampant in higher educational research, a kind of mind-numbing investment in a metric-based
culture that kills the imagination and wages an assault on what it means to be critical, thoughtful, daring, and willing to take
risks. Metrics in the service of an audit culture has become the new face of a culture of positivism, a kind of empirical-based panopticon
that turns ideas into numbers and the creative impulse into ashes. Large scale assessments and quantitative data are the driving
mechanisms in which everything is absorbed into the culture of business.
The distinction between information and knowledge has become irrelevant in this model and anything that cannot be captured by
numbers is treated with disdain. In this new audit panopticon, the only knowledge that matters is that which can be measured. What
is missed here, of course, is that measurable utility is a curse as a universal principle because it ignores any form of knowledge
based on the assumption that individuals need to know more than how things work or what their practical utility might be.
This is a language that cannot answer the question of what the responsibility of the university and educators might be in a time
of tyranny, in the face of the unspeakable, and the current widespread attack on immigrants, Muslims, and others considered disposable.
This is a language that is both afraid and unwilling to imagine what alternative worlds inspired by the search for equality and justice
might be possible in an age beset by the increasing dark forces of authoritarianism.
Mitja Sardoč: While the analysis of the neoliberal agenda in education is well documented, the analysis of the language
of neoliberal education is at the fringes of scholarly interest. In particular, the expansion of the neoliberal vocabulary with egalitarian
ideas such as fairness, justice, equality of opportunity, well-being etc. has received [at best]only limited attention. What factors
have contributed to this shift of emphasis?
Henry Giroux: Neoliberalism has upended how language is used in both education and the wider society. It works to appropriate
discourses associated with liberal democracy that have become normalized in order to both limit their meanings and use them to mean
the opposite of what they have meant traditionally, especially with respect to human rights, justice, informed judgment, critical
agency, and democracy itself. It is waging a war over not just the relationship between economic structures but over memory,
words, meaning, and politics. Neoliberalism takes words like freedom and limits it to the freedom to consume, spew out hate, and
celebrate notions of self-interest and a rabid individualism as the new common sense.
Equality of opportunity means engaging in ruthless forms of competition, a war of all against all ethos, and a survival of
the fittest mode of behavior.
The vocabulary of neoliberalism operates in the service of violence in that it reduces the capacity for human fulfillment in the
collective sense, diminishes a broad understanding of freedom as fundamental to expanding the capacity for human agency, and diminishes
the ethical imagination by reducing it to the interest of the market and the accumulation of capital. Words, memory, language and
meaning are weaponized under neoliberalism.
Certainly, neither the media nor progressives have given enough attention to how neoliberalism colonizes language because neither
group has given enough attention to viewing the crisis of neoliberalism as not only an economic crisis but also a crisis of ideas.
Education is not viewed as a force central to politics and as such the intersection of language, power, and politics in the neoliberal
paradigm has been largely ignored. Moreover, at a time when civic culture is being eradicated, public spheres are vanishing, and
notions of shared citizenship appear obsolete, words that speak to the truth, reveal injustices and provide informed critical analysis
also begin to disappear.
This makes it all the more difficult to engage critically the use of neoliberalism's colonization of language. In the United States,
Trump prodigious tweets signify not only a time in which governments engage in the pathology of endless fabrications, but also how
they function to reinforce a pedagogy of infantilism designed to animate his base in a glut of shock while reinforcing a culture
of war, fear, divisiveness, and greed in ways that disempower his critics.
Mitja Sardoč: You have written extensively on neoliberalism's exclusively instrumental view of education, its reductionist
understanding of effectiveness and its distorted image of fairness. In what way should radical pedagogy fight back neoliberalism
and its educational agenda?
Henry Giroux: First, higher education needs to reassert its mission as a public good in order to reclaim its egalitarian
and democratic impulses. Educators need to initiate and expand a national conversation in which higher education can be defended
as a democratic public sphere and the classroom as a site of deliberative inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking, a site that makes
a claim on the radical imagination and a sense of civic courage. At the same time, the discourse on defining higher education
as a democratic public sphere can provide the platform for a more expressive commitment in developing a social movement in defense
of public goods and against neoliberalism as a threat to democracy. This also means rethinking how education can be funded as a public
good and what it might mean to fight for policies that both stop the defunding of education and fight to relocate funds from the
death dealing military and incarceration budgets to those supporting education at all levels of society. The challenge here is for
higher education not to abandon its commitment to democracy and to recognize that neoliberalism operates in the service of the forces
of economic domination and ideological repression.
Second, educators need to acknowledge and make good on the claim that a critically literate citizen is indispensable to a democracy,
especially at a time when higher education is being privatized and subject to neoliberal restructuring efforts. This suggests placing
ethics, civic literacy, social responsibility, and compassion at the forefront of learning so as to combine knowledge, teaching,
and research with the rudiments of what might be called the grammar of an ethical and social imagination. This would imply taking
seriously those values, traditions, histories, and pedagogies that would promote a sense of dignity, self-reflection, and compassion
at the heart of a real democracy. Third, higher education needs to be viewed as a right, as it is in many countries such as Germany,
France, Norway, Finland, and Brazil, rather than a privilege for a limited few, as it is in the United States, Canada, and the United
Kingdom. Fourth, in a world driven by data, metrics, and the replacement of knowledge by the overabundance of information, educators
need to enable students to engage in multiple literacies extending from print and visual culture to digital culture. They need to
become border crossers who can think dialectically, and learn not only how to consume culture but also to produce it. Fifth, faculty
must reclaim their right to control over the nature of their labor, shape policies of governance, and be given tenure track lines
with the guarantee of secure employment and protection for academic freedom and free speech.
Mitja Sardoč: Why is it important to analyze the relationship between neoliberalism and civic literacy particularly as an
educational project?
Henry Giroux: The ascendancy of neoliberalism in American politics has made visible a plague of deep-seated civic illiteracy,
a corrupt political system and a contempt for reason that has been decades in the making.
It also points to the withering of civic attachments, the undoing of civic culture, the decline of public life and the erosion
of any sense of shared citizenship. As market mentalities and moralities tighten their grip on all aspects of society, democratic
institutions and public spheres are being downsized, if not altogether disappearing.
As these institutions vanish – from public schools and alternative media to health care centers– there is also a serious
erosion of the discourse of community, justice, equality, public values, and the common good. At the same time reason and truth are
not simply contested, or the subject of informed arguments as they should be, but wrongly vilified – banished to Trump's poisonous
world of fake news. For instance, under the Trump administration, language has been pillaged, truth and reason disparaged, and words
and phrases emptied of any substance or turned into their opposite, all via the endless production of Trump's Twitter storms and
the ongoing clown spectacle of Fox News. This grim reality points to a failure in the power of the civic imagination, political will,
and open democracy. It is also part of a politics that strips the social of any democratic ideals and undermines any understanding
of education as a public good. What we are witnessing under neoliberalism is not simply a political project to consolidate power
in the hands of the corporate and financial elite but also a reworking of the very meaning of literacy and education as crucial to
what it means to create an informed citizenry and democratic society. In an age when literacy and thinking become dangerous to the
anti-democratic forces governing all the commanding economic and cultural institutions of the United States, truth is viewed as a
liability, ignorance becomes a virtue, and informed judgments and critical thinking demeaned and turned into rubble and ashes. Under
the reign of this normalized architecture of alleged common sense, literacy is regarded with disdain, words are reduced to data and
science is confused with pseudo-science. Traces of critical thought appear more and more at the margins of the culture as ignorance
becomes the primary organizing principle of American society.
Under the forty-year reign of neoliberalism, language has been militarized, handed over to advertisers, game show idiocy, and
a political and culturally embarrassing anti-intellectualism sanctioned by the White House. Couple this with a celebrity culture
that produces an ecosystem of babble, shock, and tawdry entertainment. Add on the cruel and clownish anti-public intellectuals such
as Jordan Peterson who defend inequality, infantile forms of masculinity, and define ignorance and a warrior mentality as part of
the natural order, all the while dethroning any viable sense of agency and the political.
The culture of manufactured illiteracy is also reproduced through a media apparatus that trades in illusions and the spectacle
of violence. Under these circumstances, illiteracy becomes the norm and education becomes central to a version of neoliberal zombie
politics that functions largely to remove democratic values, social relations, and compassion from the ideology, policies and commanding
institutions that now control American society. In the age of manufactured illiteracy, there is more at work than simply an absence
of learning, ideas or knowledge. Nor can the reign of manufactured illiteracy be solely attributed to the rise of the new social
media, a culture of immediacy, and a society that thrives on instant gratification. On the contrary, manufactured illiteracy is political
and educational project central to a right-wing corporatist ideology and set of policies that work aggressively to depoliticize people
and make them complicitous with the neoliberal and racist political and economic forces that impose misery and suffering upon their
lives. There is more at work here than what Ariel Dorfman calls a "felonious stupidity," there is also the workings of a deeply malicious
form of 21 st century neoliberal fascism and a culture of cruelty in which language is forced into the service of violence
while waging a relentless attack on the ethical imagination and the notion of the common good. In the current historical moment illiteracy
and ignorance offer the pretense of a community in doing so has undermined the importance of civic literacy both in higher education
and the larger society.
Mitja Sardoč: Is there any shortcoming in the analysis of such a complex (and controversial) social phenomenon as neoliberalism
and its educational agenda? Put differently: is there any aspect of the neoliberal educational agenda that its critics have failed
to address?
Henry Giroux: Any analysis of an ideology such as neoliberalism will always be incomplete. And the literature on neoliberalism
in its different forms and diverse contexts is quite abundant. What is often underplayed in my mind are three things.
First, too
little is said about how neoliberalism functions not simply as an economic model for finance capital but as a public pedagogy that
operates through a diverse number of sites and platforms.
Second, not enough has been written about its war on a democratic notion
of sociality and the concept of the social.
Third, at a time in which echoes of a past fascism are on the rise not enough is being
said about the relationship between neoliberalism and fascism, or what I call neoliberal fascism, especially the relationship between
the widespread suffering and misery caused by neoliberalism and the rise of white supremacy.
I define neoliberal fascism as both
a project and a movement, which functions as an enabling force that weakens, if not destroys, the commanding institutions of a democracy
while undermining its most valuable principles.
Consequently, it provides a fertile ground for the unleashing of the ideological
architecture, poisonous values, and racist social relations sanctioned and produced under fascism. Neoliberalism and fascism conjoin
and advance in a comfortable and mutually compatible project and movement that connects the worse excesses of capitalism with fascist
ideals – the veneration of war, a hatred of reason and truth; a populist celebration of ultra-nationalism and racial purity; the
suppression of freedom and dissent; a culture which promotes lies, spectacles, a demonization of the other, a discourse of decline,
brutal violence, and ultimately state violence in heterogeneous forms. As a project, it destroys all the commanding institutions
of democracy and consolidates power in the hands of a financial elite.
As a movement, it produces and legitimates massive economic
inequality and suffering, privatizes public goods, dismantles essential government agencies, and individualizes all social problems.
In addition, it transforms the political state into the corporate state, and uses the tools of surveillance, militarization, and
law and order to discredit the critical press and media, undermine civil liberties while ridiculing and censoring critics.
What critics
need to address is that neoliberalism is the face of a new fascism and as such it speaks to the need to repudiate the notion that
capitalism and democracy are the same thing, renew faith in the promises of a democratic socialism, create new political formations
around an alliance of diverse social movements, and take seriously the need to make education central to politics itself.
Nancy Pelosi is worth several hundred million dollars. I don't think she's a Marxist in
the classical sense. Although she would fit the classic Soviet politburo member with their
private dachas on the Black Sea. I would argue she and her ilk across both parties have
enabled massive market concentration across many many sectors just in the past 4 decades.
They're elitists who back an oligarchy of their fellow elitists. They are the basis for the
symbiotic relationship between Big Business and Big Government. As Steve Bannon calls them,
they're the Party of Davos. IMO, the only difference between the two parties are their
rhetoric. Both of course engage in identity politics with the Democrats focused on the SJW
virtue signaling while the Republicans have for decades channeled the evangelicals.
Trump is an outsider. They consider him to be an uncouth nouveau riche. And are appalled
that his media savvy upended their Borg candidates. Nancy believes she is now the
opposition leader with the mandate from the Party of Davos to ensure the defeat of
Trump. This brouhaha over SOTU is just the first skirmish. I wouldn't underestimate
Trump in these media centered battles. While the corporate media who as Bannon calls the
opposition party creates the perception of a Trump administration in chaos, the Deplorables
are still backing him. His approval rating at this midway point in his presidency is no worse
than Obama and even GOP megagod Reagan. It's the reaction of the people from the heartland
when he served the Clemson team Big Macs and fries compared to the derisive commentary of the
urban/suburban crowd.
McConnell is also a card carrying member of the Party of Davos or else he would have
jumped to invite Trump to speak from the Senate. But Trump's shtick is the people's leader.
So he should speak from a heartland location. Your suggestion is a good one. Another could be
a cornfield in Iowa, the first primary state where all the Democrats presidential contenders
will be camping out soon.
"... Identity politics are no help here either. Indeed, to Scialabba, they are part of the problem because they are too easily coopted by capital: "Identity politics are an essential component of neoliberalism, the extension of market relations across borders and into all spheres of life. When rewards are assigned efficiently in proportion to merit, then not only is total output maximized, but the winners feel no qualms about the plight of the losers." Corporate power sees no distinction between funding diversity efforts and pursuing profit, becoming "woke" through advertising. ..."
"... vigorous self-assertion of working classes and small proprietors, which I think as close to mass democracy as the world has come, was transformed, largely by the advent of mass production, into a mass society of passive, apathetic, ignorant, deskilled consumers ..."
George Scialabba continues to work in a political-literary vein almost forgotten in our
partisan times. Along with Todd Gitlin, Thomas Frank perhaps, Jedediah Purdy (who introduces
this volume), and a few others, Scialabba is a liberal without being progressive, in solidarity
with workers against the capitalists rather than "woke" activists aligned with corporate
interests, and respectful of tradition while also criticizing the past's faults.
The last two years have seen a drastic realignment of conservatives, where the stranglehold
free-market and interventionist conservatives had has been loosened. Arguments from
traditionalists such as Russell Kirk are being heard once again, and new voices are rising
against Conservatism, Inc.
But the debate among liberals is just as interesting, if not more so, because of
[neo]liberalism's own dominance over the media, academia, and entertainment. They are fighting
in public, whereas conservatives mostly argue in the corners of the internet. A new generation
of activists and progressives disdain the liberalism espoused by their once-radical elders. A
world where Angela Davis gets awards rescinded for being insufficiently progressive and
prominent liberals are protested at commencements is very different indeed from the heady 1960s
and 1970s.
This new progressivism is sincere, but largely performative. It is too often in service to
an individualistic view of the self and lacks the solidarity Scialabba sees as one of the
strongest points of the Left. Resistance is a workers' collective, not a world in which choice
-- mediated by corporations and advertising -- is king.
Identity politics are no help here either. Indeed, to Scialabba, they are part of the
problem because they are too easily coopted by capital: "Identity politics are an essential
component of neoliberalism, the extension of market relations across borders and into all
spheres of life. When rewards are assigned efficiently in proportion to merit, then not only is
total output maximized, but the winners feel no qualms about the plight of the losers."
Corporate power sees no distinction between funding diversity efforts and pursuing profit,
becoming "woke" through advertising.
This collection covers what may broadly be called questions of political culture. Like the
best philosophical critics, Scialabba wants to know how we can live our common life with
dignity and justice. He considers writers like Ronald Dworkin, Christopher Lasch, Yuval Levin,
Michael Sandel, and others to probe how best to achieve public goods. The goods Scialabba
advocates, it should be obvious, are not aligned with mainstream conservative goals. And one
can argue with Scialabba's romance with a non-market economy in which redistributive justice
has pride of place. The "utopia" toward which we are slouching is remote indeed.
But perhaps not that remote. In an interview republished here, "America Pro and Con,"
Scialabba praises the " vigorous self-assertion of working classes and small proprietors,
which I think as close to mass democracy as the world has come, was transformed, largely by the
advent of mass production, into a mass society of passive, apathetic, ignorant, deskilled
consumers ." That vision would attract not a few Benedict Optioners, and not only
them.
Scialabba has harsh words for Republicans -- the free market Paul Ryan types and the later
MAGA incarnations. These comments are less interesting, and not just because they are
unsurprising. It is more because Scialabba realizes the problem is more nuanced than just bad
Republicans. Most of the elite Left and Right is in thrall to capital, and he can be as harsh
on liberal autonomy as any conservative. In an essay titled "Ecology of Attention," which
discusses Simon Head's Mindless: Why Smarter Machines are Making Dumber Humans and
Matthew Crawford's The World Beyond Your Head , he writes: "Seeing past this liberal
model of individual autonomy might also mean recognizing that consumerism can have civic
consequences. Just as atmospheric fine particles can clog our lungs and impair our society's
physical health, an unending stream of commercial messages can clog our minds, fragment our
attention, and, in the long run, impair our society's mental and civic health."
Drawing on a long left-wing tradition, he disputes the liberal capitalist view of people as
those who simply seek to maximize their own individual gain (in wealth, pleasure, or status,
for example). Rather, he says we are "situated beings" with our own pasts. In a perceptive,
sympathetic piece on Leszek Kolakowski, the "Conservative-Liberal Socialist," Scialabba
catalogs the failings of "existing socialism" that the Polish philosopher so ably described.
However, Scialabba cannot find much in that critique today. Soviet socialism may have been
rotten, but the liberal capitalism that has been triumphant since the 1980s in the West "has
seen the rampant financialization of the economy, the pulverizing of organized labor, a drastic
increase in economic inequality, the capture by business of the regulatory system, and the
growth of the national security state." Scialabba instead reaches for the anti-capitalist and
anti-Stalinist Left as a possible source of solutions for these ills. But the problem with this
resort is the same as the neoconservatives' attachment to an abstract capitalism. The dominance
or liberation of private life by the state is no longer the most pressing issue: media
(especially social media) and the supremacy of the "self" against all forms of community are
the new challenges.
As Shadi Hamid has
written recently , "It is difficult to think of a time less suited to Marxist economism
than the current one."
But back to Kolakowski. Scialabba nevertheless praises him for his willingness to be a
debunker of the debunkers, rejoicing in his affliction of "the comfortable unbeliever."
Although Scialabba cannot ultimately follow Kolakowski either in his political or religious
beliefs, nonetheless he praises Kolakowski for two things: the skepticism that allowed him to
break free -- and break others free -- of the illusions of totalitarianism, and a recognition
of the limits of that skepticism. Scialabba concludes that "as he continually reminded
rationalists, the skeptical impulse can't be sustained indefinitely or directed toward
everything simultaneously. We need traditions too."
It is premises like these that make Scialabba interesting to conservatives. Because
beginning from those premises Scialabba goes in directions conservatives typically do not
follow. Because he opposes [neo]liberal capitalism, he is fond of unions. Because he believes
we cannot completely extract ourselves from our cultural, ethnic, and religious inheritances,
ingrained injustices must be recognized and remedied. Because he believes we are situated
beings with traditions, we must construct an economic system that serves our nature rather than
invent abstractions that we then serve. A defender of America's middle-class (described here,
in reviewing a book by Alan Wolfe, as on the whole "generous, trusting, and optimistic"),
nevertheless he faults them for being too gullible in responding to the call of capital and the
military-industrial complex. But he also faults the Left for failing to understand that their
fellow Americans are, in fact, decent, and, for the most part, tolerant people.
Scialabba might be surprised that he has sympathetic readers on the Right, or even that a
form of nationalism might work with his premises. This possible compatibility isn't to ignore
that American nationalism can and has been racist and inhospitable to minorities. But the
conclusion that there is an "America" that has meaning beyond being simply a machine to
generate GDP (on the backs of workers, perhaps, here or elsewhere) could fit, even if not fully
comfortably, within Scialabba's generous intellectual world.
While not quite a utopia, it would be a start.
Gerald J. Russello is editor of The University Bookman .
"Instead, the Chinese government has been piling on loans to businesses and state-owned
enterprises, pushing the SOEs to spend more, and so on. Basically it has kept investment
going despite low returns. Yet this process has to have some limits – and when it hits
the (great) wall, it's hard to see how consumption can rise fast enough to take up the
slack."
Proof Krugman has been corrupted by free lunch economics!
If interest on savings is very low, returns on capital investment should be very low.
The lower limit on returns to capital is the real interest rate on savings. In China,
inflation makes interest on savings negative. So, returns on investment can be negative, just
less negative than interest on savings.
The only way investment can be funded is by workers spending less on consumption than they
earn working or from other sourcees. If workers are investing a lot, they have individually
decided they should not consume more, because there is no shortage of goods andd services to
buy in China.
This is a very different situation than in the US where 90% of the population has too
little money to buy what they want or need, and thus they borrow money to pay for
consumption. Wages are too low in the US to fund investment so a great deal of scarcity
exists in the US of several consumption goods which result in rapid inflation in the prices
of those goods, and thus very high returns to capotal even as interest on savings are kept
artificially low in order to allow for high defaults on bad consumer debt, consumer debt
needed to pay the high inflated price of selected scarce consumption goods due to under
investment.
In China, workers earn so much more than they are accustomed to consume they have
investing in housing so housing costs are very low, and housing exists in excess.
In the US, workers earn less than they need to consume, so hiusing is extremely scarce and
consumption prices have inflated at high rates.
Now, while China uses Keynes and sees excess housing as a good thing, the US uses free
lunch economics and sees scarce housing as a good thing because housing inflation "creates
wealth".
China has embraced private capital in many ways much more than the US since the 80s, with
returns to private capital falling to very low levels, while in the US, building capital is
thwarted to generate capital scarcity and high rates of capital price inflation. To "create
wealth" from capital scarcity.
"[W]hile in the US, building capital is thwarted to generate capital scarcity and high rates
of capital price inflation. To 'create wealth' from capital scarcity."
Alternatively, in the U.S. there is a combination of excess of capital and insufficient
investment alternatives (due to growing income and wealth inequality and excessive market
power, anti-competitive business practices and insufficient anti-trust enforcement) that
causes investors to chase unproductive returns and unrealistically bid-up asset prices.
Name the excess capital from paying too much to workers to build capital assets.
The only thing that I can think of that might be true is too much paying of workers to
create TV shows, movies, and computer games.
Except, in this media sector, big companies buying competitors along with buying back
shares of their stocks with profits is spawning ever more competitors. As much as Comcast
tries to eliminate competition, investors keep paying workers to build new streaming services
with content only the new companies have by paying more workers to produce TV and movies.
But this is standard economic theory: technology cuts costs, which cuts prices which
increases demand so the workers eliminated by technology get retasked producing more, but the
more is so much more, more workers are needed. The equilibrium is reached when long term
revenue just barely pays for all the workers long term.
You might object to everyone consuming more media content because you are like Miltion
Friedman a classic Jew stereotype puritian who believes the mmasses must work more and suffer
by consuming less, so you can be an elite preaching values you will not embrace for
yourself.
Ie, you did not state: "I am paid too much which is a sign of too many workers being paid
too much due to too much investment driving up wages".
Please send me $1000 a month for the rest of my life as debt. Then collect your money,
debt, after I'm dead. After all, your debt does not need to be repaid by my working for
income and not consuming using all or more of my income!
Or you believe the Venezuela economic policy is fantastic and should be adopted in the US,
because Trump and the GOP were not creating structural long term borrowing and spending fast
enough 2017-2018?
Yes the management of the domestic market development might fail to take adequate
measures
Indeed the macro managers may lose their way
But the techniques that got them this far
Are still solid
And with augmentation
Can continue high speed expansion of the production system and urbanization
Price regulation could and should be
CO ordinated with a mark up market
Land lots market value zeroed out
thru a 100 % George tax
And corporate debt placed in special investment vehicles and managed uniformly
Thru a universal default insurance system.
Run by a state default insurance agency
Imagine conservatives electing representatives to Congress who hiked the "gas tax" and then
offered lots more money to States that had elected legislatures that hiked their gas tax to
generate the matching funds to get Federal gas tax funds that were spent on transportation.
"Gas taxes" are not limited to fuel, but include fees on tires, which cost based on wear
on roads, ie, a big rig uses big costly ties that last maybe 25,000 miles so the more use of
the road the more tax paid. But increasingly cars have high cost performance tires. Then
there are use taxes based on the size plus load of the vehicle. A very high tax rate on
fossil fuels will eliminate their use requiring moving to a fee based on miles driven and
capacity of the vehicle, maybe by open road tolling.
But as transportation is a living cost, living costs need to be increased in Trumpland to
create the coastal economies Trump lives in and builds his resorts in. Economies with high
living costs to pay the high wages of all the workers who moved from low living cost
conservative places to high living cost liberal places.
So, all capital assets must be consumed in an average of 3 years? A ten year old house would
need to be burned down. Steeet torn up after five years returned to farm or forest land?
Average useful life of assets is probably 30 years, but at that point they still have a
minimum of 10% of cost in residual value, and paying workers to invest in existing capital at
3-5% annually will maintaiin the asset value of over half of assets for centuries. Spending
another 2% will replace all of the other half. So, spending 10% of GDP will increase capital
assets by 3% easy every year, which 70/3 means doubling total assets every 25 years.
Your 40% would mean doubling assets every 70/35% or two years.
Assuming assets keep increasing GDP becyond the addition to GDP from building productive
assets.
Note, cars are productive assets, ie, a car gets you to work. A house with utilities frees
up probably 5 hours a day to be used working for others. Try being homeless or living in a
tar paper shack with nothing but a pot belly stove and water from a pond half a mile away.
The capital asset like a house includes roads, running water and sewage, and fuel to cook and
heat with zero labor, which are paid for for with $100 in labor for a family unit up to 4,
more or less. Paying $100 a week frees up at least 25 hours of unpaid household labor,
collecting/cutting wood for energy, walking to the pond to fetch water, walking along a trail
to work and shop.
Yes, the management of the domestic market development might fail to take adequate
measures
Indeed the macro managers may lose their way
But, the techniques that got them this far
Are still solid
And with augmentation
Can continue high-speed expansion of the production system and urbanization
Price regulation could and should be
Coordinated with a markup market ...
[ Important criticism and agreed. Prominent Western economists have usually been unwilling
to look to the structure of the Chinese economy and specific techniques that have been used
to spur development. ]
Brad DeLong has been wrong about China since 1980, Jeffrey Sachs and Stanley Fischer since
1990, Paul Krugman since 2011... The problem is that they simply never look at the Chinese
institutions that have driven 9.5% yearly growth in GDP and 8.5% yearly growth in per capita
GDP these 42 years. Suddenly, then, Krugman decides that what has driven Chinese growth is of
no consequence because China has (gasp) too few people.
Imagine a China of too few people, and I could care less about the age ratios, which I
have and which are of no concern relative to productivity growth which is just what China is
focusing on.
"On one side, China's problems are real. On the other, the Chinese government –
hindered neither by rigid ideology nor by anything resembling a democratic political process
– has repeatedly shown its ability and willingness to do whatever it takes to prop up
its economy. It's really anyone's guess whether this time will be different, or whether
Xi-who-must-be-obeyed can pull out another recovery."
By God, Jeeves, I think he's got it.
Tonight's music recommendation is the Jefferson Airplane.
Originally from: President Trump's Losing Strategy: Embracing Brazil and Confronting China
James Petras January 8, 2019
Introduction
The US embraces a regime doomed to failure and threatens the world's most dynamic economy. President Trump has lauded Brazil's
newly elected President Jair Bolsonaro and promises to promote close economic, political, social and cultural ties. In contrast the
Trump regime is committed to dismantling China's growth model, imposing harsh and pervasive sanctions, and promoting the division
and fragmentation of greater China.
Washington's choice of allies and enemies is based on a narrow conception of short-term advantage and strategic losses.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons why the US-Brazilian relation fits in with Washington's pursuit for global domination
and why Washington fears the dynamic growth and challenge of an independent and competitive China.
Brazil in Search of a Patron
Brazil's President, Jair Bolsonaro from day one, has announced a program to reverse nearly a century of state directed economic
growth. He has announced the privatization of the entire public sector, including the strategic finance, banking, minerals, infrastructure,
transport, energy and manufacturing activities. Moreover, the sellout has prioritized the centrality of foreign multi-national corporations.
Previous authoritarian civilian and military regimes protected nationalized firms as part of tripartite alliances which included
foreign, state and domestic private enterprises.
In contrast to previous elected civilian regimes which strived – not always successfully – to increase pensions, wages and living
standards and recognized labor legislation, President Bolsonaro has promised to fire thousands of public sector employees, reduce
pensions and increase retirement age while lowering salaries and wages in order to increase profits and lower costs to capitalists.
President Bolsonaro promises to reverse land reform, expel, arrest and assault peasant households in order to re-instate landlords
and encourage foreign investors in their place. The deforestation of the Amazon and its handover to cattle barons and land speculators
will include the seizure of millions of acres of indigenous land.
In foreign policy, the new Brazilian regime pledges to follow US policy on every strategic issue: Brazil supports Trump's economic
attacks on China, embraces Israel's land grabs in the Middle East, (including moving its capital to Jerusalem), back US plots to
boycott and policies to overthrow the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. For the first time, Brazil has offered the Pentagon
military bases, and military forces in any and all forthcoming invasions or wars.
The US celebration of President Bolsonaro's gratuitous handovers of resources and wealth and surrender of sovereignty is celebrated
in the pages of the Financial Times, the Washington Post and the New York Times who predict a period of growth, investment and recovery
– if the regime has the 'courage' to impose its sellout.
As has occurred in numerous recent experiences with right wing neo-liberal regime changes in Argentina, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador,
financial page journalists and experts have allowed their ideological dogma to blind them to the eventual pitfalls and crises.
The Bolsonaro regime's economic policies ignore the fact that they depend on agro-mineral exports to China and compete with US
exports Brazilian ago-business elites will resent the switch of trading partners.. They will oppose, defeat and undermine Bolsonaro's
anti-China campaign if he dares to persists.
Foreign investors will takeover public enterprises but are not likely to expand production given the sharp reduction of employment,
salaries and wages, as the consumer market declines.
Banks may make loans but demand high interest rates for high 'risks' especially as the government will face increased social opposition
from trade unions and social movements, and greater violence from the militarization of society.
Bolsonaro lacks a majority in Congress who depend on the electoral support of millions of public employees, wage and salaried
workers ,pensioners,and gender and racial minorities. Congressional alliance will be difficult without corruption and compromises
Bolsonaro's cabinet includes several key ministers who are under investigation for fraud and money laundering. His anti-corruption
rhetoric will evaporate in the face of judicial investigations and exposés.
Brazil is unlikely to provide any meaningful military forces for regional or international US military adventures. The military
agreements with the US will carry little weight in the face of deep domestic turmoil.
Bolsanaro's neo-liberal policies will deepen inequalities especially among the fifty million who have recently risen out of poverty.
The US embrace of Brazil will enrich Wall Street who will take the money and run, leaving the US facing the ire and rejection of
their failed ally.
The US Confronts China
Unlike Brazil, China is not prepared to submit to economic plunder and to surrender its sovereignty. China is following its own
long-term strategy which focuses on developing the most advanced sectors of the economy – including cutting edge electronics and
communication technology.
Chinese researchers already produce more patents and referred scientific articles than the US. They graduate more engineers, advanced
researchers and innovative scientists than the US based on high levels of state funding . China with an investment rate of over 44%
in 2017, far surpasses the US. China has advanced, from low to high value added exports including electrical cars at competitive
prices. For example, Chinese i-phones are outcompeting Apple in both price and quality.
China has opened its economy to US multi-national corporations in exchange for access to advanced technology, what Washington
dubs as 'forced' seizures.
China has promoted multi-lateral trade and investment agreement ,including over sixty countries, in large-scale long-term infrastructure
agreements throughout Asia and Africa.
Instead of following China's economic example Washington whines of unfair trade, technological theft, market restrictions and
state constraints on private investments.
China offers long-term opportunities for Washington to upgrade its economic and social performance – if Washington recognized
that Chinese competition is a positive incentive. Instead of large-scale public investments in upgrading and promoting the export
sector, Washington has turned to military threats, economic sanctions and tariffs which protect backward US industrial sectors. Instead
of negotiating for markets with an independent China, Washington embraces vassal regimes like Brazil's under newly elected President
Jair Bolsonaro who relies on US economic control and takeovers.
ORDER IT NOW
The US has an easy path to dominating Brazil for short-term gains – profits, markets and resources, but the Brazilian model is
not viable or sustainable. In contrast the US needs to negotiate, bargain and agree to reciprocal competitive agreements with China
..The end result of cooperating with China would allow the US to learn and grow in a sustainable fashion.
"Neoliberalised healthcare requires every patient (or rather, "client" of healthcare
"services") to take
responsibility for her own state or behaviour. Mental healthcare is therefore being
reframed as a series of "outcomes" geared at measurable improvement which the "service
user" must manage by themselves as far as possible.
Access to psychiatric diagnosis and support from public health services (and also within
private or employer-run occupational healthcare schemes) sometimes depends on completion of a
mood or symptom diary using smartphone or Fitbit self-tracking
techniques .
And there may well be more punitive future consequences for failure to self-track, as
employers and perhaps benefit agencies
gain more power to command this sort of performance from workers." •
"... Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating schemes have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in persuasion. "Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of scandalous. ..."
"... Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision for fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History is littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen in this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. ..."
This message is clear and concise. It is however never going to be heard beyond the
'Guardian'.
The MSM are hardly going to publish this article, nor are they going to
reference it, why should they? It goes against everything they have been fighting for and the
tin ear of their readership are unwilling to change teir views.
The only thing that they understand is money and the concentration of wealth. This
misonception as Dennis So far this has been handed to them on a plate, the taxation system
has enabled them to manipulate an multiply their earnings. So much of money the has nothing
to do with adding value to this countries economy but is speculative in nature based on
financial and overseas instruments.
No is the time for our government to take the lead and start as the Victorian ALP have
done and invest in people and jobs on the back of strategic investment. It is a fallacy that
governments don't create jobs they, through their policies do just that.
Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating
schemes have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in
persuasion. "Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of
scandalous.
Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision
for fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History
is littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen
in this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
When governments like the LNP (driven as it is by its ideology of greed, the IPA manifesto
and Gina Rinehart's idea of what Australia should look like [and how little she should pay to
pillage "communally owned" assets to enrich herself beyond imagination - she has no greater
claim over the Pilbara than any other Australian, but like all who live by the ethos of
greed, she thinks she should get it all for nothing]).
When the LNP talk about "small government" and "slashing red tape" it is politician-speak
for small government and NO red tape for the rich. What it also means is much more government
and red tape for the poor and vulnerable - as we would expect, the rich and powerful, who
really dictate economic and social policy in this country enlist willing governments to enact
measures that suppress the lower classes. It is not quite calling out the military (as Hawke
did during the pilot's strike at the insistence of the corpulent Ables - one act for which I
will always despise Hawke), but it has the same result by more surreptitious, lasting and
egregious means.
And one of the lasting legacies of the philosophies of neo-liberalism, from which the
Hanson's of the world "suck their oxygen" is that the political and corporate dialogue of the
last 30 or so years has pushed the notion of self-entitlement and vilification of the poor
and vulnerable further down the economic ladder. So now, we have countless Australians on
reasonable incomes who, like the rich, are convinced that all of our social and economic ills
can be rectified if we stop giving handouts to the bludgers, the malingerers, the disabled
and the indigenous - the neo-liberal rhetoric is now so widespread that it is easier than
ever for the vulnerable to be attacked and for many, that is seen as absolutely necessary. It
is the false US-sourced notion that if you are poor, it is because you deserve to be and if I
am rich - it isn't luck or inheritance - it is because I deserve it. This world-view makes it
so much easier to attack the vulnerable as receiving way to much to sit at home and
bludge.
Want to forget the now disgraced CEO of Australia Post who bought a Sydney mansion for $22
million and now wants to sell it for $40 million - tax free I might add. He is entitled to
that wealth enhancement. But someone on the dole smokes a spliff now and then and we think
they should lose their entitlements to an income that doesn't even get them up to the poverty
line (but they should be grateful for that pittance). Want to forget the CEO's who
pretentiously do their "sleeping rough" for a night and proclaim their empathy for the
homeless who would shriek at paying more tax to genuinely fund programmes to help the down
and outs. No problem - just embrace the selfish and greedy neo-liberalism philosophy.
No one knows how the Midas myth ends, but he dies of starvation because everything turns to gold. The the culture equates wealth
and self-worth, this is repetition of Midas myth on a new level. Like Russian oligarchs (Prokhorov is one example), or Getty in the
USA enjoying a harem of "girlfriends"
For those that haven't seen the first few episodes of British TV series about Getty, you should. There are many parables that
come to mind that include Getty Sr, his children, his kidnapped grandson, and him harem, or how I would call them Getty's female
posse.
Notable quotes:
"... The esteemed filmmaker observed how the vapid trickle-down culture of the plutocracy could be the end of us all ..."
The esteemed filmmaker observed how the vapid trickle-down culture of the plutocracy could be the end of us all
This article was co-produced with
Original
Thinkers
, an annual ideas festival in Telluride, Colorado that brings speakers, art and filmmakers together to create new
paradigms.
It is ironic that, as the
gulf between rich and poor
reaches record levels, the language of the underclass has become infected with the culture and
mores of the rich
. Twenty years ago, English began to absorb and normalize verbal markers of wealth, consumption and
status, evidenced by the mainstreaming of luxury brands like Chanel, Gucci and Louis Vuitton and their appearance in pop
culture and media. Reality TV went from nonexistent in the 1970s to one of the most popular television genres in the 2000s,
much of it homed in on the lifestyles and lives of the rich -- culminating in a billionaire,
reality-TV star
president. Social media in the late 2000s and 2010s seems to have exacerbated a cultural
normalization of
narcissism
, an obsession with self-image, and a propensity for conspicuous consumption. Few of us are rich, but we
all aspire to appear that way on Instagram.
In the past twenty-five years, documentarian and photograph Lauren Greenfield has been documenting this profound shift in
culture, as the vapid materialism of the plutocracy has trickled down to the rest of us. Greenfield, who was once named
"America's foremost visual chronicler of the plutocracy" by the New York Times, is an Emmy award-winning filmmaker and
photographer. Greenfield has experience documenting the lifestyles of the rich and (in)famous: her much-lauded 2012
documentary, "
The
Queen of Versailles
," followed the billionaire Siegel family during their quest to build the largest house in the United
States. Her unflinchingly honest depiction of their bleak existence led to patriarch David Siegel filing a lawsuit against the
filmmakers for defamation, which increased publicity to the film and which the Siegels lost handily.
Greenfield's latest opus, "
Generation
Wealth
," is an attempt to understand the intricacies of the trickle-down culture of the wealthy. Simultaneously an
exhibition,
monograph
and
film
, Greenfield's
camera follows not just the wealthy, but many folks who are middle- or working-class and yet who have absorbed the narrative
and values of the elite in their quest to be thin, forever beautiful, and image- and luxury-obsessed. The film is unflinching
in a way that is occasionally macabre: The on-screen depiction of plastic surgery is a grisly counterpoint to the pristine
resorts, lifestyles and houses of the well-heeled. "This movie is neither trickle-down treat nor bacchanal guised as bromide,
but rather an interrogation of an era defined by an obsession with wealth," wrote Eileen G'Sell in
Salon's review
.
I interviewed Lauren Greenfield at the Original Thinkers Festival in Telluride, Colorado. A video from this interview can
be viewed
here
; the print version has been condensed and edited.
Keith Spencer: "
Generation
Wealth
" is such a fascinating [book and film] project, and it's so rich. For those who may not know about it, how would
you describe the overall project? I know it took 25 years of work?
Advertisement:
Lauren Greenfield
: I started looking back at my photography since the early nineties and seeing that, in a
way, all of the stories that I had been doing -- about consumerism and body image and fame and celebrity and the economic
crisis -- that in a way they were connected. And I decided to do an archeological dig in my own work and look at the pictures
as evidence of how we had changed as a culture.
And what I came to was that they revealed a kind of fundamental shift in the American dream, that we had gone from a dream
that prized hard work and frugality and discipline, to a culture that elevated bling and celebrity and narcissism.
Interesting. And like you said, it's a global phenomenon, right? I mean, the pictures and the shots in the film
were taken are all over the planet, right?
Yeah, I started in L[os Angeles] in the nineties, but even when I was doing the work in L.A., I felt like [I] was more
looking at L.A. as the extreme manifestation of how you see the influence of the popular culture. In a way you are closest to
the flame there.
Advertisement:
But then I found that other people saw [that culture] as just L.A., so I kind of made it my mission to first go across the
country and then go to different places in the world to show how we were exporting these values -- exporting this culture with
global media, with the Internet, with social media, with branding and international branding. In "Generation Wealth," I really
tried to show this global virus that is consumerism.
And that's something that I thought was so interesting about the film, was that the goods and the brands and the
imagery look the same whether they were in Hong Kong or Moscow or Los Angeles or Orlando. It was like there's this culture
that exists everywhere. It's so interesting how something like that is transmitted everywhere, the same idea, the same
cultural values.
Yeah, I was really looking at how our culture, international culture in a way is being homogenized by these influences of
corporations and globalism and media. In my work, I'm really looking for the similarities in values and influence and behavior
in people who are really, really different.
And that really came together for me during the economic crisis. Because from L.A., from middle class to working class,
to billionaires in
Florida
... to the
crash in Dubai
, to Iceland
to
Ireland
, I was seeing similar consequences from
similar behavior.
And the interconnected financial system was one more kind of homogenizing factor. And so that's what I was really
interested in looking at. [Cultural critic] Chris Hedges speaks throughout the movie and at the end he says this comment,
which I really love, about how authentic culture is being destroyed by the values of corporate capitalism. And that it's
authentic culture that actually teaches us who we are and where we came from.
Advertisement:
And so in a way we lose our identities when we lose that. And I think we see, especially with young people, how identity is
so connected to brands and what you have and what you wear and what you buy.
Right. And that's one of the other interesting threads through the film, is just that in almost every subject's
case -- because you followed a lot of them for a long time through their lives or pick up at different points in their life --
they all seem to sort of admit that either the money itself or the things that they bought with the money never made them
happy. But yet at the same time, what I thought was so funny was some of them just seemed like they couldn't quit the
lifestyle, like especially the German hedge fund manager.
Yeah. That's exactly right. For me, I realized it was really about addiction and it wasn't about the money -- in the [film],
you see that wealth is not just money, but all the things that give you value. And so you see people searching for beauty and
youth and fame and image. But it's like addiction in the sense that you think it's going to bring you something that it
doesn't.
[In] a way, all of the subjects are kind of looking to fill a void or an emptiness that can't be filled by that
thing
. [You]
just stay on that gold plated hamster wheel... in the metaphor of addiction, the only way to stop is when you hit rock bottom.
And so we see a lot of crashes, both collective and individual in the film.
Speaking of addiction -- you ended up bringing in and talking about your own family too, both your mother and your
children. Which I was not expecting, because before I saw "Generation Wealth" I'd seen "The Queen of Versailles," which you
don't really bring yourself in that one much at all. Did you think while you were making it that you were going to end up
turning the camera around on yourself and your family?
Advertisement:
No, it kind of evolved. I started thinking I would be in it in some way as a kind of narrator, thinking mostly my voice,
not physically in it, which was really scary to me in the beginning. But I felt like I was kind of the connective tissue and
my journey was the connective tissue between these subjects.
I've always tried to go in really non-judgmentally, and show phenomena and people in situations that I think speak to the
larger culture and are part of mainstream culture and influence. So I want people to see themselves in the characters, like in
"Queen of Versailles."
And so I felt like it was also important to make the point that we're all complicit and that I'm not outside of it. And
[to] look at how I'm also affected by these influences.
And it kind of emerged organically. I was talking to Florian -- the German Hedge Fund banker -- who is a very flamboyant
character in the film. Makes $800,000,000, loses it all and becomes a truth-teller for how [money] doesn't bring you what you
think it will.
And he challenged me at a certain point, and said, "How can a hundred-hour work week not affect your relationship with
anything that matters?" And he kind of looks at me. And it forced me to kind of think about -- you know, there I was in Germany
on a three week trip on my way to Iceland, two kids at home that I'm trying to connect with on FaceTime. It made me think
about my own addiction to my work.
Advertisement:
There's this great scene in the movie where your son Gabriel talks about how his older brother got a perfect score
on the ACT and how he's just afraid that he'll never be able to live up to that and he'll never be able to go to Harvard like
his parents and brother. And it was amazing because it was like, before the camera was focused on all these rich kids -- but
they had similar anxieties to your son.
Yeah. And I think that this cycle of wanting
more
manifests in all different ways. I don't think that anybody
can say they're outside of it. It's kind of like, I always think about modernism in a way, being kind of a justifiable luxury
for [a] sophisticated or intellectual class.
And yeah... achievement was really important in my family. Gabriel also speaks to the weight and pressure of comparison,
which is really a theme of the whole movie, that we're all kind of living in the state of collective FOMO where we can never
be good enough because we're comparing ourselves to what we see not just on media but on social media. Not just real people
but fictional, curated people.
I did a lot of work on gender, and so I made a short film called "
Beauty Culture
."
And even in my book, "
Girl
Culture
," looking at how girls are comparing themselves to pictures of models that are not just genetically specific, but
also retouched and styled. And so it's literally impossible to measure up. And now I think we're all kind of in that state.
And so when Gabriel talked about comparing himself to his brother or not feeling like he could measure up, I wasn't
initially planning to have my family be in there, but I did feel an obligation [to] be willing to ask of myself what I ask of
the subjects -- a hard, intimate look into the hard issues of living.
Advertisement:
Last night at the Q&A after the film screening, you mentioned that this movie is a feminist film in the specific
way that it looks at girls and women. Can you elaborate on that? I thought it was interesting how you noted that women are
both a commodity, and also get power from commodifying themselves.
Yeah. I had done a lot of work on gender and I wasn't sure in the beginning how it would fit into "Generation Wealth." And
then I realized that, in a way, girls were a really powerful and tragic case study for how human beings are commodified, and
how in a way it's the ultimate cost and degradation of capitalism, the sale of the human being. And so for girls, I had been
looking at both how girls were sold to -- because their body image insecurities make them very vulnerable and avid consumers;
"buy this and you can fix whatever's wrong with your skin, your body," or whatever -- but also how they are physically sold.
And I think, for me, Kim Kardashian is a really powerful symbol of how that's changed. That the sex tape is a means to a
lifestyle of money and affluence, and it's not the scarlet letter anymore. It's a badge of honor if that's what you bring.
And that manifests in different ways from an innocent game of dress-up, where there's also kind of precocious
sexualization, to teenage girls putting sexy pictures of themselves on social media, to women who feel like they can't age
and [get] plastic surgery -- because if their beauty and bodies are their value, you can't lose that.
Speaking of that, that was another thing about the film I thought was interesting. From watching the trailer I had
the sense that [the film] would be focused mostly on the 1%, but actually it's about how the values and the culture that the
wealthy, the hypermaterialism and such, trickles down to the working class. I'm thinking specifically of Cathy, the bus
driver... there's the very gruesome scenes of her getting plastic surgery in Brazil, multiple times I believe if I remember
right.
Advertisement:
Well, she gets multiple surgeries on one trip to Brazil, because if you go to Brazil you can get surgery much cheaper and
the doctors will actually perform multiple operations on you in a way that they won't in the US. And yeah, I was really blown
away by a statistic about plastic surgery that I heard, where 75% of women who get plastic surgery make $50,000 or less.
Like eating disorders -- these things were thought to be kind of practices of the rich, but they have really trickled down.
And I think part of that is the way we're bombarded with images of luxury and affluence. And also the kind of, in a way, new
mythmaking of the American Dream, where the body is the new frontier of the rags to riches -- where anybody with enough money,
effort and willpower can transform themselves physically.
And so it's kind of like your fault if you don't have the drive and motivation to do that. And we see these shows, reality
shows like "The Swan" and these transformation shows... I apologize for showing such hard images, but I felt like it was
really important to
not
see the before and after that we get in the media, but to see the middle, and the violence
and risk that's really part of that transformation.
Towards the end, cultural critic Chris Hedges describes us as a civilization on the verge of collapse. But then the
movie ends on a more hopeful note. I was wondering if you share Chris Hedges' apocalyptic view of the future, or if you felt
hope at the end?
Advertisement:
I do share his view, but I have, I guess, kind of a split or duality, in the sense that I feel like the reason I did this
work and put it all together now, and went through a half a million pictures, is I do feel we're kind of barreling towards the
apocalypse if we stay on this path. It's not a sustainable path. And from what I've seen over the last 25 years, it's blown-up
exponentially.
Yet I think that there's a possibility of not staying on this path. A lot of the characters in the movie and in the book --
when they do hit rock bottom, whether it's the economic crisis or their own personal crashes -- they have insights that make
them want to change.
And I feel like, in a way, this work is about kind of showing the Matrix that we live in, and having the option of the red
pill. But I think that you kind of need a super-majority for that to happen on any significant scale.
"... The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers. The result was to be a circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other unearned income. The government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines. ..."
"... Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ..."
"... Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... J is for Junk Economics ..."
"... Guns and Butter ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics ..."
"... The Fictitious Economy ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... Killing the Host ..."
"... J is for Junk – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
=>
◄►◄ ❌
►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next New
Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The
tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and
bankers. The result was to be a circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent
and other unearned income. The government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools
and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen
as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines.
I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter, Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The
Vocabulary of Economic Deception. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is
President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, a Wall Street financial
analyst and distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas
City. His 1972 book Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire is a
critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank.
His latest books are, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global
Economy and J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of
Deception . Today we discuss J is for Junk Economics , an A to Z guide that
describes how the world economy really works, and who the winners and losers really are. We
cover contemporary terms that are misleading or poorly understood, as well as many important
concepts that have been abandoned – many on purpose – from the long history of
political economy.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael Hudson, welcome to Guns and Butter again.
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's good to be back, Bonnie.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that your recent book, J Is for Junk Economics , a
dictionary and accompanying essays,was drafted more than a decade ago for a book to have been
entitled The Fictitious Economy . You tried several times without success to find a
publisher. Why wouldn't publishers at the time take on your book?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Most publishers like to commission books that are like the last one that
sold well. Ten years ago, people wanted to read about how the economy was doing just fine. I
was called Dr. Doom, which did very well for me in the 1970s when I was talking about the
economy running into debt. But they wanted upbeat books. If I were to talk about how the
economy is polarizing and getting poorer, they wanted me to explain how readers could make a
million dollars off people getting more strapped as the economy polarizes. I didn't want to
write a book about how to get rich by riding the neoliberal wave dismantling of the economy. I
wanted to create an alternative.
If I wanted to ride the wave of getting rich by taking on more debt, I would have stayed on
Wall Street. I wanted to explain how the way in which the economy seemed to be getting richer
was actually impoverishing it. We are in a new Gilded Age masked by a vocabulary used by the
media via television and papers like The New York Times that are euphemizing what was
happening.
A euphemism is a rhetorical trick to make a bad phenomenon look good. If a landlord gets
rich by gentrifying a neighborhood by exploiting tenants and forcing them out, that's called
wealth creation if property values and rents rise. If you can distract people to celebrate
wealth and splendor at the top of the economic pyramid, people will be less focused on how the
economy is functioning for the bottom 99%.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Can you describe the format of J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide
to Reality in an Age of Deception as an A-to-Z dictionary with additional essays? It seems
to me that this format makes a good reference book that can be picked up and read at any
point.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That's what I intended. I wrote it as a companion volume to my outline of
economic theory, Killing the Host , which was about how the financial sector has taken
over the economy in a parasitic way. I saw the vocabulary problem and also how to solve it: If
people have a clear set of economic concepts, basically those of classical economics –
value, price and rent – the words almost automatically organize themselves into a
worldview. A realistic vocabulary and understanding of what words mean will enable its users to
put them together to form an inter-connected system.
I wanted to show how junk economics uses euphemisms and what Orwell called Doublethink to
confuse people about how the economy works. I also wanted to show that what's called think
tanks are really lobbying institutions to do the same thing that advertisers for toothpaste
companies and consumer product companies do: They try to portray their product – in this
case, neoliberal economics, dismantling protection of the environment, dismantling consumer
protection and stopping of prosecution of financial fraud – as "wealth creation" instead
of impoverishment and austerity for the economy at large. So basically, my book reviews the
economic vocabulary and language people use to perceive reality.
When I was in college sixty years ago, they were still teaching the linguistic ideas of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. His idea was that language affects how people perceive reality. Different
cultures and linguistic groups have different modes of expression. I found that if I was going
to a concert and speaking German, I would be saying something substantially different than if I
were speaking English.
Viewing the economic vocabulary as propaganda, I saw that we can understand how the words
you hear as largely propaganda words. They've changed the meaning to the opposite of what the
classical economists meant. But if you untangle the reversal of meaning and juxtapose a more
functional vocabulary you can better understand what's actually happening.
ORDER IT NOW
BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that "the terms rentier and usury that played so central
a role in past centuries now sound anachronistic and have been replaced with more positive
Orwellian doublethink," which is what you've begun to explain. In fact, your book J is for
Junk – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception is all about the depredation of
vocabulary to hide reality, particularly the state of the economy. Just as history is written
by the victors, you point out that economic vocabulary is defined by today's victors, the
rentier financial class. How is this deception accomplished?
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's been accomplished in a number of ways. The first and most brutal way
was simply to stop teaching the history of economic thought. When I went to school 60 years
ago, every graduate economics student had to study the history of economic thought. You'd get
Adam Smith, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, Marx and Veblen. Their analysis had a common
denominator: a focus on unearned income, which they called rent. Classical economics
distinguished between productive and unproductive activity, and hence between wealth and
overhead. The traditional landlord class inherited its wealth from ancestors who conquered the
land by military force. These hereditary landlords extract rent, but don't do anything to
create a product. They don't produce output. The same is true of other recipients of rent.
Accordingly, the word used through the 19 th century was rentier . It's a
French word. In French, a rente was income from a government bond. A rentier
was a coupon clipper, and the rent was interest. Today in German, a Rentner is a
retiree receiving pension income. The common denominator is a regular payment stipulated in
advance, as distinct from industrial profit.
The classical economists had in common a description of rent and interest as something that
a truly free market would get rid of. From Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill down to Marx and the
socialists, a free market was one that was free of a parasitic overclass that got income
without doing work. They got money by purely exploitative means, by charging rent that doesn't
really have to be paid; by charging interest; by charging monopoly rent for basic
infrastructure services and public utilities that a well-organized government should provide
freely to people instead of letting monopolists put up toll booths on roads and for technology
and patent rights simply to extract wealth. The focus of economics until World War I was the
contrast between production and extraction.
An economic fight ensued and the parasites won. The first thing rentiers –
the financial class and monopolists, a.k.a. the 1% – did was to say, "We've got to stop
teaching the history of economic thought so that people don't even have a memory that there is
any such a thing as economic rent as unearned income or the various policies proposed to
minimize it. We have to take the slogan of the socialist reformers – a free market
– and redefine it as a free market is one free from government – that is,
from "socialism" – not free from landlords, bankers and monopolists." They turned the
vocabulary upside down to mean the opposite. But in order to promote this deceptive vocabulary
they had to erase all memory of the fact that these words originally meant the opposite.
BONNIE FAULKNER: How has economic history been rewritten by redefining the meaning of words?
What is an example of this? For instance, what does the word "reform" mean now as opposed to
what reform used to mean?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Reform used to mean something social democratic. It meant getting rid of
special privileges, getting rid of monopolies and protecting labor and consumers. It meant
controlling the prices that monopolies could charge, and regulating the economy to prevent
fraud or exploitation – and most of all, to prevent unearned income or tax it away.
In today's neoliberal vocabulary, "reform" means getting rid of socialism. Reform
means stripping away protection or labor and even of industry. It means deregulating the
economy, getting rid of any kind of price controls, consumer protection or environmental
protection. It means creating a lawless economy where the 1% are in control, without public
checks and balances. So reform today means getting rid of all of the reforms that were promoted
in the 19 th and early-20 th century. The Nobel Economics Prize reflects
this neoliberal (that is, faux-liberal) travesty of "free markets."
BONNIE FAULKNER: What were the real reforms of the progressive era?
MICHAEL HUDSON: To begin with, you had unions to protect labor. You had limitations on the
workweek and the workday, how much work people had to do to earn a living wage. There were
safety protections. There was protection of the quality of food, and of consumer safety to
prevent dangerous products. There was anti-trust regulation to prevent price gouging by
monopolies. The New Deal took basic monopolies of public service such as roads and
communications systems out of the hands of monopolists and make them public. Instead of using a
road or the phone system to exploit users by charging whatever the market would bear, basic
needs were provided at the lowest possible costs, or even freely in the case of schools, so
that the economy would have a low cost of living and hence a low business overhead.
The guiding idea of reform was to get rid of socially unnecessary income. If landlords were
going to charge rent for properties that they did nothing to improve, but merely raise the
rents whenever cities built more transportation or more parks or better schools, this rent
would be taxed away.
The income tax was a basic reform back in 1913. Only 1% of America's population had to pay
the tax. Most were tax-free, because the aim was to tax the rentiers who lived off
their bond or stock holdings, real estate or monopolies. The solution was simply to tax the
wealthiest 1% or 2% instead of labor or industry, that is, the companies that actually produced
something. This tax philosophy helped make America the most productive, lowest-cost and
competitive yet also the most equal economy in the world at that time.
ORDER IT NOW
This focus on real industry has gradually been undermined. Today, if you're a real estate
speculator, monopolist, bankster or financial fraudster, your idea of reform is to get rid of
laws that protect consumers, tenants, homebuyers and the public at large. You campaign for
"consumer choice," as if protection is "interference" with the choice to be poisoned, cheated
or otherwise exploited. You deregulate laws designed to protect the atmosphere, free air and
water. If you're a coal or oil company, your idea of reform is to get rid of the Clean Air Act,
as the Trump administration has been doing.
The counterpart to junk science is junk economics. It is a lobbying effort to defend the
idea of a world without any laws or regulations against the wealthy, only against the debtors
and the poor, only against consumers for the "theft" of downloading music or stealing
somebody's patented songs or drug monopoly privilege. This turns inside out the classical
philosophy of fairness.
BONNIE FAULKNER: According to 19 th -century classical economists, what is
fictitious capital, and why is this distinction no longer being made by economists?
MICHAEL HUDSON: That's a wonderful question. Today the term "fictitious capital" is usually
associated with Marx, but it was used by many people in the 19 th century, even by
right-wing libertarians such as Henry George.
Fictitious capital referred to purely extractive claims for income, as distinct from profits
and wages earned from tangible means of production. Real capital referred to factories,
machinery and tools, things that were used to produce output, as well as education, research
and public infrastructure. But an ownership privilege like a title to land and other real
estate, a patent or the monopoly privilege to charge whatever the market will bear for a
restricted patent, without reference to actual production costs, does not add anything to
production. It is purely extractive, yielding economic rent, not profits on real capital
investment.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You say that by the late-19 th century, "reform movements were
gaining the upper hand, that nearly everyone saw industrial capitalism evolving into what was
widely called socialism." How would you describe the socialism that classical economists like
Mill or Marx envisioned?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They all called themselves socialists. There were many kinds of socialism in
the late 19 th century. Christians promoted Christian socialism, and anarchists
promoted an individualistic socialism. Mill was called a Ricardian socialist. The common
denominator among socialists was their recognition that the industrial capitalism of their day
was a transitory stage burdened by the remnants of feudalism, headed by the landlord class
whose hereditary rule was a legacy of the medieval military invasions of England, France,
Germany and the rest of Europe. This was the class that controlled the upper house of
government, e.g ., Britain's Lordships. For socialists, the guiding idea was to run
factories and operate land and provide public services for the economy at large to grow instead
of imposing austerity and letting the rentier classes exploit the rest of the economy
and concentrate income, political control and tax policy in their own hands.
Until World War I, socialism was popular because most people saw industrial capitalism as
evolving. Politics was in motion. The term "capitalism," by the way, was coined by Werner
Sombart, not Marx. But classical political economy culminated in Marx. He looked at society's
broad laws of motion to see where they were leading.
The socialist idea was not only that of Marx but also of American business school professors
like Simon Patten of the WhartonSchool. He said that the kind of economy that would dominate
the world's future was one that was the most efficient in preventing monopoly and preventing or
taxing away absentee land rent so that almost all income would be paid as wages and profits,
not rent or interest or monopoly rents.
The business classes in the United States, Germany and even in England were in favor of
reform – that is, anti-rentier reform. They recognized that only a strong government
would have the political power to tax away or regulate parasitic economic rent by the
wealthiest classes at that time, in the late 19 th and early 20 th
century. This economic and political cleanup of the rentiers stemmed very largely from
the ideological battle that occurred in England after the Napoleonic Wars were over in 1815.
Ricardo, representing the banking class, argued against Reverend Malthus, the population
theorist who also was a spokesman for the landlord class. Malthus urged agricultural
protectionism for landlords, so that they would get more and more rent from their land as grain
prices were kept high. Ricardo argued that high food prices to support rents for the
agricultural landlords would mean high labor costs for industrial employers. And if you have
high labor costs then England cannot be the industrial workshop of the world. In order for
England to become the industrial supreme power, it needed to overcome the power of its landlord
class. Instead of protecting it, England decided to protect its industrial capital by repealing
its protectionist Corn Laws in 1846. (I describe its strategy in my history of theories of
Trade, Development and Foreign Debt .)
At that time England's banking class was still a carryover from Europe's Medieval period.
Christianity had banned the charging of interest, so banks were able to make their money by
combining their loans with a foreign exchange charge, called agio. Banks even
Ricardo's day in the early 19 th century made most of their money by financing
foreign trade and charging foreign exchange fees. If your listeners they have ever tried to
change money at the airport, they will know what a big rake-off the change booths take.
Later in the 19 th century, bankers began to shift their lending away from
international trade financing to real estate as home ownership became democratized. Home owners
became their own landlords – but on mortgage credit.
ORDER IT NOW
Today we're no longer in the situation that existed in England 200 years ago. Almost
two-thirds of the American families own their homes. In Scandinavia and much of Europe, 80% are
homeowners. They don't pay rent to landlords. Instead, they pay their income as interest to the
mortgage lenders. That's because hardly anyone has enough money to buy a
few-hundred-thousand-dollar home with the cash in their pocket. They have to borrow the money.
The income that used to be paid as rent to a landlord is now paid as interest to the mortgage
banker. So you have a similar kind of exploitation today that you had two centuries ago, with
the major difference that the banking and financial class has replaced the landlord class.
Already by the late-19 th century, socialists were advocating that money and
credit don't have to take the form of gold and silver. Governments can create their own money.
That's what the United States did in the Civil War with its greenbacks. It simply printed the
money – and gave it value by making it acceptable for payment of taxes. In addition to
the doctrine that land and basic infrastructure should be owned by the public sector –
that is, by governments – banking was seen as a public utility. Credit was to be created
for productive purposes, not for rent-extracting activities or financial speculation. Land
would be fully taxed so that instead of labor or even most industry paying an income tax,
rentiers would pay tax on wealth that took the form of rent-extracting privileges.
The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax
burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers.
The result was to bea circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other
unearned income, and the government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and
other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a
program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines, until the word was
hijacked by the Russian Revolution after World War I. The Soviet Union became a travesty of
Marxism and the word socialism.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that: "Today's anti-classical vocabulary redefines free markets
as ones that are free for rent extractors and that rent and interest reflect their
recipients' contribution to wealth, not their privileges to extract economic rent
from the economy." How do you differentiate between productive and extractive sectors,
and how is it that the extractive sectors, essentially Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
(FIRE), actually burden the economy?
MICHAEL HUDSON: If you're a real estate owner, you want lower property taxes so that as the
economy grows and people are able to pay more rent, or when a land site in a neighborhood
becomes more valuable because the government builds a new subway – like New York City's
Second Avenue line – real estate prices rise to reflect the property's higher income that
is not taxed.
New York landlords all along the subway line raised rents. That meant that their real estate
had a "capital" gain reflecting the higher rent roll. Individual owners fortunate enough to own
a condo or a townhouse near the stations became more wealthy – while new renters or
buyers had to pay much more than before. None of this price rise created more living space or
other output (although today's post-classical GDP figures pretend that it did!). It simply
meant that instead of recapturing the $10 billion the government spent on this subway extension
by taxing the increased land valuations all along the subway route, New York's income and real
estate taxes have been raised for everybody, to pay interest on the bonds issued to finance the
subway's construction. So the city's cost of living and doing business rises – while the
Upper East Side landlords have received a free lunch.
Creating that kind of real estate "fictitious wealth" is a capitalization of unearned income
– unearned because the Upper East Side landlords didn't do anything themselves to
increase the value of their property. The City raised rental values by making the sites more
desirable when it built the subway extension.
The same logic applies to insurance. When President Obama passed the basically Republican
Obamacare law advocated by the pharmaceutical and health management sectors, the cost of
medical care went way up in the United States. It was organized so as to be a giveaway to the
healthcare and pharmaceutical monopolies.
None of this increased payment for medical care increases its quality. In fact, the more
that's paid for medical care, the more the service declines, because it is paid to health
insurance companies that try to legally fight against consumers. The effect is predatory, not
productive.
Finally, you have the financial part of the FIRE sector. Finance has accounted for almost
all of the growth in U.S. GDP in the ten years since the Lehman Brothers crisis and the Obama
bailout in 2008. The biggest banks at that time were insolvent as a result of bad loans and
outright financial fraud. But the government created $4.3 trillion of reserves to bail out
Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, with Goldman Sachs thrown in, despite the fact that
their fraudulent junk mortgage loans were predatory, not productive credit that actually
increased wealth in the form of productive power. There's a growing understanding that the
financial sector has become so dysfunctional that it is a deadweight on the economy, burdening
it with increasing debt charges –student loans are an example – instead of actually
helping the economy grow.
BONNIE FAULKNER: So just to reiterate, what is the classical distinction between earned and
unearned income?
MICHAEL HUDSON: This distinction is based on classical value and price theory. Price is what
people have to pay. The margin of price over and above real cost value is called economic rent.
A product's value is its actual, necessary costs of production: the cost of labor, raw
materials and machinery, and other elements of what it costs to tangibly produce it. Rent and
financial charges are the product of special privileges that have been privatized and now
financialized.
ORDER IT NOW
Classical value theory isolated this economic rent as unearned income. It was the aim of
society either to prevent it from occurring in the first place, by anti-monopoly regulation or
by public land ownership, or to tax it away in cases where you can't help it going up. For
instance, it's natural for neighborhoods to become more valuable and high-priced over time as
the economy gets richer. But it doesn't cost more to construct buildings there, and rents keep
going up and up and up on buildings that were put up 100 years ago. This increased rent does
not reflect any new cost of production. It's a free lunch.
Neoliberals, most notoriously the University of Chicago's Milton Friedman at, kept insisting
that "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But that's exactly what most of the wealth and
income of the richest 1% is. It's the result of running the economy primarily to siphon off a
rentier free lunch. Of course, its recipients try to distract public attention from
this face and tell national income and Gross Domestic Product statisticians to pretend that
they actually earn their income wealth, not merely transfer income from the rest of the economy
into their hands as creditors, monopolists and landlords. The leading Wall Street firm Goldman
Sachs said so notoriously a few years ago that "Our partners are the most productive in the
country because look at how much we're paid." But they don't really earn their wealth
in the classical sense of earning by performing a productive economic service. The economy
would get along much better without Goldman Sachs and indeed the banking and financial system
or the health insurance system being run the way they are, and without real estate the being
untaxed in the way that it is.
BONNIE FAULKNER: I noticed that you used the term "rent" for unearned income. Is rent the
same as profit, or not?
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's not at all the same. Profit is earned by investing in a means of
production to make useful goods and services. Classical economists viewed profit as an element
of cost if you're going to have a privately owned economy – and most socialists have
accepted private ownership, although in a system regulated so as to benefit society as a whole.
If you make a profit by a productive act acting within this system, you've earned it by being
productive.
Economic rent is different. It is not earned by actively building means of production,
conducting research or development. It's passive income. When pharmaceutical companies earn
rent, it's simply for charging much more for the drugs they sell than it actually costs to
produce them. This is especially the case when the government has borne the research and
development cost of the drugs and simply assigns the rent-yielding patent privilege to the
pharmaceutical companies. So rent is something over and above the profit necessary to induce
the activity that these companies actually perform. Profits are why investors produce more.
Rent is not necessary. If you got rid of it, you wouldn't discourage production, because it's
purely an overhead charge, whereas profits are a production charge in a capitalist economy.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, thank you for that distinction between rent and profit. That's a very
important thing to understand.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I describe it more clearly in my book, which includes the appropriate
classical quotations.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You point out that interest and rent are reported as "earnings," as if
bankers and landlords produce gross domestic product (GDP) in the form of credit and ownership
services. How do you think interest and rent should be reported?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They should be classified interest and rent. But the rentier
classes have taken over the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) to depict their takings
as actual production of a service, not as overhead or a transfer payment, that is, not as
parasitic extraction of other peoples' earnings.
For instance, suppose you have a credit card and you miss a payment, or miss a payment on a
student loan, electric bill or your rent. The credit card company will use this as an excuse to
raise your interest charge from 11% to 29%. The national income account treat this rise to 29%
as providing a "financial service." The so-called service is simply charging a penalty rate.
The pretense is that everything that a bank charges – higher interest or penalties
– is by definition providing a service, not simply extracting money from cardholders,
transferring income from them to itself.
Classical economists would have subtracted this financial rake-off from output, counting it
as overhead. After all, it simply adds to the cost of living and doing business. Instead, the
most recent statisticians have added this financial income to the Gross National
Product instead of subtracting it, as the classical economists would have done – or
simply not counted it, as was the case a generation ago.
Most reporters and the financial press don't get into the nitty-gritty of these national
accounts, so they don't realize how lobbyists have intervened in recent years to turn them into
propaganda flattering bankers and property owners. Today's "reformed" GDP format pretends that
the economy has been going up since 2008. A more realistic description would show that it is
shrinking for 95 percent of the population, being eaten away by the wealthiest 5% extracting
more rentier income and imposing austerity.
If you look at the national balance sheet of assets and liabilities, the economy is becoming
more debt-ridden. As student debt and mortgage debt go up, and penalty fees, arrears and
defaults are rising. The long rise in home ownership rates is being reversed, and rents are
rising, while people also have to pay more for medical care and other basic needs. Academic
economists depict this as "consumer choice" or "demand," as if it is all a voluntary choice of
"the market." The GDP accounting format has been modified to make it appear that the economy is
getting richer. This statistical sleight-of-hand is achieved by counting the takings of the
rentier 1% as a product, not a cost borne by the economy at large. What really should
be shown is a loss – land and monopoly rent, interest and penalties is in fact so large a
"product" that the economy seems to be growing. But most of that growth is unreal.
BONNIE FAULKNER: How does government fiscal policy, taxation and expenditure influence the
economy?
ORDER IT NOW
MICHAEL HUDSON: That's what Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is all about. When governments run
a budget deficit, they pump money into the economy. For Keynesians the money goes into the real
economy in ways that employ labor. For neoliberals, quantitative easing is spent directly into
the financial sector, and is used to finance the purchase of real estate, stocks and bonds,
supporting the valuation of wealth owned mainly by the One Percent. The effect is to make
housing more expensive, and also the price of buying a retirement income. Having to take on
larger mortgage debt to buy a house and spend less each month in order to save for one's
pension is not really "wealth creation," unless your perspective is that of the One Percent
increasing its power over the 99%.
At least the United States is able to run deficits and avoid the kind of unemployment and
austerity that Europe is imposing on itself and especially on Greece and Italy. I think in one
of our talks on this show explained the problem that Europe is suffering. Under the
constitution of the Eurozone, its member countries are not allowed to run a budget deficit of
more than 3%. Most actually aim at extracting a surplus from the economy (as distinct from
producing a surplus for the economy). That means that the government doesn't spend
money into the economy. People and businesses are obliged to get their money from the banks.
That requires them to pay more interest. All Europe is on the road to looking like
Greece– debt-strapped economies that are kept artificially alive by the government
creating reserves to give to the banks and bail out bond markets, not spending into economies
to help them recover.
The ability to create debt by writing a bank loan that creates a deposit is a legal
privilege. There's no reason why governments cannot do this themselves. Instead of borrowing
from private creditors to finance their budget deficits, governments can create their own money
– without burdening budgets with interest charges. Credit creation has little cost of
production, and therefore does not require interest charges to cover this cost. The interest is
a form of monopoly rent to privatized privilege.
Classical economists saw the proper role of government as being to create social
infrastructure and upgrade living standards and productivity for their labor force. Governments
should build roads to minimize the cost of transportation, not private companies creating toll
roads to maximize the cost by building in financial charges, real estate and management charges
to what users have to pay. Government should be in charge of providing public health insurance,
not private companies that charge extortionate prices and whatever the market will bear for
their drugs. It's the government that should run prisons, not private companies that use
prisoners as cheap labor to make a profit and advocate that more people get arrested so to make
more of a profit from their incarceration.
The great question is, what is the government going to spend money on, and how can it spend
money into the economy in a way that helps growth? Imagine if this trillion dollars a year
that's spent on arms and military – in California and the districts of the key
congressmen on the budget committee – were spent on building roads, schools,
transportation and subsidizing medical care. The country could become a utopia. Instead, the
rentier classes have hijacked the government, taking over its money creation and
taxing power to spend on themselves, not to help the economy at large produce more or raise
living standards. Special interests have captured the regulatory agencies to make them serve
rent extractors, not protect the economy from them.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Interest is tax-deductible, whereas profit is taxable. Does the tax
deductibility of interest have a major impact on the economy?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, because tax deductibility encourages companies to raise money by going
into debt. This tax deductibility of interest catalyzed the corporate raiding movement of the
1980s. It was based on debt leveraging.
Suppose a company makes $100 million a year in profit and pays this out to its stockholders
as dividends. In the 1980s this profit was taxed at about 50%, so you could only pay $50
million to the stockholders. Then as today, they were the wealthiest layer of the population.
Drexel Burnham and other Wall Street firms sought out corporate raiders as clients and offered
to lend them enough money to buy companies out, by buying out their stockholders. Stocks were
replaced by bonds. That enabled companies to pay out twice as much income as interest than they
had been paying as dividends. When they bought out target companies with debt, a company could
pay all $100 million of its income as interest instead of only $50 million as dividends on
stock.
So the wealthiest classes in the United States and other countries decided that they could
get more from own bonds than stocks anymore. Government revenue declined by the added amount
paid to financial investors as a result of this tax subsidy for debt.
The advantage of issuing stocks is that when business conditions turn down and profits fall,
companies can cut back their dividend. But if they have committed to pay this $100 million to
bondholders, when their earnings go down they may face insolvency.
The result was a wave of bankruptcy since the 1980s as companies became more debt-pyramided.
Also companies heads went to the labor unions and threatened to declare bankruptcy and wipe out
their pension funds, if their leaders did not agree to change these funds and replace the
guaranteed retirement pension that were promised for a defined contribution plan. All they know
is what they have to pay in every month. Retirees will only get whatever is left when they
reach pension age. The equity economy shift into a debt economy has enriched the wealthy
financial class at the top, while hurting employees.
Most statistical trends turned around in 1980 for almost every country as this shift
occurred. Indebting companies has made them more fragile and also higher-cost, because now they
have to factor in the price of interest payments to the bondholders and corporate raiders
who've taken them over.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Do you think that changes should be made to the tax deductibility of
interest?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Sure. If interest were to be taxed, that would leave less incentive for
companies to keep on adding debt. It would deter corporate raiding. It is a precondition for
companies being run to minimize their cost of production and to serve their labor force and
their customers more. For homebuyers, removing the tax-deductibility of interest would leave
less "free" rent to be pledged to banks for mortgages, and hence would reduce the size of bank
loans that bid up housing prices.
ORDER IT NOW
I think that interest and rents should be taxed, not wages and legitimate profits. The FICA
wage withholding now absorbs almost 16% of most wage-earning income for Social Security and
Medicare. But wealthy people don't have to pay any contribution on what they make over than
about $ $116,000 a year. They don't have to pay any FICA contribution on their capital gains,
which is how most fortunes are made. The rentiers' idea of a free market is to make
labor pay for all of the Social Security and Medicare – and then to give so much to Wall
Street that they can say, "Oh, there's no more money. The system's short, so we have to wipe
out Social Security," just as so many companies have wiped out the pension commitments. As
George W. Bush said, tere's not really any money in the Social Security accounts. Its tax on
the lower income brackets was all used to cut taxes on the higher income and wealth brackets.
The economy has been turned into a grab bag for the rich.
BONNIE FAULKNER: What about monetary policy, interest rates and the money supply? Who
controls monetary policy, and how does it affect the economy?
MICHAEL HUDSON: The biggest banks put their lobbyists in charge of the Federal Reserve,
which was created in 1913 to take monetary policy out of the hands of the Treasury in
Washington and put it in the hands of Wall Street. That made the Fed a lobbyist for its
members, the commercial banking system. It's run to control the money supply – in
practice, the debt supply – in a way that steers money into the banks. That's why not a
single banker was jailed for committing the junk mortgage scams and other frauds that caused
the crash. The Fed has turned the banking system into a predatory monopoly instead of the
public service that it was once supposed to be.
Monetary policy is really debt policy, because money is debt on the liabilities side of the
balance sheet. The question is, what kind of debt is the economy going to have, and
what happens when it exceeds the ability to be paid? How is the government going to provide the
economy with money, and what will it do to keep debts line with the ability to be paid? Will
money and credit be provided to build more factories and product more output, to rebuild
American manufacturing and infrastructure? Or, are you going to leave credit and debt creation
to the banks, to make larger loans for people to buy homes at rising prices reflecting the
increasingly highly leveraged and outright reckless credit creation?
Monetary policy is debt policy, and on balance most debts are owed by the bottom 90% to the
wealthiest 10%. So monetary policy becomes an exercise in how the 10% can extract more and more
interest, rent and capital gains from the economy – all the while making money by
impoverishing the economy, not helping most people prosper.
BONNIE FAULKNER: The economy is always being planned by someone or some force, be it Wall
Street, the government or whatever. It's not the result of natural law, as you point out in
your book. It seems like a lot of people think that the economy should somehow run itself
without interference. Could you explain how this is an absurd idea?
MICHAEL HUDSON: It's an example of rhetoric overcoming people's common sense. Every economy
since the Stone Age has been planned. Even in the stone age people had to plan when to plant
the crops, when to harvest them, how much seed you had to keep over for the next year. You had
to operate on credit during the crop year to get beer and rent draft animals. Somebody's in
charge of every economy.
So when people talk about an unplanned economy, they mean no government planning.
They mean that planning should be taken out of the hands of government and put in the hands of
the 1%. That is what they mean by a "free market." They pretend that if the 1% control the
economy it's not really a planned economy anymore, because it's not planned by government,
officials serving the public interest. It's planned by Wall Street. So the question is, really,
who's going to plan the American economy? Is it going to be the government of elected
officials, or is it going to be Wall Street? Wall Street will euphemize its central planning by
saying this is a free market – meaning it's free of government regulation, especially
over the financial sector and the mining companies and other monopolies that are its major
clients.
BONNIE FAULKNER: You emphasize the difference between the study of 19 th -century
classical political economy and modern-day economics. How and when and why did political
economy become "economics"?
MICHAEL HUDSON: If you look at the books that almost everybody wrote in the 19 th
century, they called it political economy because economics is political. And
conversely, economics is what politics has always been about. Who's getting what? Or as Lenin
said, who-whom? It's about how society makes decisions about who's going to get rich and how
they are going to do it. Are they going to get wealthy by acting productively, or
parasitically? Eeverything economic turns out to be political.
The economy's new central planners on Wall Street pretend that what they're doing is not
political. Cutting taxes on themselves is depicted as a law of nature. But they deny that this
is politics, as if there's nothing anyone can do about it. Margaret Thatcher's refrain was
"There is no alternative" (TINA). That is the numbing political sedative injected into today's
economic discussion.
The aim is to make people think that there is no alternative because if they're getting
poorer, if they're losing their home by defaulting on a junk mortgage of if they have to pay so
much on the student loan so that they can't afford to buy a home, or if they find that the only
kind of job they can get driving an Uber car, it's all their fault. It's as if that's just
nature, not the way the economy has been malstructured.
The role of neoliberalism is to make people think that they are powerless in the face of
"the market," as if markets are not socially and politically structured. The 1% have hired
lobbyists and subsidized business schools so as to shape markets in their own interest. Their
aim is to control the economy and call it "nature." Their patter talk is that poverty is
natural for short-sighted "deplorables," not the result of the predatory neoliberal takeover
since 1980 and their capture of the Justice Department so that none of the bank fraudsters go
to jail.
ORDER IT NOW
BONNIE FAULKNER: In your chapter on the letter M – of course, we have chapters from A
to Z – in your chapter on M, you have an entry for Hyman Minsky, an economist who
pioneered Modern Monetary Theory and explained the three stages of the financial cycle in terms
of rising debt leveraging. What is debt leveraging, and how does it lead to a crisis?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Debt leveraging means buying an asset on credit. Lending for home ownership
in the United States is the leading example. From the 1940s to the 1960s, if you took out a
mortgage, the banker would look at your income and calculate that the mortgage on the house you
buy shouldn't absorb more than 25% of your income. The idea was that this would leave enough
income to pay the interest charge and amortize – that is, pay off – the mortgage 30
years later, near the end of your working life. Minsky called this first credit stage the hedge
stage, meaning that banks had hedged their bets within limits that enabled the economy to carry
and pay off its debts.
In the second credit stage, banks lent more and loosened their lending standards so that
mortgages would absorb much more than 25% of the borrower's income. At a certain point, people
could not afford to amortize, that is to pay off the mortgage. All they could do was to pay the
interest charge. By the 1980s, the federal government was lending up to almost 40% of the
borrower's income, writing mortgages without any amortization taking place. The mortgage
payment simply carried the existing homeowner's debt. Banks in fact didn't want to ever be
repaid. They wanted to go on collecting interest on as much debt as possible.
Finally, Minsky said, the Ponzi stage occurred when the homeowner didn't even have enough
money to pay the interest charge, but had to borrow the interest. So this was how Third World
countries had gotten through the 1970s and the early 1980s. The government of, let's say Mexico
or Brazil or Argentina, would say, well, we don't have the dollars to pay the debt, and the
banks would say, we'll just add the interest onto the debt. Same thing with a credit card or a
mortgage. The mortgage homeowner would say, I don't have enough money to pay the mortgage, and
the bank would say, well, just take out a larger mortgage; we'll just lend you the money to pay
the interest.
That's the Ponzi stage and it was named after Carlo Ponzi and his Ponzi scheme –
paying early buyers out of income paid into the scheme by new entrants. That's the stage that
the economy entered around 2007-08. It became a search for the proverbial "greater fool"
willing to borrow to buy overpriced real estate. That caused the crash, and we're still in the
post-crash austerity interim (before yet a deeper debt writeoff or new bailout). The debts have
been left in place, not written down. If you have a credit card and have to pay a monthly
balance but lack enough to pay down your debt, your balance will keep going up every month,
adding the interest charge onto the debt balance.
Any volume of debt tends to grow at compound interest. The result is an exponential growth
that doubles the debt in little time. Any rate of interest is a doubling time. If debt keeps
doubling and redoubling, it's carrying charges are going to crowd out the other expenses in
your budget. You'll have to pay more money to the banks for student loans, credit card debts,
auto loans and mortgage debt, leaving less to spend on goods and services. That's why the
economy is shrinking right now. That's why people today aren't able to do what their parents
were able to do 50 years ago – buy a home they can live in by paying a quarter of their
income.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael Hudson, thank you so very much.
Neoliberal economic policies, with their emphasis on market-led development and individual
rationality, have been exposed as bankrupt not only by the global economic crisis but also by
increasing social opposition and resistance. Social movements and critical scholars in Latin
America, East Asia, Europe and the United States, alongside the Arab uprisings, have triggered
renewed debate on possible different futures. While for some years any discussion of
substantive alternatives has been marginalized, the global crisis since 2008 has opened up new
spaces to debate, and indeed to radically rethink, the meaning of development. Debates on
developmental change are no longer tethered to the pole of 'reform and reproduce': a new pole
of 'critique and strategy beyond' neoliberal capitalism has emerged.
Despite being forcefully challenged, neoliberalism has proven remarkably resilient. In the
first years since the crisis erupted, the bulk of the alternative literature pointed to
continued growth in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and in other big
emerging market countries to affirm the necessary role for the state in sustaining capitalist
development. New developmental economists have consequently reasserted themselves. Their
proposals converged into a broader demand for global Keynesianism (Patomaki, 2012) -- a demand
that is proving to be less and less realistic in the face of a deepening global economic
crisis.
Interpreting and Resisting Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is a historical phenomenon. In the early 1970s firms began to feel acutely the
impact of falling profitability. Many managers and owners believed the mounting power of
organized labor was responsible. Indeed, this emerging structural crisis of capitalism was
amplified by increasing labor militancy and social opposition, and by the rising challenge of
socialism and nationalism from the Global South - the greatest wave of decolonization in world
history (Arrighi, 2007: 136). The power of the United States reached its nadir with its defeat
in Vietnam (1975), with the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, and with the spread of
revolutionary struggles, notably in Latin America. It is against this backdrop that the rise of
neoliberalism becomes understandable.
Neoliberalism's set of pro-market and anti-labor policies were first implemented by the
brutal US-backed Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (1973). The monetarist economic principles of
the infamous 'Chicago Boys' guided the process. At this time, however, many other governments
in the South resisted initial demands by the Northern-dominated international financial
institutions (IFIs), notably the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), to implement
rapid 'shock therapy' structural adjustment programmes.
The 1979 to 1982 Volcker Shock changed matters dramatically. Paul Volcker, then head of the
US Federal Reserve, allowed US interest rates to skyrocket from around 5 per cent to over 20
per cent, ostensibly to halt persistent inflation and to shock the US economy out of
stagnation. This move sparked a global rise in interest rates and a wave of profound economic
crises in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Soviet bloc. Governments in these countries lost
the ability to service their debts because of the dramatic falls in the prices received for and
the quantity of their primary goods exported. This triggered the 1980s debt crisis, which
opened an opportunity for governments North and South to press more systematically for
neoliberal transformation.
Instead of mobilizing workers and peasants against this new form of economic imperialism,
governments in the South began to reorient their economies toward intensified export production
in order to earn the foreign currency needed to repay their loans. With the fall of the Soviet
Union, neoliberal shock therapy was also extended to Russia and other Eastern European
countries. In the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Western governments mobilized their
military power to facilitate the entrenchment of neoliberal policies at a terrible human
cost.
Neoliberalism has entailed processes of contested socio-economic transformation. Amidst
great popular resistance and economic instability, post-war state-led strategies of development
gave way to market-oriented neoliberal ones, or the so-called 'Washington consensus'. The
economist John Williamson identified ten policies characteristic of the consensus: fiscal
discipline, reduction in public expenditure, tax reform, financial liberalization,
market-determined exchange rates, trade liberalization, an open door to foreign direct
investment, privatization of public service and state-owned enterprises, deregulation, and
secure property rights. These policies have led to higher unemployment, worsening social
inequalities, widespread impoverishment, peasant land dispossessions, unsustainable
urbanization and increased worker exploitation.
Contributors to this book describe many of the specific developmental transformations in the
Global South, and how neoliberal processes have led to an expansion of the global reserve army
of workers and accelerated international migration. At the same time, financial and trade
deregulation have enhanced the power of finance capital and multinational corporations, which
they have used to pursue the outsourcing and offshoring of many industrial and service
activities. This globalization of production has brought with it intensified processes of
ecological destruction.
Women and the poor are the most negatively impacted by the neoliberal privatization of
public services. As women increasingly enter into the workforce, the privatization of public
services magnifies their 'double burden'. Such transformations have been global, having
negative impacts on workers in the South and, increasingly, in the North.
The neoliberal policies shaping these transformative processes are derived from neoclassical
economic theory. Neoclassical theory obscures and naturalizes the exploitative foundations of
capitalism because it reduces labor to just another factor of production, not unlike other
'technical inputs' like land and capital. The social reproduction of workers is further assumed
to be a private, genderless process restricted to the household, when it is in fact vital to
overall capital accumulation processes. In not dissimilar ways, neoclassical economics tends to
treat the environment as an externality. Further embedded in this kind of approach is a
tendency towards methodological nationalism. Certain models presuppose that capital and labor
do not move internationally and that international trade represents merely exchange of
commodities between national units. It follows, in theory, that by promoting domestic
specialization according to a given country's comparative advantage, free trade would
spontaneously stabilize participating 'national' economies at an equilibrium level, maintaining
employment and growth in all of them.
With its emphasis on liberal, market-based notions of individual equality and freedom,
neoclassical economics conceals underlying social polarizations and exploitative relationships
characteristic of capitalism. In reality, neoliberal transformation favors the interests of the
strongest capitals internationally (see Shaikh, 2005). Despite the proclaimed spontaneity of
the market, moreover, neoliberalism does not lead to a retreat of the state. Rather,
neoliberalism is marked by the class-based restructuring of the state apparatus in ways that
have responded to the evolving needs of capital accumulation (for example, around new financial
imperatives). What is more, as today's capitalism is dominated by Northern powerhouses like the
United States and Western European countries, the extension of capitalist relations globally
embodies these imperialist powers' aspirations to retain supremacy in the hierarchy of
states.
Neoliberalism, in fact, has always occurred through and within states, never in the absence
of states. Actually existing neoliberal transformations are mediated by the hierarchical
position of a given state within the world market and by specific social struggles.
Consequently, neoliberal transition in the United States is not the same as neoliberalism
transition in India or Iraq, and each entails specific national, class, racial and gendered
dimensions. Yet contributors to this book recognize that neoliberalism is a class-based
political and economic project, defined by the attack of capital and neoliberal state
authorities on the collective capacity of organized labor, the peasantry and popular classes to
resist the subordination of all social, political, economic and ecological processes to
accumulation imperatives. The subsequent consolidation of neoliberalism globally has thus been
to the benefit of global capital, and has come at the expense of workers, women and the poor.
Relations of imperialist domination, environmental exploitation, racial and gender oppression
are constitutive dimensions of this class struggle.
Neoliberal consolidations nonetheless generate new social resistances. Many contributors to
this book identify continuing processes involving the decomposition of working classes and the
formation of important social movements. With the 1999 demonstrations in Seattle, these
struggles assumed an inter-American character. Various indigenous groups, trade unionists,
faith-based and women's organizations marched alongside environmentalists and farmers in a
collective bid to shut down the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks (Burbach, Fox and Fuentes,
2013: 2). In the new millennium, the 'alter-globalisation' movement has attained a truly global
scale. Yet the movement has not been without problems. Notably, the activists and organizations
have failed to produce precise sets of collective demands or a coherent international political
programme. Pre-existing antagonisms among workers and peoples across lines of national and
social oppression were not overcome. The movement, as a result, failed to articulate collective
resistance across national, regional and international levels (Prashad, 2013: 235). After the
huge demonstrations against the war on Iraq (2003), it gradually faded away.
Still, resistances to neoliberalism grew thereafter, especially in the Global South. In some
cases these made significant advances. For example, while the United States and other Western
states were bogged down with military aggressions in the Middle East, US control over Latin
America eased. Social mobilizations there enjoyed new spaces for action, which helped give rise
to a variety of progressive governments less subservient to imperialist interests and the
competitive imperatives of neoliberal development. In this book, Abelardo Marifta-Flores
suggests that progressive income redistribution and the reinforcement of regional integration
processes are among the most significant achievements. Susan Spronk and Sarah Miraglia
highlight the progressive, albeit imperfect, gendered dimensions of the Bolivarian
transformative movement in Venezuela. Neoliberal transformations also create new socio-economic
conditions that may undermine US and Western hegemony. As several authors attest, for example,
the relocation of industrial production towards East Asia has generated new centers of
accumulation. Consequently, Western imperial powers now face a major challenge with the rise of
China and India. So too have other big emerging capitalisms, like Brazil, Russia, South Africa,
Indonesia and the Gulf States, become ever more important centers of accumulation. This has
lent support to arguments suggesting global hegemony has started to shift from the West to the
East.
To be sure, these emerging capitalisms, China in particular, offer alternative sources of
foreign direct investment, international aid, developmental loans and technological know-how to
countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Leaders of the BRICS have, for example, called for
a 'multipolar' reform of the financial system and of the IFIs, which includes the establishment
of a new multilateral Development Bank, the 'BRICS Bank'. Yet the extent to which these changes
offer an alternative at all has everything to do with the extent to which South -- South
relations and flows of know-how do not serve to extend and reproduce exploitative class
relations of domination, even be they under novel forms of sub/ Southern imperialism. This
remains to be seen, and indeed the global crisis is affecting the terms of this debate.
The Global Crisis and the Resilience of Neoliberalism
The global crisis that emerged in the United States in 2007 was rooted in the preceding
decades of neoliberal restructuring. Its immediate trigger, however, was the subprime mortgage
lending debacle. The US subprime crisis then took a global turn in late September 2008 with the
collapse of the US investment bank Lehman Brothers. As investors scrambled to preserve their
wealth and dump any toxic assets they had bought into, otherwise liquid US credit markets
seized up, bringing the global financial system to the edge of ruin. Only massive and sustained
state intervention prevented the system's implosion. Many Western governments rolled out
financial Keynesianism. This entailed nationalizing failed private banks and industries and
adding trillions of dollars to the public debt. The governments thus staved off global economic
collapse but only by incurring massive increases in new public debts. This gave rise to the
sovereign debt crises in the 'peripheral' EU countries. A number of developing countries also
incurred new public debts as governments rolled out economic stimulus packages to help sustain
domestic investment, maintain employment and buttress internal demand.
On the one hand, the privileges and powers gained by global capital under neoliberal
transformation remain largely intact. Indeed, imperialist governments have done everything in
their power to reinforce the current system. Such is the aim of the quantitative easing and
zero interest rate policies being pursued by the US Federal Reserve, the Banks of England and
Japan, and increasingly the European Central Bank. These actions are intended to prop up the
financial markets, support the prices of financial assets and make these countries' exports
more competitive. Throughout it all neoliberal technocrats remain unwavering in their
ideological commitments to market-oriented development. For example, the World Bank's Global
Financial Development Report 2013 attempts to reframe the global crisis not as a fundamental
problem of 'market failure' and capitalism, but instead as essentially about 'state failure'
and flawed human nature. The solution? More of the same neoliberal policies implemented since
the 1980s, but now guided and sustained by a more robust state apparatus that ensures better
market discipline...
"... The American Chamber of Commerce subsequently expanded its base from around 60,000 firms in 1972 to over a quarter of a million ten years later. Jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers (which moved to Washington in 1972) it amassed an immense campaign chest to lobby Congress and engage in research. The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEOs 'committed to the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation', was founded in 1972 and thereafter became the centrepiece of collective pro-business action. ..."
"... Nearly half the financing for the highly respected NBER came from the leading companies in the Fortune 500 list. Closely integrated with the academic community, the NBER was to have a very significant impact on thinking in the economics departments and business schools of the major research universities. ..."
"... In order to realize this goal, businesses needed a political class instrument and a popular base. They therefore actively sought to capture the Republican Party as their own instrument. The formation of powerful political action committees to procure, as the old adage had it, 'the best government that money could buy' was an important step. ..."
"... The Republican Party needed, however, a solid electoral base if it was to colonize power effectively. It was around this time that Republicans sought an alliance with the Christian right. The latter had not been politically active in the past, but the foundation of Jerry Falwell's 'moral majority' as a political movement in 1978 changed all of that. The Republican Party now had its Christian base. ..."
"... It also appealed to the cultural nationalism of the white working classes and their besieged sense of moral righteousness. This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded, if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti feminism. ..."
"... The alliance between big business and conservative Christians backed by the neoconservatives consolidated, not for the first time has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests ..."
"... Any political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold. ..."
"... Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social justice through the conquest of state power. ..."
"... By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological task. ..."
"... Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'postmodernism' which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s. ..."
"... Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. 'Strength', he wrote, 'lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations'. The National Chamber of Commerce, he argued, should lead an assault upon the major institutions––universities, schools, the media, publishing, the courts––in order to change how individuals think 'about the corporation, the law, culture, and the individual'. US businesses did not lack resources for such an effort, particularly when they pooled their resources together. ..."
The American Chamber of Commerce subsequently expanded its base from around 60,000 firms in 1972 to over a quarter of a million
ten years later. Jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers (which moved to Washington in 1972) it amassed an immense
campaign chest to lobby Congress and engage in research. The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEOs 'committed to the aggressive
pursuit of political power for the corporation', was founded in 1972 and thereafter became the centrepiece of collective pro-business
action.
The corporations involved accounted for 'about one half of the GNP of the United States' during the 1970s, and they spent close
to $900 million annually (a huge amount at that time) on political matters. Think-tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the
Hoover Institute, the Center for the Study of American Business, and the American Enterprise Institute, were formed with corporate
backing both to polemicize and, when necessary, as in the case of the National Bureau of Economic Research, to construct serious
technical and empirical studies and political-philosophical arguments broadly in support of neoliberal policies.
Nearly half the financing for the highly respected NBER came from the leading companies in the Fortune 500 list. Closely
integrated with the academic community, the NBER was to have a very significant impact on thinking in the economics departments
and business schools of the major research universities. With abundant finance furnished by wealthy individuals (such as
the brewer Joseph Coors, who later became a member of Reagan's 'kitchen cabinet') and their foundations (for example Olin, Scaife,
Smith Richardson, Pew Charitable Trust), a flood of tracts and books, with Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia perhaps the most widely
read and appreciated, emerged espousing neoliberal values. A TV version of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose was funded with a
grant from Scaife in 1977. 'Business was', Blyth concludes, 'learning to spend as a class.
In singling out the universities for particular attention, Powell pointed up an opportunity as well as an issue, for these
were indeed centers of anti-corporate and anti-state sentiment (the students at Santa Barbara had burned down the Bank of America
building there and ceremonially buried a car in the sands). But many students were (and still are) affluent and privileged, or
at least middle class, and in the US the values of individual freedom have long been celebrated (in music and popular culture)
as primary. Neoliberal themes could here find fertile ground for propagation. Powell did not argue for extending state power.
But business should 'assiduously cultivate' the state and when necessary use it 'aggressively and with determination'
In order to realize this goal, businesses needed a political class instrument and a popular base. They therefore actively
sought to capture the Republican Party as their own instrument. The formation of powerful political action committees to procure,
as the old adage had it, 'the best government that money could buy' was an important step. The supposedly 'progressive' campaign
finance laws of 1971 in effect legalized the financial corruption of politics.
A crucial set of Supreme Court decisions began in 1976 when it was first established that the right of a corporation to make
unlimited money contributions to political parties and political action committees was protected under the First Amendment guaranteeing
the rights of individuals (in this instance corporations) to freedom of speech.15 Political action committees could thereafter
ensure the financial domination of both political parties by corporate, moneyed, and professional association interests. Corporate
PACs, which numbered eighty-nine in 1974, had burgeoned to 1,467 by 1982.
The Republican Party needed, however, a solid electoral base if it was to colonize power effectively. It was around this time
that Republicans sought an alliance with the Christian right. The latter had not been politically active in the past, but the
foundation of Jerry Falwell's 'moral majority' as a political movement in 1978 changed all of that. The Republican Party now had
its Christian base.
It also appealed to the cultural nationalism of the white working classes and their besieged sense of moral righteousness.
This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded,
if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti feminism.
The alliance between big business and conservative Christians backed by the neoconservatives consolidated, not for the first
time has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests the evangelical Christians
eagerly embraced the alliance with big business and the Republican Party as a means to further promote their evangelical and moral
agenda.
Any political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold.
The worldwide political upheavals of 1968, for example, were strongly inflected with the desire for greater personal freedoms.
This was certainly true for students, such as those animated by the Berkeley 'free speech' movement of the 1960s or who took to
the streets in Paris, Berlin, and Bangkok and were so mercilessly shot down in Mexico City shortly before the 1968 Olympic Games.
They demanded freedom from parental, educational, corporate, bureaucratic, and state constraints. But the '68 movement also had
social justice as a primary political objective.
Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism,
identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social
justice through the conquest of state power. It has long proved extremely difficult within the US left, for example, to forge
the collective discipline required for political action to achieve social justice without offending the the Construction of Consent
desire of political actors for individual freedom and for full recognition and expression of particular identities. Neoliberalism
did not create these distinctions, but it could easily exploit, if not foment, them.
In the early 1970s those seeking individual freedoms and social justice could make common cause in the face of what many saw
as a common enemy. Powerful corporations in alliance with an interventionist state were seen to be running the world in individually
oppressive and socially unjust ways. The Vietnam War was the most obvious catalyst for discontent, but the destructive activities
of corporations and the state in relation to the environment, the push towards mindless consumerism, the failure to address social
issues and respond adequately to diversity, as well as intense restrictions on individual possibilities and personal behaviors
by state-mandated and 'traditional' controls were also widely resented. Civil rights were an issue, and questions of sexuality
and of reproductive rights were very much in play.
For almost everyone involved in the movement of '68, the intrusive state was
the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and
the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation: hence the threat to
capitalist class power.
By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state,
capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological
task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect
to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization
required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism
and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'postmodernism'
which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This
was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s.
In the US case a confidential memo sent by Lewis Powell to the US Chamber of Commerce in August 1971. Powell, about to be elevated
to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, argued that criticism of and opposition to the US free enterprise system had gone too far
and that 'the time had come––indeed it is long overdue––for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshaled
against those who would destroy it'.
Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. 'Strength', he wrote, 'lies in organization, in careful long-range
planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available
only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations'. The National
Chamber of Commerce, he argued, should lead an assault upon the major institutions––universities, schools, the media, publishing,
the courts––in order to change how individuals think 'about the corporation, the law, culture, and the individual'. US businesses
did not lack resources for such an effort, particularly when they pooled their resources together.
"... The structures of the global economy present challenges to any country or political party that wants to try to break out of U.S. hegemony. Even for countries as big and with as much potential as Brazil or Egypt, countries that have experienced waves of relative independence, the inertia of these economic structures helps send them back into old patterns of extraction and debt. In this moment of right-wing resurgence it is hard to imagine political movements arising with plans to push off the weight of the economic past. But that weight cannot be ignored. ..."
"... I'm guessing the short answer is credit. The amazing genius of the US reserve currency policies have given them such massive leverage over the world, it is nearly impossible to recreate elsewhere. This is why China is trying to get loans flowing from their belt/road relationships. ..."
"... Without the ability to simply declare into existence wealth, the US would have to compete fairly for their global relationships. What is amazing about this system, is that the right to owe money to the US is something countries will beg for, because there is no alternate trust system that could be used to stimulate economic activity. ..."
"... The global economy is truly in an unusual situation and the completely financialized creation of credit is less than 50 years old as a human experiment. (before it was linked to precious metals, and I think returning to that would squash liquidity). ..."
"... The same forces that are being applied to Brazil and Venezuela have been, and will continue to be applied to American workers. America is not busy spreading democracy, it's busy extending the reach of Wall $treet's steely fingers. ..."
"... The author does mention the problems with an extraction state. I think that that is at the root of the problem. It also is a result of the general trade pattern set up by the Western Europeans, with others brought in over time. Industrialization-Colonialism I think can fairly be described as root causes. It is also a lot more plausible than claiming the relatively recent introduction of the US $ as a reserve currency as a root versus aggravating cause. ..."
Why is it so difficult even for huge countries with large, diversified economies to maintain
independence from the West?
If anyone could have done it, it was Brazil. In the 19th century it was imagined that Brazil
could be a Colossus of the South to match the U.S., the Colossus of the North. It never panned
out that way.
And 100 years later, it still hasn't happened. With a $2 trillion GDP (a respectable $9,800
per capita), nearly 200 million people, and a strong manufacturing base (the second largest in
the Americas and 28.5 percent of its GDP), Brazil is far from a tiny, weak island or peninsula
dependent on a patron state to keep it afloat.
When Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva won a historic election to become president of Brazil in
2003, it seemed like an irreversible change in the country's politics. Even though Lula's
Workers' Party was accused of being communists who wanted to redistribute all of the country's
concentrated wealth, the party's redistributive politics were in fact modest -- a program to
eradicate hunger in Brazil called Zero Hunger, a family-based welfare program called the Family
Allowance, and an infrastructure spending program to try to create jobs. But its politics of
national sovereignty were ambitious.
It was under Workers' Party rule (under Lula and his successor, president Dilma Rousseff,
who won the 2010 election to become president at the beginning of 2011) that the idea surged of
a powerful BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance that could challenge the
ambitions of the U.S.-led West. Brazil took steps to strengthen its manufacturing, and held its
ground on preventing pharmaceutical patent monopolies. Lula's Brazil accused Western countries
of hypocrisy for insisting both on "free trade" with poor countries and farm subsidies for
themselves. Brazil even moved in the direction of building an independent arms industry.
Contradictions remained: The Workers' Party government sent Brazilian troops to command the
UN force that enacted the U.S.-impelled occupation of Haiti -- treating the world to the
spectacle of the biggest, wealthiest country in the region helping the U.S. destroy the
sovereignty of the poorest as part of its foreign policy. But in those years Brazil refused to
renounce its alliance with Venezuela's even more independent-minded government under Hugo
Chavez; it defended ideas of South-South cooperation, especially within Latin America, and it
made space for movements like the Landless Peasants' Movement (MST).
But after more than a decade of Workers' Party rule, what happened? President Rousseff was
overthrown in a coup in 2016. When polls showed that Lula would have won the post-coup
election, he was imprisoned to prevent him from running. And so with the Workers' Party
neutralized, Brazil elected Jair Bolsonaro, a man who famously saluted the American flag and
chanted "USA" while on campaign (imagine an American leader saluting the Brazilian flag during
a presidential campaign). No doubt the coup and the imprisonment of Lula were the key to
Bolsonaro's rise, and failings like supporting the coup in Haiti played a role in weakening the
pro-independence coalition.
But what about the economy? Or Brazil's leaders now dragging the economy into the U.S. fold?
Or did the Brazilian economy drag the country back into the fold?
Brazil's economic history and geography have made independence a challenge. Colonial-era
elites were interested in using slave labor to produce sugar and export as much of it as
possible: The infrastructure of the country was built for commodity extraction. Internal
connections, including roads between Brazil's major cities, have been built only slowly and
recently. The various schemes of the left-wing governments of the last decade for South-South
economic integration were attempting to turn this huge ship around (not for the first time --
there have been previous attempts and previous U.S.-backed coups in Brazil), and to develop the
internal market and nurture domestic industries (and those of Brazil's Latin neighbors).
Yesterday's dependent economy was based on sugar export -- today's is based on mining
extraction. When Bolsonaro was elected, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation quickly posted a
story speculating on how the new government would be good for Canadian mining companies. The
new Brazilian president plans to cut down huge swaths of the Amazon rainforest. Brazil is to
return to its traditional role of providing natural resources to the U.S. and to the other rich
countries.
A smaller country with a stronger pro-independence leadership, Venezuela faced similar
structural economic problems that have imperiled and nearly derailed the independent-minded
late president Hugo Chavez's dream that Venezuelans would learn to eat arepas instead of
hamburgers and play with Simon Bolivar dolls instead of Superman ones. There, too, the
pro-independence project had a long-term goal of overcoming the country's dependence on a
single finite commodity (oil), diversifying its agricultural base and internal markets. And
there, too, the challenge of doing so proved too great for the moment, especially in the face
of an elite at least as ruthless as Brazil's and nearly two decades of vindictive, pro
regime-change U.S. policy. Today Venezuela's "Bolivarian project" is in crisis, along with its
economy and political system.
There are other sleeping giants that remain asleep, perhaps for economic reasons. In the
face of relentless insults by Trump, the Mexican electorate chose a left-wing government
(Mexicans have elected left-wing governments many times in the past few decades, but elections
have been stolen). But locked into NAFTA, dependent on the U.S. market, Mexico also would seem
to have little option but to swallow Trump's malevolence.
Egypt is the Brazil of the Middle East. With 100 million people and a GDP of $1.4 trillion,
the country that was for a few thousand years the center of civilization attempted in the 20th
century to claim what is arguably its rightful place at the center of the Arab world. But
today, this giant and former leader of the nonaligned movement is helping Israel and the U.S.
starve and besiege the Palestinians in Gaza and helping Saudi Arabia and the U.S. starve and
blockade the people of Yemen.
Egypt stopped challenging the U.S. in the 1970s after a peace deal brought it into the fold
for good. Exhaustion from two wars with Israel were cited as the main cause -- though a proxy
war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen and several domestic factors also played a role. But here, too,
is there a hidden economic story?
Egypt has oil, but its production is small -- on the order of 650,000 barrels a day compared
to Saudi Arabia's 10 million barrels, or the UAE's 2.9 million. It has a big tourist industry
that brings in important foreign exchange. But for those who might dream of an independent
Egypt, the country's biggest problem is its agricultural sector: It produces millions of tons
of wheat and corn, but less than half of what it needs. As told in the classic book
Merchants of Grain , the politics of U.S. grain companies have quietly helped feed its
power politics all over the world. Most of Egypt's imported grain comes from the U.S. As
climate change and desertification wreak havoc on the dry agricultural ecosystems of the
planet, Egypt's grain dependence is likely to get worse.
The structures of the global economy present challenges to any country or political
party that wants to try to break out of U.S. hegemony. Even for countries as big and with as
much potential as Brazil or Egypt, countries that have experienced waves of relative
independence, the inertia of these economic structures helps send them back into old patterns
of extraction and debt. In this moment of right-wing resurgence it is hard to imagine political
movements arising with plans to push off the weight of the economic past. But that weight
cannot be ignored.
Justin Podur, a
Toronto-based writer who teaches at York University in the Faculty of Environmental Studies.
His site is podur.org . Follow him on Twitter:
@justinpodur . Produced by by
Globetrotter
, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
So Egypt has a massive and rapidly growing population, but relatively little arable land,
and so is dependent on food imports.
Duh. Perhaps the problem is not Western grain merchants. Perhaps the problem is when a country
that could comfortably feed 20 million people boosts its population to 100 million and
beyond, that more people do NOT automatically create more wealth. I mean, that is an
established fact: more Egyptians are certainly creating more demand for food, but they are
not automatically and without delay creating more fresh water, or new industries, etc.
I'd always wondered why in the aftermath of WW2, when most of the developed world was in
tatters, why South America didn't arise to become more than the continual basket case of a
place that it is? Every country there has had hyperinflation (Brazil had a decade long+ stretch of it)
episodes-post WW2, but surprisingly none before the war
I think the answer for South America is structural to its politics and society. Both were
settled by Europeans from feudal societies and incorporated all the worst aspects of a
decaying Spain and Portugal into their systems. They are not just dependent on resource
extraction, they are dominated by elites who's sole source of power is that resource
extraction. In Classical economics terms, they are dominated by rentiers, not industrial
capitalists. In modern development economics, you would say their structural issues prevent
them escaping the middle income trap. When you look at
reactionary movements in Brazil or Argentina, its usually big ranchers and mining interests
who are behind them. The urban middle classes are usually not strong enough to form a buffer
– as historically has happened in Europe and the US and most other countries that have
achieved high development status.
Some might argue that a major contributor to the problem is simple geography. South
American has a largely impenetrable interior, encouraging an urban and infrastructural system
based on connecting agricultural and mining areas to big coastal cities, who's wealth is then
dependent on trading those goods across the ocean. When you compare North American or Europe
or even China to South America, you can see the former countries have dense internal networks
of rail/road and many similar sized cities. South American has a few mega cities and very
undeveloped internal networks. Of course, there is a chicken and egg argument here –
did geography lead to a rentier dominated society, or did a rentier society result in an
undeveloped urban structure and infrastructure?
Good start but article doesn't really give explicit answer to its rhetorical question. I'm
guessing the short answer is credit. The amazing genius of the US reserve currency policies
have given them such massive leverage over the world, it is nearly impossible to recreate
elsewhere. This is why China is trying to get loans flowing from their belt/road
relationships.
Without the ability to simply declare into existence wealth, the US would have to compete
fairly for their global relationships. What is amazing about this system, is that the right
to owe money to the US is something countries will beg for, because there is no alternate
trust system that could be used to stimulate economic activity.
The global economy is truly
in an unusual situation and the completely financialized creation of credit is less than 50
years old as a human experiment. (before it was linked to precious metals, and I think
returning to that would squash liquidity).
I think in the future a different currency will be needed that is anchored to energy in a
more direct way than the petrodollar. I think we should trade in kWh.
It might be also worth focusing on those countries which have succeeded in keeping some
independence, whether small or large. Bhutan is an example of a very small country which has
to some extent succeeded in keeping western and other foreign interests at arms length. Of
course, its protected from western domination by being landlocked by two regional
superpowers. But it has resisted the temptation to play off one against the other. The price
has been relative poverty, although its proud of having a very happy (by their own measure)
populace. It has though accepted its military dependence on India, in effect ceding its
military independence to that country (as was proven in the recent Chinese incursion, the
Bhutanese depended on the Indian military to chase the Chinese off).
Plenty of countries have tried some level of autarky. Ireland tried it after independence
– both military neutrality and economic independence. The latter was a disaster, it
proved completely impractical and left the country entirely impoverished by the 1950's.
Larger states including of course Russia, India and China have had their experiments.
Russia
at the moment seems the most successful, something nobody I think would have predicted 10
years ago.
India has been largely proud to be apart for decades, but seems determined under Modi to abandon that. In South America, Uruguay is arguably the most successful example of a
country that has kept to some degree its own independence. Costa Rica has been successful
too, although you can't really say its kept US influence at bay.
In Africa, Botswana is a
country which has had some degree of success. In Asia, Laos has tried to keep all influences
out, but its pretty much being swallowed up by the Chinese now. This, of course leads us to
the other conclusion – if you are small, and you resist Western influence, you may just
end up getting swallowed up by another imperial power, be it the Saudi's (Yemen) or
Laos/Tibet/Myanmar (China), etc.
The New World Order (GHW Bush) has only a couple of rules, and one is you will do
'business' only with the western finance Borg.
And what they mostly mean by 'business' , is everything you do should be financed
by the Borg, the Borg gets a cut of everything you do, or you don't get to do it.
It's not only bad for other countries, it's bad for the American people because those same
finance institutions that screw over other countries, screw Americans over by
leading/prompting the rush to off-shore American jobs.
The same forces that are being applied to Brazil and Venezuela have been, and will
continue to be applied to American workers. America is not busy spreading democracy, it's busy extending the reach of Wall $treet's
steely fingers.
It is taken for granted here that there was a coup. But the charges of corruption against
Lulu stemming from the Operation Car Wash investigations seem pretty real and plausible. The
Clintons have their foundation, and Trump has his "all-sorts-of-stuff" . They are still
walking free. Is it a coup because somebody in a high office actually got convicted of
something?
The author does mention the problems with an extraction state. I think that that is at
the root of the problem. It also is a result of the general trade pattern set up by the
Western Europeans, with others brought in over time. Industrialization-Colonialism I think
can fairly be described as root causes. It is also a lot more plausible than claiming the
relatively recent introduction of the US $ as a reserve currency as a root versus aggravating
cause.
Since a huge number of countries seem to have had this problem (half of the issue is
referred to as the Dutch disease after all), it would be more interesting to compare
experience to countries that escaped the problem. My guess is that a close look at the
history, and current trends, would show that the problem is actually much deeper rooted and
far more problematic than just some hand-wringing over the United States replacing nice
guy/gal governments and the US$ reserve currency.
Please replace conservatism with neoliberalism in this post...
Notable quotes:
"... There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. ..."
"... As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself -- backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. ..."
"... FDR used "liberal" for its connotation of generosity just as he repurposed "freedom" as, say, freedom from fear or want. A practical politician overseeing one of the great realignments in American partisan political history, FDR, by virtue of his own family name, could appropriate much of the reputational capital of progressive reform, but he also needed the Republican Progressive faction in his New Deal coalition, as support for agenda items like the Tennessee Valley Authority (public ownership of the means of producing electricity! What will we tell the grandkids?) ..."
"... US partisan politics now is undergoing its own crisis of legitimacy and realignment, as is, not incidentally, European party politics. There are splits in both Parties, though Wilentz is concerned with the split in the Democratic Par ..."
There is no such thing as liberalism -- or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political
analogue of Gresham's Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it
be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize
conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups
whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not
protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been
proposed. "The king can do no wrong." In practice, this immunity was always extended to the
king's friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king's
friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the
king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always
been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions
of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the
accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy
is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core
proposition itself -- backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by
violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect
anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map "liberalism", or "progressivism", or
"socialism", or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of
anti-conservatism.
No, it a'n't. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the
collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition
of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is
necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone
unless it protects everyone.
bruce wilder, 03.23.18 at 1:40 pm
I read the Sean Wilentz article and it seems to be an exercise in virtue signalling by a
political centrist and Democratic partisan. Like most left-neoliberals, he doesn't want to be
called a neoliberal or acknowledge the political dynamics that have cast his own political
tendency as villains, and he cannot understand why betrayal rebranded as "practical" isn't
selling better.
Wilentz did not write the straightforward piece J-D wishes for because to do so would
reveal too much of the reprehensible nature of the Democratic Party politics he has decided
to praise.
It is strange that an historian would write a piece whose rhetoric seems premised on such
labels having reliable definitions constant thru time when he clearly knows that such labels
are repeatedly re-purposed by succeeding generations.
FDR used "liberal" for its connotation
of generosity just as he repurposed "freedom" as, say, freedom from fear or want. A practical
politician overseeing one of the great realignments in American partisan political history,
FDR, by virtue of his own family name, could appropriate much of the reputational capital of
progressive reform, but he also needed the Republican Progressive faction in his New Deal
coalition, as support for agenda items like the Tennessee Valley Authority (public ownership
of the means of producing electricity! What will we tell the grandkids?)
But, the New Deal was then, and now is something else.
US partisan politics now is
undergoing its own crisis of legitimacy and realignment, as is, not incidentally, European
party politics. There are splits in both Parties, though Wilentz is concerned with the split
in the Democratic Party, which has people who actually care at odds with those, like Wilentz,
who want to be seen to care while maintaining plausible deniability.
It is strange that an historian would write a piece whose rhetoric seems
premised on such labels having reliable definitions constant thru time when he clearly knows
that such labels are repeatedly re-purposed by succeeding generations.
Yes, I was amused to think of François Hollande presidency, the successful
candidate of the Socialist party, each time he wrote the word socialism to relate today and
the 1920s.
@ABasu - My comment was not in direct agreement with the article, it was a critique of the
first comment above.
I won't even begin with the welfare debate in which you somehow think that 'welfare' and
its relatively recent introduction is somehow anti neo-liberal because that is nothing other
than newspeak...
The point I was making (with perhaps a less than perfect example) is that language is
political and therefore it matters greatly what we call things.
"... And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker is either losing money or losing their job? ..."
"... the monetisation of everything and the use of language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the norm, but the only way. ..."
"... Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of 'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious 'elite'. ..."
"... I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's being said. ..."
And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management
speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker
is either losing money or losing their job? Or some manager is about to award themselves
a bonus?
@gyges1 - No, she is surely railing against the monetisation of everything and the use of
language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the
norm, but the only way.
Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit
claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of
'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious
'elite'.
Language matters and its distortion is a political act.
But without these Exciting New Word Uprating Initiatives, we can never win The Global Race...
or something.
I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's
Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered
precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal
Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings
become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's
being said.
(By the way, the link's to Amazon, but, obviously, you may find you have a better
"Customer Experience" if you get from somewhere less tax-dodgy.)
Quite. Language is the first victim of any hegemonic project. Examples abound in communism,
fascism and neoliberalism. There's nothing to argue with in this article yet, unsurprisingly,
the usual swivel-eyed brigade seem to have popped up. Perhaps your discussion of work strays
a little too close to philosophy for the unthinking. I don't know why I'm disheartened by
some of the responses, as the same voices appear btl in almost ever CIF article, but I am
somehow. Perhaps because the point of the article - the hijacking of language - is so
obviously true as to be uncontroversial to any but the ideologically purblind, yet still....
@thesingingdetective - what is an insurance policy other than a financial product where in
return for payments over a period of time a claim can be made in certain circumstances?
If anything, particularly given that the link between contributions and claims is now
nugatory, describing welfare as welfare is much more honest and much less "neoliberal". It is
a set of payments and entitlements society has agreed upon to ensure a level of welfare for
all rather than an insurance policy which each individual may claim against if they've kept
up their payments.
If an anti-neo-liberal, supportive of the article can get this so back to front, perhaps
the "debate" being posited is an empty one about language.
If you changed a few words from the Communist Manifesto, it could easily be about
neo-liberalism and leftist attitudes towards it.
"A spectre is haunting Europe; the spectre of neo-liberalism. All the leftists of old
Europe have entered into a Holy Alliance to exorcise this spectre; Toynbee and Loach;
Redgrave and Harris.
Where is the party in power that has not been decried as neo-liberalistic by its leftist
opponents on the sidelines?"
Take FE as a case study on how the coin counters have taken over the world.
Back in the dark ages of the 1980s, the maths department had 7 lecturers (2 part time) and
two people to look after the admin - there was also the Department Head (who was a lecturer)
and a Head of School. They had targets, loosely defined, but it was a rare year when there
wasn't a smattering of A grades at A level...
Then along came the coin counters, the target setters, with their management degrees and
swivel eyed certainty that 'greed is good... competition! competition! competition!' and with
them came the new professionals into the department... the 'Quality Manager'... the
'Curriculum Manager' the 'Exams Manager' the 'Deputy Exams Manager'... and the paperwork
increased to feed the beast that counts everything but knows nothing... and targets were
set.... 'Targets! Targets! Targets!... and we were all sent in search of excellence... 'teach
to the exam' 'We must meet our targets'... 'we won't use exam board 'A' because they're
tough' and the exam boards reacted to their own target culture by all simplifying. The
universities began to notice the standard of 'A' grade students (who increased) was
equivelant to a C grade of 5 years ago. However, targets were being met (on paper) quality
was maintained (on paper) we were improving year on year (on paper). However, what was going
on in the real world is that our students were being sold a pup - their level of competence
and of knowledge was very much inferior to their same grade fore bearers of just 5 years
previous
Eventually, the department became 1 full time lecturer and 4 on 'zero hour contracts' and
the Head of School became 'Chief Executive' the 'Head of Department' became 'Department
Manager' and a gap developed between those who taught and those who 'managed'... not just a
culture gap... a bloody big pay gap...
Who benefited from all this marketisation?
Not the lecturers... not the students... not the universities... not industry...not the
economy...
Who benefited? Work it out for yourselves (as I used to tell my students)
@roachclip - I am familiar with the numerous wiki sites including Wikipedia, thank you very
much. If you read the article yourself you would see it supports my point of view here.
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic
vocabulary, for instance that bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure
– terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an
action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive
outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
This is absolute nonsense...the terms "investment" and "expenditure" carry no moral
connotations that I can determine. Does the author accept that we need to have terms to
express each of these concepts? Perhaps she would like to come up with some alternative
suggestions for the notions of "contributing money" and "spending money"?
Seconded, its uses and abuses of the English Language second only that of the Church. A
fitting comparison in my book because they both have much in common. Both are well aware that
it is through language and the control of which that true cultural change is achieved.
Both know that this new language must be propagated as far and as wide as possible, with
saturation coverage. Control of information is a a must, people must see and they must know
only things of your choosing.
For example, back in the 4th Century AD (which is incidentally an abbreviation of the Latin
'Anno Domini', which means 'in the year of our Lord'), the church became centralised and
established under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Part of this centralising
mission was the creation of a uniform belief system. Those that 'chose' to believe something
else were branded 'heretics'. The word 'heresy' coming from the Greek
'αἵρεσις' for 'choice'. Thus to choose to have your
own opinions was therefore deemed to be a bad thing.
As a quick aside, 'Pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus' which means 'rural dweller'. I.e.
those beyond the remit of the urban Christian elites. 'Heathen' on the other hand is Old
English (hæðen). It simply means 'not Christian or Jewish.
When you have complete control over the flow of information, as the Church did by the 5th
Century, then you can write practically anything. This doesn't mean just writing good things
about yourself and bad things about your enemies. Rather it means that you can frame the
debate anyway you wish.
In modern times, I would argue that you can see similar things happen here. As the author
suggests, terms like 'Wealth Creator', 'Scrounger', 'Sponger', 'living on welfare', 'Growth',
'progress' and my personal favourite, 'reform', take on a whole new meaning.
Their definition of the word 'reform' and what we would see it to mean are two totally
different things, Yet since it is they that has access to the wider world and not us, then it
is their definition that gets heard. The same could be said for all the other words and their
latter day connotations.
Thus when you hear the news and you hear what passes for debate, you hear things on their
terms. Using their language with their meanings. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that
proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private
property rights, free markets, and free trade.
You'll notice I've highlighted the word freedoms. Freedom is a word they hijacked right
from the start of the process and how they hijacked the Republican party in the USA.
For any way of thought to become dominant, a conceptual apparatus has to be advanced that
appeals to our intuitions and instincts, to our values and our desires, as well as to the
possibilities inherent in the social world we inhabit. If successful, this conceptual
apparatus becomes so embedded in common sense as to be taken for granted and not open to
question. The founding figures of neoliberal thought took political ideals of human
dignity and individual freedom as fundamental.
Concepts of dignity and individual freedom are powerful and appealing in their own right.
Such ideals empowered the dissident movements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before
the end of the Cold War as well as the students in Tiananmen Square. The student movements
that swept the world in 1968––from Paris and Chicago to Bangkok and Mexico
City––were in part animated by the quest for greater freedoms of speech and of
personal choice.
More generally, these ideals appeal to anyone who values the ability to make decisions for
themselves.
The idea of freedom, long embedded in the US tradition, has played a conspicuous role in
the US in recent years. '9/11' was immediately interpreted by many as an attack on it. 'A
peaceful world of growing freedom', wrote President Bush on the first anniversary of
that awful day, 'serves American long-term interests, reflects enduring American ideals
and unites America's allies.' 'Humanity', he concluded, 'holds in its hands the opportunity
to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes', and 'the United States welcomes its
responsibilities to lead in this great mission'. This language was incorporated into the US
National Defense Strategy document issued shortly thereafter. 'Freedom is the Almighty's gift
to every man and woman in this world', he later said, adding that 'as the greatest power on
earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom'.
When all of the other reasons for engaging in a pre-emptive war against Iraq were proven
wanting, the president appealed to the idea that the freedom conferred on Iraq was in and of
itself an adequate justification for the war. The Iraqis were free, and that was all
that really mattered. But what sort of 'freedom' is envisaged here, since, as the cultural
critic Matthew Arnold long ago thoughtfully observed, 'freedom is a very good horse to ride,
but to
ride somewhere'.To what destination, then, are the Iraqi people expected to ride the horse of
freedom donated to them by force of arms?
As Hayek quoted....
Planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom. Free
enterprise and private ownership are declared to be essentials of freedom.
No society built on other foundations is said to deserve to be called free.
The freedom that regulation creates is denounced as unfreedom; the justice, liberty and
welfare it offers are decried as a camouflage of slavery.
The Neoliberal idea of freedom 'thus degenerates into a mere advocacy of free
enterprise. It helps explain why neoliberalism has turned so authoritarian, forceful, and
anti-democratic at the very moment when 'humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes'. It makes us focus on how so many
corporations have profiteered from withholding the benefits of their
technologies, famine, and environmental disaster. It raises the worry as to whether or not
many of these calamities or
near calamities (arms races and the need to confront both real and
imagined enemies) have been secretly engineered for corporate advantage.
Political slogans can be invoked that mask specific strategies beneath vague
rhetorical devices. The word 'freedom' resonates so widely within the common-sense
understanding of Americans that it becomes 'a button that elites can press to open the door
to the masses' to justify almost anything.
Appeals to traditions and cultural values bulked large in all of this. An open project
around the restoration of economic power to a small elite would probably not gain much
popular support. But a programmatic attempt to advance the cause of individual freedoms could
appeal to a mass base and so disguise the drive to restore class power.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
@gyges1 - The idea of language is very important in the production of a way of thinking which
closes down other alternatives and futures. One which leaves neoliberal globalisation as 'the
only game in town'.
I worry that the very term 'neoliberalism' is one not used by the political classes and
much of the media, I don't think I've ever heard the world 'neoliberalism' used on the
BBC.
This unwillingness to even call a spade a spade has political consequences . For
example, I had an online discussion with someone over Thatchers death a little while ago. He
called me 'comrade' and then questioned the very existence of the term Neo-liberalism. At the
time I thought this was a bit of a cheap shot, but if you can quite cheerfully label someone
a 'socialist' and then refuse to accept that neo-liberalism exists, you are well on your way
to making people believe that the current set of social relations are indeed completely
normal and that there are few, if any, alternative ways of rewiring the world which can
create a better world.
"... I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina. ..."
"... The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor? ..."
"... It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home. ..."
"... The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it. ..."
"... We have become so embedded in the language of individuals, choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy" and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest. If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive. ..."
@finnkn - Apologies. I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant
and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared
in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina.
The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored
by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu;
paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism
was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor?
To be clear: I am arguing that the direct effects of 'actually existing neoliberalism' are very far from benign. I do not argue
that the militarisation of Central and South America are the direct consequence neoliberal theory.
@finnkn - Well I think many would. It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored
military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation
as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home.
Neoliberalism was first practiced in authoritarian states; the states in which neoliberalism is most deeply embedded are (surprise,
surprise) increasingly authoritarian, and neoliberalism solutions are regularly imposed on client/vulnerable states by suprastructures
such as the IMF, the EU, and the World Bank. Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith were very clear that the potential for degeneracy
existed. We have now reached that potential; increasingly centralised authority, states within states, the denuding of democratic
institutions and crony capitalism. Neoliberalism in practice is very different to neoliberalism in practice. Rather like 'really
existing socialism' and Marxism.
works best in authoritarian states because (in practice, if not in theory
As the statistics on that link show, there are certain countries (notably Russia and the Ukraine) where the +65 age group disapprove
of the change to democracy and capitalism. In the majority, however, people of all ages remain in favour.
For 'job' read 'bribe' (keep your mouth shut or lose it), for 'management' read 'take most of the interest out of the job
for everybody else and put them on a lower scale', etc. I guess you get my drift.
It's sad that you have such a negative, self-hating attitude towards your work.
Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could
have – moral and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core
Spoken like a true champagne socialist in a creative industry. How do you find meaning and fulfillment, or creative values, in
emptying bins, cleaning offices, sweeping the streets and a whole load of other work which needs doing but which is repetitive,
menial and not particularly pleasant?
There are two ways to get people to do work that needs doing but wouldn't be done voluntarily: coercion or payment. I think
the second is a more healthy way to run a society.
I've thought pretty much the same myself. Democracies can be good or bad (as the Greeks knew well)...but in our politic-speak
it is used to denounce and make good; as in "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East"...it is intended to make us feel
something good about Israel, as it humiliates the Palestinians and steals their land.
In ancient Greece....'tyrant' simply meant
'usurper' without any neccessary negative association....simply someone who had usurped political power...they recognized that
tyrannies could be good, bad or indifferent.
In Rome, dictator simply meant the cahp that took over fpr periods of six months at a time, during times of crisis.
I used to vacation in Yugoslavia in Marshall Tito's time....it was a wonderful place, beautiful, inexpensive and safe...very
very safe. What came into the power vacuum after he died in 1980...what happened to the country? I'd argue that his was a good
dictatorship or tyranny....
I'm also not too sure what the 90% of people unaffected by and uninterested in power politics in any given country feel about
the 'liberation' of Libya and Iraq from their prior dictatorships...I'm sure that plenty of people whose previously steady lives
have been wrecked, are all that thrilled.
I have recently been exercised by the right's adoption of "Social Justice". In the past it was the left and churches who talked
of social justice as a phenomenon to empower the poor and dispossessed, whether in this country or the developing world. Social
Justice was a touchstone of Faith in the City, for example, but it seems now to be the smoke screen behind which benefits are
stipped from the "undeserving poor".
Most of this crap comes from America. Crappy middle-management bureaucrats spouting "free-market" bollocks.
The efficiency of the private sector - some nob with a name badge timing how long you've been on the toilet.
Freedommm!!!!
It is not just neoliberalism. Everyone is at it - sucking the meaning out of words. Corporate bullshit, public sector bullshit.
Being customers of your own government is a crime that everyone is guilty of. This is what Orwell railed against decades ago,
and it has got worse.
Case in point; just look at the way in which the Cameron set about co-opting words and phrases justifiably applied to his own
regime and repurposed them against his detractors.
For example, people who took a stand against the stealth privatisation of the NHS were branded as "vested interests", quite
unlike the wholesome MPs who voted for the NHS bill who, despite the huge sums of money they received from the private healthcare
lobby, we are encouraged to believe were acting in our best interests by selling our health service to their corporate paymasters.
Or the farcical attempt to rebrand female Tory MPs as "feminists" despite their anti-social mobility, anti-equality, anti-human
rights and anti-abortion views.
The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used
it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid
profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it.
@Obelisk1 - You have single-handedly proven Massey's argument. We have become so embedded in the language of individuals,
choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy"
and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest.
If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive.
Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation
to the gallery and to this engaging person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
But in the eyes of the economic right, that is precisely the case. Adjectives like altruistic, caring, selfless, empathy and
sympathy are simply not in their vocabulary. They are only ever any of those things provided they can see some sort of beneficial
payback at the end.
maxfisher -> Venebles 11 Jun 2013 06:20
@Venebles - I was simply joining many commentators in the mire. Those that dispute the neoliberal worldview are routinely dismissed
as marxists. I thought I'd save you all the energy, duck.
I'm not sure that the families of the disappeared of Chile and Argentina would concur with you benign view of neoliberalism
and its effects.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
The denial of the economic ideology of Neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cheap debating point. If you pretend something
doesn't exist then you make it difficult to attack.
Notable quotes:
"... Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University Press". ..."
"... What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen? ..."
"... All one needs to know is that English language is being manipulated just as it always has been by those that have the power to do it. Today the main manipulators are, Madison Avenue, agencies and departments the United States government, Wall Street, US television media. Most people don't realize that the language is being manipulated, when they hear or see in print words being used in unusual ways they just go along with it. ..."
"... Advertising frequently refers to things being "better" with no explanation of what it is better than. ..."
"... "Underpriviliged" to describe people living in poverty but no explanation of the privileges that people have who are not poor. ..."
"... I could go on and on, but I am sure that you scribblers who do not indulge in "confuse speak" know exactly what I am trying to explain. Best example I can give is "The free world" which by latest check includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and sundry other brutal regimes and one time actually included outright fascist countries. ..."
"... Yes - the person who said language was mankind's first technology were absolutely correct. I expect language was invented by those who invent all technology to be just out of reach of the general public until the inventers decide they can do business for themselves out of it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the final stage of liberal democracy which has been around for 60-70 years, the most destructive form of government the world has ever seen, based on deregulation for the wealthy oligarchs and debt and debauchery for the poor .............. which is rapidly taking us back to feudal times. ..."
"... I prescribe a course of Orwell, Start, perhaps, with short stories...... Politics and the English Language, Why I Write, Notes on Nationalism, for example. And then a full dose of Nineteen Eighty-Four. That should do the trick! ..."
"... Nothing has been learnt from the crash of 2008 beyond "get rich even quicker", or as its more commonly known, economic and ecological suicide. ..."
Term abuse didn't arrive with neoliberalism; it's been around since forever. Also, the fact
that most of our daily transactions might be commercial is a reflection of our own habits as
much as the changing use of language.
If a person is employed by a commercial gallery, they are effectively working in a shop,
and the people who visit these galleries are potentially customers. No surprise there. Just
like a person who uses transport can be a customer. Of course, there are public services
where commercial terms such as customer make little sense.
Sure, it isn't that important who is making the point, even if the point is made by
reference to questionable and contentious examples.
I also think that any even bigger influence on meaning / lack of meaning / interchangeable
meaning etc.has been postmodernity far more than neoliberalism.
All true but the left is just as bad as coining its Orwellisms. Witness the way nobody has to use an approved vocabulary to talk about every and any group
on fear of moral ridicule or worse. Language is a mental battlefield.
@RClayton - Can I suggest resurrecting William Morris's distinction between "work" (ie labour
that is moral, creative, aesthetic or, at least, hygienic - ie intrinsically worth doing) and
"toil" which is work done only because of the necessity to earn money to buy the means of
existence?
Having words that distinguish between these two ideas is useful. The 'work' you talk about
is 'toil' and most of it is done simply to service the money/capitalist system.
As an example, I have in front of me a rubber 'stress reliever' in the shape of PacMan. It
was given to me as a gift.
Presumably, somewhere in the world there is a factory full of people turning out this
rubbish. It adds nothing to the world's beauty, nor its ability to support the people living
on it. Its only uses are in providing paid 'toil' to support the factory workers and to
enable someone to give me something I don't need as a token of their friendship, probably
paid for from the fruits of their own toil.
Changing the words we use will not change this, but it does give us a framework in which
to think about how it might be changed.
Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman,
and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University
Press".
What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen?
If I can repeat what I said at the top of this thread - The denial of the economic
ideology of Neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cheap debating point. If you pretend
something doesn't exist then you make it difficult to attack.
The biggest problem isn't so much that people use the language of commercial business and are
free and easy with their abuse of terms (there's a new one), but that people treat government
and politics as a service, and see their relationship with governance as akin to a
client/customer relationship, to that end we elect politicians who tell us what we want to
hear, even if what we hear can be, all to often, somewhat meaningless or trite.
@TheRealCmdrGravy - There's nothing vague about it, It represents the whole of UK and US
government economic policy for the last thirty years with the happy outcomes that we enjoy
today.
But now you know what a neoliberal is, perhaps you can reread the excellent article above
with added relish and understanding. Glad to be of assistance. If you want anything else
looking up I suggest using a search engine before posting here that a particular word is too
difficult for you.
According to Bradford DeLong, a Berkeley economic historian, neoliberalism has two main
tenets:
"The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core and the developing
periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua
non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be
eliminated as fast as possible).
The second is that governments in general lack the
capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core
missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and
a few others, governments should shrink and privatize)."
All one needs to know is that English language is being manipulated just as it always has been by
those that have the power to do it.
Today the main manipulators are, Madison Avenue, agencies and departments the United States
government, Wall Street, US television media.
Most people don't realize that the language is being manipulated, when they hear or see in
print words being used in unusual ways they just go along with it.
Example:
A couple of years back a motormouth U.S TV show host used the word "impact" in place of the
word "affect". He did so simply because "impact" seemed more dramatic. Now it is almost
impossible to hear or see the word "affect" used anywhere.
Now there are some of you that will say that language and usage of words change over time,
and I would agree with you, but when you see a word used in a context that is completely
inappropriate and that use is adopted in general you have to ask yourself questions like who
benefits from this.
Remember when Bush wanted to increase troop levels, he refered to the increase as a "surge".
"Surge" until then had a distinct meaning it was not associated with any meaning of
permanence, and that is why it was used.
Advertising frequently refers to things being "better" with no explanation of what it is
better than.
"Underpriviliged" to describe people living in poverty but no explanation of the privileges
that people have who are not poor.
I could go on and on, but I am sure that you scribblers who do not indulge in "confuse speak"
know exactly what I am trying to explain.
Best example I can give is "The free world" which by latest check includes Saudi Arabia,
Yemen, and sundry other brutal regimes and one time actually included outright fascist
countries.
Now all London Underground passengers are 'customers', which implies you are buying the
travel experience rather than paying for transportation. When misused it suggests to me lack
of strength and self-belief from the organization concerned.
@callaspodeaspode - Gosh - an excellent example of how to get things completely wrong. Just because a firm has the government for a customer does not mean it is a public sector
business.
Note the word 'customer'. In the case of the FE college, who is the customer - the
government or the students? Are the students just incidental fodder?
Your contract with the government will be for a certain job done in a certain for a
certain sum of money. In FE, the government has a sum of money which gets paid out
irrespective of the outcome. Indeed, how do you measure the 'outcome' of an FE college? In
your case, it's easy - either the software works or it doesn't.
Your company no doubt is either owned by an individual, or has shareholders. Those people
live on the profits of the company, or lose their money if it goes bust.
What is the profit made by an FE college? Who are the shareholders? Who goes broke if the
college folds? Still think an FE college is the same as private company?
@TheRealCmdrGravy - No definition is a distinct improvement on your deliberate distortion. I
was assuming you had the sense to find a definition on the internet for yourself, since you
managed to find your way here.
I do not consider alternative viewpoints brainless, i consider a refusal to even engage in
debate brainless, pretending that a word is undefined when there's reams of literature as
well as concise definitions freely available from any number of sources. That might
reasonably be construed as brainless.
Here, fill your boots, then if you have an actual argument instead of a crude attempt to
derail the debate it can be considered.
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic
liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the
size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
(From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
I'm convinced you had the brains to look it up yourself, that's why I suspect your agenda.
Now please stop wasting everyone's time unless you have something to contribute. I even
looked it up for you.
And I can give a further example. I used to work in a Private Equity-owned firm, which
happened to have some contracts to provide software support to the government.
Thus, in your conceptual framework, it was a public sector business. Indeed, by your reasoning, Lockheed Martin is a state-owned company as well.
I agree that 'Neoliberalism' has hijacked our vocabulary, but that is about the limit of our
agreement. People fling the word 'neoliberalism' around these days as a synonym for 'anything
I and my friends have decided is politically-economically objectionable' ('have decided', not
'think'). In the old days, 'fascist' served the same purpose in all those late-night student
flat discussions. I assume, until proven otherwise, that people who talk about
'neoliberalism', fall into the same category as those people who had so much difficulty
distinguishing between 'liberal democracy' and 'fascism'.
I can actually think of liberal left-leaning intellectuals who I can recall having
self-described as neoliberal. They, however, are distinctive for the sort of nuanced
understanding of political economy you are unlikely to find represented around the candles in
the kitchen on a Friday night when the world's problems are being discussed and solved.
First of all I am impressed by the psychic ability which enables you to deduce my
"closed political agenda", very impressive
Not really. It is transparently obvious when you declare that neo-liberalism is "vague
stuff which I don't like" when there are cogent definitions of it, to which you have been
referred in the past.
this is not the kind of liberalism we needed it needed to be socially liberal but not
economically liberal. How dare people become entrepenurial or take the thatcherite tax cuts,
or buy goods made from slave labour. Some seriously sick yuppies out there.
Yes - the person who said language was mankind's first technology were absolutely correct.
I expect language was invented by those who invent all technology to be just out of reach
of the general public until the inventers decide they can do business for themselves out of
it.
She says that we need to look at the language as it says a lot about how we think. Sounds
about right to me. It's hardly arguing white means black, just that the words we choose say
something about what we mean.
Then she says that what we talk about isn't the stuff we need to concentrate on. That's a
matter of debate and opinion.
Except that preference theory does not take into account causality. In any event we have
the evidence, there are those who are perfectly happy to cast others to the wall just so long
as they do OK and even benefit from it.
@makingtime - Really ? Some very interesting points you've made there ...
your closed political agenda may make it impossible for you to understand without a
brain transplant.
First of all I am impressed by the psychic ability which enables you to deduce my "closed
political agenda", very impressive. Secondly though it's interesting that you think a "closed
political agenda", which I am taking to mean a concrete political viewpoint, can only be
remedied with a "brain transplant" rather than through discussion. It's almos as though
you're saying "those with political views different to mine are brainless" which is quite a
bigoted point of view.
No definition from you regarding the word neo-liberal though so all in all not a very
helpful or insightful post. Disappointing.
..the word "neo-liberal" which, so far as I can see, simply means "vague stuff which I
don't like".
Is it possible that you can't see very far because you're deliberately not looking? There
are perfectly adequate and precise definitions. I quite liked 'A Brief History of
Neoliberalism' by Prof D.Harvey as a long form definition, but since it's rather critical of
'vague stuff which I don't like', your closed political agenda may make it impossible for you
to understand without a brain transplant.
It is exasperating when political discussion is reduced to which foghorn can generate the
loudest interference. I suppose it's a mistake to waste time on correcting this rubbish
Doreen Massey is an academic. It shows in the way she writes. It's good that she raises
fundamental questions about society and the way it is managed. It has traditionally been the
role of academics to play that role.
The disappointing feature of the debate however is the absence of input from our
politicians. All our leading politicians have essentially the same view of our society and
economy. One in which, as Ms Massey indicates, choice exercised through market based
mechanisms is the key principal. There is no view of progress towards a good society. There
is no view of co-operation rather than competition. The only option is for us to measure
ourselves by what we consume.
Our political system and its parties have failed us. In particular it is the left that has
failed. It has accepted the social and economic arguments of the right and contented itself
with suggesting minor variations on the same theme. Activists on the left need to re-gather
their strength and more forcefully put forward a better alternative.
@retarius - Any government is only as good as the human rights it upholds.
Neoliberalism is the final stage of liberal democracy which has been around for 60-70 years,
the most destructive form of government the world has ever seen, based on deregulation for
the wealthy oligarchs and debt and debauchery for the poor .............. which is rapidly
taking us back to feudal times.
This is a view that misunderstands where pleasure and fulfilment in human lives are
found. Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning
and fulfilment in human lives.
Wishful and naive thinking. Most work is very unfulfilling and even in cases where it is
meaningful the day to day grind and intensity required by a job is making it a chore. There
are very few people who have a job that is really a pleasure. There are many people though
who have empty lives and were brainwashed into believing that their job is the most important
part of their existence.
@gyges1 - " This is playground level debating. You are just saying the meaning you give to
words is to be preferred to that of your opponents."
Ah, I see the problem - a narrow mind with a broad-brush tendency.
I prescribe a course of Orwell, Start, perhaps, with short stories...... Politics and the
English Language, Why I Write, Notes on Nationalism, for example. And then a full dose of
Nineteen Eighty-Four. That should do the trick!
@RClayton - But if we start to think about work differently - which then gets its expression
with the words we use - maybe it can change. Your Bangladeshi example is interesting because
it assumes they need to work in that way to exist. Should we not try and change the system so
a Bangladeshi can harness his or her creativity to connect their creative ideas to a global
market and earn money in this way, rather than selling their physical labour to connect
someone else's t-shirt to a global market?
It's not just vocabulary, its demeanor, etiquette and peoples entire self perception that has
been usurped by the skewed modern logic of markets and the service industry.
People are preempting the technological singularity by rendering themselves robotic in a
quite tragic struggle to perpetually remain relevant and employable in the form that the
whims of the dictatorship of the market see fit to determine.
Some nationalities even have an intrinsic advantage, their national character tending rather
to the robotic from the outset. What remains of human expression, of impulsivity, of
spontaneity, of charisma, of originality is up for question, but the paucity of modern life,
of human expression and interaction, will increase in direct relation to the increases in
efficiency and productivity that will be demanded of citizens. And this despite the fact that
we are suffering under the weight of massive over production, and the excessive demand on
resources that this entails.
Nothing has been learnt from the crash of 2008 beyond "get rich even quicker", or as its more
commonly known, economic and ecological suicide.
@BaronessHawHaw - Working class pride in their jobs came from being highly skilled –
for example riveting in shipyards was difficult and you really were adding value there, so
was assembling a car and so on. Also, didn't most of their 'meaning and fulfilment' come from
the community, not really the work they were doing, except in so far as most of the people in
the community would be doing the same work so it gave them something to talk about?
I've never heard a modern person saying how much any of the jobs I listed give them
meaning or fulfilment. The kind of jobs that gave working class people a meaningful identity
have pretty much all gone.
Just looking at the Governments of Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary as an
example seems to indicate centrist and centre-right parties in power.
As I'm reading the annual report of my old sixth form college - which also operate adult
learning courses - and they're an exempt charity and therefore not liable for corporation
tax. They have an operating surplus (read: profit) on which no tax is paid, quite unlike a
private sector company.
"... Neoliberalism is bankrupt, it isn't even a philiosophy its simple social nihilism. The proof is in the get rich quick, or short term profit mentality of those at the top. Get rich quick is tantamount to jumping the ship, its the economic equivalent of deserting a sinking vessel. Until people recognise the destructive cynical nature of the current economic philosophy and cast out those that are steering the ship, we are all doomed. ..."
"... Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University Press". ..."
"... What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen? ..."
"... Well it could be argued that postmodernism is the necessary condition for neoliberalism. ..."
'Customer'; 'growth'; 'investment'. We should scrutinise the everyday language that shapes how we think about the
economy
'We need to question that familiar categorisation of the economy as a space into which people enter in order to
reluctantly undertake unwelcome and unpleasing "work''.'
A
t a recent art exhibition I engaged in an
interesting conversation with one of the young people employed by the gallery. As she turned to walk off I saw she
had on the back of her T-shirt "customer liaison". I felt flat. Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my
experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation to the gallery and to this engaging
person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
The message underlying this use of the term customer for so
many different kinds of human activity is that in all almost all our daily activities we are operating as consumers
in a market – and this truth has been brought in not by chance but through managerial instruction and the
thoroughgoing renaming of institutional practices. The mandatory exercise of "free choice" – of a GP, of a hospital,
of schools for one's children – then becomes also a lesson in social identity, affirming on each occasion our
consumer identity.
This is a crucial part of the way that neoliberalism has become part of our commonsense understanding of life.
The vocabulary we use to talk about the economy is in fact a political construction, as Stuart Hall, Michael Rustin
and I have argued in our
Soundings manifesto
.
Another word that reinforces neoliberal common sense is "growth", currently deemed to be the entire aim of our
economy. To produce growth and then (maybe) to redistribute some of it, has been a goal shared by both neoliberalism
and social democracy. In its crudest formulation this entails providing the conditions for the market sector to
produce growth, and accepting that this will result in inequality, and then relying on the redistribution of some
portion of this growth to help repair the inequality that has resulted from its production.
This of course does nothing to question the inequality-producing mechanisms of market exchange itself, and it has
also meant that the main lines of struggle have too often been focused solely on distributional issues. What's more,
today we are living with a backlash to even the limited redistributional gains made by labour under social
democracy. In spite of all this, growth is still seen as providing the solution to our problems.
The second reason our current notion of wealth creation, and our commitment to its growth, must be questioned is
to do with our relationship with the planet. The environmental damage brought about by the pursuit of growth
threatens to cause a catastrophe of which we are already witnessing intimations. And a third – and perhaps most
important – defect of this approach is that increased wealth, especially as measured in the standard monetary terms
of today, has few actual consequences for people's feelings of wellbeing once there is a sufficiency to meet basic
needs, as there is in Britain. In pursuing "growth" in these terms, as a means to realise people's life goals and
desires, economies are pursuing a chimera.
Instead of an unrelenting quest for growth, might we not ask the question, in the end: "What is an economy for?",
"What do we want it to provide?"
Our current imaginings endow the market and its associated forms with a special status. We think of "the economy"
in terms of natural forces, into which we occasionally intervene, rather than in terms of a whole variety of social
relations that need some kind of co-ordination.
Thus "work", for example, is understood in a very narrow and instrumental way. Where only transactions for money
are recognised as belonging to "the economy", the vast amount of unpaid labour – as conducted for instance in
families and local areas – goes uncounted and unvalued. We need to question that familiar categorisation of the
economy as a space into which people enter in order to reluctantly undertake unwelcome and unpleasing "work", in
return for material rewards which they can use for consuming.
This is a view that misunderstands where pleasure and fulfilment in human lives are found. Work is usually – and
certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could have – moral
and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core. A rethinking of work could lead us to address more creatively both
the social relations of work and the division of labour within society (including a better sharing of the tedious
work, and of the skills).
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic vocabulary, for instance that
bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure – terms that carry with them implicit moral
connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future
positive outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
Above all, we need to bring economic vocabulary back into political contention, and to question the very way we
think about the economy in the first place. For something new to be imagined, let alone to be born, our current
economic "common sense" needs to be challenged root and branch.
•
Doreen Massey will be discussing Vocabularies of the Economy at a
Soundings seminar
on 13 June, 6.30-8.30pm, at the Marx Memorial Library, London. More information [email protected]
@Yorkied24 - Well, I just don't accept that. I agree that monetarism is a major part
of Friedman's legacy (as incorporated into neo-liberal doctrine). But, neo-liberalism
is what is says on the tin. It is a 'new' version of the liberalist free trade agenda
of the past, modified to take into account the welfare state.
I guess what I'm most
interested in is how you can disentangle and separate politics from economics, since
they are two sides of the same coin (where does 'science' fit in, by the way).
it seems that the political side of Neo-liberalism (or liberal democracy) has come up
with a new definition of the word "Catholic".
The Irish Prime-minster stated with a straight face in the Irish parliament today
........ that he is a "Catholic" outside parliament but when he enters parliament he
is not a "Catholic"........ in relation to a bill allowing for abortion to be
legalized in Ireland.
@NeverMindTheBollocks - when you criticise the author of "nonsensical thinking", this
suggests to me that you are uncomfortable with ideas that question "common sense".
Rather than engaging with the arguments, you are simply dismissing them as somebody's
arbitrary opinion. You seem to be suggesting that Massey is forcing her opinion on you
- but surely, like any good academic, she is really asking critical questions, rather
than providing answers and solutions. That's what academia is for. Why does that seem
to make you so angry?
@Pumplechook - Enterprise culture is a fine emboldening phrase to describe the sinking
of society casting citizens adrift with nothing but what nature gave them to keep them
afloat. Some might suggest we need to concentrate on mono platform non deliverables
going backwards. Or on a fleet of very cheap rubber dinghies.
Ms Massey clearly fails to see importance of remaining customer/client-focused in our
modern enterprise culture. It is crucial in terms of achieving outcomes-based win-win
solutions, as well as assisting in the interation of leading-edge opportunities and
leveraging cross-platform deliverables going forward.
@KingOfNothing - No, what I said was that neoliberalism is not an economic theory. For
a start, Milton Friedman's work has its own name in economics, which is monetarism.
Neoliberalism is a made up political word only used by those who are more interested
in politics and rhetoric than economics and science.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt, it isn't even a philiosophy its simple social nihilism. The
proof is in the get rich quick, or short term profit mentality of those at the top.
Get rich quick is tantamount to jumping the ship, its the economic equivalent of
deserting a sinking vessel. Until people recognise the destructive cynical nature of
the current economic philosophy and cast out those that are steering the ship, we are
all doomed.
@bill4me - 'Sweet smell of success'?
No, it's just that your shit-detector is so absent or degraded that you can no longer
smell the stink of 'filthy lucre'.
@Yorkied24 - I disagree. There is only one writer that deserves volleys of ad hominem
attacks and cheap insults and thats Julie Burchill. I know she's about as relevant as
a horse drawn carriage but nevertheless I think we need to keep criticism of
journalists in proportion.
@bill4me - The US under the aegis of freedom and capitalism sponsored paramilitary
regimes in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile and
Argentina. Not to mention Greece and Iran. It continues to sponsor repressive regimes
in the middle east and is about to make peace with the Taliban.
You mistake capitalism
as it exists in theory, or in your head with 'actually existing capitalism' which is
often red in tooth and claw. The bloody history of the 20th century (particularly
world war one, without which no world war two) was in many ways a consequence of
imperialism which was a consequence of capitalism.
Theories are all very well, but
they run into problems called people. This applies equally to Marx, Smith and Hayek.
@Yorkied24 - But they don't do they? They don't engage in cowardly and anonymous ad
hominem attacks. They are professional journalists. The Guardian pays them to write
articles. They then put their name to said articles. It's a transparent process. They
are infinitely better than people who anonymously insult them without engaging in
debate.
@bill4me - No, but it rather skews the data doesn't it? The Soviet Union lifted more
people out of extreme poverty than perhaps any society before or since. But I wouldn't
advocate Stalinism. I'm sure Pinochet's supporters could point to a growth in
prosperity during his reign, but I shouldn't imagine many Chileans would favour a
return to authoritarian rule.
Headline date is often meaningless, for example George
Osborne may be able to argue that more people are employed than ever before, whilst
the opposition may be able to argue that more people are unemployed than ever before.
Bo
Both statements my be true, but what do they tell us in isolation?
Does it not occur to you that appalling governance may be a consequence of the form
capitalism takes right now?
Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek,
Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton
University Press".
What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen?
So, someone writes a book calling two economists 'neoliberals', so that makes it
so? By that argument, it also calls them Masters of the Universe, so they're fucking
He-Man too.
If you think capitalism is all winners and no losers you're either
tremendously naive or a bit thick.
I wouldn't rely on headline figures on Wikipedia to
support your argument. Drill down a little, find the data, look at individual
countries, see what type of regimes operate in said countries. And imagine, for a
second, that the stats are meaningful, then imagine what responsible capitalism could
achieve.
@Justthefactsman - Slightly off topic, but I hanker for obliged rather than obligated.
Also, most of the time I just feel ok, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Fair to middlin'
you might say. I seldom feel awesome.
No definition from you regarding the word neo-liberal though so all in all not a
very helpful or insightful post. Disappointing.
It's sometimes worth having a debate about what particular words mean, but all
debate rests on certain presumptions, a foundation on which the argument is built, and
in this case, Massey counts on her audience sharing her understanding of the term
'neoliberal', which many of us do. Anyone who doesn't can very easily look it up
online and quickly find a definition which sits well with Massey's points.
Your and others' approach to rejecting her argument is ungracious cavilling. It's
easy to do this in response to any argument, and make no mistake - anyone with
intelligence and an open mind can recognise it very clearly.
@Ken Terry - Chomsky is right, ("The Manufacturing of Consent") 'At the head of it is
the Military\Industrial Complex, coining the euphemisms of war to make the unthinkable
palatable.
On a localised scale, consider the Coalition who have done a similar job on the word,
"Reform". If you look at history's most accurate and honorific incidences of political
and parliamentary Reform look at the two Reform Acts which extended the franchise to
adult male suffrage, 1832 and 1867, under Peel and Disraeli, Tories FFS, opposed to
the Liberal's merciless free market obsessions.
What is "reforming" about stripping poor, ill and vulnerable people of their material
support?
Pure Deformation.
I'm not a Tory, (Lifelong Socialist) but I think it's important to reconnect the
Conservative Party with some of its avowed traditional self-definitions. "Maintaining
continuity with past institutions, and a 'gradualism', if change is necessary." (Henry
Cecil, I think).
Where has been the 'gradualism' in this Govt's' sudden and relentless pace of forcing
change on the mass of its people by Bill after Bill restricting our aspirations and
well-being?
We are governed by political liars who see this state of affairs as a triumph for
their expertise. Any criticism is dismissed as not being able to accept the world 'as
it is.'
The irony, of course, is that neoliberalism has *always* been coupled by high state
spending. I know they say different, but that doesn't make it a reality. Stop showing
your ignorance of the subject and go and delve in to some of the vast literature on
the subject.
@joseph1832 - I think this misses the point though. You're trying to claim there can
be words that are neutral, a language without a political dimension. This is besides
the point, it's certainly not feasible in a society constructed as it is now.
The
real point is that language is itself a field of struggle. It's a terrain on which
neoliberalism must be fought. In doing so we need not pretend to be doing anything
less than entering a political fight. In combating neoliberalism no claim to be
'neutral' is necessary, that would be precisely to do what it does from the opposite
direction - claim universality, eternalisation etc. The left does need to assert
interrogate the language of neoliberalism and assert its own. Not becuase this is less
political (I think "manipulation" is too strong a word here, the matter is somewhat
more complex than that) but becuase it can offer a better future.
@DemocracyNever - I should think the first two responses illustrate how and why debate
is increasingly meaningless. Neither of you engage with the argument or posit an
alternative; hence no debate.
That debate should be meaningful is given, that it should be an art form is,
frankly, silly.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum
of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
Noam Chomsky
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious
place. " -- November 22, 2018.
2007:
" The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless.
They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald
Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
"Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not
physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you
down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest
gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
"This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone
wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your
friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
2018:
"Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they
hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening."
Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
" This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal
with somebody and it's like making a deal with– that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15,
2018.
"This is a r– this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing,
the speaking behind your back. –but – you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS
60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization
finally collapses.
ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for
by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
TheRealNews
Published on 14 Nov 2018
The latest revelation about Brazil's slow motion coup, designed to ensure that the
center-left remains out of power and the far-right takes control, involves a general who
admitted that he threatened the Supreme Court so it would imprison presidential front-runner
Lula da Silva. We discuss the development with Brian Mier
"... But the state as a bureaucratic institution had another, more fundamental function. Lenin, citing Engels, defined the essence of the state as "bodies of armed men, prisons, etc.," in short, an instrument for the maintenance of the rule of the exploiting minority over the exploited majority. ..."
"... As capitalism burst the bounds of the nation-state, the coercive military function of the state took on a new dimension -- that of protecting (and projecting) the interests of the capitalists of one country over those of another. As capitalism developed, the role of the state increased, the size of the state bureaucracy increased, and the size of its coercive apparatus increased. ..."
"... The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries ..."
"... But the way the governments propose to solve this problem of imperialism is not through the intelligent, organized cooperation of all of humanity's producers, but through the exploitation of the world's economic system by the capitalist class of the victorious country ..."
"The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent.
They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their
intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a
trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own
gain." -- They Live , John Carpenter
We're living in two worlds, you and I.
There's the world we see (or are made to see) and then there's the one we sense (and
occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven
reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.
Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America - privileged, progressive and free -
is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power
are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and "freedom,"
such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the
teeth.
All is not as it seems.
"You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall.
You think they're people just like you. You're wrong. Dead wrong."
This is the premise of
John Carpenter's film They Live , which was released 30 years ago in November 1988 and
remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.
Best known for his horror film Halloween , which assumes that there is a form of evil so
dark that it can't be killed, Carpenter's larger body of work is infused with a strong
anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker's concerns
about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.
Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens,
a populace out of touch with reality , technology run amok, and a future more horrific than
any horror film.
In Escape from New York , Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.
In The Thing , a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes
that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.
In Christine , the film adaptation of Stephen King's novel about a demon-possessed car,
technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.
In In the Mouth of Madness , Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose "the ability
to know the difference between reality and fantasy."
And then there is Carpenter's They Live , in which two migrant workers discover that the
world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by
aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace --
blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives -- has been lulled into
complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized
by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and
the like.
It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy
Piper ) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses -- Hoffman lenses -- that Nada sees what
lies beneath the elite's fabricated reality: control and bondage.
When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their
disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on
them.
Likewise,
billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages : a bikini-clad woman in one ad is
actually ordering viewers to "MARRY AND REPRODUCE." Magazine racks scream "CONSUME" and "OBEY."
A wad of dollar bills in a vendor's hand proclaims, "THIS IS YOUR GOD."
When viewed through Nada's Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed
into the people's subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP,
BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.
This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to
anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.
A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does
not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be
entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.
In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted
vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to
as dictatorship in
democracy , "the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom."
We're being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to
reality.
The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists,
shooters ,
bombers ).
They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our
safety and well-being.
They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other's
throats.
Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.
Tune out the government's attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what's
really going on in this country, and you'll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable
truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and
discarded.
In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the
U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens . Instead, the study
found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called "economic elite."
Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly
always favor special interests and lobbying groups.
In other words, we are being
ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism --
a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the
people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.
Not only do you have to be rich -- or beholden to the rich -- to get elected these days, but
getting elected is also a
surefire way to get rich . As CBS News reports, "Once in office, members of Congress enjoy
access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are
unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow
them to profit even further."
In denouncing this blatant corruption of America's political system, former president Jimmy
Carter blasted the process of getting elected -- to the White House, governor's mansion,
Congress or state legislatures -- as "
unlimited political bribery a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major
contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election
is over."
Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of
government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session.
There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and
political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will
have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.
Sound familiar?
Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate
interests.
We have moved into "corporatism" (
favored by Benito Mussolini ), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown
fascism.
Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests -- not elected by the citizenry -- rule over
the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what
the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one
which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian
regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor
infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a.
concentration) camps.
For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the
majority of the people will have to agree that it's not only expedient but necessary.
But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?
Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And,
as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of
terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.
The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control,
and it is working on the American populace.
Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a
terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a
terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a
terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be
killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives
to government officials who treat us as a means to an end -- the source of money and power.
As the Bearded Man in They Live warns , "They are dismantling the sleeping middle class.
More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for
slavery."
In this regard, we're not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live .
From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who
rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.
Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful,
controlled, pacified zombies.
We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American
police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.
Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic
screen, even when they're crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads
down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what's going on around them. Young
people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact
that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.
Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens
-- that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen
study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average
American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month .
The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one's mind?
Psychologically it is similar to
drug addiction . Researchers found that "almost immediately after turning on the TV,
subjects
reported feeling more relaxed , and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns
so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a
lack of tension." Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers' brain waves
slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.
Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify
disruptive people. "Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and
counseling, more and more
prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet ," according to Newsweek .
Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels
controlled by six mega corporations , what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite
and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so
on a large scale.
If we're watching, we're not doing.
The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a
1958 speech:
We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent . We have currently a built-in
allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we
get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to
distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who
look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
This brings me back to They Live , in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the
shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.
When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own.
We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and
underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent.
We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.
Oblivious to what lies ahead, we've been manipulated into believing that if we continue to
consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that's never been true of emerging
regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.
So where does that leave us?
The characters who populate Carpenter's films provide some insight.
Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal
opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the
establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.
When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live , he restores
hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.
That's the key right there: we need to wake up.
Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay
attention to what's really going on in the country.
The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and
Democrats in the ballot box.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , the real battle for control of this nation is
taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government
offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city
council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.
The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if
we would only open them.
All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.
Wake up, America.
If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because
"we the people" sleep.
"Has America Become A Dictatorship Disguised As A Democracy?"
Thanks to alternative media the answer is NO. It is important to note, however, that The
left, the Drive-By Media (MSM), and some corporations think we are now a dictatorship - and
they are the dictators. On a daily basis you see them spewing and sputtering and spinning in
circles claiming that we are a dictatorship and THEY are in charge! Sorry fuckwads -
ain't gonna happen.
This story from 1963 has something we instantly recognize in the bullshittery of David
Icke of this decade.
George is a name that means "farmer" So George Nada is farmer of nothing. Radell Faraday
Nelson knew an interesting lot of folks, many of whom including Burroughs were... what? From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs
" Burroughs was born in 1914, the younger of two sons born to Mortimer Perry Burroughs
(June 16, 1885 – January 5, 1965) and Laura Hammon Lee (August 5, 1888 – October
20, 1970). His was a prominent family of English ancestry in St. Louis, Missouri . His grandfather,
William
Seward Burroughs I , founded the Burroughs Adding Machine company, which evolved into the
Burroughs
Corporation . Burroughs' mother was the daughter of a minister whose family claimed to be
closely related to Robert E. Lee . His maternal uncle,
Ivy Lee , was an
advertising pioneer later employed as a publicist for the Rockefellers. His father ran an
antique and gift shop, Cobblestone Gardens in St. Louis; and later in Palm Beach, Florida when they
relocated."
...Beat poets (right). Starving artists.
Anyway, Carpenter has done some great work. I remember "They Live" from the theater in '88
at 13. That and Die Hard. If you do a close read of this stuff you'll have fun for days. File
away Ray dosing LSD with PKD. That must have been awesome! So have at it.
Let me ask you, can one take a half step to waking up? Can one be half pregnant?
One of the all time best films I have watched. "They Live" is a really good movie. I have
seen it twice in my lifetime and am going to watch it again in a day or two. If you have
never seen it then you are in for a real treat. It is truly a film worth watching.
Sheep and people who can't think for themselves love dictators. They have a need for
someone they can look up to for "leadership" and to be "herded".
And, bye the way, let's set this article straight. America was never a "Democracy".
America, since the beginning, has been controlled by the elites, or the "Oligarchy". John
Adams once said, "if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and
dissolve the subordination so necessary for politics". The founding fathers were very much
like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers and against Democracy.. From their
lofty perspective, they understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob
rule. The Founding Fathers felt the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were
considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures necessary for good governance.
So, the U.S. was formed as a "Republic", by devising a written constitution, which defined
to the masses, how the oligarchy would herd them, and toss them a few bread crumbs called the
"Bill of Rights", so the masses would feel assured of some respect and dignity and would
comply. (Yet, they allowed slavery and indentured-servitude to exist). America is still ruled
by an Oligarchy today, yet most Americans don't seem to know any better.(Perhaps the elites
were right about the masses being uneducated)? Even George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 described America as "a despotic aristocracy." Not much has
changed in the way Americans are governed in past 231 years. After all, who leads our country
today, but a dictatorial aristocratic billionaire. Again, Sheep like to be herded because
they don't know any better..
It's much worse than that Mr. Whitehead, much worse! We're at the begining stages of a
cathartic transformation that'll either wither the USA for good, or provide the impetus for
deep-seated change. For decades, we struggled to slow down the march of tyranny, and while we
may say we succeeded to an extent, it wasn't enough.
There was too much general ignorance, too much complacency, apathy, and freeloading to
make the efforts bear significant fruits, and just now, the last shoe has dropped thus, the
fundamental right that pillars all fundamental rights, the right to speech according to an
individual's preference, has just been stealthily abrogated, in the guise of preventing
election meddling, whatever that means.
Now, Americans are free to allow the US government to do with them as it wishes, the rest
of the world however, are not bound by that choice therefore, if we may advise the ROW (Rest
of World), it's time to inoculate, and quarantine yourselves against the virus that's
infected the USA.
It is glaring now, nothing anyone can do to halt the arrival of the accountant, absolutely
nothing. The best we can do, is advise the patriots to quarantine themselves, the Republic
cannot be restored just yet, and we don't know what it'll take, or when it'll happen but this
much we know, the time has come for the calibration of the USA.
Folks will scoff as usual, and that's not our concern, we are no longer allowed to be
involved actively, we'll pray for folks though, and hope they find the strength to persevere,
other than that, nothing else we can do, cause now, it really doesn't matter anymore, who
rules, or governs the US, it doesn't..
So now, we'll observe, and assist the faithful to grow in strength, prestige, and wealth,
they at least, understand what it's all about.
So to you my friends, vote or don't vote, it's irrelevant, advocate or not, it doesn't
matter, the Republicans might win, the Democrats might win, it doesn't matter, and it's not
worth caring about anymore. As the spoilt generation engage in their final acts of depravity
before they exit, we'll advise you to get out of their way, and observe keenly from a safe
distance.
The way to health as usual, goes through the rough valley of deprivation. Now, it's time
to concentrate on the healthy, and let the sick heal themselves, and the dead bury the dead,
while yet the living live fully.
We thought it was possible to reform the depraved, it wasn't...even we must admit the
limits of our efforts, it wasn't enough, oh what a crying shame...
Not a "slave"? Tell your ******* boss you quit, walk out, burn up your savings, crawl back
a beggar. What do you call it?
One of the (very successful) tactics of corporatism (fascism) is to destroy individual
inventiveness and entrepreneurship outside the big office. You become a wage slave, afraid to
lose a crappy job, in debt because of inadequate wages, bombarded by corporate propaganda.
Your kids are turned against you, because the ads say you're mean. You succumb, watch
distractions on corporate media that show you that the "others out there" are worse off and
trying to steal your stuff (which isn't paid for and is worthless). I dropped out a long time
ago. I'm an escaped slave, hiding out, picking up what I can, living in the tropics. When I
occasionally go back "home" and see friends who took the bait - hook, line and sinker - I
pity them.
One consolation - the corporate captains of industry are also slaves, but their cells are
a bit better than yours.
Always been comfortable with Carpenter. His dystopian world view is pretty close to the
awful reality of Western life. I live elsewhere.
I have been bothered by the changes in society for many years. I lived in many
dictatorships and Theocracies, and many of the trappings of those countries have now been
installed here in America. It is not just that, but also basic changes in the way people
think and act has brought this entire civilization to the brink. The US is not a
dictatorship, but it is way more controlled and less free than it was when I was young. Thing
is, change is always happening, nothing stands still. Societies age and become weak,
eventually falling into dictatorship after the people stop believing in self discipline and
self reliance, and start to live off of the gifts of the state. It is the death of a nation,
and a society as a whole.
But the entire advanced civilization we currently have is failing, due to the changes in
our belief systems. When we began to believe females are just males with different plumbing,
we started on the long decline to eventual destruction as a race. Families depend upon real
females to exist and thrive, and societies and the entire race depends upon families for
survival as a species. We have lost that.
Every society on earth is, or would like to become, a dictatorship disguised as a
democracy. No surprise there.
But, alas, foiled again. Damn those visionaries from 1776. If only we could convince
the
Americans to be more like the Euro-geldings, we'd be there already.
And now their poisonous ability to say no is starting to spread into the veins of the
already cowed and conquered.
latest example: politicos and media decrying the mysterious mailing of bombs by " trump
supporters " to the liberal elite as " unamerican " and " not our values " etc
I guess Boeing, Northrup Grumman and the rest of the MIC really hate bombs too, unless
they are purchased and deployed under cost plus plus contracts for the pentagon.
USA is droning 'enemy combatants' and 'collateral damage' without regard for the terror
that this sows, or should i say, with explicit intent to sow fear.
The worthy Guardians of Democracy have taught us that democracy is about being able to
bring down duly elected Governments by conducting espionage, promoting dissent, killing a few
popular leaders, funding colour revolutions and various Springs, installing henchmen and boot
lickers of their liking so that the Guardian Angels can walk in, turn the countries into
piles of rubble, plunder whatever wealth they have so that the Guardians themselves can live
a comfortable life – now this is real democracy.
It is not a dictatorship. It is a dicktatorship and run by crooks and murderers. The
dicktators are the people who own and control the media, the financial system and the major
political parties. Their power comes from their concentration money and information in their
exclusive control.
About half of nonelderly Americans have one or more pre-existing health conditions,
according to a recent brief by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS,
that examined the prevalence of conditions that would have resulted in higher rates,
condition exclusions, or coverage denials before the ACA. Approximately 130 million
nonelderly people have pre-existing conditions nationwide, and, as shown in the table
available below, there is an average of more than 300,000 per congressional district.
Nationally, the most common pre-existing conditions were high blood pressure (44 million
people), behavioral health disorders (45 million people), high cholesterol (44 million
people), asthma and chronic lung disease (34 million people), and osteoarthritis and other
joint disorders (34 million people).
While people with Medicaid or employer-based plans would remain covered regardless of
medical history, the repeal of pre-ex protections means that the millions with pre-existing
conditions would face higher rates if they ever needed individual market coverage. The
return of pre-ex discrimination would hurt older Americans the most. As noted earlier,
while about 51 percent of the nonelderly population had at least one pre-existing condition
in 2014, according to the HHS brief, the rate was 75 percent of those ages 45 to 54 and 84
percent among those ages 55 to 64. But even millions of younger people, including 1 in 4
children, would be affected by eliminating this protection.
"... Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance. ..."
Which is the cohort of voters who allegedly are leaning toward voting Republican in the
mid-terms but who allegedly would refrain if Trump accepted Rosenstein's resignation? And
which is the cohort not already motivated to turn out to vote Democrat but who allegedly
would be motivated by a Rosenstein resignation? Is there real data on these?
I think if I had been a 2016 Trump voter I'd be feeling pretty disappointed about how he's
unable to enforce the most basic discipline and loyalty even among his closest administration
members, and this Rosenstein episode would be yet another egregious example.
If the Republicans do lose either/both houses, the main reason will be that for once
they've taken on the normal Democrat role of being confused and feckless about what they want
to do (they can't bring themselves to whole-heartedly get behind Trump; but a major
Republican strength has been how they normally do pull together an present a united front).
And Trump himself, in his inability to control his own immediate administration, also gives
an example of this fecklessness.
@ Circe who is writing that any who like any of what Trump is doing must be Zionists.
Get a grip. I didn't vote for Trump but favored him over Clinton II, the war criminal.
Trump represents more clearly the face of the ugly beast of debauched patriarchy, lying,
misogyny, bullying and monotheistic "everybody else is goyim" values. Trump very clearly
represents the folks behind the curtain of the Western private finance led "culture". He and
they are both poor representations of our species who are in power because of heredity and
controlled ignorance over the private finance jackboot on the lifeblood of the species.
Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by
the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the
inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity
can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance.
I am taking a beginning astronomy class and just learned that it took the monotheistic
religions 600 years to accept the science of Galileo Galilei. We could stand to evolve a bit
faster as we are about to have our proverbial asses handed to us in the form of extinction,
IMO.
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to
distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should
believe.
We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt,
while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say
something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very
limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly
and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.
If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our
advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a
friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.
This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to
recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest,
at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are
forms of power.
Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by
the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media,
the political class, and the security services.
But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the
relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful
institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or
her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political
systems in which they have to operate.
Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than
we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth
and success depend.
And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework
underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.
Narrative control
It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he
has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small
group of people around you.
It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm
– the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.
It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from
the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a
Richard Nixon.
But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the
reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over
knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we
wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about
it.
Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see –
structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be
felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten
the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.
The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to
absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they
have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies",
those who stand in their way to global domination.
No questions about Skripals
One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have
recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to
murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.
I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian
security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury
to kill the Skripals.
What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the
British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that
the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative
or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have
been entirely passive too.
That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from
the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider
such as Craig Murray.
A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions
that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the
intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the
inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only
are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks
critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid
accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's
pocket.
That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised –
like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and
the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The
evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is
keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.
And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.
Ripples on a lake
Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image
as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that
guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those
who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.
It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals,
that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to
identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those
structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on
individuals.
That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities –
celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the
ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.
News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could
not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.
Up against the screen
If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system
– neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they
offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX
screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a
complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth,
the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.
Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism
that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It
exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth
that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several
centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.
But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new
means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of
economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and
the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of
children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.
These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and
entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being
exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or
even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class
on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.
In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less
corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.
Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you
wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more
power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of
this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known
to mankind.
A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A
globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and
chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our
craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a
narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news
programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.
Assumptions of inevitability
Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves
that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we
established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use
of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.
Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are
no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how
inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a
vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.
David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the
context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to
assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and
without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being
aware that they are conspiring in the system.
When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the
movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected
for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society
– tend to respond to events in the same way.
Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball
bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will
form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first
layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably
produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect
crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.
The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the
real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key
resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control
that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a
class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour
needed to make them productive.
Our place in the pyramid
In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of
the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will
rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below.
They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently
superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.
And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain
and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase
profits and sell brands.
All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our
small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the
power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring
and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would
be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms
manufacturers.
And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that
distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed
to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist,
dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being
anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin,
pro-Assad, a Marxist.
None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the
system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is
easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians
and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.
In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the
moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real
danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back
from the screen, and see the whole picture.
Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election
that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and
trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit
Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a
decade ago?
Profit, not ethics
Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth
through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the
pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven
not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.
The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task
of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing
for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It
lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate
tomorrow.
And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group,
any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.
If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read
a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are
sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed
for us.
Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future
you wish for your grand-children.
"... The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto ..."
"... "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality" ..."
"... "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be." ..."
The creation of large enterprises gave rise not only to an organized labor movement, but to
a larger bureaucratic regulatory state with agencies intended to help stabilize and grow
capitalism while keeping the working class loyal to the social contract. Crisis in public
confidence resulted not only from economic recessions and depressions built into the economy,
but the contradictions capitalism was fostering in society as the benefits in advances in
industry, science and technology accrued to the wealthy while the social structure remained
hierarchical.
Ever since 1947 when the ideological father of neoliberalism Friedrich von Hayek called a
conference in Mont Pelerin to address how the new ideology would replace Keynesianism,
neoliberals have been promising to address these contradictions, insisting that eliminating the
social welfare state and allowing complete market dominationthat would result in society's
modernization and would filter down to all social classes and nations both developed and
developing. Such thinking is rooted in the modernization theory that emerged after WWII when
the US took advantage of its preeminent global power to impose a transformation model on much
of the non-Communist world. Cold War liberal economist Walt Rostow articulated the
modernization model of development in his work entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto , 1960. By the 1970s, neoliberals adapted Rostow's modernization
theory as their bible and the core of the social contract. (Evans Rubara, "Uneven
Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality"
The challenge for the political class has always been and remains to mobilize a popular base
that would afford legitimacy to the social contract. The issue for mainstream political parties
is not whether there is a systemic problem with the social contract intended to serve the
capitalist class, but the degree to which the masses can be co-opted through various methods to
support the status quo. "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on
higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've
moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a
hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has
grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social
contract might be."
Considering that Keynesianism and neoliberalism operate under the same social structure and
differ only on how best to achieve capital formation while retaining sociopolitical conformity,
the article above published in The Atlantic illustrates how analysts/commentators
easily misinterpret nuances within a social contract for the covenant's macro goals. A similar
view as that expressed in The Atlantic is also reflected in the New America
Foundation's publications, identifying specific aspects of Arthur Schlesinger's Cold War
militarist policies enmeshed with social welfare Keynesianism as parts of the evolving social
contract.
Identifying the social contract with a specific set of policies under different
administrations evolving to reflect the nuances of political class and economic elites,some
analysts contend that there is a European Union-wide social contract to which nationally-based
social contracts must subordinate their sovereignty. This model has evolved to accommodate
neoliberal globalism through regional trade blocs on the basis of a 'patron-client'integration
relationship between core and periphery countries.
Ágnes Heller's work is associated with Moral
Anthropology and "probing modernity's destiny for a non-predatory humanism that combines
the existential wisdom of ancient theory with modern values." [1]
Neomodernism accepts some aspects of postmodernism's critique of modernism, notably that
modernism elevated the world view of dominant groups to the status of objective fact, thereby
failing to express the viewpoint of " subaltern groups," such as women and ethnic
minorities. However, in her view, neomodernism rejects postmodernism as:
Unscientific: the ability of science to generate useful knowledge cannot be waved away as
" scientism ".
Journalism: as not giving any explanation as to how or why things happen.
Local: as being unable to recognise patterns that occur across time or location.
Unverified: as lacking any validation process, and therefore proceeding by fad and
hierarchy.
Victor Grauer
In 1982, Victor Grauer attacked "the cult of the new," and proposed that there had arisen a
"neo-modern" movement in the arts which was based on deep formal rigor, rather than on "the
explosion of pluralism." [2]
His argument was that post-modernism was exclusively a negative
attack on modernism, and had no future separate from modernism proper, a point of view which is
held by many scholars of modernism. [2]
Carlos
Escudé
In "Natural Law at War", a review essay published on 31 May 2002 in The Times Literary
Supplement (London, TLS No. 5174), Carlos Escudé wrote: "Postmodern humanity faces a
major challenge. It must solve a dilemma it does not want to face. If all cultures are morally
equivalent, then all human individuals are not endowed with the same human rights, because some
cultures award some men more rights than are allotted to other men and women. If, on the other
hand, all men and women are endowed with the same human rights, then all cultures are not
morally equivalent, because cultures that acknowledge that 'all men are created equal' are to
be regarded as 'superior,' or 'more advanced' in terms of their civil ethics than those that do
not." Escudé's brand of neomodernism contends with "politically-correct intellectuals
who prefer to opt for the easy way out, asserting both that we all have the same human rights
and that all cultures are equal."
Andre Durand and Armando Alemdar
Published their own Neomodernist Manifesto in 2001. The Neomodern Manifesto posits criteria
for a revitalised approach to works of art founded on history, traditional artistic
disciplines, theology and philosophy. Durand's and Alemdar's Neomodernism views art as an act
of expression of the sublime; in Neomodern painting as a representation of the visual
appearance of things with correspondence to the physical world understood as a model for
beauty, truth, and good. Neomodern works of art via mimesis interpret and present the universe
and man's existence, in line with the belief that the reality we live is but a mirror of
another universe that can only be accessed through inspiration and imagination.
Gabriel Omowaye
Gabriel Lolu Omowaye, in his speech 'A new challenging time' to a group of college students
in Nigeria, in 2005, took a different approach to neomodernism. He viewed neomodernism as a
political philosophy that became more prominent in the early 21st century. To him, it involves
common goal and joint global effort - universalism - to address arising global challenges such
as population growth, natural resources, climate change and environmental factors, natural
causes and effects, and health issues. Omowaye posited that political will is the major driver
of economic necessities. As a result, he added that neomodernism involves limited
government-regulated liberalism along with high drive innovation and entrepreneurship, high
literacy rate, progressive taxation for social equity, philanthropism, technological
advancement, economic development and individual growth. He perceived the quest for equal
representation of men and women in the neomodern era as a strong signal for advent of
postmodernism. So also, the quest for youths engagement in resourceful and rewarding ways
especially in governance, peace building and self-productivity has not taken a formidable shape
than it is at this time. As far as he was concerned, he believed most of these challenges were
not adequately tackled in preceding eras and the arising challenges thus stated were not
prepared for and that cause for change in mentality and thinking which the neomodern era is
providing for solutions to the era's challenges, with a prospective view to global stability
and social inclusion. His philosophical thought premised on a fact that new times require new
approaches from new reasonings, even if some applicable ideas or methologies could be borrowed
from the past, an acute form of paradigm-shift.
Omowaye believed in idealism as guiding realism and in turn, realism as defining idealism.
Moral concepts cannot be wished away from social norms, but evolving social trends dissipate
morality in form of religion and logical standards and adheres to current norms in form of
'what should be'. Consequently, the manner at which 'what should be' is driven at in the modern
and postmodern eras, being widely accepted became 'what is'. The manner at which the damage of
the new 'what is' is hampering development process in the form of higher mortality rate and
decadence of cultural good, calls to question the ideology behind the norms that are less
beneficial to a wider society in form of globalization. The world as a whole through
technological advancement became a global community particularly, in the 21st century. Former
Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan then stated that the "suffering anywhere
concerns people everywhere". Champions of neomodern age such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson
in the field of philanthropy expounded their vision to encompass the global community in social
good such as alleviating poverty, eradicating diseases, enhancing literacy rates and addressing
climate changes.
Technological advancement of the neomodern era however has its downturns in that it added to
the decadence in cultural good such that people everywhere, especially high number of youths
follow the trends in the new 'what is', which include social celebrities in the form of
dressing, sexual activities, extravagancies, and less interest in learning and even, working
but more interest in making money. Money became a value-determinant than utility. This brought
about frauds in various sectors. This latter aspect is not limited to youths but even company
executives, and politicians of many societies. Technological advancement has made privacy less
safer for intrusion and people more safer for protection. The supposedly good of technological
advancement in the neomodern era has included whistle blow such as Wikileaks' Julian Assange.
The more good has been in the level of innovations and innovators it has sprung up such as
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and easier business models and broader social connectivity. This
latter part has lessened more amity in immediate environment and many people tend to live more
in the virtual world neomodern technological advancements have created.
Neomodernism checks more into the current relative way of living of people and the society
to correct necessary abnormalities and to encourage virtues and values within the global
community in the 21st century.
In furtherance, Gabriel Omowaye's view of neomodernism was that knowledge comes from
learning and experience, and wisdom primarily from intuition. Knowledge is a variable of set
occurrences of that which happens to a man and that which a man seeks to know. Knowledge is
vital and good for discretion but a minor part of discernment wherein what is known might not
be applicable. Intuition is a function of the mind and the mind, not seen, and yet unknown to
the carrier, is a function of what put the thoughts, ideas and discretion in it. Wisdom without
knowledge is vague, and knowledge without wisdom, unworthy. Wisdom perfects knowledge, and in
the absence of either, the sole is delusory.
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris
Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep
sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A
place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation
don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where
the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious,
empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with
making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.
Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's
shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene
in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding
a cinder block."
Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he
was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into
my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much
as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.
For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial
profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that
captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison,
probation, and dismal job prospects...."
US neocons and neolibs behave like a wounded animal, or cornered rats.
Notable quotes:
"... Ironically, the new neocon-shaped think tank alliance is no more interested in what it claims to want, namely democracy, than its former Soviet rulers were. AEI has attacked Britain's decision to leave the European Union as symptomatic of "populist attacks on traditional structures of international affairs such as the EU and international trade regimes." It is in this context, we are told, that NATO has "appeared to be a second-rate concern" and that the globalization that "ushered in unprecedented worldwide growth" has been placed in peril. ..."
"... Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals? Presumably it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban ..."
"... All AEI and CAP have done is to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values." This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
"... What's new about the AEI/CAP "partnership of peril," however, is the degree of collaboration taking place and the unmistakable whiff of "never Trump" among their scholars and writers. ..."
"... This recalls all too vividly the Soviet practice of purging "undemocratic" -- that is, uncongenial -- governments while taking over Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. Today it's an establishment think tank world where governments elected fairly by their people are declared not democratic enough. ..."
"... Curiously, they don't find mass surveillance by the NSA, militarization of the police, permanent war, or the kind of government-imposed humiliations we experience in airports these days to be the least bit "authoritarian", all of them byproducts of incompetent or treacherous neocon and neoliberal control-freaks. ..."
"... They're still pretending they don't get it. Populists aren't the problem. Populists reacted to the problem. The problem is the staggering damage that neocons and neoliberals have done to the West. The problem is how to rid ourselves of them. ..."
Two big Washington think tanks have teamed up to
defend democracy against an 'assault on the transatlantic community.' For several months,
an alliance has been forming between the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP). It's the sort of kumbaya not witnessed
since wartime Washington a decade ago.
A press release from CAP on May 10 blares: "CAP and AEI Team up to Defend Democracy and
Transatlantic Partnership." The same joyous tidings accompanied a
public statement issued by AEI on July 31, which stressed that the alliance was meant to
resist "the populist assault on the transatlantic community" for the purpose of "defending
democracy."
Although, according to Vikram Singh, a senior fellow at CAP, the two partners "often
disagree on important policy questions," they have been driven together "at a time when the
character of our societies is at stake." This burgeoning cooperation underscores that "our
commitment to democracy and core democratic principles is stronger than ever." Since both
documents fling around the terms "democracy" and "liberal democracy" to justify a meddlesome
foreign policy, we may safely assume that the neocons are behind this project. Neocons for some
time now have prefixed their intended aggressions with "democracy" and "liberal democracy" the
way the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs during the 16th and 17th centuries stuck the word "holy"
into the names of their wartime alliances. Closer to our time, communist governments favored
the use of "people's democracy" to indicate that they were the good guys. Presumably the
neocons have now picked up this habit of nomenclature.
Ironically, the new neocon-shaped think tank alliance is no more interested in what it
claims to want, namely democracy, than its former Soviet rulers were. AEI has attacked
Britain's decision to leave the European Union as symptomatic of "populist attacks on
traditional structures of international affairs such as the EU and international trade
regimes." It is in this context, we are told, that NATO has "appeared to be a second-rate
concern" and that the globalization that "ushered in unprecedented worldwide growth" has been
placed in peril. Leaving aside other critical
analyses of globalism that call into question AEI's enthusiasm for neoliberal economics,
the more relevant question is: why is it "undemocratic" for a nation to vote in favor of
leaving the EU? And for that matter, why is it "undemocratic" for countries to reconsider their
membership in NATO?
Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals? Presumably it's the right-of-center
governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as personified by favorite leftist whipping boy
Viktor Orban . Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing
with its villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue
different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and
respect the rule of law." It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland,
and other right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have
disrespected their countries' legal traditions.
Fortunately our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to
impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and
misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is to take a
multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's cyberthreats,
putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and nuclear proliferation
-- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about Orban's "illiberalism" and
"sharing our values." This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever
its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from
whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."
For those who wonder what AEI, as a supposedly right-of-center foundation, is doing hanging
out with CAP, such hobnobbing between Republican policy foundations and left-of-center tanks
has been going on for a while. In December 2015, AEI and Brookings both proudly announced their
cooperation in drafting a poverty
program that emphatically diverged from the one proposed by then-candidate Trump. Both
foundations called for, among other reforms, raising the minimum wage and greater government
guidance for poor families.
What's new about the AEI/CAP "partnership of peril," however, is the degree of
collaboration taking place and the unmistakable whiff of "never Trump" among their scholars and
writers. It would also appear that as the price of collaboration, AEI has been required to
join its more leftist partner in going after democratically elected right-of-center political
leaders in Europe. This recalls all too vividly the Soviet practice of purging
"undemocratic" -- that is, uncongenial -- governments while taking over Eastern Europe at the
end of the Second World War. Today it's an establishment think tank world where governments
elected fairly by their people are declared not democratic enough.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the
author of 13 books, most recently Fascism:
Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . 20 Responses to Neocons and Liberals Join
Forces to Fight Populism
"Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?"
Curiously, they don't find mass surveillance by the NSA, militarization of the police,
permanent war, or the kind of government-imposed humiliations we experience in airports these
days to be the least bit "authoritarian", all of them byproducts of incompetent or treacherous
neocon and neoliberal control-freaks.
Which is why the normal mind guffaws at the though of neocons and neoliberals banding
together to fight "authoritarianism".
They're still pretending they don't get it. Populists aren't the problem. Populists
reacted to the problem. The problem is the staggering damage that neocons and neoliberals have
done to the West. The problem is how to rid ourselves of them.
I am not really surprised. What goes on in Eastern Europe is controversial and it will catch
attention of all sides. Hungary and Poland are peripheries of a bigger political-economic area,
so they will have to take this into account
What's at stake for both think tanks is the continuance of US global hegemony, whether for its
own sake or as an essential tool to prop up Israel. Ironically, the same US ideological
"family" promoted the very populism they are now condemning for the purpose of breaking up the
very same EU whose possible demise they now regard as a disaster! Equally, Professor Gottfried
and his VDare friends themselves peddle the anti-EU/pro-Putin line and are therefore in no
position to criticize the two think tanks for promoting "a meddlesome foreign policy". Indeed,
the way in which Professor Gottfried takes a position in the article for or against this or
that European government is a perfect example of his belief in a "meddlesome foreign policy".
He just doesn't like the particular form of meddling that the think tanks are proposing.
Foreign affairs and domestic policy are intertwined in the hostility to populism. AEI supports
quasi-open borders, so no surprise that they view populism as a scourge.
A pro-populist strategy, specifically on the immigration front, suggests itself if we
distinguish between Deep State-compatible immigration *restrictionism* and Deep
State-incompatible immigration *patriotism*. The latter is a form of populist nationalism.
(That phrase isn't redundant because there can surely be non-populist forms of nationalism.)
For the former, note that the Deep State can, if anything, operate better in a society without
continual ethnic minority- pleading.
Jeff Sessions is an immigration restrictionist; Stephen Miller is an immigration
patriot.
The think tank anti-populism is part of the Deep State's effort to ensure that the Mueller
investigation go forward as the best way of hindering Trump's populist instincts and the
policies that it fears will flow from them.
My initial reaction to the headline and first few sentences was: "They are frightened. Good!"
Since the first order of any organization is to survive, no matter what, each is now abandoning
its original (stated) purpose to align with the other. "The Populists are coming! The Populists
are coming!"
I think it's funny using terms like "liberal", "neo-liberal", "neo-conservative". They are all
ideologies whose fundamental motive is to maximize corporate profits at the expense of the
working American. There's no reason to distinguish between them.
" why is it "undemocratic" for a nation to vote in favor of leaving the EU? And for that
matter, why is it 'undemocratic' for countries to reconsider their membership in NATO?"
The documents don't say these things are undemocratic. The documents claim that
authoritarian populists attack international cooperation.
"It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other
right-of-center European governments have disrespected their countries' legal traditions."
They have. If you put "Viktor Orban" and "Poland" in the search box on their website you'll
find it.
There has been no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans in my six decades.
Trump was a breath of fresh air although he hasn't moved far enough to repudiate the
establishment.
Laughing. Sure, until they want to adovcate for another regime change campaign, then it will
about people, for people all day long to get them on board.
Until then they won't be happy until the US reflects asian caste systems of social
polity.
In addition to putting Mr. Orban's "illiberalism" in mocking quotes, this melange of
conspiracy mongering finds yet more sinister neocon plotting in the AEI/Hudson connection --
which, if you follow Gottfried's link, turns out to surprisingly free of Soviet-era purges,
even though it departs from anything proposed by The Stable Genius in Chief.
If the author doesn't think left-wing critics of globalism (Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders,
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Latin American "pink" revolutionaries -- well, reformists -- and
the anti-WTO/IMF/World Bank anti-globalists, among others), he's fooling himself. It was the
farther left, after all, and the unions who often led the fights to vote against joining first
the Eurozone and then the EU, and who have opposed the American elite's various free trade
deals, forcing previous deals between neo-liberals and free market conservatives (e.g., NAFTA,
Clinton and the GOP).
Soooo You think White Identitarian populism is good for the WEST see History. Ha! Whats coming
down the PIKE is more wars, conflicts, tribalism, and DEATH. And this is just the Western
Nations (Whites). Populism is not Racial Idealism. Poor whites CONNED again, like always. Good
Fences make better neighbors, and NIMBY!
Neocons and liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
-- Globalism
-- open borders
-- anti-Russia, Iran
-- American hegemony which means endless wars
-- support for gay marriage
-- anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues aren't
as clearcut anymore.
So the people who gave us an America of 'Your Papers, Please!!' and 'Shut Up and Bend Over' are
getting worried about the threat of authoritarianism.
Poor babies.
They want their "democracy" back, don't you know, with its black sites, endless wars, its
torture and fiat assassination regime, its hate speech laws, its warrantless surveillance
programs, and the highest incarceration rates in the world.
I suspect you're an academic with tenure already in the bag notwithstanding your way of
talking. So tell me, how is the anti-White identitarianism going in South Africa, for the
average non-white South African? And why is the anti-White government failing so miserably?
"... In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States," Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in." ..."
"... Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business." ..."
"... Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism," he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society." ..."
"... Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage. ..."
"... We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. ..."
"... While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion? How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge doesn't really get us anywhere. ..."
"... Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are constantly on the defensive. ..."
"... That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts; it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich. ..."
"... So, what should replace corporate capitalism -- socialism, distributism, non-corporate capitalism, what? ..."
Donald Trump, during a recent stop on his "Anarchy in the UK" tour, argued that the mass influx of immigrants into Europe is causing
Great Britain and other nations to "lose their culture." The fear of cultural dilution and transformation as a consequence of shifting
demographics is widespread, and it resonates in the United States, too, especially among those who support the current president.
Stephen Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and other popular right-wing figures have warned of threats to national identity in an American
context, contending that Mexicans will not assimilate and that Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy and secular governance.
Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with the outrage
that often accompanies new arrivals. Nearly every ethnic group, from the Italians to the Chinese, has been the target of political
and social hostility. It is an old story, but one worth telling, and it is an old debate, but one worth having. Border sovereignty,
even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and
not to be easily dismissed.
The current conversation about traditionalism, national identity, and cultural preservation, however, is so narrow to render it
counterproductive and oblivious. For those truly worried about the conservation of traditional culture, to focus solely, or even
primarily, on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut.
Rather than asking whether American culture is at risk of ruination, it is more salient to inquire, after decades of commercialization,
Madison Avenue advertising onslaughts, the erasure of regional differences, and the "Bowling Alone" collapse of community, whether
America even has a culture.
In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During
Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States,"
Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in."
Prophesizing with his pen that democratic structures and procedures would prove insufficient to cultivate a truly democratic culture,
Whitman likened the American obsession with commercial conquest and pecuniary gain to a "magician's serpent that ate up all the other
serpents." Americans, Whitman warned, were dedicating themselves to creating a "thoroughly-appointed body with no soul."
When Whitman wrote the essay in question -- "Democratic Vistas" -- the United States had open borders and immigrants freely entered
the "new world" for reasons of freedom and financial ambition. Even if they attended churches in their native languages and lived
in ethnic enclaves, they often found that they could matriculate into the mainstream of Americana through pursuit of the "American
dream," that is, hope for monetary triumph. Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which
is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business."
Capitalism is a formidable engine, enabling society to advance and allowing for high standards of living. But to construct an
entire culture around what Coolidge identified as "buying, selling, investing, and prospering," especially when capitalism becomes
corporate and cronyist, is to steadily empty a culture of its meaning and purpose.
Few were as celebratory over the potential for meaning and purpose in American culture as Whitman, who drew profound inspiration
from America's natural beauty and regional diversity. So what force was most responsible for the widespread desecration of America's
own Garden of Eden? All arguments about immigration aside, changing demographics did not transform the country into the planetary
capital of asphalt and replace its rich terrain with the endless suburban sprawl of office complexes, strip malls, and parking lots.
The reduction of the American character to a giant Walmart and the mutation of the American landscape, outside of metropolitan areas,
to the same cloned big box stores and corporate chains is not a consequence of immigration.
The degradation of the American arts and the assault on history and civics in public school and even higher education curricula
is not the result of immigrants flooding American streets. Amy Chua has argued quite the opposite when it comes to America's increasingly
imbecilic and obscene pop culture. Many immigrant families try to keep their children away from the influence of reality television,
the anti-intellectual reverence for celebrities, and the vigilant commercialization of every aspect of life.
The same cultural killer is responsible for all the assaults on American identity visible as daily routine, from environmental
destruction to the endangerment of independent retailers and "mom and pop" shops. That culprit is corporate capitalism. It is a large
entity that, like any killer, justifies its death toll with dogmatic claims of ideology. "Progress," everyone from the owner of the
local diner to the out-of-work art teacher is told, has no room for you.
In his song "The West End," John Mellencamp gives an angry account of the disappearance of a small town:
For my whole life
I've lived down in the West End
But it sure has changed here
Since I was a kid
It's worse now
Look what progress did
Someone lined their pockets
I don't know who that is
Progress, as Mellencamp succinctly captures in song, often comes at someone else's expense, and translates to enrichment for the
few who benefit.
Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism,"
he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense
of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society."
The irony Lasch describes is tragic. A culture of corporate capitalism demands conformity, and most people cooperate. But because
its center is hollow, few people feel any sense of connection to each other, even as they parrot the same values. It is no wonder
that most forms of rebellion in the United States are exhibitions of stylized individualism -- inspiring theater and often enlivening
to observe, but politically fruitless.
Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping
mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage.
Those concerned about tradition and cultural longevity can lament immigration and condemn "open borders." But if they are serious
about American identity, they should begin and end with the villainous corporate enterprise that has waged war on it since the late
19th century.
Whatever culture remains in this country can often be found in the places where people still maintain at least a symbolic link
with their immigrant roots.
Many of the immigrants came to the dream of America believing the myth. That they could be anything hard work would bring them,
regardless of rank or class of birth, title, family name, or religious prejudice. For the most part, this was sufficiently true
that they prospered. They became "us". This [perhaps naive] belief in the dream made most of them, and their children, our most
loyal and law-abiding citizens.
It was indeed the robber barons of the 19th century that pushed us down the path of self-destruction.
I feel vindicated. Some years ago, Rod Dreher pilloried me for being obsessed with how destructive corporate capitalism had become
to American culture, values and social cohesion. I think his epiphany came, when supposedly "conservative" big business turned
out to be on the other side in the culture wars.
I hear you, Mr. Masciotra. I'm not especially fond of large for-profit corporations. But they wouldn't occupy monopolistic positions
and enjoy rapacious profits and latitude for enormous misdeeds if the public were firmly opposed to that sort of thing. Americans
generally love a winner, even if the "winning" is fraudulent or coerced, as long as they personally aren't coerced or defrauded.
It's all about the money, or at least the belief that the money might come.
Thank you for this refreshing piece which points the finger to a place where those on the left and right can actually make a difference.
Of course, making any changes will require dismantling some the mythology of the American prosperity gospel, but it starts with
great articles like these.
The system didn't become corrupt in the 80s, it's been that way for much longer. And there have been hustlers and " well meaning
" Corporate yes men making dishonest money off of their compatriots for centuries (everywhere, I might add).
So the question is, do we want to continue to encourage this behavior or do we dare to dream of another reality ?
Well crafted and thoughtful. Years ago, Walker Percy observed that America was unique among nations in that it was simultaneously
the most religious country and the most materialistic country in the world. Fast forward to 2018 and while religion appears to
be in decline "getting and spending" continues apace.
Agreed but lets be honest with ourselves. We have to go where the kindling is dry and abundant to start a proverbial fire. America
does have a culture. To see that all one need do is visit Nashville, the Ozarks or farm country in nebraska. Where there are still
people the culture survives. That is a stoical dispensation. The culture does go back to Hellenism but Americana does have it's
own ways. Go visit Europe for any amount of time or dare I say it Asia and American culture becomes obvious.
Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday that, in my opinion, best represents American culture and how it is different from
all else.
Corporate Capitalism has always been American culture and life. Basic Taylorism on the assembly line was over 100 years in which
men spent 50 -- 60 hours a week performing a single task very quickly.
What is American art? Would we consider Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley great American art and music? I do but the original reaction
of older Americans was 1950s R&R was complete degradation of music. (Some of the racial language was very colorful by good citizens.)
Or what Star Wars or Godfather. Or maybe the modern Marvel 'universe' has a degree of great pop art.
Certainly well argued but for one important element that has been omitted; one ingredient which bundles everything together into
one integrated picture. That necessary item can be summed with these two words, "buy in." Corporate capitalism would never hold
sway except for the acquiescence of the populace which wanting the quantity of commodities had gathered in the shopping malls
but now remain isolated in the front of their computer screens or cell phones.
Rather than there being the tyranny of the marketplace bringing forth this dominance of goods over people and the legerdemain
of monetized value displacing our organic relationship to the land, it is this anonymous accommodation to the denigration of the
high arts and the erosion to our culture which is the ultimate culprit.
In a word, it is the tyranny of the masses which pulls apart any endeavor at creating and sustaining a hierarchy of value rewarding
all enterprise which appeases public taste by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Fore it is through this tyranny that
capitalism has built its avaricious edifice.
Suffice it to say that the target "corporate capitalism" remains the straw man, that ethereal and empty concept devoid of blood
and sinews. Where then does one find the source to this dilemma but in that which is of both flesh and blood namely humanity.
The problem lies with the populace.
What is called for here is an awakening but not through a reckoning as that would only cause humanity to roll over and return
to its slumber. And if crisis and collapse serves not the catalyst for such an awakening what then will provide such an arousal?
Until such a time, we remain asleep and the institutions of our dream life will rule us.
Corporate capitalism is not the source. It is not even at the source. We are the source until such a time as we awaken.
excellent points. oh, and ironically (or not), from the Middle Ages (Europe) through the 19th century (American West), it was
not uncommon for a barber to also perform ad hoc surgery/medical procedures, or to share space with the town's 'doctor', so in
some instances it was prudent to go to the barbershop if shot
"Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with
the outrage that often accompanies new arrivals."
Apples and oranges. The welfare state didn't exist then, so it was assimilate or fail. 1/3 of all culturally similar to existing
US culture Europeans returned to Europe.
Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal
an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation and allow extremely
large cultural enclaves which are politically divisive as pointed out MANY years ago by the not exactly "right wing" former WH
press secretary for LBJ, Bill Moyers, in one of his many excellent documentaries.
We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. The
author paints this focus of the Trumpian and dissident right as exclusionary, but it is not; at the same time arguing for his
own exclusionary anti-capitalist platform. Quite frankly, I don't know what it's doing on TAC, but I will take the time to respond.
The criticism of anti-immigration on the right is a straw man argument. The dissident right is not merely anti-immigration,
it is more broadly anti-multiracialist. Many understand and agree with the author on the problems of capitalism, but also see
racial and cultural integration as an additional threat to the American tradition. His point about how the immigration (into America)
didn't cause the hellspace of suburbia is true, since only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate
well into society. However, he ignores the history of black empancipation and subsequent desegregation that led to massive internal
migration from the South into cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. There weren't always majority black, my friend. The
very real problems that this internal migration presented to ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods
in the 20th century were the driving force behind the suburban sprawl. We colloquially refer to this phenomenon as "white flight,"
and many on the left and the right see it as unjustified "racism."
The curious reader would do well to investigate this claim to see if maybe white flight might have actually been very justified,
maybe a gross historical injustice was done to those now ethnically cleansed communities, and maybe racial desegregation is partly
to blame for the author's perceived lack of (white) culture in America.
Thank you for reading.
"Capitalism" is cronyist by nature. "Capitalism" itself requires an extensive set of laws that benefit some economic arrangements
over others. Now the reason for this is because nations need development, and that means they need capital, and that means they
need to create laws that ensure that the people who have capital feel willing and confident enough to invest it in that country.
But once you've opened the pandora's box of bankruptcy laws, limit liability, and other "terms and conditions" of investment
and capital, you're going to have a system that lends itself to cronyism when you have no other counter-balancing power from labor.
My brilliant iPad just deleted my response. So, quickly, capitalism is partly curable by antitrust and protectionism, but proto-amnesty
mass immigration is not curable, and it more quickly distorts national identity than does capitalism, which takes a very long
time to alter society's frame. Mass immigration does that relatively quickly. Also, immigration has as many rackets as capitalism
does -- for the one, capital gains tax cuts, and for the other, H1-B visas.
only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate well into society
The immigration act of 1924 which choked off most immigration was about reducing white immigration. It didn't actually affect
Mexican immigration. The largest beneficiaries the post-1965 immigration laws have been Asian immigrants who everyone argues integrate
perfectly well.
ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods
Any of the residents of those neighborhoods in Chicago would have been quick to deny they were "ethnically homogeneous" because
they would have pointed out how they were mixed neighborhoods of Greeks, Poles, Slovenes, etc.
Its about time someone on this site placed at least 50% of the blame when it comes to demise of the American Middle Class as well
as ' culture ' -- ( such as it is seeing we have no well defined codified ' culture ' because we are and have been since the beginning
so diverse ) -- on the American Corpocracy .
But the fact is the other 50% of the blame must fall firmly upon the shoulders of the greedy speculators and investors convinced
every year should be a profitable year and they should of received next year's profits yesterday
Along with the American Consumer addicted to cheap goods 60% of which they have no need for nor ever use .
So what is the answer ? First we need to move towards a Responsible Capitalism rather than the Ayn Rand addled narcissist Hyper-
Capitalism rapidly approaching Anarcho -- Capitalism we're currently immersed in from the Oval Office on down
Second the American Consumer needs to accept paying what something is worth .. be it service , goods or food .. rather than
thinking the entire world is a discounted oyster at their beck and call
And Third .. with the onus once again falling firmly upon the shoulders of the discount addled American consumer . We need
to get over the theater of convenience shopping ( online ) and get back to supporting local businesses who pay taxes to our local
community and are in fact our neighbors
Problem is all of the above solutions require both compromise , authentic thought as well as discernment
None of which ( for the most part ) currently exists in this over polarized ' Collective Stupidity of America ' zeitgeist we're
firmly entrenched in
Lecture over . Donuts , bagels and coffee in the virtual break room .
English colonials brought to the American continent both English Law -- based on private property -- which has turned into Corporate
Market Capitalism (Citizens United, eh?), and the Enlightenment idea of the centrality of Individual Freedom, which has turned
into the rank Individualism of our current Me-Myself-and-I cultural ethos.
Democracy and a healthy culture, in my view, depend upon holding in balance the needs/desires/rights of both the Individual
and the broader Common Good. There now seems to be little left of a Social Covenant that includes all Americans, which is central
to a viable culture.
I'll say this when it comes it integration: people in the past weren't forced to integrate in the least. A friend of mine has
a grandmother that speaks Russian, only Russian, and no English. As long as she remained in her little enclave in the US, why
need to speak English? In my native Cincinnati the "Over the Rhine" neighborhood had beer gardens, German schools, German newspapers,
and German street signs. Only a fire and I am sure some Progressive 'encouragement' broke the neighborhood up.
White in America use to mean Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. To be Wet was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be an immigrant.
Dry was honest, hard working, and true. Wet was disorderly, murderous, and poor. Irish weren't white, Poles weren't white, and
the Italians most certainly weren't white.
My question is why are we poo pooing Latina values? Family centric, conservative, Catholic/Christian, and hard working (come
on, either immigrants are stealing our jobs or they are welfare leeches, pick one!). Their food is delicious and the music is
fun.
The latina vote should be the Republican vote if they would just get over themselves. Spanish is just as much a Romance language
as French or Italian. Get with the program, declare them white, and let's enjoy a super majority with taco Tuesday.
@BradD
Nothing is necessarily wrong with "Latin" values per se . The problem is with massive amounts of Illigeal immigration coming all
from one area. I'm sorry but integration and assimilation is extremely important, just look at Europe for an idea of what happens
to countries that don't integrate immigrants well.
Also, if "Latin" values are great and desirable then why would such a massive amount of people be bum rushing our southern
borders?
Can you please tell me one example of a country in Latin America that has been successful for an extended period of time? I
cannot even think of one. When people come in small waves they can integrate and learn the value of our institutions, laws, freedom,
liberty ect They basically become American w/ Latin heritage. When they come en mass, they keep their societies values a lot longer
and stay in enclaves a lot longer as well. As an example not too long ago I was in the southern part of Houston Texas and the
Galveston area and I cannot tell you the number of cars, houses and business that have the Mexican flag up instead of the USA
flag! That is all kinds of wrong to me. If Mexico is so great, than they should just move on back and set up shop there.
Ding, ding, ding
We have a winner here. America is promoted as merchant culture, bread or bombs. The peoole termed colonists were largely corporate
sponsored. So when people continue to arrive, they figure starting their store or buying the "right" things is American culture.
And for everything else, they just say, "We have our own, thank you."
While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't
come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing
more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion?
How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge
doesn't really get us anywhere.
I would be happy to defend free enterprise in America and would even credit the business and marketing practices in America
for inculcating customer service as a uniquely American trait. You can tell you're in America when people act politely and aim
to serve you -- even illiterate young people know this. Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from
the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning at you for having the nerve to have want of their services. And that's just
a side benefit. The main thing business does is finance the creation of culture at all levels. Any civilization's golden age followed
from societal prosperity, not from a more democratic and tasteful distribution of wealth.
If we're talking about the arts and influence, America is still the most dynamic in the world, being a great producer of movies,
music, books, and all the rest. Even the existence of a site like TAC should cause one to reflect on just how nice it is to live
in a country that permits open discourse and values quality writing and ideas -- and for no cost at all to the reader. We can
despair all we like of the decline of the Oscars, or the stupidity of modern art, or the pointlessness of postmodernist ideology,
but it says something that we can even have this conversation. I'm not sure other cultures, outside those in elite circles, even
think about this stuff.
Wow, something Fran Macadam and I agree on! Surely there is enough there for some bright politician to make a central platform
plank out of?
A number of commenters point out that this isn't just imposed on us, we also embrace it (or just succumbed to the propaganda/advertising).
Fixing the problem will require efforts to curb corporate power as well cultural change from the ground up to embrace real values
beyond just capitalism.
Re: Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal
an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation
The evidence, notably from language learning, shows that today's immigrants assimilate at about the same rate others did in
the past. And yes, you could hear other languages in the US in the past also. There were places in Detroit I remember in childhood
where all the signs were in Polish. Going farther back 19th century nativists were horrified that entire communities in the Midwest
spoke German. Early on, our eighth president, Martin Van Buren, grew up speaking Dutch in the Hudson Valley.
As for the welfare state, well, there were lots of mutual aid societies which provided help -- we were not a social Darwinist
nation. And don't forget the Civil War pensions to which a significant fraction of the population was entitled.
Mr. Mascriota tells us: "Border sovereignty, even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most
TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and not to be easily dismissed."
And yet, Mr. Mascriotra, last Sept 9th (2017) at "Salon" you wrote an article entitled "The case for open borders: Stop defending
DACA recipients while condemning the 'sins' of their parents":
"As an English instructor and tutor, I've met young men and women from Ethiopia, China and Nigeria, and I have taught students
whose parents emigrated from Mexico to the United States 'illegally.' If I were an insecure coward afraid to compete in a multicultural
society, and convinced my future children would become deadbeats without the full force of white privilege to catapult them into
success, I would advocate for the deportation of immigrant families similar to those of my students, and I would repeat mindless
bromides like 'America First' and 'Build that Wall.' One of the costs of racism, xenophobia, or any form of pathetic provincialism
is that freezes the prejudicial person in a permanent state of mediocrity President Donald Trump's decision to end DACA, and his
demand that Congress 'fix the' nonexistent 'immigration problem,' demonstrates a stunning streak of sadism, projecting yet another
signal to his rabid and anti-American base of closed-minded losers If the 'real Americans' are afraid to compete with immigrants
for jobs, prestige, or cultural authority, they only indict themselves as weak, self-entitled and easy to panic. In a word, 'snowflakes'.
A bureaucratic permission slip is trivial compared to the imperative of human freedom -- freedom that should transcend what are
largely artificial borders."
@Mr. Soprano: I think Baltimore was a special case as a Southern city (which it historically was up to maybe WW1, maybe WW2.)
Don't know its demographics pre-WW2 but I'd bet dollars to donuts it was substantially more black pre-WW1 than Chicago, which
was nearly all white up to about 1915 even though it was founded by a Francophone Black man Jean Baptiste Pont du Sable.
David Masciotra: Not sure what I think about the ironmongery in your left ear, but this piece is excellent. My only criticism
-- mild at that -- concerns the analogy in your third paragraph:
" to focus [our worries] on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut."
This article is timely, but only because its complaints are perennial. 'Twas ever thus.
Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian
and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are
constantly on the defensive.
That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts;
it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable
cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich.
A similar cycle applies to demographics. Today's scary outsider becomes tomorrow's stodgy insider, after they buy their way
in. I therefore second BradD's motion to declare Hispanics to be white; and Asians too.
All those disturbed by demographic transitions should contemplate this truism: that by the middle of next century every man,
woman and child now alive shall be dead, and replaced by people not born yet.
This includes you, which makes it personal. What a way to run a world! But if you can put up with 100% population turnover
by 2150, then language and skin tint seems (to me at least) a trivial detail.
***
Self-critique: The preceding analysis has a flaw, namely that this is not simply a 'commercial' culture; it is a 'capitalistic'
culture, which is the least free form of commercial culture.
Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning
at you for having the nerve to have want of their services.
Americans, in my experience, mistake lack of slavish over-friendliness as rudeness. I have realized this because I am a fairly
reserved kind of person, and "reserved" gets coded as "aloof" or "snobbish."
European retail still follows the "sole proprietor" model of service -- it's assumed that by shopping there you're effectively
entering someone else's home, and you must act accordingly. In the US, lacking a formal class system, the retail experience is
one coded towards allowing the customer to feel as though he is a noble with servants to attend on him that he can order around.
The store is selling that experience.
Related to this is why middle class and upper middle Americans are so upset by the DMV and the Post Office. It's the only place
where money does not buy them any better service, and they cannot use the threat of talking to the manager to have the service
personnel fired in order to get what they want.
America's customer service culture is probably one of our most culturally dysfunctional aspects, all rooted in middle class
insecurity.
If this were actually, a Conservative website, that valued Western ideals? Do you really believe such excuses or something outside
of myself like the "devil made me do it" will pass mustard with "God" or "St. Peter?"
I strongly endorse Jon's (much earlier comment). It is not corporations that ruin culture but we who demand what they give. Corporations
are just a convenient funding vehicle to produce goods. Yes they often mass market them. But it is we who like the marketing.
If we were appalled, or turned away and it ignored it, they would change. In the end, when the spiritual life is subordinate to
the material, our appetites and the corporations that serve them are a guaranteed outcome.
late to this thread but what is American identity? How is it different from let's say a Danish identity? I have a good number
of coworkers from other countries: Asians, South Americans, some Germans or Swedes. When I visit them, do you think I find their
homes, their families (or their priorities for that matter) different from that of born-here American? If so, I must have missed
it
Auguste Mayrat hit the nail on the head. This article is garbage. It's sad that so many commentators agree with it. America is
full of culture: pro and college sports, movies, TV shows, technology, books, music of all kinds all consumed throughout the world,
as people from all countries love and admire American culture. Find a country that produces more culture than America. You can't.
Churches and schools proliferate here. What's so bad about corporations? If you own an iPhone or a television or a car or shop
at the mall, or ride a plane or go on a cruise, you're a hypocrite to be against corporations. Corporations provide goods and
services that people want, not to mention jobs. The author of this piece is an intellectual lightweight, and those who agree with
his views are the type of blind sheep that communists find useful. The author neither specified what's bad about corporations,
nor provides any solutions. Can believe TAC publishes such drivel.
"... "While much of neoliberalism's rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives. Indeed, even the so-called free marketers in Australia can see alternatives." ..."
"... It's dogma is nothing but empty lies held up as flawed truth's and full of scoundrels who profit from its concomitant pain. ..."
"neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national
interests"
Its almost impossible to talk about a mining economy and a "free market" in the same
sentence, Richard. a mining economy is is synonymous with corruption, Dutch disease and
political grabs for cash etc. In the height of the 2009 GFC announced by kev07, unskilled
labourers in the pilbara were still earning $100/hr. Real estate prices for 3 bed shacks in
karratha were starting at $1million plus. The blue collar dominated pilbara area was
overwhelmed with greed fed by left politicians hiding behind socialist ideals. The reality
was that left wing economists recognized the "dutch disease" problem and their solution was
to flood the area with greedy blue collar workers who were blowing their enormous salaries on
prostitutes, alcohol and gambling in the hope that profits from the mining boom would be
flushed into other parts of the economy.
The solution? partially transition Australia's economy to an innovation driven economy
because innovation is linked to learning which is linked to stronger self esteem and self
efficacy in the community. an innovation driven econmy is the better way of promting social
development in the community and an innovation driven economy is the most effective way for
politicians to transition to the benefits of a "free market" driven economy.... the reality
is that transitioning to an innovation would require smacking the socialists over the back of
the head in the hope that aspiring socialists will respect the ideas and intellectual
property of others as opposed to continue to assimilate intellectual property in the name of
employment generation and the common good
I dont fear the potential rise of neoliberalism, although i understand that spruiking a
free market whilst talking about mining is ridiculous.
I fear the individuals who are have been talking about mining, and targeting/victimising the
non politically active conservatives for more than 2 decades in the name of socialism
"While much of neoliberalism's rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no
alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives. Indeed, even the
so-called free marketers in Australia can see alternatives."
Excellent article Richard, you have captured the ideology and its dogma quite
specularly.
It's dogma is nothing but empty lies held up as flawed truth's and full of scoundrels who
profit from its concomitant pain.
Examples from today's headlines and a few from last week:
In recent decades throughout Latin America, rulers have spoken and demanded 'reforms' as
essential to stimulate and sustain growth and foster equity and sustainability. The 'reforms'
involve implementing 'structural changes' which require large scale privatization to encourage
entrepreneurship and end state corruption; deregulation of the economy to stimulate foreign and
domestic investment; labor flexibility to 'free' labor markets and increase employment; and
lower business taxes. According to the reformers all this will lead to free markets and promote
democratic values.
Over the past thirty years, ruling elites in Latin America have carried out IMF and World
Bank structural reforms in two cyclical periods: between 1989-1999 and more recently between
2015-2018. In both cases the reforms have led to a series of major economic, political and
social deformations .
During the first cycle of 'reforms', privatization concentrated wealth by transferring
public means of production to oligarchs, and increased private monopolies, which deepened
inequalities and sharpened class divisions.
Deregulation led to financial speculation, tax evasion, capital flight and public- private
corruption.
'Reforms' deformed the existing class structure provoking social upheavals, which
precipitated the collapse of the elite led 'reforms' and the advent of a decade of nationalist
populist governments.
The populists restored and expanded social reforms but did not change the political and
economic 'deformations', embedded in the state.
A decade later (2015) the 'reformers' returned to power and restored the regressive free
market policies of the previous neo-liberal ruling elite. By 2018 a new cycle of class
conflicts flared throughout Brazil and Argentina, threatening to overturn the existing US
center free market order.
"... By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Squeezed: Why Our Families Can't Afford America ..."
"... You will not do as well as your parents ..."
"... Life is a struggle to keep up. Even if you achieve something, you will live in fear of losing it. America is not your land: it belongs to the ultra-rich. ..."
"... The Vanishing Middle Class ..."
"... Capital in the Twenty-First Century ..."
"... Global Wealth Report ..."
"... Professed as a right for individual freedom and empowerment, in reality it serves to suppress disobedience with shame. If you earn like shit -- it's gotta be because YOU are shit. Just try harder. Don't you see those OTHER kids that did well! ..."
"... I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme individualisation. ..."
"... die Plutonomisten und Bolshewisten! ..."
"... That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force that depress USA wages. ..."
"... We have been commodified since before we were even born, to the point where opportunities for what Lave and Wenger would call "legitimate peripheral participation" in the kinds of work that yield real, humane, benefits to our communities are scant to nonexistent for most of us. Something has gone deeply awry in this core social function at the worst possible time in human history. ..."
"... That was a wonderful post, very moving, thank you. These kind of testimonies are very important because they show the real human cost of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is truly a death cult. Please find an alternative to alcohol. Music, art, nature, etc. ..."
"... At least you are self aware. Most people are not. As for the Ship of Status, let it sink. Find a lifeboat where you feel comfortable and batten down for the Roaring (20)40s yet to come. Once you find something to work for, the bad habits will lose much of their hold on you. As long as you don't slide into alcoholism, you have a chance. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, the economic policy that is private sector "free market" driven, giving the owners of capital free, unfettered reign. Created by libertarians like Fredrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they sold it to the nation but failed to mention that little peccadillo about how privatization of government would usher in economic fascism. ..."
"... "An extreme form of laissez-faire individualism that developed in the writings of Hayek, Friedman and Nozick they are also referred to as libertarians. They draw on the natural rights tradition of John Locke and champion's full autonomy and freedom of the individual." ..."
"... What they meant was ECONOMIC freedom. They despise social freedom (democracy) because civil, labor, health, food safety, etc., rights and environmental protections put limits on their profits. ..."
"... The "maximizing shareholder value" myth turns people into psychopaths . The entire neoliberal economic policy of the past 40 years is based on the false assumption that self-interest is the driving evolution of humanity. We're not all psychopaths, turns out. We're social beings that have mainly used cooperation to get us through these thousands of years of existence. ..."
"... "If the IMF is to shake its image as an inward-looking, out-of-touch boys club, it needs to start taking the issue seriously. The effect of the male dominance in macroeconomics can be seen in the policy direction of the organisation: female economists are more likely to be in favour of Government-backed redistribution measures than their male counterparts. ..."
"... Of course, the parochial way in which economics is perceived by the IMF, as nothing more than the application of mathematical models, is nothing new. In fact, this is how mainstream economics frequently is taught in universities all over the world. Is it any wonder that the IMF has turned out as it is?" ..."
"... "Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so that they can go to work on Wall St. that there's no room in the course curriculum for the history of economic thought. ..."
"... So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media that are a travesty of what these people really said and if you don't read the history of economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and that's the way the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way. ..."
"... The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make people think that the economy is getting richer while the reality is they're getting poorer and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle class and the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them." ..."
"... "I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry 15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem." ..."
"... This is a stark and startling reality. This reality is outside the framework of understanding of economic struggle in America that is allowed by the corporate neoliberal culture/media. ..."
"... As the Precariat grows, having watched the .1% lie, cheat and steal – from them, they are more likely to also lie, cheat and steal in mortgage, employment and student loan applications and most importantly and sadly, in their dealings with each other. Everybody is turning into a hustler. ..."
"... Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the economy. ..."
"... "The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity of everyone else. ..."
"... The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with "capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy. ..."
"... The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society again. It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their loans. ..."
"... The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs ..."
"... An unexpected consequence of globalization is that a lot of people see how thing are done, elsewhere. ..."
"... Part of me doesn't feel sorry at all for the plight of middle-class Americans. When times were good they were happy to throw poor and working-class people under the bus. I remember when the common answer to complaints about factory closings was "you should have gotten an education, dummy." Now that the white-collar middle class can see that they are next on the chopping block they are finding their populist soul. ..."
The children of America's white-collar middle class viewed life from their green lawns and
tidy urban flats as a field of opportunity. Blessed with quality schools, seaside vacations and
sleepover camp, they just knew that the American dream was theirs for the taking if they hit
the books, picked a thoughtful and fulfilling career, and just, well, showed up.
Until it wasn't.
While they were playing Twister and imagining a bright future, someone apparently decided
that they didn't really matter. Clouds began to gather -- a "dark shimmer of constantly
shifting precariousness," as journalist Alissa Quart describes in her timely new book "
Squeezed:
Why Our Families Can't Afford America ."
The things these kids considered their birthright -- reputable colleges, secure careers, and
attractive residences -- were no longer waiting for them in adulthood.
Today, with their incomes flat or falling, these Americans scramble to maintain a semblance
of what their parents enjoyed. They are moving from being dominant to being dominated. From
acting to acted upon. Trained to be educators, lawyers, librarians, and accountants, they do
work they can't stand to support families they rarely see. Petrified of being pushed aside by
robots, they rankle to see financial titans and tech gurus flaunting their obscene wealth at
every turn.
Headlines gush of a humming economy, but it doesn't feel like a party to them -- and they've
seen enough to know who will be holding the bag when the next bubble bursts.
The "Middle Precariats," as Quart terms them, are suffering death by a thousand
degradations. Their new reality: You will not do as well as your parents . Life is
a struggle to keep up. Even if you achieve something, you will live in fear of losing it.
America is not your land: it belongs to the ultra-rich.
Much of Quart's book highlights the mirror image of the downwardly mobile middle class Trump
voters from
economically strained regions like the Midwest who helped throw a monkey wrench into
politics-as-usual. In her tour of American frustration, she talks to urbanites who lean liberal
and didn't expect to find themselves drowning in debt and disappointment. Like the
falling-behind Trump voters, these people sense their status ripped away, their hopes
dashed.
If climbing up the ladder of success is the great American story, slipping down it is the
quintessential tragedy. It's hard not to take it personally: the ranks of the Middle Precariat
are filled with shame.
They are somebodies turning into nobodies.
And there signs that they are starting to revolt. If they do, they could make their own mark
on the country's political landscape.
The Broken Bourgeoisie
Quart's book takes a sobering look at the newly unstable bourgeoisie, illustrating what
happens when America's off-the-rails inequality blasts over those who always believed they
would end up winners.
There's the Virginia accountant who forks over nearly 90% of her take home pay on care for
her three kids; the Chicago adjunct professor with the disabled child who makes less than
$24,000 a year; and the California business reporter who once focused on the financial
hardships of others and now faces unemployment herself.
There are Uber-driving teachers and law school grads reviewing documents for $20 an hour --
or less. Ivy Leaguers who live on food stamps.
Lacking unions, church communities and nearby close relatives to support them, the Middle
Precariats are isolated and stranded. Their labor has sputtered into sporadic contingency: they
make do with short-term contracts or shift work. (Despite the much-trumpeted low unemployment
rate, the New York Times
reports that jobs are often subpar, featuring little stability and security). Once upon a
time, only the working poor took second jobs to stay afloat. Now the Middle Precariat has
joined them.
Quart documents the desperate measures taken by people trying to keep up appearances,
relying on 24/7 "extreme day care" to accommodate unpredictable schedules or cobbling together
co-living arrangements to cut household costs. They strain to provide things like academic
tutors and sports activities for their kids who must compete with the children of the wealthy.
Deep down, they know that they probably can't pass down the cultural and social class they once
took for granted.
Quart cites a litany of grim statistics that measure the quality of their lives, like the
fact that a middle-class existence is now 30% more expensive than it was twenty years ago, a
period in which the price of health care and the cost of a four-year degree at a public college
nearly doubled.
Squeezed is especially detailed on the plight of the female Middle Precariat, like
those who have the effrontery to procreate or grow older. With the extra burdens of care work,
pregnancy discrimination, inadequate family leave, and wage disparities, (not to mention sexual
harassment, a subject not covered), women get double squeezed. For women of color, often
lacking intergenerational wealth to ease the pain, make that a triple squeeze.
The Middle Precariat in middle age is not a pretty sight: without union protection or a
reliable safety net they endure lost jobs, dwindled savings, and shattered identities. In one
of the saddest chapters, Quart describes how the pluckiest try reinvent themselves in their 40s
or 50s, enrolling in professional courses and certification programs that promise another shot
at security, only to find that they've been scammed by greedy college marketers and deceptive
self-help mavens who leave them more desperate than before.
Quart notes that even those making decent salaries in the United States now see themselves
barred from the club of power and wealth. They may have illiquid assets like houses and
retirement accounts, but they still see themselves as financially struggling. Earning $100,000
sounds marvelous until you've forked over half to housing and 30% to childcare. Each day is one
bit of bad luck away from disaster.
"The spectacular success of the 0.1 percent, a tiny portion of society, shows just how
stranded, stagnant, and impotent the current social system has made the middle class -- even
the 10 percent who are upper-middle class," Quart writes.
Quart knows that the problems of those who seem relatively privileged compared many may not
garner immediate sympathy. But she rightly notes that their stresses are a barometer for the
concentration of extreme wealth in some American cities and the widening chasm between the very
wealthy and everybody else.
The Dual Economy
The donor-fed establishment of both political parties could or would not see this coming,
but some prescient economists have been sounding the alarm.
In his 2016 book The Vanishing Middle Class ,
MIT economist Peter Temin detailed how the U.S. has been
breaking up into a "dual economy" over the last several decades, moving toward a model that
is structured economically and politically more like a developing nation -- a far cry from the
post-war period when the American middle class thrived.
In dual economies, the rich and the rest part ways as the once-solid middle class begins to
disappear. People are divided into separate worlds in the kinds of jobs they hold, the schools
their kids attend, their health care, transportation, housing, and social networks -- you name
it. The tickets out of the bottom sector, like a diploma from a first-rate university, grow
scarce. The people of the two realms become strangers.
French economist Thomas Picketty provided a stark formula for what happens capitalism is
left unregulated in his 2015 bestseller, Capital in the Twenty-First
Century . It goes like this: when the rate of return on the investments of the wealthy
exceeds the rate of growth in the overall economy, the rich get exponentially richer while
everyone becomes poorer. In more sensible times, like the decades following WWII, that rule was
mitigated by an American government that forced the rich pay their share of taxes, curbed the
worst predations of businesses, and saw to it that roads, bridges, public transit, and schools
were built and maintained.
But that's all a fading memory. Under the influence of political money, politicians no
longer seek a unified economy and society where the middle class can flourish. As Quart
observes, the U.S. is the richest and also the most unequal country in the world, featuring the
largest wealth inequality gap of the two hundred countries in the Global Wealth Report
of 2015.
Who is to Blame?
Over and over, the people Quart interviews tend to blame themselves for their situation --
if only they'd chosen a different career, lived in another city, maybe things wouldn't have
turned out this way. Sometimes they point the finger at robots and automation, though they
arguably have much
more to fear from the wealthy humans who own the robots.
But some are waking up to the fact it is the wealthy and their purchased politicians who
have systematically and deliberately stripped them of power. Deprivations like paltry employee
rights, inadequate childcare, ridiculously expensive health care, and non-existent retirement
security didn't just happen . Abstract words like deregulation and globalization
become concrete: somebody actually did this to you by promoting policies that leave you high
and dry.
As Quart indicates, understanding this is the first step to a change of consciousness, and
her book is part of this shift.
Out of this consciousness, many individuals and organizations are working furiously and
sometimes ingeniously to alter the negative trajectory of the Middle Precariat. Quart outlines
proposals and developments like small-scale debt consolidation, student debt forgiveness,
adequately subsidized day care, and non-traditional unions that could help.
America also has a track record of broad, fundamental solutions that have already proven to
work. Universal basic income may sound attractive, but we already have a program that could
improve the lot of the middle class if expanded: Social Security.
Right now, a worker stops having to pay Social Security tax on any earnings beyond $128,400
-- a number that is unreasonably low because the rich wish to keep it so. Just by raising that
cap, we could the lower the retirement age so that Americans in their 60s would not have greet
customers at Walmart. More opportunities would open up to younger workers.
The Middle Precariat could be forgiven for suspecting that the overlords of Silicon Valley
may have something other than altruism in mind when they tout universal basic income. Epic tax
evaders, they stand to benefit from pushing the responsibility for their low-paid workers and
the inadequate safety net and public services that they helped create onto ordinary
taxpayers.
Beyond basic income lies a basic fact: the American wealthy do not pay their share in taxes.
In fact, American workers pay
twice as much in taxes as wealthy investors. That's why infrastructure crumbles, schools
deteriorate, and sane health care and childcare are not available.
Most Americans realize that inequality has to be challenged through the tax code: a
2017 Gallup poll shows that the majority think that the wealthy and corporations don't pay
enough. Politicians, of course, ignore this to please their donors.
And so the Middle Precariat, like the Trump voters, is getting fed up with them.
From Depressed to Energized
Quart astutely points out that income inequality is being written into the law of the land.
Funded the efforts of billionaires like the Koch brothers, politicians have
altered laws and constitutions across the country to cement the dual economy through
everything from restricting voting rights to defunding public education.
Several Middle Precariats in Squeezed have turned to independent or renegade
candidates like Bernie Sanders who offer broad, substantial programs like debt-free college and
universal health care that address the fissures in their lives. They are listening to
candidates who are not afraid to say that markets should work for human beings, not the other
way around.
If Donald Trump's political rise "can be understood as an expression of the gulf between
middle-class citizens and America's ruling classes," as Quart observes, then the recent surge
of non-establishment Democratic candidates, especially democratic socialists, may be the next
phase of a middle class revolt.
Recent surprise victories in Pennsylvania and New York in the Democratic primaries by female
candidates openly embracing democratic socialism, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who
bested Democratic stalwart Joe Crowley by running for Congress on a platform of free Medicare
and public college tuition for all, may not be the blip that establishment Democrats hope. In
New York, democratic socialist Julia Salazar is looking to unseat long-time state senator
Martin Dilan. Actress
Cynthia Nixon , running against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, has just proclaimed herself
a democratic socialist and promises to raise taxes on the rich and boost funding for public
schools. Michelle Goldberg recently announced in the New York Times that "
The Millenial Socialists are Coming ," indicating the intense dislike of traditional
politics in urban centers. These young people do not think of things like debt-free college or
paid family leave as radical: they see it done elsewhere in the world and don't accept that it
can't be done in America.
Historically, the more affluent end of the middle class tends to identify with and support
the wealthy. After all, they might join their ranks one day. But when this dream dies, the
formerly secure may decide to throw their lot in with the rest of the Precariats. That's when
you have the chance for a real mass movement for change.
Of course, people have to recognize their common circumstances and fates. The urban denizens
of New York and San Francisco have to see what they have in common with middle class Trump
voters from the Rust Belt, as well as working class Americans and everybody else who is not
ultra-rich.
If the growing ranks of Precariats can work together, maybe it won't take a natural
catastrophe or a war or violent social upheaval to change America's unsustainable course of
gross inequality. Because eventually, something has to give.
I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme
individualization.
Professed as a right for individual freedom and empowerment, in reality it serves to
suppress disobedience with shame. If you earn like shit -- it's gotta be because YOU are
shit. Just try harder. Don't you see those OTHER kids that did well!
Part of the blame is on New Age with it's quazi-buddhist narrative: basically, everything
is perfect, and if you don't feel it that way, it's because you are tainted with envy or
weakness.
Thus what is in fact a heavily one-sided battle -- is presented as a natural order of
things.
I believe we need a new framework. A sort of mix of Marx and Freud: study of the
subconscious of the social economy. The rich not just HAPPEN to be rich. They WANT to be
rich. Which means that in some way they NEED others to be poor.
Of course, I'm generalizing. And some rich are just really good at what they do. These
rich will indeed trickle down, they will increase the well-being of people. But there are
others. People working in insurance and finance. And as their role in the economy grows -- as
does their role in politics, their power. They want to have more, while others would have
less.
But behind it all are not rational thoughts, not efficiency, but psychological trauma,
pain of the soul. Without addressing these matters, we will not be able to change the
world.
I'm sorry if my thoughts are somewhat fragmented. It's just something I've been thinking
of a lot since I started reading NC, discovering MMT and heterodox approaches in general.
The problem is the perception the Democratic Party is reliable as a partner. The culture
wasn't a problem in 2008 when the Democratic candidate was perceived as wanting to raise
taxes, pass universal health care, and end the wars.
====Part of the blame is on New Age with it's quazi-buddhist narrative: basically,
everything is perfect, and if you don't feel it that way, it's because you are tainted with
envy or weakness.
That's where I first heard of this theoretical link. I think that it's flat out right and
post-WWII psycho-babble has seeped into society in pernicious ways (along with everything
else, breakdown of nuclear family, etc). Unfortunately, can't prove it like Euclid.
"A sort of mix of Marx and Freud"– the " Frankfurt School " is a start, with the
realization of "the culture industry" as force majeure in the "heavily one-sided
battle." And ditto recommendation of "The Century of the Self."
Responding to Sergey P: I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme
individualisation.
There are really only two alternatives to individualism. There is Durkheim-ian "society,"
in which we are all in this together – interdependent. I think this is still an
appropriate lens for a lot of smaller cities and communities where people really do still
know each other and everyone wants the community to thrive. And, of course, it is the only
way to think about human society nested inside a finite Earth. But it can only work on a
larger scale through mediating "institutions" or "associations." All the evidence shows,
consistent with the piece, that precariousness by itself weakens social institutions –
people have less time and money to contribute to making them work well.
And then there is Marx-ian "class." Which is to say, we are not all individuals but we are
not all of one group. There are different groups with different interests and, not
infrequently, the interests of different groups are opposed – what is good for one is
bad for another – and if power is unequal between groups (either because some groups as
groups have more power than others or because individuals with more power all have the same
group affinity), then powerful groups will use that power to oppress others. In that case,
the only remedy is to try to systematically empower the weak and/or disempower the strong.
This also requires collective action – institutions, associations, government –
and it is again noted that our collective institutions, most notably unions, have been
seriously weakened in the last 40-60 years.
The real world doesn't always fit into neat categories. Trump's America First is an appeal
to the "society" of USAmerica. Maybe there will be some improvements for working people. But
the argument in the piece, perhaps not as clearly stated as I would like, is that the
interests of the (former) middle class – as a class – have diverged from the
interests of the upper class. Changing that equation requires collective action.
Naturally one must quote the great Frank Herbert from his novel Dune:
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them
free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
'We already have a program that could improve the lot of the middle class if expanded:
Social Security.'
Never mind expanding it -- even the existing Social Security program is less than 20%
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its trustees. Scandalously, these trustees owe
no fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. Old Frank wanted pensioners to be forever dependent on
his D party. How did that work out for us?
Take a look at the transmittal letter for the 2018 trustees report, released last month.
Two public trustee positions are "VACANT," just as they were in last year's transmittal
letter:
Just above these blank spaces is the signature of one Nancy Berryhill, "Acting
Commissioner of Social Security." But wait --
On March 6, 2018, the Government Accountability Office stated that as of November 17,
2017, Berryhill's status violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the time a
position can be filled by an acting official; "[t]herefore Ms. Berryhill was not authorized
to continue serving using the title of Acting Commissioner after November 16." Berryhill
declared, "Moving forward, I will continue to lead the agency from my position of record,
Deputy Commissioner of Operations."
By June 5th, Berryhill was still impersonating the Acting Commissioner, legally or
not.
Summing up, even the trustees' one-page transmittal letter shows that Social Security is
treated as a total and complete Third World joke by the US federal government.
Yeah, yeah. Gubmint can't do nuthin' rite. How about we take our government back from the
plutocrats and set SS on solid footing again. There are no impediments other than the will of
the people to use our power. Now that the Boomers are moving off all sorts of things, like
'thinking', and 'logic', will become prevalent again.
Never mind expanding it -- even the existing Social Security program is less than 20%
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its trustees. Scandalously, these trustees owe
no fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. Old Frank wanted pensioners to be forever dependent on
his D party. How did that work out for us?
Correct, then the system will eventually be totally reliant on taxes coming in. According
to 2011 OASDI
Trustees Report
Beginning in 2023, trust fund assets will diminish until they become exhausted in 2036.
Non-interest income is projected to be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 77
percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2036, and then to decline to
74 percent of scheduled benefits in 2085
The benefits are never going to go completely away, the benefits will decrease if nothing
is done. Things can be done to change this, such as an increasing the the cap on earnings,
raising new revenues, etc. This is not exactly an "end of the world" scenario for SSI.
Also, no one complained when the excess SSI tax collected "Social security trust fund" was
used to keep interest rates down by purchasing Government bonds.
The whole tax angle is a complete red herring. Raising the cap is not the answer.
FICA is "the most regressive tax" the country imposes. Eliminating FICA altogether, doing
away with the "trust fund" and the pretense that SS is not the government taking care of it's
elderly citizens but is workers taking care of themselves, is the answer. If the emphasis in
Quart's book on the rise of a new democratic socialism means anything, it means reconciling
with the notion that it is OK for the government to take measures to ensure the welfare of
the people. Pay-as-you-go SS can become simply the re-assumption of our collective
responsibility to take care of our own, as a society, not as individuals.
I would be fine with that if I could trust the Federal government to do the right thing.
The problem is that we have too many people invested in the system, and I don't trust the
Federal government to not screw people over in a new system. You know what will happen, they
will set up a two tiered system where people over a certain age will keep their benefits, and
the new people will get a system that is completely crapified or means tested.
Well-put The only way to eliminate the constant refrain of "but SS is (insert blithering
comment on entitlement spending), is to shift resources to people rather than armies for the
SuperRich.
So we should just ignore the fact that our own Govt has "borrowed" $2.8 Trillion, at
least, from the SS Trust Fund so far and can't (won't) pay it back?
This "borrowing" should be illegal and I believe that "Old Frank" would be rolling in his
grave if he knew that would happen.
And I sincerely doubt his intentions were to get SS on the books in order to keep us
beholden to the Dem Party. And if that were true it is obvious that his party doesn't agree.
If they did they wouldn't be assisting in gutting the program.
The whole concept of creating and maintaining a multi-trillion dollar "trust fund" was
irrevocably flawed. When the surplus payroll taxes were "invested" in government bonds, they
entered the government's general fund and were promptly spent. The money is gone. That's why
it's on the books as a debt owed to the Social Security administration. There are no actual
assets behind the fund. It's just one part of the government owing money to another part of
the government.
However, what would the alternative have been? Investing in the crap shoot known as the US
stock market? No thanks. Or setting the funds aside in a bank account, where they would cease
circulating through the economy? That wouldn't have worked either, as all dollars in
circulation would have eventually ended up there, causing massive deflation.
None of these are workable. We should have gone on a strictly pay-as-you-go basis. If
payroll taxes generated more revenue than was necessary, we should have cut payroll taxes
and/or raised benefits. And if they fall short, we should raise payroll taxes and/or cut
benefits.
Today, we cover about 95% of benefits with payroll taxes. The remainder comes from "trust
fund redemptions", where general fund monies are given to the SSA to cover the shortfall.
Given that our government is already running a deficit, this means more borrowing (or
money-printing, depending on how you look at things).
When the "trust fund" is depleted, but SSA will lack the legal authority to claim any more
general fund monies, but it would be quite easy for Congress to change the rules to simply
state that "any SSA shortfall will be covered by the general fund". And I predict they will
do so in 2034, as it would take less than a month of constituents complaining about reduced
benefits to force even the strictest of deficit hawks to cave.
Or maybe they'll get creative and instead raise rates on the interest that the trust fund
earns. Right now it's a 3% rate, but if Congress were to double or triple it, the trust fund
would last much longer. [As would the debt owed to the SSA.] Heck, if they multiplied the
interest rate by a factor of 11, then they could theoretically dispense with payroll taxes
entirely. Right?
Yes, SS has contributed NOT ONE PENNY to the deficit and the reason it accumulated a
surplus was so people could collect later. Now, they want to say that old surplus shouldn't
count. That's thievery.
tired old tripe and how much is the US military funded? I can answer that for you. It's
ZERO. 0% funded! Take your heterodox BS to a bunch of freshman impressionables – it is
only tolerated here because you are a fine writer and interesting as hell and know almost all
there is about economic liberalism.
Wow. So let's go full SSCodex for a bit and push this trend out to the limit.
While the unwashed masses remain a market for big Ag, big Pharma, big Auto, big (online)
Retail, and a few others, it seems like the predatory 'fund' segment of the FIRE elite has
moved on to devouring larger prey (capitalist autophagy?). The unbankable precariat are
beneath their notice now, like pennies on the sidewalk.
So in that case, the 1% of the 0.1% has evolved beyond 'exploitation' in any Marxist
sense. It is now indifferent to the very life or death of the precariat, at home or abroad,
still less their security or advancement. It needs them neither for consuming nor producing,
nor for building ziggurats.
(Just so long as the pitchforks aren't out – but that's what the credentialed minion
20% is for. And drones).
Here Disposables, have some more plastic and painkillers. Be assured the Alphas will be
live tweeting the Pandemic, or Chicxulub 2.0, from Elon's luxury robot-serviced survival
capsules (oh, you thought those were for use on Mars? Silly rabble!)
It's like that DKs mosh pit classic: "Uncounted millions whisked away / the rich will have
more room to play"
[I exaggerate, of course, for illustration. Slightly.]
I think you can extend this analysis to the current U.K. Conservative Party. Commentators
have started to notice that the Brexiteer wing of the party seems completely impervious to
claims Brexit will harm the economy. Are the Tories no longer the natural party of British
business, they ask?
Using your logic, we can say that a fund-interest-dominated Tory party simply has no
interest in or need for the "ordinary" bits of the British business community anymore. What
it wants are shorting and raiding opportunities, and from that vantage point a catastrophic
Brexit is very attractive. Put these interests in coalition with a voter base largely living
on guaranteed incomes and retirement funds of one sort or another and you have the surreal
spectacle of an entire governing party and its supporters who are no longer anchored to the
"real" economy at all. Yes, it's an exaggeration but it's an exaggeration that explains a few
things, I think.
You both need to read the 2005 leaked Citigroup "plutonomy memo", if you haven't yet. Very
bright minds called it a decade ago, that the global economy isn't even an economy any longer
in any traditional sense. This is part one: https://delong.typepad.com/plutonomy-1.pdf
Great link. From page one, Citigroup thinks the global imbalance is a great opportunity.
Nothing new here. For years I've been reading about stock and futures manipulations–and
vulture capitalists–that cause people to die or kill themselves. The rich don't care;
they see it as a way to make more money. And then you wonder why I've been talking revolution
for years as well?
Answer: Add the US wasting its blood and cash meddling in other countries' affairs.
"honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." bueller ?
Ironic as multilateralist/globalist/fan of US interventions George Soros supposedly
provided some of the seed money for the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
I just want to not die earlier than necessary because I can't afford health care. I'd also
like to stop worrying that I'll spend my golden years homeless and starving because of some
disaster headed my way. I gave up on status a long time ago, and am one of those mentioned
who has little pity for the top 10%.
Sounds like a good book. I shall have to pick it up from my library, since buying new
books is a stretch.
Nearly all income growth in the United States since the 1970s has gone into income
obtained by the rich other than wages and salaries, like capital gains, stock options,
dividends, partnership distributions, etc. To capture overall economic growth to which the
entire society has contributed, Social Security benefits should be tied to economic growth,
smoothed for the business cycle. If people believe benefit increases require tax increases,
the tax should be applied to all earnings, not just salary/wages. Raising the $128,400 cap on
income subject to SS taxes would thus increase taxes on the lower rungs of the upper middle
class but not really address the problem.
I apologise in advance for being blunt and oversimplifying the matter, but at the end of
the day, (in my very humble and possibly uninformed opinion) nothing short of a mass
beheading would work. The 0.1% doesn't really seem, uh, willing to let go of their often
ill-gotten billions, and when they do (i.e. charities and such), they often end up being some
kind of scam. I refuse to believe that the Zuckerberg-types operate their foundations out of
genuine philanthropy. Acquisitions and mergers like Disney buying Fox or Bayer gobbling up
Monsanto don't contribute anything to the well-being of the 99% either, and I think that's
and understatement.
If there's going to be some kind of revolution, it needs to happen before the logical
conclusion of rampaging capitalism. the OCP-type megacorp with its own private army. And, if
there indeed is a revolution, what's next?
Case in point: as a public school teacher who has been opposing so-called education reform
for two decades, I can assure you that the "venture/vulture philanthropy" model that infests
the education world has absolutely nothing to do with improving education, and everything to
do with busting the teachers unions, privatizing the schools and turning them into drilling
grounds for training young people to accept the subordination, surveillance, tedium and
absurdity that awaits them in the workplace. For those lucky enough to have jobs.
As a result of this phenomena, I periodically suggest a new term on the education blogs I
post on: "Malanthropy:" the process of of using tax exempt, publicly subsidized entities to
directly and indirectly support your financial and political interests, but which are harmful
to the public good"
Clear and compelling analysis, although still a little MMT challenged. About to turn 70, I
vividly remember living through a sudden sea change in American capitalism. In the late
1970s/early 80s, whatever undercurrents of patriotism and humanitarianism that remained
within the postwar economy (and had opened the space for the middle class) evaporated, and
almost overnight we were living in a culture without any sense of balance or proportion, a
virulent and violent mindset that maxed out everything and knew not the meaning of enough.
Not only the business world but also the personal world was infected by this virus, as
ordinary people no longer dreamed of achieving a healthy and stable family life but rather
became hellbent to "succeed" and get rich. Empathy, compassion, and commitment to social
justice was no longer cool, giving way to self-interest and self-promotion as the new
"virtues." Men, of course, led the way in this devolution, but there was a time in the 90s
when almost every other woman I knew was a real estate agent. I touched upon a small
male-oriented piece of this social devolution in an essay I wrote several years ago: Would
Paladin Have Shot Bin Laden? For those who might be intrigued, here's the link:
What was needed was a Wyatt Earp, not a Paladin ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgvxu8QY01s
). His standard procedure in the old West was to use his Colt revolver to pistol-whip an
offender. Short, sharp and effective.
But then again there was no way that Bin Laden was ever going to be taken prisoner. That bit
on his resume as being a contractor for the CIA was a bit embarrassing after all.
I remember the 50's and even under the hue of bright eyes saw that people were just as
hell bent to 'get ahead' in their careers as now and that competing with 'the Joneses' in
every crude way imaginable was the rage.
Perhaps more precise to say that in the early '80s, Capitalism reached a tipping point
where gravity overcame thrust and virtues with latent vice became vices with the optics of
virtue. That and the fact that the right actors always seem available -as if out of thin air,
but in reality very much part of cause and effect – for a given state of entropy.
No doubt what was somewhat latent in postwar American capitalism became obscenely blatant
in or around the Reagan era. It was all there before, of course, in former times like the
Gilded Age. But in the midsize, now rustbelt city I grew up in and continue to live in, the
upper middle class of my childhood and youth–the doctors, lawyers, corporate exec's,
etc.–lived a few blocks away from my working class neighborhood, had nicer homes, drove
caddys instead of chevys, and so forth, but their kids went to school with us working class
kids, went to the same movies and dances, hung out in the same places, and all of us,
generally, young and old, lived in essentially the same world. For example, my uncle, a
lawyer, made maybe 3 times what my dad, a factory clerk, made. THAT was the split between the
middle and upper middle class back then, at least in a fairly typical Midwestern city. THAT
was what drastically and suddenly changed in the late 70s/early 80s and has only intensified
thereafter.
Terrific article, but with so many "missing" words (words left out)–too many to
list, gratis–you make it a serious challenge to consider sharing with literate friends
on social media. Seriously, doesn't anyone re-read their work before "posting?"
Well, at least the missing words in this piece don't make sentences unintelligible. I've
seen that happen before.
It's such a shame for authors to put so much work time and effort into their articles, but
then allow the lack of an editor or final read-through to tarnish the entire work.
One thing that strikes me – a generation ago the talking-point robots of the right
could decry "socialized medicine" and all those people supposedly dying while waiting for an
operation in foreign, "socialized medicine" places. And they could largely get away with it
because relatively few people had personal acquaintances outside their own area.
But now, anyone active in social media probably can interact freely with people all over
the world and appreciate how pathetic things really are in the US.
I read on a sports-related forum where an English guy had been watching Breaking Bad and
commented offhand that he was amazed at the cost of medical treatment for Mr. White. This
turned into a discussion between Brits and Yanks about the NHS. And person after person
chimed in "yeah, NHS is not perfect but this kind of thing could never happen here." And you
saw the Americans – "yeah, our health care system really is a disgrace."
I'm not a big fan of the social media Borg in general, but here at least seems to be a
good effect. It might over time enable more people to wake up as to how jacked up certain
things are here.
I'd like to declare us a completely divided, conquered people.
In the last few weeks I've visited with many old friends all of them suffering in silence.
Each and every one falling further behind, on the brink of disaster, if not already there. No
matter their credentials, many highly credentialed with multiple degrees and or highly
experienced in several fields. All with ridiculously high work ethics. All feel maintaining
personal integrity is costing them an ability to 'get ahead'.
Many of these friends have multiple jobs, no debt, no car payment, some have insurance
which is killing them, medical bills which bury them if they ever have so much as basic
health issues, and they are thrifty, from the clothes they wear to the amount of rent they
commit themselves. And yet 'staying afloat', is but a dream trumped by guilt and
isolationism.
I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply
leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry
15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem.
A couple months back I gave my camper to an old acquaintance who had no record, found
himself homeless after being falsely accused of a crime and locked up for two months. And
another friend with full time management position, just gave up her apartment to move into a
tent in another friends back yard. Both of these people are bright, hard working, mid
forties, white, family peeps with great children. The very kind this article addresses.
The noose tightens and people are committing desperate acts. There is no solidarity. No
vision of a way out of this.
Watch a ten dollar parking ticket bring a grown man to terror in their eyes. And he
brought in a thousand bucks last week, but has been texting his landlord about past due rent
all afternoon.
I feel like I'm on the brink of a million episodes of " Falling Down ".
I don't think the 0.1% wanted to build a society like this, it is just the way the math
works. Somewhere around 1980 the integrity of the US was lost and it became possible for the
owning class to divorce themselves from their neighbors and arbitrage labor around the world.
Computers and telecommunications made it possible to manage a global supply chain and
Republicans changed the tax rules to make it easier to shut down businesses and move them
overseas.
A different way to view this: as the wealthy earn profits they can use some of their cash
to modify the rules to their benefit. Then they gain more cash which allows them to influence
voters and politicians to modify the rules even more in their favor.
If people organized they could change the rules in their favor, but that rarely happens.
We used to have unions (imperfect though they were) which lobbied for the working class.
I think the 1980s was when I found out my wealthy cousins, who owned a clothing factory in
Georgia, had moved it to–get ready for this–Borneo! And of course they are
Republicans.
The collective decisions to pull up the drawbridge, and a lot middle-class people have
supported these decisions are the major reason why there is a housing crisis and
higher-education is so expensive.
A lot of people, especially middle-class people, come out with pitchforks every time a new
housing development is proposed, screaming about how they don't want "those people" living
near them and will vehemently oppose anything that isn't single-family homes which has
resulted in the housing supply lagging behind demand, thus affordability issues.
These same people over the years have decided that tax-cuts are more important than
adequately funding higher education, so higher education has become a lot more expensive as
state support has dwindled.
As the saying goes you made you bed, now you get to sleep in it. Unfortunately so does the
younger generation who may not have anything to do with the horrible decision making of the
past.
The article stated Americans are "Petrified of being pushed aside by robots".
Maybe I associate with the wrong people, but I don't know any who fear being pushed aside
by robots.
But I do know of someone who was being laid off from a tech firm and was finding his job
moved overseas.
The deal management presented was, "you can leave now, with your severance package, or get
two more weeks pay by training your replacement who will be visiting from overseas."
He trained the new worker for the two weeks.
The American worker is being hit, not by robots, but by outsourcing to other countries and
by in-sourcing of labor from other countries.
Robots are expensive and will be avoided if a human can do the job cheaply enough.
That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer
does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force
that depress USA wages.
In the USA, we are witnessing labor arbitrage encouraged by both parties and much of the
media as they push USA wages toward world wide levels.
But not for the elite wage earners who gain from this system.
Agreed. The kind of pink collar and barely white collar employees this piece was focused
on are not presently threatened by "robots". They are threatened by outsourcing and wage
arbitrage.
That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer
does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force
that depress USA wages.
You may have a point there, and you are spot on that the vast bulk of job-loss is due to
job migration and import of cheaper labor. But regardless of the writer's intent or simple
laziness, don't be too fast to poo-poo the effect of Robots.
One problem is that we tend to measure job loss and gain without reference to the actual
job loosers and the fact that re-training for them may well be impossible or completely
ineffective or, at the very minimum, often extremely painful. So while automation may provide
as many new jobs as it takes away old ones, that is cold comfort indeed to the worker who
gets left behind.
Another, is that the fear of massive job loss to Robots is almost certainly warranted even
if not yet fully materialized.
When the "Steel Wave" of robot workers comes ashore, I'll be near the head of the queue to
join the "Robo Luddites." If the owners of the robot hordes won't pay a fair share of the
costs of their mechanominions worker displacement activities, then they should be made to pay
an equivalent share in heightened "Production Facility Security Costs." Ford Motors and the
River Rouge plant strike comes to mind.
See: http://98937119.weebly.com/strike-at-the-river-rouge-plant-1941.html
It'd be great to be right there with you on that fateful day, Ambrit :-) (And I've even
got my gun with the little white flag that pops out and has "Bang!" written on it, all oiled
up and ready to go). I suspect however that it will be a silent D Day that probably took
place some time ago.
Hard Briexit looks to be baked in the cake
Global Warming disaster looks to be baked in the cake
Water wars look to be baked in the cake.
Massive impoverishment in developed and so called third world nations alike and insane 'last
gasp' looting looks to be baked in the cake
[ ]
Why would all manner of robots, the ones too tiny to see along with human looking ones and
giant factories that are in reality themselves robots be the exception?
We'd be facing robots, so that flag would have to go "Bang" in binary code. (Might even
work. While they are trying to decipher the flag, we can switch their tubes of graphite
lubricant with tubes of carborundum.)
When the technologically capable humans have all died off, will the robots perish likewise
for lack of programmers?
"Robots" are software programs, do-it-yourself online appointments, voice recognition,
"press 1 now." What's the point of retraining? All you're good for is to make sure the plug
is in the wall.
The act of training the overseas replacement could become an act of sabotage. Think of the
ways that one could train the replacement to do the job incorrectly, more slowly than
necessary, or not at all.
In a lot of cases that doesn't require much 'intentional' effort. But the lure of cheap
labor seems to conquer all. I've seen software companies take loss after loss on off-shore
development team screw ups until they finally get it right. I even saw one such company go
out of business trying rather than just calling it quits and going back to what was left of
their core developers.
As I approach 40, having only realized in recent years that the constant soul-ache I've
lived with my whole life is not some inherent flaw in my being, but a symptom of a deeply ill
society, I desperately wish I could share in the glimmer of hope at the end of this post.
But I cannot. What drives me to despair is not the fragile, corrupt, and unsustainable
social/political/economic system we're inheriting; nor is it the poisoned and increasingly
harsh planet, nor the often silent epidemic of mental and emotional anguish that prevents so
many of us from becoming our best selves. I retain great faith in the resilience and
potential of the human spirit. And contrary to the stereotypes, I think my generation and
those who have come after are often more intellectually and emotionally mature than our
parents and grandparents. At the very least, we have a powerful sense of irony and highly
tuned BS detectors.
What drives me to despair is so pathetically prosaic that I want to laugh and cry all at
once as I type this. To put it as simply as I know how, a core function of all functional
human societies is apprenticeship, by which I mean the basic process whereby deep knowledge
and skills are transferred from the old to the young, where tensions between tradition and
change are contested and resolved, and where the fundamental human need to develop a sense of
oneself as a unique and valuable part of a community can flourish.
We have been commodified since before we were even born, to the point where opportunities
for what Lave and Wenger would call "legitimate peripheral participation" in the kinds of
work that yield real, humane, benefits to our communities are scant to nonexistent for most
of us. Something has gone deeply awry in this core social function at the worst possible time
in human history.
Sympathies from a fellow traveler – your experience sounds similar to mine. I'm a
little older and in my 20s I avoided getting a 'real' job for all the reasons you describe.
When I hit my 30s and saw what some of the guys who had been hanging out in the bar too long
looked like, and decided I ought to at least try it and see how it would go.
"Some quirk of my psychology means doing those things creates an irresistible urge in me
to slowly poison myself with alcohol and tobacco."
I think those things and drugs are conscience oblivators. Try gardening. Touch the earth.
Grow actual food. Not hemp. Back away from the education racket. Good luck. Quit the poison.
That was a wonderful post, very moving, thank you. These kind of testimonies are very
important because they show the real human cost of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is truly a
death cult. Please find an alternative to alcohol. Music, art, nature, etc.
Thank you for sharing your compelling story. As someone who could be your mother, it is
painful to me not only that this is your experience, but that you are so acutely aware of it.
No blinders. Hence, I guess, the need for alcohol.
You write beautifully. Hope is hard to come by sometimes.
At least you are self aware. Most people are not.
As for the Ship of Status, let it sink. Find a lifeboat where you feel comfortable and batten
down for the Roaring (20)40s yet to come. Once you find something to work for, the bad habits
will lose much of their hold on you. As long as you don't slide into alcoholism, you have a
chance.
Life was kinder just 40 years ago, not perfect but way more mellow than it is today. Kids
were listening to Peter Frampton and Stevie Wonder, not punk, grunge, rap and industrial
music. What changed? Neoliberalism, the economic policy that is private sector "free market"
driven, giving the owners of capital free, unfettered reign. Created by libertarians like Fredrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they sold it to the nation but failed to mention that
little peccadillo about how privatization of government would usher in economic fascism.
"An extreme form of laissez-faire individualism that developed in the writings of
Hayek, Friedman and Nozick they are also referred to as libertarians. They draw on the
natural rights tradition of John Locke and champion's full autonomy and freedom of the
individual."
What they meant was ECONOMIC freedom. They despise social freedom (democracy) because
civil, labor, health, food safety, etc., rights and environmental protections put limits on
their profits.
The "maximizing shareholder value" myth turns people into psychopaths
. The entire neoliberal economic policy of the past 40 years is based on the false assumption
that self-interest is the driving evolution of humanity. We're not all psychopaths, turns
out. We're social beings that have mainly used cooperation to get us through these thousands
of years of existence.
There's nothing wrong with wanting government to protect the public sector from predatory
capitalists. Otherwise, society's value system turns upside down sick people are more valued
than healthy violent are more valued to fill up the prison factories war becomes a permanent
business a filthy, toxic planet is good for the oil industry a corporate governance with no
respect for rights or environmental protections is the best capitalism can offer?
Thanks, but no thanks.
The easily manipulated right are getting the full assault. "Run for your lives! The
democratic socialists want to use the government bank for everyone, not just the 1%!!
They understand how the
economy really works and see through our lies!! Before you know it, everyone will be
enjoying a better quality of life! AAAAGHHH!!"
"If the IMF is to shake its image as an inward-looking, out-of-touch boys club, it
needs to start taking the issue seriously. The effect of the male dominance in macroeconomics
can be seen in the policy direction of the organisation: female economists are more likely to
be in favour of Government-backed redistribution measures than their male
counterparts.
Of course, the parochial way in which economics is perceived by the IMF, as nothing
more than the application of mathematical models, is nothing new. In fact, this is how
mainstream economics frequently is taught in universities all over the world. Is it any
wonder that the IMF has turned out as it is?"
Michael Hudson, as usual, was right:
"Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so
that they can go to work on Wall St. that there's no room in the course curriculum for the
history of economic thought.
So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media
that are a travesty of what these people really said and if you don't read the history of
economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and that's the way
the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way.
The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make
people think that the economy is getting richer while the reality is they're getting poorer
and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle class and
the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them."
Unfettered Fire and funemployed: deeply appreciate your lengthy and heartfelt posts. It's
a terribly small thing, but I have a suggestion to make that always helps me to feel a bit
better about things or should I say to feel a bit better about the possibility of things. If
you're game, and haven't already done so, search for the following free online book:
"Equality" by Edward Bellamy. Then do no more than read the introduction and first chapter
(and slightly into the second) to absorb by far the finest Socratic dialogue ever written
about capitalism, socialism, and the only nonviolent way to move from the former to the
latter–a way wide open to us, theoretically, right now. I know that's a hell of a
qualifier.
Why do modern intellectuals insist on inventing euphemisms for already known definitions?
The middle precariat is merely another term for the petty bourgeoisie. While they may have
possessed economic benefits like pensions and owned minuscule amounts of financial assets
they were never the dominant ruling class. Their socioeconomic status was always closer in
their livelihoods to the working class. After the working class was effectively being
dismantled starting in the 1970s, it has become the petty bourgeoisie's turn to be
systematically impoverished.
This is the primary economic development of our era of late capitalism. The question is,
what does it mean to be American if this country is no longer a land of opportunity?
Because the 'known definitions' do not apply anymore.
The middle has more in common with those below than those above. And here is the scary
reason: everyone is to be preyed upon by the wealth extractors who dominate our
politics/economy -- everyone. There is no social or educational allegieance, there is only a
resource to be ruthlessly plundered, people and their ability to earn and secure.
The so-called precariat lacks any sense of class consciousness and as a consequence are
incapable of any kind of solidarity. Nor do they perceive any predatory behavior in the
economic system. If the article is to be believed they blame themselves for their plight.
These traits which include the admiration and imitation of the rich are the hallmarks of the
petty bourgeoisie.
This disagreement over semantics is an example of the shallowness and superficiality of
new ideas. Marx already predicted that they'd be unceremoniously thrown into the underclass
in later stages of economic development at any rate.
The BigMedia & BigPols ignore the Type 1 Overqualified Underemployed cohort. Perhaps
hopefully someone like the new Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will discuss it, her recently
being of this cohort as an economist by degree working as a bartender. Instead we have
examples of BigMedia/BigPol crying about "STEM worker shortage" where there already are
countless underemployed STEM workers working Uber-ish type McJobs.
Afaict the only occupations (mostly) immune to Type 1 Overqualified Underemployment risk
here in Murica are medical pros: physicians/dentists/pharmacists & possibly nurses.
Otherwise there are stories of PhD Uber drivers, MBA strippers, & lawyers working Apple
store retail, especially in the first few years post 2008-GFC but still present now. In other
words, the US labor market "new economy" is resembling "old economy" of Latin America or
Russia (proverbial physicist selling trinkets on the Trans-Siberia railway).
"I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply
leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry
15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem."
This is a stark and startling reality. This reality is outside the framework of
understanding of economic struggle in America that is allowed by the corporate neoliberal
culture/media.
As the Precariat grows, having watched the .1% lie, cheat and steal – from them, they
are more likely to also lie, cheat and steal in mortgage, employment and student loan
applications and most importantly and sadly, in their dealings with each other.
Everybody is turning into a hustler.
As to dealings with institutions, this comment is apt.
I think this came from NC comments a couple of weeks ago. Apologies for not being able to
attribute it to its author:
"Why should the worker be subservient to the employer? Citizens owe NO LOYALTY, moral or
legal, to a someone else's money making enterprise. And that enterprise is strictly a product
of signed commercial legal documents. Commercial enterprise has no natural existence. It is a
man-made creation, and is a "privilege", not a "right"; just as a drivers license is a
privilege and not an absolute right."
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy. The Classical economist, Adam Smith, observed the world of small state, unregulated
capitalism around him.
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the
maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury
by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the
industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the
use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no
landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
How does this tie in with the trickledown view we have today?
Somehow everything has been turned upside down.
The workers that did the work to produce the surplus lived a bare subsistence
existence. Those with land and money used it to live a life of luxury and leisure.
The bankers (usurers) created money out of nothing and charged interest on it. The bankers
got rich, and everyone else got into debt and over time lost what they had through defaults
on loans, and repossession of assets.
Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the
parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had
shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity
of everyone else.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
How can we protect those powerful vested interests at the top of society?
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the
Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy.
The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society
again. It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the
money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let
bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their
loans.
The powerful vested interests held sway and economics was corrupted. Now we know what's wrong with neoclassical economics we can put the cost of living back
in.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees want more disposable income (discretionary spending).
Employers want to pay lower wages for higher profits
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food
+ other costs of living
The neoliberals obsessed about reducing taxes, but let the cost of living soar. The economists also ignore the debt that is papering over the cracks and maintaining
demand in the economy. This can never work in the longer term as you max. out on debt.
> These young people do not think of things like debt-free college or paid family leave
as radical: they see it done elsewhere in the world and don't accept that it can't be done in
America.
An unexpected consequence of globalization is that a lot of people see how thing are done,
elsewhere.
Part of me doesn't feel sorry at all for the plight of middle-class Americans. When times
were good they were happy to throw poor and working-class people under the bus. I remember
when the common answer to complaints about factory closings was "you should have gotten an
education, dummy." Now that the white-collar middle class can see that they are next on the
chopping block they are finding their populist soul.
At the end of the day we need to have solidarity between workers but this is a good
example of why you should never think that you are untouchable and why punching down is never
a good political strategy. There will always be somebody more powerful than you and after
they are done destroying the people at the bottom you will probably be next.
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
"... The overuse of instrumental rationality has many sources, but in the United States its historical development begins with dramatic changes in the design of municipal governments. ..."
"... In the end, potentially more so than any other factor, these changes in the fundamental design of municipal governments not only reversed the victories of Socialists but encouraged an outlook on local politics that deemphasized the people as active citizens and conceptualized them as passive shareholders who entrusted the operations of local government with managers and bureaucrats. ..."
"... Capitalism and Freeman ..."
"... In pursuit of strengthening business interests over socialist politics, municipal governments became more bureaucratic. If anything, markets and bureaucracies have had a historical mutually reinforcing relationship; the survival of the free market system has been dependent on the bureaucratization of public life. ..."
"... Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights ..."
Bureaucracies, Markets, and the Loss of Municipal Citizenship
02.07.2018
"Liberty vanishes whenever the law, in certain cases, allows a man to cease to be a person
and to become a thing"
-Cesare Beccaria
Throughout the modern era, there has been a lingering fear of the mechanization of everyday
life through the overuse of instrumental rationality. Because the social sciences intimately
weave both outcomes and ethics, this overuse of instrumental rationality carries with it a
moral dimension. Despite having somewhat predictable behavior, people are not
things . Rather, the very notion of humanity implies a degree of agency, and agency
demands an acknowledgment for spontaneous behaviors and active choices. Nevertheless, the
growth of both bureaucracies and markets -- two common features of the modern era -- appears to
negate this truism and encourage an inverse to Kant's maximum to treat people as ends in
themselves rather than means toward some bureaucratic or profit-driven goal.
The overuse of instrumental rationality has many sources, but in the United States its
historical development begins with dramatic changes in the design of municipal governments. At
the turn of the 20th Century, Socialists in the United States had considerable success in
municipal elections. Empowered by a constituency of small-scale and heavily mortgaged farmers
and newly created industrial laborers, for a brief period, the Socialist Party posed a
significant electoral challenge to both Democrats and Republicans in America's Midwest.
Nevertheless, these successes were short-lived. In response to the electoral victories of
Socialist candidates, Progressives promoted "reform" governments that made municipalities more
both bureaucratic and market orientated. Under their guidance, the full weight of Taylorism was
brought to municipal governments. In the process, local governments became embedded with an
ideology predicated on instrumentalist rationality that justified the marginalization
participation in public life and redirected the priorities of municipal politics toward
ensuring certain monetary ends. In the end, potentially more so than any other factor, these
changes in the fundamental design of municipal governments not only reversed the victories of
Socialists but encouraged an outlook on local politics that deemphasized the people as active
citizens and conceptualized them as passive shareholders who entrusted the operations of local
government with managers and bureaucrats.
This history upturns a problematic assumption among advocates of a free market economy.
Chiding President Kennedy, Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freeman , proclaimed
that "the free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his
country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government?" to help us
discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above
all, to protect our freedom." (1) The idea that in a free market democracy people merely act
"through" government rather than "by" government implies a purely instrumental account of
public authority. For Freidman, the government is not supposed to reflect a common good, but is
simply another option for achieving the specific ends of individuals. For this reason, Friedman
argues, the ideal government for a thriving market is both limited and dispersed. However, the
history of reform government shows the opposite. In pursuit of strengthening business interests
over socialist politics, municipal governments became more bureaucratic. If anything, markets
and bureaucracies have had a historical mutually reinforcing relationship; the survival of the
free market system has been dependent on the bureaucratization of public life.
In many ways, this relationship was anticipated. Max Weber's remarks on the "iron cage" of
the modern economic order implied a shared rationality between markets and bureaucracies. (2)
In both cases, social life -- and by extension people -- is valued only to the extent that it
can fulfill certain ends, rather than being seen as an end in and of itself. Murray Bookchin's
criticism of bureaucracies -- in that they grow as a sense of citizenship declines, filling
social vacuums with "monadic individuals and family units into a strictly administrative
structure" (3) -- can just as easily apply to markets. Margaret Somers, in her work
Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights
demonstrates that market fundamentalism has resulted in the "contractualization of citizenship"
in the United States. In doing so, Americans have reorganized "the relationship between the
state and the citizenry, from noncontractual rights and obligations to the principles and
practices of quid pro quo market exchange." (4) In decrying the loss of citizenship -- whether
through bureaucratization or market fundamentalism -- both Bookchin and Somers draw on
contemporary political realities. Yet, as will be shown, the roots of this problem run much
deeper. In the United States, the phenomenon of bringing instrumentalist rationality to the
public sphere started a century ago with the restructuring of municipal
governments.
Reform vs Machine: A Problematic Dichotomy
Few issues in urban politics have been as enduring as the institutional design of governing
bodies. The conventional view is that before the Progressive Era most municipalities were ruled
by machine governments that served myopic interests, usually geographically or ethnically
based. These machine governments were easily susceptible to corruption. Eventually, these
governments became reform regimes that merged ideals on the public good with modern concepts of
business management. Reform politics were thought to be "objective," in the sense that they
isolated public officials from parochial interests, advocated for nonpartisan elections, and
promoted efficiency in government services. (5) According to Paul Peterson, machine governments
"favored ward elections, long ballots, decentralized governing arrangements, and the close
connection between government, party, neighborhood, and ethnic association. Reformers preferred
citywide elections, short ballots, centralized governing institutions, and the application of
universalistic norms in the provision of government services." (6) In the overwhelming majority
of cases, reform governments favored small city councils and managerial systems, where the
administration of the city's activities was performed by a hired city manager, rather than the
mayor. Both during the Progressive Era and after the Second World War, America saw an explosion
of reform orientated managerial governments. (7) Judged in the terms of popularity alone,
reform governments are often assumed to be the ideal means for handling local affairs, at least
for small municipalities.
However, the degree to which reform governments objectively represent the interests of all
residents in the city has been contested. Jessica Trounstine has argued that reform governments
do not necessarily make local power more transparent. Instead, they substitute one form of
institutional bias for another. (8) For example, advocates of reform governments promote
citywide, non-partisan, winner-take-all elections in the hopes of severing the tie between
public officials and party bosses. However, this often decreases voter awareness of candidates
and results in costlier elections. Party bosses are weakened, but wealthy individuals running
for office gain electoral advantages. For this reason, the debates between reform and machine
governments have not necessarily been debates on transparency and corruption, but on which type
of local elites should be in control of the governments. This is a critical point in
understanding why certain municipalities changed to reform governments and why, in many cases,
these changes were strongly resisted.
Rice has noted that commission governments -- which were part of the reform agenda and acted
both as a theoretical and practical precursor to more managerial institutions -- were almost
unequivocally supported by business elites and bitterly opposed by labor. Often business elites
were only able to demobilize labor's opposition by making major concessions that made the
reform process far more varied and complicated than the usual narrative of machine-to-reform
proposes. (9) Nevertheless, when labor did prove itself to be a significant threat to the
established order -- as in the case of Midwest cities in the form of the Socialist Party -- the
move to managerial governments occurred swiftly, uncompromisingly, and involved players outside
of the local political landscape.
The support among business elites for reform governments was not only because such changes
ensured them electoral advantages. The structure of the reform governments often duplicated the
organizational styles that were prevalent within the private sector. Replacing large city
councils elected through wards with small commissions elected citywide made local governments
more closely resemble the structure of corporate boardrooms. Furthermore, the position of
city-managers was thought to mimic that of the chief executive officer (CEO) within a firm.
There was no expectation that the city manager would be accountable to the people directly any
more than a firm's CEO was thought to be directly accountable to its workers. Instead, the
city-manager was accountable to the council who acted as a board, while the citizens themselves
were thought to be shareholders of the city. As Stillman has observed, "commercial activities
have been one of the vital forces in shaping American society, and the businessman and the
corporation have often been instrumental in determining public values Probably no political or
administrative philosophy reflects business and corporate ideals more clearly than the city
management movement." (10) In this regard, the movement for reform governments not only wanted
to reconfigure local power to better serve business elites but believed that the values and
thinking of business elites -- which saw citizens in service of certain fiscal ends -- should
be embedded into the structure of municipal politics.
Socialists Against Reform
In 1911, after two decades of organizing, the Socialist Party in Dayton, Ohio reported
nearly 500 formal members and the support of approximately 13,000 trade unionists. With this
popular support, they successfully elected two of their members to the city council and another
three to the assessor's office. Their political strength was undoubtedly on the rise. During
the 1912 presidential election, a greater portion of the Dayton electorate voted for the
Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs than the Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt.
(11)
In 1912, Ohio revised its constitution in order to grant home rule status to local
municipalities. This prompted twenty-five cities in the state to consider charter changes.
Dayton was one of them. With the design of local government now open, there was a strong push
by Progressives to shrink the city council, make all elections citywide, and hire a city
manager to perform administrative tasks. One notable champion of this cause was John H.
Patterson. Patterson was a local industrialist known for his experiments in "welfare
capitalism." Despite his reputation as an enlightened business owner, Patterson was notoriously
anti-union, chiding labor organizations for promoting a "restive spirit" among employees. Under
the progressive banner, Patterson promoted reform governments as a means of combining Taylorism
with republicanism. According to Paterson, the virtues of managerial and market orientated
governments were elevated to the status of a secular religion. In print and lectures, he
proudly proclaimed that "A city is a great business enterprise whose stockholders are the
people Our municipal affairs would be placed upon a strict business basis and directed, not by
partisans , but by men who are skilled in business management and social science; who would
treat our people's money as a trust fund, to be expended wisely and economically, without waste
and for the benefit of all citizens." (12) The local Socialist Party was not persuaded by
Paterson's calls for a technocratic utopia. They decried the proposed reform government as a
regressive step away from democracy. (13)
In March, 1913, only two months before the city was to vote on its new charter, a massive
flood from the Miami River hit Dayton, resulting in a state of emergency. While the local
government scrambled to deal with the crisis, Patterson utilized the opportunity to exhibit the
generosity of Dayton's business class. He opened his factory as a relief center and organized a
fundraising campaign among the business community to pay for emergency services. These actions
won him favor among the local population. When election for the new charter was held on May 20,
1913, the new reform government was approved by a 2-1 margin. Despite increasing their number
of votes in proceeding election cycle, the changes prevented the Socialist Party from taking
office again. By 1917, the Socialist Party managed to win 43% of the vote, but in citywide,
winner-take-all elections, this resulted in no representation. (14)
A similar dispossession of Socialists happened in New Castle, Pennsylvania. In 1911, New
Castle voters elected several Socialist Party members to their select board, including the
mayor, Walter V. Tyler. Despite the recalcitrance of non-socialist on the select board, often
refusing to attend meetings in order to deny a quorum, Tyler and his supporters were able to
make meaningful changes to the city. They ended petty graft and managed to get the city's
finances in order, raised wages and reduced hours for city workers, and instituted reforms to
curb police brutality. (15)
Despite these successes, the Socialists in New Castle found their ability to maintain their
tenure in public office severely limited with the passage of the Clark Act. Passed in 1913, the
Clark Act changed all third-class cities in Pennsylvania, which included New Castle, to a
commission-style government. This reduced the size of the city councils to five members,
replaced wards with citywide elections, created nonpartisan positions, and increased the number
of signatures needed to get an initiative on the ballot. Despite the appearance of nonpartisan
elections, it was clear that the new commission-style government biased the electoral system
toward Republicans. Previously, the electoral achievements of Socialists in New Castle were
partially attributed to factionalism within the local Republican Party. The editors of the
New Castles News were Republican partisans and condemned ex-Republicans who ran
independently in elections for their lack of loyalty. Nevertheless, after the passage of the
Clark Act, New Castle News editors had an overnight conversion to nonpartisan ideals,
worked with the local Board of Trade to select "men of the highest standard" to run for public
office, and were extremely successful in reinstituting Republican rule. (16) As with Dayton,
the changes effectively excluded Socialists from office. No Socialists were reelected in 1913.
Mayor Tyler's reform movement was halted, and -- due to charter changes -- Tyler himself was
unable to run for reelection. (17)
The examples of Dayton and New Castle demonstrate that reform governments did not
necessarily result in an attack on machines, but rather a turn toward more bureaucratic and
market-orientated municipalities. As Bruce M. Stave has noted, "urban structural reforms that
Socialists generally opposed, with good reason, include the often successful attempt to
institute city manager or commission forms of government. Along with substituting nonpartisan
city-wide elections for ward-based elections to city councils and school boards, such diluted
areas of socialist strength and grass-roots neighborhood control over municipal politics.
Conversely, it enhanced the power of urban elites, who had the resources and expertise to take
advantage of the new rationalized structures." (18)
Reviving Municipal Citizenship
Municipal politics in the United States has had a problematic history. In the United States,
the virtues of local sovereignty are praised to such an extent that critical examinations of
municipal governments often get lost in the adulations. There is no argument that machine
governments hindered greater democratic inclusion, but the assumption that their reform
counterparts offered a meaningful an alternative is mistaken. The reality is that more often
than not reform governments shifted power rather than dispersing it.
Advocates of reform governments claimed that they would make politics more efficient by
preventing the waste and spoilage associated with machines. Since the private sector constantly
strove for higher levels of efficiency to maximize profits, it was only reasonable to bring
private sector organizational styles into the public realm. However, this analysis
fundamentally misunderstands the nature of machine politics. Machines were not inefficient.
They were actually highly efficient is distributing the resources at their disposal. The issue
was that the rewards of that distribution were not based on competency but loyalty. Party
loyalty acts as the machine's capital, where if party bosses were willing to invest favoritism
toward certain underlings, then that boss would see a return on investments through loyalty.
The movement away from machine to reform government did not seek a fundamental dismantling of
this capitalistic relationship but instead transferred the terms so that party loyalty was
substituted for business loyalty. In doing so, municipal governments became embedded with the
values and rationality of the reigning business class. Municipal bureaucracies aided in the
creation of localized market societies. This relationship between market and bureaucracy proved
to be both self-reinforcing and enduring. The managerial concepts on local governments
popularized during the Progressive Era remain a mainstay of America's political landscape,
especially in suburban areas.
Problematically, the treatment of citizens in a polity as stockholders of a corporation
fundamentally undermines the very notion of citizenship. In a free society, the people do not
consume their government; they embody it through the exercise of their citizenship. Consumers
in a market, unlike citizens in a polity, have no presumption of equality. If anything,
consumers in a market are constantly seeking to undermine each other's equality in order to
secure the best deals. Citizenship cannot engage in this anarchy of the market. Doing so
undermines the basis of a cohesive community.
The displacement of Socialists from municipal governments could not have happened without a
grander agenda to limit democratic participation and a reimagining of citizens as means toward
ensuring business interest rather than ends. Nevertheless, this suggests a corrective to the
tendency toward market bureaucratization in local government. The expansion of democracy, above
and beyond the local realm, is essential to working against the "iron cage" of the modern
economic order. Such an expansion can only come about by embracing a deeper sense of
citizenship that challenges not only the inviolability of private property but the very
rationality that reduces citizens to nomadic cogs in a bureaucratic engine intended to maximize
profits.
(1) Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)
10.
(2) Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. ed. Richard Swedberg (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009)
(3) Bookchin, Murray, Urbanization Without Cities: The Rise and Decline of Citizenship
(Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1992), 172.
(4) Somers, Margret R., Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to
Have Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 2.
(5) Rice, Bradley, Progressive Cities: The Commission Government Movement in America,
1901-1920 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977).
(6) Peterson, Paul E, City Limits (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 7.
(7) Stillman II, Richard J, The Rise of the City Manager: A Public Professional in Local
Government (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974).
(8) Trounstine, Jessica, Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of
Bosses and Reformers (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2008).
(9) Rice, Bradley, Progressive Cities: The Commission Government Movement in America,
1901-1920.
(10) Stillman II, Richard J, The Rise of the City Manager: A Public Professional in Local
Government, 7-8.
(11) Judd, Richard W, Socialist Cities: Municipal Politics and the Grass Roots of American
Socialism (Albany: State of University of New Press, 1989).
(12) Quoted from ibid, 8.
(13) Judd, Richard W, Socialist Cities: Municipal Politics and the Grass Roots of American
Socialism.
After dramatic neoliberal counterrevolutions in Brazil and Mexico, neoliberals might face a
defeat in Mexico
Notable quotes:
"... Business Insider ..."
"... Wall Street Journal, ..."
"... clase política. ..."
"... Dan La Botz' article in Jacobin succeeds masterfully in resolving relatively bland phrases like "coercive influence of the United States" that are part of left discourse into "a rational fear of murder by US-backed interests." ..."
"... Martin Luther King is said to have felt himself to be a "dead man walking" in the last months of his life; Amlo must feel much the same way. ..."
"... Mexico's predicament cannot be understood without the context of the war on drugs. I recommend a fun graphic novel: "Narcotráfico para inocentes: El narco en México y quien lo U.S.A." Mexico is in a similar situation as China during the Opium war or the US during prohibition. The book does an excellent job explaining how and why US interests created and foster the "war". ..."
"... The so-called 'pink tide' has been mostly, but certainly NOT completely, rolled back in the last few years. If AMLO's win is isolated, he probably won't change much. But, if this is the start of a new 'pink tide', then he might have more breathing space to get things done. ..."
"... I think Brazil is still the linchpin of the region. Prospects look quite dim there, but things can turn rather quickly. ..."
"... Neoliberalism somehow thought it could balance the budget and it would balance capitalism. So where do those ideologues go from here. It's a dead end. The only way to save the usefulness of capitalism at this point is to turn back to social spending. ..."
"... It avoids destructive over-banking and mirage profits by financialization because the money goes where it should go. But Obrador doesn't sound like he would dare suggest anything but austerity to rebalance spending priorities in Mexico. His priorities are fine, except he doesn't have a road map to get there. But interesting the political tide is turning. ..."
The US press has largely
ignored a potential sea change in our neighbor to the South. A self-styled radical, former
mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, looks set to win Mexico's presidential
election on July 1. That possibility is giving heartburn to corporate interests in Mexico and
the US, as well the US officialdom.
His opponents depict him as a wild-eyed radical, but while Obrador, widely referred to as
Amlo, has called for agricultural self-sufficiency, infrastructure development, higher minimum
wages, improved public education. But he's also promised no new taxes, and as mayor of Mexico,
entered into a public-private partnership with billionaire Carlos Slim to redevelop the
downtown area.
Indeed, the website In
Defense of Marxism had to make quite a case for its readers to vote for Amlo. They depict
him as a type of Third Way figure:
AMLO does not propose a fundamental change of the system – replacing capitalism with
socialism – what he proposes is a return to a more humane form of capitalism . He does
not propose a programme of expropriations, nor the development of a large-scale nationalized
industry, as there was before neoliberalism. To the capitalists, he offers a country of
opportunity, without special privileges and without corruption.
For the poorest, he also offers a good list of proposals, particularly for the youth: he
is committed to providing education for all at all levels, universal healthcare – not
the so-called "seguro popular" ("people's insurance"), but healthcare systems like the IMSS
and the ISSSTE (the Mexican social security and the public employees' healthcare programmes)
that will be made available for everyone. He also speaks of scholarships for young people and
programmes where the state will employ millions of youths a year. He says he will raise
pensions for seniors and for single mothers and so on. All of this is a good start and we
support it.
He proposes that the funding for these reforms and a large-scale national infrastructure
plan will be drawn from eliminating corruption and cutting the high salaries of the
bureaucracy, as well as reducing the number of state workers, reducing unnecessary state
expenditure and so on. That is to say, he proposes that the interests of the big companies
and the banks are not to be touched, and that no more foreign loans are requested. We have
real doubts about the possibility that the money he saves with his proposed measures will
cover all his planned reforms.
"I will support banks. We won't confiscate assets. No expropriations, no nationalisations.
We'll have a country more focused on its main problem: the cancer of corruption. That's my
proposal, to end corruption," he said .
But he stuck to his guns on his main policy pledges, including austerity, an end to
fat-cat salaries, a president setting a moral example to fight graft, greater co-ordination
of security forces which Mr López Obrador said he would personally supervise with a
daily 6am security cabinet meeting .
He promised no rollback on structural reforms passed by the current government; a "very
few" reforms of his own around the middle of his term, including removing the ban on a
president being able to be tried for corruption. However he said there would be "no need to
increase taxes, no new taxes, no VAT on medicine and
food . . . no petrol price shocks". He also pledged to respect
the autonomy of the Bank of Mexico and to establish an "authentic rule of law".
So why are so many people in and outside Mexico in a tizzy about a probable Almo win?
Jacobin argues that if Amlo hasn't been convincing enough in his move to the right, he's likely
to assassinated. That's not a far-out idea, given Mexico's long-standing history of dirty
election, including past assassinations, which Jacobin recounts in gory detail.
I told him that many Mexicans wondered whether he had moderated his early radical beliefs.
"No," he said. "I've always thought the same way. But I act according to the circumstances.
We have proposed an orderly change, and our strategy seems to have worked. There is less fear
now. More middle-class people have come on board, not only the poor, and there are
businesspeople, too."
Even though Amlo has a strong left-wing economic agenda which makes him extremely popular in
the poor south, the election has come to be more and more about fighting corruption. Again from
the New Yorker:
With every major party implicated in corruption, López Obrador's supporters seem to
care less about the practicality of his ideas than about his promises to fix a broken
government. Emiliano Monge, a prominent novelist and essayist, said, "This election really
began to cease being political a few months ago and became emotional. It is more than
anything a referendum against corruption, in which, as much by right as by cleverness, amlo
has presented himself as the only alternative. And in reality he is."
"Implicated" is an understatement. "Knee deep" would be more accurate.
Even in his measured way, Amlo intends to turn Mexico away from neoliberalism, which is
enough to make heads explode. The US press either ignores or considerably downplays how poorly
Mexico has fared under its tender ministrations. Again from In
Defense of Marxism :
Mexico has been immersed in neoliberalism for 32 years and the results are overwhelming:
"Under Porfirio Diaz, 95 percent of the population was poor. In 1981 it had fallen to just
over 40 percent. Now it is actually 85 percent", said Dr. José Luis Calva
Téllez, a member of the Institute of Legal Research of the National Autonomous
University of Mexico (UNAM), in an interview with Contralínea. (Contralínea
2015)
In addition, the purchasing power of wages dropped by 71.5 percent. It is practically
impossible to live on the minimum wage
The driving priority was "macroeconomic management above everything else. More than 1,000
state-owned companies were privatized to stop state intervention in the economy. Foreign
trade was liberalized by drastically reducing all taxes or tariffs on foreign products; the
Mexican financial system was privatized." .
In the three neoliberal decades, GDP per capita has grown at a rate of 0.6 percent per
year; that is, an aggregate growth of 21 percent. That is not to mention the millions of
Mexicans who emigrated in search of jobs they do not find in our country. "Counting the
emigrants, the growth of GDP per inhabitant is scarcely 0.3 percent per year, or an aggregate
growth of 10 percent in 32 years." (José Luis Calva, Mexico Beyond Neoliberalism:
Options Within The Global Change)
Mexican immigration to the United States -- historically seen as a safety valve in a
country where about half the population lives in poverty -- has declined to the lowest level
in years. The unemployed and the underemployed are forced to stay home and can't live on
Mexican wages. With a population of 127 million, some 55 million live in poverty.
Violence remains a way of life and has not improved under the current administration.
There are over 200,000 dead in the drug wars since 2006 and another 32,000 disappeared.
Business
Insider wrote on April 23 :
The 104,583
homicide cases registered since [President Enrique Peña Nieto] took office in
December 2012 are more than the 102,859 officially recorded under his predecessor, Felipe
Calderon, who deployed
military personnel around the country to confront organized-crime and drug-related
violence.
The US is clearly not happy at the idea of an Amlo presidency. His instincts are
nationalistic but both the New Yorker and Michael Ard, a former deputy national intelligence
officer, see Amlo as willing to deal with America, just not on as one-sided terms as before.
As the New Yorker
notes :
In campaign events, López Obrador speaks often of mexicanismo -- a way of saying
"Mexico first." Observers of the region say that, when the two countries' interests compete,
he is likely to look inward. Mexico's armed forces and law enforcement have often had to be
persuaded to coöperate with the United States, and he will probably be less willing to
pressure them.
Much of the progress the United States has made with Mexico on security cooperation will
probably be jeopardized. It's hard to believe that AMLO will endorse the close relations that
the DEA, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community have forged with their Mexican
counterparts in the war on drugs. The extradition of the notorious drug kingpin Joaquin el
Chapo Guzman to the U.S. in 2017 will probably be the high watermark in the relationship. It
is doubtful that AMLO will permit more high-profile extraditions. President Trump's disdain
for a close relationship that has taken us decades to build may come back to haunt us.
But a poor relationship between Washington and Mexico City doesn't have to be inevitable.
Despite the rhetoric, the flamboyant American billionaire has much in common with the austere
Mexican populist. Both countries have too many common interests to go down separate paths.
The question is: does AMLO have to build the bomb to get Trump to care about Mexico?
But the US is already hostile. As Jacobin put it:
The business press is exceedingly gloomy about the future under a president who promises
to improve the lives of Mexico's working class. The New York Times
wrote on April 26 that:
In addition to threatening refinery profits in the United States, his proposals could slow
oil production in Texas and impede deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by international
oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. They would also jeopardize the United States'
energy trade
surplus with Mexico, which reached roughly $15 billion last year.
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, a columnist in the Wall Street Journal, writing on
López Obrador's "reinvention as a moderate," suggests
that her readers shouldn't believe it:
Morena's " declaration
of principles ," posted on its website, asserts that the liberalization of the economy is
part of a 'regime of oppression, corruption and privileges.' And that it is the work of "a
true Mafioso state built by a minority of concentrated political and economic power in
Mexico." If that's what Mr. López Obrador believes, fixing it would seem to require
more of a socialist revolution than he proposes.
She writes that, "Over the years he has earned a reputation as a populist demagogue who
uses the streets when democratic institutions block his path to power." And she warns her
readers against his "socialist party," Morena
.
The Council on Foreign Relations, the foreign relations think tank of the American ruling
class, writes:
Champions of civil society, transparency, and strong independent public institutions can
derive little comfort from some of [AMLO's]
recent pronouncements . On the stump, he offers a return to a time of business subsidies,
state ownership, and agricultural self-sufficiency. He repeatedly questions energy and
infrastructure contracts -- including those undergirding Mexico City's new
$13 billion airport -- and promises to roll back the educational shifts underway.
The reports in the business press and the warning from the Council on Foreign Relations
are intended to convince the American business class and the State Department that something
must be done to stop López Obrador.
The article concludes on a downbeat note:
I would be delighted if my speculations proved wrong and if AMLO could defend a
social-democratic program and avoid being pulled into the arms of the US State Department and
the Mexican clase política. But as they have for over a hundred years, the
prospects for democracy in Mexico look dim.
Mexico desperately needs and wants change and Amlo has long sought to be a catalyst. Let's
hope he can fulfill his ambitions.
Hopefully the third time is the charm for Obrador. He's contested the last two outcomes,
and I'm sure he had a case in at least one of them if not both.
An interesting historical 'what if', is what if AMLO had won in 2006 over Calderón?
Calderón unleashed the drug war that we know and see today, and was a faithful steward
of neoliberalism. México might be in a very different place today.
Dan La Botz' article in Jacobin succeeds masterfully in resolving relatively bland phrases
like "coercive influence of the United States" that are part of left discourse into "a
rational fear of murder by US-backed interests."
Martin Luther King is said to have felt
himself to be a "dead man walking" in the last months of his life; Amlo must feel much the
same way.
Mexico's predicament cannot be understood without the context of the war on drugs. I
recommend a fun graphic novel:
"Narcotráfico para inocentes: El narco en México y quien lo U.S.A." Mexico is in a similar situation as China during the Opium war or the US during
prohibition. The book does an excellent job explaining how and why US interests created and
foster the "war".
I suspect the outcome is going to be influenced, perhaps significantly, by how the
political context in the region unfolds in the next few years. The so-called 'pink tide' has
been mostly, but certainly NOT completely, rolled back in the last few years. If AMLO's win
is isolated, he probably won't change much. But, if this is the start of a new 'pink tide',
then he might have more breathing space to get things done.
I think Brazil is still the linchpin of the region. Prospects look quite dim there, but
things can turn rather quickly.
I've never understood why business interests fight so hard against the welfare of the
poor. If more poor people can get into the middle class, they then have more money to buy the
crap they sell. Would love to read the graphic novel that is mentioned, but there seems to be no English
edition of it.
Interesting politics in Mexico. But dangerous. Failed capitalism, or even failed
neoliberal freemarketism, is an existential threat to marxism. Neoliberalism somehow thought
it could balance the budget and it would balance capitalism. So where do those ideologues go
from here. It's a dead end. The only way to save the usefulness of capitalism at this point
is to turn back to social spending.
Varoufakis, yesterday, was logically fudging
neoliberalism – by going around the banking of surpluses and putting them directly into
EU-wide stimulation/projects. It is very MMT but he doesn't say so. It avoids destructive
over-banking and mirage profits by financialization because the money goes where it should
go. But Obrador doesn't sound like he would dare suggest anything but austerity to rebalance
spending priorities in Mexico. His priorities are fine, except he doesn't have a road map to
get there. But interesting the political tide is turning.
We destroy their indigenous agriculture by dumping cheap corn, then complain bitterly
about all the 'illegals' who seem perfectly willing to harvest our dinners since we won't do
the work. Then we try to make 'Agricultural Self-Sufficiency' sound like a bad thing.
Godd luck Senor Obrador, you're just what we need.
"... our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ..."
"... The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. ..."
"... "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home." ..."
"... "Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , ..."
"... "The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side. ..."
A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals
don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that
their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed
crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed
authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and
occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous
governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed,
sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.
Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49
nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as
"dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba,
and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about
Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent
of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba,
Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most
politically aware people," Whitney wrote:
"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for
foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military
assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi
Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our
nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our
government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They
are the rule ."
The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated
from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with
misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious
right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .
The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is
that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home
while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked
invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the
twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic.
She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the
helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at
home."
"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian
Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template
for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red
Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on
the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows
in his latest book, In the Shadows of the
American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process --
internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices abroad and
justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" -- has recurred ever since. Today, the
rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National Security Agency has
cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and Obama44, not just
under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as beyond the
U.S.
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever
been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary
dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless
Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the
rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on
our side.
Neoliberals are a flavor of Trotskyites and they will reach any depths to hang on to power.
Notable quotes:
"... Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving money to their friends. ..."
"... Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us. ..."
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful
groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving
money to their friends.
And when the conservative "Christians" form a neoliberal government, the results are toxic for all, except themselves and their
coterie.
Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake
parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us.
he first page of Tim Winton's new essay collection,
The Boy Behind the Curtain
, sets a disturbing scene. A 13-year-old boy stands at the window of a suburban
street, behind a terylene curtain, training a rifle on passersby.
"He was a fraught little thing," says Winton
of that boy – the boy he used to be. "I feel related to him but I'm no longer completely him, thank god."
The passage opens a surprisingly intimate essay about the role of guns in Australian life, setting the tone for
a collection being billed as Winton's most personal yet.
In spite of his inclination for solitude, Winton has spent much of his life in the spotlight. His first novel,
An Open Swimmer, catapulted him into the public eye when it won the Vogel literary award in 1981, but it was his
1991 novel, Cloudstreet, that cemented his place in Australian letters. Winton has won the Miles Franklin award
four times and been shortlisted twice for the Booker. His books have been adapted for film, TV and
even opera
.
ss="rich-link">
Island Home by Tim Winton review – a love song to Australia and a cry to
save it
Read more
The contradictions of having such a high-profile career while working in a quintessentially solitary artform
are not lost on him. "I spend all day in a room with people who don't exist, and I'm not thinking about any public
– but once the thing's done it goes out there and it has a public life over which I have no, or very little,
control," he says.
On one reading, the boy with the rifle lurking out of sight, watching the world go by, could be a metaphor for
the life of a reclusive writer. But Winton is quick to distinguish himself from such a reading. "I wouldn't like
to see myself as somebody who was just cruelly observing the world behind the terylene curtain of art."
For Winton, the perceived lives of other writers always seemed completely unrelated to his own experience. "I
grew up with a kind of modernist romantic idea of the writer as some kind of high priest, someone who saw
themselves as separate and better, which I now find a bit repellent," he says. "I think that was something that
was sold to us at school and certainly at university that writers were somehow aloof from the ordinary business
of life; they didn't have to abide by the same rules as other people. The worse their behaviour off the page, the
more we were supposed to cheer them on. Once I woke up to that idea as a teenager, I think I consciously resisted
it."
Winton's own background was characterised by a working class sensibility and evangelical religion. His parents
converted to the Church of Christ when he was a small boy, the circumstances and his experiences of which form the
basis of a number of the previously unpublished essays in The Boy Behind the Curtain. As a result, when he finally
did start writing, it was with a particularly industrious work ethic.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Tim Winton: 'There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what writing was about.' Photograph: Hank Kordas
"I approached it like I was a tradesperson," he says. "It didn't necessarily involve FM radio played very
loudly on a worksite; it didn't always require plumbers' crack or a hard hat and there was certainly no
catcalling, but for the rest of it I went a different route. There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what
writing was about."
ss="rich-link">
A fish called Tim Winton: scientists name new species after novelist
Read more
Yet it was finding words, what Winton calls "the enormous luxury of language", that took him from being a
13-year-old boy who watched strangers through the eye of a rifle – a boy who was "obviously insecure and feeling
threatened and probably not quite one with the world" – to a well-adjusted adult.
The "emotional infancy of men" has a lot to answer for, he says, suggesting that it's something society would
do well to pay more attention to in its early stages. "The lumpiness and surly silence of boys is not something
we're sufficiently interested in. They're not sufficiently attractive to us until they become victims or dangerous
brutes and bullies."
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say much doesn't have strong
feelings
Tim Winton
Conflicted masculinity is recurring theme throughout Winton's fiction, and his characters often suffer as a
result of their inability to articulate their feelings. "I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say
much doesn't have strong feelings," he says. "I think we stifle people's expression or we ignore people's signals
of wanting to express things at our peril."
The distinct tenor of Winton's prose, a lyricism which manages to turn even the Australian vernacular into a
kind of rough poetry, lends itself to the intimacy of the personal essay. The Boy Behind the Curtain contains a
number of vignettes that reflect the imagery and landscape that characterises his fiction: hot bitumen roads
through the desert; the churning ocean.
But there is also a clear political streak to Winton's nonfiction, and the inclusion of a number of more direct
essays in this collection mean it's difficult to collapse the work under the category of memoir. Stones for Bread,
for example, calls for a return to empathy and humanity in Australia's approach to asylum seekers. The Battle for
Ningaloo Reef is a clear-eyed account of the activism that prevented a major commercial development from
destroying a stretch of the Western Australian coastline. And Using the C-Word concerns that other dirty word that
Winton believes we are avoiding: class.
"I think there are people talking about class but they're having to do that against the flow," Winton says.
"We're living in a dispensation that is endlessly reinforcing the idea that we are not citizens but economic
players. And under that dispensation it's in nobody's interest, especially those in power, to encourage or foster
the idea that there's any class difference."
The market doesn't care about people, Winton argues, and neither is there any genius in it. "There's no
invisible hand," he says. "And if there is one, it's scratching its arse."
It's clear to Winton that neoliberalism is failing, but not without casualties, two of which are very close to
his heart: the arts and the environment.
"People in the arts are basically paying the price for this new regime where we pay no tax and where we get
less public service and more privatised service," he says. "The arts are last on, first off in people's minds and
I think that's not just sad, it's corrosive. They're just seen as fluff, as fripperies, as indulgence, as add-ons
and luxury. And I don't think the arts are luxury; I think they're fundamental to civilisation. It's just that
under our current dispensation, civilisation is not the point; civilisation is something that commerce has to
negotiate and traduce if necessary."
Winton is one of a number of high-profile critics of the Productivity Commission's proposals to allow
the parallel importation of books
, and a signatory to petitions opposing
funding cuts to the Australia Council
. But he has also been a grassroots activist in the area of marine
conservation for over 15 years.
"I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life on the side," he says.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life
on the side
Tim Winton
Years of lobbying by conservation groups and the general public contributed to the Labor government
announcement in 2012 of
42 marine reserves in Australian waters
, including over the entire Coral Sea. The Abbott government, however,
implemented a review which, in September this year, recommended
significantly scaling back those reservations
. It was, says Winton, an act of cowardice.
"The Abbott review was basically all about applying inertia to imminent progress," Winton says. "We've gone
from world leaders [in conservation] to being too frightened to lead."
When asked what role writing fiction plays in his activist work, Winton says it comes back to the idea of
"keeping people's imaginations awake".
"Imagination is the fundamental virtue of civilisation. If people can't imagine then they can't live an ethical
life."
You know how missionaries used to run around the globe forcing everyone to be a Christian?
And in the process, they destroyed native cultures and traditions?
Well, the same thing is happening today with Western "teen culture." It is being exported
around the world with disastrous effects.
Manufacturing Adolescence
Preindustrial societies mostly exhibit a continuum from childhood to adulthood. There is
generally no random cut off age where suddenly teens are given rights and expected to become
adults. Children seamlessly and gradually integrate into adulthood, with puberty rites being
the only major benchmark.
These societies were
"free-range parenting" before it was cool. Even toddlers have a large degree of autonomy.
The child is allowed to explore, and the mother provides the nurturing, feeding, and love at
the child's initiation. Young children participate in the work of their parents and elders and
interact and learn from people of all ages.
Children are raised from infancy alongside adults, instead of being segregated into peer
groups of the same age. They slowly learn from adults and take on more responsibilities by
emulating what they see.
What do kids see in the USA? A bunch of other kids with whom they have been grouped by
government and industry working in tandem . Instead of emulating adults, they act like
their peers. They want to dress the same, impress others with their technology, and keep up
with the same tv shows.
This creates an artificial sub-culture based on age. And it creates a new market.
As of 2011, teens spend over $200 billion
per year . Disney and all its many subsidiaries bring in about $45 billion a year. It is
not surprising that these industries now spend several billion dollars each year advertising to
teenagers. And the most effective form of advertising is to create a sub-culture through which
to sell products.
You can trace the roots of this phenomenon way back to the industrial revolution when social
structures got a big shakeup. Kids worked less alongside adults in family work and
apprenticeships. Instead, they were shipped off to compulsory public schools. They were grouped
by age and sex, and "educated" to be factory workers.
By contrasting Western adolescence with people of the same age in societies that are just
recently modernizing, we see that "teen turmoil" is not a natural phenomenon or an issue of
hormones. It has been created by Western culture and is now infecting industrializing
societies.
A similar story has played out for Kenyans, Moroccans, Australian aborigines, Canadian
Inuits, and many other preindustrial societies recently integrated into Western culture. Their
ways of life led to few social problems like unwed pregnancy, the breakdown of the family, drug
use, depression, violence, and general teenage angst and rebellious destructive behavior. But
that changed upon the introduction of Western television, schooling, and teen culture.
What is it that preindustrial teens are seeing on those television programs? Answer: teens
being treated like, and behaving like, irresponsible children.
When teens in preindustrial society are forced to attend Western-style schools, how are
they affected? Answer: they're cut off from adults and from the centrality of adult culture;
they're prevented from working, or at least making work the center of their lives; they
become controlled by adults instead of part of adult life; teens, rather than adults, become
their role models.
When Western mechanisms delay marriage, what is the outcome? Answer: because marriage is
the hallmark of adulthood in virtually all cultures, the delay of marriage also means the
delay of adulthood. It's no coincidence that Tom Smith's recent survey showed that Americans
now think adulthood begins at age twenty-six; the median age for first marriages in the
United States is now 26.8.
Pros and Cons of Western Culture
This is not a pro-tribalism post. I am absolutely not saying that society was better off in
a pre-industrial age. This is not a black or white issue. It is not like we have to choose
between being ignorantly blissful hunter-gatherers or isolated bitter consumer-robots.
Many cultures have benefited from industrialization in that the standard of living has
increased. But industrialization does not have to be imported 20th-century style. Modernization
can be introduced without causing the collapse of the old ways of life, which kept social
problems to a minimum.
We have the ability to see both extremes, isolate the biggest detrimental factors, and
mitigate them.
While the issues are all integrated, the main three problems are:
Exporting
Hollywood around the globe is another major problem. Teens are indoctrinated with the
creepy Hollywood executives' ideas of what it means to be a teen. They are sold sex, drugs, and
irresponsibility as fun, on the silver screen. And of course, there are plenty of real-world
products that they can buy to fast-track their emulation of the TV stars.
And finally, like it or not, families are a historically effective regulator of social
behaviors.
When it comes to teens around the world, just what kinds of practices and problems are we
exporting? The answer, it seems, is crime, ennui, anger, premarital sex, pregnancy, abortion,
drug and alcohol abuse, and family conflict. Consider just one of our more subtle exports:
according to a recent book on teens by psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Barbara
Schneider, American teens are almost completely isolated from adults . Teens typically spend
more than thirty-five hours per week surrounded by their peers in school and an additional
thirty-five hours per week with peers outside of school. That's two-thirds of their waking
hours. This is, according to the researchers, twelve more hours per week than teens in other
industrialized nations such as Italy and South Korea spend together, and it is probably sixty
hours a week more than teens spend together in many preindustrial societies.
Many American teens–perhaps half or more–also grow up with little access to
their father, and "for those lucky enough to have a father, the average teenager now spends
less than half an hour a week alone with his or her father." Half of this time is spent
watching television, "a situation that does not readily lend itself to quality parent-child
interactions." Father-teen interactions in the United States are certainly "not enough to
transmit the knowledge, values, attitudes, and skills that adult males should pass on to
their children." The child-adult continuum about which Jean Liedloff wrote is almost
completely absent in the united states, and we're sending our broken model of family life to
each and every village on earth.
Through our films, television programs, laws, religious beliefs, and schooling and
marriage practices, we're exporting a wide range of mechanisms that extend childhood well
past puberty and that isolate teens from adults. We're creating prolonged, turbulent,
Western-style adolescence, with all its inherent problems. We're creating generation gaps and
family conflicts where none existed before. And because we ourselves have no idea how to deal
with those problems, we're offering no solutions to the cultures we're corrupting.
Sure, pre-industrial cultures have their weak points, but so does the new way of life. You
can't objectively say one is better without specifically defining what makes it better.
Is increased teen depression and suicide worth having access to cell phones and internet? Is
increased violence and alcohol abuse worth an overall extended lifespan because of modern
medicine?
Luckily, we don't have to choose.
You can modernize without Westernizing. The three main contributors to the torment of
adolescence, and all the social problems which accompany them, are not necessary factors of
modernization.
I mentioned
"free range parenting" earlier. It is catching on in America. In a global world with more
information at our fingertips than ever before, we can cherry pick the best parts of each
culture, and apply those lessons to the modern world.
We don't have to live in a tribal-commune with no access to modern technology in order to
give young children autonomy to roam and explore the world.
We don't have to hunt in loin clothes in order to impart fatherly wisdom to our sons and
daughters.
But we may have to reorganize our lives and get our priorities straight.
Taking Action
If you've read my articles before, you know that I am not a big fan of "top-down" solutions.
That is, the best way to deal with something is on a grassroots, individual level. Trying to
change a whole society is difficult and not at all guaranteed to succeed. If it does, you have
to guard the progress against undoing.
Better to make the changes at the individual level, where you don't have to ask permission
or get a majority to agree.
Clearly, some broad reforms would help the situation. It is not about the government "doing
something" about the problem, it is about the government undoing some of the harm they have
caused.
For instance,
abolishing public schools, or at very least compulsory schooling would be a good start.
Since that probably won't happen anytime soon, parents can homeschool, send their kids to
alternative schools, or team up with friends and neighbors to form a co-op arrangement for
education.
Removing age-based restrictions on rights, or at least moving to a competency-based model of
gaining rights and privileges would also help. Again, petitioning the governing is mostly a
waste of time. Better to work with the freedoms you can give your kids. So they still can't
drive until 16, but at least they can cut their hair how they want, and maybe even have a glass
of wine with dinner.
But as with most problems, the largest barriers to improvement are in our heads.
Why not give your kids freedom from an early age? Why not let them participate in household
work from an early age? Hell, why not let them participate in your career if they are into
it?
The cool thing is that the
modern economy seems to be reorganizing to accommodate this way of life, without
sacrificing modern comforts and efficiencies.
It is easier than ever to work from home. Imagine a setting where mom and dad do their work
while the kids independently learn, or work on easier tasks. Older kids–neighbors or
family members or even a tutor–teach the younger kids. Certain work tasks and household
chores can be done together as a family, as many hands make light work.
The whole point of this method of parenting is that you offer a continuum from childhood to
adulthood.
And without even noticing it, life lessons, love, and kinship will be passed on. You don't
have to sit a kid down at a desk to teach them how to become an adult. If you interact with
them daily, they will learn from you. You just have to allow them to participate and encourage
them to pursue whatever they get excited about.
If you can't teach it to them, the internet can.
For some parents, this might sound like a disaster attempting to work from home while
teaching kids. But it is the transition that is difficult. Once children understand the new
structure of freedom, they will occupy themselves. They will learn more and be more
independent. And when they do come to you with a question or problem, it will be a rewarding
experience for everyone to work through it.
Of course for kids and teens unaccustomed to freedom, an immediate withdrawal of authority
could have disastrous consequences. Think about the 18-year-olds with strict parents who go off
to college and go crazy with parties and alcohol. But you can gradually give your child more
freedom whatever their age. Just be honest and upfront about what you are doing and why.
The issue of extended childhood, manufactured adolescence, and the harms of teen culture are
missing from most public debates.
School shootings,
teen suicide , and low-achieving youth are products of the artificial extension of
childhood, the
oppression that teens face . But with this issue, is it easy for individuals to take
control of the situation, and refuse to be part of the problem. You can solve these problems
for your family in one generation.
You don't have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and
brainwashed peers.
When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:
How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.
This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of
your dreams. It's not as hard as you think
Memoria day is an anti-war holiday designed to remeber horrible number of Civil war dead. But now it is converted into
something like glorification of militarism day.
Neocons are renegade Trotskyites 'aligned' with US imperialism and how fighting for "world neoliberal revolution".
Pay for their revolutionary fervor is much better though.
Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects? ..."
"... Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. ..."
"... Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that. ..."
"... that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review. ..."
"... It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating. ..."
"... It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing. ..."
"... Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies matters. ..."
"... Maybe Bronstein himself was a delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated by some internationalist idealism. ..."
"... A well known saying in left wing activist circles in the UK was "Never trust a Trot." ..."
"... Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with the exception of Mongols. ..."
Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This
movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage
ruin the reputation of its architects?
Not in the case of Trotsky. He was such a brilliant Jew!
Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow
them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the
coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main
contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin.
Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well,
pots and kettles and all that.
If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies' intervention (and Canada's!), directly (1994, from
Burundi, mainly to prevent Hutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the Ugandan
army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million
Hutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus),
from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former
Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi's first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat)
coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the
death threat by former US secretary of state for
African affairs, Herman Cohen.
that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because
yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary,
then Nat Review.
It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British
Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating.
It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark
night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.
Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this
purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies
matters.
@The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.
Wasn't 'Trotskyism' 'aligned' with US imperialism from the very moment when he transported the Warburg-Schiff money to Russia
to carry on the 'permanent revolution'?
And when Stalin cut Trotsky's crap who jumped to his defense? The Dewey "Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon
Trotsky in the Moscow Trials". And who are the imperialist 'neo-cons' other than 'old Trotskyists'?
I did not read about the suspicion that Bron(f)stein in reality was a German agent. What one reads in these two books does not
make the suspicion go away
John W Wheeler-Bennett, 'Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918', 1938, 1963, London
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
If they weren't so nefarious, the trotsies wouldn't be worth reading, let alone mentioning. Maybe Bronstein himself was a
delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated
by some internationalist idealism.
Neocons are jewish supremacists aided by corrupt to the core goyim, plain and simple. They do have in common with their guru
one conviction, that the end justifies the means. That is the recipe of evil.
It's a pity that so many youth are misled still today in believing in the hoax that Trotskyism is somehow something moral.
Trotsky was himself a murderer. Killing is immoral. It sometimes is necessary and cannot be avoided as with regards to the psychotic
butchers who came from abroad to Syria and are known as ISIS but it is still immoral.
Normal people sense killing as immoral therefore psychopaths have to come up with stories such as Germans slaughtering Belgian
babies with bayonets, Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Serbs genociding Bosniaks or Albanians, Qadhafi readying
for genocide in Benghazi, Assad pulling children's fingernails or gassing them, Iran being responsible for 9/11 etc, all in order
to dehumanise the enemy of the moment and compel people to accept that killing "sub-humans" half way around the world is a moral
act. It isn't. Period.
Unlike all those fake atrocities, Western and Saudi trained, armed and financed foreign terrorists in Syria did film themselves
doing horrors. They videotaped themselves burning people alive, throwing people off building tops. They videotaped themselves
beheading children. Assad didn't make those videos, ISIS did, to brag. Only mentally ill people can support those "rebels" against
Assad. Yet, as a Christian, I don't consider killing them as moral, I consider it as necessary and unavoidable, but it is an act
that mandates penitence.
Trotsies ignore those qualms and, whether real or alleged followers, are sick people. End of story.
From Trotsky's doctrine of Permanent Revolution onward, the hallmark of Trotskyism has been a quest for intellectual purity in
revolution – no contradictions allowed. No mixed economies under socialism. No pragmatic alliances. No consideration of national
security. Stake everything on a worldwide wave of revolution. Every real-world tactical issue since 1939 has led to fracturing
of the Trotskyist movement, generally into a "pure" faction and a "get something done" faction. International Socialists represented
the "pure" faction after the 1939 split (after it spun off the forebears of the neoconservative movement). Its sole contribution
of significance was as an intellectual incubator for Christopher Hitchens. More "pure" factions spun off in the early 1960s, which
sooner or later degenerated into cults. Lyndon LaRouche made his mark leading one of the "pure" factions. The "get something done"
faction made its mark as highly effective organizers of protests against the war in Vietnam but started chasing silly fads of
the student New Left, trying unsuccessfully to connect them to a revolutionary strategy. Their "revolutionary" rationale for those
movements blew up when they went in a decidedly bourgeois-aligned bureaucratic direction and became adjuncts to the Democratic
Party. WSWS represents the revival of purist Trotskyism, which offers cogent critiques of the glorified left-liberal postmodernist
"Trotskyism" of Louis Proyect and Socialist Alternative, but seems to choke on the question of what they themselves actually intend
to accomplish.
The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich
to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American
interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the
war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.
If one wants to make the case that Trotsky was a German agent, they would have to explain his agitation for spreading the revolution
into Germany. You could make a stronger case that George Washington was a French agent against Britain. Revolutions have tended
to occur in the cracks and contradictions opened in the struggles between the great powers, including the revolutions in China
and Vietnam.
The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defender of a mass murderer.
The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such
an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he "writes well", which, she admires.
That one can "write well" and "speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn't occur to Ms Johnson.
The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.
"Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality "
No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.
The first European revolution – The French Revolution – was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial
killing of a people – People of Vendée – . The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.
It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc ) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries
the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.
Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts
are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher – A French Genocide: The Vendee.
"In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries"
Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.
Great article! Thanks to Diana Johnstone for writing such a fine article which blows right out of the water so much of the BS
being bandied about in relation to the Syrian War, Stalin, etc. Ms. Johnstone is a REAL intellectual. Wish there were more like
her in the Anglosphere nowadays.
President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family. Prior to this Saudi Terrorist
Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping .hardly signs of a baby killer or a 'chemical animal'.
Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not
theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with
the exception of Mongols.
Trotskyites and WASPs – who created the largest empire in world history – in bed together, with the evil House of Saud, could
destroy civilization.
I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative). The
purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements. My other theory is that they were a paychological
projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.
Fools and idiots come in various shapes and sizes, as do socialists and wildlife. The zebra stands out from afar, its stripes
give it away. Likewise, the Trotskyites stand out markedly in the fairly jumbled-up socialist landscape, given away by their towering
stupidity and luminous obstinacy. Whenever some wretched poor, weak country is being bombed by the West, these useful idiots of
empire jump up and down in merriment. Whenever a union anywhere is trying to extort more money for less work, these fools give
their support. The burning down of churches and the spreading of atheism at gunpoint is another trait of theirs. Christian Socialists
they hate with a special vengeance, taking their cue from Marx the great "visionary", whose vision was fairly deficient in many
ways.
Stalin had Trot's head badgered-in, if I recall. Well, with a head as stupid as Trotsky's, half the world would be itching
to bash it in. One of those good things that Stalin did, IMHO.
The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally–and
the NKVD specifically–from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.
I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk
about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand
the context in which they took place.
Syrians have told me that Bashar al-Assad was a decent chap. But taking his family shopping could not be different from John McCain
walking through Baghdad with one hundred soldiers around him and helicopters overhead to show how safe it was. If Bashar al-Assad
"went shopping" in Damascus (instead of London or Paris) then two thousand plain clothes were also shopping with him. And for
what would he "go shopping" in Damascus? Shopping for an illusion, that's what.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of
deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening
contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment
while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." [ -Tony McKenna ]
This is like cursing the pizza store owner who gives 'protection' money to the mafia, without cursing the mafia which extorts
him! As Johnstone later points out, back then Assad had little choice but to try and make his peace with Uncle Scam as best he
could, since the USSR was no longer around to protect Syria.
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the
rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or
any other advanced capitalist country?"
Ah yes: Louis Proyect. The one and only! It was he who recently defended the 'rebels' as proletarian Bolsheviks struggling
for a new, socialist Syria:
"The Syrian rebels are generally drawn from the poor, rural and unrepresented majority of the population, the Arab version
of John Steinbeck's Joad family. Despite the tendency of some on the left to see them as sectarians who rose up against a generous
Baathist welfare state because it supported a different interpretation of who was the true successor to Muhammad, the revolutionary
struggle in Syria was fueled by class hatred."
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They
are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this
brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.
Which is why, once they reach a certain age and a certain level of burn-out, rather than simply give up on politics entirely,
they usually tend to become neoconservatives , as did Chris Hitchens. For them, the Rockefeller/Rothschild 'new world order'
is the next best thing to Trotsky's 'world revolution'.
The thing that escaped the author is that Trotskyism is a dead horse. The number of Trotskyists in any country is as close to
zero as makes no difference. These deluded weirdos are outnumbered even by flat-Earthers.
I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped
in all the classic WASP institutions.
Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just
crazy.
Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet
you're reading propaganda.
If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.
Absolutely. Ghadafi was sodomized by bayonet and Clinton cackled over it with malicious glee.
The posing of Assad as some kind of monster is just lynch-mob rationalization. McKenna doesn't believe what he is saying any
more than Stalin believed show trial confessions obtained under torture.
It's all the more pleasurable to these psychopaths that they cloak their crimes with phony virtue. Hence, putting Assad out
there as this cartoon villian.
As if ISIS, who we fostered and nurtured, was any better? Or communist Kurds? My God how we forget each disaster from Afghanistan
to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria now the scorched-earth war and subsequent disease, etc.? These people thrive on death and mayhem.
Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations.
Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been
achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China
and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism.
The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.
There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open
borders and anti-nationalism.
Eh No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it's not a joke. Fully European, of European
people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution
was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the
French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals,
or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?
Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that's all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus,
a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.
The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.
You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.
They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our "struggle" is multi
millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.
In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged
aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.
I'm very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
It's not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.
Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in
English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too
Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they
surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans. There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau
maintained by some college history department.
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They
are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this
brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for
permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home
and mind their own business.
Trotsky was a danger to the survival USSR, because he was an internationalist as is the Israeli-allied globalist cabal that
runs the USA. His differences with Stalin and the nationalists inside the Kremlin was not a small disagreement, as you assert.
You must not have ever even picked up a book on the subject.
Would you be surprised to learn that Lenin too was conspiring with the Japanese in 1904-5?
'Revolutionary defeatism' was a central tenet of his worldview and of Trotsky's too.
As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality
from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects' willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.
Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of
Kuehn and Loeb.
Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.
Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause
of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin
restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the "Hymn of the Soviet Union" (now the
Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace "The Internationale."
In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their
temporary allegiance to their great American golem.
The origins of the Cold War (and today's Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between
the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.
This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions
This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions
Louis Proyect – this is a vile scribe, who blackens the pages of the Counterpunch. A part of the Trotskyite gang that took over
this once venerable magazine!
I remember with emotion the old days, where in Minnesota, the Communist Party with me among others, and the Trotskyist of the
WS with you, among others, if my memories are good, we were fighting inside the movement against the war from VietNam.
The Trotskyists said then that once peace is won, it would be necessary to work for the overthrow of the regime of "pro-Soviet
revisionist HoChiMinh".
Even today, most of the troskysts (and CPF Eurocommunists for that matter) still deny the socialist character of China, Viet
Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and so on.
And this is even more true since these countries are inscribing their economy in the continuity of Lenin's NEP!
We come to this fable of the end of History with "globalized capitalism", as we enter a multipolar world where the socialist
countries (China, VietNam, North Korea, Cuba, Kerala ) in alliance with the BRICS non-imperialist, take over.
Have you evolved from Minnesota, or are you still a fellow traveler on the WS Trotskyite?
Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If
we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.
What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the
American Revolution.
Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide
is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.
"The entire Human History is criminal" – It's false.
"We must understand, not look for criminals." Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions
are made by criminals Not just Robespierre, of course.
Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)
Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".
If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's
almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.
Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the
Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others.
And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many
bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.
Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs
cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).
What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution
had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier
than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was
dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.
If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal
the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other
considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place
to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the
dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of
them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But,
Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power
with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.
Kotkin's writing is readable and the details are interesting. But he appears to be a full on propagandist on the important
details, like the Tsar, the Czech and Austrian conflicts, as well as the Stalin purges.
You tell me, a man who purges millions for no apparent reason (Kotkin gives none other than paranoia) isn't an implied psychopath?
Frankfurt School ideology replaced Marxism as the driving ideology of the American Left during the 1960s. Nominal Marxists
tried to fudge that ideology into Marxism because they thought it would help to sell Marxism, but boy were they wrong! Marxist
theory instead became a talisman for selling the various identitarian ideologies used to divide and weaken the working class –
the exact opposite of what the opportunist-identitarian Marxists had anticipated. Their claims that identitarian movements were
somehow akin to the anti-colonial nationalist movements of the postwar era were diametrically wrong. They became tools of the
ruling class in their 40+ year neoliberal campaign to impose hyper-exploitive colonial conditions on the former imperial homelands.
We are all Third World now.
The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists,
such as Francis Parker Yockey:
"... By Christine Berry. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... The really fascinating battles in intellectual history tend to occur when some group or movement goes on the offensive and asserts that Something Big really doesn't actually exist." ..."
"... "a new ideology must give high priority to real and efficient limitation of the state's ability to, in detail, intervene in the activities of the individual. At the same time, it is absolutely clear that there are positive functions allotted to the state. The doctrine that, one and off, has been called neoliberalism and that has developed, more or less simultaneously in many parts of the world is precisely such a doctrine But instead of the 19 th century understanding that laissez-faire is the means to achieve this goal, neoliberalism proposes that competition will lead the way". ..."
"... Wealth of Nations ..."
"... Neoliberalism is like a Caddis Fly larvae, that sticks random objects outside its cocoon to blend in. ..."
"... Neoliberalism did not just adopt neoclassical economics, nor did it simply infest political parties of the right. Neoliberalism re-invented neoclassical economics in ways that defined not just the "right" of academic economics, but also defined the "left". Keynesian economics was absorbed and transmogrified by first one neoclassical synthesis and then a second, leaving a New Keynesian macroeconomics to occupy the position of a nominal left within mainstream economics. If you are waiting for a Krugman or even a Stiglitz to oppose neoliberalism, you will be waiting a very long time, because they are effectively locked into the neoliberal dialectic. ..."
"... If neoliberalism can be broken down to "Because markets" perhaps it could also be referred to as "Market Darwinism". ..."
"... A fundamental difference between neoliberalism and classic economists like Ricardo & Smith is the latter's adamant opposition to rent seeking and insistence on fighting it by taxation. Neoliberalism on the other hand not only accepts rent-seeking, but actively encourages it. Thus we see not only the ascendancy of of the FIRE sector, but the effective destruction of markets as mechanisms of price discovery. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs. It is a very costly thing. ..."
"... Much as I regard your past comments, I must disagree with your assertion "Neoliberalism is just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs". Neoliberalism does indeed externalize and socialize costs but it is more than just another damn thing. Just the scale and scope of the think tank network assembled and well funded to promote the concepts of the Neoliberal thought collective should be adequate to convince you that it is much more than "just another damn thing". ..."
"... Consider just the visible portion of the think tanks which are part of the Neoliberal thought collective. "Today, Atlas Network connects more than 450 think tanks in nearly 100 countries. Each is writing its own story of how principled work to affect public opinion, on behalf of the ideas of a free society, can better individuals' lives." ..."
"... Next consider the state of the economics profession. Neoliberalism has taken over many major schools of economics and a large number of the economics journals. In a publish or perish world there are few alternatives to an adherence to some flavor of Neoliberal ideology. This is not "just another damn thing." Consider how many national politicians are spouting things like there is 'no such thing as society'. This is not "just another damn thing" -- it is something much much more scary. ..."
"... "I am not well qualified to criticize those theories, because as a market participant, I considered them so unrealistic that I never bothered to study them" ..."
"... "Those, like Ed Conway, who persist in claiming neoliberalism doesn't even exist, may soon find themselves left behind by history." ..."
"... "One of the great achievements of neoliberalism has been to induce such a level of collective amnesia that it's now once again possible to claim that these tenets are simply "fundamental economic rules" handed down directly from Adam Smith on tablets of stone, unchallenged and unchallengeable in the history of economic thought." ..."
"... "The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... "The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens." ..."
"... "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." ..."
"... "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." ..."
"... "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." ..."
"... A reading of Smith's 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' written before, but revised after, WoN is also worthwhile. As is, as ever, Karl Polyani's opening salvo against Smith's take on 'human market nature' (my term). Everyone should read 'The Great Transformation' at least once. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer. ..."
"... Neoliberals prefer a strong state that promotes their ends, not one that opposes them, or has the ability to oppose the means and methods of private capital . That leaves the playing field with a single team. ..."
"... Homo economicus ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that since members of H. economicus ..."
"... "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." ..."
"... "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result" ..."
"... "[ ] Well, this one at least is half-true. Like literally every concept that has ever mattered, the concept of 'neoliberalism' is messy, it's deeply contested [ ]" ..."
"... Although it serves the purposes of the rich-and-powerful rather well, I think "neoliberalism" as a rhetorical engine and set of ideas is the ideology of the 9.9%, the chattering classes of professionals and bureaucrats who need a cover story for their own participation in running the world for the benefit of the 0.1% These are the people who need to rationalize what they do and cooperate and coordinate among themselves and that's a challenge because of their sheer numbers. ..."
"... Neoliberalism says it aims at freedom and social welfare and innovation and other good things. If neoliberalism said it aimed to make the richest 0.1% richer at the expense of everyone else, it would provoke political opposition from the 99% for obvious reasons. Including opposition from the 9.9% whom they need to run things, to run the state, run the corporations. ..."
"... The genius of neoliberalism is such that it is able to achieve a high degree of coordination in detail across large numbers of people, institutions, even countries while still professing [fake] aims and values to which few object. A high degree of coordination on implementing a political policy agenda that is variously parasitical or predatory on the 90%. ..."
"... You can say this is just hypocrisy of a type the rich have always engaged in, and that would be true. The predatory rich have always had to disguise their predatory or parasitical activity, and have often done so by embracing, for example, shows of piety or philanthropy. So, neoliberalism falls into a familiar albeit broad category. ..."
"... What distinguishes neoliberalism is how good it is at coordinating the activities of the 9.9% in delivering the goods for the 0.1%. For a post-industrial economy, neoliberalism is better for the mega-rich than Catholicism was for the feudalism of the High Middle Ages. I do not think most practicing neoliberals among the 9.9% even think of themselves as hypocrites. ..."
"... "Free markets" has been the key move, the fulcrum where anodyne aims and values to which no one can object meet the actual detailed policy implementation by the state. Creating a "market" removes power and authority from the state and transfers it to private actors able to apply financial wealth to managing things, and then, because an actual market cannot really do the job that's been assigned, a state bureaucracy has to be created to manage the administrative details and financial flows -- work for the 9.9% ..."
"... As a special bonus, the insistence on treating a political economy organized in fact by large public and private bureaucracies as if it is organized by and around "markets" introduces a high degree of economic agnatology into the conventional political rhetoric. ..."
"... Pierre Bourdieu, the great French sociologist, would say neoliberalism, like the devil, is one of those things that makes a priority of pretending it does not exist. (Bourdieu cited many others.) It makes it much harder for those whose interests it does not serve to fight it, like forcing someone to eat Jello with a single chopstick. ..."
By Christine Berry. Originally published at
openDemocracy
The really fascinating battles in intellectual history tend to occur when some group
or movement goes on the offensive and asserts that Something Big really doesn't actually
exist."
So says Philip Morowski in his book 'Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste: How
Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown' . As Mirowski argues, neoliberalism is
a particularly fascinating case in point. Just as Thatcher asserted there was 'no such thing as
society', it's common to find economics commentators asserting that there is 'no such thing as
neoliberalism' – that it's simply a meaningless insult bandied about by the left, devoid
of analytical content.
But on the list of 'ten tell-tale signs you're a neoliberal', insisting that Neoliberalism
Is Not A Thing must surely be number one. The latest commentator to add his voice to the chorus
is Sky
Economics Editor Ed Conway . On the Sky blog, he gives four reasons why Neoliberalism Is
Not A Thing. Let's look at each of them in turn:
1. It's only used by its detractors, not by its supporters
This one is pretty easy to deal with, because it's flat-out not true. As Mirowski documents,
"the people associated with the doctrine did call themselves 'neo-liberals' for a
brief period lasting from the 1930s to the early 1950s, but then they abruptly stopped the
practice" – deciding it would serve their political project better if they claimed to be
the heirs of Adam Smith than if they consciously distanced themselves from classical
liberalism. Here's just one example, from Milton Friedman in 1951:
"a new ideology must give high priority to real and efficient limitation of the
state's ability to, in detail, intervene in the activities of the individual. At the same
time, it is absolutely clear that there are positive functions allotted to the state. The
doctrine that, one and off, has been called neoliberalism and that has developed, more or
less simultaneously in many parts of the world is precisely such a doctrine But instead of
the 19 th century understanding that laissez-faire is the means to achieve this
goal, neoliberalism proposes that competition will lead the way".
You might notice that as well as the word 'neoliberalism', this also includes the word
'ideology'. Remember that one for later.
It's true that the word 'neoliberalism' did go underground for a long time, with its
proponents preferring to position their politics simply as sound economics than to admit it was
a radical ideological programme. But that didn't stop them from knowing what they stood for, or
from acting collectively – through a well-funded network of think tanks and research
institutes – to spread those ideas.
It's worth noting that one of those think tanks, the Adam Smith Institute, has in the last
couple of years consciously reclaimed the mantle .
Affiliated intellectuals like Madsen Pirie and Sam
Bowman have explicitly sought to define and defend neoliberalism. It's no accident that
this happened around the time that neoliberalism began to be seriously challenged in the UK,
with the rise of Corbyn and the shock of the Brexit vote, after a post-crisis period where the
status quo seemed untouchable.
2. Nobody can agree on what it means
Well, this one at least is half-true. Like literally every concept that has ever mattered,
the concept of 'neoliberalism' is messy, it's deeply contested, it has evolved over time and it
differs in theory and practice. From the start, there has been debate within the neoliberal
movement itself about how it should define itself and what its programme should be. And, yes,
it's often used lazily on the left as a generic term for anything vaguely establishment. None
of this means that it is Not A Thing. This is something sociologists and historians
instinctively understand, but which many economists seem to have trouble with.
Having said this, it is possible to define some generally accepted core features of
neoliberalism. Essentially, it privileges markets as the best way to organise the economy and
society, but unlike classical liberalism, it sees a strong role for the state in creating and
maintaining these markets. Outside of this role, the state should do as little as possible, and
above all it must not interfere with the 'natural' operation of the market. But it has always
been part of the neoliberal project to take over the state and transform it for its own ends,
rather than to dismantle or disable it.
Of course, there's clearly a tension between neoliberals' professed ideals of freedom and
their need for a strong state to push through policies that often don't have democratic
consent. We see this in the actions of the Bretton Woods institutions in the era of 'structural
adjustment', or the Troika's behaviour towards Greece during the Eurozone crisis. We see it
most starkly in Pinochet's Chile, the original neoliberal experiment. This perhaps helps to
explain the fact that neoliberalism is sometimes equated with libertarianism and the 'small
state', while others reject this characterisation. I'll say it again: none of this means that
neoliberalism doesn't exist.
3. Neoliberalism is just good economics
Neoliberalism may not exist, says Conway, but what do exist are "conventional economic
models – the ones established by Adam Smith all those centuries ago", and the principles
they entail. That they may have been "overzealously implemented and sometimes misapplied" since
the end of the Cold War is "unfortunate", but "hardly equals an ideology". I'm sure he'll hate
me for saying this, but Ed – this is the oldest neoliberal trick in the book.
The way Conway defines these principles (fiscal conservatism, property rights and leaving
businesses to make their own decisions) is hardly a model of analytical rigour, but we'll let
that slide. Instead, let's note that the entire reason neoliberal ideology developed was that
the older classical "economic models" manifestly failed during the Great Depression of the
1930s, leading them to be replaced by Keynesian demand-management models as the dominant
framework for understanding the economy.
Neoliberals had to update these models in order to restore their credibility: this is why
they poured so much effort into the development of neoclassical economics and the capture of
academic economics by the Chicago School. One of the great achievements of neoliberalism has
been to induce such a level of collective amnesia that it's now once again possible to claim
that these tenets are simply "fundamental economic rules" handed down directly from Adam Smith
on tablets of stone, unchallenged and unchallengeable in the history of economic thought.
In any case, even some people that ascribe to neoclassical economics – like Joseph
Stiglitz – are well enough able to distinguish this intellectual framework from the
political application of it by neoliberals. It is perfectly possible to agree with the former
but not the latter.
4. Yes, 'neoliberal' policies have been implemented in recent decades, but this has been
largely a matter of accident rather than design
Privatisation, bank deregulation, the dismantling of capital and currency controls:
according to Conway, these are all developments that came about by happenstance. "Anyone who
has studied economic history" will tell you they are "hardly the result of a guiding ideology."
This will no doubt be news to the large number of eminent economic historians who have
documented the shift from Keynesianism to neoliberalism, from Mirowski and Daniel Stedman-Jones
to Robert Skidelsky and Robert Van Horn (for a good reading list, see this
bibliographic review by Will Davies .)
It would also be news to Margaret Thatcher, the woman who reportedly slammed down Hayek's
'Constitution of Liberty' on the table at one of her first cabinet meetings and declared
"Gentlemen, this is our programme"; and who famously said "Economics is the method; the object
is to change the soul". And it would be news to those around her who strategized for a
Conservative government with carefully laid-out battleplans for dismantling the key
institutions of the post-war settlement, such as the Ridley Report on privatising state-run
entities.
What Conway appears to be denying here is the whole idea that policymaking takes place
within a shared set of assumptions (or paradigm), that dominant paradigms tend to shift over
time, and that these shifts are usually accompanied by political crises and resulting transfers
of political power – making them at least partly a matter of ideology rather than simply
facts.
Whether it's even meaningful to claim that ideology-free facts exist on matters so
inherently political as how to run the economy is a whole debate in the sociology of knowledge
which we don't have time to go into here, and which Ed Conway doesn't seem to have much
awareness of.
But he shows his hand when he says that utilities were privatised because "governments
realised they were mostly a bit rubbish at running them". This is a strong – and highly
contentious – political claim disguised as a statement of fact – again, a classic
neoliberal gambit. It's a particularly bizarre one for an economist to make at a time when
70% of UK rail
routes are owned by foreign states who won the franchises through competitive tender. Just
this week, we learned that
the East Coast main line is to be temporarily renationalised because Virgin and Stagecoach
turned out to be, erm, a bit rubbish at running it.
* * *
It may be a terrible cliché, but the old adage "First they ignore you, then they
laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" seems appropriate here. Neoliberalism
successfully hid in plain sight for decades, with highly ideological agendas being implemented
amidst claims we lived in a post-ideological world. Now that it is coming under ideological
challenge, it is all of a sudden stood naked in the middle of the room, having to explain why
it's there (to borrow a phrase from a very brilliant colleague).
There are a number of strategies neoliberals can adopt in response to this. The Adam Smith
Institute response is to go on the offensive and defend it. The Theresa May response is to pay
lip service to the need for systemic change whilst quietly continuing with the same old
policies. Those, like Ed Conway, who persist in claiming neoliberalism doesn't even exist, may
soon find themselves left behind by history. 95 comments
Neoliberalism may not exist, says Conway, but what do exist are "conventional economic
models – the ones established by Adam Smith all those centuries ago",
Um please name one "conventional economic model" established by Adam Smith. I mean,
really, who would actually write such nonsense?
In fairness, I expect Conway is referring to the "invisible hand" of market competition,
wherein the competitive market qua an institution supposedly transforms the private pursuit
of self-interest into a public benefit. From the OP, Milton Friedman saying, "instead of . .
. laissez-faire . . . neoliberalism proposes . . . competition".
A pedant can rightly claim that the actual Adam Smith had a more nuanced and realistic
view, but that does not help to understand, let alone defeat, the intellectual smoke and
mirrors of neoliberalism. And, in spirit, the neoliberals are more right than wrong in
claiming Adam Smith: on the economics, he was a champion of market competition against the
then degenerate corporate state and an advocate of a modified laissez faire against
mercantilism, not to mention feudalism.
My personal view is that you have lost the argument if you agree to the key element of
neoclassical economics: that the economy is organized around and by (metaphoric) markets and
policy is justified (sic!) by remedying market failure. If you concede "the market economy"
even as a mere convention of political speech, you are lost, because you have entered into
the Alice-in-Wonderland neoliberal model, and you can no longer base your arguments on
socially-constructed references to the real, institutional world.
Adam Smith was systematically interpreting his observed world, he kept himself honest by
being descriptively accurate. It was Ricardo who re-invented classical economics as an
abstract theory deductible from first principles and still later thinkers, who re-invented
that abstract, deductive theory as a neoclassical economics in open defiance of observed
reality. And, still later thinkers, many of them critics (Hayek being a prime example) of
neoclassical economics as it existed circa 1930, who founded neoliberalism as we know it. We
really should not blame Adam Smith.
You comment is confusing to me -- not quite sure what you are arguing. You close asserting
"We really should not blame Adam Smith." Was he blamed in this post?
I think it's the very selective reading, and quoting, of Adam Smith's writings to give
neoliberal economics more legitimacy; the parts where he mentions the supremacy of the common
good and the need to prevent too much accumulation of money in too few hands is ignored.
Restated, the free market with its invisible hand is best so long as the whole community
benefits. However, wealth and the power it brings tends to become monopolized into a very few
hands. That needs to be prevented and if needed by government.
I think I need to go back over the Wealth of Nations to be sure I am not being
too selective myself. That said, what the neoliberals are doing is like some people's very
selective reading of the New Testament to support their interests. (Like the vile
Prosperity Gospel)
There is so much claptrap in this article, on all sides of what is supposedly being
debated. Yet, the one underlying historical fact that is being completely overlooked is pure
Keynesian demand driven economics.
An economics that not only has a basis in fact, but also has an actual history of
success.
Keynesian economics did not fail. It was undermined by a movement back toward neo-liberal
Adam Smith "invisible hand of the free market" nonsense that has done nothing throughout
history except proven itself to be greed disguised as an economic theory to give the powerful
an opportunity to fleece the poor and the government treasury.
"Free markets" is incoherent, yet it is a very well accepted and unquestioned notion, to
the degree it is regularly depicted as virtuous and achieving it, a worthy policy goal.
I have written about how the East Germans were absorbed by Germany as neoliberalism was
ascendant in 1990, with such shibboleths as TINA and The End of History taken as cosmological
verities by the West German government. Now I'm doing research on Detroit, where
neoliberalism remains powerful and the source of a meretricious "renaissance" taking place
there even as it is increasingly found to be a generator of and rationalization for all
manner of class-based exploitation. Mirowski's checklist of the attributes of neoliberalism
is on display in state and local government there as they serve corporations, such as the
city "selling" the Little Ceasar's empire 39 acres of downtown land for $1 upon which was
built the new hockey arena. Detroit is a bellwether city, and despite the depredations of
corporations and government there is much organized opposition to neoliberal rule in the
city.
I believe there was an article here recently by Mirowski – The something or other
that dare not speak it's name ? I have spent quite a few hours in the past listening to his
podcasts & videos, which tend to repeat themselves, although something new slips in from
time to time, especially from Q & A's.
His assertion that economics is merely one part of a whole in the Neoliberal assault woke
me up, & indeed then appeared very obvious.
I believe I have seen an example of the Detroit devastation used as film sets in two
films: " Only Lovers Left alive " & " Don't Breathe ", which suit the darkness of them
very well.
Good to know that there is resistance & I wish you the very best outcome for your
& or their endeavours.
I too have watched many hours of Phillip Mirowski's videos, several of them more than
once. I have a little trouble with your assertion they "tend to repeat themselves, although
something new slips in from time to time". He does repeatedly emphasize points which are hard
to believe on first hearing but grow evident upon further reflection. For example his
emphasis on the concept of the Market as the Neoliberal epistemology -- an ultimate tool for
discovering Truth. A little recall of some recent and surprisingly commonplace constructs
like a "market of ideas", or various ways of suggesting we are each a commodity we need to
package, promote, and sell as exemplified by Facebook "likes" and "networking" as a way to
get ahead. Looking at the whole of the videos, and excluding obvious repetitions like
multiple versions of book promotion interviews at different venues I think the range of ideas
Mirowski explores is remarkable -- from the Neoliberal thought collective to climate change
to the Market applied to direct the truth science can discover.
[Where do you find podcasts of Mirowski? I recall collecting a few but most of what I find
are videos. He has numerous of his papers posted at academia.edu which can be downloaded for
free by signing up for the website.]
There are just a few. You may already have heard some of these: Search for Symptomatic
Redness, and search for This Is Hell. Search for [PPE Polanyi Hayek]. He talked to Doug
Henwood. He talked to Will Davies and that is audio only I believe. There's the Science Mart
talk that he gave in Australia. If you look in archive.org and soundcloud as well as youtube
and vimeo, you will find most of them. I think all four of those sites have a few recordings
that are exclusive from the others. Archive.org has a couple of his appearances on community
radio. A few are also linked from the media page for a given book on the publishers' sites,
like go to the links on the book page for Science Mart, for an appearance on I think Boston
radio.
I'm a nerd. Heh. But if you've come this far and listened to the videos (the one with
Homer's brain and markomata, the Boundary2 conference talk, the Leukana one, Prof Nik-Khah at
the Whitlam center, Sam Seder, the one on climate, talking about Cowles in Brazil), you will
enjoy the others. Hope these notes help you find a few.
I wrote a web page back in April of
2016 about the neoliberal forces in Detroit. Let me know at my twitter page what you think. Feel
free to use whatever you find helpful
I found then that the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan had been hornswaggled by
private enterprises nesting their own feathers.
Utilitarianism, expressed as the greatest aggregate well-being to humanity
(economic production and growth) and preference for economic efficiency (monopolies,
duopolies, cartels, etc.) over market competition, are two additional hallmarks of
neoliberalism.
Recognizing these two important values helps explain the growing economic and social
inequality we're witnessing around the western world.
I will checkout your recommendation and I hope that it will discuss, for instance, the
assumption that *economic* production and growth and preference for economic efficiency is
and should be the proper goal of human life.
The book is descriptive and critical, but not particularly prescriptive. But yes, one of
the real strengths of Davies' work is his documentation of the many economic, social, and
political assumptions that provide the foundations of neoliberal thought. I was impressed by
the many logical inconsistencies that advocates of neoliberalism are comfortable in
accepting. I don't believe that the bulk of neoliberal ideas could exist for long outside the
philosophical context of postmodernism as the cognitive dissonance they (should) generate
would find them quickly abandoned.
The intersection of postmodernism, neoliberalism , and neoconservatism defines our current
Western civilization, and I wish somebody would come up with a name for it. Whatever we have
now is the successor to Modernism, in its broadest sense.
I saw one of those political compass memes recently that had at the "center", "Everything
is rent seeking, except for literal rent seeking, which is okay."
Well, there is at least some labeling issue, as one of the first people to use term
"neoliberalism" (for his proposed policy) was Germany's Alexander Rustow, who hardlty anyone
knows about these days, so they don't know either that Rustow would likely sign off most of
Corbyn's proposed policies
IIRC Rustow was one of the more 'moderate' founder members of the Mont Pelerin Society.
His views did not prevail, though they initially adopted his term for their project. I wonder
if, when he saw which way the wind was blowing, he demanded it back.
The term was sometimes applied to the New Deal but didn't really catch on.
It was also used in the early '80s for a movement trying to resurrect the New Deal in the
face of Reagan but that didn't catch on either.
Hey, I just remembered something. When I was a kid growing up everybody knew all about the
mafia but all those in the know denied that there was any such thing when questioned in a
court of law. It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always
denying that the mafia was an actual thing. Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out
of their book and adopted the same tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while
actively pushing it at every opportunity?
And like the line from 'fight club', the first rule of neoliberalism is that you don't
talk about it.
To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers who
benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those
benefits can flow up to that few.
this is why I keep Mario Puzo next to Adam and Karl on the econ shelf in my library.
It's not so much Omerta, as gobbdeygook and wafer thin platitudes.
Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell
Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition.
I am inclined to believe that the Libertarian Party was a vehicle for this counterrevolution,
too.
and finally, with the DLC, they were able to buy the "opposition party" outright and here we
are.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! He's only here to direct you to a very
robust curtain marketplace to suit all your needs, including our newest offering for
consumers without a desire to invest in (or a steady home for) full curtain infrastructure:
Curtains-as-a-Service! Ultimate mobility! Low(ish) monthly payments forever!"
"Neoliberalism" is indeed a thing, but it is not in any way an economic model.
"Neoliberalism" is simply the ethos of Sit Back and Let the Big Dog Eat, and it wraps itself
in whatever words or models is most effective at distracting and camouflaging its rotten
core. Neoliberalism is like a Caddis Fly larvae, that sticks random objects outside its
cocoon to blend in.
So the Neoliberals talk about free markets when it suits them – and when their
wealthy patrons want to be bailed out with public funds, they talk about government
responsibility. They harp about freedom – but demand that large corporations get to use
de-jure slave labor to peel shrimp. They talk about how wonderful free trade is – and
demand that private citizens not be able to import legal pharmaceuticals because this would
destroy the freedom of big pharma to maximize profits by restricting trade and without this
new drug development would stop and anyone who believes in free trade wants a free lunch. I
could go on. It's pointless to try and refute them, because there is nothing to refute, and
they have no shame. Only brute power, but this they have in abundance.
So of course they reject the label, because co-opting and corrupting and hiding behind
legitimate philosophies is part of their modus operandi. Using the terminology of the enemy
is always a mistake. Long may the vile practitioners of 'neoliberalism' be forced to be
referred to by an accurate label!
It is. I wish he had gone on. Might we build on it? I think such examples clarify
brilliantly exactly of whom we speak:
"Neoliberals want minimal government regulation because such regulation makes the market
inefficient. Except when making dubious student loans; then they want the government to
guarantee those loans and serve as their muscle in collecting."
Excellent comment.
"It's pointless to try and refute them, because there is nothing to refute, and they have no
shame. Only brute power, but this they have in abundance."
Absolutely.
Neoliberalism: an old fashioned expression of the seemingly eternal "all for me, none for
thee".
A million tonnes of economic speciousness, the thickness of a piece of plastic wrap, covering
the bloated & putrifying zombie body of a small "elite".
"Now that it is coming under ideological challenge, it is all of a sudden stood naked in
the middle of the room, having to explain why it's there (to borrow a phrase from a very
brilliant colleague)."
One gambit in denying neoliberalism is to pretend it must be a specific doctrine and then
dispute about which that doctrine that is. Or that neoliberalism must be a specific programme
and dispute whether that programme has been consistent thru time. But, the intellectual cum
ideological history cum policy history here is that neoliberalism has been a dialectic.
There's Thatcher and then there's Blair.
It is the back-and-forth of that dialectic that has locked in "the shared set of
assumptions" and paradigm of policy inventiveness that has given neoliberalism its remarkable
ability to survive its own manifest policy-induced crises.
Neoliberalism did not just adopt neoclassical economics, nor did it simply infest
political parties of the right. Neoliberalism re-invented neoclassical economics in ways that
defined not just the "right" of academic economics, but also defined the "left". Keynesian
economics was absorbed and transmogrified by first one neoclassical synthesis and then a
second, leaving a New Keynesian macroeconomics to occupy the position of a nominal left
within mainstream economics. If you are waiting for a Krugman or even a Stiglitz to oppose
neoliberalism, you will be waiting a very long time, because they are effectively locked into
the neoliberal dialectic.
Something almost analogous happened with the political parties of the centre-left, as in
the iconic cases of Blair vs Thatcher or Clinton vs Reagan (and then, of course, Obama vs
Reagan/Bush II). In western Europe, grand coalitions figured in the process of eliminating
the ability of centre-left parties to think outside the neoliberal policy frames or to
represent their electoral bases rather than their donor bases.
Sitting here nodding my head. All the same criticisms could be made of, oh, say,
Christianity. Wars have been fought, hundreds of thousands of Christians have been persecuted
by other Christians, over the definition, but that certainly does not make it Not A
Thing.
Neoliberal thought is very deliberately projected as a many-headed Hydra. The Neoliberal
thought collective presents manifold statements and refinements of its principles. The value
of agnotology is a belief of held in sufficient regard to be deemed a principle of belief.
Just try dealing with an opponent that shifts and evaporates but never loses substance in
working toward its goals.
A fundamental difference between neoliberalism and classic economists like Ricardo &
Smith is the latter's adamant opposition to rent seeking and insistence on fighting it by
taxation. Neoliberalism on the other hand not only accepts rent-seeking, but actively
encourages it. Thus we see not only the ascendancy of of the FIRE sector, but the effective
destruction of markets as mechanisms of price discovery.
Also, Yves, thanks a million for these enlightening neoliberalism articles. I've had quite
a bit of trouble in the past putting my political beliefs in the appropriate context; a
general feeling of malaise and overall mistrust of free-trade agreements and big corporations
without anything to really back it up is usually a one-way ticket to losing an argument and
being labelled an old crank. Being able to put a name on something you know doesn't smell
right, and finding a framework that allows others to spot it, is a hell of a leg up.
It always reminds me of the index (or aside, or supplementary reading, whatever it was)
that accompanied my copy of 1984. It basically said that controlling the common language and
not allowing for terminology to define certain things (in this case, pulling the 'first two
rules of Fight Club' thing – thanks, johnnygl!) was key to keeping those things
essentially invisible, and those afflicted by the maladies off-balance and unable to organize
against them. That bit of Orwell made sense then, but it has really been hitting home after
reading some of these articles.
For anyone who missed it, this
one was also particularly great.
Neoliberalism is just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs. It is a
very costly thing. But I'm more inclined to think that no isms exist anywhere in the real
world in any constructive way – they are all just mental reflexes useful for
rationalizing irresponsibility and procrastination. And self interest. We might as well just
say economicism.
Interesting comment by the author about the sociology of knowledge. No doubt
there is a sensible mantra somewhere chanting: Do what works. Because if evolution had been
evolutionism we'd all be extinct. The only thing sticking in my dottering old head these days
is Ann Pettifor's last question: Please, please can you just tell us how the economy actually
works?
Much as I regard your past comments, I must disagree with your assertion "Neoliberalism is
just another damn thing that externalizes and socializes costs". Neoliberalism does indeed
externalize and socialize costs but it is more than just another damn thing. Just the scale
and scope of the think tank network assembled and well funded to promote the concepts of the
Neoliberal thought collective should be adequate to convince you that it is much more than
"just another damn thing".
Consider just the visible portion of the think tanks which are part of the Neoliberal
thought collective. "Today, Atlas Network connects more than 450 think tanks in nearly 100
countries. Each is writing its own story of how principled work to affect public opinion, on
behalf of the ideas of a free society, can better individuals' lives."
Members of the network
include: AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC), AYN
RAND INSTITUTE, CATO INSTITUTE, GOLDWATER INSTITUTE, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION
selected members from the 177 think tanks in the U.S. which are a part of the 475 partners in
92 countries around the globe. [https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory]. This
is not "just another damn thing."
Next consider the state of the economics profession. Neoliberalism has taken over many
major schools of economics and a large number of the economics journals. In a publish or
perish world there are few alternatives to an adherence to some flavor of Neoliberal
ideology. This is not "just another damn thing." Consider how many national politicians are
spouting things like there is 'no such thing as society'. This is not "just another damn
thing" -- it is something much much more scary.
Thank you for this post. It is the methodical destruction of any possible alternatives to
this totalizing and dehumanizing system that is most frightening to me.
Basically the rich dismantled the New Deal and desperately are trying to hide it. The issue is that the decline in living standards for the middle class are so big that
they can no longer hide what they are. This was linked in NC a while ago:
Neoliberalism is quite fuzzy and difficult to attack. Neoliberalism intellectual framework comes from the underlying neoclassical economics that
can easily be attacked. Here's George Soros. George Soros realised the economics was wrong due to his experience with the markets. What the neoclassical economists said about markets and his experience just didn't
compare, and he knew it was so wrong he never even bothered to look into what the economics
said.
George Soros "I am not well qualified to criticize those theories, because as a market
participant, I considered them so unrealistic that I never bothered to study them"
Here is George Soros on the bad economics we have used for globalisation.
He had been complaining for years and at last in 2008 the bankruptcy of the economics
proved itself. With more widespread support, he set up INET (The Institute for New Economic
Thinking) to try and put things right. Globalisation's technocrats, trained in bad economics, never stood a chance.
"Those, like Ed Conway, who persist in claiming neoliberalism doesn't even exist, may
soon find themselves left behind by history."
During the last election, when leftist types were criticizing Hillary Clinton for her
neoliberal tendencies, the Ed Conway approach was favored by the online Dem Party shills as
the go-to response at mainstream liberal websites. In the comments sections of these
places, I read quite a lot of out-and-out bullsh*t about neoliberalism not being real, and
how charges of it had as much substance as similarly empty schoolyard taunts. If you said
someone was a neoliberal, it had no more meaning than if you'd called them "poopy pants" or
'booger breath." And all this delivered with the usual blistering abuse thrown at anyone not
willing to get down on all fours & kiss St. Hillary's blessed pants suit. It got to the
point where I finally had to stop visiting places like Lawyers, Guns and Money altogether.
They had become unbelievably nasty and unpleasant to progressives.
"One of the great achievements of neoliberalism has been to induce such a level of
collective amnesia that it's now once again possible to claim that these tenets are simply
"fundamental economic rules" handed down directly from Adam Smith on tablets of stone,
unchallenged and unchallengeable in the history of economic thought."
To prove this wrong read Adam Smith. Adam Smith observed the reality of small state, unregulated capitalism in the world around
him. Adam Smith on rent seeking:
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the
maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury
by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the
industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the
use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no
landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
So, landlords, usurers and taxes all raise the cost of living and minimum wage. They suck
purchasing power out of the real economy. Western housing booms have raised the cost of living and priced Western labour out of
international markets leading to the rise of the populists. Trickledown, no it trickles up.
Adam Smith on price gouging:
"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or
manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the
public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the
dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the
public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable
the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their
own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."
So this is why hedge funds look for monopoly suppliers of drugs. Big is not beautiful in capitalism, it needs competition and lots of it. The interests of business and the public are not aligned.
Adam Smith on lobbyists:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order
ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till
after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with
the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly
the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and
oppressed it."
Not surprising TTIP and TPP didn't go down well with the public.
The interests of business and the public are not aligned.
Adam Smith on the 1%:
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to
have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
2017 – Richest 8 people as wealthy as half of world's population
They haven't changed a bit.
Adam Smith on Profit:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and
fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to
ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today's problems with growth and demand.
Amazon didn't suck its profits out as dividends and look how big it's grown (not so good
on the wages).
The problem with Adam Smith is the same as for Keynes: people quote what they imagine he
said, or what they want him to have said, rather than what he actually did say.
Adam Smith at least wrote more clearly than Keynes did, which makes claims like that
easier to refute.
Yet the problem with Smith is contextualizing the time and space he wrote of vs. that of
Keynes. Keynes was not addressing a burgeoning industrialist – agrarian economy that
had yet to employ oil to its potential with huge amounts of untapped natural resources still
waiting in the wings and nary any counter prevailing force to this periods philosophical
views.
Even if the whole anglophone experience had a touch of the Council of Nicea tinge to it
e.g. making nice between troublesome tribes within the fold.
Keynes at least looked at the data and attempted to reflect what he discern "at the time"
against the prevailing winds of doctrinaires contrary to all the sycophants.
This is was the lesson he attempted to forward, howls from the sycophants is a tell.
A reading of Smith's 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' written before, but revised after,
WoN is also worthwhile. As is, as ever, Karl Polyani's opening salvo against Smith's take on 'human market nature'
(my term). Everyone should read 'The Great Transformation' at least once.
The 18th century was an interesting time. My take, only partially thought out, is that
Smith's later work was part of that move away from grand theorizing towards practical
improvement of the human condition seen in so many thinkers of the mid-century period. (With
the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 acting as something of a catalyst)
Mr. Conway must be a fan of Mr. Fukuyama and his exercises for brain stunting.
IMO, Fukuyama's success depended very much on neoliberalism becoming dominant.
In a way, this comment sums up the modern condition very well. Life is always about the
struggle between the have and the have nots. "Civilization" is the human attempt to curb, or
put a respectable face on the raw power struggle between the weak and the powerful. It is
something worth fighting for if justice, equality under the law, and relief from human
suffering is the goal. If greed and self-interest is the only goal, one can be considered a
barbarian and resisted. In such a case, might makes right and the world is full of darkness
and destruction.
Short form- The elite are failing in their duty to humanity- and the rest of life on this
planet. As a scapegoat, they call out anyone not with their agenda deplorables and double
down on their barbarous ways. Greed, exploitation, and subjugation.
Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a
camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does
at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer.
This is an amateur take, but as I see it classical liberalism was pretty much wrecked by
the combination of WWI, great depression, and WWII. The "everything laissez faire" ideology
had simply taken too much damage from the reality of political economy. So it evolved, as it
were, into three new ideologies: libertarianism, which faulted classical liberalism for not
going far enough in reducing the state, which goes a long ways towards explaining why it's
not very popular; the liberal-left/FDR liberalism/SocDem position, which faulted classical
liberalism for ignoring the social element, where there's a heavy welfare state, enterprises
are highly regulated, labor protections, but still private ownership and a capitalist class;
and neoliberalism, which faulted classical liberalism for being ideologically unwilling to
engage in the technocratic tinkering to right the ship, but still sees TIHOTFM as the center
of the economy. The first is the religious orthodoxy response, the second is to put the
market in the sandbox, and the third puts the state in the sandbox.
My take, influenced by Polanyi, is that classical Liberalism collapsed with WWI. In Europe
it was replaced with Socialism (of a sort), Social Democracy or Fascism. Sometimes switching
around and taking a while to settle.
In the US classical Liberalism had a glorious swansong in the 1920s but it finally died in
1929, giving way to Social Democracy in the New Deal.
The Neoliberal project did not properly start until after WWII and did not take over until
around 1980.
Neoliberals prefer a strong state that promotes their ends, not one that opposes them,
or has the ability to oppose the means and methods of private capital . That leaves
the playing field with a single team.
Neoliberals would have the state oppose the goals of others in society. To nurture that
environment, neoliberals seek to redefine society and citizenship as consumerism. Woman's
only role is as one of the species Homo economicus . Neoliberals argue that since
members of H. economicus exist in isolation, they have no need for the extensive
mutual aid and support networks that neoliberals rely on to survive and prosper. Again, that
leaves a single team on the playing field.
I would add tha neoliberalism is inherently about classism. That the wealthy, because of
their education, know more than poor people because of the lack of education. So when voters
complain about the lack of jobs or the poor state of healthcare, the Clintionites wave it
away because, well what do those poor people know anyway?
One of the topics that pops up regulary, is the question "why can't poor people tell how
great the economy is doing?" -face palm- A question that took on fresh important when
Clintion lost the election.
Ironically, the conversation is now, why can't poor people tell how shitty the economy is
with Trump in charge. -dabble face palm-.
You only have to walk around San Francisco or Los Angeles to see that something is wrong
with the current economic environment. This in the wealthy parts of California. There can be
plenty of disagreement over the what, the why, and the solutions, but to demand that I ignore
my lying eyes and believe their words' truthiness is either insulting or insanity and maybe
both.
Mirowski addressed this very issue in this paper –
"The Political Movement that Dared not Speak its own Name: The Neoliberal Thought
Collective Under Erasure" – In this paper I examine the disinclination to treat the
Neoliberal political project as a serious intellectual project motivating a series of
successes in the public sphere. Economists seem especially remiss in this regard.
I disagree that neoliberalism is a thing. There are still only the conservative and
liberal view points. My interpretation of them is as follows:
-Conservative ideology stems from maintaining status quo, tradition, hierarchy and individual
growth ( even at the cost of society). Religion dovetails this ideology as it is something
passed on through generations.
-Liberal ideology stems from growing the society( even at the cost of individual),
challenging the status quo and breaking away from tradition.
Neoliberalism to me is just a part of conservatism
Here is the dictionary definition of conservatism;
" the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially
conservative ideas."
A crude example would be to say that Libertarians are closet Republicans.
If I understand neoliberalism correctly it boils down to this: Whoever has money and power gets to make the rules within certain limits which are defined
by:
Whether they get caught
Whether people understand what they are doing
How they market what they do
How much political power they have
Success of the model is defined as success of the richest, most powerful actors. Anyone
who does not succeed is labeled as having been inadequate, lazy, or
socialist/communist/etc. Have I missed anything?
The claim that neoliberalism does not exist reminds me of Baudelaire's "la plus belle des
ruses du Diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!" ("the cleverest ruse of the Devil is to persuade you he does not exist!")
We frogs have been in the pot for so long now we've forgotten that there ever was a
pond
A priori, what motivated Hayek's, Mises' and their associates' programme from its
conception in the '30's was that it was a *reaction* against the threat to freedom (as they
defined it) which they considered to be posed by the onward march of what they termed
"collectivism", embodied not only by avowedly socialist governments (as in Austria) but also
in that ostensible bulwark of capitalism the USA (whence Mises had emigrated), in the shape
of the New Deal.
Given that genesis, it baffles me that any historian can seriously question what was the
true nature of the project which (led by Hayek) was conceived in response, which later became
known as neoliberalism. It was conceived as a counter-offensive to what they identified as an
insidious mortal threat to all the values they subscribed to – as in Hayek's phrase
"the road to serfdom". How could any such counter-offensive be implemented other than through
devising and putting into effect a plan of action? How could it ever *not* have been "a
thing" (ie not possess objective reality) yet still achieve its specified objective –
namely to defeat the chosen enemy? To assert that it was not is to fly in the face of logic
and common sense.
Doesn't any serious historian need to deploy both of those faculties in good measure?
I agree that Hayek and others were engaged in a political movement that promoted intense
opposition to social democratic experiments sweeping the West after WWII.
Their chosen enemy seems to have been collective responses generally – governmental
and social – except those that they approved of. Coincidentally, those seem to be
approved of by their wealthy patrons. I don't recall their vocal opposition to the trade
associations, for example, that cooperated to promote the interests of the companies their
patrons controlled.
Hayek and others seem to have overreacted in their opposition to collective action, even
while making exceptions for the social networking and persistent patron funding that promoted
their own endeavours.
"[ ] Well, this one at least is half-true. Like literally every concept that has ever
mattered, the concept of 'neoliberalism' is messy, it's deeply contested [ ]"
Way I see it, it happens to be extremely simple:
Classical liberalism: "The state should leave us elites alone such that we may do what we must, it's our
plantations/factories/banks anyway!"
And, when the former didn't work (the conservative/aristocratic state didn't leave them
alone), came the neo-liberalism: " We should take control of the state and insure that we are not molested by its
services and that it disciplines the lower classes in our name!"
Neo-liberalism is extremely old and the only exceptions to this "new" development were the
so called "totalitarian" states (feared, by neo-libs, most of all things), which mainly
disciplined the elites, with great success, I might add.
In reply to several commenters, who have questioned why "neoliberalism" is not simply
another name for the political expression/ambitions of the greed of the rich-and-powerful,
aka conservatism.
Although it serves the purposes of the rich-and-powerful rather well, I think
"neoliberalism" as a rhetorical engine and set of ideas is the ideology of the 9.9%, the
chattering classes of professionals and bureaucrats who need a cover story for their own
participation in running the world for the benefit of the 0.1% These are the people who need
to rationalize what they do and cooperate and coordinate among themselves and that's a
challenge because of their sheer numbers.
If you try to examine neoliberalism as a set of aims or values or interests, I think you
miss the great accomplishment of neoliberalism as a mechanism of social cooperation.
Neoliberalism says it aims at freedom and social welfare and innovation and other good
things. If neoliberalism said it aimed to make the richest 0.1% richer at the expense of
everyone else, it would provoke political opposition from the 99% for obvious reasons.
Including opposition from the 9.9% whom they need to run things, to run the state, run the
corporations.
Not being clear on what your true objectives are tends to be an obstacle to organizing
large groups to accomplish those objectives. Being clear on the mission objective is a
prerequisite for organizational effectiveness in most circumstances. The genius of
neoliberalism is such that it is able to achieve a high degree of coordination in detail
across large numbers of people, institutions, even countries while still professing [fake] aims and
values to which few object. A high degree of coordination on implementing a political policy
agenda that is variously parasitical or predatory on the 90%.
You can say this is just hypocrisy of a type the rich have always engaged in, and that
would be true. The predatory rich have always had to disguise their predatory or parasitical
activity, and have often done so by embracing, for example, shows of piety or philanthropy.
So, neoliberalism falls into a familiar albeit broad category.
What distinguishes neoliberalism is how good it is at coordinating the activities of the
9.9% in delivering the goods for the 0.1%. For a post-industrial economy, neoliberalism is
better for the mega-rich than Catholicism was for the feudalism of the High Middle Ages. I do
not think most practicing neoliberals among the 9.9% even think of themselves as
hypocrites.
"Free markets" has been the key move, the fulcrum where anodyne aims and values to which
no one can object meet the actual detailed policy implementation by the state. Creating a
"market" removes power and authority from the state and transfers it to private actors able
to apply financial wealth to managing things, and then, because an actual market cannot
really do the job that's been assigned, a state bureaucracy has to be created to manage the
administrative details and financial flows -- work for the 9.9%
As a special bonus, the insistence on treating a political economy organized in fact by
large public and private bureaucracies as if it is organized by and around "markets"
introduces a high degree of economic agnatology into the conventional political rhetoric.
[This comment sounded much clearer when I conceived of it in the shower this morning. I am
sorry if the actual comment is too abstract or tone deaf. I will probably have to try again
at a later date.]
Pierre Bourdieu, the great French sociologist, would say neoliberalism, like the devil, is
one of those things that makes a priority of pretending it does not exist. (Bourdieu cited
many others.) It makes it much harder for those whose interests it does not serve to fight
it, like forcing someone to eat Jello with a single chopstick.
In an ongoing operation, the US imperialist hawks seek to wipe out the last Leftist governments in Latin America
Ten years ago, most of Latin America was governed by Center-Left progressive or even Leftist governments. For example, Cristina Fernandez
in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Manuel Zelaya
in Honduras, and Lula da Silva in Brazil, just as an example. And Hugo Chavez, of course, in Venezuela. Since then, the so-called
'pink tide' has receded quite dramatically. Of these 10 governments that were Left of Center, only four remain. Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Vazquez in Uruguay, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. What happened? Some would argue that the US played
an important role in at least some of these changes.
Speaking to Greg Wilpert and the RealNews , Mark Weisbrot
explains the impact of the Leftist or Center-Left governments on Latin America, as well as the US efforts to overthrow these governments
and replace them by Rright-Wing puppet regimes. This is a struggle that has become common in a region that heavily suffers for decades
by the US dirty interventions as it is considered the backyard of the US empire and the primary colonial field for the big US corporations:
If you look at the region as a whole, the poverty rate dropped from 44 to 28 percent. That was from around 2003-2013. And that
was after the two decades prior where poverty had actually increased, there was no progress at all. So that was a huge change, and
it was accomplished in different countries, in different ways.
There were large increases in public investment in Bolivia and Ecuador. In Brazil you had also some increase in public investment,
big increases in the minimum wage. Every country did different things to help bring healthcare, and increase, in some countries,
access to education. And there were a whole lot of reforms, changes in macroeconomic policy, getting rid of the IMF.
So there were a lot of different things that these governments did that prior governments were either unable, or unwilling to
do to improve people's living standards during a period of higher economic growth, which they also contributed to.
When Right-Wing governments took over most of the continent you have different things that have changed.
One is, of course, they're implementing, as you would expect, Right-Wing reforms. Trying to cut pension system, the pension in
Brazil. Passing a constitutional amendment which, even most economists in the world wouldn't support in Brazil, which prohibits the
government from increasing spending beyond the rate of inflation. You have huge increases in utility prices in Argentina, laying
off thousands of public sector workers. So, everywhere where the Right has come back, you do have some regressive changes.
The US has been involved in most of these countries in various ways. Obviously in Venezuela they've been involved since the coup
in 2002, and they tried to overthrow the government and tried to help people topple the government on several occasions there.
In Brazil, they supported the coup against Dilma, the parliamentary coup. So, they didn't do that strongly, but they sent enough
signals, for example, as the House was voting to impeach Dilma without actually presenting a crime that she committed. The head of
the Foreign Relations Committee from the Senate came and met with the No3 official from the US State Department, Tom Shannon. And
then, in August of that year, the Secretary of State, John Kerry, went down there and had a press conference with the Acting Foreign
Minister, Jose Serra. And they talked about how great relations with the US were going to be before Dilma was actually removed from
office. So these were ways of endorsing the coup.
The FBI, the Department of Justice contributed to the investigation that was instrumental in imprisoning Lula. What they did in
that investigation we don't know exactly, but we do know enough about it to know that it wasn't a neutral investigation. That is,
the investigation did end up decapitating the Workers' Party for now. First helping get rid of Dilma, but more importantly, or more
substantially, in terms of its contribution, they helped put Lula in prison and prevent him from running for office.
In Paraguay, the US helped in the consolidation of that parliamentary coup by organizing within the Organization of American States.
In Haiti, in 2004, they took the president and put him on a rendition plane, and flew him out of the country. That was in broad
daylight.
In Honduras, is probably the biggest role that the US has played, both in consolidating the military coup in 2009. Hillary Clinton
acknowledged her role in making sure that President Zelaya, the democratically elected president, would not return to office, and
then more recently, in November, they helped consolidate the results of an election which pretty much all observers regarded as stolen.
In Argentina, other branches of government were involved as well as the executive, but the executive cut off lending from multilateral
development banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank, and tried to block loans at the World Bank, as well. And they restored
everything as soon as the Right-Wing government was elected. And then, there was Judge Griesa in New York, who took over 90 percent
of Argentina's creditors hostage in order to squeeze them so that the government would pay off the vulture funds. And this was very
political, because he also lifted the injunction as soon as you had the Right-Wing government.
This is very important, because obviously it's not necessarily a conspiracy of all these branches of government. The legislative
branch was involved in this as well, in the United States. But they all have the same mindset, and they're all trying to get rid
of these Left governments, and they had a massive contribution. In Argentina, that did contribute to the downfall of Cristina Kirchner.
It contributed to balance of payments problems that they had there. So this was important, and it's totally ignored in the United
States.
You have intervention in Mexico, for example. US officials have already said how worried they are that AMLO, Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador, who is the frontrunner in the upcoming election in July. And he's probably going to win, but they're already trying to undermine
him, lobbying accusations of Russia involvement, which is the new trend. Of course, completely unsubstantiated.
In Venezuela they're doing something probably never done in the last 50 years, openly calling for a military coup, and actually
a financial embargo they've put in place, and threatening even a worse embargo if they don't get rid of the current government. So
that's a more aggressive form of intervention than you had even under the prior administrations.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio
Macri allegedly took the power normally, the
constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in
the global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies
away from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in debt colony, Greece.
"... 'It is difficult to get Artificial Intelligence to understand something, when the Research and Development funding it depends upon its not understanding it' ..."
"... dēfenestrātiō, ..."
"... 'If there is such a phenomenon as absolute evil, it consists of treating another human being as a thing ..."
"... 'The Shockwave Rider ..."
"... This small article a polemic against neoliberal hegemony; in particular the emerging issue of 'surplus population' as related to technological displacement in context of a free market, an issue purposive to such hegemony which as an 'elephant growing in the panopticon' i.e. not to be mentioned? ..."
"... – 'One dimensionality in, one dimensionality out' ..."
"... 'Farewell to the Working Class' ..."
"... It is a relatively small step from ' the death of thought' to 'the death of Life' ..."
"... Under neoliberal orthodoxy the political utility of the 'Proles' and in particular the 'Lumpenproletariat', alas, is as to but fear as a 'stick'; a basis of control and manipulation same sense as Upton Sinclair explicated 'carrot' contingent by way of synonym seen: to wit; accept control and manipulation as 'rewarded' or be 'expelled' ..."
'It is difficult to get Artificial Intelligence to understand something, when the Research and Development funding it depends
upon its not understanding it' –
'If there is such a phenomenon as absolute evil, it consists of treating another human being as a thing '
John Brunner 'The Shockwave Rider '
This small article a polemic against neoliberal hegemony; in particular the emerging issue of 'surplus population' as related
to technological displacement in context of a free market, an issue purposive to such hegemony which as an 'elephant growing in the
panopticon' i.e. not to be mentioned?
The central premise is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) + Robotics comprise a nefarious as formulaic temptation to the elite
of the 'Technetronic era' as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it: this consistent with a determinism as stems ontologically from 'Empiricism'
form of a 'One Dimensionality'
as Marcuse phrased it over five Decades ago; and which thru being but mere simulacra, AI and Robotics represent an ontological imperative
potentially expropriated under pathology to denial of Kant's concept of 'categorical imperative'? (That Kant did not subscribe to
determinism is acknowledged). The neoliberal concepts of 'Corporatism' and 'free market' are powerful examples of this 'one dimensionality'
which is clearly pathological, a topic notably explored by
Joel Bakan concerning the pursuit of profit within a Corporatist framework.
– 'One dimensionality in, one dimensionality out' – so it goes ontologically as to some paraphrase of
GIGO as trending alas way of 'technological determinism'
towards an 'Epitaph for Biodiversity' as would be – way of 'Garbage' or 'Junk' un apperceived as much as 'retrospection' non occurrent
indeed -and where 'Farewell to the Working Class' as
André Gorz conceived to assume an entirely new meaning: -this to some denouement of 'Dystopian Nightmare' as opposed to 'Utopian
Dream', alas; such the 'Age of Leisure' as 'beckoning' to be not for the majority or ' Demos', but rather for the 'technetronic
elite' and their 'AI' and Robotics – such 'leisure' being as to a 'freedom' pathological and facilitated by the absence of conscience
as much as morality; such the 'farewell'; such the defenestration of 'surplus' , such the 'Age' we 'live' within as to 'expropriation'
and 'arrogation' to amount to 'Death by Panopticon' such the 'apotheosis'?
It is being so cheerful which keeps these small quarters going.
But digression.
– It is a relatively small step from ' the death of thought' to 'the death of Life' under Neoliberal Orthodoxy as
proving to be the most toxic ideology ever known – such the hegemony as a deliberative, shift of the ' Overton Window' currently
occurring as to trend deterministic; such the mere necrotrophy as a 'defenestration' – and the 'one percent' but a deadly collective
of parasitic orifice? For what is 'Empiricism' when implemented thru AI and Robotic Technology in a Corporatist economy as but a
'selective investment' as to Research and Development by elite 'private interests', which to a determinism so evidently entailing
a whole raft of 'consequence' ; such the means, such the production, such the 'phenomenology' as 'owned' indeed? Under pathology,
selectivity is impaired to point of 'militarization'?
But foremost amongst said 'raft' of consequence – the concept of 'classification' as incorporates methodological reduction of
the particular to a composite of generalities so typical of 'Science' as expropriated; the fruition thereof replicated not least
thru 'Consumerism' – and 'Lifestyle' – as much as 'Life' reduced as much as abrogated to but correlation way of 'possession' of 'things':
this as said replication expressed as much 'thru' Linnaeus as Marx concerning 'class'- and as results in concepts' Incorporated'
such as the 'Overton Window' – as will be explored by way of 'extrapolation' below? The debasing of identity as a correlate of possessions
as a necessary 'abrogation' by way of engineered 'bio hack' is only furthered, such the loss of dimensionality as a potential, by
such as social media ? An excellent multimedia illustration
of such loss is found here.
It to be noted that for Empiricism the concept of 'good' and 'evil' entails an extra dimensionality as 'metaphysical' – and that
'Politics' so deconstructed despite abuse under orthodoxy as to 'mitigation' remains as 'Moral Economics' – this despite the mitigative
contention of neoliberal orthodoxy that there no morality in the 'synonymy'; to a pragmatic as 'Utilitarian' point of a
'Killing the Host' prevailing
at paradigmatic as much as Geopolitical level as but explicative of a 'necrotrophy'; as much as the 'defenestration' as euphemism
herein proposed this small article would explicate?
Kudos to Michael Hudson for exposing, and continuing to expose, the 'death of thought' which Neoliberalism as an
orthodoxy as but a mere 'racket' of 'transfer of resources' represents.
... ... ...
Under neoliberal orthodoxy the political utility of the 'Proles' and in particular the 'Lumpenproletariat', alas, is as to
but fear as a 'stick'; a basis of control and manipulation same sense as Upton Sinclair explicated 'carrot' contingent by way of
synonym seen: to wit; accept control and manipulation as 'rewarded' or be 'expelled' ; be but as a 'Prole' subsisting and awaiting
death, such the economic incarceration as 'CAFO' epitomises the cheapening of life under a hegemony as has corollary of alienation,
marginalization and impoverishment wielded under Dystopian imperative; this to a 'transfer of resources' from ' Eros ' to
' Thanatos ' reinforced thru contingency of profit such the 'ponerology' of 'Biodiversity' reduced by way of paradigm Geopolitical?
All of these events are CIA/Mossad/MI6. All of them.
From 9/11 to mass shootings, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, white supremecists and even
Antifa, all funded, trained by the state, with our tax dollars.
Fighting wars: The United States has been fighting wars nonstop since its military invaded
Afghanistan in October 2001. That's almost 17 years of invasions, occupations, air campaigns,
drone strikes, special operations raids, naval air and missile attacks, and so much else,
from the Philippines to Pakistan, Afghanistan to Syria, Libya to Niger isn't fighting
unending wars across thousands of miles of the planet for almost 17 years without end, while
making the president into a global assassin, just a tad extreme?
Of course it is. But despite the title of the article, I can't help but notice that most
of it concentrates on the 16 of those 17 years that happen to have occurred before the Trump
"caliphate". But why should Tom Englehardt be expected to get such trivial details correct?
After all, Tom turned out to be wrong when he ominously warned us about the dangers of Trump
getting us into another Korean war.
Tom's own words from July 9th, 2017 haven't aged well
If hostilities broke out and spiraled out of control, as they might, countless people
could die, nuclear weapons could indeed be used for the first time since 1945, and parts of
Asia could be ravaged (including possibly areas of Japan). What a second Korean War might
mean, in other words, is almost beyond imagining.
the officials he appointed went to work to transform the very refugees we had such a
hand in creating into terrifying bogeymen, potentially the most dangerous and extreme
people on the planet, and then turned to the task of ensuring that none of them would ever
arrive in this country. Doesn't that seem like an extreme set of acts and responses?
No, Tom. It seems like normal behavior from people who aren't ethnomasochists. I'm not
some kind of -phobic with an irrational fear if I want my descendants to not live in a
wartorn country they may eventually end up suffering a total genocide at the hands of these
"widows and orphans" (read: military-aged males who think European lands are up for grabs and
will be theirs in the future).
You see, the normal person who voted for Trump wanted what his surface-level politics
during the campaign trail were about. Not the stuff he's actually been doing which no one
voted for (yes, democracy is a bad system with no accountability,) but the stuff he talked
about. The end to this neoliberal insanity which you support most of. If you really cared so
much about the environment, you wouldn't be for mass migration. If you really cared about
minimizing conflict, you wouldn't be for mass migration since migration is the same as war in
its effects and eventual outcome.
It is not some arbitrary preference that I want a territory maintained for my kind and not
invaded by unending migration of alien peoples whom we are poked, prodded, pressured, coerced
and forced to miscegenate ourselves out of existence with by social engineers bent on a
European genocide, which they are beginning to get louder and louder with their intent on
with each passing year and the constant gloating that they think "in the future, there won't
BE any white people! and that's a good thing!"
The reason we care more about these terrorist attacks on our soil is that we expect them
to do as they do in their own countries, but the glaring fact is the people doing this in our
countries aren't us, and never will be us. They are interlopers we didn't invite in; they
were invited in from the top down with no consent.
Speaking of which, people own weapons in the US because they can and because they don't
trust their government. Given what that government has done for the last 50+ years, why
should they? People in other countries would do the same were they not such totalitarian
nightmare states crushing down on their native population, like in Britain. Speaking of
bogeymen by the way, you want to pin this all on Trump when the material conditions for much
of what you wring your hands about existed well before he even announced his run. Criticize
the fact that he isn't doing what he was elected to do. Don't try to concoct some lame duck
grand narrative that he caused all of these problems, because he didn't.
The reason America is becoming "extreme" is because it's no longer a real, solvent
country. No longer a nation–a coherent people with real, concrete commonalities. It is
many people vying for power and handouts and patronage, many of whom share nothing in common
at all. I share no peoplehood with Africans, Arabs, Mestizos and a host of others who've been
flooded in over the last several decades and have transformed the country into something it
manifestly as per the census data was not just decades back.
I share no peoplehood with Africans, Arabs, Mestizos and a host of others who've been
flooded in over the last several decades and have transformed the country into something it
manifestly as per the census data was not just decades back.
I'm willing to bet you share a lot more personhood with those people you listed than the
people who "own" your country. BTW, the people who "own" your country most likely hate your
guts, and consider you expendable if you ever get in their way.
" This subject came to my mind recently thanks to a story I noticed about another extreme
wedding slaughter "
Better late than never.
How long it is ago that a Malaysian president spoke to mainly western diplomats, and asked
the question 'who are the terrorists, those who, at 17 km height push buttons in
B-52′s, or those who give their lives on the ground ?', I do not remember.
The diplomats left during the speech.
UN expert on human rights De Zaya's wanted, suppose he does not live any more, Great
Britain and the USA persecuted for bombing German cities in WWII, just killing women,
children and old men.
Dresden is the best known example, alas it is not known that even small towns as Anklam were
bombed.
And then, when began all this ?
Churchill saw the genocide in what is N Afghanistan as a necessary act.
And of course the Muslim religion was to blame.
Winston Churchill, 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force', 1898, 2004, New York
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007,
Chalford – Stroud
The last book also describes this genocide, but one of the most bloody massacres described is
against the Sikh army.
I'd like to thank Unz for this brief comic relief on their site. Sometimes the affairs in the
world seem too much and a good laugh every now and then is necessary. For example Bashir
Al-Assad killing his own people on a regular basis was hysterical!! Imagine him getting Sarin
gas from ISIS depots paid for by Israel and the United States just so he could get the same
United States to bomb him! That's like saying Obama was a weak president for NOT attacking
Syria when he was merely informed as to who was REALLY not killing Syrian civilians because,
as Putin proved, Assad didn't have those weapons. What was really funny was that America does
not have extremists in charge so when we kill civilians it must be an accident!
"Its national security budget is larger than those of the next eight countries combined "
My favourite statistic is to compare the increase in the formal US "defence" budget ($80
billion) for this year with the total Russian defence budget ($46 billion).
I couldn't agree more, Your comment sums up how a lot of people are feeling. No wonder
Nationalist or Nationalist inspired parties and leaders are emerging all over the European
world, We are waking up and beginning to take our own side
I just cannot believe that you Americans descend to squabbling about who is more virtuous
– Nero or Caligula.
Mr Putin showed that he understands the system perfectly. First he said that he sees no
point in talking to European leaders, since they all take their orders from Washington. Then
he further explained that presidents come and presidents go, but the policies remain exactly
the same.
It's a shame that so few Americans understand their own political system as well as Mr
Putin does.
"However, one thing is, almost by definition, obvious. We are not a nation of extreme acts or
extreme killers. Quite the opposite".
The USA is admirably positioned for security: it controls most of a large isolated
continent, with only Canada and Mexico as immediate neighbours and vast oceans to the sides.
As Jules Jusserand, French Ambassador to the US, remarked in 1910:
"The United States was blessed among nations. On the north, she had a weak neighbour; on
the south, another weak neighbour; on the east, fish; and on the west, fish".
Long before that, Abraham Lincoln said more or less the same thing:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify
against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush
us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a
commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge,
in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be
expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from
abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation
of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide".
- Abraham Lincoln; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume
I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p.
109.
So it is surprising to find out that the USA has been at war for 93% of its existence.
That means Americans have experienced peace during only 21 years out of 239.
That's rather odd, isn't it, for a country with impregnable natural borders whom no one
has even tried to attack?
"Yes, we make mistakes. Yes, we sometimes kill. Yes, we sometimes even kill the innocent,
however mistakenly".
A very rough estimate suggests that, since 1950, the US government through its armed
forces has killed at the very least 10 million Asians alone. Three million in Korea, the same
in Vietnam and its neighbours, and the same in Iraq. That's without even considering the
dozens of other nations the USA has attacked (and with which, legally, it is still at war
since no peace treaties were ever concluded).
I recently discovered UNZ.COM and was delighted to have found a site with good intelligently
written articles, then I read this utter crap and now I'm wondering
We here in the United States are, of course, eternally shocked by their extremism, their
willingness to kill the innocent without compunction, particularly in the case of Islamist
groups, from the 9/11 attacks to ISIS's more recent slaughters.
Tom appears to be another lackey for Zionism, ready to keep telling lies about those evil
Moozies that supposedly attacked the USA on 9/11, when anyone who still has brain cells left
knows that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH,
the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous assistance from the Lying MSM.
Take your CIA pres releases elsewhere Mr. Tom, we no longer wish to hear your lies in
support of endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel realizing its YINON plan to stretch
Israel from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates and from Turkey to Arabia.
Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"
The nonsense that Assad's army deliberately poisons its own people with chemical weapons
is a well-known false-flag. How could he control his Syrian army if that went on? It is
absolutely ridiculous.
As for 9/11, it was an inside job – with many Israeli "students" laying the
explosives in the THREE buildings at night over a period of months. The fact that no one
lived in them and that a Bush company was responsible for security is all you need to know.
Naturally, there were no Israeli victims – a statistical impossibility if they were not
forewarned.
The most thoroughly amoral, vicious ruling group in the region is the House of Saud. And the
US and the Israelis are both deep into bed with the Saudis.
"Only to those who do not know that many people live in deserts"
People do not "live in deserts" rather they live in settlements which are located in the
desert.
They do not just go out into the blazing sand and throw down blankets and buckets, and
then start "Living in the desert".
And they do not hold bonafide "wedding parties" out in the desert, under the relentless
burning sun, rather they hold their wedding parties in settlements which are located in thte
desert with a modicum of human comforts.
Look friend myself being world traveler, I have been to north africa on more than one
occasion, and I know wtf I am talking about.
AJM "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz artisit.
"... There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies. ..."
"... The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness. ..."
"... a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ..."
"... In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. ..."
"... The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. ..."
"... There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. ..."
"... No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. ..."
"... The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse? ..."
"... In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. ..."
"... "In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution". ..."
"... This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? ..."
"... One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?" ..."
"... The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. ..."
I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated
their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United
States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual
counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear
opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.
The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics
of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).
Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising
in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream
media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf
of the alleged revolution.
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution
in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna,
writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.
McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group
of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The
source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism
sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime,
on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly,
he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow
of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners
who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism
is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable
evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.
This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible
to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of
Iran and Russia.
"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact,
been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of
the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported
to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking
to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according
to McKenna.
Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was
not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight
against Islamic extremism.
Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight
against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.
In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow,
is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.
The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the
last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.
There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse
Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance
between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.
It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once
(aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians
as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the
revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both
implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."
No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants
to.
Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less
than twenty-two times !
And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions,
both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing
billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups,
McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.
Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin.
Assad is likened to Stalin several times.
This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.
This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And
even on this pet subject, something is wrong.
The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution
ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might
turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?
Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is
very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in
one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever
happened?
For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil
it out of meanness.
In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western
powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify
the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence
and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution
turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from
its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.
Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without
a strong rule.
McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization
and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support
the progressive development of newly independent countries.
If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced
forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded
to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo
of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished
people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".
This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has
been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more
a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between
the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain,
or any other advanced capitalist country?"
One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs
in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin
to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions.
They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to
align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological
alibi for permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go
home and mind their own business.
Since most progressive figures would never publicly call for extending a U.S.-led military
occupation, this petition shows that the war propaganda in Syria – particularly as it
relates to the Kurds – has been highly effective in subverting the progressive anti-war
left as it relates to the Syrian conflict.
How he's going to explain supporting kidnappers, murders, drug dealers:
Another Beautiful Soul: Counterpunching the Global Assault on Dissent
I was recently alerted to Sonali Kolhatkar's Truth Dig article, "Why Are Some on the
Left Falling for Fake News on Syria?", which Counterpunch found important enough to republish
under the title, "The Left, Syria and Fake News." Kolhatkar's article was introduced to me as
the work of a "beautiful soul."
...
The beautiful soul is consumed with "philanthropic fantasies and sentimental phrases
about fraternity", Engels once remarked. They advocate "edifying humanism" and "generic,
vague, moral appeals" not "concrete political action" to challenge "a specific social
system".* It's not clear what Counterpunch is counterpunching, but in the case of Draitser
and Kolhatkar, it's certainly not US imperialism.
Beautiful souls appear not to recognize that the war in Syria is a concrete political
struggle connected to a specific social system related to empire; it is the struggle of the
United States to extend its dictatorship over all of the Arab world and of Arab nationalists
in Damascus and their allies to counter US imperial designs. All the beautiful soul
recognizes is that people are being killed, families are being uprooted, small children are
being terrorized, and they wish it would all just end. They're not for justice, or an end to
oppression and the dictatorship of the United States, or for equality; they're for the
absence of conflict. And they don't seem to particularly care how it's brought about.
...
In any event, whatever left Kolhatkar is part of, is not a left that has much to do
with challenging and overcoming a real world system of domination, oppression and
exploitation. It's a left whose goal is the absence of conflict, not the presence of justice;
it's for pious expressions of benevolence, not engagement with a real world struggle against
dictatorship on an international level.
While it is
undeniable that neoliberals routinely disparage the state, both back then and now, it does not
follow that they are politically libertarian or, as David Harvey would have it, that they are
implacably opposed to state interventions in the economy and society. Harvey's error is
distressing, since even Antonio Gramsci understood this: "Moreover, laissez-faire liberalism,
too, must be introduced by law, through the intervention of political power: it is an act of
will, not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts." 6
From the 1940s onward, the distinguishing characteristic of neoliberal doctrines and practice
is that they embrace this prospect of repurposing the strong state to impose their vision of a
society properly open to the dominance of the market as they conceive it. Neoliberals from
Friedrich Hayek to James Buchanan to Richard Posner to Alexander Rüstow (who invented the
term Vitalpolitik , which became Foucault's "biopolitics") to Jacques Rueff, not to
mention a plethora of figures after 1970, all explicitly proposed policies to strengthen the
state. 7
Friedman's own trademark proposals, like putting the money supply on autopilot, or replacing
public schools with vouchers, required an extremely strong state to enforce them. While
neoliberal think tanks rile up the base with debt clocks and boogeyman statistics of ratios of
government expenditure to GDP, neoliberal politicians organize a host of new state activities
to fortify their markets. They extravagantly increase incarceration and policing of those whom
they deem unfit for the marketplace. They expand both state and corporate power to exercise
surveillance and manipulation of subject populations while dismantling judicial recourse to
resist such encroachments. Neoliberals introduce new property rights (like intellectual
property) to cement into place their extensions of market valuations to situations where they
were absent. They strengthen international sanctions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
investor-state dispute settlement schemes to circumvent and neutralize national social
legislation they dislike. They bail out and subsidize private banking systems at the cost of
many multiples of existing national income. And they define corporations as legal persons in
order to facilitate the buying of elections.
The blue-sky writings of neoliberals with regard to the state are, if anything, even more
daunting. In the imaginary constitution proposed in Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty
, he suggests that politicians be rendered more powerful : in the imagined upper
legislative house, Hayek stipulates, only men of substantial property over age forty-five would
be eligible to vote or be elected; no political parties would be allowed; and each member would
stand for a hefty fifteen-year term. 8
This illustrates the larger neoliberal predisposition to be very leery of democracy, and thus
to stymie public participation through the concentration of political power in fewer hands.
James Buchanan proposed something very similar. 9
This is just about as far from libertarianism as one could get, short of brute
dictatorship.
So here is the answer to my first question: people think the label "neoliberalism" is an
awful neologism because the neoliberals have been so good at covering their tracks, obscuring
what they stand for, and denying the level of coherence which they have achieved in their long
march to legitimacy. Back when some of these proposals were just a gleam in Hayek's eye, they
did explicitly use the term "neoliberalism" to describe the project that, back then, did not
yet exist -- even Milton Friedman used it in print! 10
But once their program looked like it would start to jell, and subsequently start reshaping
both the state and the market more to their liking, they abruptly abjured any reference to that
label, and sometime in the later 1950s, following the lead of Hayek, they began to call
themselves "classical liberals." This attempt at rebranding was an utter travesty because, as
they moved from reconceptualization of one area of human experience to another, the resulting
doctrines contradicted classical liberalism point by point, and term by term. It might be
worthwhile for us who come after to insist upon the relevance of things that put the
neo- in neoliberalism.
What's New about Neoliberalism?
In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the
boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets
were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural
rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to
be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal
society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something
like John Stuart Mill's "harm principle": colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the
freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so.
Far from trying to preserve society against the unintended consequences of the operations of
markets, as democratic liberalism sought to do, neoliberal doctrine instead set out actively to
dismantle those aspects of society which might resist the purportedly inexorable logic of
"catallactics," and to reshape it in the market's image. For neoliberals, freedom and the
market would be treated as identical. Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of
liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory
concerning what a market was, or should be. They could not acknowledge individual natural
rights, because they sought to tutor the masses to become the agent the market would be most
likely to deem successful. The market no longer gave you what you wanted; you had to capitulate
to what the market wanted. All areas of life could be better configured to behave as if they
were more market-like. Gary Becker, for example, a member of the Mont Pèlerin Society,
proposed a market-based approach to allow for a socially optimal level of crime, and advocated
a revolutionary extension of marginal calculus to include the "shadow costs" and benefits
associated with "children, prestige or esteem, health, altruism, envy, and pleasure of the
senses." Becker even proposed an economic model of the "dating market," one consequence of
which was the proposition that polygamy for successful, wealthy men could be politically
rationalized. And voilà! The Sunday New York Times produced an article saying
just that, as if it were real news. Classical liberals like Mill or Michael Oakeshott would be
spinning in their graves. 11
The intellectual content of neoliberalism is something that warrants sustained discussion,
but this can only happen once critical historians can admit they are no longer basing their
evaluations on the isolated writings of a single author. There is no convenient crib sheet
describing what the modern neoliberal thought collective (for brevity, NTC) actually believes.
Nevertheless, neoliberalism does have certain themes that are regularly sounded in emanations
from the NTC:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated by
the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizen and
private/market/entrepreneur-consumer -- because the latter does and should
eclipse the former.
(6) The most important virtue -- more important than justice, or anything else -- is
freedom, defined "negatively" as "freedom to choose," and most importantly, defined as the
freedom to acquiesce to the imperatives of the market.
(7) Capital has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries.
(8) Inequality -- of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights -- is a good
thing ; it prompts productivity, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who
complain about inequality are either sore losers or old fogies, who need to get hip to the way
things work nowadays.
(9) Corporations can do no wrong -- by definition. Competition will take care of all
problems, including any tendency to monopoly.
(10) The market, engineered and promoted by neoliberal experts, can always provide solutions
to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there's always "an app for
that."
(11) There is no difference between is and should be : "free" markets both
should be (normatively) and are (positively) the most efficient economic system,
and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true
description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live -- which in
turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of "free" markets should be and, as
neoliberals build more and more power, increasingly are universal. 12
No wonder outsiders are dazed and confused. The neoliberal revolutionaries, contemptuous of
tradition, conjured a fake tradition to mask their true intentions. They did this while
explicitly abjuring the label of "conservative." But there is one more reason that outsiders
tend to think it a mistake to posit an effective intellectual formation called "neoliberalism."
Nowadays we doubt that ideas, and particularly political ideas, are the product of the
concerted efforts of some thought collective stretching over generations, engaging in critique
and reconstruction, fine-tuning and elaborating doctrine, while keeping focused upon problems
of implementation and feasibility. Indeed, that doubt is evidence of neoliberal preconceptions
having seeped into all of our thought processes. Yet that is an exact description of how
neoliberalism developed, in the manner (as I insist on calling it) of a thought collective:
sanctioned members are encouraged to innovate and embellish in small ways, but an excess of
doctrinal heresy gets one expelled from participation. Central dogmas are not codified or
dictated by any single prophet; no one delivers the Tablets down from the "Mont"; and you
cannot adequately understand neoliberalism solely by reading Hayek or Milton Friedman, for that
matter. While we can locate its origins in 1947, it has undergone much revision since then, and
is still a hydra-headed Gorgon to this very day.
This "Number one ism" that neoloiberalism promotes is really too unhealthy. There are people who coisouly sacrifies family and other
value for the sake of achivement high status. But infection of this value of large part of the society is destructive.
Viewing people as commodity is defining feature of sociopaths. In a way we can say that neoliberalism promotes socipathy.
Notable quotes:
"... "People get so involved with playing the game of being important that they exhaust themselves and their time, and they don't do the work of actually organizing people." ..."
"... Too many people and too many entities get too comfortable fashioning themselves as leaders and viewing people as commodities... ..."
"People get so involved with playing the game of being important that they exhaust themselves and their time, and they
don't do the work of actually organizing people." -- Ella Baker
[Neoliberalism] also infiltrates our interpersonal relationships...
The ongoing questions
about how major tech corporations -- especially social media giants -- are reaching into our personal and private lives for the purpose
of extraction raises questions about where else these sorts of intrusions take place. Too many people and too many entities get
too comfortable fashioning themselves as leaders and viewing people as commodities...
... ... ...
Fame and fortune dictate far too much in our society. This happens so much that those who are famous regularly instigate public
backlash for making uninformed comments about all sorts of issues. Media outlets invite popular celebrities to comment on a wide
array of serious social issues not because they'll provide any sort of expertise, but because they are famous...
... .. ...
Fame and money do not automatically make a person insincere. The insincerity of this capitalist system, however, is certainly
upheld in part by the extravagance of fame and money. We don't have to be broke and unpopular to be genuine, but if the logic we
use to define our success resembles capitalism, we're going in a terrible circle. What separates us from the system that oppresses
us?
Neoliberal rationality is about redefining everything in economic terms. This is pretty
devious trick. As soon as you allow it you are hooked.
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans argue that their tax cut will increase GDP, reduce the deficit, and reduce taxes for the middle class. Democrats reply that the tax cut will not increase GDP, will not reduce the deficit, and will not reduce the middle-class's tax burden. Both parties are arguing around a shared premise: the goal is to cut taxes for the middle class, reduce the deficit, and grow GDP. ..."
"... What if teaching students history turns out to make them worse workers, because they begin to see a resemblance between their bosses and the robber barons? What if the study of philosophy makes laborers less compliant and docile? If we argue that music is actually economically useful, then we'll have no defense of music if it turns out not to be useful. Instead, we need to argue that whether music is economically useful has nothing to do with whether students deserve to be exposed to it. ..."
"... Here's a clear illustration. Donald Trump heavily pushes the idea that school should be job training, to the point of saying that "community colleges" should be redefined as vocational schools because he doesn't know what "community" is. (You can blame Trump's ignorance, but this is partially because the right has spent decades insisting that "society" and "community" are meaningless terms and the world consists solely of individuals, and the left has not had good explanations in response.) ..."
"... I gave a similar example recently of the difference between the way a neoliberal framework looks at things versus the way a leftist does. Goldman Sachs produced a report suggesting to biotech companies that curing diseases might not actually be profitable, because people stop being customers once they are cured and no more money can be extracted from them. The liberal response to this would be an empirical argument: "Here's why it is actually profitable to cure diseases." The leftist response would be: "We need to have a value system that goes beyond profit maximization." ..."
"... Economic values become the water we swim in, and we don't even notice them worming their way into our brains. ..."
"... The fact that everyone seems to agree that the purpose of education is "job skills," rather than say, "the flourishing of the human mind," shows the triumph of a certain new kind of liberalism, for which I can only think of one word. ..."
...For example:
Republicans argue that their tax
cut will increase GDP, reduce the deficit, and reduce taxes for the middle class. Democrats
reply that the tax cut will not increase GDP, will not reduce the deficit, and will not
reduce the middle-class's tax burden. Both parties are arguing around a shared premise: the
goal is to cut taxes for the middle class, reduce the deficit, and grow GDP.
But traditional liberalism, before the "neo" variety emerged, would have made its case on
the basis of some quite different premises. Instead of arguing that Democrats are actually the
party that will reduce the middle class' taxes, it would make the case that taxes are
important, because it's only through taxes that we can improve schools, infrastructure,
healthcare, and poverty relief. Instead of participating in the race to cut taxes and the
deficit, Old Liberalism is based on a set of moral ideas about what we owe to one
another.
Now, one reason I dislike the "neoliberalism" framework is that I'm not sure how much this
nostalgic conception of the Great Liberalism Of Times Past should be romanticized. But it's
obvious that there's a great deal of difference between New Deal/Great Society rhetoric and
"Actually We're The Real Job Creators/Tax-Cutters/GDP Growers." And it's also true that
over the last decades, certain pro-market ideological premises have wormed their way into the
mind of ordinary liberals to the point that debates occur within a very narrow economic
framework.
Let me give you a very clear example. Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has a new book out
called The Case Against
Education . It argues that the public school system is a waste of time and money and
should be destroyed. Caplan says that students are right to wonder "when they will ever use"
the things they are being taught. They won't, he says, because they're not being taught any
skills they will actually need in the job market. Instead, education functions mostly as
"signaling": a degree shows an employer that you are the type of person who works hard and is
responsible, not that you have actually learned particular things that you need. Credentials,
Caplan says, are mostly meaningless. He argues that we should drastically cut public school
funding, make education more like job training, get rid of history, music, and the arts, and
"deregulate and destigmatize child labor." Essentially, Caplan believes that education should
be little more than skills training for jobs, and it's failing at that.
Now here's where "neoliberalism" comes in. Caplan's argument is obviously based on
right-wing economic premises: markets should sort everything out, the highest good is to create
value for your employers, etc. But let's look at a "liberal" response. In The Washington
Monthly , Kevin Carey has a biting critique of
Caplan's book, which he says is based on a "childish" philosophy. Carey says that education
is , in fact useful for more than signaling:
Caplan is not wrong about the existence of signaling and its kissing cousin,
credentialism, which describes the tendency of job categories to accrue more degree
requirements, sometimes unnecessarily, over time. But these are banal and unchallenged ideas in
the economics profession. In his 2001 Nobel lecture, [Michael] Spence warned that people who
use job markets to illustrate signaling run the risk of concluding, wrongly, that education
doesn't contribute to productivity. This wrongheaded argument is the essence of The Case
Against Education Eric Hanushek, a conservative economist and well-known skeptic of public
school funding, has documented a strong relationship between average scores on international
tests and the growth rates of national economies. Put simply, well-educated nations become
prosperous nations, and no country has become well educated without large, sustained
investments in public education.
Carey mounts a strong defense of public education against Caplan's attack. But look at how
he does it. Caplan has argued that education doesn't actually make students more productive or
give them skills useful for thriving in the economy. Carey replies that while this is partly
true, education does actually increase productivity, as we can see when we look across
nations. Everyone in the discussion, however, is operating on the implicit premise that the
measure of whether education is successful is "productivity." And because of that, no matter
how strong the liberal argument is, no matter how stingingly critical it may be of
libertarianism or privatization, it has already ceded the main point. We all agree that
education is about maximizing students' value to the economy, we just disagree about the degree
to which public education successfully does that, and whether the solution is to fix the system
or get rid of it. The debate becomes one of empirics rather than values.
Carey doesn't make a case for an alternative "liberal" notion of education, and doesn't
question the values underlying the "banal and unchallenged ideas in the economics profession."
But unless liberalism is to be something more than "a difference of opinion over the correct
way to maximize productivity," it's important to defend a wholly different set of
principles . Otherwise, what if it turns out that providing art and music classes is a drag
on productivity? What if teaching students history turns out to make them worse workers,
because they begin to see a resemblance between their bosses and the robber barons? What if the
study of philosophy makes laborers less compliant and docile? If we argue that music is
actually economically useful, then we'll have no defense of music if it turns out not to be
useful. Instead, we need to argue that whether music is economically useful has nothing to do
with whether students deserve to be exposed to it.
Here's a clear illustration. Donald Trump heavily pushes the idea that school should be
job training,
to the point of saying that "community colleges" should be redefined as vocational schools
because he doesn't know what "community" is. (You can blame Trump's ignorance, but this is
partially because the right has spent decades insisting that "society" and "community" are
meaningless terms and the world consists solely of individuals, and the left has not had good
explanations in response.) A UCLA education professor, Mike Rose,
critiques Trump and Betsy DeVos for defining vocational education "in functional and
economistic terms -- as preparation for the world of work[,] reduced to narrow job training."
Sounds right! But then here's what Rose says about why vocational education must be more than
training:
Intellectual suppleness will have to be as key an element of a future Career and Technical
Education as the content knowledge of a field. The best CTE already helps students develop an
inquiring, problem-solving cast of mind. But to make developing such a cast of mind standard
practice will require, I think, a continual refining of CTE and an excavation of the beliefs
about work and intelligence that led to the separation of the academic and the vocational
course of study in the first place. [In addition to basic skills], students will need to
learn the conceptual base of those tools and techniques and how to reason with them, for
future work is predicted to be increasingly fluid and mutable. A standard production process
or routine of service could change dramatically. Would employees be able to understand the
principles involved in the process or routine and adapt past skills to the new workplace? To
borrow a phrase from labor journalist William Serrin, we need "to give workers back their
heads" and assume and encourage the intellectual engagement of students in the world of work.
That engagement would include education in history and sociology, economics and political
science. What are the forces shaping the economy? How did we get to this place, and are there
lessons to be learned from exploring that history? Are there any pressure points for
individual or collective action? What resources are out there, what options do I have, how do
I determine their benefits and liabilities?
Rose argues that workers should be given an education in history and sociology. Why? Because
it will make them better workers. The future economy will require more adaptable minds
with better critical reasoning skills, and wider courses of study will help prepare students
for that future economy. Yet the argument is still: Education shouldn't just be job
training, it should also incorporate the liberal arts, because the liberal arts are also
helpful on the job. Our defense of a liberal education remains instrumental. Of course,
often when liberals make these arguments, they defend them by saying that instrumental
arguments are more successful than moral ones. You're not going to get anywhere arguing that
workers deserve history courses, you have to say that they need them. But I've always
been skeptical of that defense for a few reasons. First, if it turns out that learning history
won't actually produce better tech workers, your whole argument collapses. Second, it's
dishonest, and people can usually detect dishonesty. Third, it takes us yet another step
further toward the universal acceptance of the conclusion that economic values are the only
values there are. (Also, let's be real: no business is going to be fooled into thinking it's a
good idea to teach their workers how to use "collective action" to exert pressure.)
I gave a similar
example recently of the difference between the way a neoliberal framework looks at things
versus the way a leftist does. Goldman Sachs produced a report suggesting to biotech companies
that curing diseases might not actually be profitable, because people stop being customers once
they are cured and no more money can be extracted from them. The liberal response to this would
be an empirical argument: "Here's why it is actually profitable to cure diseases." The
leftist response would be: "We need to have a value system that goes beyond profit
maximization."
Neoliberalism, then, is the best existing term we have to capture the almost universal
convergence around a particular set of values. We don't have debates over whether the point of
teaching is to enrich the student's mind or prepare the student for employment, we have debates
over how to prepare students for employment. Economic values become the water we swim in,
and we don't even notice them worming their way into our brains.
he word is valuable insofar as it draws our attention to the ideological frameworks within
which debates occur, and where the outer boundaries of those debates lie. The fact that
everyone seems to agree that the purpose of education is "job skills," rather than say, "the
flourishing of the human mind," shows the triumph of a certain new kind of liberalism, for
which I can only think of one word.
We will have a more thorough examination of The Case Against Education, along with an
explanation of an alternate left conception of the purpose of schooling, in our May-June
edition. Subscribe now to
make sure you receive it when it comes out!
In a way neoliberalism is Fordism applied to humans.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is not just an economic policy, it is a project of "full spectrum dominance" of the human psyche. It is an indoctrination that tells people to be more efficient, to schedule and micromanage their lives as to increase productivity. One must become a widget whose sole function is to make money and whose value as a person is determined by their economic status ..."
"... Neoliberalism "refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit." The major beneficiaries of neoliberalism are large trans-national corporations and wealthy investors. The implementation of neoliberal policies came into full force during the eighties under Thatcher and Reagan. Today, the principles of neoliberalism are widely held with near-religious fervor by most major political parties in the US and Britain and are gaining acceptance by those holding power elsewhere. ..."
Neoliberalism is not just an economic policy, it is a project of "full spectrum
dominance" of the human psyche. It is an indoctrination that tells people to be more
efficient, to schedule and micromanage their lives as to increase productivity. One must
become a widget whose sole function is to make money and whose value as a person is
determined by their economic status .
Even a lot of so called liberal Democrats share these capitalist extremist beliefs because
they are actively trying to integrate the "talented tenth" of minority communities into the
ruling class.
@ 62
The IMF and The World Bank (always headed by an American) -- bastions of neoliberalism.
Robert McChesney:
Neoliberalism "refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of
private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to
maximize their personal profit." The major beneficiaries of neoliberalism are large
trans-national corporations and wealthy investors. The implementation of neoliberal
policies came into full force during the eighties under Thatcher and Reagan. Today, the
principles of neoliberalism are widely held with near-religious fervor by most major
political parties in the US and Britain and are gaining acceptance by those holding power
elsewhere.
The article does provide more context but even then competition from robots is not
defensible. The article does end by asking for a discussion about inequality which would sure
be a start......and likely a quick ending....grin
"... The rundown is that a pseudo-intellectual retreat from rationalism invited its well-deserved ridicule too late, and may have been responsible for the needless and terrible demise of a great world civilization's halcyon era, for which the whole world suffers to this day. We need to learn from that. ..."
The rundown is that a pseudo-intellectual retreat from rationalism invited its well-deserved ridicule too late, and may have been
responsible for the needless and terrible demise of a great world civilization's halcyon era, for which the whole world suffers to
this day. We need to learn from that.
Everyone here needs to be aware of this, I'm afraid: The modern Western equivalent of The Incoherence . It explains so,
so much. If you're wondering why you're suddenly being barraged with Orwellian jargon, charged with crimethink, seeing the issues
you've been harping on for years suddenly turned against you as though you've never even heard of them, get aggressively assigned
identities you've never had in your life and told that the person you've always been can't possibly exist, and that the consensus,
however flawed and incomplete, of the past 50 years on many hard-fought issues is quite suddenly being treated as though it was all
a nefarious lie (a la 9/11-flashback), here's the root of who and what to blame:
The fact that institutions of higher learning have been coddling this for so long, despite the special treatment it could not
survive without, and despite the fact that it bears the mantle and exploits the public clout of science, education, liberalism, and
diversity, just to destroy all those things, is particularly shameful. They might as well allow Dianetics as a legitimate
alternative to psychology.
Below is what I personally maintain is the Greatest Political Cartoon In American History. Though it refers to only one issue,
it elegantly explains nearly everything wrong with American political thought.
When in doubt, scream and shout, run around in circles, and panic! Uh-huh. Postmodernism was the solution to an academic problem
which arose in the Eighties with the proliferation of Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in the humanities. Nobody wanted to read another
thesis or dissertation on Shakespeare, and all of the academic work had to be strictly original and pass increasingly onerous
originality tests of the type employed by turnitin.com . Meanwhile the authors
had to write these damn things if they were to receive diplomas and move on to teaching jobs. Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism
as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition of everything in an era in which everything
was a commodity. Postmodernism is the Hamburger Helper of the academic humanities, a solution to a purely practical matter.
But Pluckrose continues to panic. Here she is characterizing the postmodern perspective:
Therefore the author of a text is not the authority on its meaning.
So? Perhaps Pluckrose needs to read more undergraduate papers, in which their authors evoke an eternal authorial struggle.
"Say what you mean!" my teacherly red ink continually shouts at these undergraduates. Of course this is a problem when one's undergraduates
write run-on sentences or sentence fragments. But does anyone really say what they mean? I suppose we can at least try harder.
Meanwhile original meanings get lost in the procession of history. A prima facie example of this is "originalism" in Constitutional
jurisprudence, which claims ultimate reliance on an "original meaning" of the Constitution -- you know, that one and only one
original meaning the Founders intended. Never mind that said Founders were walking contradictions. Take for instance Thomas Jefferson,
that eloquent waxer upon the virtues of freedom. Now ask
Sally Hemings about him.
Let's skip to Pluckrose's conclusion:
In order to regain credibility, the Left needs to recover a strong, coherent and reasonable liberalism.
I don't see why. How about if we figure out what sort of utopian dream would be appropriate for our world in our day and age,
and then decide afterward if we want to call it "liberalism"? Isn't the point of the "science" which Pluckrose regards
so highly to put the conclusion at the end of one's research, rather than at the beginning?
I could go on, but this is long enough for a comment in a diary.
Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition
of everything in an era in which everything was a commodity.
That's a different kind of "Postmodernism" altogether, the kind associated with (if I'm not mistaken) such Chaotic gems as
MAD Magazine, Monty Python, The Far Side , and the vibrant, innovative weirdness of a wide array of 1990s art, literature,
and pop culture. My very bones are built on such things.
There's also "postmodern architecture", best known for being boring (my mother has been known to call it "post-architecture").
This, though? This is something entirely anathema. The aesthetic we call "postmodern" is liberating and innovative (at least
as long as it stays in the hands of people who "get it"); it teaches that there are no rules, that life is a strange and beautiful
carnival, that we can be whatever we want to be, and the world can be whatever we want it to be.
"Postmodernism" as sociology,
on the other hand, with its denial of the very existence of the individual, and obscene redefinitions of such sacred words as
"Justice", is just all but explicitly totalitarian, and would have us believe that the entire 20th Century, with all its hard-fought,
bitter-bought victories and miracles, was all for nothing.
When in doubt, scream and shout, run around in circles, and panic! Uh-huh. Postmodernism was the solution to an academic
problem which arose in the Eighties with the proliferation of Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in the humanities. Nobody wanted to read
another thesis or dissertation on Shakespeare, and all of the academic work had to be strictly original and pass increasingly
onerous originality tests of the type employed by turnitin.com . Meanwhile
the authors had to write these damn things if they were to receive diplomas and move on to teaching jobs. Postmodernism to
the rescue! Postmodernism as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition of everything
in an era in which everything was a commodity. Postmodernism is the Hamburger Helper of the academic humanities, a solution
to a purely practical matter.
But Pluckrose continues to panic. Here she is characterizing the postmodern perspective:
Therefore the author of a text is not the authority on its meaning.
So? Perhaps Pluckrose needs to read more undergraduate papers, in which their authors evoke an eternal authorial struggle.
"Say what you mean!" my teacherly red ink continually shouts at these undergraduates. Of course this is a problem when one's
undergraduates write run-on sentences or sentence fragments. But does anyone really say what they mean? I suppose we can at
least try harder. Meanwhile original meanings get lost in the procession of history. A prima facie example of this is "originalism"
in Constitutional jurisprudence, which claims ultimate reliance on an "original meaning" of the Constitution -- you know, that
one and only one original meaning the Founders intended. Never mind that said Founders were walking contradictions. Take for
instance Thomas Jefferson, that eloquent waxer upon the virtues of freedom. Now ask
Sally Hemings about him.
Let's skip to Pluckrose's conclusion:
In order to regain credibility, the Left needs to recover a strong, coherent and reasonable liberalism.
I don't see why. How about if we figure out what sort of utopian dream would be appropriate for our world in our day and
age, and then decide afterward if we want to call it "liberalism"? Isn't the point of the "science" which Pluckrose
regards so highly to put the conclusion at the end of one's research, rather than at the beginning?
I could go on, but this is long enough for a comment in a diary.
At any rate, to deal with the objections to postmodernism: it's a performative contradiction to be an academic writing against
the idea of the individual, for higher-level academia exists to adorn the resumes of self-proclaimed individuals. I just don't
see postmodernism, of whatever kind you care to distinguish, as anything but harmless, useless, and pointless outside of its obvious
role in contributing to the resume-building efforts of professors in the humanities, and I haven't seen anything here to change
my mind about that.
Rather, the problem is that the liberals have run out of new mechanisms whereby the liberal utopia might bear fruit. The liberal
trend peaked a long time ago. And, in the meantime, liberal objections to the neoliberal utopia, the utopia of total market existence
for everyone as enforced by government diktat, have become toothless. In the US context the liberals appear either blind to or
despairing of the fact that the best they had for politics was Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that their hero Bernie
Sanders nullified himself by endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the French contest the best they had was Macron. I suppose that
there are a few islands of sanity elsewhere. But liberalism does not contribute substantially to the longevity of such islands.
Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition
of everything in an era in which everything was a commodity.
That's a different kind of "Postmodernism" altogether, the kind associated with (if I'm not mistaken) such Chaotic gems
as MAD Magazine, Monty Python, The Far Side , and the vibrant, innovative weirdness of a wide array of 1990s art,
literature, and pop culture. My very bones are built on such things.
There's also "postmodern architecture", best known for being boring (my mother has been known to call it "post-architecture").
This, though? This is something entirely anathema. The aesthetic we call "postmodern" is liberating and innovative (at least
as long as it stays in the hands of people who "get it"); it teaches that there are no rules, that life is a strange and beautiful
carnival, that we can be whatever we want to be, and the world can be whatever we want it to be. "Postmodernism" as sociology,
on the other hand, with its denial of the very existence of the individual, and obscene redefinitions of such sacred words
as "Justice", is just all but explicitly totalitarian, and would have us believe that the entire 20th Century, with all its
hard-fought, bitter-bought victories and miracles, was all for nothing.
@Cassiodorus
To me it just means...well, kind of just being a good, intelligent, and independent-minded person who learns from history and
builds on it. If, as I've read the claim, "conservatism is the negation of ideology", I'd venture to describe liberalism as the
absence of externally-derived ideology.
I don't think the establishment Democrats - spineless, capitalist, militarist, insular, and ultimately authoritarian - deserve
to be let anywhere near the label "liberal".
#2.1#2.1 that
it is "liberalism" itself that has run out of gas.
At any rate, to deal with the objections to postmodernism: it's a performative contradiction to be an academic writing against
the idea of the individual, for higher-level academia exists to adorn the resumes of self-proclaimed individuals. I just don't
see postmodernism, of whatever kind you care to distinguish, as anything but harmless, useless, and pointless outside of its
obvious role in contributing to the resume-building efforts of professors in the humanities, and I haven't seen anything here
to change my mind about that.
Rather, the problem is that the liberals have run out of new mechanisms whereby the liberal utopia might bear fruit. The
liberal trend peaked a long time ago. And, in the meantime, liberal objections to the neoliberal utopia, the utopia of total
market existence for everyone as enforced by government diktat, have become toothless. In the US context the liberals appear
either blind to or despairing of the fact that the best they had for politics was Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton,
and that their hero Bernie Sanders nullified himself by endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the French contest the best they
had was Macron. I suppose that there are a few islands of sanity elsewhere. But liberalism does not contribute substantially
to the longevity of such islands.
@The
Liberal Moonbat are "good, intelligent, and independent-minded" people who "learn from history and build on it." The
difference, of course, is that the postcapitalists want to jettison capitalism whereas most of the liberals want to "build on
it." "A well-regulated capitalism," they tell us, is the way to go, because history declares "Communism" anathema. Now perhaps
not all liberals agree with this well-recited dogma, but its primary problem is that it does not touch capitalism's commodification
of everything including governments. Thus liberals who believe in this dogma claim that they seek the best-possible accommodation
with capitalism, and "well-regulated" means "regulated enough to look good." Politicians with the endorsement of liberals must
keep the air and water clean in areas where the residents are rich enough to buy politicians.
Now of course the liberals will protest this characterization of them, proclaiming once again that they are "good, intelligent,
and independent-minded." But where can they be seen imagining the world after capitalism? Kim Stanley Robinson at least tries:
#2.1.1
To me it just means...well, kind of just being a good, intelligent, and independent-minded person who learns from history and
builds on it. If, as I've read the claim, "conservatism is the negation of ideology", I'd venture to describe liberalism as
the absence of externally-derived ideology.
I don't think the establishment Democrats - spineless, capitalist, militarist, insular, and ultimately authoritarian - deserve
to be let anywhere near the label "liberal".
@Cassiodorus
I've come away with the conclusion that the very concept is, at best, nothing more than a kind of subtopic of history, and at
worst, outright pseudoscience, if not religion. My attitude has since spread to much of the rest of that which bills itself as
"social science" - sociology's one thing, of course, and so is modern psychology, having dumped Freud, but I think the notion
of "social science" is finally revealing itself to mostly be just another disastrous 19th-Century conceit. Free will is kryptonite
to science. "The economy", "society", "culture", people labor under these things because they believe they're unavoidably real,
but it's really all just a game , and the rules can be almost whatever we want them to be.
You can try to make anything into a "science" - but not everything can or should. Case in point: After World War II, the Soviet
Union decided that military strategy and tactics were a science, and that it had natural laws or whatever that could be honed
to the same degree of precision as the laws of physics; with time, they believed, they'd be able to predict the outcome of a battle
before a single shot had been fired. This "science" crashed and burned when they invaded Afghanistan.
As to the question of "what do we replace capitalism with?", my honest answer is: Nothing. Stop believing in "economics", and
just do what makes sense based on situational necessity and a long-term vision of what we want. A "mixed economy" like those of
Norway, 1970s Britain, or (arguably) New Deal America is really just an economy that has broken free of the religion of "economics,"
and plays by its own, common sense/common morality rules. The best economic policy MO I've ever heard of is Finland's: "Let's
do what makes our people HAPPY!" (I read a dandy article about that a while back, but I can't seem to find it now).
#2.1.1.1
are "good, intelligent, and independent-minded" people who "learn from history and build on it." The difference, of course,
is that the postcapitalists want to jettison capitalism whereas most of the liberals want to "build on it." "A well-regulated
capitalism," they tell us, is the way to go, because history declares "Communism" anathema. Now perhaps not all liberals agree
with this well-recited dogma, but its primary problem is that it does not touch capitalism's commodification of everything
including governments. Thus liberals who believe in this dogma claim that they seek the best-possible accommodation with capitalism,
and "well-regulated" means "regulated enough to look good." Politicians with the endorsement of liberals must keep the air
and water clean in areas where the residents are rich enough to buy politicians.
Now of course the liberals will protest this characterization of them, proclaiming once again that they are "good, intelligent,
and independent-minded." But where can they be seen imagining the world after capitalism? Kim Stanley Robinson at least tries:
I enjoyed a museum visit in Sharza, where one section of the complex had displays of incredible scientific contributions I
had never associated with this part of the world.
When I left that section, everything became examples and displays of Islam. Korans, proper clothing, a few weapons. Thinking back,
the science section pre-dated this philosopher.
I saw his influence, just didn't know it until today.
I never could understand Postmodernism. Is this because I am a white male or because I find Enlightenment concepts more coherent
and more useful in my everyday life and politics ? Whatever, I remain happily stuck in the late 18th century. Good to see a mention
of Alan Sokal in the linked article.
And other literature courses was that the classes were about the schools of literary criticism on Shakespeare, rather than
about the students doing a close reading of Shakespeare. And then of course, critiques on the schools of literary criticism.
"... While market competitiveness is idealized as the engine to advancement for all, labor competition is circumscribed for particular groups (e.g., through a household registration system that prevent migrants from accessing certain jobs, rights, and benefits in China) and in specific ways (e.g., only certain sectors of the labor market are considered legitimate -- not sex work or surrogacy, for example). The discourse of national competitiveness and collective welfare pushes forward a conservative moral agenda in the face of these changes. ..."
The Scholar & Feminist Online is a webjournal published three times a year by the
Barnard Center for Research on Women I begin this article by reflecting on one of the biggest
professional mistakes I have ever made. I became a part of corporate humanitarianism in 2006,
when IOM Korea invited me to be part of a research project on trafficking of Korean women
overseas, sponsored by the Bom-bit Foundation, an NGO set up by the wife of the CEO of the
biggest insurance company in South Korea. She had been concerned about the barrage of news
reports that were circulating both in and out of Korea about the trafficking of Korean women
into forced prostitution overseas. She wanted a global research project, "Korean women victims
of sex trafficking in five global sites": South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the East and West
Coasts of the United States. The ultimate goal was to find solutions to end such outflow and to
save these women. The principal researcher, a male Korean academic, drafted a survey
questionnaire laden with assumptions about coercion, violence, and sexual abuse. Even though
the final reports from different sites came back with little evidence of trafficking, they did
not prevent the principal investigator from producing a final report about the "serious problem
of sex trafficking of Korean women into the global sex trade."
The first woman who I interviewed for this project was working in a massage parlor in
Queens, New York. She came to the United States after the Korean police cracked down on her in
her home, after they had obtained her address from her employer in Seoul in an antiprostitution
raid. She explained her work in the United States:
Jin: Some people only come in for table showers, massage, and chats. Interviewer: Are they the good clients? Jin: No, they are not. Interviewer: So who are the good clients? Jin: Those people who finish quickly, they are the good ones. Those who have shower
and then have sex and go. They are the best.
This response exploded the entire premise of the research and its assumptions about the
inherently victimizing nature of sexual labor for women. Those who demand sex rather than
conversations are the good clients -- if they finish quickly, get themselves cleaned before
having sex, and leave immediately after sex. Jin situated sex squarely within a repertoire of
labor performance, along with other physical and emotional work, and identified sex as more
efficient ("quick") in providing return to her labor. She made between $11,000 and $22,000 per
month. On that note, let me move on to some important points in the discussion about gender and
neoliberalism within the context of South Korea.
Neoliberalism is useful as a term only to the extent of understanding macro-historical
shifts and setting a framework for investigation. But its history, manifestation, and effects
can be so diverse in each location that it cannot be a useful analytical category without
empirical analysis. For example, contrary to the trend of de-democratization [
1 ] observed in the United States, in South Korea, neoliberal reforms coincided with
the democratization of civil society and the state in late 1990s, following four decades of
military and authoritarian rule. In 1997, just when the first civilian democratic leader Kim
Dae-jung became president, South Korea went through a major financial crisis and received the
largest IMF bailout. The president supported a new wave of civic/human-rights organizations,
set up the first National Human Rights Commission, and founded the Ministry of Gender Equality.
During the same period, structural readjustment also ensured the flexibilization of labor and
the weakening of trade unions, rendering many lives of more precarious as they became
underemployed or unemployed.
In my work, I am grappling with how individuals like Jin live and make sense of their lives
within a number of paradoxes/contradictions in neoliberalism:
1) The apparent amorality of neoliberalism and its facilitation of conservative moral
agenda. The deployment of market principles to reconfigure the relationship between
sovereignty and citizenship not only remakes economic, political, and cultural life, but also
remakes citizen-subjects as entrepreneurs and consumers. While market competitiveness is
idealized as the engine to advancement for all, labor competition is circumscribed for
particular groups (e.g., through a household registration system that prevent migrants from
accessing certain jobs, rights, and benefits in China) and in specific ways (e.g., only certain
sectors of the labor market are considered legitimate -- not sex work or surrogacy, for
example). The discourse of national competitiveness and collective welfare pushes forward a
conservative moral agenda in the face of these changes.
2) The depoliticization of social risks and the hyperpoliticization of national
security. The emergence of an ethics of self-management and risk-taking justifies some form
of retrenchment of the state in the social sphere. Yet this by no means suggests a weakening of
the state. What we witness in neoliberal transformations is the assertion of the state through
more hard-lined enforcement of criminal justice and border control. The consequence is an
uneven emphasis on and legitimation of the self-enterprising individual, invoking national
crisis, social danger, and self-harm to justify state intervention or exclusion. These measures
have significant gendered repercussions -- reshaping discourses on domesticity, sexuality, and
mobility.
3) The concomitant and continuous ravaging of vulnerable populations and celebration of
humanitarianism/human rights responses from state and civil society. Neoliberal
developments create vulnerable populations by polarizing resources and wealth, and
concomitantly generate a set of humanitarian/human rights responses from the state and civil
society. Rather than being a set of problems that are being held back or eliminated by a set of
solutions, they seem to grow symbiotically together. In effect, many humanitarian/human-rights
interventions turn out to reiterate dominant interests, reproducing conservative gender,
racial, class, and national hierarchies and divides.
How are these contradictions lived? Maybe Jin has some answers for us -- not just from her
personal trajectory, but also in what she said:
I am working hard and making money for myself. I am saving money to start my own business
back home/to further study. I am not dependent on the government or my family. I am not
harming anyone, even though this is not a job to boast about. I don't understand these
women's human rights. These activists don't understand us. They are people from good
background. I am not saying the antiprostitution laws are wrong. But do they have to go so
far?
My research since 1997 on sex work and migrant women in South Korea and the United States is
located right at the intersection of these paradoxes. As women who strategize their immigration
and labor strategies for self-advancement as sex workers, they embody the sexual limits of
neoliberalism. While they may personify the values of self-reliance, self-governance, and free
markets in a manner akin to homo economicus, they violate the neoliberal ideals of relational
sexuality and middle-class femininity. [
2 ] As many critics have attested to, even though the antitrafficking movement hails
women's human rights, gender justice, and state protection, its operation predominantly through
the crime frame reinforces gender, class, and racial inequalities. As such, antitrafficking
initiatives, as they have taken shape in the twenty-first century, are part of neoliberal
governance, and underlying the claims of equality and liberty are racial, gender, and sex
panics with nationalist overtones that justify the repression of those who step outside these
limits.
I think antitrafficking initiatives need to be situated within a broader set of political
and social transformations in order to analyze the undercurrents of gender and sexuality across
different sites. In South Korea, there was a strong gender and sexual ideology pervading the
expansion of social policies in the post-1997 era. While the government could claim credit for
addressing the needs of certain vulnerable populations (the unemployed, the homeless, migrant
wives, women leaving prostitution, etc.), public anxieties about the breakdown of the family
(runaway teenagers, old-age divorce, the fight for women's equality) that started during the
1997 crisis have continued into the new millennium (same-sex families, "multicultural
families," single women). As national boundaries seem to have weakened with the incorporation
of "multicultural families," the heteronormative nuclear family became more reified, and the
domestic sphere as the proper place for women was reinscribed in a range of social policies.
These include protection for "prostituted women," since 2004, and support provided to migrant
wives -- both policies designed to harness these women's reproductive powers for the future of
the Korean nation, and to reproduce their class location.
It is also important to be wary of claims to promote "women's human rights" and how these
claims are circumscribed within certain spheres -- only in sex work, and not in the gendered
layoffs during an economic crisis, or in relation to the homeless women who have been excluded
as legitimate recipients of government support. "Women's human rights" have been hurled around
to legitimize activism and policies that turned out to make lives more difficult for some
women, rendering them either as targets or instruments of criminal law.
We also need to ask why the law is resorted to so consistently for women activists to make
claims on the state. And why does the general public have so much faith in the law to enforce
morality?
I would like to see cultural struggles become a more important site to extend into, building
on a solid economic and political critique. As we witnessed i the Occupy movement, as well as
with the sex worker festivals in different global locations, creativity, humor, and
conviviality have a lot of power to draw attention, if not to incite solidarity. The new sex
workers' organization in South Korea calls itself the Giant Girls ("GG" also means "support" in
Korean), and organizes its own seminars, holds a sex work festival celebration, and produces
its own podcasts, in which everyday conversation and serious discussion take place in a
light-hearted manner, often with bursts of laughter. The fists-in-air protests are no longer
the main part of the movement, marking a significant departure from the victimhood discourse. I
am hopeful that this will appeal at least to a younger generation of potential coalition
partners in the LGBT community, labor movements (for women and migrants), and cultural
movements. This could be a refreshing -- and possibly transformational -- shift in feminist
politics and critique in South Korea, and in other sites in Asia.
Footnotes
Brown, Wendy (2006). "American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and
De-Democratization." Political Theory 34(6): 690-714. [
Return to text ]
Bernstein, Elizabeth (2012). "Carceral Politics as Gender Justice? The 'Traffic in
Women' and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime, Sex, and Rights." Theory and Society
41(3):233–59. [
Return to text ]
"... So, in a different way, were old American political operators, at least when it came to domestic politics, as they had to manage multitudes of groups who had diverse worldviews who didn't take kindly to moral lecturing by politicians. ..."
"... Nowadays, though, this seems a worldview that many in "western" societies are running low on. Too many people start their argument by asserting their beliefs, why they believe them, and, implicitly, even if not made explicit, why they are right and others should be "persuaded" to believe them (since the "others" are "obviously" irrational.) ..."
"... Condemning the other, who are "obviously wrong," I suppose, makes people feel better, all the more so if one's own worldview can be justified by the Scripture or "science." ..."
"... An important point, however, is that for action to be 'rational' in this sense, it has, in some manner, to be appropriately calculated to the purposes envisaged. A difficulty lies precisely in the ambiguity about purposes which is implicit in this whole tradition. ..."
I agree entirely with your view. In order to make sense of the "purpose" behind actions
taken by various political actors, it is necessary to take seriously their worldview and
value system. It is not necessary that one should "respect" them or believe them for oneself,
but recognize that these do actuate the choices that they do make.
I suppose this might sound
like a sort of backhanded compliment, but this is something that the old British were really
good at -- and lay behind successful management of the empire.
So, in a different way, were old
American political operators, at least when it came to domestic politics, as they had to
manage multitudes of groups who had diverse worldviews who didn't take kindly to moral
lecturing by politicians.
Nowadays, though, this seems a worldview that many in "western" societies are running low
on. Too many people start their argument by asserting their beliefs, why they believe them,
and, implicitly, even if not made explicit, why they are right and others should be
"persuaded" to believe them (since the "others" are "obviously" irrational.)
Condemning the
other, who are "obviously wrong," I suppose, makes people feel better, all the more so if
one's own worldview can be justified by the Scripture or "science." (not the science based on
logical deduction and empiricism, but something that is vaguely "right" because it "just
is.") But that certainly rules out actually dealing with the other side responsibly to
accomplish something.
I still feel that the brand of "rationality" that too many people in the West subscribe to
is a brand of smug pseudoreligious fanaticism that is itself "irrational." It may be itself
"rational," given the context, as much as beliefs in witchcraft might be, but it is not what
its believers think it is. When such beliefs clash with other, comparable beliefs, nothing
good can come out of such encounters.
'One great irony is that, at least among "serious"
academics in economics and other social sciences, the only definition of "rational" that is
accepted is that there is some purpose behind it.'
This takes me into areas where I get out of my depth.
But the link of 'rationality' to purposive action is certainly very much in keeping with
the tradition which goes, through Collingwood, into areas of British anthropology (exmples
chosen from limited knowledge, Evans-Pritchard, Wendy James, Paul Dresch.)
An important point, however, is that for action to be 'rational' in this sense, it has, in
some manner, to be appropriately calculated to the purposes envisaged. A difficulty lies precisely in the ambiguity about purposes which is implicit in this
whole tradition.
So if one of one's basic conception of human purposes is to keep a kind of social order
'on the road', then beliefs which may be 'irrational', in the sense of indefensible in terms
of canons of Western science which are, patently 'rational', may have a 'rationality' of
their own.
An example is the analysis by Evans-Pritchard of the witchcraft beliefs of the Azande.
Implicit in this is a nightmare possibility which is lurking in a manner which is often
hysterical, but not necessarily 'irrational' manner, in a tradition of conservative thought:
that what is 'rational' in terms of scientific enquiry may be subversive of what is
'rational' in terms of the need to maintain functioning societies.
One great irony is that, at least among "serious"
academics in economics and other social sciences, the only definition of "rational" that is
accepted is that there is some [market-related] purpose behind it.
Most people who rant about
what "social science" says about the universe and how it should be are sophomoric thinkers
who don't know what the "science" part of social science is. The tragedy is that they are
what the rest of society expects social science to be about, to rant about morality of this
or that mode of politics, and not engage in hard headed analysis based on logic and evidence.
@11 Yes, Maracutu, shivers are pretty much a daily thing for me in these times. An
"accidental" bombing of Latakia was the spark that finally set off WWIII in the old, but
still popular, nuclear apocalypse novel Alas Babylon .
@ all Meanwhile, as all the Mad Magazine "Spy vs Spy" nonsense spins out in the UK,
the Empire is keeping busy on the other side of the pond. In late March, a couple of nice
folks from the US Southern Command paid a courtesy "friendship" visit to Ecuador:
During his term as President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa had (not very) politely and very
firmly invited US military personnel to go home (or at least elsewhere than Ecuador) and he
shut down the US base at Manta. His successor, Lenin Moreno, has proven to be some kind of
neoliberal mole who wormed himself into the Alianza Pais and has completely betrayed the
Citizens' Revolution. In less than a year in office, he has wrecked most of the progress
slowly and steadily made under 10 years of Correa's leadership. In the past month or so,
there have been three "terrorist" attacks on the Colombian border. These are supposedly
connected with FARC. There had been NO troubles with FARC under Correa.
So far, I have not found any English-Language media talking about any of this. I have not
found mention of how many US troops are involved. I have seen that there are now 500
additional ones in Peru to help with security for some summit Trump is going to. Of course,
the ones in Ecuador are only there to be "helpful" to the country.
Also: RIP Nash Van Drake and his guinea pig siblings (has anyone heard what their names
were, if any?). The murder of these pets may just be a weird side story to this madness, or
it may have been to cover up and destroy evidence. The explanations for their deaths seem
very suspicious to me. Some years ago, I had a male cat whom I let outside sometimes. He got
himself shut in the neighbor's garage one afternoon. I looked everywhere, placed want ads,
etc. No luck. Having basically given up, I discovered by accident he was in there after a
week. I called the neighbor, who came out late at night and opened the garage up and I coaxed
him out. Cat was very happy to be home and glad to see his food and water dish, but he was
hardly malnourished. He essentially was no worse for wear, physically.
It takes quite a long time without food for a healthy, well-fed house cat to become
"severely malnourished," unless perhaps there are some other special health problems already
or special needs. I don't know the timeline of when they went in and found him. Two weeks?
Three? Even then, look at all the videos out there of sick, malnourished cats rescued and
nursed back to health.
I know a lot less about guinea pigs, but similar with them. If they had a bottle waterer
mounted on the side of their cage, it was probably kept refilled pretty often. Even if
already down by half, it should have lasted a while. How much water would they drink in
normal house temperatures in the UK in late winter?
The idea of success at any cost, trampling on other people, has always been
popular in the United States. Little or nothing ethical types like Milken and Jordan Belfort
have had many admirers in the United States.
The oligarchy's desire to turn the clock back to 'the good old days' knows no
bounds -- they want it all and they want it know; they're absolute ideal state
for all us ordinary types would be a return to feudalism, so I guess bringing back slavery,
all be it with a shiny new coat of point, is pretty much to be expected...
Once upon a time many, many years ago in the land of Anywhere, in a world long since
forgotten, there was, at one time, a kind of Golden Age. It was not, it has to be said, an
age that was Perfect but it was agreed by almost all that it was an age that was much, much
better than That Which Had Gone Before. That time is best described by quoting from a
well-known article historical document contemporaneous to the period
' after Generations Of Struggle against Social Injustice and two Catastrophic And
Immensely Bloody Wars with the nearby land of Anotherplace, in which the Ordinary Folk had
died and suffered to a catastrophic degree, it was decided by all except the Rapaciously Rich
that Things Had To Change.
From that point on, Ordinary Folk were given access to Free Education, Free Healthcare,
Pensions, Benefits to help those who fell upon Hard Times and all the advantages of what you
would know in your world as a Welfare System. New taxes were introduced to redistribute some
of the vast sums of money accumulated (mostly from Stealing, Cheating and Aggressive Tax
Avoidance) by the Wealthy and the Aristocracy (known in the land of Anywhere as The Greedy
One Percent) over the years and Political Reforms introduced to break their stranglehold over
the Political And Economic Life of the country. Additionally, the Right to Vote was given to
all.
And the land of Anywhere blossomed, for it was found that a populace Free From Hunger And
Illness, that was properly Educated and Cared For, produced huge numbers of Talented men and
women who previously had Languished due to Poverty And Lack of Opportunity. These Talented
men and women drove the land of Anywhere to new heights of success, founding businesses,
employing people, making a mark in the worlds of politics, science, medicine and culture.
Slowly but surely, the Dead Grip of The Greedy One Percent, who had dominated and controlled
the land of Anywhere for as long as anyone could remember, was broken.'
And the psychopathic Greedy One Percent, the Devil's Children, hated this new world, this
New Bargain and Better Society, and all it stood for. They vowed to destroy it
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
"... By lan Cibils and Mariano Arana, Political Economy Department, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
"... desendeudamiento ..."
"... desendedudamiento ..."
"... Source: Ministry of Finance, Argentina. ..."
"... World Economic Outlook ..."
"... The grand history of Latin America: borrow billions of $$$ from U.S. banks, hand the money to the wealthy who immediately deposit it right back in American banks, and let the poor pay back the principal and interest. Hmmm . seems more and more the way this country is going. ..."
"... Brazil's recent neoliberal turn was frustrating for a variety of reasons, but being a big, diverse economy, they've got more sovereignty than their neighbors. However, the business and political elites in Brazil decided to hammer through austerity (spending cuts and interest rate hikes) because they WANTED to, not because external forces made them do it. ..."
Selling Out
Argentina's Future -- Again Posted on January 5, 2018 by
Yves Smith Yves
here. While you were busy watching Trump and the Middle East, and maybe Brexit and China once
in a while, some supposed neoliberal success stories are likely to be anything but that.
By lan Cibils and Mariano Arana, Political Economy Department, Universidad Nacional de
General Sarmiento, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Originally published at Triple Crisis
In Argentina's 2015 presidential run-off election, the neoliberal right-wing coalition
"Cambiemos" (literally, "lets change"), headed by Mauricio Macri, defeated the populist
Kirchnerista candidate by just two percentage points. Macri's triumph heralded a return to the
neoliberal policies of the 1990s and ended twelve years of heterodox economic policies that
prioritized income redistribution and the internal market. The ruling coalition also performed
well in the October 2017 mid-term elections and has since begun implementing a draconian set of
fiscal, labor, and social security reforms.
One of the hallmarks of the Cambiemos government so far has been a fast and furious return
to international credit markets and a very substantial increase in new public debt. Indeed,
since Macri came to power in 2015, Argentina has issued debt worth more than $100 billion. This
marks a clear contrast to the Kirchner administrations, during which the emphasis was debt
reduction.
The Kirchner Years: Debt Reduction?
Both Néstor and Cristina Kirchner pointed to desendeudamiento -- debt
reduction -- as one of the great successes of their administrations. To what extent was debt
reduced during the twelve years of Kirchnerismo?
Figure 1 shows the evolution of Argentina's public debt stock and the debt/GDP ratio between
2004-2017. One can see that there was a substantial reduction in the debt to GDP ratio between
2004-2011 -- the first two Kirchner terms -- due primarily to: a) the 2005 and 2010 debt
restructuring offers, b) a deliberate policy of desendedudamiento (debt cancellation),
and c) high growth rates. Indeed, debt/GDP dropped from 118.1% in 2004 to 38.9% in 2011. One
can also see that the actual stock of public debt fell after the 2005 debt restructuring
process, and then remained relatively stable until 2010. In 2011, it began a slow upward trend,
due to the re-appearance of the foreign exchange constraint once the commodity bubble burst and
capital flight increased.
Figure 1: Public Debt Stock (millions of dollars) and Debt/GDP ratio
Source: Ministry of Finance, Argentina.
An additional, fundamental change occurred during the first two Kirchner administrations:
the change in currency composition of Argentina's public debt. Indeed, as Figure 2 shows,
peso-denominated public debt reached 41% of total debt after the 2005 debt-restructuring
process. Between 2005 and 2012 it remained relatively stable, and then, after 2012,
dollar-denominated public debt began to grow again although never reaching pre-2005
debt-restructuring levels. The currency composition change is key, since it reduces
considerably the pressure on the external accounts.
Figure 2: Currency Composition of Argentina's Public Debt (as a % GDP)
Source: Ministry of Finance, Argentina.
Fast and Furious
Since Macri became president in December 2015, there has been a dramatic change in official
public debt strategy, radically reversing the process of debt reduction of the previous decade.
As shown in Figure 1, there was a substantial jump in the stock of public debt in 2016, and it
has continued to grow in 2017.The result to date has been a substantial increase in the stock
of Argentina's dollar-denominated public debt, as well as an increase of the debt service to
GDP ratio. New debt has been used to cover the trade deficit, pay off the vulture funds,
finance capital flight, and meet debt service payments. All of this has resulted in growing
concerns about Argentina's future economic sustainability, not to mention any possibility of
promoting economic development objectives.
Upon taking office, the Macri Administration rapidly implemented a series of policies to
liberalize financial flows and imports, and a 40% devaluation of the Argentine peso. [1] In
this context, it also went on a debt rampage, increasing dollar denominated debt considerably.
Between December 2015 and September 2017, Argentina's new debt amounts to the equivalent of
$103.59 billion. [2] This includes new
debt issued by the Treasury (80%), provincial governments (11%), and the private sector (9%).
While Argentina's debt had been increasing slowly since 2011, the jump experienced in 2016 was
unlike any other in Argentina's history.
If the increase in debt is alarming, the destination of those funds is also cause of
concern. Data from Argentina's Central Bank (Banco Central de la República Argentina or
BCRA) show that during the first eight months of 2017, net foreign asset accumulation of the
private non-banking sector totaled $13.32 million, 33% more than all of 2016, which itself was
17% more than all of 2015. This means that since December 2015, Argentina has dollarized assets
by approximately $25.29 billion.
According to the BCRA, during the same period there was a net outflow of capital due to debt
interest payments, profits and dividends of $8.231 billion. Additionally, the net outflow due
to tourism and travel is calculated at roughly $13.43 billion between December 2015 and August
2017.
In sum, the dramatic increase in dollar-denominated debt during the two first Macri years
served to finance capital flight, tourism, profit remittances, and debt service, all to the
tune of roughly $50 billion.
Where is This Headed?
Argentina's experience since the 1976 military coup until the crash of 2001 has shown how
damaging is the combination of unfavorable external conditions and the destruction of the local
productive structure. The post-crisis policies of the successive Kirchner administrations
reversed the debt-dependent and deindustrializing policies of the preceding decades. However,
since Macri took office in December 2015, Argentina has once again turned to debt-dependent
framework of the 1990s. Not only has public debt grown in absolute terms, but the weight of
dollar-denominated debt in total debt has also increased. Despite significant doubts regarding
the sustainability of the current situation, the government has expressed intentions of
continuing to issue new debt until 2020.
What are the main factors that call debt-sustainability into question? First, capital
flight, which, as we have said above, is increasing, is compensated with new dollar-denominated
public debt. Second, Argentina's trade balance turned negative in 2015 and has remained so
since, with a total accumulated trade deficit between 2015 and the second quarter of 2017 of
$6.53 billion. Import dynamics proved impervious to the 2016 recession, therefore it is
expected that the deficit will either persist as is or increase if there are no drastic
changes. Furthermore, in the 2018 national budget bill sent to Congress, Treasury Secretary
Nicolás Dujovne projects that the growth rate of imports will exceed that of exports
until at least 2021, increasing the current trade deficit by 68%.
Finally, according to the IMF's World Economic Outlook (October 2017), growth rate
projections for industrialized countries increase prospects of a US Federal Reserve interest
rate increase. This would make Argentina's new debt issues more expensive, increasing the
burden of future debt service and increasing capital flight from Argentina (in what is
generally referred to as the "flight to safety").
The factors outlined above generate credible and troublesome doubts about the sustainability
of the economic policies implemented by the Macri administration. While there are no signs of a
major crisis in the short term (that is, before the 2019 presidential elections), there are
good reasons to doubt that the current level of debt accumulation can be sustained to the end
of a potential second Macri term (2023). In other words, there are good reasons to believe that
Argentines will once again have to exercise their well-developed ability to navigate through
yet another profound debt crisis. This is not solely the authors' opinion. In early November
2017 Standard & Poor's placed Argentina in a list of the five most fragile economies.
[3] It looks like,
once again, storm clouds are on the horizon.
'What are the main factors that call debt sustainability into question? First, capital
flight.'
Capital flees Argentina whenever the opportunity arises because successive governments --
whether leftist or conservative -- refuse to control inflation and maintain a stable
currency.
Since 2001, the Argentine peso has slid from one-to-one with the US dollar to about 19 to
the dollar today. With Argentine inflation running in the low to mid twenties (according to
INDEC and Price Stats), the peso can be expected to carry on weakening against the dollar
indefinitely.
A hundred years during which the peso has lopped off thirteen (13) zeros owing to chronic
inflation shows that Argentina is politically and culturally incapable of responsibly
managing its own currency.
Argentines know this. Unfortunately, only the richer ones have assets they can move to
safety outside the country. The hand-to-mouth poor will continue being ravaged by inflation,
not to mention the large quantities of counterfeit pesos in circulation.
Letting Argentines play with fiat currency is like handing out loaded pistols to rowdy
5-year-olds. In both these sad cases, adult supervision is urgently needed.
The grand history of Latin America: borrow billions of $$$ from U.S. banks, hand the
money to the wealthy who immediately deposit it right back in American banks, and let the
poor pay back the principal and interest. Hmmm . seems more and more the way this country is
going.
The fixed exchange rate under Kirchner was totally unsustainable. One difference between
Macri's neoliberalism and his predecessors is Macri is allowing much more of a floating
currency than in the pre 2001 time period (We can debate how much it is actually is floating
and clearly a lot of this debt issuance is for currency stablization that I personally don't
approve of).
I'm not an expert in this at all, but in Peru, you could hold bank accounts in either
national currency or dollars. The national currency accounts spared you currency exchange
fees and also had higher interest rates. Most people who could hedged their bets by putting
money in both accounts.
It seems like a happy medium between abandoning national currencies and letting savers get
ravaged? No?
While not as spectacular of a return as Bitcoin, but impressive nonetheless, the escape
route for an Argentinean @ the turn of the century was the golden rule, an ounce of all that
glitters was 300 pesos then and now around 25,000 pesos, a most excellent 'troy' horse.
So, is austerity good or is austerity bad? And in what conditions?
I'm for expansionary government expense (and direct government ownership of some
industries, such as with an NHS) balanced by taxes on high incomes.
So in my view the problem happens when the government lowers taxes on the rich, as seems
likely in this case.
On the other hand taxes on the rich are likely to cause capital flight.
So why did Macri get elected to do this? Yeah he didn't win by much, but he won.
>The hand-to-mouth poor will continue being ravaged by inflation
Which is freaking weird. Argentina has cropland. They have energy sources (and I won't
bore everybody ok, I will with the observation that the Industrial Age is generously a
300/8000 year ratio part of human history).
And doesn't the below need some unpacking?:
>only the richer ones have assets they can move to safety outside the country
What are these assets? Why are said assets mobile? How did they come to "own" them? What
percentage of the population is encompassed by "the richer ones" phrasing?
Question: why doesn't MMT thinking work for countries like Argentina?
As wikipedia notes:
"The key insight of MMT is that "monetarily sovereign government is the monopoly
supplier of its currency and can issue currency of any denomination in physical or
non-physical forms. As such the government has an unlimited capacity to pay for the things
it wishes to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments, and has an unlimited ability
to provide funds to the other sectors. Thus, insolvency and bankruptcy of this government
is not possible. It can always pay."
Is this a general flaw in MMT? Does MMT only apply to dominant nation-states like the
U.S., who can use foreign military and financial pressures to protect the currency, aka the
petrodollar? Is the petrodollar a true 'fiat currency' or is it somehow based on control of
commodities (especially oil)? Is there something peculiar about Argentina and other countries
facing currency devaluation that MMT doesn't handle well? Any ideas on this?
That wikipedia write up isn't wrong, but it could be better. Probably need to hammer home
the point that the sovereign can always pay IN THE CURRENCY THAT IT ISSUES.
Most of the MMT related conversations on this site, and the posts that are written up on
the subject are mostly about explaining how there are constraints that many people THINK
exist in the USA, but don't actually exist, at least in economic terms (political constraints
notwithstanding). A country cannot be forced to default on a currency it issues. If the USA
had significant debts in EUR or JPY, then it'd be a very different conversation.
External constraints are a big deal for most countries, especially developing countries
that depend on exports of primary commodities. Chile, for instance, is constrained by balance
of payments problems when the price of copper declines. Also, developed countries that are
relatively smaller have much more limited sovereignty. The Swiss Central Bank has to follow
what the ECB does, to a large degree.
On the other hand, there's episodes where some countries have found room for maneuver when
they give up their sovereign currency. I didn't expect that Ecuador's economy would perform
quite as well as it has in recent years. But, they've shown that you can find ways to get
creative to compensate for loss of monetary sovereignty. Of course, the fiscal constraints
are real since Ecuador can't print USD.
Brazil's recent neoliberal turn was frustrating for a variety of reasons, but being a
big, diverse economy, they've got more sovereignty than their neighbors. However, the
business and political elites in Brazil decided to hammer through austerity (spending cuts
and interest rate hikes) because they WANTED to, not because external forces made them do
it.
No doubt an MMT prescription for Argentina would advice them to lay off the $ denominated
debt and stick to pesos as much as possible. I'd imagine Stephanie Kelton or any of the UMKC
crew would advise curtailing imports or doing some import substitution in order to take
pressure off balance of payments issues. They'd also take a look at what was driving
inflation domestically and try to find ways to relieve it with a targeted approach, instead
of risking recession and unemployment. Neoliberal/Washington Consensus type economists would
say hike interest rates, cut government spending in order to curtail demand. They'd argue
that the private sector will make the best decisions about where to reign in spending to
reduce inflation.
"... My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed "eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment". [10] He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible", and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence" ..."
"... Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation". [14] He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins". [15] For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God". [16] ..."
"... He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion". ..."
"... It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or security". [85] But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint. ..."
"... Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed". ..."
"... We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build. ..."
"... Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all". [87] As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature". [88] Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished. ..."
"... At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation", [90] while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social implications of technological and economic growth. ..."
"... The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. ..."
"... It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness. ..."
"... All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur. ..."
"... Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference" ..."
"... Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble ..."
"... This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity ..."
"... Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. ..."
"... The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. ..."
"... We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life". [100] Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood. [101] We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their spiritual endowments". [102] Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others ..."
"... it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone", [103] no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning. ..."
"... We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. ..."
"... The loss of jobs also has a negative impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence". [104] In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs". [105] To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society. ..."
"... In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. ..."
"... To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good. ..."
6. My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed
"eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable
of ensuring respect for the environment".[10]
He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible",
and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of
nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence".[11]
Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour. The social
environment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths
to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that "man is not only a freedom which he creates for
himself. Man does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also nature".[12]
With paternal concern, Benedict urged us to realize that creation is harmed "where we ourselves have the final word, where everything
is simply our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance
than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves".[13]
United by the same concern
7. These statements of the Popes echo the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups, all
of which have enriched the Church's thinking on these questions. Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities
– and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing.
To give just one striking example, I would mention the statements made by the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, with whom
we share the hope of full ecclesial communion.
8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet,
for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to
the disfigurement and destruction of creation".[14]
He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings
to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes
in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's
waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins".[15]
For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God".[16]
9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require
that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms.
He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism
which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what
God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion".[17]
As Christians, we are also called "to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours
on a global scale. It is our humble conviction that the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment
of God's creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet".[18]
... ... ...
I. TECHNOLOGY: CREATIVITY AND POWER
... ... ...
105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,
usefulness, welfare and vigour; an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture",[83]
as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The fact is that "contemporary
man has not been trained to use power well",[84]
because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.
Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never
considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity,
from either utility or security".[85]
But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious,
of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing
power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics,
a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according
to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational
procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the
scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if
the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly
intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves.
It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands
on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This
has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts
in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed
dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible
to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed".[86]
107. It can be said that many problems of today's world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims
of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects
of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just
one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products
are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines
dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about
the kind of society we want to build.
108. The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable.
The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources and even more difficult
to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals
are even partly independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same. Technology tends
to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward
in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power
is its motive – a lordship over all".[87]
As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature".[88]
Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished.
109. The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology
with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy.
The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental
deterioration. Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular
and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned
with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of
the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in
more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations.
Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development
and social inclusion.[89]At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast
with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation",[90]
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic
resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth.
110. The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge
proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between
things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. This very fact makes it hard to find adequate ways of solving
the more complex problems of today's world, particularly those regarding the environment and the poor; these problems cannot be dealt
with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests. A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would
necessarily have to take into account the data generated by other fields of knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics; but
this is a difficult habit to acquire today. Nor are there genuine ethical horizons to which one can appeal. Life gradually becomes
a surrender to situations conditioned by technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. In the concrete
situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which point to what is wrong, such as environmental degradation, anxiety,
a loss of the purpose of life and of community living. Once more we see that "realities are more important than ideas".[91]
111. Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to the immediate problems of pollution,
environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources. There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking,
policies, an educational programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic
paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only
a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the
true and deepest problems of the global system.
112. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the
service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral. Liberation from the dominant
technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means
of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to
resolving people's concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering. Or indeed when the desire to
create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who
behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed,
like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising
up in stubborn resistance?
113. There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better
tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological
progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.
This is not to reject the possibilities which technology continues to offer us. But humanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation
of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth
in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized
technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and
continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need
new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.
114. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not
neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes.
Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate
the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained
delusions of grandeur.
III. THE CRISIS AND EFFECTS OF MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM
115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind
sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered
into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference".[92]
The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand
themselves and end up acting against themselves: "Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original
good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure
with which he has been endowed".[93]
116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way
of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the
limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate
presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world.
Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature
was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our "dominion" over the universe should be understood more properly
in the sense of responsible stewardship.[94]
117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign
of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth
of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry
of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute
dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for "instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God
in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature".[95]
118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings
coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can
be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.
When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then "our overall
sense of responsibility wanes".[96]
A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to "biocentrism", for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing
to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the
same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.
119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the
present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal
our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees
human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for
others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a "thou" capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source
of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension
of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the "Thou" of God. Our relationship with the environment
can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism
dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.
How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be,
if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? "If personal and social sensitivity
towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away".[97]
121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity
to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in
fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.[98]
Practical relativism
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is "even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism".[99]
When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.
Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human
power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests. There is a logic
in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others
as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual
exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who
say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as
collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate
needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of
endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation,
or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same "use and throw away" logic generates so much waste,
because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the
force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective
truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to
be avoided.
The need to protect employment
124. Any approach to an integral ecology, which by definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value
of labour, as Saint John Paul II wisely noted in his Encyclical
Laborem Exercens. According to the biblical account of creation, God placed man and woman in the garden he had created (cf.
Gen 2:15) not only to preserve it ("keep") but also to make it fruitful ("till"). Labourers and craftsmen thus "maintain the
fabric of the world" (Sir 38:34). Developing the created world in a prudent way is the best way of caring for it, as this
means that we ourselves become the instrument used by God to bring out the potential which he himself inscribed in things: "The Lord
created medicines out of the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them" (Sir 38:4).
125. If we reflect on the proper relationship between human beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding
of work; if we talk about the relationship between human beings and things, the question arises as to the meaning and purpose of
all human activity. This has to do not only with manual or agricultural labour but with any activity involving a modification of
existing reality, from producing a social report to the design of a technological development. Underlying every form of work is a
concept of the relationship which we can and must have with what is other than ourselves. Together with the awe-filled contemplation
of creation which we find in Saint Francis of Assisi, the Christian spiritual tradition has also developed a rich and balanced understanding
of the meaning of work, as, for example, in the life of Blessed Charles de Foucauld and his followers.
126. We can also look to the great tradition of monasticism. Originally, it was a kind of flight from the world, an escape from
the decadence of the cities. The monks sought the desert, convinced that it was the best place for encountering the presence of God.
Later, Saint Benedict of Norcia proposed that his monks live in community, combining prayer and spiritual reading with manual labour
(ora et labora). Seeing manual labour as spiritually meaningful proved revolutionary. Personal growth and sanctification came
to be sought in the interplay of recollection and work. This way of experiencing work makes us more protective and respectful of
the environment; it imbues our relationship to the world with a healthy sobriety.
127. We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life".[100]
Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood.[101]
We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their
spiritual endowments".[102]
Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the
future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others, giving glory to God. It follows that, in the reality
of today's global society, it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone",[103]
no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.
128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human
work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth,
human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing
needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. Yet the orientation of the economy
has favoured a kind of technological progress in which the costs of production are reduced by laying off workers and replacing them
with machines. This is yet another way in which we can end up working against ourselves. The loss of jobs also has a negative
impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence".[104]
In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs".[105]
To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.
129. In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity
and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part
of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards
and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing
smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means
of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure
for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures
in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit,
restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while
realconditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to
practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving
our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs
as an essential part of its service to the common good.
New biological technologies
130. In the philosophical and theological vision of the human being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that the
human person, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not an external factor to be excluded. While human intervention on plants and
animals is permissible when it pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only "if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or
saving human lives".[106]
The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer
or die needlessly".[107]
All such use and experimentation "requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation".[108]
Argentina is essentially the case of neoliberalism renaissance after 2008 debacle. So this is
about strange non-death of neoliberalism after 2008. This is not traditional right wing regime
(which usually isolationalist for smaller countries and suspicious of the USA and international
financial capital)
Clearly the pendulum has swung to the right in the past few years. Numerous questions arise.
What kind of right? How far right? How did they gain power? What is their appeal? How
sustainable are the right wing regimes? Who are their international allies and adversaries?
Having taken power, how have the rightist regimes performed and by what criteria is success or
failure measured?
While the left has been in retreat, they still retain power in some states. Numerous
questions arise. What is the nature of the left today? Why have some regimes continued while
others have declined or been vanquished? Can the left recover its influence and under what
conditions and with what programmatic appeal.
We will proceed by discussing the character and policies of the right and left and their
direction. We will conclude by analyzing the dynamics of right and left policies, alignments
and future perspectives.
Right-Radicalism: The Face of Power
The right wing regimes are driven by intent to implement structural changes: they look to
reordering the nature of the state, economic and social relations and international political
and economic alignments.
Radical right regimes rule in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Paraguay,
Guatemala, Honduras and Chile.
In several countries extreme right regimes have made abrupt changes, while in others they
build on incremental changes constituted over time.
The changes in Argentina and Brazil represent examples of extreme regressive transformations
directed at reversing income distribution, property relations, international alignments and
military strategies. The goal is to redistribute income upwardly, to re-concentrate wealth,
property-ownership upward and externally and to subscribe to imperial doctrine. These
pluto-populist regimes are run by rulers, who openly speak to and for very powerful domestic
and overseas investors and are generous in their distribution of subsidies and state resources
– a kind of ' populism for the plutocrats' .
The rise and consolidation of extremist right regimes in Argentina and Brazil are based on
several decisive interventions, combining elections and violence, purges and co-optation, mass
media propaganda and deep corruption.
Mauricio Macri was backed by the major media, led by the Clarin conglomerate, as well as by
the international financial press (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). Wall Street
speculators and Washington's overseas political apparatus subsidized his electoral
campaign.
Macri, his family, cronies and financial accomplices, transferred public resources to
private accounts. Provincial political bosses and their patronage operations joined forces with
the wealthy financial sectors of Buenos Aires to secure votes in the Capital.
Upon his election, the Mauricio Macri regime transferred five billion dollars to the
notorious Wall Street speculator, Paul Singer, signed off on multi-billion dollar, high
interest loans, increased utility fees six fold, privatized oil, gas and public lands and fired
tens of thousands of public sector employees.
Macri organized a political purge and arrest of opposition political leaders, including
former President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner. Several provincial activists were jailed or even
assassinated.
Macri is a success story from the perspective of Wall Street, Washington and the
Porteño business elite. Wages and salaries have declined for Argentine workers. Utility
companies secured their highest profits ever. Bankers doubled interest rate returns. Importers
became millionaires. Agro-business incomes skyrocketed as their taxes were reduced.
From the perspective of Argentina's small and medium business enterprises President Macri's
regime has been a disaster: Many thousands have gone bankrupt because of high utility costs and
harsh competition from cheap Chinese imports. In addition to the drop in wages and salaries,
unemployment and under employment doubled and the rate of extreme poverty tripled
The economy, as a whole, floundered. Debt financing failed to promote growth, productivity,
innovation and exports. Foreign investment experienced easy entry, big profits and fast
departure. The promise of prosperity was narrowly based around a quarter of the population. To
weaken the expected public discontent – the regime shut down independent media voices,
unleashed thugs against critics and co-opted pliable gangster trade union bosses to break
strikes.
Public protests and strikes multiplied but were ignored and repressed. Popular leaders and
activists are stigmatized by the Macri-financed media hacks.
Barring a major social upheaval or economic collapse, Macri will exploit the fragmentation
of the opposition to secure re-election as a model gangster for Wall Street. Macri is prepared
to sign off on US military bases, EU free trade agreements, and greater police liaison with
Israel's sinister secret police, Mossad.
Brazil has followed Macri's far right policies.
Seizing power through a phony impeachment operation, the mega-swindler Michel Temer
immediately proceeded to dismantle the entire public sector, freeze salaries for twenty years,
and extend retirement age for pensioners by five to ten years. Temer led over a thousand
bribe-taking elected officials in the multi-billion dollar pillage of the state oil company and
every major public infrastructure project.
Coup, corruption and contempt were hidden by a system granting Congressional impunity until
independent prosecutors investigated, charged and jailed several dozen politicians, but not
Temer. Despite 95% public disapproval, President Temer remains in power with the total backing
of Wall Street, the Pentagon and Sao Paolo bankers.
Mexico, the long-standing narco-assassin state, continues elect one thieving PRI-PAN
political regime after another. Billions in illicit profits flows to the overseas tax havens of
money laundering bankers, US and Canadian mine owners. Mexican and international manufacturers
extracted double digit profits sent, to overseas accounts and tax havens. Mexico broke its own
miserable record in elite tax avoidance, while extending low wage-tax 'free trade zones'.
Millions of Mexicans have fled across the border to escape predatory gangster capitalism. The
flow of hundreds of millions of dollars of profits by US and Canadian multi-nationals were a
result of the 'unequal exchange' between US capital and Mexican labor, held in place by
Mexico's fraudulent electoral system.
In at least two well-known presidential elections in 1988 and 2006, left of center
candidates, Cuahtemoc Cardenas and Manuel Lopez Obrador, won with healthy margins of victory,
only to have their victories stolen by fraudulent vote counts.
Peru's rightist mining regimes, alternated between the overtly bloody Fujimori dictatorship
and corrupt electoral regimes. What is consistent in Peruvian politics is the handover of
mineral resources to foreign capital, pervasive corruption and the brutal exploitation of
natural resources by US and Canadian mining and drilling corporations in regions inhabited by
Indian communities.
The extreme right ousted elected left-of-center governments, including President Fernando
Lugo in Paraguay (2008-2012) and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (2006-2009), with the active support
and approval of the US State Department. Narco-presidents now wield power by means of
repression, including violence against popular movements and the killing of scores of peasant
and urban activists. This year, a grossly rigged election in Honduras ensured the continuity of
narco-regimes and US military bases.
The spread of the extreme right from Central America and Mexico to the Southern Cone
provides the groundwork for the re-assertion of US centered military alliances and regional
trade pacts.
The rise of the extreme right ensures the most lucrative privatizations and the highest
rates of return on overseas bank loans. The far right is quick to crack down on popular dissent
and electoral challenges with violence. At most the far right allows a few rotating elites with
nationalist pretensions to provide a façade of electoral democracy.
The Shift from the Center-Left to the Center-Right
The political swings to the far right have had profound ripple effects – as nominal
center-left regimes have swung to the center-right.
Two regimes have moved decisively from the center-left to the center-right: Uruguay under
Tabare Vazquez of the 'Broad Front' and Ecuador with the recent election of Lenin Moreno of
PAIS Alliance. In both cases the groundwork was established via accommodations with oligarchs
of the traditional right parties. The previous center-left regimes of Ecuadorean President
Rafael Correa and Uruguayan President Jose Mujica succeeded in pushing for public investments
and social reforms. They combined their leftist rhetoric while capitalizing on the global high
prices and high demand for agro-mineral exports to finance their reforms. With the decline in
world prices and the public exposure of corruption, the newly elected center-left parties
nominated and elected center –right candidates who turned anti-corruption campaigns into
vehicles for embracing neoliberal economic policies. The center-right presidents rejected
economic nationalism, encouraged large scale foreign investment and implemented fiscal
austerity programs appealing to the upper middle class and ruling class.
The center-right regimes marginalized the leftist sectors of their parties. In the case of
Ecuador, they split the party, with the newly elected president realigning international
policies away from the left (Bolivia, Venezuela) and toward the US and the far right–
while shedding the legacy of their predecessor in terms of popular social programs.
With the decline in export prices the center-right regimes offered generous subsidies to
foreign investors in agriculture and forestry in Uruguay, and mine owners and exporters in
Ecuador.
The newly converted center-right regimes joined with their established counterparts in Chile
and joined the Trans Pacific Partnership with Asian nations, the EU and the US.
The center-right sought to manipulate the social rhetoric of the previous center-left
regimes in order to retain popular voters while securing support from the business elite.
The Left Moves to the Center Left
Bolivia, under Evo Morales, has demonstrated an exceptional capacity for sustaining growth,
securing re-election and neutralizing the opposition by combining a radical left foreign policy
with a moderate, mixed public-private export economy. While Bolivia condemns US imperialism,
major oil, gas, metals and lithium multi-nationals have invested heavily in Bolivia. Evo
Morales has moderated his ideological posture shifting from revolutionary socialism to a local
version of liberal democratic cultural politics.
Evo Morales' embrace of a mixed economy has neutralized any overt hostility from the US and
the new far-right regimes in the region
Though remaining politically independent, Bolivia has integrated its exports with the far
right neoliberal regimes in the region. President Evo Morales's moderate economic policies,
diversity of mineral exports, fiscal responsibility, incremental social reforms, and support
from well-organized social movements has led to political stability and social continuity
despite the volatility of commodity prices.
Venezuela's left regimes under President Hugo Chavez and Maduro have followed a divergent
course with harsh consequences. Totally dependent on extraordinary global oil prices, Venezuela
proceeded to finance generous welfare programs at home and abroad. Under President Chavez
leadership, Venezuela adopted a consequential anti-imperialist policy successfully opposing a
US centered free trade agreement (LAFTA) and launching an anti-imperialist alternative, the
Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA).
Advancing social welfare and financing overseas allies without diversifying the economy and
markets and increasing production was predicated on continuous high returns on a single
volatile export – oil.
Unlike Bolivia under President Evo Morales, who built his power with the support of an
organized, class conscious and disciplined mass base, Venezuela counted on an amorphous
electoral alliance, which included slum dwellers, defectors from the corrupt traditional
parties (across the spectrum) and opportunists intent on grabbing office and perks. Political
education was reduced to mouthing slogans, cheering the President and distributing consumer
goods.
Venezuelan technocrats and political loyalists occupied highly lucrative positions,
especially in the petroleum sector and were not held to account by workers' councils or
competent state auditors. Corruption was rampant and billions of dollars of oil wealth was
stolen. This pillage was tolerated because of the huge influx of petro-dollars due to historic
high prices and high demand. This led to a bizarre situation where the regime spoke of
socialism and funded massive social programs, while the major banks, food distributers,
importers and transportation operators were controlled by hostile private oligarchs who
pocketed enormous profits while manufacturing shortages and promoting inflation. Despite the
problems, the Venezuelan voters gave the regime a series of electoral victories over the US
proxies and oligarch politicians. This tended to create overconfidence in the regime that the
Bolivarian socialist model was irrevocable.
The precipitous drop of oil prices, global demand, and export earnings led to the decline of
imports and consumption. Unlike Bolivia, foreign reserves declined, the rampant theft of
billions was belatedly uncovered and the US-backed rightwing opposition returned to violent
'direct action' and sabotage while hoarding essential food, consumer goods and medicine.
Shortages led to widespread black marketeering. Public sector corruption and hostile opposition
control of the private banking, retail and industrial sectors, backed by the US, paralyzed the
economy. The economy has been in a free-fall and electoral support has eroded. Despite the
regime's severe problems, the majority of low income voters correctly understood that their
chances of surviving under the US-backed oligarchic opposition would be worse and the embattled
left continued to win gubernatorial and municipal elections up through 2017.
Venezuela's economic vulnerability and negative growth rate led to increased indebtedness.
The opposition of the extreme right regimes in Latin America and Washington's economic
sanctions has intensified food shortages and increased unemployment.
In contrast, Bolivia effectively defeated US-elite coup plots between 2008-10. The Santa
Cruz-based oligarchs faced the clear choice of either sharing profits and social stability by
signing off on social pacts (workers/peasants, capital and state) with the Morales government
or facing an alliance of the government and the militant labor movement prepared to expropriate
their holdings. The elites chose economic collaboration while pursuing low intensity electoral
opposition.
Conclusion
Left opposition is in retreat from state power. Opposition to the extreme right is likely to
grow, given the harsh, uncompromising assault on income, pensions, the rise in the cost of
living, severe reductions in social programs and attacks on private and public sector
employment. The extreme right has several options, none of which offer any concessions to the
left. They have chosen to heighten police state measures (the Macri solution); they attempt to
fragment the opposition by negotiating with the opportunist trade union and political party
bosses; and they reshuffle degraded rulers with new faces to continue policies (the Brazilian
solution).
The formerly revolutionary left parties, movements and leaders have evolved toward electoral
politics, protests and job action. So far they do not represent an effective political option
at the national level
The center-left, especially in Brazil and Ecuador, is in a strong position with dynamic
political leaders (Lula DaSilva and Correa) but face trumped up charges by right-wing
prosecutors who intend to exclude them from running for office. Unless the center-left
reformers engage in prolonged large-scale mass activity, the far right will effectively
undermine their political recovery.
The US imperial state has temporarily regained proxy regimes, military allies and economic
resources and markets. China and the European Union profit from optimal economic conditions
offered by the far right regimes. The US military program has effectively neutralized the
radical opposition in Colombia, and the Trump regime has intensified and imposed new sanctions
on Venezuela and Cuba.
The Trump regimes 'triumphalist' celebration is premature – no decisive strategic
victory has taken place, despite important short term advances in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
However large outflows of profits, major transfers of ownership to foreign investors, favorable
tax rates, low tariff and trade policies have yet to generate new productive facilities,
sustainable growth and to ensure economic fundamentals. Maximizing profits and ignoring
investments in productivity and innovation to promote domestic markets and demand has
bankrupted tens of thousands of medium and small local commercial and manufacturing firms. This
has led to rising chronic unemployment and underemployment. Marginalization and social
polarization without political leadership is growing. Such conditions led to 'spontaneous'
uprisings in Argentina 2001, Ecuador 2000 and Bolivia 2005.
The far right in power may not evoke a rebellion of the far left but its policies can
certainly undermine the stability and continuity of the current regimes. At a minimum, it can
lead to some version of the center left and restoration of the welfare and employment regimes
now in tatters.
In the meantime the far right will press ahead with their perverse agenda combining deep
reversals of social welfare, the degradation of national sovereignty and economic stagnation
with a formidable profit maximizing performance.
I think this author is on the wrong site. None of those countries have "radical right"
governments. Right wing radicals believe in social hierarchy regardless of wealth
distribution.
In contrast, Bolivia effectively defeated US-elite coup plots between 2008-10. The Santa
Cruz-based oligarchs faced the clear choice of either sharing profits and social stability
by signing off on social pacts (workers/peasants, capital and state) with the Morales
government or facing an alliance of the government and the militant labor movement prepared
to expropriate their holdings. The elites chose economic collaboration while pursuing low
intensity electoral opposition.
This is an intelligent form of Bolivia First, looking for good relations with
International Capital, but putting the wellbeing of all Bolivians first.
And interestingly
it works.
According to a report by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in
Washington, "Bolivia has grown much faster over the last eight years than in any period
over the past three and a half decades." The benefits of such growth have been felt by the
Bolivian people: under Morales, poverty has declined by 25% and extreme poverty has
declined by 43%; social spending has increased by more than 45%; the real minimum wage has
increased by 87.7%; and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Economic Commission on Latin America
and the Caribbean has praised Bolivia for being "one of the few countries that has reduced
inequality". In this respect, the re-election of Morales is really very simple: people like
to be economically secure – so if you reduce poverty, they'll probably vote for
you.
Turns out the difference between Bolivia and Venezuela has nothing to do with abstract
ideological labels, and everything to do with fiscal prudence.
I know, I know, fiscal prudence sounds deadly dull, but it makes an enormous difference in
real people's lives. While Venezuela's reckless socialists were impoverishing the country's
once thriving middle class, Bolivia's socialists were creating an entirely new indigenous
middle class, even spawning a whole new style of architecture along with it. Why? Because
newly affluent Bolivians can afford it: Per capita GDP more than tripled from just $1,000 a
year to over $3,200 over a decade. At the same time, new government social programs
designed to help older people, mothers and other at-risk groups saw to major improvements
in social indicators. To take just one, consider this: Thirty-two percent of Bolivians were
chronically malnourished in 2003. By 2012, just 18 percent were.
Also the concept of "Neoliberal jihad is valid, but it is better to call it Neoliberal World revolution as it was borrowed
from Trotskyism
Notable quotes:
"... Jihad vs. McWorld ..."
"... In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. ..."
"... Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. ..."
"... Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. ..."
In his ground-breaking
1995 book Jihad vs. McWorld , political scientist Benjamin Barber posits that the
global conflicts of the early 21st century would be driven by two opposing but equally
undemocratic forces: neoliberal corporate globalization (which he dubbed "McWorld") and
reactionary tribal nationalisms (which he dubbed "Jihad"). Although distinct in many ways, both
of these forces, Barber persuasively argues, succeed by denying the possibilities for
democratic consensus and action, and so both must be opposed by civic engagement and activism
on a broad scale.
In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly
cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western
neoliberalism representing McWorld. Case in pitch-perfect point: the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center. Yet despite his use of the Arabic word Jihad, Barber is clear that
reactionary tribalism is a worldwide phenomenon -- and in 2016 we're seeing particularly
striking examples of that tribalism in Western nations such as Great Britain and the United
States.
Britain's vote this week in favor of leaving the European Union was driven entirely by such
reactionary tribal nationalism. The far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its
leader Nigel Farage
led the charge in favor of Leave , as exemplified by a recent UKIP poster featuring a photo
of Syrian refugees with the caption " Breaking point: the EU has failed
us ." Farage and his allies like to point to demographic statistics about how much the UK
has changed in the last few decades , and more
exactly how the nation's white majority has been somewhat shifted over that time by the
arrival
of sizeable African and Asian immigrant communities.
It's impossible not to link the UKIP's emphases on such issues of immigration and demography
to the presidential campaign of the one prominent U.S. politician who is
cheering for the Brexit vote : presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. From his
campaign-launching speech about Mexican immigrant "criminals and rapists" to his proposal to
ban Muslim immigration and his "Make American Great Again" slogan, Trump has relied on
reactionary tribal nationalism at every stage of his campaign, and has received the
enthusiastic endorsement
of white supremacist and far-right organizations as a result. For such American tribal
nationalists, the 1965 Immigration Act is the chief bogeyman, the origin point of continuing
demographic shifts that have placed white America in a precarious position.
The only problem with that narrative is that it's entirely inaccurate. What the 1965 Act did
was reverse a
recent, exclusionary trend in American immigration law and policy, returning the nation to
the more inclusive and welcoming stance it had taken throughout the rest of its history.
Moreover, while the numbers of Americans from Latin American, Asian, and Muslim cultures have
increased in recent decades, all of those
communities have been part of o
ur national community from its origin points . Which is to say, this right-wing tribal
nationalism isn't just opposed to fundamental realities of 21st century American identity -- it
also depends on historical and national narratives that are as mythic as they are
exclusionary.
Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating
them all, of course. Although Trump rallies have featured troubling instances of violence, and
although the
murderer of British politican Jo Cox was an avowed white supremacist and Leave supporter,
the right-wing Islamic extremism of groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram rely far more
consistently and centrally on violence and terrorism in support of their worldview and goals.
Such specific contexts and nuances are important and shouldn't be elided.
Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of
this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. From ISIS to UKIP, Trump to France's
Jean-Marie Le Pen, such reactionary forces have become and remain dominant players across the
world, influencing local and international politics, economics, and culture. Benjamin Barber
called this trend two decades ago, and we would do well to read and remember his analyses -- as
well as his call for civic engagement and activism to resist these forces and fight for
democracy.
For 25 years following the end of the Second World War, the global economy experienced an
unprecedented period of sustained growth. In the industrialized world, millions of people
joined the ranks of the middle class, and wealth inequality sunk to historic lows. After
decades of strife, labour and capital reached a relative ceasefire, and a mixed economy of
governmental macroeconomic guidance combined with private microeconomic initiative emerged.
Capital was able to make healthy profits, while much of the rising productivity of labour was
passed on in the form of higher wages. Governments made full employment a priority, and
increasingly accepted the responsibility of providing for the poor and disadvantaged. By the
late 1960s, governments were seriously considering implementing a basic income (also known as a
guaranteed annual income) and many policymakers thought that our biggest problem in another 20
years would be what to do with all our free time once the work week had been significantly
reduced.
This exuberant economic attitude was arguably reflected in the radical social
experimentation and revolution that emanated from universities now accessible to the majority,
and in the various movements for liberty and social justice erupting worldwide. For many, all
this social and economic optimism had one man to thank: the British political economist John
Maynard Keynes, who had emerged from the academic wilderness in the 1930s to play a leading
role in the design of the post-war economy at Bretton Woods, and whose focus on the
counter-cyclical stimulus of aggregate demand became the lynchpin of governmental economic
policy in subsequent decades. "There was a broad body of optimism that the 1950s and 1960s were
the product of Keynesian economic engineering. Indeed, there was no reason why the prosperity
of the international economy should not continue as long as appropriate Keynesian policies were
pursued " In 1971, even the conservative US president Richard Nixon would famously proclaim,
"We are all Keynesians now." The triumph of Keynesianism seemed complete.
Yet shortly after Nixon uttered these words, it all fell apart. That same year, Nixon ended the
era of dollar to gold convertibility, a move that many see as the beginning of the end for the
great post-war compromise between capital and labour.
Three years later, in the face of the
first oil embargo and other pressures, the economy nose-dived into the worst recession since
the Great Depression, never to rebound to earlier levels. Worse still, the theoretical
underpinnings of Keynesianism were called into question by the simultaneous appearance of high
inflation and high unemployment – a new phenomenon dubbed "stagflation". While
Keynesianism floundered for an explanation, new theories stepped into the breach; monetarism
and supply-side economics were the two most popular. While these new theories had distinctive
approaches, both shared the belief that big government – namely Keynesianism – was
the problem, and that the solution to stagflation was to restrict government intervention in
the economy to a strict inflation-fighting monetary policy (in the case of monetarism) or to
cut taxes to stimulate private investment (in the case of the supply-siders). This move away
from government intervention and the welfare state, and towards more emphasis on an unfettered
market, can been summed up by the term "neoliberalism". As the 1970s ran their course,
neoliberalism gradually took over from Keynesianism as the reigning economic orthodoxy, to be
consummated in the Anglo-Saxon world by the elections of Margaret Thatcher in the UK in 1979,
Ronald Reagan in the US in 1980, and Brian Mulroney in Canada in 1984.
The story told by the victors of this ideological battle – the neoliberals – is
that Keynesianism, despite its apparent success for 25 years, was in the end responsible for
the constellation of economic crises that descended on the industrialized countries during the
1970s, and that neoliberalism was the remedy. The shift from Keynesianism to neoliberalism was,
according to this story, the only rational option in the face of stagflation; as Thatcher
crisply remarked at the time, "There is no alternative."
I will call into question this story, by first examining the causes of the 1970s economic
malaise, and then looking at what interests were behind the promotion of neoliberalism as a
solution, how it gained political power, and how it was disseminated around the world. I will
fashion an alternate narrative, one in which Keynesianism was not to blame for stagflation, in
which the economic crises of the 1970s put the compromise between capital and labour under
severe strain and ultimately broke it, in which the capitalist class went on the offensive
partly because it feared for its very survival, and in which this class achieved its ends by
forming an alliance with social conservatives equally fearful in the face of the 1960s
counter-cultural revolution. The protagonist of this story will be the United States; as the
capitalist world's superpower, it was largely responsible for the crisis of the 1970s, it
suffered the worst from it, and it led the way down the new path of neoliberalism.
THE FALL OF KEYNESIANISM
As one of the principle fathers of neoliberalism, the economist Milton Friedman's indictment of
Keynesianism is of special relevance, for it is emblematic of the neoliberal attempt to –
quite successfully – pin the blame for chronic recession squarely on Keynesian shoulders.
Briefly, Friedman theorized that there was a so-called "natural" rate of unemployment, which
persisted in the long-term despite governmental attempts to stimulate demand through spending.
Running a budget deficit to pump money into the economy might bring down the unemployment rate
in the short term, he thought, but in the long run it would only create inflation, while
unemployment would inevitably return to its natural rate – now higher because of the
inflation. He essentially argued that fiscal policy was useless – even damaging –
and that if governments wanted to bring down the natural rate of unemployment, they should
focus on keeping inflation low through monetary policy, while loosening restrictions on markets
so that, for instance, wage levels could find their equilibrium point. This explanation for the
stagflation encountered in the 1970s proved quite convincing to many searching for answers to
the predicament, as well as enormously appealing to those who had always wished for a return to
unfettered markets, and played a key role in justifying the switch from Keynesianism to
neoliberalism, in its guise of monetarism.
How realistic is this account? Certainly, deficit financing played an important role in the
soaring inflation of the 1970s, but was this solely the result of spending on social programs,
such as under president Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiative, or were there other causes
for deficit spending? The Vietnam War, combined with Johnson's unwillingness to raise taxes in
the face of rising war expenditures, caused the US Federal Reserve to print large amounts of
new dollars. Military spending is often seen as the most inflationary form of government
spending, because it puts new money into the economy without a corresponding increase in
output. The US had some leeway to get away with this rapid increase in the money supply, since
the dollar was the international reserve currency, but there was a limit to this, and the
explosive inflation of the 1970s was the result.
It must be noted that the US proved a dismal failure in its short-lived role as manager of the
world's monetary system. At Bretton Woods, it had been entrusted with the task of maintaining a
sound monetary system, through the gold exchange standard, just as Britain had previously.
Britain, being a trading nation, had had a strong interest in maintaining a sound international
monetary system, and had been effective (some would say too effective) at maintaining it. The
United States, on the other hand, traded much less, and consequentially took its
responsibilities much less seriously. It is easy to speculate about the justification made by
US officials as they printed irresponsible amounts money to pay for their war in Vietnam: they
surely saw themselves as defending the free world against the tyranny of communism, a cause for
which a little monetary instability, shouldered by the "free world" in general, was a small
price to pay.
The first cracks in the system started to show during the series of currency crises that struck
in the late 1960s. By the end of the decade, the dollars held outside the US were worth eight
times as much as the US had in gold reserves. In 1971, rather than saving the system by
devaluing the dollar, and fearing a run on US gold, Nixon ended the gold exchange standard. The
US had abused its power of seigniorage (as monarchs before had), but wouldn't escape without
paying a price.
The result was more inflation, as the dollar, now cut loose from the Bretton Woods standard of
$35 per ounce of gold, shed its inflated value. The lower dollar also raised the cost of
imports to the US consumer, further fueling domestic inflation. (The end of dollar
convertibility also brought with it more far-reaching consequences. The fixed exchange rates of
the 1950s and 60s were incompatible with free flows of capital. Yet taking the dollar off gold
led directly to floating exchange rates, which in turn paved the way for freer flows of capital
between countries. This development would later aid greatly in the furtherance of the
neoliberal agenda.)
As if these developments were not inflationary enough, the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 led
OPEC to restrict oil exports to Israel's allies, quadrupling oil prices virtually overnight.
Yet this was inflation of a different nature than the kind that had been building up in the
1960s; rather than being linked to excess demand and an overheated economy, it was driven by
increases in costs on the supply side and brought with it recessionary pressures. An increase
in the price of oil, being fundamental to so much of the economy, is "similar to the imposition
of a substantial sales tax. The price of the product goes up and consumers have less income
available to spend on other goods and services. The result is a bout of inflation, at least
temporarily, and sluggish economic expansion if not recession." This goes a long way towards
explaining the supposedly impossible coincidence of high inflation with high unemployment.
Yet there were other factors that also contributed to the so-called "misery index" (inflation
rate plus unemployment rate). The most basic of these was that governments tried repeatedly to
beat inflation by attacking perceived excess demand through restrictive monetary and fiscal
policies; when Nixon tried this strategy in 1970, it resulted in recession. His successor,
Gerald Ford, tried the same approach in 1974 – despite the fact that inflation at that
point was not being driven by excess demand, but by high costs on the supple side (namely oil).
Thus, poor governmental reaction to inflation caused recession and rising unemployment, while
failing to master inflation.
Another factor contributing to the slow-down of growth in the US economy was the end of the
privileged position it enjoyed as the only power to emerge from the Second World War relatively
unscathed. As Germany and Japan laboured to reconstruct their war-ravaged economies, the US
faced little competition. Yet by the end of the 1960s, the old Axis powers, now recast as
capitalist democracies but still economic powerhouses, were flexing their economic muscles
again. This, combined with increasing competition from newly industrialized countries in East
Asia and from other developing countries, cut into the robust economic growth the US had
enjoyed for two decades previously.
To sum up, inflation caused by first the Vietnam War and later the oil embargo (itself the
result of war in the Mideast), coupled with increasing competition to US business
internationally, along with the shock of the collapse of the Bretton Woods framework, were the
major factors that combined to create the "perfect storm" known as stagflation:
the stage was set for the deepest recession since the 1930s. The long period of post-war
expansion had at last come to an end; America and world capitalism entered a new phase of
turbulence which, amongst other things, threw economic policy and economics as a theory into a
state of flux.
AND THE RISE OF NEOLIBERALISM
In the previous section, I outlined the confluence of factors that led to the crisis of
stagflation in the 1970s. In the following section, I will describe the reaction to this crisis
– the how and why of neoliberalism's triumph as the new economic orthodoxy.
Different authors ascribe to different points in time when the balance decisively shifted from
Keynesianism to neoliberalism – some place the tipping point as early as the latter half
of the 1960s, others as late as the ascendancy of Thatcher and Reagan – but the midway
year 1974 seems as good as any. It was in this year that Gerald Ford came to the White House
with the slogan, "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN), declaring that inflation was public enemy number
one and that reduction in government spending was the chief means to that end. It was also in
this year that inflation peaked (at 11% – although it would later be surpassed by a
second peak of 13.5% in 1980), and that the "perfect storm" that had been building for years,
catalyzed by the energy crisis, finally unleashed its full fury on the economy. In declaring
war on inflation, Ford broke with the Keynesian bias of giving precedence to full employment;
whereas before inflation had been a tool to control unemployment, now unemployment was to be
used as a tool to control inflation:
The choice seemed to be stark: accept some inflation as the price of expansion and adapt
business and accounting practices accordingly, or pursue a firm deflationary policy even if
that meant accepting a higher level of unemployment than had been customary since the Second
World War.
In choosing the latter, Ford shattered the fragile compromise between labour and capital
and, favouring capital, took America on its first real steps towards neoliberalism.
Yet, as the crisis had gathered steam in the early 1970s, it was by no means clear which way
the winds would blow. It was well remembered that the last major economic crisis, in the 1930s,
had resulted in the socialist policies of the New Deal, and indeed in the 1970s labour again
called for more governmental intervention as the solution to the crisis. Capital, meanwhile, as
it suffered from reduced profits due to increased competition abroad and recession at home,
also saw the crisis as both an opportunity to advance its interests and as a threat to its
interests from an increasingly militant labour. "The upper classes had to move decisively if
they were to protect themselves from political and economic annihilation." The ceasefire
between labour and capital had held when times were good, but as soon as conditions started to
sour, both sides went on the offensive. It was to be one or the other.
Sensing both the opportunity and the threat presented by the crisis, the capitalist class put
aside its differences and united against the common enemy of labour. The 1970s marked the
beginning of the right-wing think tank, with corporate dollars founding such now well-known
beacons of neoliberal thought as the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute, and the
American Enterprise Institute. Lobbying efforts, though such umbrella organizations as the
American Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business
Roundtable (a group of CEOs founded in 1972), were massively ramped up; business schools at
Stanford and Harvard, established through corporation benefaction, " became centres of
neoliberal orthodoxy from the very moment they opened" ; and "the supposedly 'progressive'
campaign finance laws of 1971 [that] in effect legalized the financial corruption of politics,"
were followed by a series of Supreme Court decisions that established the right of corporations
to make unlimited donations to political parties. "During the 1970s, the political wing of the
nation's corporate sector staged one of the most remarkable campaigns in the pursuit of power
in recent history."
The ideology adopted by capital during this remarkable drive to win the minds of the political
leadership " had long been lurking in the wings of public policy." It emanated largely from the
writings of the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, around whom a collection of admirers
(including Milton Friedman) called the Mont Pelerin Society had formed in 1947. This group's
ideas became known as neoliberalism because of its adherence to such neoclassical economists of
the latter half of the 19th Century as Alfred Marshall, William Stanley Jevons, and Leon
Walras. Hayek had argued presciently that it might take a generation before they could win the
battle of ideas; by the time he won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1974, followed by Friedman
two years later, victory was indeed close at hand.
Why did capital " [pluck] from the shadows of relative obscurity [this] particular doctrine
that went under the name of 'neoliberalism' "? Was it to save the world from the ravages of
Keynesian stagnation and to free people from the heavy hand of bloated government? This was
certainly part of the rhetoric used to sell neoliberalism to the public, but one need only look
at who benefited from neoliberalism to get a strong sense of whose interests it really served.
It was eventually quite successful in lowering inflation rates, and moderately successful in
lowering unemployment, but failed to revive economic growth to pre-1970s levels; meanwhile, it
resulted in levels of wealth inequality not seen since the 1920s in the US, stagnating real
wages, and a decreased quality of life for those reliant on government services. Alan Budd,
Thatcher's economic advisor, was candid about the real motives behind the neoliberal rhetoric
when he said, "The 1980s policies of attacking inflation by squeezing the economy and public
spending were a cover to bash the workers." Neoliberalism was capital's way of disciplining
labour through unemployment, creating what Marx called an "industrial reserve army" that would
break unions and drag wages down. Reagan facing down the air traffic controller's union, PATCO,
during a bitter strike in 1981, paralleled across the Atlantic by Thatcher's similarly tough
stance with the National Union of Mineworkers' year-long strike in 1984-85, was emblematic of
the new hostile approach to labour reintroduced to state policy by neoliberalism. In short,
neoliberalism was driven by class interests; it was the vehicle best suited " to restor[ing]
the power of economic elites." The true point of neoliberalism is revealed by the fact that
whenever the dictates of neoliberal theory conflicted with the interests of the capitalist
class, such as when it came to running massive budgetary deficits to pay for military spending
during peacetime, neoliberalism was discarded in favour of the interests of capital.
Before neoliberalism came to roost in the White House, however, there were several experiments
conducted in the periphery. It is revealing to note that the first nationwide imposition of
neoliberalism occurred under conditions of tyranny: Augusto Pinochet's Chile; it is likewise
fitting that neoliberalism drove from Chile its antithesis, the communism of Salvador Allende,
and that it was imposed through a US-backed coup. After the coup in 1973, Chile became a field
school for graduates from the economics department of the University of Chicago, where
disciples of Milton Friedman, who taught there, had formed their own monetarist/neoliberal
school of thought. These economists attempted to remake the Chilean economy into the ideal
neoliberal state (in the same way that US neoliberals are currently attempting in Iraq), a
transformation that likely would not have been possible without the Chilean military ensuring a
compliant labour. Despite lackluster economic results (particularly after the 1982 debt crisis
in Latin America), Chile served as a model to neoliberals who wanted the rich countries to
follow the same path.
There was another coup, of sorts – less known and less violent – that occurred in
New York City in 1975. In that year, the city went bankrupt, and the subsequent bailout came
with strict conditions attached, including budgetary rules and other institutional
restructuring. "This amounted to a coup by the financial institutions against the
democratically elected government of New York City, and it was every bit as effective as the
military coup that had occurred in Chile." It was "an early, perhaps decisive battle in a new
war," the purpose of which was "to show others that what is happening to New York could and in
some cases would happen to them." "The management of the New York fiscal crisis pioneered the
way for neoliberal practices both domestically under Reagan and internationally through the IMF
in the 1980s."
While coups, either military or financial, were possible against developing countries and
municipalities, neoliberalism would have to gain dominance in the US federal government through
slightly more democratic means. As noted earlier, the intense drive to power through lobbying,
think tanks, and academia convinced many in the elite of the virtues of neoliberalism, but
ultimately this ideology would have to sway masses of people to actually vote in favour of it.
In order to secure the broad base of support necessary to win elections, neoliberals formed an
alliance in the 1970s with the religious right (a move that has forever since confused the
terms "liberal" and "conservative"). While this significant segment of the American population
had previously been largely apolitical, the counter-cultural revolution of the late 1960s and
early 1970s provoked many of these "neoconservatives" to enter the political arena to oppose
the perceived moral corruption of American society – a movement that came to fruition
with preacher Jerry Fallwell's so-called "moral majority" in 1978. While neoliberals and
neoconservatives may seem like strange bedfellows, the coalition was likely facilitated by
religious fundamentalists' relative indifference towards the material, economic world;
according to their extremist Christian worldview, their material interests in this world would
be well worth sacrificing to secure the spiritual interests of their nation in the next world.
Furthermore, both religious and economic fundamentalists must have found a comforting
familiarity in each other's simplistic extremism (the "invisible hand" of the neoliberals' free
market is eerily similar to the Christians' God in its omnipotence, omnipresence, and
inscrutability).
The Republican Party gathered under its banner these religious reactionaries, as well as those
non-religious (largely white, heterosexual, male, and working-class) who simply feared the
growing liberation of blacks, gays, and women, and who felt threatened by affirmative action,
the emerging welfare state, and the Soviet Union. "Not for the first time, nor, it is to be
feared, for the last time in history had a social group been persuaded to vote against its
material, economic, and class interests for cultural, nationalist, and religious reasons." It
was this alliance of social fear and economic opportunism that swept arch-neoliberal Ronald
Reagan to the White House in 1980 – " a turning point in post-war American economic and
social history." After a decade-long campaign, the neoliberals had come to Washington.
Of course, the crusade to reshape society along neoliberal ideals was far from won; Reagan
faced a Democratic Congress, and was often forced to govern more pragmatically than
ideologically when his supply-side policies failed. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Economics are
the method, but the object is to change the soul," and it takes time to change people's
souls.
There was also still a whole world to convert to the gospel of market liberalization. The
crisis of stagflation that had opened the door to neoliberal ideas in the US had also created
financial incentives for the dissemination of neoliberalism to other countries. With the impact
of the first oil crisis flooding New York investment banks with petrodollars, and a depressed
economy at home offering fewer places to spend them, the banks poured the money into developing
countries. This created pressure on the US government to pry open new markets for investment,
as well as to protect the growing investments overseas – helping to bring US-bred
neoliberalism to foreign shores.
Yet these pressures were only a taste of what was to come; after the Iranian revolution in 1979
caused oil prices to suddenly double, inflation in the US returned with a vengeance. This in
turn led the US Federal Reserve, under its new neoliberal-minded chairman Paul Volcker, to
drastically raise interest rates. This "Volcker shock", resulting in nominal interest rates
close to 20% by 1981, coming on the heels of the profligate lending of petrodollars during the
1970s, played a major part in the debt crisis that descended on the developing world during the
1980s. As countries defaulted on their debts, they were driven into the arms of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, after what economist Joseph Stiglitz described as a
"purge" of Keynesians in 1982, became a center " for the propagation and enforcement of 'free
market fundamentalism' and neoliberal orthodoxy." Mexico, after its debt default of 1982-84,
became one of the first countries to submit to neoliberal reforms in exchange for debt
rescheduling, thus " beginning the long era of structural adjustment."
Many of the IMF economists who designed these Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), as well as
those who staffed the World Bank and the finance departments of many developing countries, were
trained at the top US research universities, which by 1990 were dominated by neoliberal ideas
– providing yet another avenue by which neoliberalism spread from the US to other parts
of the world. By the mid-1990s, the process of neoliberal market liberalization (under the
supervision of the World Trade Organization (WTO)) came to be known as the "Washington
Consensus", in recognition of the origins of this ideological revolution.
THE REVOLUTION CONTINUES
Some authors have called neoliberalism the antithesis to Keynesianism , yet its real opposite
is communism; Keynesianism represented a compromise between the two – a middle way. Yet
this fragile balance did not survive the economic crucible of the 1970s. Neoliberalism's
strategic political alliance with neoconservatism can be seen as a natural reaction to the
rapid changes that had unfolded during the 1950s and 60s in both the US economy (with the
growth of the welfare state) and society (with the rise of the counter-cultural revolution); at
the same time, it can also be seen as an opportunist power grab by the capitalist class during
a period of uncertainty about the foundations of the old order. The fear of communism –
captured succinctly in the title of Hayek's famous work, The Road to Serfdom – drove
neoliberals to the opposite extreme: the belief in the superiority of the unfettered
marketplace as the guiding principle to human civilization. Neoliberalism, therefore,
represents an extremist ideology that, if carried through to its end, will likely end up being
as destructive to the societies it touches as extremist socialism was to the former Soviet
bloc.
Although the neoliberal revolution is still winning many political battles, such as the growing
attack on Medicare in Canada or on Social Security in the United States, evidence of an
emerging counter-movement (such as the poorly named "anti-globalization movement" –
anti-neoliberalization would be more apt) is growing. As Karl Polanyi described in his classic,
The Great Transformation, the industrialization and economic liberalization of the 19th Century
resulted in a reaction from society for more governmental intervention to protect people and
communities from the destructive effects of unfettered markets. It is highly likely that we are
now witnessing the first stages of a similar reaction to the latest round of rapid
technological change and market liberalization. Hopefully, this reaction will lead to a society
that better balances capitalism's creative destruction with the needs of humans and their
communities for continuity and security.
Copyright Sean Butler 2006
Written for an Intro to Political Economy class at Carleton University in 2006
"It's barbarism. I see it coming masqueraded under lawless alliances and predetermined
enslavements. It may not be about Hitler's furnaces, but about the methodical and
quasi-scientific subjugation of Man. His absolute humiliation. His disgrace"
Odysseas Elytis, Greek poet, in a press conference on the occasion of receiving the Nobel
Prize (1979)
"... Not only the media is supportive of the extortion scheme. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC: "I think that the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman] is doing a great job at transforming the country." President Trump blessed MBS along similar lines. Not a word of condemnation came out of President Putin, either. Even Al Jazeera, though reporting the extortion in a matter-of-fact way, didn't make too much out of it. ..."
"... But the blanket of silence covering the Extortion Racket beats all. Usually, the global media mainstream system propagates and amplifies the news in a game of rebounding agencies that indirectly end up also to maximize headline sales, wrote the Italian journalist Claudio Resta. But in this case, the important and spectacular news made no headlines. In our Society of the Spectacle , failing to exploit the "spectacular" is a waste of the most valuable resource for the media. ..."
Hundreds of other princes and gentlemen were tortured, too, until they agreed to surrender
their ill-gotten assets, 70% of all they have. As I write, and as you read these lines, the
torture goes on, and so far MBS has already milked his victims of hundreds of billions $$ worth
of cash and assets.
"An Extortion racket", you'll exclaim. Perhaps MBS watched The Godfather in his
impressionable youth and was impressed by efficiency of their methods. However, he has solved,
or rather is in the process of solving, the problem of solvency.
Perhaps this is the method to be advised to Trump and Putin, as well as to other leaders? If
the neoliberal dogma forbids taxing, if the offshore are sacred, what remains for a diligent
leader but a plush five-star hotel and a band of experienced torturers?
But surely, the torturer will be condemned and ostracised by human rights' defenders! Not at
all. Not a single voice, neither from liberal left nor from authoritarian right objected to
this amazing deed of mass torture and extortion. While the co-owner of Twitter has been
subjected to daily beatings, the prime voice of liberal conscience, Tom Friedman of the New
York Times, eulogised MBS as the bearer of progress. In an article as panegyric as they come,
titled Saudi Arabia's
Arab Spring, at Last and subtitled "The crown prince has big plans for his society".
Tom Friedman does not use the word "extortion", saying that [MBS's] "government arrested
scores of Saudi princes and businessmen on charges of corruption and threw them into a
makeshift gilded jail -- the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton -- until they agreed to surrender their
ill-gotten gains." No condemnation at all! Can you imagine what he would say if Putin were to
arrest his oligarchs "until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten gains"?
I believe one line in Friedman's eulogy, saying that the Saudis are content with the
extortion act: "the mood among Saudis I spoke with was: "Just turn them all upside down, shake
the money out of their pockets and don't stop shaking them until it's all out!" Moreover, I am
sure the Americans would applaud if their billionaires were to get the MBS treatment. The
Russians were mighty pleased when Putin locked up the oligarch Khodorkovsky, and complained
that he was the only one to be jailed. They would love to see the whole lot of oligarchs who
plundered Russia through manifestly fraudulent, staged auctions under American advisers in
Yeltsin's days, to be shaken "until it's all out".
Not only the media is supportive of the extortion scheme. US Treasury Secretary Steven
Mnuchin told CNBC: "I think that the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman] is doing a great job at
transforming the country." President Trump blessed MBS along similar lines. Not a word of
condemnation came out of President Putin, either. Even Al Jazeera, though
reporting the extortion in a matter-of-fact way, didn't make too much out of it.
There is a veritable conspiracy around the MBS actions, a conspiracy embracing the media and
governments. He kidnapped the Lebanese Prime Minister, placed him under arrest, took away his
telephone and watch, forced him to read on TV a resignation letter composed by MBS people,
– and the response of the world has been subdued. He bombed Yemen, causing hundreds of
thousands to die of cholera and famine, and the world does not give a damn. Do you remember the
response when the Russians bombed Aleppo? None of this indignation accompanies MBS's war on
Yemen.
But the blanket of silence covering the Extortion Racket beats all. Usually, the global
media mainstream system propagates and amplifies the news in a game of rebounding agencies that
indirectly end up also to maximize headline sales, wrote the Italian journalist Claudio Resta.
But in this case, the important and spectacular news made no headlines. In our Society
of the Spectacle , failing to exploit the "spectacular" is a waste of the most valuable
resource for the media.
The potential for a great spectacle is all here. The arrest of dignitaries and princes of
blood, including the famous Al-Walid bin al-Talal, well-known investor and Bakr bin Laden,
brother of the most notorious Osama would normally feed the media for days. Add to it the
marvelous setting of the glorious hotel on the verge of the desert. Make it even more dramatic
by open rocket fire on the escaping helicopter of Prince Mansour bin Muqrin , killing him
and the other dignitaries who tried to flee.
Such a story, so brilliant and spectacular, with the colour and costume of a Middle Eastern
monarchy, could sell newspapers for a week at least. But it was followed by deafening
silence.
The same media that overwhelms us with the flood of details and opinions in a case of human
rights violations in Russia or China in this case shows off an Olympic indifference to the fate
of the princes and billionaires, unjustly and arbitrarily arrested and tortured in a country of
no constitution or Habeas Corpus. The United Nations joins in the conspiracy of silence.
This is probably the most unusual aspect of the story, reminiscent of The Dog that
Didn't Bark by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In that Sherlock Holmes story, a dog did not bark
during the night when a race horse was removed from a stable, and that indicated that the thief
was the dog's master.
In the case of MBS, the media dog keeps silent. It means that its mighty mega-owner, whom I
called The Masters of Discourse, allowed and authorised the racket. We witness a unique media
event, bordering with revelation. How could it be that a prince of a third-league state would
be allowed the licence to kidnap prime-ministers, kill princes by ground-to-air missiles, keep
and torture great businessmen and dignitaries with impunity and the media would keep mum?
Is it fear of the robber barons that the example of MBS extorting billions from his
super-rich will be picked up and acted upon in their own lands? Perhaps.
"This overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies can't find people with the right skills"
. In the IT job markets such postings are often called purple squirrels
Notable quotes:
"... In particular, there seems to be an extremely popular variant of the above where the starting proposition "God makes moral people rich" is improperly converted to "Rich people are more moral" which is then readily negated to "Poor people are immoral" and then expanded to "Poor people are immoral, thus they DESERVE to suffer for it". It's essentially the theological equivalent of dividing by zero ..."
"... That said, the ranks of the neoliberals are not small. They constitute what Jonathan Schell calls a "mass minority." I suspect the neoliberals have about the same level of popular support that the Nazis did at the time of their takeover of Germany in 1932, or the Bolsheviks had in Russia at the time of their takeover in 1917, which is about 20 or 25% of the total population. ..."
"... The ranks of the neoliberals are made to appear far greater than they really are because they have all but exclusive access to the nation's megaphone. The Tea Party can muster a handful of people to disrupt a town hall meeting and it gets coast to coast, primetime coverage. But let a million people protest against bank bailouts, and it is ignored. Thus, by manipulation of the media, the mass minority is made to appear to be much larger than it really is. ..."
Over the past three decades, large parts of our culture here in the US have internalized the lessons of the new Social Darwinism,
with a significant body of literature to explain and justify it. Many of us have internalized, without even realizing it,
the ideas of "dog eat dog", "every man for himself", "society should be structured like the animal kingdom, where the weak and
sick simply die because they cannot compete, and this is healthy", and "everything that happens to you is your own fault. There
is no such thing as circumstance that cannot be overcome, and certainly no birth lottery."
The levers pulled by politicians and the Fed put these things into practice, but even if we managed get different (better)
politicians or Fed chairmen, ones who weren't steeped in this culture and ideology, we'd still be left with the culture in the
population at large, and things like the "unemployed stigma" are likely to die very, very hard. Acceptance of the "just-world
phenomenon" here in the US runs deep.
perfect stranger:
"Religion is just as vulnerable to corporate capture as is the government or the academy."
This is rather rhetorical statement, and wrong one. One need to discern spiritual aspect of religion from the religion as a
tool.
Religion, as is structured, is complicit: in empoverishment, obedience, people's preconditioning, and legislative enabler in
the institutions such as Supreme – and non-supreme – Court(s). It is a form of PR of the ruling class for the governing class.
DownSouth:
perfect stranger,
Religion, just like human nature, is not that easy to put in a box.
For every example you can cite where religion "is complicit: in empoverishment, obedience, people's preconditioning, and legislative
enabler in the institution," I can point to an example of where religion engendered a liberating, emancipatory and revolutionary
spirit.
Examples:
•Early Christianity •Nominalism •Early Protestantism •Gandhi •Martin Luther King
Now granted, there don't seem to be any recent examples of this of any note, unless we consider Chris Hedges a religionist,
which I'm not sure we can do. Would it be appropriate to consider Hedges a religionist?
perfect stranger:
Yes, that maybe, just maybe be the case in early stages of forming new religion(s). In case of Christianity old rulers from
Rome were trying to save own head/throne and the S.P.Q.R. imperia by adopting new religion.
You use examples of Gandhi and MLK which is highly questionable both were fighters for independence and the second, civil rights.
In a word: not members of establishment just as I said there were (probably) seeing the religion as spiritual force not tool of
enslavement.
In particular, there seems to be an extremely popular variant of the above where the starting proposition "God makes moral
people rich" is improperly converted to "Rich people are more moral" which is then readily negated to "Poor people are immoral"
and then expanded to "Poor people are immoral, thus they DESERVE to suffer for it". It's essentially the theological equivalent
of dividing by zero
DownSouth:
Rex,
I agree.
Poll after poll after poll has shown that a majority of Americans, and a rather significant majority, reject the values, attitudes,
beliefs and opinions proselytized by the stealth religion we call "neoclassical economics."
That said, the ranks of the neoliberals are not small. They constitute what Jonathan Schell calls a "mass minority." I
suspect the neoliberals have about the same level of popular support that the Nazis did at the time of their takeover of Germany
in 1932, or the Bolsheviks had in Russia at the time of their takeover in 1917, which is about 20 or 25% of the total population.
The ranks of the neoliberals are made to appear far greater than they really are because they have all but exclusive access
to the nation's megaphone. The Tea Party can muster a handful of people to disrupt a town hall meeting and it gets coast to coast,
primetime coverage. But let a million people protest against bank bailouts, and it is ignored. Thus, by manipulation of the media,
the mass minority is made to appear to be much larger than it really is.
The politicians love this, because as they carry water for their pet corporations, they can point to the Tea Partiers and say:
"See what a huge upwelling of popular support I am responding to."
JTFaraday:
Well, if that's true, then the unemployed are employable but the mass mediated mentality would like them to believe they
are literally and inherently unemployable so that they underestimate and under-sell themselves.
This is as much to the benefit of those who would like to pick up "damaged goods" on the cheap as those who promote the unemployment
problem as one that inheres in prospective employees rather than one that is a byproduct of a bad job market lest someone be tempted
to think we should address it politically.
That's where I see this blame the unemployed finger pointing really getting traction these days.
attempter:
I apologize for the fact that I only read the first few paragraphs of this before quitting in disgust.
I just can no longer abide the notion that "labor" can ever be seen by human beings as a "cost" at all. We really need to refuse
to even tolerate that way of phrasing things. Workers create all wealth. Parasites have no right to exist. These are facts, and
we should refuse to let argument range beyond them.
The only purpose of civilization is to provide a better way of living and for all people. This includes the right and full
opportunity to work and manage for oneself and/or as a cooperative group. If civilization doesn't do that, we're better off without
it.
psychohistorian:
I am one of those long term unemployed.
I suppose my biggest employment claim would be as some sort of IT techie, with numerous supply chain systems and component
design, development, implementation, interfaces with other systems and ongoing support. CCNP certification and a history of techiedom
going back to WEYCOS.
I have a patent (6,209,954) in my name and 12+ years of beating my head against the wall in an industry that buys compliance
with the "there is no problem here, move on now" approach.
Hell, I was a junior woodchuck program administrator back in the early 70's working for the Office of the Governor of the state
of Washington on CETA PSE or Public Service Employment. The office of the Governor ran the PSE program for 32 of the 39 counties
in the state that were not big enough to run their own. I helped organize the project approval process in all those counties to
hire folk at ( if memory serves me max of $833/mo.) to fix and expand parks and provide social and other government services as
defined projects with end dates. If we didn't have the anti-public congress and other government leadership we have this could
be a current component in a rational labor policy but I digress.
I have experience in the construction trades mostly as carpenter but some electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc. also.
So, of course there is some sort of character flaw that is keeping me and all those others from employment ..right. I may have
more of an excuse than others, have paid into SS for 45 years but still would work if it was available ..taking work away from
other who may need it more .why set up a society where we have to compete as such for mere existence???????
One more face to this rant. We need government by the people and for the people which we do not have now. Good, public focused,
not corporate focused government is bigger than any entities that exist under its jurisdiction and is kept updated by required
public participation in elections and potentially other things like military, peace corps, etc. in exchange for advanced education.
I say this as someone who has worked at various levels in both the public and private sectors there are ignorant and misguided
folks everywhere. At least with ongoing active participation there is a chance that government would, once constructed, be able
to evolve as needed within public focus .IMO.
Ishmael:
Some people would say I have been unemployed for 10 years. In 2000 after losing the last of my four CFO gigs for public companies
I found it necessary to start consulting. This has lead to two of my three biggest winning years. I am usually consulting on cutting
edge area of my profession and many times have large staffs reporting to me that I bring on board to get jobs done. For several
years I subcontacted to a large international consulting firm to clean up projects which went wrong. Let me give some insight
here.
First, most good positions have gate keepers who are professional recruiters. It is near impossible to get
by them and if you are unemployed they will hardly talk to you. One time talking to a recruiter at Korn Fery I was interviewing
for a job I have done several times in an industry I have worked in several times. She made a statement that I had never worked
at a well known company. I just about fell out of my chair laughing. At one time I was a senior level executive for the largest
consulting firm in the world and lived on three continents and worked with companies on six. In addition, I had held senior
positions for 2 fortune 500 firms and was the CFO for a company with $4.5 billion in revenue. I am well known at several PE
firms and the founder of one of the largest mentioned in a meeting that one of his great mistakes was not investing in a very
successful LBO (return of in excess of 20 multiple to investors in 18 months) I was the CFO for. In a word most recruiters
are incompetent.
Second, most CEO's any more are just insecure politicians. One time during an interview I had a CEO asked
me to talk about some accomplishments. I was not paying to much attention as I rattled off accomplishments and the CEO went
nuclear and started yelling at me that he did not know where I thought I was going with this job but the only position above
the CFO job was his and he was not going anywhere. I assured him I was only interested in the CFO position and not his, but
I knew the job was over. Twice feed back that I got from recruiters which they took at criticism was the "client said I seemed
very assured of myself."
Third, government, banking, business and the top MBA schools are based upon lying to move forward. I remember
a top human resource executive telling me right before Enron, MCI and Sarbanes Oxley that I needed to learn to be more flexible.
My response was that flexibility would get me an orange jump suit. Don't get me wrong, I have a wide grey zone, but it use
to be in business the looked for people who could identify problems early and resolve them. Now days I see far more of a demand
for people who can come up with PR spins to hide them. An attorney/treasurer consultant who partnered with me on a number of
consulting jobs told me some one called me "not very charming." He said he asked what that meant, and the person who said that
said, "Ish walks into a meeting and within 10 minutes he is asking about the 10,000 pound guerilla sitting in the room that
no one wants to talk about." CEO do not want any challenges in their organization.
Fourth, three above has lead to the hiring of very young and inexperienced people at senior levels. These
people are insecure and do not want more senior and experienced people above them and than has resulted in people older than
45 not finding positions.
Fifth, people are considered expendable and are fired for the lamest reasons anymore. A partner at one of
the larger and more prestigious recruiting firms one time told me, "If you have a good consulting business, just stick
with it. Our average placement does not last 18 months any more." Another well known recruiter in S. Cal. one time
commented to me, "Your average consulting gig runs longer than our average placement."
With all of that said, I have a hard time understanding such statements as "@attempter "Workers create all wealth. Parasites
have no right to exist." What does that mean? Every worker creates wealth. There is no difference in people. Sounds like communism
to me. I make a good living and my net worth has grown working for myself. I have never had a consulting gig terminated by the
client but I have terminated several. Usually, I am brought in to fix what several other people have failed at. I deliver basically
intellectual properties to companies. Does that mean I am not a worker. I do not usually lift anything heavy or move equipment
but I tell people what and where to do it so does that make me a parasite.
Those people who think everyone is equal and everyone deserves equal pay are fools or lazy. My rate is high, but what usually
starts as short term projects usually run 6 months or more because companies find I can do so much more than what most of their
staff can do and I am not a threat.
I would again like to have a senior challenging role at a decent size company but due to the reasons above will probably never
get one. However, you can never tell. I am currently consulting for a midsize very profitable company (grew 400% last year) where
I am twice the age of most people there, but everyone speaks to me with respect so you can never tell.
Lidia:
Ishmael, you're quite right. When I showed my Italian husband's resume to try and "network" in the US, my IT friends assumed
he was lying about his skills and work history.
Contemporaneously, in Italy it is impossible to get a job because of incentives to hire "youth". Age discrimination is
not illegal, so it's quite common to see ads that ask for a programmer under 30 with 5 years of experience in COBOL (the purple
squirrel).
Hosswire
Some good points about the foolishness of recruiters, but a great deal of that foolishness is forced by the clients themselves.
I used to be a recruiter myself, including at Korn Ferry in Southern California. I described the recruiting industry as "yet more
proof that God hates poor people" because my job was to ignore resumes from people seeking jobs and instead "source" aka "poach"
people who already had good jobs by dangling a higher salary in front of them. I didn't do it because I disparaged the unemployed,
or because I could not do the basic analysis to show that a candidate had analogous or transferrable skills to the opening.
I did it because the client, as Yves said, wanted people who were literally in the same job description already.
My theory is that the client wanted to have their ass covered in case the hire didn't work out, by being able to say that they
looked perfect "on paper." The lesson I learned for myself and my friends looking for jobs was simple, if morally dubious.
Basically, that if prospective employers are going to judge you based on a single piece of paper take full advantage of the fact
that you get to write that piece of paper yourself.
Ishmael:
Hosswire - I agree with your comment. There are poor recruiters like the one I sited but in general it is the clients fault.
Fear of failure. All hires have at least a 50% chance of going sideways on you. Most companies do not even have the ability to
look at a resume nor to interview. I did not mean to same nasty things about recruiters, and I even do it sometimes but mine.
I look at failure in a different light than most companies. You need to be continually experimenting and changing to survive
as a company and there will be some failures. The goal is to control the cost of failures while looking for the big pay off on
a winner.
Mannwich:
As a former recruiter and HR "professional" (I use that term very loosely for obvious reasons), I can honestly say that you
nailed it. Most big companies looking for mid to high level white collar "talent" will almost always take the perceived
safest route by hiring those who look the best ON PAPER and in a suit and lack any real interviewing skills to find the real stars.
What's almost comical is that companies almost always want to see the most linear resume possible because they want to see "job
stability" (e.g. a CYA document in case the person fails in that job) when in many cases nobody cares about the long range view
of the company anyway. My question was why should the candidate or employee care about the long range view if the employer clearly
doesn't?
Ishmael:
Manwhich another on point comment. Sometimes either interviewing for a job or consulting with a CEO it starts getting to the
absurd. I see all the time the requirement for stability in a persons background. Hello, where have they been the last 15 years.
In addition, the higher up you go the more likely you will be terminated sometime and that is especially true if you are hired
from outside the orgnanization. Companies want loyalty from an employee but offer none in return.
The average tenure for a CFO anymore is something around 18 months. I have been a first party participant (more than once)
where I went through an endless recruiting process for a company (lasting more than 6 months) they final hire some one and that
person is with the company for 3 months and then resigns (of course we all know it is through mutual agreement).
Ishmael:
Birch:
The real problem has become and maybe this is what you are referring to is the "Crony Capitalism." We have lost control of
our financial situation. Basically, PE is not the gods of the universe that everyone thinks they are. However, every bankers
secret wet dream is to become a private equity guy. Accordingly, bankers make ridiculous loans to PE because if you say no to
them then you can not play in their sand box any more. Since the govt will not let the banks go bankrupt like they should then
this charade continues inslaving everyone.
This country as well as many others has a large percentage of its assets tied up in over priced deals that the bankers/governments
will not let collapse while the blood sucking vampires suck the life out of the assets.
On the other hand, govt is not the answer. Govt is too large and accomplishes too little.
kevin de bruxelles:
The harsh reality is that, at least in the first few rounds, companies kick to the curb their weakest links and perceived
slackers. Therefore when it comes time to hire again, they are loath to go sloppy seconds on what they perceive to be
some other company's rejects. They would much rather hire someone who survived the layoffs working in a similar position in a
similar company. Of course the hiring company is going to have to pay for this privilege. Although not totally reliable, the fact
that someone survived the layoffs provides a form social proof for their workplace abilities.
On the macro level, labor has been under attack for thirty years by off shoring and third world immigration. It is no surprise
that since the working classes have been severely undermined that the middle classes would start to feel some pressure. By mass
immigration and off-shoring are strongly supported by both parties. Only when the pain gets strong enough will enough people rebel
and these two policies will be overturned. We still have a few years to go before this happens.
davver:
Let's say I run a factory. I produce cars and it requires very skilled work. Skilled welding, skilled machinists. Now I introduce
some robotic welders and an assembly line system. The plants productivity improves and the jobs actually get easier. They require
less skill, in fact I've simplified each task to something any idiot can do. Would wages go up or down? Are the workers really
contributing to that increase in productivity or is it the machines and methods I created?
Lets say you think laying off or cutting the wages of my existing workers is wrong. What happens when a new entrant into the
business employs a smaller workforce and lower wages, which they can do using the same technology? The new workers don't feel
like they were cut down in any way, they are just happy to have a job. Before they couldn't get a job at the old plant because
they lacked the skill, but now they can work in the new plant because the work is genuinely easier. Won't I go out of business?
Escariot:
I am 54 and have a ton of peers who are former white collar workers and professionals (project managers, architects, lighting
designers, wholesalers and sales reps for industrial and construction materials and equipment) now out of work going on three
years. Now I say out of work, I mean out of our trained and experienced fields.
We now work two or three gigs (waiting tables, mowing lawns, doing free lance, working in tourism, truck driving, moving company
and fedex ups workers) and work HARD, for much much less than we did, and we are seeing the few jobs that are coming back on line
going to younger workers. It is just the reality. And for most of us the descent has not been graceful, so our credit is a wreck,
which also breeds a whole other level of issues as now it is common for the credit record to be a deal breaker for employment,
housing, etc.
Strangely I don't sense a lot of anger or bitterness as much as humility. And gratitude for ANY work that comes our way. Health
insurance? Retirement accounts? not so much.
Mickey Marzick:
Yves and I have disagreed on how extensive the postwar "pact" between management and labor was in this country. But if you
drew a line from say, Trenton-Patterson, NJ to Cincinatti, OH to Minneapolis, MN, north and east of it where blue collar manufacturing
in steel, rubber, auto, machinery, etc., predominated, this "pact" may have existed but ONLY because physical plant and
production were concentrated there and workers could STOP production.
Outside of these heavy industrial pockets, unions were not always viewed favorably. As one moved into the rural hinterlands
surrounding them there was jealously and/or outright hostility. Elsewhere, especially in the South "unions" were the exception
not the rule. The differences between NE Ohio before 1975 – line from Youngstown to Toledo – and the rest of the state exemplified
this pattern. Even today, the NE counties of Ohio are traditional Democratic strongholds with the rest of the state largely Republican.
And I suspect this pattern existed elsewhere. But it is changing too
In any case, the demonization of the unemployed is just one notch above the vicious demonization of the poor that has
always existed in this country. It's a constant reminder for those still working that you could be next – cast out into
the darkness – because you "failed" or worse yet, SINNED. This internalization of the "inner cop" reinforces the dominant ideology
in two ways. First, it makes any resistance by individuals still employed less likely. Second, it pits those still working against
those who aren't, both of which work against the formation of any significant class consciousness amongst working people. The
"oppressed" very often internalize the value system of the oppressor.
As a nation of immigrants ETHNICITY may have more explanatory power than CLASS. For increasingly, it would appear that
the dominant ethnic group – suburban, white, European Americans – have thrown their lot in with corporate America. Scared of the
prospect of downward social mobility and constantly reminded of URBAN America – the other America – this group is trapped with
nowhere to else to go.
It's the divide and conquer strategy employed by ruling elites in this country since its founding [Federalist #10] with the
Know Nothings, blaming the Irish [NINA - no Irish need apply] and playing off each successive wave of immigrants against
the next. Only when the forces of production became concentrated in the urban industrial enclaves of the North was this
strategy less effective. And even then internal immigration by Blacks to the North in search of employment blunted the formation
of class consciousness among white ethnic industrial workers.
Wherever the postwar "pact of domination" between unions and management held sway, once physical plant was relocated elsewhere
[SOUTH] and eventually offshored, unemployment began to trend upwards. First it was the "rustbelt" now it's a nationwide
phenomenon. Needless to say, the "pact" between labor and management has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
White, suburban America has hitched its wagon to that of the corporate horse. Demonization of the unemployed coupled with demonization
of the poor only serve to terrorize this ethnic group into acquiescence. And as the workplace becomes a multicultural matrix this
ethnic group is constantly reminded of its perilous state. Until this increasingly atomized ethnic group breaks with corporate
America once and for all, it's unlikely that the most debilitating scourge of all working people – UNEMPLOYMENT – will be addressed.
Make no mistake about it, involuntary UNEMPLOYMENT/UNDEREMPLYEMT is a form of terrorism and its demonization is terrorism in
action. This "quiet violence" is psychological and the intimidation wrought by unemployment and/or the threat of it is intended
to dehumanize individuals subjected to it. Much like spousal abuse, the emotional and psychological effects are experienced way
before any physical violence. It's the inner cop that makes overt repression unnecessary. We terrorize ourselves into submission
without even knowing it because we accept it or come to tolerate it. So long as we accept "unemployment" as an inevitable consequence
of progress, as something unfortunate but inevitable, we will continue to travel down the road to serfdom where ARBEIT MACHT FREI!
FULL and GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT are the ultimate labor power.
Eric:
It's delicate since direct age discrimination is illegal, but when circumstances permit separating older workers they have
a very tough time getting back into the workforce in an era of high health care inflation. Older folks consume more health
care and if you are hiring from a huge surplus of available workers it isn't hard to steer around the more experienced. And nobody
gets younger, so when you don't get job A and go for job B 2 weeks later you, you're older still!
James:
Yves said- "This overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies can't find people
with the right skills"
In the IT job markets such postings are often called purple squirrels. The HR departments require the applicant to be expert
in a dozen programming languages. This is an excuse to hire a foreigner on a temp h1-b or other visa.
Most people aren't aware that this model dominates the sciences. Politicians scream we have a shortage of scientists, yet it
seems we only have a shortage of cheap easily exploitable labor. The economist recently pointed out the glut of scientists that
currently exists in the USA.
This understates the problem. The majority of PhD recipients wander through years of postdocs only to end up eventually changing
fields. My observation is that the top ten schools in biochem/chemistry/physics/ biology produce enough scientists to satisfy
the national demand.
The exemption from h1-b visa caps for academic institutions exacerbates the problem, providing academics with almost unlimited
access to labor.
The pharmaceutical sector has been decimated over the last ten years with tens of thousands of scientists/ factory workers
looking for re-training in a dwindling pool of jobs (most of which will deem you overqualified.)
I wonder how the demonization of the unemployed can be so strong even in the face of close to 10% unemployment/20% underemployment.
It's easy and tempting to demonize an abstract young buck or Cadillac-driving welfare queen, but when a family member
or a close friend loses a job, or your kids are stuck at your place because they can't find one, shouldn't that alter your perceptions?
Of course the tendency will be to blame it all on the government, but there has to be a limit to that in hard-hit places like
Ohio, Colorado, or Arizona. And yet, the dynamics aren't changing or even getting worse. Maybe Wisconsin marks a turning point,
I certainly hope it does
damien:
It's more than just stupid recruiting, this stigma. Having got out when the getting was good, years ago, I know
that any corporate functionary would be insane to hire me now. Socialization wears off, the deformation process reverses, and
the ritual and shibboleths become a joke. Even before I bailed I became a huge pain in the ass as economic exigency receded, every
bosses nightmare. I suffered fools less gladly and did the right thing out of sheer anarchic malice.
You really can't maintain corporate culture without existential fear – not just, "Uh oh, I'm gonna get fired,"
fear, but a visceral feeling that you do not exist without a job. In properly indoctrinated workers that feeling is divorced
from economic necessity. So anyone who's survived outside a while is bound to be suspect. That's a sign of economic security,
and security of any sort undermines social control.
youniquelikeme:
You hit the proverbial nail with that reply. (Although, sorry, doing the right thing should not be done out of malice) The real fit has to be in the corporate yes-man culture (malleable ass kisser) to be suited for any executive position
and beyond that it is the willingness to be manipulated and drained to be able to keep a job in lower echelon.
This is the new age of evolution in the work place. The class wars will make it more of an eventual revolution, but it is coming.
The unemployment rate (the actual one, not the Government one) globalization and off shore hiring are not sustainable for much
longer.
Something has to give, but it is more likely to snap then to come easily. People who are made to be repressed and down and
out eventually find the courage to fight back and by then, it is usually not with words.
down and out in Slicon Valley:
This is the response I got from a recruiter:
"I'm going to be overly honest with you. My firm doesn't allow me to submit any candidate who hasn't worked in 6-12
months or more. Recruiting brokers are probably all similar in that way . You are going to have to go through a connection/relationship
you have with a colleague, co-worker, past manager or friend to get your next job .that's my advice for you. Best of luck "
I'm 56 years old with MSEE. Gained 20+ years of experience at the best of the best (TRW, Nortel, Microsoft), have been issued
a patent. Where do I sign up to gain skills required to find a job now?
Litton Graft :
"Best of the Best?" I know you're down now, but looking back at these Gov'mint contractors you've enjoyed the best socialism
money can by.
Nortel/TRW bills/(ed) the Guvmint at 2x, 3x your salary, you can ride this for decades. At the same time the
Inc is attached to the Guvmint ATM localities/counties are giving them a red carpet of total freedom from taxation. Double subsidies.
I've worked many years at the big boy bandits, and there is no delusion in my mind that almost anyone, can do what I do and
get paid 100K+. I've never understood the mindset of some folks who work in the Wermacht Inc: "Well, someone has to do this work"
or worse "What we do, no one else can do" The reason no one else "can do it" is that they are not allowed to. So, we steal from
the poor to build fighter jets, write code or network an agency.
Hosswire:
I used to work as a recruiter and can tell you that I only parroted the things my clients told me. I wanted to
get you hired, because I was lazy and didn't want to have to talk to someone else next.
So what do you do? To place you that recruiter needs to see on a piece of paper that you are currently working? Maybe get an
email or phone call from someone who will vouch for your employment history. That should not be that hard to make happen.
Francois T :
The "bizarre way that companies now spec jobs" is essentially a coded way for mediocre managers to say without saying so explicitly
that "we can afford to be extremely picky, and by God, we shall do so no matter what, because we can!"
Of course, when comes the time to hire back because, oh disaster! business is picking up again, (I'm barely caricaturing here;
some managers become despondent when they realize that workers regain a bit of the higher ground; loss of power does that to lesser
beings) the same idiots who designed those "overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies
can't find people with the right skills" are thrown into a tailspin of despair and misery. Instead of figuring out something as
simple as "if demand is better, so will our business", they can't see anything else than the (eeeek!) cost of hiring workers.
Unable to break their mental corset of penny-pincher, they fail to realize that lack of qualified workers will prevent them to
execute well to begin with.
And guess what: qualified workers cost money, qualified workers urgently needed cost much more.
This managerial attitude must be another factor that explain why entrepreneurship and the formation of small businesses is
on the decline in the US (contrary to the confabulations of the US officialdumb and the chattering class) while rising in Europe
and India/China.
Kit:
If you are 55-60, worked as a professional (i.e., engineering say) and are now unemployed you are dead meat. Sorry to be blunt
but thats the way it is in the US today. Let me repeat that : Dead Meat.
I was terminated at age 59, found absolutely NOTHING even though my qualifications were outstanding. Fortunately, my company
had an old style pension plan which I was able to qualify for (at age 62 without reduced benefits). So for the next 2+ years my
wife and I survived on unemployment insurance, severance, accumulated vacation pay and odd jobs. Not nice – actually, a living
hell.
At age 62, I applied for my pension, early social security, sold our old house (at a good profit) just before the RE crash,
moved back to our home state. Then my wife qualified for social security also. Our total income is now well above the US median.
Today, someone looking at us would think we were the typical corporate retiree. We surely don't let on any differently but
the experience (to get to this point) almost killed us.
I sympathize very strongly with the millions caught in this unemployment death spiral. I wish I had an answer but I just don't.
We were very lucky to survive intact.
Ming:
Thank you Yves for your excellent post, and for bringing to light this crucial issue.
Thank you to all the bloggers, who add to the richness of the this discussion.
I wonder if you could comment on this Yves, and correct me if I am wrong I believe that the power of labor was sapped by the
massive available supply of global labor. The favorable economic policies enacted by China (both official and unofficial), and
trade negotiations between the US government and the Chinese government were critical to creating the massive supply of labor.
Thank you. No rush of course.
Nexus:
There are some odd comments and notions here that are used to support dogma and positions of prejudice. The world can be viewed
in a number of ways. Firstly from a highly individualised and personal perspective – that is what has happened to me and here
are my experiences. Or alternatively the world can be viewed from a broader societal perspective.
In the context of labour there has always been an unequal confrontation between those that control capital and those that offer
their labour, contrary to some of the views exposed here – Marx was a first and foremost a political economist. The political
economist seeks to understand the interplay of production, supply, the state and institutions like the media. Modern day economics
branched off from political economy and has little value in explaining the real world as the complexity of the world has been
reduced to a simplistic rationalistic model of human behaviour underpinned by other equally simplistic notions of 'supply and
demand', which are in turn represented by mathematical models, which in themselves are complex but merely represent what is a
simplistic view of the way the world operates. This dogmatic thinking has avoided the need to create an underpinning epistemology.
This in turn underpins the notion of free choice and individualism which in itself is an illusion as it ignores the operation
of the modern state and the exercise of power and influence within society.
It was stated in one of the comments that the use of capital (machines, robotics, CAD design, etc.) de-skills. This is hardly
the case as skills rise for those that remain and support highly automated/continuous production factories. This is symptomatic
of the owners of capital wanting to extract the maximum value for labour and this is done via the substitution of labour for capital
making the labour that remains to run factories highly productive thus eliminating low skill jobs that have been picked up via
services (people move into non productive low skilled occupations warehousing and retail distribution, fast food outlets,
etc). Of course the worker does not realise the additional value of his or her labour as this is expropriated for the shareholders
(including management as shareholders).
The issue of the US is that since the end of WW2 it is not the industrialists that have called the shots and made investments
it is the financial calculus of the investment banker (Finance Capital). Other comments have tried to ignore the existence of
the elites in society – I would suggest that you read C.W.Mills – The Power Elites as an analysis of how power is exercised
in the US – it is not through the will of the people.
For Finance capital investments are not made on the basis of value add, or contribution through product innovation and the
exchange of goods but on basis of the lowest cost inputs. Consequently, the 'elites' that make investment decisions, as
they control all forms of capital seek to gain access to the cheapest cost inputs. The reality is that the US worker (a
pool of 150m) is now part of a global labour pool of a couple of billion that now includes India and China. This means that the
elites, US transnational corporations for instance, can access both cheaper labour pools, relocate capital and avoid worker protection
(health and safety is not a concern). The strategies of moving factories via off-shoring (over 40,000 US factories closed or relocated)
and out-sourcing/in-sourcing labour is also a representations of this.
The consequence for the US is that the need for domestic labour has diminished and been substituted by cheap labour to
extract the arbitrage between US labour rates and those of Chinese and Indians. Ironically, in this context capital has
become too successful as the mode of consumption in the US shifted from workers that were notionally the people that created the
goods, earned wages and then purchased the goods they created to a new model where the worker was substituted by the consumer
underpinned by cheap debt and low cost imports – it is illustrative to note that real wages have not increased in the US since
the early 1970's while at the same time debt has steadily increased to underpin the illusion of wealth – the 'borrow today and
pay tomorrow' mode of capitalist operation. This model of operation is now broken. The labour force is now being demonized as
there is a now surplus of labour and a need to drive down labour rates through changes in legislation and austerity programs to
meet those of the emerging Chinese and Indian middle class so workers rights need to be broken. Once this is done a process of
in-source may take place as US labour costs will be on par with overseas labour pools.
It is ironic that during the Regan administration a number of strategic thinkers saw the threat from emerging economies and
the danger of Finance Capital and created 'Project Socrates' that would have sought to re-orientate the US economy from one that
was based on the rationale of Finance Capital to one that focused in productive innovation which entailed an alignment of capital
investment, research and training to product innovative goods. Of course this was ignored and the rest is history. The race to
the lowest input cost is ultimately self defeating as it is clear that the economy de-industrialises through labour and capital
changes and living standards collapse. The elites – bankers, US transnational corporations, media, industrial military complex
and the politicians don't care as they make money either way and this way you get other people overseas to work cheap for you.
S P:
Neoliberal orthodoxy treats unemployment as well as wage supression as a necessary means to fight "inflation." If there was
too much power in the hands of organized labor, inflationary pressures would spiral out of control as supply of goods cannot keep
up with demand.
It also treats the printing press as a necessary means to fight "deflation."
So our present scenario: widespread unemployment along with QE to infinity, food stamps for all, is exactly what you'd expect.
The problem with this orthodoxy is that it assumes unlimited growth on a planet with finite resources, particularly oil
and energy. Growth is not going to solve unemployment or wages, because we are bumping up against limits to growth.
There are only two solutions. One is tax the rich and capital gains, slow growth, and reinvest the surplus into jobs/skills
programs, mostly to maintain existing infrastructure or build new energy infrastructure. Even liberals like Krugman skirt around
this, because they aren't willing to accept that we have the reached the end of growth and we need radical redistribution
measures.
The other solution is genuine classical liberalism / libertarianism, along the lines of Austrian thought. Return to sound money,
and let the deflation naturally take care of the imbalances. Yes, it would be wrenching, but it would likely be wrenching for
everybody, making it fair in a universal sense.
Neither of these options is palatable to the elite classes, the financiers of Wall Street, or the leeches and bureaucrats of
D.C.
So this whole experiment called America will fail.
Chris Hedges published this book eight years ago and the things he predicted have sadly been
realized
Notable quotes:
"... his screed is a liberating tonic against the crazy-making double-speak and the lies Americans are sold by our country's elite in order to distract us from the true threat and nature of the Corporate State, from the cult of celebrity, to how our nation's Universities have been hijacked to serve the interests, not of the public, but of our corporate overlords. It explains the self-same conditions in all aspects of our society and culture that we now must face, the ever-shrinking flame of enlightenment being exchanged for the illusory shadows on a cave wall. ..."
"... He fearlessly and incisively calls us out on the obvious farce our democracy has become, how we got here, and highlights the rapidly closing window in which we have to do something to correct it. It is a revelation, and yet he merely states the obvious. The empire has no clothes. ..."
"... One of the most powerful aspects of this book was in regard to how our Universities are run these days. I may be in the minority, but I experienced a life-changing disillusionment when I gained entrance to a prestigious "elite" University. Instead of drawing the best and the brightest, or being a place where scholarship was valued, where students were taught critical thinking skills, the University I attended was nothing more than an expensive diploma mill for the children of the wealthy. In the eyes of the University, students were not minds to be empowered and developed, but walking dollar signs. ..."
"... Instead of critical thinking, students were taught to OBEY, not to question authority, and then handed a piece of paper admitting them to the ruling class that is destroying America without a moral compass. Selfishness, deceit, disregard for the common good, and a win-at-all-costs attitude were rewarded. Empathy, curiosity, dissent, and an honest, intellectually rigorous evaluation of ourselves and our world were punished. Obviously I am not the only one to whom this was cause to fear for the future of our country. ..."
"... The chapter involving the porn trade that is run by large corporations such as AT&T and GM (the car maker, for crying out loud) was an especially dark, profanity-laced depiction of the abuse and moral decay of American society . ..."
"... He is correct in his belief that the continual barrage of psuedo-events and puffery disguised as news (especially television) has conditioned most of Americans to be non-critical thinkers. ..."
"... Entertainment, consumption and the dangerous illusion that the U.S. is the best in the world at everything are childish mindsets. ..."
"... The are the puppet masters." As extreme as that is, he is more credible when he says, "Commodities and celebrity culture define what it means to belong, how we recognize our place in society, and how we conduct our lives." I say 'credible' because popular and mass culture's influence are creating a world where substance is replaced by questionable style. ..."
"... Celebrity and connectivity are both ways of becoming known. This is what the contemporary self wants. It wants to be recognized, wants to be connected: It wants to be visible. If not to the millions, on Survivor or Oprah, then to the hundreds, on Twitter or Facebook. ..."
"... Visibility has replaced substance and accomplishment; packaging over product, sizzle not steak. Chris Rojek calls this "the cult of distraction" where society is consumed by the vacuous and the vapid rather than striving for self-awareness, accomplishment and contribution ("Propaganda has become a substitute for ideas and ideology."). Hedges builds on Rojek's descriptor by suggesting we are living in a "culture of illusion" which impoverishes language, makes us childlike, and is basically dumbing us all down. ..."
"... Today's delusionary and corrupted officials, corporate and government, are reminiscent of the narratives penned by Charles Dickens. Alexander Hamilton referred to the masses as a "great beast" to be kept from the powers of government. ..."
"... Edmund Burke used propaganda to control "elements of society". Walter Lippmann advised that "the public must be kept in its place". Yet, many Americans just don't get it. ..."
"... Divide and conquer is the mantra--rich vs. poor; black vs. white. According to Norm Chomsky's writings, "In 1934, William Shepard argued that government should be in the hands of `aristocracy and intellectual power' while the `ignorant, and the uninformed and the antisocial element' must not be permitted to control elections...." ..."
"... The appalling statistics and opinions outlined in the book demonstrate the public ignorance of the American culture; the depth and extent of the corporatocracy and the related economic malaise; and, the impact substandard schools have on their lives. ..."
"... This idea was recently usurped by the U.S. Supreme Court where representative government is called to question, rendering "our" consent irrelevant. Every voting election is an illusion. Each election, at the local and national level, voters never seemingly "miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to eliminate irresponsible and unresponsive officials. ..."
"... Walt Kelly's quote "We have met the enemy and he is us" prevails! ..."
"... It's also hard to follow at times as Hedges attempts to stress the connections between pop culture and social, political. and economic policy. Nor is Hedges a particularly stylish writer (a sense of humor would help). ..."
"... The stomach-turning chapter on trends in porn and their relationship to the torture of prisoners of war is a particularly sharp piece of analysis, and all of the other chapters do eventually convince (and depress). ..."
Hedges cogently and systematically dismantles the most pernicious cultural delusions of
our era and lays bare the pitiful truths that they attempt to mask. This book is a
deprogramming manual that trims away the folly and noise from our troubled society so that
the reader can focus on the most pressing matters of our time.
Despite the dark reality Hedges excavates, his screed is a liberating tonic against
the crazy-making double-speak and the lies Americans are sold by our country's elite in order
to distract us from the true threat and nature of the Corporate State, from the cult of
celebrity, to how our nation's Universities have been hijacked to serve the interests, not of
the public, but of our corporate overlords. It explains the self-same conditions in all
aspects of our society and culture that we now must face, the ever-shrinking flame of
enlightenment being exchanged for the illusory shadows on a cave wall.
As a twenty-something caught in the death-throes of American Empire and culture, I have
struggled to anticipate where our country and our world are heading, why, and what sort of
life I can expect to build for myself. Hedges presents the reader with the depressing, yet
undeniable truth of the forces that have coalesced to shape the world in which we now find
ourselves. The light he casts is searing and relentless. He fearlessly and incisively
calls us out on the obvious farce our democracy has become, how we got here, and highlights
the rapidly closing window in which we have to do something to correct it. It is a
revelation, and yet he merely states the obvious. The empire has no clothes.
One of the most powerful aspects of this book was in regard to how our Universities
are run these days. I may be in the minority, but I experienced a life-changing
disillusionment when I gained entrance to a prestigious "elite" University. Instead of
drawing the best and the brightest, or being a place where scholarship was valued, where
students were taught critical thinking skills, the University I attended was nothing more
than an expensive diploma mill for the children of the wealthy. In the eyes of the
University, students were not minds to be empowered and developed, but walking dollar
signs.
Instead of critical thinking, students were taught to OBEY, not to question authority,
and then handed a piece of paper admitting them to the ruling class that is destroying
America without a moral compass. Selfishness, deceit, disregard for the common good, and a
win-at-all-costs attitude were rewarded. Empathy, curiosity, dissent, and an honest,
intellectually rigorous evaluation of ourselves and our world were punished. Obviously I am
not the only one to whom this was cause to fear for the future of our country.
Five stars is not enough. Ever since I began reading Empire of Illusion, I have insisted
friends and family pick up a copy, too. Everyone in America should read this incredibly
important book.
Mr. Hedges is in one heck of a foul mood. His raging against the evolving of American
democracy into an oligarchy is accurate, but relentlessly depressing. The author focuses on
some of our most horrid characteristics: celebrity worship; "pro" wrestling; the brutal porn
industry; Jerry Springer-like shows; the military-industrial complex; the moral void of elite
colleges such as Yale, Harvard, Berkeley and Princeton; optimistic-ladened pop psychology;
and political/corporate conformity.
Mr. Hedges grim assessment put me in a seriously foul mood. The chapter involving the
porn trade that is run by large corporations such as AT&T and GM (the car maker, for
crying out loud) was an especially dark, profanity-laced depiction of the abuse and moral
decay of American society .
He is correct in his belief that the continual barrage of psuedo-events and puffery
disguised as news (especially television) has conditioned most of Americans to be
non-critical thinkers.
Entertainment, consumption and the dangerous illusion that the U.S. is the best in the
world at everything are childish mindsets.
The oddest part of Mr. Hedges' book is the ending. The last three pages take such an
unexpectedly hard turn from "all is lost" to "love will conquer," I practically got whiplash.
Overall, the author should be commended for trying to bring our attention to what ails our
country and challenging readers to wake up from their child-like illusions.
Now, time for me to go run a nice, warm bath and where did I put those razor
blades?...
I must say I was captivated by the author's passion, eloquence and insight. This is not an
academic essay. True, there are few statistics here and there and quotes from such and such
person, but this is not like one of those books that read like a longer version of an
academic research paper. The book is more of author's personal observations about American
society. Perhaps that is where its power comes from.
Some might dismiss the book as nothing more than an opinion piece, but how many great
books and works out there are opinion pieces enhanced with supporting facts and
statistics?
The book is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is about celebrity worship and how far
people are willing to humiliate themselves and sacrifice their dignity for their five minutes
of fame. But this is not just about those who are willing to make idiots out of themselves
just to appear on television. This is about how the fascination with the world of rich and
famous distracts the society from the important issues and problems and how it creates
unhealthy and destructive desire to pursue wealth and fame. And even for those few who do
achieve it, their lives are far from the bliss and happiness shown in movies. More than one
celebrity had cursed her life.
Chapter two deals with porn. It offers gutwrenching, vomit inducing descriptions of lives
and conditions in the porn industry. But the damage porn does goes far beyond those working
in the "industry". Porn destroys the love, intimacy and beauty of sex. Porn reduces sex to an
act of male dominance, power and even violence. Unfortunately, many men, and even women, buy
into that and think that the sex seen in porn is normal and this is how things should be.
After reading this chapter, I will never look at porn the same way again. In fact, I
probably will never look at porn at all.
Chapter three is about education. It focuses mostly on college level education and how in
the past few decades it had increasingly changed focus from teaching students how to be
responsible citizens and good human beings to how to be successful, profit seeking, career
obsessed corporate/government drones. The students are taught that making money and career
building are the only thing that matters. This results in professionals who put greed and
selfishness above everything else and mindlessly serve a system that destroys the society and
the whole planet. And when they are faced with problems (like the current economic crisis)
and evidence that the system is broken, rather than rethink their paradigm and consider that
perhaps they were wrong, they retreat further into old thinking in search of ways to
reinforce the (broken) system and keep it going.
Chapter four is my favorite. It is about positive thinking. As someone who lives with a
family member who feeds me positive thinking crap at breakfast, lunch and supper, I enjoyed
this chapter very much. For those rare lucky few who do not know what positive thinking is,
it can be broadly defined as a belief that whatever happens to us in life, it happens because
we "attracted" it to ourselves. Think about it as karma that affects us not in the next life,
but in this one. The movement believes that our conscious and unconscious thoughts affect
reality. By assuming happy, positive outlook on life, we can affect reality and make good
things happen to us.
Followers of positive thinking are encouraged/required to purge all negative emotions,
never question the bad things that happen to them and focus on thinking happy thoughts.
Positive thinking is currently promoted by corporations and to lesser extent governments to
keep employees in line. They are rendered docile and obedient, don't make waves (like fight
for better pay and working conditions) and, when fired, take it calmly with a smile and never
question corporate culture.
Chapter five is about American politics and how the government and the politicians had
sold themselves out to corporations and business. It is about imperialism and how the
government helps the corporations loot the country while foreign wars are started under the
pretext of defense and patriotism, but their real purpose is to loot the foreign lands and
fill the coffers of war profiteers. If allowed to continue, this system will result in
totalitarianism and ecological apocalypse.
I have some objections with this chapter. While I completely agree about the current state
of American politics, the author makes a claim that this is a relatively recent development
dating roughly to the Vietnam War. Before that, especially in the 1950s, things were much
better. Or at least they were for the white men. (The author does admit that 1950s were not
all that great to blacks, women or homosexuals.)
While things might have gotten very bad in the last few decades, politicians and
governments have always been more at the service of Big Money rather than the common
people.
And Vietnam was not the first imperialistic American war. What about the conquest of Cuba
and Philippines at the turn of the 20th century? And about all those American "adventures" in
South America in the 19th century. And what about the westward expansion and extermination of
Native Americans that started the moment the first colonists set their foot on the
continent?
But this is a minor issue. My biggest issue with the book is that it is a powerful
denunciation, but it does not offer much in terms of suggestions on how to fix the problems
it is decrying. Criticizing is good and necessary, but offering solutions is even more
important. You can criticize all you want, but if you cannot suggest something better, then
the old system will stay in place.
The author does write at the end a powerful, tear inducing essay on how love conquers all
and that no totalitarian regime, no matter how powerful and oppressive, had ever managed to
crush hope, love and the human spirit. Love, in the end, conquers all.
That is absolutely true. But what does it mean in practice? That we must keep loving and
doing good? Of course we must, but some concrete, practical examples of what to do would be
welcome.
An excellent and sobering view at the decline of reason and literacy in modern society
This is an absolutely superb work that documents how our society has been subverted by
spectacle, glitz, celebrity, and the obsession with "fame" at the expense of reality,
literacy, reason, and actual ability. Hedges lays it all out in a very clear and thought
provoking style, using real world examples like pro wrestling and celebrity oriented
programming to showcase how severely our society has declined from a forward thinking,
literate one into a mass of tribes obsessed with stardom and money.
Even better is that the author's style is approachable and non judgemental. This isn't an
academic talking down to the masses, but a very solid reporter presenting findings in an
accurate, logical style.
Every American should read this, and then consider whether to buy that glossy celebrity
oriented magazine or watch that "I want to be a millionaire" show. The lifestyle and choices
being promoted by the media, credit card companies, and by the celebrity culture in general,
are toxic and a danger to our society's future.
The various ills impacting society graphically painted by Chris Hedges are attributed to a
lack of literacy. However, it is much more complex, layered, and inter-related. By examining
literacy, love, wisdom, happiness, and the current state of America, the author sets out to
convince the reader that our world is intellectually crumbling. He picks aspects of our
society that clearly offer questionable value: professional wrestling, the pornographic film
industry (which is provided in bizarre repetitive graphic detail), gambling, conspicuous
consumption, and biased news reporting to name a few.
The front of the end of the book was the most compelling. Especially when Hedges strays
into near conspiracy with comments such as this: "Those who manipulate the shadows that
dominate our lives are the agents, publicists, marketing departments, promoters, script
writers, television and movie producers, advertisers, video technicians, photographers,
bodyguards, wardrobe consultants, fitness trainers, pollsters, public announcers, and
television news personalities who create the vast stage for illusion. The are the puppet
masters." As extreme as that is, he is more credible when he says, "Commodities and celebrity
culture define what it means to belong, how we recognize our place in society, and how we
conduct our lives." I say 'credible' because popular and mass culture's influence are
creating a world where substance is replaced by questionable style.
What resonated most in the book is a passage taken from William Deresiewicz's essay The
End of Solitude: "What does the contemporary self want? The camera has created a culture of
celebrity; the computer is creating a culture of connectivity. As the two technologies
converge -- broadband tipping the Web from text to image, social-networking sites spreading
the mesh of interconnection ever wider -- the two cultures betray a common impulse.
Celebrity and connectivity are both ways of becoming known. This is what the
contemporary self wants. It wants to be recognized, wants to be connected: It wants to be
visible. If not to the millions, on Survivor or Oprah, then to the hundreds, on Twitter or
Facebook. This is the quality that validates us, this is how we become real to ourselves
-- by being seen by others. The great contemporary terror is anonymity. If Lionel Trilling
was right, if the property that grounded the self, in Romanticism, was sincerity, and in
modernism it was authenticity, then in postmodernism it is visibility."
Visibility has replaced substance and accomplishment; packaging over product, sizzle
not steak. Chris Rojek calls this "the cult of distraction" where society is consumed by the
vacuous and the vapid rather than striving for self-awareness, accomplishment and
contribution ("Propaganda has become a substitute for ideas and ideology."). Hedges builds on
Rojek's descriptor by suggesting we are living in a "culture of illusion" which impoverishes
language, makes us childlike, and is basically dumbing us all down.
This is definitely a provocative contribution and damning analysis of our society that
would be a great choice for a book club. It would promote lively debate as conclusions and
solutions are not easily reached.
A book that needs to be read, even if it's only half true.
Empire of Illusion might be the most depressing book I've ever read. Why? Because it
predicts the collapse of America and almost every word of it rings true.
I don't know if there's really anything new here; many of the ideas Hedges puts forth have
been floating around in the neglected dark corners of our national discourse, but Hedges
drags them all out into the daylight. Just about every social/cultural/economic/political ill
you can think of is mentioned at some point in the text and laid at the feet of the villains
whose insatiable greed has destroyed this once-great country. Hedges is bold. He predicts
nothing less than the end of America. Indeed, he claims America has already ended. The
American Dream is nothing more than an illusion being propped up by wealthy elites obsessed
with power and the preservation of their lifestyle, a blind academia that has forgotten how
to critique authority, and a government that is nothing more than the puppet of corporations.
Meanwhile, mindless entertainments and a compliant news media divert and mislead the working
and middle classes so they don't even notice that they are being raped to death by the
power-elite and the corporations.
(Don't misunderstand. This is no crack-pot conspiracy theory. It's not about secret
quasi-mystical cabals attempting world domination. Rather, Hedges paints a credible picture
of our culture in a state of moral and intellectual decay, and leaders corrupted by power and
greed who have ceased to act in the public interest.)
At times Hedges seems to be ranting and accusing without providing evidence or examples to
substantiate his claims. But that might only be because his claims have already been
substantiated individually elsewhere, and Hedges's purpose here is a kind of grand synthesis
of many critical ideas. Indeed, an exhaustive analysis of all the issues he brings forth
would require volumes rather than a single book. In any case, I challenge anyone to read this
book, look around honestly at what's happening in America, and conclude that Hedges is
wrong.
One final note: this book is not for the squeamish. The chapter about pornography is
brutally explicit. Still, I think it is an important book, and it would be good if a lot more
people would read it, discuss it, and thereby become dis-illusioned.
Chris Hedges book, "Empire of Illusion" is a stinging assessment and vivid indictment of
America's political and educational systems; a well-told story. I agree with his views but
wonder how they can be reversed or transformed given the economic hegemony of the
corporations and the weight of the entrenched political parties. Very few solutions were
provided.
Corporations will continue to have a presence and set standards within the halls of
educational and governmental institutions with impunity. Limited monetary measures, other
than governmental, exist for public educational institutions, both secondary and
post-secondary. Historically, Roman and Greek political elitists operated in a similar manner
and may have set standards for today's plutocracy. Plebeian societies were helpless and
powerless, with few options, to enact change against the political establishment. Given the
current conditions, America is on a downward spiral to chaos.
His book is a clarion call for action. Parents and teachers have warned repeatedly that
too much emphasis is placed on athletic programs at the expense of academics. Educational
panels, books and other experts have done little to reform the system and its intransigent
administrators.
Today's delusionary and corrupted officials, corporate and government, are reminiscent
of the narratives penned by Charles Dickens. Alexander Hamilton referred to the masses as a
"great beast" to be kept from the powers of government.
Edmund Burke used propaganda to control "elements of society". Walter Lippmann advised
that "the public must be kept in its place". Yet, many Americans just don't get it.
They continue to be hood-winked by politicians using uncontested "sound bites" and
"racially-coded" phrases to persuade voters.
Divide and conquer is the mantra--rich vs. poor; black vs. white. According to Norm
Chomsky's writings, "In 1934, William Shepard argued that government should be in the hands
of `aristocracy and intellectual power' while the `ignorant, and the uninformed and the
antisocial element' must not be permitted to control elections...."
The appalling statistics and opinions outlined in the book demonstrate the public
ignorance of the American culture; the depth and extent of the corporatocracy and the related
economic malaise; and, the impact substandard schools have on their lives. This is
further exemplified by Jay Leno's version of "Jaywalking". On the streets, he randomly
selects passersby to interview, which seems to validate much of these charges.
We are all culpable. We are further susceptible to illusions. John Locke said, "Government
receives its just powers from the consent of the governed".
This idea was recently usurped by the U.S. Supreme Court where representative
government is called to question, rendering "our" consent irrelevant. Every voting election
is an illusion. Each election, at the local and national level, voters never seemingly "miss
an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to eliminate irresponsible and unresponsive
officials.
Walt Kelly's quote "We have met the enemy and he is us" prevails!
There are many flaws with Hedges' book. For one thing, he is given to writing sermons (his
father was a minister), hurling down denunciations in the manner of the prophet Amos. The
book also tends to be repetitious, as Hedges makes the same general statements over and over.
It's also hard to follow at times as Hedges attempts to stress the connections between
pop culture and social, political. and economic policy. Nor is Hedges a particularly stylish
writer (a sense of humor would help).
His last-second "happy ending" (something like: we're all doomed, but eventually,
somewhere down the line, love will prevail beacuse it's ultimately the strongest power on
earth) is, to say the least, unconvincing.
SO why am I recommending this book? Because in spite of its flaws (and maybe even because
of them), this is a powerful depiction of the state of American society. The book does get to
you in its somewhat clumsy way.
The stomach-turning chapter on trends in porn and their relationship to the torture of
prisoners of war is a particularly sharp piece of analysis, and all of the other chapters do
eventually convince (and depress).
This book will not exactly cheer you up, but at least it will give you an understanding of
where we are (and where we're heading).
"... Mirowski identifies three basic aspects of neoliberalism that the Left has failed to understand: the movement's intellectual history, the way it has transformed everyday life, and what constitutes opposition to it. Until we come to terms with them, Mirowski suggests, right-wing movements such as the Tea Party (a prominent player in the book) will continue to reign triumphant. ..."
"... Joining a long line of thinkers, most famously Karl Polanyi, Mirowski insists that a key error of the Left has been its failure to see that markets are always embedded in other social institutions. Neoliberals, by contrast, grasp this point with both hands -- and therefore seek to reshape all of the institutions of society, including and especially the state, to promote markets. Neoliberal ascendancy has meant not the retreat of the state so much as its remaking. ..."
"... he also recognizes that the neoliberals themselves have been canny about keeping the real nature of their project hidden through a variety of means. Neoliberal institutions tend to have what he calls a "Russian doll" structure, with the most central ones well hidden from public eyes. Mirowski coins an ironic expression, "the Neoliberal Thought Collective," for the innermost entities that formulate the movement's doctrine. The venerable Mont Pelerin Society is an NTC institution. Its ideas are frequently disseminated through venues which, formally at least, are unconnected to the center, such as academic economics departments. Thus, neoclassical economists spread the gospel of the free market while the grand project of remaking the state falls to others. ..."
"... At the same time as neoliberal commonsense trickles down from above, Mirowski argues that it also wells up from below, reinforced by our daily patterns of life. Social networking sites like Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through the market. For Mirowski, the proliferation of these forms of everyday neoliberalism constitute a "major reason the neoliberals have emerged from the crisis triumphant." ..."
"... Finally, Mirowski argues that the Left has too often been sucked in by neoliberalism's loyal opposition. Figures like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman, while critical of austerity and supportive of the welfare state, accept the fundamental neoclassical economic precepts at the heart of neoliberal policy. Mirowski argues that we must ditch this tradition in its entirety. Even attempts to render its assumptions more realistic -- as in the case of behavioral economics, for example, which takes account of the ways real people diverge from the hyperrationality of homo economicus -- provide little succor for those seeking to overturn the neoliberals. ..."
"... Mirowski's insistence on the centrality of the state to the neoliberal project helps correct the unfortunate tendency of many leftists over the past decade to assent to neoliberal nostrums about the obsolescence of the state. Indeed, Mirowski goes further than many other critics who have challenged the supposed retreat of the state under neoliberalism. ..."
"... Loïc Wacquant, for instance, has described the "centaur state" of neoliberalism, in which a humanist liberalism reigns for the upper classes, while the lower classes face the punitive state apparatus in all its bestiality. ..."
"... Mirowski shows us that the world of the rich under neoliberalism in no way corresponds to the laissez-faire of classical liberalism. The state does not so much leave the rich alone as actively work to reshape the world in their interests, helping to create markets for the derivatives and securities that made (and then destroyed) so many of the fortunes of the recent past. The neoliberal state is an eminently interventionist one, and those mistaking it for the austere nightwatchman of libertarian utopianism have little hope of combating it. ..."
"... Mirowski's concern to disabuse his readers of the notion that the wing of neoliberal doctrine disseminated by neoclassical economists could ever be reformed produces some of the best sections of the book. His portrait of an economics profession in haggard disarray in the aftermath of the crisis is both comic and tragic, as the amusement value of the buffoonery on display diminishes quickly when one realizes the prestige still accorded to these figures. Reading his comprehensive examination of the discipline's response to the crisis, one is reminded of Freud's famous broken kettle. The professional economists' account of their role in the crisis went something like (a) there was no bubble and (b) bubbles are impossible to predict but (c) we knew it was a bubble all along. ..."
"... Though Krugman and Stiglitz have attacked concepts like the efficient markets hypothesis (which holds that prices in a competitive financial market reflect all relevant economic information), Mirowski argues that their attempt to do so while retaining the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassicism has rendered them doubly ineffective. ..."
"... First, their adoption of the battery of assumptions that accompany most neoclassical theorizing -- about representative agents, treating information like any other commodity, and so on -- make it nearly impossible to conclusively rebut arguments like the efficient markets hypothesis. ..."
To understand how a body of thought became an era of capitalism requires more than intellectual
history.
"What is going to come after neoliberalism?" It was the question on many radicals' lips, present
writer included, after the financial crisis hit in 2008. Though few were so sanguine about our prospects
as to repeat the suicidal optimism of previous radical movements ("After Hitler, Our Turn!"), the
feeling of the day was that the era of unfettered marketization was coming to a close. A new period
of what was loosely referred to as Keynesianism would be the inevitable result of a crisis caused
by markets run amok.
Five years later, little has changed. What comes after neoliberalism? More neoliberalism, apparently.
The prospects for a revived Left capable of confronting it appear grim.
Enter Philip Mirowski's Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived
the Financial Meltdown . Mirowski maintains that the true nature of neoliberalism has gone
unrecognized by its would-be critics, allowing the doctrine to flourish even in conditions, such
as a massive financial crisis, that would seem to be inimical to its survival. Leftists keep busy
tilting at the windmill of deregulation as the giants of neoliberalism go on pillaging unmolested.
Mirowski identifies three basic aspects of neoliberalism that the Left has failed to understand:
the movement's intellectual history, the way it has transformed everyday life, and what constitutes
opposition to it. Until we come to terms with them, Mirowski suggests, right-wing movements such
as the Tea Party (a prominent player in the book) will continue to reign triumphant.
The book begins with the war of ideas -- a conflict in which, Mirowski argues, the Left has been
far too generous in taking neoliberals at their word, or at least their best-publicized word. We
have, in effect, been suckered by kindly old Milton Friedman telling us how much better off we'd
all be if the government simply left us "free to choose." But neoliberals have at times been forthright
about their appreciation for the uses of state power. Markets, after all, do not simply create themselves.
Joining a long line of thinkers, most famously Karl Polanyi, Mirowski insists that a key error
of the Left has been its failure to see that markets are always embedded in other social institutions.
Neoliberals, by contrast, grasp this point with both hands -- and therefore seek to reshape all of
the institutions of society, including and especially the state, to promote markets. Neoliberal ascendancy
has meant not the retreat of the state so much as its remaking.
If Mirowski is often acidic about the Left's failure to understand this point, he also recognizes
that the neoliberals themselves have been canny about keeping the real nature of their project hidden
through a variety of means. Neoliberal institutions tend to have what he calls a "Russian doll" structure,
with the most central ones well hidden from public eyes. Mirowski coins an ironic expression, "the
Neoliberal Thought Collective," for the innermost entities that formulate the movement's doctrine.
The venerable Mont Pelerin Society is an NTC institution. Its ideas are frequently disseminated through
venues which, formally at least, are unconnected to the center, such as academic economics departments.
Thus, neoclassical economists spread the gospel of the free market while the grand project of remaking
the state falls to others.
At the same time as neoliberal commonsense trickles down from above, Mirowski argues that
it also wells up from below, reinforced by our daily patterns of life. Social networking sites like
Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer
a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present
themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential
characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent
individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable
bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through
the market. For Mirowski, the proliferation of these forms of everyday neoliberalism constitute a
"major reason the neoliberals have emerged from the crisis triumphant."
Finally, Mirowski argues that the Left has too often been sucked in by neoliberalism's loyal
opposition. Figures like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman, while critical of austerity and supportive
of the welfare state, accept the fundamental neoclassical economic precepts at the heart of neoliberal
policy. Mirowski argues that we must ditch this tradition in its entirety. Even attempts to render
its assumptions more realistic -- as in the case of behavioral economics, for example, which takes
account of the ways real people diverge from the hyperrationality of homo economicus -- provide
little succor for those seeking to overturn the neoliberals.
For Mirowski, these three failures of the Left go a long way toward explaining how neoliberals
have largely escaped blame for a crisis they created. The Left persistently goes after phantoms like
deregulation or smaller government, which neoliberals easily parry by pointing out that the regulatory
apparatus has never been bigger. At the same time, we ignore the deep roots of neoliberal ideology
in everyday life, deceiving ourselves as to the scale of the task in front of us.
Whatever criticisms of Mirowski's analysis are in order, much of it is compelling, particularly
in regard to the intellectual history of the NTC. Mirowski's insistence on the centrality of
the state to the neoliberal project helps correct the unfortunate tendency of many leftists over
the past decade to assent to neoliberal nostrums about the obsolescence of the state. Indeed, Mirowski
goes further than many other critics who have challenged the supposed retreat of the state under
neoliberalism.
Loïc Wacquant, for instance, has described the "centaur state" of neoliberalism, in which
a humanist liberalism reigns for the upper classes, while the lower classes face the punitive state
apparatus in all its bestiality. But Mirowski shows us that the world of the rich under
neoliberalism in no way corresponds to the laissez-faire of classical liberalism. The state does
not so much leave the rich alone as actively work to reshape the world in their interests, helping
to create markets for the derivatives and securities that made (and then destroyed) so many of the
fortunes of the recent past. The neoliberal state is an eminently interventionist one, and those
mistaking it for the austere nightwatchman of libertarian utopianism have little hope of combating
it.
It's here that we begin to see the strategic genius of neoliberal infrastructure, with its teams
of college economics professors teaching the wondrous efficacy of supply and demand on the one hand,
and the think tanks and policy shops engaged in the relentless pursuit of state power on the other.
The Left too often sees inconsistency where in fact there is a division of labor.
Mirowski's concern to disabuse his readers of the notion that the wing of neoliberal doctrine
disseminated by neoclassical economists could ever be reformed produces some of the best sections
of the book. His portrait of an economics profession in haggard disarray in the aftermath of the
crisis is both comic and tragic, as the amusement value of the buffoonery on display diminishes quickly
when one realizes the prestige still accorded to these figures. Reading his comprehensive examination
of the discipline's response to the crisis, one is reminded of Freud's famous broken kettle. The
professional economists' account of their role in the crisis went something like (a) there was no
bubble and (b) bubbles are impossible to predict but (c) we knew it was a bubble all along.
Incoherence notwithstanding, however, little in the discipline has changed in the wake of the
crisis. Mirowski thinks that this is at least in part a result of the impotence of the loyal opposition
-- those economists such as Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman who attempt to oppose the more viciously
neoliberal articulations of economic theory from within the camp of neoclassical economics. Though
Krugman and Stiglitz have attacked concepts like the efficient markets hypothesis (which holds that
prices in a competitive financial market reflect all relevant economic information), Mirowski argues
that their attempt to do so while retaining the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassicism has
rendered them doubly ineffective.
First, their adoption of the battery of assumptions that accompany most neoclassical theorizing
-- about representative agents, treating information like any other commodity, and so on -- make
it nearly impossible to conclusively rebut arguments like the efficient markets hypothesis.
Instead, they end up tinkering with it, introducing a nuance here or a qualification there. This
tinkering causes their arguments to be more or less ignored in neoclassical pedagogy, as economists
more favorably inclined toward hard neoliberal arguments can easily ignore such revisions and hold
that the basic thrust of the theory is still correct. Stiglitz's and Krugman's arguments, while receiving
circulation through the popular press, utterly fail to transform the discipline.
Mirowski also heaps scorn on the suggestion, sometimes made in leftist circles, that the problem
at the heart of neoclassical economics is its assumption of a hyperrational homo economicus
, relentlessly comparing equilibrium states and maximizing utility. Though such a revision may
be appealing to a certain radical romanticism, Mirowski shows that a good deal of work going on under
the label of behavioral economics has performed just this revision, and has come up with results
that don't differ substantively from those of the mainstream. The main problem with neoclassicism
isn't its theory of the human agent but rather its the theory of the market -- which is precisely
what behavioral economics isn't interested in contesting.
In all, Mirowski's indictment of the state of economic theory and its imbrication with the neoliberal
project is devastating. Unfortunately, he proves much less successful in explaining why
things have turned out as they have. The book ascribes tremendous power to the Neoliberal Thought
Collective, which somehow manages to do everything from controlling the economics profession to reshaping
the state to forging a new sense of the human self. The reader is left wondering how the NTC came
to acquire such power. This leads to the book's central flaw: a lack of any theory of the structure
of modern capitalism. Indeed, the NTC seems to operate in something of a vacuum, without ever confronting
other institutions or groups, such as the state or popular movements, with interests and agendas
of their own.
To be fair, Mirowski does offer an explanation for the failure of popular movements to challenge
neoliberalism, largely through his account of "everyday" neoliberalism. At its strongest, the book
identifies important strategic failures, such as Occupy's embrace of "a mimicry of media technologies
as opposed to concerted political mobilization." However, Mirowski extends the argument well beyond
a specific failure of the Occupy movement to propose a general thesis that developments like Facebook
and reality TV have transmitted neoliberal ideology to people who have never read Friedman and Hayek.
In claiming that this embodied or embedded ideology plays an important role in the failure of the
Left, he places far more explanatory weight on the concept of everyday neoliberalism than it is capable
of bearing.
At the simplest level, it's just not clear that everyday neoliberalism constitutes the kind of
block to political action that Mirowski thinks it does. No doubt, many people reading this article
right now simultaneously have another browser tab open to monster.com or LinkedIn, where they are
striving to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills to any employer that will have them.
In this economy, everyone has to hustle, and that means using all available means. That many of these
same readers have probably also done things like organize against foreclosures should give pause
to any blurring of the distinction between using various media technologies and embracing the ideology
Mirowski sees embodied in them.
Indeed, the ubiquity of participation in such technologies by people who support, oppose, or are
apathetic about neoliberalism points to a larger phenomenon on which Mirowski is silent: the labor
market. Put bluntly, it is difficult to imagine anyone engaging in the painfully strained self-advertisement
facilitated by LinkedIn in a labor market with, say, 2-percent unemployment. In such a market, in
which employers were competing for comparatively scarce workers, there would be very little need
for those workers to go through the self-abasing ritual of converting themselves into fungible baskets
of skills. In our current situation, by contrast, where secure and remunerative employment is comparatively
scarce, it is no surprise that people turn to whatever technologies are available to attempt to sell
themselves. As Joan Robinson put it, the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not
being exploited by it.
In evaluating the role of everyday neoliberalism, it is also helpful to move, for the moment,
beyond the perspective of the United States, where the NTC has clearly had great success, and adopt
that of countries where resistance is significantly more developed, such as Venezuela or South Africa.
Especially in the former, popular movements have been notably successful in combating neoliberal
efforts to take over the state and reshape the economy, and have instead pushed the country in the
opposite direction. Is it really plausible that a main reason for this difference is that everyday
neoliberalism is more intense in the United States? I doubt it. For one thing, the strength of Venezuela's
radical movements, in comparison with the US, clearly antedates the developments (social media,
Here Comes Honey Boo Boo , and so on) that Mirowski discusses.
Moreover, it is just as plausible that the entrepreneurial culture he describes is even more extensive
in the slums of the global South, where neoliberal devastation has forced many poor households to
rely on at least one family member engaging in semi-legal arbitrage in goods salvaged from garbage
or made at home. Surely such activities provide a firmer foundation for commercial subjectivity than
having a 401(k). That resistance has grown in such circumstances suggests that looking to malignant
subjectivities to explain popular passivity is an analytic dead-end.
If everyday neoliberalism doesn't explain the comparative weakness of the US left, what does?
This is, of course, the key question, and I can do no more than gesture at an answer here. But I
would suggest that the specific histories of the institutions of the American left, from the Communist
Party to Students for a Democratic Society to labor unions, and the histories of the situations they
confronted, provide us with a more solid foundation for understanding our current weakness than the
hegemony of neoliberal culture does. Moreover, with a theory of capitalism that emphasizes the way
the structure of the system makes it both necessary and very difficult for most people to organize
to advance their interests, it becomes very easy to explain the persistence of a low level of popular
mobilization against neoliberalism in the context of a weakened left.
If Mirowski's account doesn't give us a good basis for explaining why popular resistance has been
so lacking in the US, it nonetheless suggests why he is so concerned with explaining the supposed
dominance of neoliberal ideology among the general population. From the beginning, he raises the
specter of right-wing resurgence, whether in the form of Scott Walker surviving the recall campaign
in Wisconsin, the Tea Party mania of 2010, or the success of right-wing parties in Europe. However,
much of this seems overstated, especially from a contemporary perspective. The Tea Party has, for
all intents and purposes, disappeared from the front lines of American politics, and the Republican
Party, while capable of enacting all kinds of sadistic policies on the state level, has remained
in a state of disarray on the national level since the 2006 congressional elections.
More fundamentally, the argument that the voting public embraces neoliberalism doesn't square
well with recent research by political scientists like Larry Bartels and Martin Gilens emphasizing
the profound disconnect between the policy preferences of the poor and what transpires in Washington.
What appears to be happening is less the general populace's incorporation into neoliberalism than
their exclusion from any institutions that would allow them to change it. Importantly, this alternative
explanation does not rely on the Left conceit that rebellion lurks perpetually just below the placid
social surface, ready to explode into radical insurgency at any moment. It simply contends that the
political passivity of neoliberalism's victims reflects a real diminution of their political options.
Mirowski's failure to address these larger institutional and structural dynamics vitiates much
of the explanatory power of his book. On a purely descriptive level, the sections on the intellectual
history of neoliberalism and the non-crisis of neoclassical economics illuminate many of the hidden
corners of neoliberal ideology. However, if Mirowski is right to suggest that we need to understand
neoliberalism better to be successful in fighting it -- and he surely is -- then much more is needed
to explain neoliberal success and Left failure.
To understand how a body of thought became an era of capitalism requires more than intellectual
history. It demands an account of how capitalism actually works in the period in question, and how
the ideas of a small group of intellectuals came to be the policy preferences of the rich. Mirowski
has given us an excellent foundation for understanding the doctrine, but it will remain for others
to explain its actual development.
In 1970th the new neoliberal "capitalists of all countries, unite !" slogan displaced the old one:
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" Since the late 70th, the leading capitalist states
in North America and Western Europe have pursued neoliberal policies and institutional changes. The
peripheral and semi peripheral states in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, under the
pressure of the leading capitalist states (primarily the United States) and international monetary institutions
(IMF and the World Bank), were forced to adopt "structural adjustments," "shock therapies," or "economic
reforms," to open their economies to transactionals and to restructure them in accordance with the requirements
of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
The regime enforced in countries of the global neoliberal empire typically includes monetarist policies
to lower inflation and maintain fiscal balance (often achieved by reducing public expenditures and raising
the interest rate), "flexible" labor markets (meaning removing labor market regulations, cutting social
welfare and facilitating legal and illegal immigration from poor countries to drive wages down), trade
and financial liberalization, and privatization. These policies were an attack by the global finance
capital on the working people of the world. Under neoliberal capitalism, decades of social progress
and developmental efforts have been reversed. Global inequality in income and wealth has reached unprecedented
levels sometimes exceeding the level reached in 1920th. In much of the world, working people have suffered
pauperization. Entire countries have been reduced to misery.
Notable quotes:
"... What's missing here is the way in which the capitalist class orchestrated its efforts during the 1970s and early 1980s. I think it would be fair to say that at that time - in the English-speaking world anyway - the corporate capitalist class became pretty unified. ..."
"... For example, you see reforms of campaign finance that treated contributions to campaigns as a form of free speech . There's a long tradition in the United States of corporate capitalists buying elections but now it was legalized rather than being under the table as corruption. ..."
"... Overall I think this period was defined by a broad movement across many fronts, ideological and political. And the only way you can explain that broad movement is by recognizing the relatively high degree of solidarity in the corporate capitalist class. ..."
What's missing here is the way in which the capitalist class orchestrated its efforts during
the 1970s and early 1980s. I think it would be fair to say that at that time - in the English-speaking
world anyway - the corporate capitalist class became pretty unified.
They agreed on a lot
of things, like the need for a political force to really represent them. So you get the capture of
the Republican Party, and an attempt to undermine, to some degree, the Democratic Party.
From the 1970s the Supreme Court made a bunch of decisions that allowed the corporate capitalist
class to buy elections more easily than it could in the past.
For example, you see reforms of campaign finance that treated contributions to campaigns as
a
form of free speech. There's a long tradition in the United States of corporate capitalists buying
elections but now it was legalized rather than being under the table as corruption.
Overall I think this period was defined by a broad movement across many fronts, ideological
and political. And the only way you can explain that broad movement is by recognizing the relatively
high degree of solidarity in the corporate capitalist class.
Capital reorganized its power in a desperate attempt to recover its economic wealth and its influence,
which had been seriously eroded from the end of the 1960s into the 1970s.
What Monbiot called 'stories" and "powerful political narratives" are actually ideologies. Neoliberal
ideology won in 70th and managed to destroy the weakened and discredited social democratic/Keynesean
model and Bolshevism on late 80th early 90th. After 2008 neoliberalism as ideology is as dead
as Stalinism was after 1945. You can even view Trump as kind of farcical
Nikita Khrushchev who while sticking to
neoliberalism "in general" at the same time denounced some key postulates of neoliberalism such
as neoliberal globalization with outsourcing and offshoring components and free movement of labor.
For Khrushchev that ended badly -- he was deposed and replaced by Brezhnev in 1964. The same might
happen to Trump.
You can get better idea about what Monbiot is talking about replacing the word "stories" with the
word "ideologies." An ideology is a coherent set of interconnected ideas or beliefs
shared by a large group of people (often political party or nation). It may be a connected to a particular
philosophy (Marxism in case of Socialism and Communism, Randism and neo-classical economics in
case of neoliberalism) . Communism, socialism, and neoliberalism are major political/economical ideologies.
Ideology prescribes how a country political system should be organized and how country economics
should be run.
Notable quotes:
"... The political history of the second half of the 20th century could be summarised as the conflict between its two great narratives: the stories told by Keynesian social democracy and by neoliberalism. ..."
"... When the social democracy story dominated, even the Conservatives and Republicans adopted key elements of the programme. When neoliberalism took its place, political parties everywhere, regardless of their colour, fell under its spell . ..."
Is it reasonable to hope for a better world? Study the cruelty and indifference
of governments, the disarray of opposition parties, the apparently inexorable slide towards limate
breakdown, the renewed threat of nuclear war, and the answer appears to be no. Our problems look
intractable, our leaders dangerous, while voters are cowed and baffled. Despair looks like the only
rational response. But over the past two years, I have been struck by four observations. What they
reveal is that political failure is, in essence, a failure of imagination. They suggest to me that
it is despair, not hope, that is irrational. I believe they light a path towards a better world.
The first observation is the least original. It is the realization that it is not strong leaders
or parties that dominate politics as much as powerful political narratives. The political history
of the second half of the 20th century could be summarised as the conflict between its two great
narratives: the stories told by Keynesian social democracy and by neoliberalism. First one and
then the other captured the minds of people across the political spectrum. When the social democracy
story dominated, even the Conservatives and Republicans adopted key elements of the programme. When
neoliberalism took its place, political parties everywhere, regardless of their colour,
fell under its spell . These stories overrode everything: personality, identity and party
history.
This should not surprise us. Stories are the means by which we navigate the world. They allow
us to interpret its complex and contradictory signals. We all possess a narrative instinct: an innate
disposition to listen for an account of who we are and where we stand.
... ... ...
The social democratic story explains that the world fell into disorder – characterised by the
Great Depression – because of the self-seeking behaviour of an unrestrained elite. The elite's capture
of both the world's wealth and the political system resulted in the impoverishment and insecurity
of working people. By uniting to defend their common interests, the world's people could throw down
the power of this elite, strip it of its ill-gotten gains and pool the resulting wealth for the good
of all. Order and security would be restored in the form of a protective, paternalistic state, investing
in public projects for the public good, generating the wealth that would guarantee a prosperous future
for everyone. The ordinary people of the land – the heroes of the story – would triumph over those
who had oppressed them.
The neoliberal story explains that the world fell into disorder as a result of the collectivising
tendencies of the overmighty state, exemplified by the monstrosities of Stalinism and nazism, but
evident in all forms of state planning and all attempts to engineer social outcomes. Collectivism
crushes freedom, individualism and opportunity. Heroic entrepreneurs, mobilising the redeeming power
of the market, would fight this enforced conformity, freeing society from the enslavement of the
state. Order would be restored in the form of free markets, delivering wealth and opportunity, guaranteeing
a prosperous future for everyone. The ordinary people of the land, released by the heroes of the
story (the freedom-seeking entrepreneurs) would triumph over those who had oppressed them.
... ... ...
But the best on offer from major political parties is a microwaved version of the remnants of
Keynesian social democracy. There are several problems with this approach. The first is that this
old story has lost most of its content and narrative force. What we now call Keynesianism has been
reduced to two thin chapters: lowering interest rates when economies are sluggish and using countercyclical
public spending (injecting public money into the economy when unemployment is high or recession threatens).
Other measures, such as raising taxes when an economy grows quickly, to dampen the boom-bust cycle;
the fixed exchange rate system; capital controls and a self-balancing global banking system (an
international clearing union ) – all of which
John Maynard Keynes
saw as essential complements to these policies – have been discarded and forgotten.
This is partly because the troubles that beset the Keynesian model in the 1970s have not disappeared.
While the
oil embargo in 1973 was the immediate trigger for the lethal combination of high inflation and
high unemployment ("
stagflation
") that Keynesian policies were almost powerless to counteract, problems with the system had been
mounting for years. Falling productivity and rising
cost-push
inflation (wages and prices pursuing each other upwards) were already beginning to erode support
for Keynesian economics. Most importantly, perhaps, the programme had buckled in response to the
political demands of capital.
Strong financial regulations and controls on the movement of money began to weaken in the 1950s,
as governments
started to liberalise
financial markets .
Richard Nixon 's
decision in 1971 to suspend the convertibility of dollars into gold destroyed the system of fixed
exchange rates on which much of the success of Keynes's policies depended. The capital controls used
to prevent financiers and speculators from sucking money out of balanced Keynesian economies collapsed.
We cannot hope that the strategies deployed by global finance in the 20th century will be unlearned.
But perhaps the biggest problem residual Keynesianism confronts is that, when it does work, it
collides headfirst with the environmental crisis. A programme that seeks to sustain employment through
constant economic growth, driven by consumer demand, seems destined to exacerbate our greatest predicament.
The academic, political and philosophical basis, with its misanthropic view that
everyone is essentially selfish, is bust, argues
Robin Le Mare
Margaret Thatcher and Ronal Reagan great believers in neoliberilsm.
The academic, political and philosophical basis, with its misanthropic
view that everyone is essentially selfish, is bust, argues
Robin Le Mare
Letters
Sunday 6 August 2017
13.22 EDT
Last modified on Sunday 6 August 2017
17.00 EDT
At last, a clear indication of the neoliberal revolution coming to an end (
How
Britain fell out of love with the free market
, 5 August). I wish it were more
clearly stated by politicians and in the questions journalists ask them. It is high
time to denounce those behind the whole scheme – one which is so obviously leading
to many tragedies of the commons.
The academic (Friedman, Hayek, Buchanan et al),
political (Reagan, Thatcher ...) and philosophical basis, with its misanthropic view
that everyone is essentially selfish, is bust. The hypocrisy of that idea is
astounding, the more so that it gained such following and influence, as every one of
those who supported it had families, lived in communities, joined clubs and depended
on others every day.
The article mentions the corruption of 2007-08 banking. The consequences from it,
and neoliberalism generally, being many examples of tragedies of the commons: bonus
culture, plastics pollution, accelerated species extinctions, atmospheric chaos and
oceanic acidification, wars and mass migration. There's a great deal of highly
damaging social and ecosystem free riding in play, and directly related to the
perverse economic philosophy that is currently dominant.
Failed models need to be denounced and rejected, but that is inadequate without a
clear statement of alternatives. The ghastly "there is no alternative" has to be
rebuked, as there are and have to be alternatives. I would start by emphasising
Elinor Ostrom's analysis of economic governance, especially the commons, for which
she was awarded the Nobel prize in 2009. I encourage people to ask their councillors
and MPs how policies benefit the common good. I want journalists to ask every
politician how their actions benefit the common good.
Discussions about the boundaries between public, private and common need to be
promoted in churches, pubs, town halls and parliament. Every policy is conducted
with reference to the economy, but rarely are questions asked about the
externalities involved in the policy. I look forward to a Guardian long read
describing "alternatives to the orthodox".
Robin Le Mare
Allithwaite, Cumbria
Your excellent long read last Saturday could also
have included a further casualty of capitalism – welfare services. In the late 80s,
when I was working in Bolton's social services, I remember the arrival of the
purchaser-provider split doctrine when some key health service manager colleagues
were barred from our regular joint health and social services meetings because they
were providers.
This approach of introducing the market economy started to affect us in social
services in the early 1990s when we, too, were obliged by the government to
restructure our departments and separate purchasing staff from providing staff.
It always intrigued me how introducing the market economy into the provision of
welfare services would do anything but drive costs down rather than improve and
increase our services to meet ever-increasing demand and expectations. So much so,
that I chose to examine what differences a Labour government would bring to the
delivery of social services and whether it would continue with a market economy
approach, when I began my M Phil at Lincoln University in 1998.
Needless to say, when I completed my study three years later, I could only
conclude that Labour continued to promote the concept of trading and a welfare
industry driven by market forces, which has now led to the current crisis of a
decimation of so many of the services we were once so proud of.
Your article implies that there is "a stirring among genuine Conservatives that
capitalism is against place and home" I would add that capitalism is also against
welfare.
Nick Thompson
Liverpool
Reading your long read on liberalism, it crossed my mind that Friedrich Hayek must be
turning in his grave ( The
big idea that defines our era , 19 August). Neoliberalism has demolished Hayek's theory of
markets. Markets are not free: they are controlled by a wealthy minority of state-sized
corporations. Markets are not efficient: they generate mountains of waste as corporations walk
away from every abandoned disaster, expecting someone else to clear up the mess. Markets are
not competitive: mergers, acquisitions, takeovers and buyouts reduce competition and choice for
the consumer. Multinational corporations and international banks so dominate national
governments that criminality is tolerated and, in the case of banks, even accepted as
normal.
The 2008 crash showed that only the insiders of the financial services industry know what is
going on. When a combination of incompetence and greed wrecked the international economy,
taxpayers/consumers had to fund a colossal bailout. If big government hadn't organised a
rescue, the neoliberal marketplace would have disappeared up its own rectum. The "market
economy" is not an "objective science". Hayek's big idea is fatally flawed.
Martin London Henllan, Denbighshire
Hayek's may have been "the big idea that defines our era", but economies run by governments
favouring his ideas, broadly those since Thatcher and Reagan, have been far less successful
providing for the majority of their people than those that favoured John Maynard Keynes. Albert
Camus wrote that his generation's task was to prevent the world destroying itself. Today it
requires a triumph of hope over experience to believe that free marketeers will address climate
change. And if the "invisible hand" should always decide, it was odd that its manifestation,
almost immediately after WWII, was the finance sector recruiting (directly or indirectly)
economists, journalists and politicians to reverse Keynes's theories and policies and to
denounce him as a "tax and spender".
David Murray Wallington, Surrey
What is neoliberalism? It's that moment when you ought to step in to do something about the
dehumanised, exploited fast food courier, pedalling furiously along the busy pavement to the
beat of the algorithm (past the homeless in their sleeping bags, the slaves in their nail bars
and massage parlours, and the private security officers patrolling the "investment properties"
that were once homes) before he ploughs into the arthritic, mentally ill woman painfully
inching her way to humiliation at an "independent" work capability assessment – but you
don't bother because you know the market's invisible hand will sort things out for you.
Ian McCormack Leicester
The political
project of neoliberalism , brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two
principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of
unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any
democratic public will.
Its trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals: these
have liberated corporations to accumulate enormous profits and treat the atmosphere like a
sewage dump, and hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our
collective welfare.
Anything resembling a collective check on corporate power has become a target of the elite:
lobbying and corporate donations, hollowing out democracies, have
obstructed green policies and kept fossil fuel
subsidies flowing; and the rights of associations like unions, the most effective means for
workers to wield power together, have been undercut whenever possible.
At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response,
neoliberal ideology stands in the way. Which is why, if we want to bring down emissions fast,
we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy
grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise
taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy -- so
that solar panels can go on everyone's rooftop, not just on those who can afford it.
Neoliberalism has not merely ensured this agenda is politically unrealistic: it has also
tried to make it culturally unthinkable. Its celebration of competitive self-interest and
hyper-individualism, its stigmatization of compassion and solidarity, has
frayed our collective bonds . It has spread, like an insidious anti-social toxin, what
Margaret Thatcher preached: "there is no such thing as society."
Studies show that people who have grown up under this era have indeed become more
individualistic and consumerist . Steeped in a culture telling us to think of ourselves as
consumers instead of citizens, as self-reliant instead of interdependent, is it any wonder we
deal with a systemic issue by turning in droves to ineffectual, individual efforts? We are all
Thatcher's children.
Even before the advent of neoliberalism, the capitalist economy had thrived on people
believing that being afflicted by the structural problems of an exploitative system –
poverty, joblessness, poor health, lack of fulfillment – was in fact a personal
deficiency.
Neoliberalism has taken this internalized self-blame and turbocharged it. It tells you that
you should not merely feel guilt and shame if you can't secure a good job, are deep in debt,
and are too stressed or overworked for time with friends. You are now also responsible for
bearing the burden of potential ecological collapse.
Of course we need people to consume less and innovate low-carbon alternatives – build
sustainable farms, invent battery storages, spread zero-waste methods. But individual choices
will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for
everyone!not just an affluent or intrepid few.
If affordable mass transit isn't available, people will commute with cars. If local organic
food is too expensive, they won't opt out of fossil fuel-intensive super-market chains. If
cheap mass produced goods flow endlessly, they will buy and buy and buy. This is the con-job of
neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than
through power and politics.
Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt. But it's only mass movements that have the power to
alter the trajectory of the climate crisis. This requires of us first a resolute mental break
from the spell cast by neoliberalism: to stop thinking like individuals.
The good news is that the impulse of humans to come together is inextinguishable – and
the collective imagination is already making a political come-back. The climate justice
movement is blocking pipelines, forcing the
divestment of trillions of dollars, and winning
support for 100% clean energy economies in cities and states across the world. New ties are
being drawn to Black Lives Matter, immigrant and Indigenous rights, and fights for better
wages. On the heels of such movements, political parties seem finally ready to defy neoliberal
dogma.
None more so than Jeremy Corbyn, whose Labour Manifesto spelled out a redistributive project
to address climate change: by publicly retooling the economy, and insisting that corporate
oligarchs no longer run amok. The notion that the rich should pay their fair share to fund this
transformation was considered laughable by the political and media class. Millions disagreed.
Society, long said to be departed, is now back with a vengeance.
So grow some carrots and jump on a bike: it will make you happier and healthier. But it is
time to stop obsessing with how personally green we live – and start collectively taking
on corporate power.
"... The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports. ..."
"... this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of democracy. ..."
"... In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama portrayed the US bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges. ..."
"... Democracy promotion gives US policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy , created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama , Costa Rica , Ukraine , Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia , Poland , Haiti and many other nations. The State Department has a long list of similar pratfalls, including pouring vast amounts of money in vain efforts to beget democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan . ..."
"... Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying. ..."
"... Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary work during his reign. ..."
The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose
cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case
with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is revising the State Department mission statement to focus on
promoting "the
security, prosperity and interests of the American people globally." Washington pundits are aghast
that "democracy promotion" is no longer trumpeted as a top US foreign policy goal. Elliott Abrams,
George W. Bush's "democracy czar," complained, "We used to want a just and democratic world, and
now apparently we don't the message being sent will be a great comfort to every dictator in the
world."
But this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool
of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of
democracy.
The US has periodically pledged to spread democracy ever since President Woodrow Wilson announced
in 1913: "I am going to
teach the
South American republics to elect good men!" Democracy is so important that the US government
refuses to stand idly by when foreign voters go astray. Since 1946, the US has intervened -- usually
covertly -- in
more than 80 foreign elections to assist its preferred candidate or party.
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and
support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the
ultimate goal of
ending tyranny
in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention
to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror.
President Barack Obama was supposed to redeem the honor of US foreign policy. In 2011, Obama portrayed
the US
bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was
killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to
determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But
violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four
Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials
invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a
conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges.
But the Obama team, like prior administrations, did not permit its democratic pretensions to impede
business as usual. After Egyptian protestors toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, Obama pledged to assist
that nation "pursue a credible
transition to a democracy ." But the US government disapproved of that nation's first elected
leader, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After the Egyptian military deposed Morsi in
2013, Secretary of State John Kerry bizarrely praised Egypt's generals for "
restoring democracy ." Similarly, many Ethiopians were horrified when Obama visited their country
in 2015 and praised its regime as "
democratically elected " -- despite a sham election and its brutal suppression of journalists,
bloggers and other critics.
Democracy at its best is a wonderful form of government but many so-called democracies
nowadays are simply elective despotisms. Elections abroad are often herd counts to determine who
gets to fleece the herd. Many democracies have become kleptocracies where governing is indistinguishable
from looting.
In some nations, election victories legitimize destroying voters en masse. This is exemplified
by the Philippines, where the government has
killed 7,000
suspected drug users and dealers , including
several mayors . After President Rodrigo Duterte publicly declared that he would be "
happy to slaughter " three million drug users, Trump phoned him and, according to a leaked transcript,
said, "I just
wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you're doing] on the
drug problem." Similarly, Trump
congratulated Turkish president Recep Erdogan after he won a referendum that awarded him quasi-dictatorial
powers.
It is time to admit that America lacks a Midas touch for spreading democracy. Freedom House reported
that, even prior to Trump's election, more than 100 nations have seen
declines in democracy since 2005.
Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace
a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would
cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged
elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms
in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances
that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying.
Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault
carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional
house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people
who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary
work during his reign.
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York,
2013.)
(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):
In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he
tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an
audiotape, declaring:
"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides
to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue
State."
Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower, in which he had mused:
"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently.
I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured,
and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that
America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no
longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what
I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."
Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read
his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has
collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not
only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling
Age.
America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something
to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and
sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian
question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"
Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!"
concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting
communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach
out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic
and emetic!
Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ...
is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War
world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not
moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of
higher understanding.
Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:
Why they hate us;
America means well;
We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the
world;
We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture
and war--to achieve the above idea.
Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells
us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service
Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and
editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."
In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?"
He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the
world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy
which puts people before profits."
America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably
cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought,
Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as
America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to
assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:
"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers,
"Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow
produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media
have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it
be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a
foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.
"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market
economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."
Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone
calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed
to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one
has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and
dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with
a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash
somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'
Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them
out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"
Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure
of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values
with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty
picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics,
junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying
layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy
and moral rectitude.
Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and
websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch,
Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and
a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he
has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and
prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: [email protected].
"... German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'. ..."
"... And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. ..."
"... This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. ..."
A specter is haunting Europe and Western world - it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came
quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or
it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving
our entire planet.
As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism.
Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters – all of them were and have always been defined by fascist
bigots as terrorists.
By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world
abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend one's motherland was and is a sign of
extremism.
German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire.
The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always
promoted themselves as 'democracies'.
And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist
Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments
and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the
name of freedom.
An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some,
and plundering others, or both.
The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God.
It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy
and rebuild as it wishes.
This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless
but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of
people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box.
This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot
be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity
that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness.
This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes
in its original, Greek, language.
***
In our latest book, "On Western Terrorism – from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", Noam Chomsky commented
on the 'democratic' process in the Western world:
"The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry
and they're certainly not trying to create informed voters who'll make rational choices. They are
trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine
markets are used to undermine democracy. It's one of the major industries in the country and its
basic workings are invisible."
But what is it that really signifies this 'sacred' word, this almost religious term, and this
pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives
(not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it.
Democracy!
All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that
North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are.
"In the name of freedom and democracy!" Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on
the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular
explosions.
"Defending democracy!" Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and
women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States
of America.
"Civilizing the world and spreading democracy!" That has always been a European slogan, their
'stuff to do', and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese
people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa
and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East ( "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes", to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill).
So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered
face – the lady whose name is Democracy?
***
It is all very simple, actually. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule
of the people". Then and now, it was supposed to be in direct contrast to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia),
that means "rule of an elite".
'Rule of the people' Let us just visit a few examples of the 'rule of the people'.
People spoke, they ruled, they voted 'democratically' in Chile, bringing in the mild and socialist
government of 'Popular Unity' of Salvador Allende.
Sure, the Chilean education system was so brilliant, its political and social system so wonderful,
that it inspired not only many countries in Latin America, but also those in far away Mediterranean
Europe.
That could not be tolerated, because, as we all know, it is only white Europe and North America
that can be allowed to supply the world with the blueprint for any society, anywhere on this planet.
It was decided that "Chile has to scream", that its economy had to be ruined and the "Popular Unity"
government kicked out of power.
Henry Kissinger, belonging, obviously, to a much higher race and country of a much higher grade,
made a straightforward and in a way very 'honest' statement, clearly defining the North American
stand towards global democracy: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist
due to the irresponsibility of its people."
And so Chile was ravaged. Thousands of people were murdered and 'our son-of-a-bitch' was brought
to power. General Pinochet was not elected: he bombed the Presidential palace in Santiago, he savagely
tortured the men and women who were elected by the Chilean people, and he "disappeared" thousands.
But that was fine, because democracy, as it is seen from Washington, London or Paris, is nothing
more and nothing less than what the white man needs in order to control this planet, unopposed and
preferably never criticized.
Of course Chile was not the only place where 'democracy' was 'redefined'. And it was not the most
brutal scenario either, although it was brutal enough. But it was a very symbolic 'case', because
here, there could be absolutely no dispute: an extremely well educated, middle class country, voted
in transparent elections, just to have its government murdered, tortured and exiled, simply because
it was too democratic and too involved in improving the lives of its people.
There were countless instances of open spite coming from the North, towards the 'rule of the people'
in Latin America. For centuries, there have been limitless examples. Every country 'south of the
border' in the Western Hemisphere, became a victim.
After all, the self-imposed Monroe Doctrine gave North Americans 'unquestionable rights' to intervene
and 'correct' any 'irresponsible' democratic moves made by the lower races inhabiting Central and
South America as well as the Caribbean Islands.
There were many different scenarios of real ingenuity, in how to torture countries that embarked
on building decent homes for their people, although soon there was evidence of repetitiveness and
predictability.
The US has been either sponsoring extremely brutal coups (like the one in Guatemala in 1954),
or simply occupying the countries in order to overthrow their democratically elected governments.
Justifications for such interventions have varied: it was done in order to 'restore order', to 'restore
freedom and democracy', or to prevent the emergence of 'another Cuba'.
From the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Grenada in 1983, countries were 'saved from themselves'
through the introduction (by orders from mainly the Protestant North American elites with clearly
pathological superiority complexes) of death squads that administered torture, rape and extrajudicial
executions. People were killed because their democratic decisions were seen as 'irresponsible' and
therefore unacceptable.
While there has been open racism in every aspect of how the Empire controlled its colonies, 'political
correctness' was skillfully introduced, effectively reducing to a bare minimum any serious critiques
of the societies that were forced into submission.
In Indonesia, between 1 and 3 million people were murdered in the years1965/66, in a US -sponsored
coup, because there too, was a 'great danger' that the people would rule and decide to vote 'irresponsibly',
bringing the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), at that time the third most numerous Communist Party
anywhere in the world, to power.
The democratically elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961, by the joint
efforts of the United States and Europe, simply because he was determined to use the vast natural
resources of his country to feed his own people; and because he dared to criticize Western colonialism
and imperialism openly and passionately.
East Timor lost a third of its population simply because its people, after gaining independence
from Portugal, dared to vote the left-leaning FRETILIN into power. "We are not going to tolerate
another Cuba next to our shores", protested the Indonesian fascist dictator Suharto, and the US and
Australia strongly agreed. The torture, and extermination of East Timorese people by the Indonesian
military, was considered irrelevant and not even worth reporting in the mass media.
The people of Iran could of course not be trusted with 'democracy'. Iran is one of the oldest
and greatest cultures on earth, but its people wanted to use the revenues from its oil to improve
their lives, not to feed foreign multi-nationals. That has always been considered a crime by Western
powers – a crime punishable by death.
The people of Iran decided to rule; they voted, they said that they want to have all their oil
industry nationalized. Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from
1951 to 1953, was ready to implement what his people demanded. But his government was overthrown
in a coup d'état, orchestrated by the British MI6 and North American CIA, and what followed was the
murderous dictatorship of the deranged Western puppet – Reza Pahlavi. As in Latin America and Indonesia,
instead of schools, hospitals and housing projects, people got death squads, torture chambers and
fear. Is that what they wanted? Is that what they voted for?
There were literally dozens of countries, all over the world, which had to be 'saved', by the
West, from their own 'irresponsible citizens and voters'. Brazil recently 'celebrated' the 50th anniversary
of the US-backed military coup d'état, which began a horrendous 20 year long military dictatorship.
The US supported two coups in Iraq, in 1963 and 1968 that brought Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party
to power. The list is endless. These are only some random examples.
On closer examination, the West has overthrown, or made attempts to overthrow, almost any democratically
elected governments, on all continents attempting to serve their own people, by providing them with
decent standards of living and social services. That is quite an achievement, and some stamina!
Could it be then that the West only respects 'Democracy' when 'people are forced to rule' against
their own interests? And when they are 'defending' what they are ordered to defend by local elites
that are subservient to North American and European interests? and also when they are defending
the interests of foreign multi-national companies and Western governments that are dependent on those
companies?
***
Can anything be done? If a country is too weak to defend itself by military means, against some
mighty Western aggressor, could it approach any international democratic institutions, hoping for
protection?
Unthinkable!
A good example is Nicaragua, which had been literally terrorized by the United States, for no
other reason than for being socialist. Its government went to court.
The case was called: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America.
It was a 1986 case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor
of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.
The judgment was long, consisting of 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved
in the "unlawful use of force." The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities
and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the
training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the "Contras") and seeking to overthrow
Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
Judgment was passed, and so were UN votes and resolutions. The UN resolution from 1986 called
for the full and immediate compliance with the Judgment. Only Thailand, France and the UK abstained.
The US showed total spite towards the court, and it vetoed all UN resolutions.
It continued its terror campaign against Nicaragua. In the end, the ruined and exhausted country
voted in 1990. It was soon clear that it was not voting for or against Sandinista government, but
whether to endure more violence from the North, or to simply accept depressing defeat. The Sandinista
government lost. It lost because the voters had a North American gun pointing at their heads.
This is how 'democracy' works.
I covered the Nicaraguan elections of 1996 and I was told by voters, by a great majority of them,
that they were going to vote for the right-wing candidate (Aleman), only because the US was threatening
to unleash another wave of terror in case the Sandinista government came back to power, democratically.
The Sandinistas are now back. But only because most of Latin America has changed, and there is
unity and determination to fight, if necessary.
***
While the Europeans are clearly benefiting from neo-colonialism and the plunder that goes on all
over the world, it would be ridiculous to claim that they themselves are 'enjoying the fruits of
democracy'.
In a dazzling novel "Seeing", written by Jose Saramago, a laureate for the Nobel Prize for literature,
some 83% of voters in an unidentified country (most likely Saramago's native Portugal), decide to
cast blank ballots, expressing clear spite towards the Western representative election system.
This state, which prided itself as a 'democratic one', responded by unleashing an orgy of terror
against its own citizens. It soon became obvious that people are allowed to make democratic choices
only when the result serves the interests of the regime.
Ursula K Le Guin, reviewing the novel in the pages of The Guardian, on 15 April 2006, admitted:
Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet
used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one
can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when
low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both
elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of
power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making.
She should not have been. Even in Europe itself, terror had been unleashed, on many occasions,
against the people who decided to vote 'incorrectly'.
Perhaps the most brutal instance was in the post WWII period, when the Communist Parties were
clearly heading for spectacular victories in France, Italy and West Germany. Such 'irresponsible
behavior' had to be, of course, stopped. Both US and UK intelligence forces made a tremendous effort
to 'save democracy' in Europe, employing Nazis to break, intimidate, even murder members of progressive
movements and parties.
These Nazi cadres were later allowed, even encouraged, to leave Europe for South America, some
carrying huge booty from the victims who vanished in concentration camps. This booty included gold
teeth.
Later on, in the 1990's, I spoke to some of them, and also to their children, in Asuncion, the
capital of Paraguay. They were proud of their deeds, unrepentant, and as Nazi as ever.
Many of those European Nazis later actively participated in Operation Condor, so enthusiastically
supported by the Paraguayan fascist and pro-Western dictator, Alfredo Strössner. Mr Strössner was
a dear friend and asylum-giver to many WWII war criminals, including people like Dr. Josef Mengele,
the Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death", who performed genetic experiments on children during
the WWII.
So, after destroying that 'irresponsible democratic process' in Europe (the post-war Western Empire),
many European Nazis that were now loyally serving their new master, were asked to continue with what
they knew how to do best. Therefore they helped to assassinate some 60,000 left-wing South American
men, women and their children, who were guilty of building egalitarian and just societies in their
home countries. Many of these Nazis took part, directly, in Operacion Condor, under the direct supervision
of the United States and Europe.
As Naomi Klein writes in her book, Shock Doctrine:
"Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a campaign of political
repression and terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially
implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program
was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential
opposition movements against the participating governments."
In Chile, German Nazis rolled up their sleeves and went to work directly: by interrogating, liquidating
and savagely torturing members of the democratically elected government and its supporters. They
also performed countless medical experiments on people, at the so-called Colonia Dirnidad, during
the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, whose rule was manufactured and sustained by Dr. Kissinger
and his clique.
But back to Europe: in Greece, after WWII, both the UK and US got heavily involved in the civil
war between the Communists and the extreme right-wing forces.
In 1967, just one month before the elections in which the Greek left-wing was expected to win
democratically (the Indonesian scenario of 1965), the US and its 'Greek colonels' staged a coup,
which marked the beginning of a 7 year savage dictatorship.
What happened in Yugoslavia, some 30 years later is, of course clear. A successful Communist country
could not be allowed to survive, and definitely not in Europe. As bombs fell on Belgrade, many of
those inquisitive and critically thinking people that had any illusions left about the Western regime
and its 'democratic principles', lost them rapidly.
But by then, the majority of Europe already consisted of indoctrinated masses, some of the worst
informed and most monolithic (in their thinking) on earth.
Europe and its voters It is that constantly complaining multitude, which wants more and more
money, and delivers the same and extremely predictable electoral results every four, five or six
years. It lives and votes mechanically. It has totally lost its ability to imagine a different world,
to fight for humanist principles, and even to dream.
It is turning into an extremely scary place, a museum at best, and a cemetery of human vision
at the worst.
***
As Noam Chomsky pointed out:
Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political
arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign
is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's
politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous
amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation
in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations
show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole
where it belongs.
Arundhati Roy, commented in her "Is there life after democracy?"
The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What
happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What
happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now
that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted
imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to
reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?
***
After all that brutality, and spite for people all over the world, the West is now teaching the
planet about democracy. It is lecturing Asians and Africans, people from Middle East and Sub-Continent,
on how to make their countries more 'democratic'. It is actually hard to believe, it should be one
of the most hilarious things on earth, but it is happening, and everyone is silent about it.
Those who are listening without bursting into laughter are actually well paid.
There are seminars; even foreign aid projects related to 'good governance', sponsored by the European
Union, and the United States. The EU is actually much more active in this field. Like the Italian
mafia, it sends covert but unmistakable messages to the world: "You do as we say, or we break your
legs But if you obey, come to us and we will teach you how to be a good aide to Cosa Nostra! And
we will give you some pasta and wine while you are learning."
Because there is plenty of money, so called 'funding' members of the elite, the academia, media
and non-government organizations, from countries that have been plundered by the West – countries
like Indonesia, Philippines, DR Congo, Honduras, or Colombia –send armies of people to get voluntarily
indoctrinated, (sorry, to be 'enlightened') to learn about democracy from the greatest assassins
of genuine 'people's power'; from the West.
Violating democracy is an enormous business. To hush it up is part of that business. To learn
how to be idle and not to intervene against the external forces destroying democracy in your own
country, while pretending to be 'engaged and active', is actually the best business, much better
than building bridges or educating children (from a mercantilist point of view).
Once, at the University of Indonesia where I was invited to speak, a student asked me 'what is
the way forward', to make his country more democratic? I replied, looking at several members of the
professorial staff:
"Demand that your teachers stop going to Europe on fully funded trips. Demand that they stop being
trained in how to brainwash you. Do not go there yourself, to study. Go there to see, to understand
and to learn, but not to study Europe had robbed you of everything. They are still looting your
country. What do you think you will learn there? Do you really think they will teach you how to save
your nation?"
Students began laughing. The professors were fuming. I was never invited back. I am sure that
the professors knew exactly what I was talking about. The students did not. They were thinking that
I made a very good joke. But I was not trying to be funny.
***
As I write these words, the Thai military junta has taken over the country. The West is silent:
the Thai military is an extremely close ally. Democracy at work
And as I write these words, the fascist government in Kiev is chasing, kidnapping and "disappearing"
people in the east and south of Ukraine. By some insane twist of logic, the Western corporate media
is managing to blame Russia. And only a few people are rolling around on the floor, laughing.
As I write these words, a big part of Africa is in flames, totally destroyed by the US, UK, France
and other colonial powers.
Client states like the Philippines are now literally being paid to get antagonistic with China.
Japanese neo-fascist adventurism fully supported by the Unites States can easily trigger WWIII.
So can Western greed and fascist practices in Ukraine.
Democracy! People's power!
If the West had sat on its ass, where it belongs, in Europe and in North America, after WWII,
the world would have hardly any problems now. People like Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddeq, would
have led their nations and continents. They would have communicated with their own people, interacted
with them. They would have built their own styles of 'democracy'.
But all that came from the Bandung Conference of 1955, from the ideals of the Non-Aligned movement,
was ruined and bathed in blood. The true hopes of the people of the world cut to pieces, urinated
on, and then thrown into gutter.
But no more time should be wasted by just analyzing, and by crying over spilt milk. Time to move
on!
The world has been tortured by Europe and the United States, for decades and centuries. It has
been tortured in the name of democracy but it has all been one great lie. The world has been tortured
simply because of greed, and because of racism. Just look back at history. Europe and the United
States have only stopped calling people "niggers", but they do not have any more respect for them
than before. And they are willing, same as before, to sacrifice millions of human lives.
Let us stop worshiping their box, and those meaningless pieces of paper that they want us to stick
in there. There is no power of people in this. Look at the United States itself – where is our democracy?
It is a one-party regime fully controlled by market fundamentalists. Look at our press, and propaganda
Rule of the people by the people, true democracy, can be achieved. We the people had been derailed,
intellectually, so we have not been thinking how, for so many decades.
Now we, many of us, know what is wrong, but we are still not sure what is right.
Let us think and let us search, let us experiment. And also, let us reject their fascism first.
Let them stick their papers wherever they want! Let them pretend that they are not slaves to some
vendors and swindlers. Let them do whatever they want – there, where they belong.
Democracy is more than a box. It is more than a multitude of political parties. It is when people
can truly choose, decide and build a society that they dream about. Democracy is the lack of fear
of having napalm and bombs murdering our dreams. Democracy is when people speak and from those words
grow their own nation. Democracy is when millions of hands join together and from that brilliant
union, new trains begin to run, new schools begin to teach, and new hospitals begin to heal. All
this by the people, for the people! All this created by proud and free humans as gift to all – to
their nation.
Yes, let the slave masters stick their pieces of paper into a box, or somewhere else. They can
call it democracy. Let us call democracy something else – rule of the people, a great exchange of
ideas, of hopes and dreams. Let our taking control over our lives and over our nations be called
'democracy'!
Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered
wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky
On Western Terrorism
is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel
Point
of No Return is now re-edited and available.
Oceania
is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto
Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia
– The Archipelago of Fear". He has just completed the feature documentary, "Rwanda
Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin
America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached
through his website or his
Twitter.
"... This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks. ..."
"... Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime. ..."
"... The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners. ..."
Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away
The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country.
It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late
last year.
Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such
critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.
That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic
warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of
targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.
This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around
their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed
necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country,
don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.
Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking
on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan."
Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable
"guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on?
Don't you know we're under siege?"
Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles
away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This
is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades
and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.
Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially
terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure
them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support
for the regime.
The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue
state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be
no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian
hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists
(as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.
The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign
threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing
their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford
to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments
to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.
Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam,
both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the
ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.
Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued
without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their
propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.
Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had
installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from
the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.
All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond.
Disastrously, it is being unheeded.
Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war
with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular
than ever.
And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security
threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend
for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:
"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to
fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor,
the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.
A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions
and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."
"... Language is important, but it can be slippery. Consider that the phrase, the American Dream, has changed radically through the years. Mr. Trump and Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, have suggested it involves owning a beautiful home and a roaring business, but it wasn't always so. Instead, in the 1930s, it meant freedom, mutual respect and equality of opportunity. It had more to do with morality than material success. ..."
"... This drift in meaning is significant... ..."
"... Survival and security are the bottom 2 levels on Maslow's pyramid. If that's at the top of the wish list it doesn't speak well of the environment where the list is made. I would say most people are aiming for levels 3-5, taking 1-2 for "granted" - but while level 1 (survival) is pretty much assured unless you get sick or are shot by a cop, level 2 is increasingly brittle. ..."
"... In different US locations, I heard my share of "living the dream" in response to "how are you" from retail clerks - which is obviously ironic and shows that people are well aware of it just being a narrative. It also reminds me of a quip in a Dilbert cartoon many years ago - "you only have the right to pursue happiness, not to actually achieve it". ..."
"... And what George Carlin had to say on the topic. ..."
They are ringing words, but what do they mean? Language is important, but it can be
slippery. Consider that the phrase, the American Dream, has changed radically through the
years. Mr. Trump and Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, have suggested it
involves owning a beautiful home and a roaring business, but it wasn't always so. Instead, in
the 1930s, it meant freedom, mutual respect and equality of opportunity. It had more to do with
morality than material success.
Northrop Grumman lays off 51 state workers under contract with VITA
By MICHAEL MARTZ Richmond Times-Dispatch
Jun 16, 2015
... While Northrop Grumman made the decision on the layoffs, VITA informed the affected workers because
they are state employees and placed them on leave through June 30. The state Department of Human
Resources Management assisted the technology agency with the layoffs through its shared services
center.
Affected employees will be offered state severance packages based on years of service, early retirement
options, and "access to outplacement services."...
What you describe in the first sentence is only one of many interpretations. But the (al)lure
of the meme is that the interpretation is open-ended (one could also say "not well defined"; but
isn't that what freedom is about - that the outcome and the way of achieving it are not rigidly
prescribed?).
Survival and security are the bottom 2 levels on Maslow's pyramid. If that's at the top of
the wish list it doesn't speak well of the environment where the list is made. I would say most
people are aiming for levels 3-5, taking 1-2 for "granted" - but while level 1 (survival) is pretty
much assured unless you get sick or are shot by a cop, level 2 is increasingly brittle.
The environment in a Detroit tenement grows a shorter Maslow's pyramid than Santa Clara Valley
suburbs. Central VA is somewhere in between where the highest aspiration of the vast majority
of people is to belong and have the esteem of others. Self-actualization and transcendence are
not even things here save for a rare few strangers in a strange land.
Well, all these terms are subject to interpretation and exist in degrees. Obviously survival is
a strong prerequisite for the higher levels, but one can partially achieve higher levels without
having achieved lower levels fully. At least for a while; or having achieved a lower level may
be illusory (this was my actual point).
I would dispute that "almost everybody" cannot achieve esteem/self-actualization - at least
for a while. How strong/persistent need the achievement be to count?
Then there is even the fundamental issue of knowing whether a level has really been "permanently"
secured. E.g. safety - which can usually only be judged by demonstration of its absence.
No he actually doesn't. It is just a BS phrase/meme, similar to "hard work". It is just signaling that one cares for/appreciates general virtues and the audience's desire
for recognition and happiness. In the case of "hard work", perhaps also with the aspect of pushing
role model narratives.
In different US locations, I heard my share of "living the dream" in response to "how are you"
from retail clerks - which is obviously ironic and shows that people are well aware of it just
being a narrative.
It also reminds me of a quip in a Dilbert cartoon many years ago - "you only have the right
to pursue happiness, not to actually achieve it".
George Monbiot's the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century.
To read Nancy MacLean's new book,
Democracy in Chains : The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, is to
see what was previously invisible.
The history professor's work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted
clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted
archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan.
She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of
dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire
Charles Koch .
Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons
and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf
of the very rich. The programme is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.
Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the
neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises , and the property supremacism of John
C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute
right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges
on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving
masses.
James Buchanan brought these influences together to create what he called
public
choice theory . He argued that a society could not be considered free unless every citizen has
the right to veto its decisions. What he meant by this was that no one should be taxed against their
will. But the rich were being exploited by people who use their votes to demand money that others
have earned, through involuntary taxes to support public spending and welfare. Allowing workers to
form trade unions and imposing graduated income taxes were forms of "differential or discriminatory
legislation" against the owners of capital.
Any clash between "freedom" (allowing the rich to do as they wish) and democracy should be resolved
in favour of freedom. In his book
The Limits of Liberty
, he noted that "despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure
that we observe." Despotism in defence of freedom.
His prescription was a "constitutional revolution": creating irrevocable restraints to limit democratic
choice. Sponsored throughout his working life by wealthy foundations, billionaires and corporations,
he developed a theoretical account of what this constitutional revolution would look like, and a
strategy for implementing it.
He explained how attempts to desegregate schooling in the American south could be frustrated by
setting up a network of state-sponsored private schools. It was he who first proposed privatizing
universities, and imposing full tuition fees on students: his original purpose was to crush student
activism. He urged privatization of social security and many other functions of the state. He sought
to break the links between people and government, and demolish trust in public institutions.
He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy.
In 1980, he was able to put the programme into action. He was invited to
Chile , where he helped the
Pinochet dictatorship write a new constitution, which, partly through the clever devices Buchanan
proposed, has proved impossible to reverse entirely. Amid the torture and killings, he advised the
government to extend programmes of privatisation, austerity, monetary restraint, deregulation and
the destruction of trade unions: a package that helped trigger economic collapse in 1982.
None of this troubled the Swedish Academy, which through his devotee at Stockholm University Assar
Lindbeck in 1986 awarded James Buchanan the
Nobel memorial prize for economics . It is one of several decisions that have turned this prize
toxic.
Koch officials said that the network's midterm budget for policy and politics is between $300m
and $400m, but donors are demanding legislative progress
But his power really began to be felt when Koch, currently the seventh richest man in the US,
decided that Buchanan held the key to the transformation he sought. Koch saw even such ideologues
as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan as "sellouts", as they sought to improve the efficiency of
government
rather
than destroy it altogether . But Buchanan took it all the way.
MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan's work at George Mason University,
whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded thinktanks as they do academic
faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary "cadre" that would implement his
programme (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to
study Lenin's techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop
a programme for changing the rules.
The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators
that "conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential". Instead of revealing their ultimate destination,
they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system,
they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical "reforms".
(The same argument is used by those attacking the NHS). Gradually they would build a "counter-intelligentsia",
allied to a "vast network of political power" that would become the new establishment.
Through the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored, through their
transformation of the Republican party, and the hundreds of millions they have poured into state
congressional and judicial races, through the mass colonisation of Trump's administration
by members of this network and lethally effective campaigns against everything from public health
to action on climate change, it would be fair to say that Buchanan's vision is maturing in the US.
But not just there. Reading this book felt like a demisting of the window through which I see
British politics.
The bonfire of regulations highlighted by the Grenfell Tower disaster, the destruction of state
architecture through austerity, the budgeting rules, the dismantling of public services, tuition
fees and the control of schools: all these measures follow Buchanan's programme to the letter. I
wonder how many people are aware that David Cameron's
free schools project
stands in a tradition designed to hamper racial desegregation in the American south.
In one respect, Buchanan was right: there is an inherent conflict between what he called "economic
freedom" and political liberty. Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution
and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered
only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism
and democracy. You cannot have both.
Buchanan's programme is a prescription for totalitarian capitalism. And his disciples have only
begun to implement it. But at least, thanks to MacLean's discoveries, we can now apprehend the agenda.
One of the first rules of politics is, know your enemy. We're getting there.
"... Consumerism fills the social void. But far from curing the disease of isolation, it intensifies social comparison to the point at which, having consumed all else, we start to prey upon ourselves. Social media brings us together and drives us apart, allowing us precisely to quantify our social standing, and to see that other people have more friends and followers than we do. ..."
"... A recent survey in England suggests that one in four women between 16 and 24 have harmed themselves, and one in eight now suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Anxiety, depression, phobias or obsessive compulsive disorder affect 26% of women in this age group. This is what a public health crisis looks like. ..."
"... Opioids relieve both physical agony and the distress of separation. Perhaps this explains the link between social isolation and drug addiction. ..."
"... Children who experience emotional neglect, according to some findings, suffer worse mental health consequences than children suffering both emotional neglect and physical abuse: hideous as it is, violence involves attention and contact. Self-harm is often used as an attempt to alleviate distress: another indication that physical pain is not as bad as emotional pain. As the prison system knows only too well, one of the most effective forms of torture is solitary confinement. ..."
"... It's unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated with depression, suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat. It's more surprising to discover the range of physical illnesses it causes or exacerbates. Dementia, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses, even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people. Loneliness has a comparable impact on physical health to smoking 15 cigarettes a day: it appears to raise the risk of early death by 26%. This is partly because it enhances production of the stress hormone cortisol, which suppresses the immune system. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a project that explicitly aims, and has achieved, the undermining and elimination of social networks in favour of market competition ..."
"... In practice, loosening social and legal institutions has reduced social security (in the general sense rather than simply welfare payments) and encouraged the limitation of social interaction to money based activity ..."
"... All powerful institutions have a vested interest in keeping us atomized and individualistic. The gangs at the top don't want competition. They're afraid of us. In particular, they're afraid of men organising into gangs. That's where this very paper comes in ..."
"... The alienation genie was out of the bottle with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and mass migration to cities began and we abandoned living in village communities ..."
"... Neoliberalism expressly encourages 'atomisation'- it is all about reducing human interaction to markets. And so this is just one of the reasons that neoliberalism is such a bunk philosophy. ..."
"... My stab at an answer would first question the notion that we are engaging in anything. That presupposes we are making the choices. Those who set out the options are the ones that make the choices. We are being engaged by the grotesquely privileged and the pathologically greedy in an enterprise that profits them still further. It suits the 1% very well strategically, for obvious reasons, that the 99% don't swap too many ideas with each other. ..."
"... According to Robert Putnam, as societies become more ethnically diverse they lose social capital, contributing to the type of isolation and loneliness which George describes. Doesn't sound as evil as neoliberalism I suppose. ..."
"... multiculturalism is a direct result of Neoliberalism. The market rules and people are secondary. Everything must be done for business owners, and that everything means access to cheap labor. ..."
"... I'd have thought what he really wants to say is that loneliness as a phenomenon in modern Western society arises out of an intent on the part of our political and social elites to divide us all into competing against one another, as individuals and as members of groups, all the better to keep us under control and prevent us from working together to claim our fair share of resources. ..."
"... Has it occurred to you that the collapse in societal values has allowed 'neo-liberalism' to take hold? ..."
"... No. It has been the concentrated propaganda of the "free" press. Rupert Murdoch in particular, but many other well-funded organisations working in the background over 50 years. They are winning. ..."
"... We're fixated on a magical, abstract concept called "the economy". Everything must be done to help "the economy", even if this means adults working through their weekends, neglecting their children, neglecting their elderly parents, eating at their desks, getting diabetes, breaking down from stress, and giving up on a family life. ..."
"... You can make a reasonable case that 'Neoliberalism' expects that every interaction, including between individuals, can be reduced to a financial one. ..."
"... As can be seen from many of the posts, neo-liberalism depends on, and fosters, ignorance, an inability to see things from historical and different perspectives and social and intellectual disciplines. On a sociological level how other societies are arranged throws up interesting comparisons. Scandanavian countries, which have mostly avoided neo-liberalism by and large, are happier, healthier places to live. America and eastern countries arranged around neo-liberal, market driven individualism, are unhappy places, riven with mental and physical health problems and many more social problems of violence, crime and suicide. ..."
"... The people who fosted this this system onto us, are now either very old or dead. We're living in the shadow of their revolutionary transformation of our more equitable post-war society. Hayek, Friedman, Keith Joseph, Thatcher, Greenspan and tangentially but very influentially Ayn Rand. Although a remainder (I love the wit of the term 'Remoaner') , Brexit can be better understood in the context of the death-knell of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Criticism of his hypotheses on this thread (where articualted at all) focus on the existence of solitude and loneliness prior to neo liberalism, which seems to me to be to deliberately miss his point: this was formerly a minor phenomenon, yet is now writ on an incredible scale - and it is a social phenomenon particular to those western economies whose elites have most enthusiastically embraced neo liberalism. ..."
"... We all want is to: (and feel we have the right to) wear the best clothes, have the foreign holidays, own the latest tech and eat the finest foods. At the same time our rights have increased and awareness of our responsibilities have minimized. The execution of common sense and an awareness that everything that goes wrong will always be someone else fault. ..."
"... We are not all special snowflakes, princesses or worthy of special treatment, but we act like self absorbed, entitled individuals. Whether that's entitled to benefits, the front of the queue or bumped into first because its our birthday! ..."
"... Unhealthy social interaction, yes. You can never judge what is natural to humans based on contemporary Britain. Anthropologists repeatedly find that what we think natural is merely a social construct created by the system we are subject to. ..."
"... We are becoming fearful of each other and I believe the insecurity we feel plays a part in this. ..."
"... We have become so disconnected from ourselves and focused on battling to stay afloat. Having experienced periods of severe stress due to lack of money I couldn't even begin to think about how I felt, how happy I was, what I really wanted to do with my life. I just had to pay my landlord, pay the bills and try and put some food on my table so everything else was totally neglected. ..."
"... We need a radical change of political thinking to focus on quality of life rather than obsession with the size of our economy. High levels of immigration of people who don't really integrate into their local communities has fractured our country along with the widening gap between rich and poor. Governments only see people in terms of their "economic value" - hence mothers being driven out to work, children driven into daycare and the elderly driven into care homes. Britain is becoming a soulless place - even our great British comedy is on the decline. ..."
"... Quality of life is far more important than GDP I agree but it is also far more important than inequality. ..."
"... Thatcher was only responsible for "letting it go" in Britain in 1980, but actually it was already racing ahead around the world. ..."
"... Eric Fromm made similar arguments to Monbiot about the psychological impact of modern capitalism (Fear of Freedom and The Sane Society) - although the Freudian element is a tad outdated. However, for all the faults of modern society, I'd rather be unhappy now than in say, Victorian England. Similarly, life in the West is preferable to the obvious alternatives. ..."
"... Whilst it's very important to understand how neoliberalism, the ideology that dare not speak it's name, derailed the general progress in the developed world. It's also necessary to understand that the roots this problem go much further back. Not merely to the start of the industrial revolution, but way beyond that. It actually began with the first civilizations when our societies were taken over by powerful rulers, and they essentially started to farm the people they ruled like cattle. On the one hand they declared themselves protector of their people, whilst ruthlessly exploiting them for their own political gain. I use the livestock farming analogy, because that explains what is going on. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism allows psychopaths to flourish, and it has been argued by Robert Hare that they are disproportionately represented in the highest echelons of society. So people who lack empathy and emotional attachment are probably weilding a significant amount of influence over the way our economy and society is organised. Is it any wonder that they advocate an economic model which is most conducive to their success? Things like job security, rigged markets, unions, and higher taxes on the rich simply get in their way. ..."
"... . Data suggests that inequality has widened massively over the last 30 years ( https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/infographic-income-inequality-uk ) - as has social mobility ( https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts ). Homelessness has risen substantially since 1979. ..."
"... As a director and CEO of an organisation employing several hundred people I became aware that 40% of the staff lived alone and that the workplace was important to them not only for work but also for interacting with their colleagues socially . ..."
"... A thoughtful article. But the rich and powerful will ignore it; their doing very well out of neo liberalism thank you. Meanwhile many of those whose lives are affected by it don't want to know - they're happy with their bigger TV screen. Which of course is what the neoliberals want, 'keep the people happy and in the dark'. An old Roman tactic - when things weren't going too well for citizens and they were grumbling the leaders just extended the 'games'. Evidently it did the trick ..."
"... Sounds like the inevitable logical outcome of a society where the predator sociopathic and their scared prey are all that is allowed. This dynamic dualistic tautology, the slavish terrorised to sleep and bullying narcissistic individual, will always join together to protect their sick worldview by pathologising anything that will threaten their hegemony of power abuse: compassion, sensitivity, moral conscience, altruism and the immediate effects of the ruthless social effacement or punishment of the same ie human suffering. ..."
"... "Alienation, in all areas, has reached unprecedented heights; the social machinery for deluding consciousnesses in the interest of the ruling class has been perfected as never before. The media are loaded with upscale advertising identifying sophistication with speciousness. Television, in constant use, obliterates the concept under the image and permanently feeds a baseless credulity for events and history. Against the will of many students, school doesn't develop the highly cultivated critical capacities that a real sovereignty of the people would require. And so on. ..."
"... There's no question - neoliberalism has been wrenching society apart. It's not as if the prime movers of this ideology were unaware of the likely outcome viz. "there is no such thing as society" (Thatcher). Actually in retrospect the whole zeitgeist from the late 70s emphasised the atomised individual separated from the whole. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (1976) may have been influential in creating that climate. ..."
"... I would add that the basic concepts of the Neoliberal New world order are fundamentally Evil, from the control of world population through supporting of strife starvation and war to financial inducements of persons in positions of power. Let us not forget the training of our younger members of our society who have been induced to a slavish love of technology. ..."
"... The kind of personal freedom that you say goes hand in hand with capitalism is an illusion for the majority of people. It holds up the prospect of that kind of freedom, but only a minority get access to it. ..."
"... Problems in society are not solved by having a one hour a week class on "self esteem". In fact self-esteem and self-worth comes from the things you do. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the bastard child of globalization which in effect is Americanization. The basic premise is the individual is totally reliant on the corporate world state aided by a process of fear inducing mechanisms, pharmacology is one of the tools. No community no creativity no free thinking. Poded sealed and cling filmed a quasi existence. ..."
"... Having grown up during the Thatcher years, I entirely agree that neoliberalism has divided society by promoting individual self-optimisation at the expensive of everyone else. ..."
"... There is no such thing as a free-market society. Your society of 'self-interest' is really a state supported oligarchy. If you really want to live in a society where there is literally no state and a more or less open market try Somalia or a Latin American city run by drug lords - but even then there are hierarchies, state involvement, militias. ..."
"... Furthermore, a society in which people are encouraged to be narrowly selfish is just plain uncivilized. Since when have sociopathy and barbarism been something to aspire to? ..."
"... Why don't we explore some of the benefits?.. Following the long list of some the diseases, loneliness can inflict on individuals, there must be a surge in demand for all sort of medications; anti-depressants must be topping the list. There is a host many other anti-stress treatments available of which Big Pharma must be carving the lion's share. Examine the micro-economic impact immediately following a split or divorce. There is an instant doubling on the demand for accommodation, instant doubling on the demand for electrical and household items among many other products and services. But the icing on the cake and what is really most critical for Neoliberalism must be this: With the morale barometer hitting the bottom, people will be less likely to think of a better future, and therefore, less likely to protest. In fact, there is nothing left worth protecting. ..."
"... Your freedom has been curtailed. Your rights are evaporating in front of your eyes. And Best of all, from the authorities' perspective, there is no relationship to defend and there is no family to protect. If you have a job, you want to keep, you must prove your worthiness every day to 'a company'. ..."
What greater indictment of a system could there be than an epidemic of mental
illness? Yet plagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social phobia, eating disorders,
self-harm and loneliness now strike people down all over the world. The latest,
catastrophic figures for children's mental health in England reflect a global
crisis.
There are plenty of secondary reasons for this distress, but it seems to
me that the underlying cause is everywhere the same: human beings, the ultrasocial
mammals, whose brains are wired to respond to other people, are being peeled
apart. Economic and technological change play a major role, but so does ideology.
Though our wellbeing is inextricably linked to the lives of others, everywhere
we are told that we will prosper through competitive self-interest and extreme
individualism.
In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles – at school,
at college, at the bar, in parliament – instruct us to stand on our own two
feet. The education system becomes more brutally competitive by the year. Employment
is a fight to the near-death with a multitude of other desperate people chasing
ever fewer jobs. The modern overseers of the poor ascribe individual blame to
economic circumstance. Endless competitions on television feed impossible aspirations
as real opportunities contract.
Consumerism fills the social void. But far from curing the disease of
isolation, it intensifies social comparison to the point at which, having consumed
all else, we start to prey upon ourselves. Social media brings us together and
drives us apart, allowing us precisely to quantify our social standing, and
to see that other people have more friends and followers than we do.
As Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett has brilliantly documented, girls and young women
routinely alter the photos they post to make themselves look smoother and slimmer.
Some phones, using their "beauty" settings, do it for you without asking; now
you can become your own thinspiration. Welcome to the post-Hobbesian dystopia:
a war of everyone against themselves.
Social media brings us together and drives us apart, allowing us precisely
to quantify our social standing
Is it any wonder, in these lonely inner worlds, in which touching has been
replaced by retouching, that young women are drowning in mental distress?
A recent survey in England suggests that one in four women between 16 and
24 have harmed themselves, and one in eight now suffer from post-traumatic stress
disorder. Anxiety, depression, phobias or obsessive compulsive disorder affect
26% of women in this age group. This is what a public health crisis looks like.
If social rupture is not treated as seriously as broken limbs, it is because
we cannot see it. But neuroscientists can. A series of fascinating papers suggest
that social pain and physical pain are processed by the same neural circuits.
This might explain why, in many languages, it is hard to describe the impact
of breaking social bonds without the words we use to denote physical pain and
injury. In both humans and other social mammals, social contact reduces physical
pain. This is why we hug our children when they hurt themselves: affection is
a powerful analgesic. Opioids relieve both physical agony and the distress
of separation. Perhaps this explains the link between social isolation and drug
addiction.
Experiments summarised in the journal Physiology & Behaviour last month suggest
that, given a choice of physical pain or isolation, social mammals will choose
the former. Capuchin monkeys starved of both food and contact for 22 hours will
rejoin their companions before eating. Children who experience emotional
neglect, according to some findings, suffer worse mental health consequences
than children suffering both emotional neglect and physical abuse: hideous as
it is, violence involves attention and contact. Self-harm is often used as an
attempt to alleviate distress: another indication that physical pain is not
as bad as emotional pain. As the prison system knows only too well, one of the
most effective forms of torture is solitary confinement.
It is not hard to see what the evolutionary reasons for social pain might
be. Survival among social mammals is greatly enhanced when they are strongly
bonded with the rest of the pack. It is the isolated and marginalised animals
that are most likely to be picked off by predators, or to starve. Just as physical
pain protects us from physical injury, emotional pain protects us from social
injury. It drives us to reconnect. But many people find this almost impossible.
It's unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated with depression,
suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat. It's more surprising
to discover the range of physical illnesses it causes or exacerbates. Dementia,
high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses,
even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people. Loneliness has
a comparable impact on physical health to smoking 15 cigarettes a day: it appears
to raise the risk of early death by 26%. This is partly because it enhances
production of the stress hormone cortisol, which suppresses the immune system.
Studies in both animals and humans suggest a reason for comfort eating: isolation
reduces impulse control, leading to obesity. As those at the bottom of the socioeconomic
ladder are the most likely to suffer from loneliness, might this provide one
of the explanations for the strong link between low economic status and obesity?
Anyone can see that something far more important than most of the issues
we fret about has gone wrong. So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming
frenzy of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces
is unbearable pain? Should this question not burn the lips of everyone in public
life?
There are some wonderful charities doing what they can to fight this tide,
some of which I am going to be working with as part of my loneliness project.
But for every person they reach, several others are swept past.
This does not require a policy response. It requires something much bigger:
the reappraisal of an entire worldview. Of all the fantasies human beings entertain,
the idea that we can go it alone is the most absurd and perhaps the most dangerous.
We stand together or we fall apart.
Well its a bit of a stretch blaming neoliberalism for creating loneliness.
Yet it seems to be the fashion today to imagine that the world we live in
is new...only created just years ago. And all the suffering that we see
now never existed before. Plagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social
phobia, eating disorders, self-harm and loneliness never happened in
the past, because everything was bright and shiny and world was good.
Regrettably history teaches us that suffering and deprivation have dogged
mankind for centuries, if not tens of thousands of years. That's what we
do; survive, persist...endure. Blaming 'neoliberalism' is a bit of cop-out.
It's the human condition man, just deal with it.
Some of the connections here are a bit tenuous, to say the least, including
the link to political ideology. Economic liberalism is usually accompanied
with social conservatism, and vice versa. Right wing ideologues are more
likely to emphasize the values of marriage and family stability, while left
wing ones are more likely to favor extremes of personal freedom and reject
those traditional structures that used to bind us together.
You're a little confused there in your connections between policies, intentions
and outcomes. Nevertheless, Neoliberalism is a project that explicitly
aims, and has achieved, the undermining and elimination of social networks
in favour of market competition.
In practice, loosening social and legal institutions has reduced
social security (in the general sense rather than simply welfare payments)
and encouraged the limitation of social interaction to money based activity.
That holds true when you're talking about demographics/voters.
Economic and social liberalism go hand in hand in the West. No matter
who's in power, the establishment pushes both but will do one or the other
covertly.
All powerful institutions have a vested interest in keeping us atomized
and individualistic. The gangs at the top don't want competition. They're
afraid of us. In particular, they're afraid of men organising into gangs.
That's where this very paper comes in.
The alienation genie was out of the bottle with the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution and mass migration to cities began and we abandoned
living in village communities. Over the ensuing approx 250 years we
abandoned geographically close relationships with extended families, especially
post WW2. Underlying economic structures both capitalist and marxist dissolved
relationships that we as communal primates evolved within. Then accelerate
this mess with (anti-) social media the last 20 years along with economic
instability and now dissolution of even the nuclear family (which couldn't
work in the first place, we never evolved to live with just two parents
looking after children) and here we have it: Mass mental illness. Solution?
None. Just form the best type of extended community both within and outside
of family, be engaged and generours with your community hope for the best.
Indeed, Industrialisation of our pre-prescribed lifestyle is a huge factor.
In particular, our food, it's low quality, it's 24 hour avaliability, it's
cardboard box ambivalence, has caused a myriad of health problems. Industrialisation
is about profit for those that own the 'production-line' & much less about
the needs of the recipient.
It's unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated
with depression, suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception
of threat.
Yes, although there is some question of which order things go in. A supportive
social network is clearly helpful, but it's hardly a simple cause and effect.
Levels of different mental health problems appear to differ widely across
societies just in Europe, and it isn't particularly the case that more capitalist
countries have greater incidence than less capitalist ones.
You could just as well blame atheism. Since the rise of neo-liberalism
and drop in church attendance track each other pretty well, and since for
all their ills churches did provide a social support group, why not blame
that?
While attending a church is likely to alleviate loneliness, atheism doesn't
expressly encourage limiting social interactions and selfishness. And of
course, reduced church attendance isn't exactly the same as atheism.
Neoliberalism expressly encourages 'atomisation'- it is all about
reducing human interaction to markets. And so this is just one of the reasons
that neoliberalism is such a bunk philosophy.
So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming frenzy
of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces
is unbearable pain?
My stab at an answer would first question the notion that we
are engaging in anything. That presupposes we are making the
choices. Those who set out the options are the ones that make the choices.
We are being engaged by the grotesquely privileged and the pathologically
greedy in an enterprise that profits them still further. It suits the 1%
very well strategically, for obvious reasons, that the 99% don't swap too
many ideas with each other.
We as individuals are offered the 'choice' of consumption as an alternative
to the devastating ennui engendered by powerlessness. It's no choice at
all of course, because consumption merely enriches the 1% and exacerbates
our powerlessness. That was the whole point of my post.
The 'choice' to consume is never collectively exercised as you suggest.
Sadly. If it was, 'we' might be able to organise ourselves into doing something
about it.
According to Robert Putnam, as societies become more ethnically diverse
they lose social capital, contributing to the type of isolation and loneliness
which George describes. Doesn't sound as evil as neoliberalism I suppose.
Disagree. Im British but have had more foreign friends than British. The
UK middle class tend to be boring insular social status obsessed drones.other
nationalities have this too, but far less so
Well, yes, but multiculturalism is a direct result of Neoliberalism.
The market rules and people are secondary. Everything must be done for business
owners, and that everything means access to cheap labor.
Multiculturalism isn't the only thing destroying social cohesion, too.
It was being destroyed long before the recent surges of immigrants. It was
reported many times in the 1980's in communities made up of only one culture.
In many ways, it is being used as the obvious distraction from all the other
ways Fundamentalist Free Marketers wreck live for many.
This post perhaps ranges too widely to the point of being vague and general,
and leading Monbiot to make some huge mental leaps, linking loneliness to
a range of mental and physical problems without being able to explain, for
example, the link between loneliness and obesity and all the steps in-between
without risking derailment into a side issue.
I'd have thought what he really wants to say is that loneliness as
a phenomenon in modern Western society arises out of an intent on the part
of our political and social elites to divide us all into competing against
one another, as individuals and as members of groups, all the better to
keep us under control and prevent us from working together to claim our
fair share of resources.
Are you familiar with the term 'Laughter is the best medicine'? Well, it's
true. When you laugh, your brain releases endorphins, yeah? Your stress
hormones are reduced and the oxygen supply to your blood is increased, so...
I try to laugh several times a day just because... it makes you feel
good! Let's try that, eh? Ohohoo... Hahaha... Just, just... Hahahaha...
Come on, trust me.. you'll feel.. HahaHAhaha! O-o-o-o-a-hahahahaa... Share
No. It has been the concentrated propaganda of the "free" press. Rupert
Murdoch in particular, but many other well-funded organisations working
in the background over 50 years. They are winning.
We're fixated on a magical, abstract concept called "the economy".
Everything must be done to help "the economy", even if this means adults
working through their weekends, neglecting their children, neglecting their
elderly parents, eating at their desks, getting diabetes, breaking down
from stress, and giving up on a family life.
Impertinent managers ban their staff from office relationships, as company
policy, because the company is more important than its staff's wellbeing.
Companies hand out "free" phones that allow managers to harrass staff
for work out of hours, on the understanding that they will be sidelined
if thy don't respond.
And the wellbeing of "the economy" is of course far more important than
whether the British people actually want to merge into a European superstate.
What they want is irrelevant.
That nasty little scumbag George Osborne was the apotheosis of this ideology,
but he was abetted by journalists who report any rise in GDP as "good" -
no matter how it was obtained - and any "recession" to be the equivalent
of a major natural disaster.
If we go on this way, the people who suffer the most will be the rich,
because it will be them swinging from the lamp-posts, or cowering in gated
communities that they dare not leave (Venezuela, South Africa). Those riots
in London five years ago were a warning. History is littered with them.
You can make a reasonable case that 'Neoliberalism' expects that every
interaction, including between individuals, can be reduced to a financial
one. If this results in loneliness then that's certainly a downside
- but the upside is that billions have been lifted out of absolute poverty
worldwide by 'Neoliberalism'.
Mr Monbiot creates a compelling argument that we should end 'Neoliberalism'
but he is very vague about what should replace it other than a 'different
worldview'. Destruction is easy, but creation is far harder.
As a retired teacher it grieves me greatly to see the way our education
service has become obsessed by testing and assessment. Sadly the results
are used not so much to help children learn and develop, but rather as a
club to beat schools and teachers with. Pressurised schools produce pressurised
children. Compare and contrast with education in Finland where young people
are not formally assessed until they are 17 years old. We now assess toddlers
in nursery schools.
SATs in Primary schools had children concentrating on obscure grammatical
terms and usage which they will never ever use again. Pointless and counter-productive.
Gradgrind values driving out the joy of learning.
And promoting anxiety and mental health problems.
It is all the things you describe, Mr Monbiot, and then some. This dystopian
hell, when anything that did work is broken and all things that have never
worked are lined up for a little tinkering around the edges until the camouflage
is good enough to kid people it is something new. It isn't just neoliberal
madness that has created this, it is selfish human nature that has made
it possible, corporate fascism that has hammered it into shape. and an army
of mercenaries who prefer the take home pay to morality. Crime has always
paid especially when governments are the crooks exercising the law.
The value of life has long been forgotten as now the only thing that
matters is how much you can be screwed for either dead or alive. And yet
the Trumps, the Clintons, the Camerons, the Johnsons, the Merkels, the Mays,
the news media, the banks, the whole crooked lot of them, all seem to believe
there is something worth fighting for in what they have created, when painfully
there is not. We need revolution and we need it to be lead by those who
still believe all humanity must be humble, sincere, selfless and most of
all morally sincere. Freedom, justice, and equality for all, because the
alternative is nothing at all.
Ive long considered neo-liberalism as the cause of many of our problems,
particularly the rise in mental health problems, alienation and loneliness.
As can be seen from many of the posts, neo-liberalism depends on, and
fosters, ignorance, an inability to see things from historical and different
perspectives and social and intellectual disciplines. On a sociological
level how other societies are arranged throws up interesting comparisons. Scandanavian countries, which have mostly avoided neo-liberalism by and
large, are happier, healthier places to live. America and eastern countries
arranged around neo-liberal, market driven individualism, are unhappy places,
riven with mental and physical health problems and many more social problems
of violence, crime and suicide.
The worst thing is that the evidence shows it doesn't work. Not one of
the privatisations in this country have worked. All have been worse than
what they've replaced, all have cost more, depleted the treasury and led
to massive homelessness, increased mental health problems with the inevitable
financial and social costs, costs which are never acknowledged by its adherents.
Put crudely, the more " I'm alright, fuck you " attitude is fostered,
the worse societies are. Empires have crashed and burned under similar attitudes.
The people who fosted this this system onto us, are now either very old
or dead.
We're living in the shadow of their revolutionary transformation of our
more equitable post-war society. Hayek, Friedman, Keith Joseph, Thatcher,
Greenspan and tangentially but very influentially Ayn Rand.
Although a remainder (I love the wit of the term 'Remoaner') , Brexit can
be better understood in the context of the death-knell of neoliberalism.
I never understood how the collapse of world finance, resulted in a right
wing resurgence in the UK and the US. The Tea Party in the US made the absurd
claim that the failure of global finance was not due to markets being fallible,
but because free markets had not been enforced citing Fanny Mae and Freddie
Mac as their evidence and of Bill Clinton insisting on more poor and black
people being given mortgages.
I have a terrible sense that it will not go quietly, there will be massive
global upheavals as governments struggle deal with its collapse.
I have never really agreed with GM - but this article hits the nail on the
head.
I think there are a number of aspects to this:
The internet. The being in constant contact, our lives mapped and
our thoughts analysed - we can comment on anything (whether informed or
total drivel) and we've been fed the lie that our opinion is is right and
that it matters) Ive removed fscebook and twitter from my phone, i have
never been happier
Rolling 24 hour news. That is obsessed with the now, and consistently
squeezes very complex issues into bite sized simple dichotomies. Obsessed
with results and critical in turn of everyone who fails to feed the machine
The increasing slicing of work into tighter and slimmer specialisms,
with no holistic view of the whole, this forces a box ticking culture. "Ive
stamped my stamp, my work is done" this leads to a lack of ownership of
the whole. PIP assessments are an almost perfect example of this - a box
ticking exercise, designed by someone who'll never have to go through it,
with no flexibility to put the answers into a holistic context.
Our education system is designed to pass exams and not prepare for
the future or the world of work - the only important aspect being the compilation
of next years league tables and the schools standings. This culture is neither
healthy no helpful, as students are schooled on exam technique in order
to squeeze out the marks - without putting the knowledge into a meaningful
and understandable narrative.
Apologies for the long post - I normally limit myself to a trite insulting
comment :) but felt more was required in this instance.
Overall, I agree with your points. Monbiot here adopts a blunderbuss approach
(competitive self-interest and extreme individualism; "brutal" education,
employment social security; consumerism, social media and vanity). Criticism
of his hypotheses on this thread (where articualted at all) focus on the
existence of solitude and loneliness prior to neo liberalism, which seems
to me to be to deliberately miss his point: this was formerly a minor phenomenon,
yet is now writ on an incredible scale - and it is a social phenomenon particular
to those western economies whose elites have most enthusiastically embraced
neo liberalism. So, when Monbiot's rhetoric rises:
"So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming frenzy
of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces
is unbearable pain?"
the answer is, of course, 'western capitalist elites'.
We stand together or we fall apart.
Hackneyed and unoriginal but still true for all that.
the answer is, of course, 'western capitalist elites'.
because of the lies that are being sold.
We all want is to: (and feel we have the right to) wear the best clothes,
have the foreign holidays, own the latest tech and eat the finest foods.
At the same time our rights have increased and awareness of our responsibilities
have minimized. The execution of common sense and an awareness that everything
that goes wrong will always be someone else fault.
We are not all special snowflakes, princesses or worthy of special treatment,
but we act like self absorbed, entitled individuals. Whether that's entitled
to benefits, the front of the queue or bumped into first because its our
birthday!
I share Monbiots pain here. But rather than get a sense of perspective
- the answer is often "More public money and counseling"
George Monbiot has struck a nerve.
They are there every day in my small town local park: people, young and
old, gender and ethnically diverse, siting on benches for a couple of hours
at a time.
They have at least one thing in common.
They each sit alone, isolated in their own thoughts..
But many share another bond: they usually respond to dogs, unconditional
in their behaviour patterns towards humankind.
Trite as it may seem, this temporary thread of canine affection breaks the
taboo of strangers
passing by on the other side.
Conversations, sometimes stilted, sometimes deeper and more meaningful,
ensue as dog walkers become a brief daily healing force in a fractured world
of loneliness.
It's not much credit in the bank of sociability.
But it helps.
Trite as it may seem from the outside, their interaction with the myriad
pooches regularly walk
Unhealthy social interaction, yes. You can never judge what is natural to
humans based on contemporary Britain. Anthropologists repeatedly find that
what we think natural is merely a social construct created by the system
we are subject to.
If you don't work hard, you will be a loser, don't look out of the window
day dreaming you lazy slacker. Get productive, Mr Burns millions need you
to work like a machine or be replaced by one.
Good article. You´re absoluately right. And the deeper casue is this: separation
from God. If we don´t fight our way back to God, individually and collectively,
things are going to get a lot worse. With God, loneliness doesn´t exist.
I encourage anyone and everyone to start talking to Him today and invite
Him into your heart and watch what starts to happen.
Religion divides not brings people together. Only when you embrace all humanity
and ignore all gods will you find true happiness. The world and the people
in it are far more inspiring when you contemplate the lack of any gods.
The fact people do amazing things without needing the promise of heaven
or the threat of hell - that is truly moving.
I see what you're saying but I read 'love' instead of God. God is too religious
which separates and divides ("I'm this religion and my god is better than
yours" etc etc). I believe that George is right in many ways in that money
is very powerful on it's impact on our behavior (stress, lack etc) and
therefore our lives. We are becoming fearful of each other and I believe
the insecurity we feel plays a part in this.
We have become so disconnected
from ourselves and focused on battling to stay afloat. Having experienced
periods of severe stress due to lack of money I couldn't even begin to think
about how I felt, how happy I was, what I really wanted to do with my life.
I just had to pay my landlord, pay the bills and try and put some food on
my table so everything else was totally neglected.
When I moved house to
move in with family and wasn't expected to pay rent, though I offered, all
that dissatisfaction and undealt with stuff came spilling out and I realised
I'd had no time for any real safe care above the very basics and that was
not a good place to be. I put myself into therapy for a while and started
to look after myself and things started to change. I hope to never go back
to that kind of position but things are precarious financially and the field
I work in isn't well paid but it makes me very happy which I realise now
is more important.
Neo-liberalism has a lot to answer for in bringing misery to our lives and
accelerating the demise of the planet but I find it not guilty on this one. The current trends as to how people perceive themselves (what you've
got rather than who you are) and the increasing isolation in our cities
started way before the neo-liberals. It is getting worse though and on balance social media is making us more
connected but less social. Share
The way that the left keeps banging on about neoliberalism is half of what
makes them such a tough sell electorally. Just about nobody knows what neoliberalism
is, and literally nobody self identifies as a neoliberal. So all this moaning
and wailing about neoliberalism comes across as a self absorbed, abstract
and irrelevant. I expect there is the germ of an idea in there, but until
the left can find away to present that idea without the baffling layer of
jargon and over-analysis, they're going to remain at a disadvantage to the
easy populism of the right.
Interesting article. We have heard so much about the size of our economy
but less about our quality of life. The UK quality of life is way below
the size of our economy i.e. economy size 6th largest in the world but quality
of life 15th. If we were the 10th largest economy but were 10th for quality
of life we would be better off than we are now in real terms.
We need a
radical change of political thinking to focus on quality of life rather
than obsession with the size of our economy. High levels of immigration
of people who don't really integrate into their local communities has fractured
our country along with the widening gap between rich and poor. Governments
only see people in terms of their "economic value" - hence mothers being
driven out to work, children driven into daycare and the elderly driven
into care homes. Britain is becoming a soulless place - even our great British
comedy is on the decline.
Interesting. 'It is the isolated and marginalised animals that are most
likely to be picked off by predators....' so perhaps the species is developing
its own predators to fill a vacated niche.
(Not questioning the comparison to other mammals at all as I think it
is valid but you would have to consider the whole rather than cherry pick
bits)
Generation snowflake. "I'll do myself in if you take away my tablet and
mobile phone for half an hour".
They don't want to go out and meet people anymore. Nightclubs for instance,
are closing because the younger generation 'don't see the point' of going
out to meet people they would otherwise never meet, because they can meet
people on the internet. Leave them to it and the repercussions of it.....
Socialism is dying on its feet in the UK, hence the Tory's 17 point lead
at the mo. The lefties are clinging to whatever influence they have to sway
the masses instead of the ballot box. Good riddance to them.
17 point lead? Dying on it's feet? The neo-liberals are showing their disconnect
from reality. If anything, neo-liberalism is driving a people to the left
in search of a fairer and more equal society.
George Moniot's articles are better thought out, researched and written
than the vast majority of the usual clickbait opinion pieces found on the
Guardian these days. One of the last journalists, rather than liberal arts
blogger vying for attention.
Neoliberalism's rap sheet is long and dangerous but this toxic philosophy
will continue unabated because most people can't join the dots and work
out how detrimental it has proven to be for most of us.
It dangles a carrot in order to create certain economic illusions but
the simple fact is neoliberal societies become more unequal the longer they
persist.
Neoliberal economies allow people to build huge global businesses very quickly
and will continue to give the winners more but they also can guve everyone
else more too but just at a slower rate. Socialism on the other hand mires
everyone in stagnant poverty. Question is do you want to be absolutely or
relatively better off.
You have no idea. Do not confuse capitalism with neoliberalism. Neoliberalism
is a political ideology based on a mythical version of capitalism that doesn't
actually exist, but is a nice way to get the deluded to vote for something
that doesn't work in their interest at all.
And things will get worse as society falls apart due to globalisation, uberization,
lack of respect for authority, lacks of a fair tax and justice system, crime,
immorality, loss of trust of politicians and financial and corporate sectors,
uncontrolled immigration bringing with it insecurity and the risk of terrorism
and a dumbing down of society with increasing inequality. All this is in
a new book " The World at a Crossroads" which deals with the major issues
facing the planet.
What, like endless war, unaffordable property, monstrous university fees,
zero hours contracts and a food bank on every corner, and that's before
we even get to the explosion in mental distress.
There's nothing spurious or obscure about Neoliberalism. It is simply the
political ideology of the rich, which has been our uninterrupted governing
ideology since Reagan and Thatcher: Privatisation, deregulation, 'liberalisation'
of housing, labour, etc, trickledown / low-tax-on-the-rich economics, de-unionization.
You only don't see it if you don't want to see it.
I'm just thinking what is wonderful about societies that are big of social
unity. And conformity.
Those societies for example where you "belong" to your family. Where
teenage girls can be married off to elderly uncles to cement that belonging.
Or those societies where the belonging comes through religious centres.
Where the ostracism for "deviant" behaviour like being gay or for women
not submitting to their husbands can be brutal. And I'm not just talking
about muslims here.
Or those societies that are big on patriotism. Yep they are usually good
for mental health as the young men are given lessons in how to kill as many
other men as possible efficiently.
And then I have to think how our years of "neo-liberal" governments have
taken ideas of social liberalisation and enshrined them in law. It may be
coincidence but thirty years after Thatcher and Reagan we are far more tolerant
of homosexuality and willing to give it space to live, conversely we are
far less tolerant of racism and are willing to prosecute racist violence.
Feminists may still moan about equality but the position of women in society
has never been better, rape inside marriage has (finally) been outlawed,
sexual violence generally is no longer condoned except by a few, work opportunities
have been widened and the woman's role is no longer just home and family.
At least that is the case in "neo-liberal" societies, it isn't necessarily
the case in other societies.
So unless you think loneliness is some weird Stockholm Syndrome thing
where your sense of belonging comes from your acceptance of a stifling role
in a structured soiety, then I think blaming the heightened respect for
the individual that liberal societies have for loneliness is way off the
mark.
What strikes me about the cases you cite above, George, is not an over-respect
for the individual but another example of individuals being shoe-horned
into a structure. It strikes me it is not individualism but competition
that is causing the unhappiness. Competition to achieve an impossible ideal.
I fear George, that you are not approaching this with a properly open
mind dedicated to investigation. I think you have your conclusion and you
are going to bend the evidence to fit. That is wrong and I for one will
not support that. In recent weeks and months we have had the "woe, woe and
thrice woe" writings. Now we need to take a hard look at our findings. We
need to take out the biases resulting from greater awareness of mental health
and better and fuller diagnosis of mental health issues. We need to balance
the bias resulting from the fact we really only have hard data for modern
Western societies. And above all we need to scotch any bias resulting from
the political worldview of the researchers.
It sounded to me that he was telling us of farm labouring and factory fodder
stock that if we'd 'known our place' and kept to it ,all would be well because
in his ideal society there WILL be or end up having a hierarchy, its inevitable.
Wasn't all this started by someone who said, "There is no such thing as
Society"? The ultimate irony is that the ideology that championed the individual
and did so much to dismantle the industrial and social fabric of the Country
has resulted in a system which is almost totalitarian in its disregard for
its ideological consequences.
Thatcher said it in the sense that society is not abstract it is just other
people so when you say society needs to change then people need to change
as society is not some independent concept it is an aggregation of all us.
The left mis quote this all the time and either they don't get it or they
are doing on purpose.
No, Neoliberalism has been around since 1938.... Thatcher was only responsible
for "letting it go" in Britain in 1980, but actually it was already racing
ahead around the world.
Furthermore, it could easily be argued that the Beatles helped create
loneliness - what do you think all those girls were screaming for? And also
it could be argued that the Beatles were bringing in neoliberalism in the
1960s, via America thanks to Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis etc.. Share
Great article, although surely you could've extended the blame to capitalism
has a whole?
In what, then, consists the alienation of labor? First, in the fact
that labor is external to the worker, i.e., that it does not belong
to his nature, that therefore he does not realize himself in his work,
that he denies himself in it, that he does not feel at ease in it, but
rather unhappy, that he does not develop any free physical or mental
energy, but rather mortifies his flesh and ruins his spirit. The worker,
therefore, is only himself when he does not work, and in his work he
feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and
when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor, therefore, is
not voluntary, but forced--forced labor. It is not the gratification
of a need, but only a means to gratify needs outside itself. Its alien
nature shows itself clearly by the fact that work is shunned like the
plague as soon as no physical or other kind of coercion exists.
Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
We have created a society with both flaws and highlights- and we have unwittingly
allowed the economic system to extend into our lives in negative ways.
On of the things being modern brings is movement- we move away from communities,
breaking friendships and losing support networks, and the support networks
are the ones that allow us to cope with issues, problems and anxiety.
Isolation among the youth is disturbing, it is also un natural, perhaps
it is social media, or fear of parents, or the fall in extra school activities
or parents simply not having a network of friends because they have had
to move for work or housing.
There is some upsides, I talk and get support from different international
communities through the social media that can also be so harmful- I chat
on xbox games, exchange information on green building forums, arts forums,
share on youtube as well as be part of online communities that hold events
in the real world.
Increasingly we seem to need to document our lives on social media to somehow
prove we 'exist'. We seem far more narcissistic these days, which tends
to create a particular type of unhappiness, or at least desire that can
never be fulfilled. Maybe that's the secret of modern consumer-based capitalism.
To be happy today, it probably helps to be shallow, or avoid things like
Twitter and Facebook!
Eric Fromm made similar arguments to Monbiot about the psychological
impact of modern capitalism (Fear of Freedom and The Sane Society) - although
the Freudian element is a tad outdated. However, for all the faults of modern
society, I'd rather be unhappy now than in say, Victorian England. Similarly,
life in the West is preferable to the obvious alternatives.
Thanks George for commenting in such a public way on the unsayable: consume,
consume, consume seems to be the order of the day in our modern world and
the points you have highlighted should be part of public policy everywhere.
I'm old enough to remember when we had more time for each other; when
mothers could be full-time housewives; when evenings existed (evenings now
seem to be spent working or getting home from work). We are undoubtedly
more materialistic, which leads to more time spent working, although our
modern problems are probably not due to increasing materialism alone.
Regarding divorce and separation, I notice people in my wider circle
who are very open to affairs. They seem to lack the self-discipline to concentrate
on problems in their marriage and to give their full-time partner a high
level of devotion. Terrible problems come up in marriages but if you are
completely and unconditionally committed to your partner and your marriage
then you can get through the majority of them.
Aggressive self interest is turning in on itself. Unfortunately the powerful
who have realised their 'Will to Power' are corrupted by their own inflated
sense of self and thus blinded. Does this all predict a global violent revolution?
However, what is most interesting is how nearly all modern politicians
who peddle neoliberal doctrine or policy, refuse to use the name, or even
to openly state what ideology they are in fact following.
I suppose it is just a complete coincidence that the policy so many governments
are now following so closely follow known neoliberal doctrine. But of course
the clever and unpleasant strategy of those like yourself is to cry conspiracy
theory if this ideology, which dare not speak its name is mentioned.
Your style is tiresome. You make no specific supported criticisms again,
and again. You just make false assertions and engage in unpleasant ad homs
and attempted character assassination. You do not address the evidence for
what George Monbiot states at all.
An excellent article. One wonders exactly what one needs to say in order
to penetrate the reptilian skulls of those who run the system.
As an addition to Mr Monbiot's points, I would like to point out that
it is not only competitive self-interest and extreme individualism that
drives loneliness. Any system that has strict hierarchies and mechanisms
of social inclusion also drives it, because such systems inhibit strongly
spontaneous social interaction, in which people simply strike up conversation.
Thailand has such a system. Despite her promoting herself as the land of
smiles, I have found the people here to be deeply segregated and unfriendly.
I have lived here for 17 years. The last time I had a satisfactory face-to-face
conversation, one that went beyond saying hello to cashiers at checkout
counters or conducting official business, was in 1999. I have survived by
convincing myself that I have dialogues with my books; as I delve more deeply
into the texts, the authors say something different to me, to which I can
then respond in my mind.
Epidemics of mental illness are crushing the minds and bodies of
millions. It's time to ask where we are heading and why
I want to quote the sub headline, because "It's time to ask where we are
heading and why", is the important bit. George's excellent and scathing
evidence based criticism of the consequences of neoliberalism is on the
nail. However, we need to ask how we got to this stage. Despite it's name
neoliberalism doesn't really seem to contain any new ideas, and in some
way it's more about Thatcher's beloved return to Victorian values. Most
of what George Monbiot highlights encapsulatec Victorian thinking, the sort
of workhouse mentality.
Whilst it's very important to understand how neoliberalism, the ideology
that dare not speak it's name, derailed the general progress in the developed
world. It's also necessary to understand that the roots this problem go
much further back. Not merely to the start of the industrial revolution,
but way beyond that. It actually began with the first civilizations when
our societies were taken over by powerful rulers, and they essentially started
to farm the people they ruled like cattle. On the one hand they declared
themselves protector of their people, whilst ruthlessly exploiting them
for their own political gain. I use the livestock farming analogy, because
that explains what is going on.
To domesticate livestock, and to make them pliable and easy to work with
the farmer must make himself appear to these herd animals as if they are
their protector, the person who cares for them, nourishes and feeds them.
They become reliant on their apparent benefactor. Except of course this
is a deceitful relationship, because the farmer is just fattening them up
to be eaten.
For the powerful to exploit the rest of people in society for their own
benefit they had to learn how to conceal what they were really doing, and
to wrap it in justifications to bamboozle the people they were exploiting
for their own benefit. They did this by altering our language and inserting
ideas in our culture which justified their rule, and the positions of the
rest of us.
Before state religions, generally what was revered was the Earth, the
natural world. It was on a personal level, and not controlled by the powerful.
So the powerful needed to remove that personal meaningfulness from people's
lives, and said the only thing which was really meaningful, was the religion,
which of course they controlled and were usually the head of. Over generations
people were indoctrinated in a completely new way of thinking, and a language
manipulated so all people could see was the supposed divine right of kings
to rule. Through this language people were detached from what was personally
meaningful to them, and could only find meaningfulness by pleasing their
rulers, and being indoctrinated in their religion.
If you control the language people use, you can control how perceive
the world, and can express themselves.
By stripping language of meaningful terms which people can express themselves,
and filling it full of dubious concepts such as god, the right of kings
completely altered how people saw the world, how they thought. This is why
over the ages, and in different forms the powerful have always attempted
to have full control of our language through at first religion and their
proclamations, and then eventually by them controlling our education system
and the media.
The idea of language being used to control how people see the world,
and how they think is of course not my idea. George Orwell's Newspeak idea
explored in "1984" is very much about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
This control of language is well known throughout history. Often conquerors
would abolish languages of those they conquered. In the so called New World
the colonists eventually tried to control how indigenous people thought
by forcibly sending their children to boarding school, to be stripped of
their culture, their native language, and to be inculcated in the language
and ideas of their colonists. In Britain various attempts were made to banish
the Welsh language, the native language of the Britons, before the Anglo-Saxons
and the Normans took over.
However, what Orwell did not deal with properly is the origin of language
style. To Orwell, and to critics of neoliberalism, the problems can be traced
back to the rise of what they criticised. To a sort of mythical golden age.
Except all the roots of what is being criticised can be found in the period
before the invention of these doctrines. So you have to go right back to
the beginning, to understand how it all began.
Neoliberalism would never have been possible without this long control
of our language and ideas by the powerful. It prevents us thinking outside
the box, about what the problem really is, and how it all began.
All very well but you are talking about ruthlessness of western elites,
mostly British, not all.
It was not like that everywhere. Take Poland for example, and around
there..
New research is emerging - and I'd recommend reading of prof Frost from
St Andrew's Uni - that lower classes were actually treated with respect
by elites there, mainly land owners and aristocracy who more looked after
them and employed and cases of such ruthlessness as you describe were unknown
of.
So that 'truth' about attitudes to lower classes is not universal!
It's spouted by many on here as the root of all evil.
I'd be interested to see how many different definitions I get in
response...
The reason I call neoliberalism the ideology which dare not speak it's name
is that in public you will rarely hear it mentioned by it's proponents.
However, it was a very important part of Thatcherism, Blairism, and so on.
What is most definite is that these politicians and others are most definitely
following some doctrine. Their ideas about what we must do and how we must
do it are arbitrary, but they make it sound as if it's the only way to do
things.
However, as I hint, the main problem in dealing with neoliberalism is
that none of the proponents of this doctrine admit to what ideology they
are actually following. Yet very clearly around the world leaders in many
countries are clearly singing from the same hymn sheet because the policy
they implement is so similar. Something has definitely changed. All the
attempts to roll back welfare, benefits, and public services is most definitely
new, or they wouldn't be having to reverse policy of the past if nothing
had change. But as all these politicians implementing this policy all seem
to refuse to explain what doctrine they are following, it makes it difficult
to pin down what is happening. Yet we can most definitely say that there
is a clear doctrine at work, because why else would so many political leaders
around the world be trying to implement such similar policy.
Neo-liberalism doesn't really exist except in the minds of the far
left and perhaps a few academics.
Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that
transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public
sector. ... Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic
development.
I believe the term 'Neo liberalism' was coined by those well known 'Lefties'The
Chicago School .
If you don't believe that any of the above has been happening ,it does beg
the question as to where you have been for the past decade.
The ironies of modern civilization - we have never been more 'connected'
to other people on global level and less 'connected' on personal level.
We have never had access to such a wide range of information and opinions,
but also for a long time been so divided into conflicting groups, reading
and accessing in fact only that which reinforces what we already think.
Sir Harry Burns, ex-Chief Medical Officer in Scotland talks very powerfully
about the impact of loneliness and isolation on physical and mental health
- here is a video of a recent talk by him -
http://www.befs.org.uk/calendar/48/164-BEFS-Annual-Lecture
These issues have been a long time coming, just think of the appeals of
the 60's to chill out and love everyone. Globalisation and neo-liberalism
has simply made society even more broken.
The way these problems have been ignored and made worse over the last few
decades make me think that the solution will only happen after a massive
catastrophe and society has to be rebuilt. Unless we make the same mistakes
again.
A shame really, you would think intelligence would be useful but it seems
not.
I would argue that it creates a bubble of existence for those who pursue
a path of "success" that instead turns to isolation . The amount of people
that I have met who have moved to London because to them it represents the
main location for everything . I get to see so many walking cliches of people
trying to fit in or stand out but also fitting in just the same .
The real disconnect that software is providing us with is truly staggering
. I have spoken to people from all over the World who seem to feel more
at home being alone and playing a game with strangers . The ones who are
most happy are those who seem to be living all aloe and the ones who try
and play while a girlfriend or family are present always seemed to be the
ones most agitated by them .
We are humans relying on simplistic algorithms that reduce us ,apps like
Tinder which turns us into a misogynist at the click of a button .
Facebook which highlights our connections with the other people and assumes
that everyone you know or have met is of the same relevance .
We also have Twitter which is the equivalent of screaming at a television
when you are drunk or angry .
We have Instagram where people revel in their own isolation and send
updates of it . All those products that are instantly updated and yet we
are ageing and always feeling like we are grouped together by simple algorithms
.
Television has been the main destroyer of social bonds since the 1950s and
yet it is only mentioned once and in relation to the number of competitions
on it, which completely misses the point. That's when I stopped taking this
article seriously.
I actually blame Marx for neoliberalism. He framed society purely in terms
economic, and persuaded that ideology is valuable in as much as it is actionable.
For a dialectician he was incredibly short sighted and superficial, not
realising he was creating a narrative inimical to personal expression and
simple thoughtfulness (although he was warned). To be fair, he can't have
appreciated how profoundly he would change the way we concieve societies.
Neoliberalism is simply the dark side of Marxism and subsumes the personal
just as comprehensively as communism.
We're picked apart by quantification and live as particulars, suffering
the ubiquitous consequences of connectivity alone . . .
Unless, of course, you get out there and meet great people!
Neo-liberalism allows psychopaths to flourish, and it has been argued by
Robert Hare that they are disproportionately represented in the highest
echelons of society. So people who lack empathy and emotional attachment
are probably weilding a significant amount of influence over the way our
economy and society is organised. Is it any wonder that they advocate an
economic model which is most conducive to their success? Things like job
security, rigged markets, unions, and higher taxes on the rich simply get
in their way.
That fine illustration by Andrzej Krauze up there is exactly what I see
whenever I walk into an upscale mall or any Temple of Consumerism.
You can hear the Temple calling out: "Feel bad, atomized individuals?
Have a hole inside? Feel lonely? That's all right: buy some shit you don't
need and I guarantee you'll feel better."
And then it says: "So you bought it and you felt better for five minutes,
and now you feel bad again? Well, that's not rocket science...you should
buy MORE shit you don't need! I mean, it's not rocket science, you should
have figured this out on your own."
And then it says: "Still feel bad and you have run out of money? Well,
that's okay, just get it on credit, or take out a loan, or mortgage your
house. I mean, it's not rocket science. Really, you should have figured
this out on your own already...I thought you were a modern, go-get-'em,
independent, initiative-seizing citizen of the world?"
And then it says: "Took out too many loans, can't pay the bills and
the repossession has begun? Honestly, that's not my problem. You're just
a bad little consumer, and a bad little liberal, and everything is your
own fault. You go sit in a dark corner now where you don't bother the other
shoppers. Honestly, you're just being a burden on other consumers now. I'm
not saying you should kill yourself, but I can't say that we would mind
either."
And that's how the worms turn at the Temples of Consumerism and Neoliberalism.
I kept my sanity by not becoming a spineless obedient middle class pleaser
of a sociopathic greedy tribe pretending neoliberalism is the future.
The result is a great clarity about the game, and an intact empathy for
all beings.
The middle class treated each conscious "outsider" like a lowlife,
and now they play the helpless victims of circumstances.
I know why I renounced to my privileges.
They sleepwalk into their self created disorder.
And yes, I am very angry at those who wasted decades with their social stupidity,
those who crawled back after a start of change into their petit bourgeois
niche.
I knew that each therapist has to take a stand and that the most choose
petty careers.
Do not expect much sanity from them for your disorientated kids.
Get insightful yourself and share your leftover love to them.
Try honesty and having guts...that might help both of you.
Alternatively, neo-liberalism has enabled us to afford to live alone (entire
families were forced to live together for economic reasons), and technology
enables us to work remotely, with no need for interaction with other people.
This may make some people feel lonely, but for many others its utopia.
Some of the things that characterise Globalisation and Neoliberalism are
open borders and free movement. How can that contribute to isolation? That
is more likely to be fostered by Protectionism.
And there aren't fewer jobs. Employment is at record highs here and in many
other countries. There are different jobs, not fewer, and to be sure there
are some demographics that have lost out. But overall there are not fewer
jobs. That falls for the old "lump of labour" fallacy.
The corrosive state of mass television indoctrination sums it up: Apprentice,
Big Brother, Dragon's Den. By degrees, the standard keeps lowering. It is
no longer unusual for a licence funded TV programme to consist of a group
of the mentally deranged competing to be the biggest asshole in the room.
Anomie is a by-product of cultural decline as much as economics.
Our whole culture is more stressful. Jobs are more precarious; employment
rights more stacked in favor of the employer; workforces are deunionised;
leisure time is on the decrease; rents are unaffordable; a house is no longer
a realistic expectation for millions of young people. Overall, citizens
are more socially immobile and working harder for poorer real wages than
they were in the late 70's.
Unfortunately, sexual abuse has always been a feature of human societies.
However there is no evidence to suggest it was any worse in the past. Then
sexual abuse largely took place in institutional settings were at least
it could be potentially addressed. Now much of it has migrated to the great
neoliberal experiment of the internet, where child exploitation is at endemic
levels and completely beyond the control of law enforcement agencies. There
are now more women and children being sexually trafficked than there were
slaves at the height of the slave trade. Moreover, we should not forget
that Jimmy Saville was abusing prolifically right into the noughties.
My parents were both born in 1948. They say it was great. They bought
a South London house for next to nothing and never had to worry about getting
a job. When they did get a job it was one with rights, a promise of a generous
pension, a humane workplace environment, lunch breaks and an ethos of public
service. My mum says that the way women are talked about now is worse.
Sounds fine to me. That's not to say everything was great: racism was
acceptable (though surely the vile views pumped out onto social media are
as bad or worse than anything that existed then), homosexuality was illegal
and capital punishment enforced until the 1960's. However, the fact that
these things were reformed showed society was moving in the right direction.
Now we are going backwards, back to 1930's levels or inequality and a reactionary,
small-minded political culture fueled by loneliness, rage and misery.
And there is little evidence to suggest that anyone has expanded their mind
with the internet. A lot of people use it to look at porn, post racist tirades
on Facebook, send rape threats, distributes sexual images of partners with
their permission, take endless photographs of themselves and whip up support
for demagogues. In my view it would much better if people went to a library
than lurked in corporate echo chambers pumping out the like of 'why dont
theese imagrantz go back home and all those lezbo fems can fuckk off too
ha ha megalolz ;). Seriously mind expanding stuff. Share
As a director and CEO of an organisation employing several hundred people
I became aware that 40% of the staff lived alone and that the workplace
was important to them not only for work but also for interacting with their
colleagues socially . This was encouraged and the organisation achieved
an excellent record in retaining staff at a time when recruitment was difficult.
Performance levels were also extremely high . I particulalry remember with
gratitude the solidarity of staff when one of our colleagues - a haemophiliac
- contracted aids through an infected blood transfusion and died bravely
but painfully - the staff all supported him in every way possible through
his ordeal and it was a privilege for me to work with such kind and caring
people .
Indeed. Those communities are often undervalued. However, the problem is,
as George says, lots of people are excluded from them.
They are also highly self-selecting (e.g. you need certain trains of
inclusivity, social adeptness, empathy, communication, education etc to
get the job that allows you to join that community).
Certainly I make it a priority in my life. I do create communities. I
do make an effort to stand by people who live like me. I can be a leader
there.
Sometimes I wish more people would be. It is a sustained, long-term effort.
Share
To add to this discussion, we might consider the strongest need and conflict
each of us experiences as a teenager, the need to be part of a tribe vs
the the conflict inherent in recognising one's uniqueness. In a child's
life from about 7 or 8 until adolescence, friends matter the most. Then
the young person realises his or her difference from everyone else and has
to grasp what this means.
Those of us who enjoyed a reasonably healthy upbringing will get through
the peer group / individuation stage with happiness possible either way
- alone or in friendship. Our parents and teachers will have fostered a
pride in our own talents and our choice of where to socialise will be flexible
and non-destructive.
Those of us who at some stage missed that kind of warmth and acceptance
in childhood can easily stagnate. Possibly this is the most awkward of personal
developmental leaps. The person neither knows nor feels comfortable with
themselves, all that faces them is an abyss.
Where creative purpose and strength of spirit are lacking, other humans
can instinctively sense it and some recoil from it, hardly knowing what
it's about. Vulnerabilities attendant on this state include relationships
holding out some kind of ersatz rescue, including those offered by superficial
therapists, religions, and drugs, legal and illegal.
Experience taught that apart from the work we might do with someone deeply
compassionate helping us where our parents failed, the natural world
is a reliable healer. A kind of self-acceptance and individuation is
possible away from human bustle. One effect of the seasons and of being
outdoors amongst other life forms is to challenge us physically, into present
time, where our senses start to work acutely and our observational skills
get honed, becoming more vibrant than they could at any educational establishment.
This is one reason we have to look after the Earth, whether it's in a
city context or a rural one. Our mental, emotional and physical health is
known to be directly affected by it.
A thoughtful article. But the rich and powerful will ignore it; their doing
very well out of neo liberalism thank you. Meanwhile many of those whose
lives are affected by it don't want to know - they're happy with their bigger
TV screen. Which of course is what the neoliberals want, 'keep the people
happy and in the dark'. An old Roman tactic - when things weren't
going too well for citizens and they were grumbling the leaders just
extended the 'games'. Evidently it did the trick
The rich and powerful can be just as lonely as you and me. However, some
of them will be lonely after having royally forked the rest of us over...and
that is another thing
- Fight Club
People need a tribe to feel purpose. We need conflict, it's essential for
our species... psychological health improved in New York after 9/11.
Totally agree with the last sentences. Human civilisation is a team effort.
Individual humans cant survive, our language evolved to aid cooperation.
Neo-liberalism is really only an Anglo-American project. Yet we are so
indoctrinated in it, It seems natural to us, but not to hardly any other
cultures.
As for those "secondary factors. Look to advertising and the loss of
real jobs forcing more of us to sell services dependent on fake needs. Share
It's importance for social cohesion -- yes inspite of the problems , can
not be overestimated .Don't let the rich drive it out , people who don't
understand ,or care what it's for .The poorer boroughs cannot afford it
.K&C have easily 1/2billion in Capital Reserves ,so yes they must continue
. Here I can assure you ,one often sees the old and lonely get a hug .If
drug gangs are hitting each other or their rich boy customers with violence
- that is a different matter . And yes of course if we don't do something
to help boys from ethnic minorities ,with education and housing -of course
it only becomes more expensive in the long run.
Boris Johnson has idiotically mouthed off about trying to mobilise people
to stand outside the Russian Embassy , as if one can mobilise youth by telling
them to tidy their bedroom .Because that's all it amounts to - because you
have to FEEL protest and dissent . Well here at Carnival - there it is ,protest
and dissent . Now listen to it . And of course it will be far easier than
getting any response from sticking your tongue out at the Putin monster --
He has his bombs , just as Kensington and Chelsea have their money.
(and anyway it's only another Boris diversion ,like building some fucking
stupid bridge ,instead of doing anything useful)
"Society" or at least organized society is the enemy of corporate power.
The idea of Neoliberal capitalism is to replace civil society with corporate
law and rule. The same was true of the less extreme forms of capitalism.
Society is the enemy of capital because it put restrictions on it and threatens
its power.
When society organizes itself and makes laws to protect society from
the harmful effects of capitalism, for example demands on testing drugs
to be sure they are safe, this is a big expense to Pfizer, there are many
examples - just now in the news banning sugary drinks. If so much as a small
group of parents forming a day care co-op decide to ban coca cola from their
group that is a loss of profit.
That is really what is going on, loneliness is a big part of human life,
everyone feels it sometimes, under Neoliberal capitalism it is simply more
exaggerated due to the out and out assault on society itself.
Well the prevailing Global Capitalist world view is still a combination
1. homocentric Cartesian Dualism i.e. seeing humans as most important and
sod all other living beings, and seeing humans as separate from all other
living beings and other humans and 2. Darwinian "survival of the fittest"
seeing everything as a competition and people as "winners and losers, weak
or strong with winners and the strong being most important". From these
2 combined views all kinds of "games" arise. The main one being the game
of "victim, rescuer, persecutor" (Transactional Analysis). The Guardian
engages in this most of the time and although I welcome the truth in this
article to some degree, surprisingly, as George is environmentally friendly,
it kinda still is talking as if humans are most important and as if those
in control (the winners) need to change their world view to save the victims.
I think the world view needs to zoom out to a perspective that recognises
that everything is interdependent and that the apparent winners and the
strong are as much victims of their limited world view as those who are
manifesting the effects of it more obviously.
Here in America, we have reached the point at which police routinely dispatch
the mentally ill, while complaining that "we don't have the time for this"
(N. Carolina). When a policeman refuses to kill a troubled citizen, he or
she can and will be fired from his job (West Virginia). This has become
not merely commonplace, but actually a part of the social function of the
work of the police -- to remove from society the burden of caring for the
mentally ill by killing them. In the state where I live, a state trooper
shot dead a mentally ill man who was not only unarmed, but sitting on the
toilet in his own home. The resulting "investigation" exculpated the trooper,
of course; in fact, young people are constantly told to look up to the police.
Sounds like the inevitable logical outcome of a society where the predator
sociopathic and their scared prey are all that is allowed.
This dynamic dualistic tautology, the slavish terrorised to sleep and bullying
narcissistic individual, will always join together to protect their sick
worldview by pathologising anything that will threaten their hegemony of
power abuse: compassion, sensitivity, moral conscience, altruism and the
immediate effects of the ruthless social effacement or punishment of the
same ie human suffering.
The impact of increasing alienation on individual mental health has been
known about and discussed for a long time.
When looking at a way forward, the following article is interesting:
"Alienation, in all areas, has reached unprecedented heights; the social
machinery for deluding consciousnesses in the interest of the ruling class
has been perfected as never before. The media are loaded with upscale advertising
identifying sophistication with speciousness. Television, in constant use,
obliterates the concept under the image and permanently feeds a baseless
credulity for events and history. Against the will of many students, school
doesn't develop the highly cultivated critical capacities that a real sovereignty
of the people would require. And so on.
The ordinary citizen thus lives
in an incredibly deceiving reality. Perhaps this explains the tremendous
and persistent gap between the burgeoning of motives to struggle, and the
paucity of actual combatants. The contrary would be a miracle. Thus the
considerable importance of what I call the struggle for representation:
at every moment, in every area, to expose the deception and bring to light,
in the simplicity of form which only real theoretical penetration makes
possible, the processes in which the false-appearances, real and imagined,
originate, and this way, to form the vigilant consciousness, placing our
image of reality back on its feet and reopening paths to action."
For the global epidemic of abusive, effacing homogenisation of human intellectual
exchange and violent hyper-sexualisation of all culture, I blame the US
Freudian PR guru Edward Bernays and his puritan forebears - alot.
Thanks for proving that Anomie is a far more sensible theory than Dialectical
Materialistic claptrap that was used back in the 80s to terrorize the millions
of serfs living under the Jack boot of Leninist Iron curtain.
There's no question - neoliberalism has been wrenching society apart.
It's not as if the prime movers of this ideology were unaware of the likely
outcome viz. "there is no such thing as society" (Thatcher). Actually in
retrospect the whole zeitgeist from the late 70s emphasised the atomised
individual separated from the whole. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (1976)
may have been influential in creating that climate.
Anyway, the wheel has turned thank goodness. We are becoming wiser and
understanding that "ecology" doesn't just refer to our relationship with
the natural world but also, closer to home, our relationship with each other.
The Communist manifesto makes the same complaint in 1848. The wheel has
not turned, it is still grinding down workers after 150 years. We are none
the wiser.
"The wheel is turning and you can't slow down,
You can't let go and you can't hold on,
You can't go back and you can't stand still,
If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will."
R Hunter
What is loneliness? I love my own company and I love walking in nature and
listening to relaxation music off you tube and reading books from the library.
That is all free. When I fancied a change of scene, I volunteered at my
local art gallery.
Mental health issues are not all down to loneliness. Indeed, other people
can be a massive stress factor, whether it is a narcissistic parent, a bullying
spouse or sibling, or an unreasonable boss at work.
I'm on the internet far too much and often feel the need to detox from
it and get back to a more natural life, away from technology. The 24/7 news
culture and selfie obsessed society is a lot to blame for social disconnect.
The current economic climate is also to blame, if housing and job security
are a problem for individuals as money worries are a huge factor of stress.
The idea of not having any goal for the future can trigger depressive thoughts.
I have to say, I've been happier since I don't have such unrealistic
expectations of what 'success is'. I rarely get that foreign holiday or
new wardrobe of clothes and my mobile phone is archaic. The pressure that
society puts on us to have all these things- and get in debt for them is
not good. The obsession with economic growth at all costs is also stupid,
as the numbers don't necessarily mean better wealth, health or happiness.
Very fine article, as usual from George, until right at the end he says:
This does not require a policy response.
But it does. It requires abandonment of neoliberalism as the means used
to run the world. People talk about the dangers of man made computers usurping
their makers but mankind has, it seems, already allowed itself to become
enslaved. This has not been achieved by physical dependence upon machines
but by intellectual enslavement to an ideology.
A very good "Opinion" by George Monbiot one of the best I have seen on this
Guardian blog page.
I would add that the basic concepts of the Neoliberal New world order are
fundamentally Evil, from the control of world population through supporting
of strife starvation and war to financial inducements of persons in positions
of power. Let us not forget the training of our younger members of our society
who have been induced to a slavish love of technology. Many other areas
of human life are also under attack from the Neoliberal, even the very air
we breathe, and the earth we stand upon.
The Amish have understood for 300 years that technology could have a negative
effect on society and decided to limit its effects. I greatly admire their
approach. Neal Stephenson's recent novel Seveneves coined the term Amistics
for the practice of assessing and limiting the impact of tech. We need a
Minister for Amistics in the government. Wired magazine did two features
on the Amish use of telephones which are quite insightful.
If we go back to 1848, we also find Marx and Engels, in the Communist
Manifesto, complaining about the way that the first free-market capitalism
(the original liberalism) was destroying communities and families by forcing
workers to move to where the factories were being built, and by forcing
women and children into (very) low paid work. 150 years later, after many
generations of this, combined with the destruction of work in the North,
the result is widespread mental illness. But a few people are really rich
now, so that's all right, eh?
Social media is ersatz community. It's like eating grass: filling, but
not nourishing.
Young people are greatly harmed by not being able to see a clear path forward
in the world. For most people, our basic needs are a secure job, somewhere
secure and affordable to live, and a decent social environment in terms
of public services and facilities. Unfortunately, all these things are sliding
further out of reach for young people in the UK, and they know this. Many
already live with insecure housing where their family could have to move
at a month or two's notice.
Our whole economic system needs to be built around providing these basic
securities for people. Neoliberalism = insecure jobs, insecure housing and
poor public services, because these are the end result of its extreme free
market ideology.
I agree with this 100%. Social isolation makes us unhappy. We have a false
sense of what makes us unhappy - that success or wealth will enlighten or
liberate us. What makes us happy is social connection. Good friendships,
good relationships, being part of community that you contribute to. Go to
some of the poorest countries in the world and you may meet happy people
there, tell them about life in rich countries, and say that some people
there are unhappy. They won't believe you. We do need to change our worldview,
because misery is a real problem in many countries.
It is tempting to see the world before Thatcherism, which is what most English
writers mean when they talk about neo-liberalism, as an idyll, but it simply
wasn't.
The great difficulty with capitalism is that while it is in many ways
an amoral doctrine, it goes hand in hand with personal freedom. Socialism
is moral in its concern for the poorest, but then it places limits on personal
freedom and choice. That's the price people pay for the emphasis on community,
rather than the individual.
Close communities can be a bar on personal freedom and have little tolerance
for people who deviate from the norm. In doing that, they can entrench loneliness.
This happened, and to some extent is still happening, in the working
class communities which we typically describe as 'being destroyed by Thatcher'.
It's happening in close-knit Muslim communities now.
I'm not attempting to vindicate Thatcherism, I'm just saying there's
a pay-off with any model of society. George Monbiot's concerns are actually
part of a long tradition - Oliver Goldsmith's Deserted Village (1770) chimes
with his thinking, as does DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover.
The kind of personal freedom that you say goes hand in hand with capitalism
is an illusion for the majority of people. It holds up the prospect of that
kind of freedom, but only a minority get access to it. For most, it is necessary
to submit yourself to a form of being yoked, in terms of the daily grind
which places limits on what you can then do, as the latter depends hugely
on money. The idea that most people are "free" to buy the house they want,
private education, etc., not to mention whether they can afford the many
other things they are told will make them happy, is a very bad joke. Hunter-gatherers
have more real freedom than we do. Share
According to Wiki: 'Neoliberalism refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence
of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.
These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization,
fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government
spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.'
We grow into fear - the stress of exams and their certain meanings; the
lower wages, longer hours, and fewer rights at work; the certainty of debt
with ever greater mortgages; the terror of benefit cuts combined with rent
increases.
If we're forever afraid, we'll cling to whatever life raft presents.
It's a demeaning way to live, but it serves the Market better than having
a free, reasonably paid, secure workforce, broadly educated and properly
housed, with rights.
Insightful analysis... George quite rightly pinpoints the isolating effects of modern society
and technology and the impact on the quality of our relationships. The obvious question is how can we offset these trends and does the government
care enough to do anything about them?
It strikes me that one of the major problems is that [young] people have
been left to their own devices in terms of their consumption of messages
from Social and Mass online Media - analogous to leaving your kids in front
of a video in lieu of a parental care or a babysitter. In traditional society
- the messages provided by Society were filtered by family contact and real
peer interaction - and a clear picture of the limited value of the media
was propogated by teachers and clerics. Now young and older people alike
are left to make their own judgments and we cannot be surprised when they
extract negative messages around body image, wealth and social expectations
and social and sexual norms from these channels. It's inevitable that this
will create a boundary free landscape where insecurity, self-loathing and
ultimately mental illness will prosper.
I'm not a traditionalist in any way but there has to be a role for teachers
and parents in mediating these messages and presenting the context for analysing
what is being said in a healthy way. I think this kind of Personal Esteem
and Life Skills education should be part of the core curriculum in all schools.
Our continued focus on basic academic skills just does not prepare young
people for the real world of judgementalism, superficiality and cliques
and if anything dealing with these issues are core life skills.
We can't reverse the fact that media and modern society is changing but
we can prepare people for the impact which it can have on their lives.
A politician's answer.
X is a problem. Someone else, in your comment it will be teachers that have
to sort it out. Problems in society are not solved by having a one hour
a week class on "self esteem". In fact self-esteem and self-worth comes
from the things you do. Taking kids away from their academic/cultural studies
reduces this. This is a problem in society. What can society as a
whole do to solve it and what are YOU prepared to contribute.
Rather difficult to do when their parents are Thatchers children and buy
into the whole celebrity, you are what you own lifestyle too....and teachers
are far too busy filling out all the paperwork that shows they've met their
targets to find time to teach a person centred course on self-esteem to
a class of 30 teenagers.
I think we should just continue to be selfish and self-serving, sneering
and despising anyone less fortunate than ourselves, look up to and try to
emulate the shallow, vacuous lifestyle of the non-entity celebrity, consume
the Earth's natural resources whilst poisoning the planet and the people,
destroy any non-contributing indigenous peoples and finally set off all
our nuclear arsenals in a smug-faced global firework display to demonstrate
our high level of intelligence and humanity. Surely, that's what we all
want? Who cares? So let's just carry on with business as usual!
Neoliberalism is the bastard child of globalization which in effect is Americanization.
The basic premise is the individual is totally reliant on the corporate
world state aided by a process of fear inducing mechanisms, pharmacology
is one of the tools.
No community no creativity no free thinking. Poded sealed and cling filmed
a quasi existence.
Having grown up during the Thatcher years, I entirely agree that neoliberalism
has divided society by promoting individual self-optimisation at the expensive
of everyone else.
What's the solution? Well if neoliberalism is the root cause, we need
a systematic change, which is a problem considering there is no alternative
right now. We can however, get active in rebuilding communities and I am
encouraged by George Monbiot's work here.
My approach is to get out and join organizations working toward system
change. 350.org is a good example. Get involved.
we live in a narcissistic and ego driven world that dehumanises everyone.
we have an individual and collective crisis of the soul. it is our false
perception of ourselves that creates a disconnection from who we really
are that causes loneliness.
I agree. This article explains why it is a perfectly normal reaction to
the world we are currently living in. It goes as far as to suggest that
if you do not feel depressed at the state of our world there's something
wrong with you ;-) http://upliftconnect.com/mutiny-of-the-soul/
Surely there is a more straightforward possible explanation for increasing
incidence of "unhapiness"?
Quite simply, a century of gradually increasing general living standards
in the West have lifted the masses up Maslows higiene hierarchy of needs,
to where the masses now have largely only the unfulfilled self esteem needs
that used to be the preserve of a small, middle class minority (rather than
the unfulfilled survival, security and social needs of previous generations)
If so - this is good. This is progress. We just need to get them up another
rung to self fulfillment (the current concern of the flourishing upper middle
classes).
Maslow's hierarchy of needs was not about material goods. One could be poor
and still fulfill all his criteria and be fully realised. You have missed
the point entirely.
Error.... Who mentioned material goods? I think you have not so much "missed
the point" as "made your own one up" .
And while agreed that you could, in theory, be poor and meet all of your
needs (in fact the very point of the analysis is that money, of itself,
isn't what people "need") the reality of the structure of a western capitalist
society means that a certain level of affluence is almost certainly a prerequisite
for meeting most of those needs simply because food and shelter at the bottom
end and, say, education and training at the top end of self fulfillment
all have to be purchased. Share
Also note that just because a majority of people are now so far up the
hierarchy
does in no way negate an argument that corporations haven't also noticed
this and target advertising appropriately to exploit it (and maybe we need
to talk about that)
It just means that it's lazy thinking to presume we are in some way "sliding
backwards" socially, rather than needing to just keep pushing through this
adversity through to the summit.
I have to admit it does really stick in my craw a bit hearing millenials
moan about how they may never get to *own* a really *nice* house while their
grandparents are still alive who didn't even get the right to finish school
and had to share a bed with their siblings.
There is no such thing as a free-market society. Your society of 'self-interest'
is really a state supported oligarchy. If you really want to live in a society
where there is literally no state and a more or less open market try Somalia
or a Latin American city run by drug lords - but even then there are hierarchies,
state involvement, militias.
What you are arguing for is a system (for that is what it is) that demands
everyone compete with one another. It is not free, or liberal, or democratic,
or libertarian. It is designed to oppress, control, exploit and degrade
human beings. This kind of corporatism in which everyone is supposed to
serve the God of the market is, ironically, quite Stalinist. Furthermore,
a society in which people are encouraged to be narrowly selfish is just
plain uncivilized. Since when have sociopathy and barbarism been something
to aspire to?
George, you are right, of course. The burning question, however, is not
'Is our current social set-up making us ill' (it certainly is), but 'Is
there a healthier alternative?' What form of society would make us less
ill? Socialism and egalatarianism, wherever they are tried, tend to lead
to their own set of mental-illness-inducing problems, chiefly to do with
thwarted opportunity, inability to thrive, and constraints on individual
freedom. The sharing, caring society is no more the answer than the brutally
individualistic one. You may argue that what is needed is a balance between
the two, but that is broadly what we have already. It ain't perfect, but
it's a lot better than any of the alternatives.
We certainly do NOT at present have a balance between the two societies...Have
you not read the article? Corporations and big business have far too much
power and control over our lives and our Gov't. The gov't does not legislate
for a real living minimum wage and expects the taxpayer to fund corporations
low wage businesses. The Minimum wage and benefit payments are sucked in
to ever increasing basic living costs leaving nothing for the human soul
aside from more work to keep body and soul together, and all the while the
underlying message being pumped at us is that we are failures if we do not
have wealth and all the accoutrements that go with it....How does that create
a healthy society?
Neoliberalism. A simple word but it does a great deal of work for people
like Monbiot.
The simple statistical data on quality of life differences between generations
is absolutely nowhere to be found in this article, nor are self-reported
findings on whether people today are happier, just as happy or less happy
than people thirty years ago. In reality quality of life and happiness indices
have generally been increasing ever since they were introduced.
It's more difficult to know if things like suicide, depression and mental
illness are actually increasing or whether it's more to do with the fact
that the number of people who are prepared to report them is increasing:
at least some of the rise in their numbers will be down to greater awareness
of said mental illness, government campaigns and a decline in associated
social stigma.
Either way, what evidence there is here isn't even sufficient to establish
that we are going through some vast mental health crisis in the first place,
never mind that said crisis is inextricably bound up with 'neoliberalism'.
Furthermore, I'm inherently suspicious of articles that manage to connect
every modern ill to the author's own political bugbear, especially if they
cherry-pick statistical findings to support their point. I'd be just as,
if not more, suspicious if it was a conservative author trying to link the
same ills to the decline in Christianity or similar. In fact, this article
reminds me very much of the sweeping claims made by right-wingers about
the allegedly destructive effects of secularism/atheism/homosexuality/video
games/South Park/The Great British Bake Off/etc...
If you're an author and you have a pet theory, and upon researching an
article you believe you see a pattern in the evidence that points towards
further confirmation of that theory, then you should step back and think
about whether said pattern is just a bit too psychologically convenient
and ideologically simple to be true. This is why people like Steven Pinker
- properly rigorous, scientifically versed writer-researchers - do the work
they do in systematically sifting through the sociological and historical
data: because your mind is often actively trying to convince you to believe
that neoliberalism causes suicide and depression, or, if you're a similarly
intellectually lazy right-winger, homosexuality leads to gang violence and
the flooding of(bafflingly, overwhelmingly heterosexual) parts of America.
I see no sign that Monbiot is interested in testing his belief in his
central claim and as a result this article is essentially worthless except
as an example of a certain kind of political rhetoric.
social isolation is strongly associated with depression, suicide,
anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat .... Dementia,
high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses,
even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people.
Loneliness has a comparable impact on physical health to smoking
15 cigarettes a day:
it appears to raise the risk of early death by 26%
Why don't we explore some of the benefits?.. Following the long
list of some the diseases, loneliness can inflict on individuals, there
must be a surge in demand for all sort of medications; anti-depressants
must be topping the list. There is a host many other anti-stress treatments
available of which Big Pharma must be carving the lion's share. Examine
the micro-economic impact immediately following a split or divorce. There
is an instant doubling on the demand for accommodation, instant doubling
on the demand for electrical and household items among many other products
and services. But the icing on the cake and what is really most critical
for Neoliberalism must be this: With the morale barometer hitting
the bottom, people will be less likely to think of a better future, and
therefore, less likely to protest. In fact, there is nothing left worth
protecting.
Your freedom has been curtailed. Your rights are evaporating in front
of your eyes. And Best of all, from the authorities' perspective, there
is no relationship to defend and there is no family to protect. If you have
a job, you want to keep, you must prove your worthiness every day to 'a
company'.
This is a weak and way too long article. That demonstrated inability to think in scientific terms such neoliberalism,
neocolonialism and end of cheap oil. Intead it quckly deteriorated into muchy propaganda. But it touches on legacy of Troskyst
Burnham, who was one of God fathers of neoliberalism.
Zelikov is the guy who whitewashed 9/11. This neocon does not use the term neoliberalism even once but he writes like
a real neoliberal Trotskyite.
Notable quotes:
"... The Managerial State ..."
"... Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet
he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated
admiration." ..."
"... Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham
was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster. ..."
"... Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie
partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice." ..."
"... Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept
is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong
all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted." ..."
"... "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all." ..."
"... Nineteen Eighty-Four. ..."
"... By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the
capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became
one of the original editors of the National Review ..."
"... Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism ..."
"... What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values"
of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. ..."
"... Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record
in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our ..."
"... "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no
matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes." ..."
My first prophet was a man named James Burnham. In 1941 Burnham was 35 years old. From a wealthy family -- railroad
money -- he was a star student at Princeton, then on to Balliol College, Oxford. Burnham was an avowed Communist. He joined
with Trotsky during the 1930s.
By 1941, Burnham had moved on, as he published his first great book of prophecy, called The Managerial State
. The book made him a celebrity. It was widely discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.
Burnham's vision of the future is one where the old ideologies, like socialism, have been left behind. The rulers are
really beyond all that. They are the managerial elite, the technocrats, the scientists, and the bureaucrats who manage
the all-powerful enterprises and agencies.
You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias.
You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.
It's a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine
themselves and their future.
In this and other writings, Burnham held up Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as the pure exemplars of these
emerging managerial states. They were showing the way to the future. By comparison, FDR's New Deal was a primitive version.
And he thought it would lose.
Burnham's views were not so unusual among the leading thinkers of the 1940s, like Joseph Schumpeter or Karl Polanyi.
All were pessimistic about the future of free societies, including Friedrich Hayek, who really believed that once-free
countries were on the "road to serfdom." But Burnham took the logic further.
Just after the second world war ended, my other prophet decided to answer Burnham. You know him as George Orwell.
Eric Blair, who used George Orwell as his pen name, was about Burnham's age. Their backgrounds were very different.
Orwell was English. Poor. Orwell's lungs were pretty rotten and he would not live long. Orwell was a democratic socialist
who came to loathe Soviet communism. He had volunteered to fight in Spain, was shot through the throat. Didn't stop his
writing.
Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet
he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of
fascinated admiration."
Orwell
wrote : For Burnham, "Communism may be wicked, but at any rate it is big: it is a terrible, all-devouring
monster which one fights against but which one cannot help admiring." To Orwell, Burnham's mystical picture of "terrifying,
irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement." irresistible power" amounted to "an act
of homage, and even of self-abasement."
Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham
was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster.
Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie
partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice."
Orwell thought that "power worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that
present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept
is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is
wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted."
Finally, Orwell thought Burnham overestimated the resilience of the managerial state model and underestimated the qualities
of open and civilized societies. Burnham's vision
did not allow enough play for "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to
hold together at all."
Having written these critical essays, Orwell then tried to make his case against Burnham in another way. This anti-Burnham
argument became a novel -- the novel called Nineteen Eighty-Four.
That book came out in 1949. Orwell died the next year.
By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the
capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham
became one of the original editors of the National Review and a major conservative commentator. In 1983, President
Reagan awarded Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Not that Burnham's core vision had changed. In 1964, he published another book of prophecy. This was entitled Suicide
of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism . The Soviet Union and its allies had the will to power.
Liberalism and its defenders did not. "The primary issue before Western civilization today, and before its member nations,
is survival." (Sound familiar?)
And it was liberalism, Burnham argued, with its self-criticism and lack of commitment, that would pull our civilization
down from within. Suicide.
So was Burnham wrong? Was Orwell right? This is a first-class historical question. Burnham's ideal of the "managerial
state" is so alive today.
State the questions another way: Do open societies really work better than closed ones? Is a more open and civilized
world really safer and better for Americans? If we think yes, then what is the best way to prove that point?
My answer comes in three parts. The first is about how to express our core values. American leaders tend to describe
their global aims as the promotion of the right values. Notice that these are values in how other countries are governed.
President Obama's
call for an "international order of laws and institutions," had the objective of winning a clash of domestic
governance models around the world. This clash he called: "authoritarianism versus liberalism."
Yet look at how many values
he felt "liberalism" had to include. For Obama the "road of true democracy," included a commitment to "liberty, equality,
justice, and fairness" and curbing the "excesses of capitalism."
What about our current president?
Last month
he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom
and sovereignty. "
A week later, two of his chief aides, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster,
doubled
down on the theme that America was promoting, with its friends, the values that "drive progress throughout the world."
They too had a laundry list. They omitted "sovereignty." But then, narrowing the list only to the "most important," they
listed: "[T]he dignity of every person equality of women innovation freedom of speech and of religion and free and fair
markets."
By contrast, the anti-liberal core values seem simple. The anti-liberals are for authority and against
anarchy and disorder. And they are for community and against the subversive, disruptive outsider.
There are of course many ways to define a "community" -- including tribal, religious, political, or professional. It
is a source of identity, of common norms of behavior, of shared ways of life.
Devotees of freedom and liberalism do not dwell as much on "community." Except to urge that everybody be included,
and treated fairly.
But beliefs about "community" have always been vital to human societies. In many ways, the last 200 years have been
battles about how local communities try to adapt or fight back against growing global pressures -- especially economic
and cultural, but often political and even military.
So much of the divide between anti-liberals or liberals is cultural. Little has to do with "policy" preferences. Mass
politics are defined around magnetic poles of cultural attraction. If Americans engage this culture war on a global scale,
I plead for modesty and simplicity. As few words as possible, as fundamental as possible.
Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record
in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our government does.
Also, until the late 19th century, "democracy" was never at the core of liberal thinking. Liberal thinkers were very
interested in the design of republics. But classical liberal thinkers, including many of the American founders, always
had a troubled relationship with democracy. There were always two issues.
First, liberals were devoted, above all, to liberty of thought and reason. Pace Tom Paine, the people were
often regarded as intolerant, ill-informed, and superstitious -- unreliable judges of scientific truth, historical facts,
moral duty, and legal disputes. The other problem is that democracy used to be considered a synonym for mob rule. Elections
can be a supreme check on tyranny. But sometimes the people have exalted their dictators and have not cared overmuch about
the rule of law. It therefore still puzzles me: Why is there so much debate about which people are "ready for democracy"?
Few of the old theorists thought any people were ready for such a thing.
It was thought, though, that any civilized people might be persuaded to reject tyranny. Any civilized community might
prefer a suitably designed and confining constitution, limiting powers and working at a reliable rule of law.
By the way, that "rule of law" was a value that Mr. Cohn and General McMaster left off of their "most important" list
-- yet is anything more essential to our way of life?
Aside from the relation with democracy, the other great ideal that any liberal order finds necessary, yet troubling,
is the one about community: nationalism.
Consider the case of Poland. For 250 years, Poland has been a great symbol to the rest of Europe. For much of Polish
and European history, nationalism was an ally of liberalism. Versus Czarist tyranny, versus aristocratic oligarchs.
But sometimes not. Today, Poland's governing Law and Justice party is all about being anti-Russian, anti-Communist,
and pro-Catholic. They are all about "authority" and "community." At the expense of ? Poland's president has just had to
intervene
when the rule of law itself seemed to be at stake.
We Americans and our friends should define what we stand for. Define it in a way that builds a really big tent. In 1989,
working for the elder President Bush, I was able to get the phrase, "commonwealth of free nations," into a couple of the
president's speeches. It didn't stick. Nearly 20 years later, in 2008, the late Harvard historian Ernest May and I came
up with a better formulation. We thought that through human history the most adaptable and successful societies had turned
out to be the ones that were "open and civilized."
Rather than the word, "liberal," the word "open" seems more useful. It is the essence of liberty. Indian prime minister
Narendra Modi uses it in his speeches; Karl Popper
puts it at the core of his philosophy; Anne-Marie
Slaughter makes it a touchstone
in her latest book. That's a big tent right there.
Also the ideal of being "civilized." Not such an old-fashioned ideal. It gestures to the yearning for community. Not
only a rule of law, also community norms, the norms that reassure society and regulate rulers -- whether in a constitution
or in holy scripture.
Chinese leaders extol the value of being civilized -- naturally, they commingle it with Sinification. Muslims take pride
in a heritage that embraces norms of appropriate conduct by rulers. And, of course, in an open society, community norms
can be contested and do evolve.
The retired Indian statesman, Shyam Saran,
recently lectured on,
"Is a China-centric world inevitable?" To Saran, "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and
legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran
said, had the "civilizational attributes."
... ... ...
Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia, and is a former
executive director of the 9/11 Commission.
"... "number of refugees and displaced persons increased dramatically over the decade, doubling from 2007 to 2015, to approximately 60 million people. There are nine countries with more than 10 per cent of their population classified as refugees or displaced persons with Somalia and South Sudan having more than 20 per cent of their population displaced and Syria with over 60 per cent displaced." ..."
"... The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938 . Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is not a collection of theories meant to improve the economy. Instead, it should be understood as a class strategy designed to redistribute wealth upward toward an increasingly narrow fraction of population (top 1%). It is the Marxist idea of "class struggle" turned on its head and converted into a perverted "revolt of the elite," unsatisfied with the peace of the pie it is getting from the society. While previously excessive greed was morally condemned, neoliberalism employed a slick trick of adopting "reverse," Nietzschean Ubermench morality in bastartized form propagated in the USA under the name of Randism. ..."
"... This neoliberal transformation of the society into a top 1% (or, more correctly, 0.01%) "have and have more" and "the rest" undermined and exploited by financial oligarchy with near complete indifference to what happens with the most unprotected lower quintile of the population. The neoliberal reformers don't care about failures and contradictions of the economic system which drive the majority of country population into abject poverty, as it happened in Russia. Nor do they care about their actions such as blowing financial bubbles, like in the USA in 2008 can move national economics toward disaster. They have a somewhat childish, simplistic "greed is good" mentality: they just want to have their (as large as possible) piece of economic pie fast and everything else be damned. In a way, they are criminals and neoliberalism is a highly criminogenic creed, but it tried to conceal the racket and plunder it inflicts of the societies under the dense smoke screen of "free market" newspeak. ..."
"... That means that in most countries neoliberalism is an unstable social order as plunder can't continue indefinitely. It was partially reversed in Chile, Russia, and several other countries. It was never fully adopted in northern Europe. ..."
"... One can see an example of this smoke screen in Thatcher's dictum of neoliberalism: "There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals and families." In foreign policy neoliberalism behaves like brutal imperialism which subdue countries either by debt slavery or direct military intervention. In a neoliberal view the world consist of four concentric cycles which in order of diminishing importance are . ..."
"... Finance is accepted as the most important institution of the civilization which should govern all other spheres of life. It is clear that such a one-dimensional view is wrong, but neoliberals like communists before them have a keen sense of mission and made its "long march through the institutions" and changed the way Americans think (Using the four "M" strategy -- money, media, marketing, and management) ..."
"... A well-oiled machine of foundations, lobbies, think-tanks, economic departments of major universities, publications, political cadres, lawyers and activist organizations slowly and strategically took over nation after nation. A broad alliance of neo-liberals, neo-conservatives and the religious right successfully manufactured a new common sense, assaulted Enlightenment values and formed a new elite, the top layer of society, where this "greed is good" culture is created and legitimized. ..."
"... Normally these decisions could be made after the election, and ideally after the selection of a National Economic Advisor, but, of course, these are not normal times. ..."
"... Jeb stated that Trump previously was one of Clinton's largest supporters, not only by verbally expressing that he hoped she won the election, but financially contributing to her campaign. Bush explained that it seems "too good to be true" that Trump suddenly doesn't support Hillary and has a plan "to make America great again." He believes it is much more likely that he is part of the Hillary campaign and is doing "his part" to ensure his friend elected in November. ..."
"... that the United States is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors." Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, "look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves." ..."
"... Carter was responding to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign financing like Citizens United . ..."
"... HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, "unlimited money in politics." It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. Your thoughts on that? ..."
"... CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over. The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger ..."
"... More than one in five U.S. millennials would be open to backing a communist candidate, and a third believe George W. Bush killed more people than Joseph Stalin, according to a new poll released Monday. ..."
"... Overall, the poll found, Americans remain broadly hostile to socialism and communism, even though 67 percent of the populace believes rich people don't pay "their fair share" and 52 percent believe America's economic system works against them. ..."
...The U.S. Military is deployed globally with bases in the majority of countries
and "partnership" arrangements to train and advise most of the world's armed
forces. The U.S. is the dominant force in NATO and of the United Nations' armed
forces. A recent report by the Institute for Economics and Peace found a mere
ten nations on the planet are not at war and completely free from conflict.
The report cites an historic 10-year deterioration in world peace, with the
"number of refugees and displaced persons increased dramatically over the
decade, doubling from 2007 to 2015, to approximately 60 million people. There
are nine countries with more than 10 per cent of their population classified
as refugees or displaced persons with Somalia and South Sudan having more than
20 per cent of their population displaced and Syria with over 60 per cent displaced."
[1] According
to the report, the United States spends an outrageously high percentage of the
globe's military expenditures -- 38 percent -- while the next largest military
spender, China, accounted for considerably less, 10 percent of the global share.
[2]
....As George Monbiot explained:
"The term neoliberalism was coined at
a meeting in Paris in 1938 . Among the delegates were two men who came to
define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from
Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New
Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations
of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
"In
The Road to Serfdom , published in 1944, Hayek argued that government
planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian
control. Like Mises's book
Bureaucracy
, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some
very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves
from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation
that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism!the Mont Pelerin Society!it
was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
"With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes
in
Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal International": a transatlantic
network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's
rich backers funded a series of think tanks which would refine and promote
the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre
for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic
positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and
Virginia.
"As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that
governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming
gave way, among American apostles such as Milton Friedman, to the belief
that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency."
[3]
As an ideology, neoliberalism borrows heavily from Trotskyism. "One can view
neoliberalism as Trotskyism refashioned for elite."
[4] Instead
of " proletarians of all countries unite " we have [the] slogan " neoliberal
elites of all countries unite.
[5] Stalin
purged Trotsky, but some of his disciples made the transition to become founding
intellectuals of neoliberal ideology, and in particular its "neo-conservative"
wing. "Neoliberalism is also an example of emergence of ideologies, not from
their persuasive power or inner logic, but from the private interests of the
ruling elite. Political pressure and money created the situation in which intellectually
bankrupt ideas could prevail much like Catholicism prevailed during Dark Ages
in Europe. In a way, this is return to Dark Ages on a new level."
[6]
Trotsky's elitism and contempt for the masses led naturally to neoliberalism.
As M.J. Olgin pointed out: Today Trotskyism no more confines itself to "informing"
the bourgeoisie. Today Trotskyism is the center and the rallying point for the
enemies of the Soviet Union, of the proletarian revolution in capitalist countries,
of the Communist International. Trotskyism is trying not only to disintegrate
the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, but also to disintegrate
the forces that make for the dictatorship of the proletariat the world over.
[7] Neoliberalism
also borrows from the ideology of fascism. As Giovanni Gentile, "The Philosopher
of Fascism" expressed in a quote often attributed to Mussolini: "Fascism should
more properly be called corporatism , since it is the merger of state and corporate
power." Gentile also stated in The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism , that "mankind
only progresses through division, and progress is achieved through the clash
and victory of one side over another."
[8]
Neoliberalism is a new form of corporatism based on the ideology of market
fundamentalism, dominance of finance and cult of rich ("greed is good") instead
of the ideology on racial or national superiority typical for classic corporatism.
Actually, some elements of the idea of "national superiority" were preserved
in a form superiority of "corporate management" and top speculators over other
people. In a way, neoliberalism considers bankers and corporations top management
to be a new Aryan race. As it relies on financial mechanisms and banks instead
of brute force of subduing people the practice of neoliberalism outside of the
G7 is also called neocolonialism. Neoliberal practice within G7 is called casino
capitalism, an apt term that underscore [s] the role of finance and stock exchange
in this new social order. Neoliberalism is an example of emergence of ideologies
not from their persuasive power or inner logic, but from the private interests
of ruling elite. Political pressure and money created the situation in which
intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail .
Neoliberalism is not a collection of theories meant to improve the
economy. Instead, it should be understood as a class strategy designed to
redistribute wealth upward toward an increasingly narrow fraction of population
(top 1%). It is the Marxist idea of "class struggle" turned on its head
and converted into a perverted "revolt of the elite," unsatisfied with the
peace of the pie it is getting from the society. While previously excessive
greed was morally condemned, neoliberalism employed a slick trick of adopting
"reverse," Nietzschean Ubermench morality in bastartized form propagated
in the USA under the name of Randism. [9]
This neoliberal transformation of the society into a top 1% (or,
more correctly, 0.01%) "have and have more" and "the rest" undermined and
exploited by financial oligarchy with near complete indifference to what
happens with the most unprotected lower quintile of the population. The
neoliberal reformers don't care about failures and contradictions of the
economic system which drive the majority of country population into abject
poverty, as it happened in Russia. Nor do they care about their actions
such as blowing financial bubbles, like in the USA in 2008 can move national
economics toward disaster. They have a somewhat childish, simplistic "greed
is good" mentality: they just want to have their (as large as possible)
piece of economic pie fast and everything else be damned. In a way, they
are criminals and neoliberalism is a highly criminogenic creed, but it tried
to conceal the racket and plunder it inflicts of the societies under the
dense smoke screen of "free market" newspeak.
That means that in most countries neoliberalism is an unstable social
order as plunder can't continue indefinitely. It was partially reversed
in Chile, Russia, and several other countries. It was never fully adopted
in northern Europe.
One can see an example of this smoke screen in Thatcher's dictum
of neoliberalism: "There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals
and families." In foreign policy neoliberalism behaves like brutal imperialism
which subdue countries either by debt slavery or direct military intervention.
In a neoliberal view the world consist of four concentric cycles which in
order of diminishing importance are .
Finance
Economics
Society
Planet
Finance is accepted as the most important institution of the civilization
which should govern all other spheres of life. It is clear that such a one-dimensional
view is wrong, but neoliberals like communists before them have a keen sense
of mission and made its "long march through the institutions" and changed
the way Americans think (Using the four "M" strategy -- money, media, marketing,
and management)
A well-oiled machine of foundations, lobbies, think-tanks, economic
departments of major universities, publications, political cadres, lawyers
and activist organizations slowly and strategically took over nation after
nation. A broad alliance of neo-liberals, neo-conservatives and the religious
right successfully manufactured a new common sense, assaulted Enlightenment
values and formed a new elite, the top layer of society, where this "greed
is good" culture is created and legitimized. [10]
Donald Trump is a visible product of this culture, but clearly is not the
choice of the elite ruling class to serve as their "front man" for President.
Rather, his role seems to have been to polarize the electorate in such a way
as to assure Hillary Clinton the election, just as Bernie Sanders played a role
of mobilizing the left-neoliberal camp and then sheep-dogging it into Hillary's
camp. As Bruce A. Dixon explained:
"Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog
is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when
there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is
a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment
Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are
herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and
voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward
and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build
something outside the two-party box."
[11]
Once you realize what the principle contradiction in the world is, and how
the game of bourgeois "democracy" is played, the current election become as
predictable and blatantly scripted as professional wrestling. As Victor Wallace
explained:
"An extraordinary feature of the U.S. electoral process is that the two
dominant parties collude to dictate – via their own bipartisan "commission"
– who is allowed to participate in the officially recognized presidential
debates. Needless to say, the two parties set impossible barriers to the
participation of
any candidates other than their own . Most potential voters are thereby
prevented from acquainting themselves with alternatives to the dominant
consensus.
"This practice has taken on glaring proportions in the 2016 campaign,
which has been marked by justified public distrust of both the dominant-party
tickets. Preventing election-theft would initially require breaking up the
bipartisan stranglehold over who can access the tens of millions of voters.
"Another distinctive U.S. trait is the absence of any constitutional
guarantee of the right to vote. Instead, a multiplicity of state laws govern
voter-eligibility, as well as ballot-access. A few states set ballot-access
requirements so high as to effectively disqualify their residents from supporting
otherwise viable national candidacies. As for voter-eligibility, it is deliberately
narrowed through the time-honored practice of using "states' rights" to
impose racist agendas. Most states deny voting rights to ex-convicts, a
practice that currently disenfranchises some 6 million citizens, disproportionately
from communities of color. More recently, targeting the same constituencies,
many states have passed onerous and unnecessary voter-ID laws.
"The role of money in filtering out viable candidacies is well known.
It was reinforced by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision of 2010,
which opened the gate to unlimited corporate contributions.
"The priorities of corporate media point in a similar direction. Even
apart from their taste for campaign-advertising, their orientation toward
celebrity and sensationalism prompts them to give far more air-time to well
known figures – the more outrageous, the better – than to even the most
viable candidates who present serious alternatives. Trump's candidacy was
thus "made" by the media, even as they kept the Sanders challenge to Clinton
as deep in the shadows as possible ."
[12]
Moreover, the media, which in the U.S. is 90% owned by just six mega-corporations,
[13] cooperates
closely with the dominant establishment of the two parties in framing the questions
that are posed in the debates. And they explicitly maintain the fiction that
the "commission" running the debates is "non-partisan" when in fact it is bipartisan.
[14]
"Turning finally to the voting process itself, the longest-running scandal
is the holding of elections on a workday. In recent years, the resulting
inconvenience has been partially offset by the institution of early voting,
which however has the disadvantage of facilitating premature choices and
of being subject to varied and volatile rules set by state legislatures.
"The actual casting of votes on Election Day is further subject to a
number of possible abuses. These include: 1) insufficient polling places
in poor neighborhoods, sometimes resulting in waiting periods so long that
individuals no longer have the time to vote; 2) the sometimes aggressive
challenging of voters' eligibility by interested parties; 3) the use of
provisional ballots which may easily end up not being counted; and 4), perhaps
most significantly, the increasingly complete reliance on computerized voting,
which allows for manipulation of the results (via "proprietary" programs)
in a manner that cannot be detected. (The probability of such manipulation
– based on discrepancies between exit-polls and official tallies – was documented
by
Marc Crispin Miller in his book on the 2004 election.
"The corporate media add a final abuse in their rush – in presidential
races – to announce results in some states before the voting process has
been completed throughout the country."
[15]
Despite multiple releases of hacked e-mails by WikiLeaks revealing the whole
process in detail, it seems to have little effect on the masses or on the game.
The most recent batch come from Obama's personal e-mail account and reveal that
the Bush administration contacted the future president multiple times before
the election in 2008, secretly organizing the transition of power. In one e-mail
President Bush states:
" We are now at the point of deciding how to staff economic policy during
the transition, who should be the point of contact with Treasury and how
to blend the transition and campaign economic policy talent.
Normally these decisions could be made after the election, and ideally
after the selection of a National Economic Advisor, but, of course, these
are not normal times. "
[16]
Hillary Clinton's response has been to claim that the WikiLeaks' exposures
come from the "highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence
our election,"
[17] and to accuse Trump of being Putin's puppet. Not exactly a denial of
the accuracy of the content of the e-mails, nor does she present proof of Russia's
involvement. And even if true, is this any different than the well-documented
cases of Israel's long-standing involvement in spying on the U.S. and acting
to influence U.S. elections or the recent allegations of U.S. interference in
Israel's election,
[18] or for
that matter U.S. interference with elections and forced regime changes in countries
all over the world. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has recently released
a video on YouTube , asserting that his sources are DNC whistleblowers not Russians.
[19]
The strategy of picking the "lesser evil" is a losing strategy. Is it a coincidence
that all the corporate CEO's and most of the "left-wing" neoliberals agree on
Trump being the "lesser evil?" In reality, Trump is less hawkish than Hillary.
At least he doesn't seem to have any ambition to lock horns with Russia over
Syria. Indeed, the WikiLeaks' exposures show Trump to be Hillary's puppet, not
Putin's. This was alleged by Jeb Bush, back during the Republican primaries:
Jeb stated that Trump previously was one of Clinton's largest supporters,
not only by verbally expressing that he hoped she won the election, but financially
contributing to her campaign. Bush explained that it seems "too good to be true"
that Trump suddenly doesn't support Hillary and has a plan "to make America
great again." He believes it is much more likely that he is part of the Hillary
campaign and is doing "his part" to ensure his friend elected in November.
[20]
Nonetheless, the Bush family have, since Jeb's defeat, made known their preference
for Hillary as have many of the Republican Party establishment. The illusion
of "democracy" is wearing thin:
Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated
radio show the Thom
Hartmann Program that the United States is now an "oligarchy" in
which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of
our political system as a payoff to major contributors." Both Democrats
and Republicans, Carter said, "look upon this unlimited money as a great
benefit to themselves."
Carter was responding to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme
Court decisions on campaign financing like Citizens United .
Transcript:
HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, "unlimited money in politics."
It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. Your thoughts on that?
CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country
in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy, with unlimited political
bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to
elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators
and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our
political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect
and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over. The incumbents,
Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit
to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell
to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger .
[21]
Not only is the illusion of democracy wearing thin, but so is the effectiveness
of anti-communist brainwashing:
More than one in five U.S. millennials would be open to backing a
communist candidate, and a third believe George W. Bush killed more people
than Joseph Stalin, according to a new poll released Monday.
The poll , commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
and carried out by YouGov, surveyed Americans of all ages about their attitudes
towards communism, socialism, and the American economic system in general.
Overall, the poll found, Americans remain broadly hostile to socialism
and communism, even though 67 percent of the populace believes rich people
don't pay "their fair share" and 52 percent believe America's economic system
works against them. [22]
... ... ...
Notes
[1]
Bernish, Claire, "Only 10 Countries in the Entire World Are Not Currently
at War," AntiMedia.org, June 9, 2016
[7]
Olgin, Moissaye Joseph, Trotskyism: Counter-Revolution in Disguise,
Workers Library Publishers, New York, 1935
[8]
Macrohistory and World Timeline, "Giovanni Gentile an Italian Fascism,"
Fascism and Philosophy
[9]
Referring to Ayn Rand, who wrote: "Individual rights are not subject
to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority;
the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from
oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual),"
and: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's
whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization
is the process of setting man free from men."
[10]
"Neoliberalism as a New, More Dangerous, Form of Corporatism,"
[11]
Dixon, Bruce A., "Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdogging
for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016," Black Agenda Report, 05/06/2015
[16]
"WikiLeaks Bombshell: 'There Is No US Election'," YourNewsWire.com,
October 21, 2016
[17]
Carroll, Lauren, "Hillary Clinton blames high-up Russians for WikiLeaks
releases," Politifact, October 19, 2016
[18]
Dinan, Stephan, "Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust
Netanyahu," The Washington Times – Tuesday, July 12, 2016
[19]
"Julian assange exposes Hillary! the hackers aren't russian, they are
DNC party whistleblowers ," You Tube, October 21, 2016
[20]
Williams, Chrissie, "Jeb Bush Allegedly Believes Donald Trump's Campaign
May be a Conspiracy Hillary was Handpicked to Win," Inquisitor, August 13,
2016
[26]
Tse-tung, Mao, "Speech at the Meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
in Celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution"
(November 6, 1957), Quotations from Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Language Press,
Peking (1966)
[27]
>Ibid., "Interview with a Hsinhua News Agency correspondent(September 29,
1958)."
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies!policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had. ..."
"... For example, when two top AIPAC officials!Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman!were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. ..."
Editors
Note: Mr. Alexis has sent us a well written position with which VT totally agrees
Former neoconservative luminary Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins)
compares the neoconservative movement to Leninism. Neoconservatism, according to Fukuyama, is
the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism.
Fukuyama's observation makes sense when even Irving Kristol, who founded the movement,
proudly admitted that the "honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good
standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International)."
And this neoconservative movement, as Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has shown, found its
political and intellectual ideology "in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud."
Even after the birth of the neoconservative movement, many of its members such as Stephen
Schwartz of the
Weekly Standard
and Joan Wohlstetter of the RAND Corporation still had
a burning thirst for Lev Davidovich Bronstein, known as Leon Trotsky.
In that sense, the neoconservative persuasion is a subversive movement which started out in
the 1920s and 30s. Legal scholar Michael Lind pointed out some years ago that,
"Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right.
They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the
1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and
finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture
or political history."
This was the case for Kristol, who bragged about how his Jewish intellectual comrades such
as Nathan Glazer of Harvard, Philip Selznick of Berkley, Peter Rossi of Johns Hopkins, Merroe
Berger of Princeton, I. Milton Sacks of Brandeis, and Seymour Melman of Columbia were not only
Trotskyists but were "unquestionably the most feverishly articulate" in indoctrinating students
into their
Weltanschauung.
Irving Kristol
Kristol argues in his book
The Neoconservative Persuasion
that those Jewish
intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up
Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking.
America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy
that led to the collapse of the American economy.
We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of
Bolshevism and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.
Winston Churchill himself wrote an article in 1920 in the British newspaper
Illustrated
Sunday Herald
entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish
People."
The United States had document after document in archives (particularly at the Yale Law
School) on Bolshevik Revolution. One of those documents is entitled "Papers Relating to the
Foreign Relations of the United States 1918 Russia Vol. I – The Bolshevik 'Coup d'Etat'
November 7, 1917." Virtually no one wanted to tolerate Bolshevism.
Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work
Zombie
Economics
that "Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and
different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But
even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even
after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back.
These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather they are undead, or zombie, ideas."
Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different
forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative
movement.
If this sounds like an exaggeration and if you think the projectile motion of Trotskyism is
over, listen to Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior advisor to the Mitt Romney for President campaign,
as to why he supported Romney for president:
"My support for Mitt Romney has something to do with a ship called the
Serpa
Pinto
and with an American Marxist revolutionary."
Schoenfeld later declared that his father was a Trotskyist in the revolutionary sense, and
that Obama was too soft on the Middle East, and Romney was the better choice to take care of
Iran. Schoenfeld was an editor for the neoconservative magazine
Commentary.
As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the
American Enterprise Institute
are largely extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as
the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.
Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish
groups such as the
Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs,
an organization which has been known to have "co-opted"
several "non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired
general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq."
Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the
CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas "have taken American international
relations on an unfortunate detour," which is another way of saying that this revolutionary
movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United
States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign
entities.
As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to
shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done
in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.
Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that
the Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle
East. For that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.
In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement
represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to
undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding
Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies!policies which have contributed to the
demise of the respect America once had.
Halper and Clarke move on to say that the neoconservative movement is "in complete contrast
to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of
Independence."
The neoconservative persuasion is horrible in the sense that much of the war in the Middle
East has been based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.
This point became more interesting when it was discovered that Israel has maintained
covert operations against the U.S. on multiple levels, including smuggling illegal weapons
for years, while the neoconservative machine says nothing about this issue and keeps
propounding that Israel is a model of Western values in the Middle East.
Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish
individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas
Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.
The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel's espionage in the U.S., but no one has come
forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon
over truth.
For example, when two top AIPAC officials!Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman!were caught
passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended
them.
In the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,"
Israel is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI
agents and U.S. officials for years.
One former U.S. intelligence official declared, "There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set
of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in
counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most
aggressive and active countries targeting the United States.
They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as
liaisons aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are
laughable."
In 1991, the Israelis tried to recruit a former U.S. intelligence official, but he declined.
"I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf
War. I said, 'No, go away,' and reported it to counterintelligence." Covert operations were
done by the Israelis in "a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli
intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic
document.
Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted." Yet
this has rarely seen the light of day in the popular media. Pointing these facts out, according
to the reasoning of Omri Ceren of the fifth column magazine
Commentary
, is tantamount
to anti-Semitism.
In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made the declaration that the United States had
already conquered Iraq, and it was time that the U.S. marched against Iran, Syria, and
Libya.
Under Obama, Sharon's prediction became a reality in Libya, and now the U.S. is
destabilizing Syria by covertly supporting the Syrian rebels, while the war drum is being
beaten against Iran.
In the process, Iran has been blamed for a cyber attack in the Middle East with little
evidence. By the fall of 2012, the United States and Israel were even considering a "surgical
strike" against Iran.
At the same time, the "democracy" which the neocons dreamed of establishing in Iraq has
become "increasingly authoritarian and narrowly sectarian," according to twenty-eight-year CIA
veteran and Georgetown University professor Paul R. Pillar. In his inaugural speech for his
second term, President Obama suggested that the perpetual war has come to an end.
But by that time the U.S. was already marshalling some of our precious men in Mali, and
British Prime Minister David Cameron has recently declared that the war in Mali will more than
likely last for decades, which is another way of saying that perpetual wars are here to stay.
And the people who will be paying for this are the American taxpayers, decent people who are
trying to put food on the table and generational children who will be drown in massive debt and
student loans.
What, then, are some of the outcomes of the neoconservative movement? What are some of its
revolutionary or subversive offshoots? We will explore these questions in the upcoming
articles, but one of the indirect by-products of this movement is that no person, democrat or
republican, can be elected as president without being a Zionist or at least favoring Israel
over the Founding Fathers. This point became clear when Obama won the presidential election in
2012.
Months before election, both Romney and Obama were competing as to who was going to give the
biggest tribute to Israel. Romney went to Israel and declared that Iran was the biggest threat
in the world, and Obama sent Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Israel right after Romney's
departure to tell Israel that his administration is in agreement with Israeli officials with
respect to Iran. Both Romney and Obama supported deploying troops to Syria if Assad, they said,
used chemical weapons.
For Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, it was the Jews in Florida who helped reelect Obama. This is
not without evidence, since it has been reported that at least 70 percent of Jewish voters
sided with Obama. Dershowitz continues to say that Jews like himself "must now realize that our
support for the president will be good for Israel over the next four years Jews vote for both
parties.
Nobody is ignoring us. Every rational candidate knows that they and their party must earn
our votes in every election." One would say that this absolutely means nothing, since Jews are
less than five percent of the population. But as we shall show in the next article, Jewish
billionaires were largely the main vehicles supporting both Democrats and so-called
Republicans.
Dershowitz then declared something that would have been a shock to the Founding Fathers:
"Most Americans, regardless of religion, are united in support of Israel's security, but
divided about social and economic issues. It is critically important that support for Israel's
security remains a bipartisan issue, and never becomes a wedge issue that divides voters along
party lines, as it has in some European countries."
In other words, even though the economy is a dismal failure, even though Americans are out
of work, even though people are being cheated out of their retirement plans, even though
student loans have been skyrocketed, Americans must support Israel (it has been at least $3
billion a year). Just like the Pharisees and rabbis who had to tell Pilate what to do in the
first century, Dershowitz declares, "I and others who support [Obama] will have his ear over
the next four years."
Almost two months before he won the presidential election, Obama invited Dershowitz to the
White House and told him, "I don't bluff." Obama also invited Edgar Bronfman, former president
of the World Jewish Congress, to the White House and told him, "My commitment to Israel's
security is bone deep." What would George Washington, Thomas Edison and others say? Let us hear
them.
George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as
possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns.
Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the
ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities." Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations!entangling alliances with none," Grover Cleveland: "It is the policy of Monroe and of
Washington and Jefferson: Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling
alliance with none."
Does any president have the courage to pronounce these statements today? The answer is a
resounding no. The only former presidential candidate who tried to implement that foreign
policy was Ron Paul, but he was castigated as "a vicious anti-Semite" for doing so.
In a nutshell, if you are a follower of the Founding Fathers when it comes to foreign
policy, you are a "vicious anti-Semite." Moreover, if the Founding Fathers were alive today,
they would be all anti-Semites! Over the past few weeks, more than 60 articles have been
written against Chuck Hagel by two neoconservative magazines alone,
Commentary
and the
Weekly Standard
(not to mention the
Washington Post
,
National
Review
, the
Wall Street Journal
, etc.).
This brings us to an essentially critical point that will be explored in more details later
in the series: the word anti-Semitism has carelessly been applied in the political landscape to
shut down rational arguments and important issues. It has become a weapon in the blessed hands
of those who seek to destabilize thoughtful discussion. You either support the neoconservative
ideology, or else
The most important feature of "neoliberalism" is that like Bolsheviks that believe in lases fare
in role of the state as "night watcher". The believe in market that they consider important the state
enforce the market mechanism of society. Nothing is left to the chance. this is "market uber alles"
religion. Market under neoliberal doctrine does not need any justification. It is a ultimate deity
that judge mere mortals and reqires compliance, achieved by spilling blood, if necessary.
Much like the idea of communism is a deity for Bolshviks. Kind of heaven on the earth. In this sense
this is market fundamentalism which is a lot in common with Islamic Fundamentalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Most Democrats are clueless about how the Neoliberals have hijacked the party. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism was ostensibly sold as promoting free-market capitalism. But what's actually happened is monopolistic, controlled-market capitalism. That's the morph. It's by design. In a Technocracy, corporate science, computer and finance wonks make the decisions, and governments enforce them. Rogue governments are economically isolated or attacked, weakened and overturned. If this all sounds like conspiracy-nut stuff, remember what you've been told about success: The losers watch things happen while the winners make things happen. ..."
"... Hitler and Stalin both harboured ideologies. Neoliberalism looks just as dangerous. The French didn't revolt because they understood economics but they knew that the system was rigged and that they were getting poorer and hungrier. When you hear the word 'ideology' you just know that it will fail and end badly. History is chock-full of examples. I can't think of a successful ideology...thanks for posting. ..."
Professor Philip Mirowski author of Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism
Survived the Financial Meltdown, explains the intellectual history of Neo-liberalism, what Neo-liberals
believe, making capitalists think differently, the role of think tanks in Neo-liberalism, the mythology
of market supremacy, how Facebook teaches you to be a Neo-liberal agent, shaming and Neo-liberalism,
how policy movements are built, climate and the affordable care act and Neo-liberal power and how
the left can respond to Neo-liberal dominance.
From the 6/26/14 episode of the Majority Report
This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at
http://Majority.FM
Regardless of the textbook definition of "neo liberalism," the left needs to start using the
word. It's an ideological icebreaker that causes people to reevaluate their thinking. The word
liberal has a negative connotation for many people. Using the word neoliberal takes advantage
of that. Additionally, the word helps point out exactly what's wrong with our economic system.
Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are neoliberal. The word allows for a new paradigm where the
left is positioned in opposition to the uber rich and corporatists. This draws the line where
we need it to be.
The Left in Europe and elsewhere use it. It's only in the United States where you use the term
"Neoliberalism" and everyone starts getting confused. I agree, it needs to be used more often.
It might destroy The Narcissism of Minor Differences between the Democratic and Republican parties,
however. The mainstream media would never be able to handle that.
+Babak Golshahi Yes, I have a copy. I haven't read it. I just have it. I keep meaning to read
it but I get a few pages in and I get pissed off and think "I don't need this shit in my brain
just before I go to bed". I know the gist of it because I've heard some of her lectures.
I don't know who first said the market is a good servant but a poor master but they got it
right. The notion that markets 'know' best and we should therefore govern ourselves accordingly
is - it seems to me - insane and fundamentally anti- human. Humanity derives it's nature and guiding
principles from what can be bought or sold; and if you refuse to conform, then you become surplus?
So humanity(thoughts, creativity, sympathies etc.) takes a far back seat to markets? I don't get
how the soullessness of this liturgy is not evident.
I agree with your points however I would add that 'free market place' should not be over-romanticised.
the market always needs rules and regulations to function - its just that the neoliberals regulate
it to favor the rich. social democrats and other truly leftist parties would prefer to regulate
it in favor of everyone (rich and poor)
Reminds me of Ghandi's reply to, 'What do you think of Western Civilization?' "I think
it would be a good idea."
I suppose you could call swap meets or what they had at the end of feudalism free markets.
That is before the Elites swooped in with the help of the state and took over the commons. I think
one of the biggest confusions comes in the confluence of top-down Capitalism with industrialization,
as if that's the only way to organize production and build a first world economy.
I hear that one of the 'battle cries' of the European left is 'We can do better than Capitalism.'
I believe that very strongly. Human beings are nothing if not creative. We can do so much better
than this.
Neoliberalism is breathing its last but a back to the future Keynesian model is probably not
a great idea. We will very soon need a very different economic model entirely. Interesting what
Thomas Friedman recently said. "I'm left of Bernie Sanders and right of the editorial pages of
the Wall St Journal" Maybe we have to throw the old dualities of capitalism/ socialism economics
and right / left politics on the dust bin of history to make any real progres
Sounds interesting. I'm not against exploring new ideas but let's be careful. Remember that
in 1990s neoliberalism itself was sold as 'an alternative' to a supposedly outdated keynesian
model that belonged in a dust bin of history... Let's not fall for this again. Plus Friedman's
mumbo jumbo only sounds profound. If you look at his track record he's never seen a bad idea he
didn't like.
the reason why the Nordic models work so well is because innovation is championed by the state
and vital social institutions like healthcare and education are provided for, creating a healthy,
proactive population. the reason why 'socialism' has not worked in other countries (ie the Soviet
Union) is because it was not actually socialism, but messed up governments run by dictators. there
are democratic socialists (like myself) who do not advocate communism (the complete destruction
of the notion of private property) but rather think the free market can be reformulated in a democratic
way so that it can work to the benefit of everyone
"night watchmen" is a vain embellishment for what is really the work of a janitor or a babysitter.
When the "free market" shits itself after throwing a rager, who is called in the "clean up" (bail
out) the mess? The state, with taxpayers money.
Ludwig Von Mises: "What an acting man needs to know is not the state of affairs under equilibrium,
but information about the most appropriate method of transforming, by successive steps, P1 into
P2. The knowledge of conditions which will prevail under equilibrium is useless for the director
whose task it is to act today under present conditions. What he must learn is how to proceed in
the most economical way with the means available today which are the inheritance of an age with
different valuations, a different technological knowledge, and different information about problems
of location. He must know which step is the next he must take. In this dilemma the equations provide
no help. This so called state of equilibrium is a purely imaginary construction. In a changing
world it can never be realized. It differs from today's state as well as from any other realizable
state of affairs. What impels a man toward change and innovation is not the vision of equilibrium
prices, but the anticipation of the height of the prices of a limited number of articles as the
will prevail on the market on the date at which he plans to sell. A knowledge of the graduation
of the values of consumer' goods in this state of equilibrium is required. This graduation is
one of the elements of these equations assumed as known. Yet the director {lenin/obama} knows
only his present valuation, not also his valuation under hypothetical state of equilibrium. He
knows nothing about how he himself will value on the day the equilibrium will be reached." quoted
from Human Action p. 711
Your guest is a propagandist since he is using the original argument of the capitalists in
response to socialists-communist who said the government is a super-information processor who
knows about what's more valuable to a given human being at a given time and place than the human
being himself. So this guest is very unoriginal since he steals his own counter-argument from
capitalists, which is hilarious.
Great conversation. I wouldn't be as conspiratorial about it but the innovation of think tanks
is incredibly important in this. I was obsessed with neo-liberalism a few years ago; I wrote a
history of the movement in the U.S. for my undergrad dissertation - focusing mostly on the post-1945
years when it began to take hold in the establishment, particularly the 1970's. The characterization
of the market as an information processor is exactly what they argue. The notion that the market
is a naturally occurring entity is so crazy to me that I couldn't stop reading and writing about
it. For those interested in this stuff I highly recommend watching the Adam Curtis documentaries
"The Trap" and "All Watch Over by Machines of Loving Grace" - these films really get to the heart
of what Mirowski is getting at. :)
Technocracy was also borne in the 1930's. This is neoliberalism's end goal, I believe, that's
why they are running capitalism to the ground. They want it to ultimately fail so that they can
implement their technocratic utopia for a select few, but a nightmare for the rest of us.
Is neoliberalism ending? It's morphing. The International Monetary Fund is now suggesting some,
ahem, "reconsideration of what the neo-liberal agenda is likely to achieve." Neo-liberalism was
a means to an end. Behind the scenes, since the early 70's, the movement has always been toward
Global Technocracy. The key tenets of GT originally envisioned by Zbigniew Brzezinski were: *Diminished
sovereignty with more transnational corporate control; *International trade facilitated by international
banking and floating currencies; *A worldwide computer network with which economic activities
could be easily transacted and monitored. Such a network would also easily monitor the activities
of citizens. The attraction was that economically enmeshed nations would be far less likely to
war with each other. Z-Biggie suggested that nationalist tendencies, labor unions, democracy and
such would necessitate keeping the long-term GT project in the background. It popped up occasionally,
like when George H.W. Bush mentioned something about a New World Order. The privatization, deregulation,
union busting, austerity measures and government-shrinking, trade superseding sovereignty, floating
currencies -- all hallmarks of neo-liberalism. All were tools to effectuate the Global Technocracy.
You didn't really think the barely regulated, untaxed "World Wide Web" just . . . happened? Or
the change from market trading to computer and data-driven robotrading was just . . . innovation?
Neo-liberalism was ostensibly sold as promoting free-market capitalism. But what's actually
happened is monopolistic, controlled-market capitalism. That's the morph. It's by design. In a
Technocracy, corporate science, computer and finance wonks make the decisions, and governments
enforce them. Rogue governments are economically isolated or attacked, weakened and overturned.
If this all sounds like conspiracy-nut stuff, remember what you've been told about success: The
losers watch things happen while the winners make things happen.
Faced with burgeoning world population, resource and food issues, the Global Corporate Technocracy
is what the elites and their think tankers came up with. There has been some pushback from the
libertarian right and socialist left, but as long as those two factions are kept at odds and marginalized
by the media, the Technocrats will continue to progress. An economic elite and their wonks will
be protected and benefit, while the needs and aspirations of the populace will be corporately
managed as far as profit is available; abandoned if not.
Western-style Technocracy hasn't been fully successful with its Global goal. The BRICS have
been staking claim on their regions, with their own ideas about managing them. Osama bin Laden
railed against the spread of Western capitalism and culture, and the problems with Islamic fundamentalism
continue. Nevertheless, we continue bringing new markets into the fold, under the guise of 'regime
change' and 'third-world development.' Mrs. Clinton is a big believer.
Whether various recent populist or nationalist movements succeed in altering the path of Global
Technocracy remains to be seen. Some observers say the elite fostering it may need to employ something
called Soft Fascism to continue forwarding their goals. Neo-liberalism has served its purpose:
Institutionalizing transnational corporate hegemony. How the Global Technocratic elite balance
their profit-taking with the world issues they purport to manage will be the story of the coming
decades. Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere or the notional value of the financial derivatives
market may indicate just how well that's working out. ADDENDUM: Readers have mentioned a few recent
books emerging on the Global Technocracy which I haven't read but from checking their reviews
sound like they would provide more background and context. They are: The Seventh Sense: Power,
Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse Of Global Transformation
Instructive interview. I can't help thinking that there may be global social consequences (a
social kickback) from this type of ideology. Somehow, Neoliberalism comes across as a 1950s style
comic-book mad dictator, with staring eyes and a maniacal laugh, doing its best to conquer he
world. People aren't stupid. The can't be expected to understand economics and social engineering
but they have common-sense.
Hitler and Stalin both harboured ideologies. Neoliberalism looks just as dangerous. The
French didn't revolt because they understood economics but they knew that the system was rigged
and that they were getting poorer and hungrier. When you hear the word 'ideology' you just know
that it will fail and end badly. History is chock-full of examples. I can't think of a successful
ideology...thanks for posting.
interesting guy but the left / right language has gotta end. we're already talking past that
in distinguishing neo and classic libertarians.. come on!
In The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism -a canonical work of economic sociology in the 1970s
and '80s-Daniel Bell argued that the productive and consumptive sides of capitalism had fallen into
contradiction. Capitalism continued to rely on the Protestant ethic of sobriety and delayed gratification
in the sphere of production, yet, contradictorily, had come to rely on modernist hedonism and credit
purchasing in the sphere of consumption. Modern capitalism needed people to be sober by day and swingers
by night. What is more, the displacement of the Protestant ethic by hedonism, Bell argued, was primarily
the work of capitalism itself. Its mass production urbanized the population and created an economy
of abundance, the continuation of which relied on ever increasing demand, stimulated through marketing
and the extension of credit. This pulled the middle class away from small town, Protestant values.
In other words, capitalism was undermining the conditions of its own existence. The economy's contradictory
need for both prudence and prodigality from its participants was "the deepest challenge to the society."
I first read and taught Bell as a graduate student in the 1990s. Already by then the urgency of
Bell's thesis had receded. Capitalism had weathered this putative internal contradiction for a generation,
with no signs of implosion. The perceived threat to American capitalism at the time came instead
from the outside, from Japan. Japan's integrated industrial policy, "quality circles," and knack
for translating American technological advances into desirable consumer products had created an economic
juggernaut that seemed to be rolling right over American industry. It seemed emblematic when President
George H. W. Bush led a pugnacious trade delegation to Japan in 1992 only to fall ill and, at a state
dinner, cast the craw and faint into the lap of the Japanese prime minister.
Japan's economic miracle, moreover, could itself be read as putting Bell's thesis in question.
At that time, the routine of the Japanese salaryman was to work very long and grave hours at the
office followed by almost daily late-night drinking parties and the occasional group outing to the
hot spring baths, the night girls, or the geisha: sober by day, swinger by night. This behavior was
not seen as contradictory. Nor did it have to be. The compartmentalization of value spheres and conduct
is commonplace in most human societies; the demand for consistency is the real anomaly. The case
could thus be made that Bell's sense of foreboding was but an artifact of the American tendency to
misconstrue as a human norm the peculiarly Puritan aspiration for consistency of personality across
all spheres, rationalizing all life according to one supreme value. Setting aside that assumption,
it seemed to me not so much that American capitalism was becoming self-contradictory as that it was
becoming more "Japanese," with the undergraduate ethos of "work hard play hard" as its training ground.
Whatever the shortcomings of Bell's specific thesis, however, one should not dismiss the more
general possibility Bell raises of a system-threatening contradiction between a cultural system and
an economic system. In particular, there can be a contradiction between a society's economic ideology,
or cultural system of economic legitimation, and its economic reality. I argue that we are experiencing
this in an acute way under neoliberalism-a contradiction between the market ideology neoliberalism
espouses and the corporate reality it fosters.
Any system exhibiting a contradiction between its legitimation system and its reality is set up
for sudden delegitimation. But in the case of neoliberalism, the contradiction does more. Neoliberalism
was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into
a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist
state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. Neoliberalism
sought to privatize public services, deregulate private services, and shrink social spending.
1 It is thus unusual among ideologies in that it does not seek to rationalize the
status quo. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo
and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles
of the market. In other words, it is transformative. But the contradiction between its individualist
ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this
contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense
inequality, and coercion. This makes neoliberalism's position all the more precarious. And when the
ideological support of a system collapses-as appears to be happening with neoliberalism-then either
the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain
it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived.
The Corporation as a Franchised Government
For the contradiction between neoliberalism and the corporation to be clear, it is necessary to
say a few words about the nature of the business corporation.
The business corporation, like any corporation, is a little government. Its deepest roots run
back to the municipality of Rome, the first corporation in law, which was at the same time the
civitas , or Roman state. More proximately, the business corporation was modeled on the incorporated
medieval town, and it carries forward its central legal features.
(1) As is true of the town, a corporate firm's assets are not owned by natural persons, but
by an abstract legal entity -the "artificial person" of the corporation, which assumes the legal
position of sole proprietor. This fact should immediately explode the most insidious myth about the
business corporation, that it is owned by its stockholders. The whole point of the legal form is
to transfer ownership of the business assets to this legal entity, which in principle "never dies."
This prevents investors from pulling these assets out and liquidating the firm, and it allows all
economic liabilities generated by the firm to be shifted from natural persons to this entity. Since
the legal entity owns the assets of the business corporation, the stockholders obviously do not.
In the case of a university or other incorporated nonprofit, it is obvious that the assets are
owned by a legal entity, since there are no stockholders to whom one could ascribe ownership.
The business corporation, however, is commonly read through the lens of the partnership (due in good
measure to the efforts of the neoliberals, as we will see), as if the stockholders were a species
of partner and thus co-owners of the firm. Yet this is precisely what they are not, lacking the ownership
rights, the liabilities, and the responsibilities of partners.
The misconception that stockholders are owners akin to partners in a partnership seems to stem
from two things. First, stockholders have purchased stock, which is imagined to be tantamount to
acquiring part ownership. But stock is just a financial instrument-a special form of good that a
corporation is privileged to sell. And purchasing a good sold by a firm-whether stocks, blocks, or
socks-does not give one ownership rights in the firm. In the United States, as in most countries,
stockholders, whether acting individually or jointly, cannot use, lend out, exclude others from,
collateralize, sell, or alienate corporate assets. In other words, stock ownership does not convey
any rights of ownership over the firm or its assets. And this has been true from the
beginning (despite legal ideology sometimes to the contrary). Stockholders have no legal claim whatsoever
on these assets except at bankruptcy, when they are last in line as heirs, not first in line as owners.
Nor do stockholders have a legal right to profits or dividends. Dividends are issued at the discretion
of the board-as Apple demonstrated quarter after quarter to its long-suffering stockholders.
The second source of the confusion is that stockholders appear to have ultimate control of the
firm, and ultimate control is a right of owners. This view, however, rests on a double misconception.
First, while ownership implies control rights, control rights do not necessarily imply ownership.
If they did, the boards of charitable foundations would be the owners, as would the bishops and elders
of churches, the principals of schools, the mayors of towns, and the presidents and parliaments of
countries. As this should make clear, control can derive from jurisdictional authority no less than
from ownership. Therefore, one cannot infer shareholder ownership from whatever control rights shareholders
might have. Second, stockholders do not in fact have any control rights, whether proximate
or ultimate, over the firm-at least not in the United States nor in most other countries. In the
business corporation, as in the university, the ultimate right to control the property and to create,
fill, and prescribe the duties of all positions lies with the board, as is expressly stated in the
corporate charter or general incorporation statute. (Holders of a majority of the stock must consent
to a firm's liquidation or its merger with another firm, because this involves the death of the firm.
But they have no right to initiate or force these actions.)
It is true that the holders of common stock (although not the holders of preferred stock or other
nonvoting shares) get to elect all members of the board other than the members of the first board.
And this appears to give them ultimate control. If they are well organized, it will indeed likely
give them de facto control. But this is not a legally enforceable control right . Imagine
that all the common stock is held by a single stockholder, who therefore can place on the board whomever
she will. If this board nonetheless subsequently decides to defy her, all she can do is wait for
the next board election and replace it-just as the citizens of a town must wait for the next election
to replace their city council or mayor (assuming no criminal activity). She cannot overrule the board,
nor remove the offending board members, nor sue them (all things she could do if she were the owner
and they her legal agent). All control rights lie with the board (just as all control rights lie
with a sovereign parliament, not with the citizenry that elects it).
It might yet be thought that, although the right of election does not convey genuine control rights,
it is itself evidence of ownership. But this is not correct either-as if the cardinals who elect
the pope "own" the papacy, or the citizens who elect the mayor or president "own" the town or the
state and its assets. True owners don't get a vote, but a veto, which is why the governance rule
for general partnerships (whose members are true owners of the firm's assets) is unanimity
on all major questions affecting the firm. The right of shareholders to participate in board elections
is a charter right, not a property right.
In light of this, it is correct to argue, as did Adolf Berle and Gardner Means in their 1932 tour
de force The Modern Corporation and Private Property , that the modern corporation exhibits
a "separation of ownership and control." But Berle and Means were wrong to suggest that this separation
occurred gradually, as shareholders became more numerous and geographically dispersed. Rather, the
separation is inherent to the corporate form. Ownership is with the entity; control is with the board,
which acts on behalf of the entity. What Berle and Means meant to underscore is that all but the
largest shareholders have lost meaningful participation in the election of the board, and thus have
lost their influence over it, leaving hired managers a free hand. But properly put, this is not a
separation of ownership and control (which obtains regardless of the shareholders' level of
participation), but a separation of shareholder and de facto control, or more precisely,
a separation of shareholder and "influence" through election. Control of a corporation is simply
not a function of who "owns" it, any more than control of a town is. (If it were, control would rest
with the legal entity; but an abstract entity cannot act and a fortiori cannot control.) Rather,
control rights are established by the charter.
As noted above, the point of having assets owned by a legal entity is to prevent assets from being
pulled out by investors, forcing partial or complete liquidation of the firm. That is the Achilles
heel of the general partnership as a business form. In contrast, with a corporation, assets are locked
in permanently and can be specialized to the production process, allowing for increased scale and
productivity. Historically, this is the main advantage of the corporate form for business. Marx was
thus right to hold that bourgeois property would become a fetter on the productive powers of capital,
to be burst asunder and replaced with socialized property. But it has been socialized primarily at
the level of the corporation, not at the level of the state. Corporate property is a form of socialized
property.
(2) The next legal feature that the business corporation carried over from the town is that, like
the officers of a town, the managers and investors of a business corporation are exempt from liability
for corporate debts , and in practice almost always escape liability for corporate harms, or
torts. This is a second advantage of the corporate form for business. Debts and damages are paid
by the corporate entity, not by natural persons. Here, however, an important distinction must be
noted between the corporate town and the corporate firm. The officers of the town are elected by
those over whom they rule and upon whom they act. Therefore, if they cause harm, it is at their own
political risk, regardless of their protection from normal economic and legal risk. The officers
of the corporate firm, in contrast, neither rule over nor act upon those who elect them, but rather
rule over disenfranchised employees and act on numerous third parties. This relieves those who control
corporate firms of most of their personal incentive to avoid causing harm when it is otherwise profitable.
(3) If neither the shareholders nor the managers own the assets of the corporate firm, whence
derives management's authority? Like a town, every corporation receives from the state a jurisdiction
within which its officers legislate and rule. A university's board of trustees, for example, legislates
and rules over the property and personnel of the university-an authority it receives from the state,
via the corporate charter. Similarly, in a business corporation, the board of directors legislates
and rules over the property and personnel of the firm, even though the directors may not own any
of it. This authority of the board, too, is delegated to it by the state, via a charter. It does
not come from the shareholders (who, although they select the occupants of the seats on the board
going forward, do not create the board's structure, procedures, powers, or duties). Indeed, the board
is created and begins to operate the business before shares are even issued. The board creates the
shareholders; shareholders do not create the board. And prior to that, the state creates the board,
and endows it with its authority. This does not make the board and the firm it controls an agent
of the state. Rather, it is the state's franchisee. To spell this out: the corporate firm gets its
"personhood" (its right to own and contract as a separate legal entity), its liability regime, its
governance structure, and its governing authority from the state, but it hires its own personnel
and secures its own financing. This is a franchising relationship, and for this reason, I refer to
corporations as "franchise governments."
2
The Neoliberal Corporation
The above exposition of corporations as governing authorities franchised by the civil government
is, with slight modification, the classic view of corporations, as expounded, for example, in Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England . "None but the king can make a corporation," which the
king does either directly or through delegation to others such as the legislature. The authority
the corporation wields, Blackstone continues, is a "franchise" of the king, analogous in this respect
to the authority that the feudal vassal wields, also delegated from the king. Like lordships, corporations
are part of the overall system of government established by the king.
3 And this is part of the reason that classical liberals, including Adam Smith, were
so suspicious of corporations and wished to circumscribe them.
4 They recognized that they were not part of the free market, but represented state
interventions in the market.
This is, of course, not the view of corporations espoused by neoliberals. The problem that the
corporation posed for neoliberals, when neoliberalism first emerged as a self-conscious ideological
movement at the end of World War II, is that one could hardly put over a free market agenda if one's
leading business actors were seen as state-created entities. So neoliberals had to retheorize the
corporation as a creation of private contract (or at least something that could in principle be created
by private contract). Accordingly, stockholders-rechristened "shareholders"-were theorized as owners
who hire a board to act on their behalf. (Again, remember how wrong this is; shareholders are not
owners of corporate assets, and the board gets its authority before they even exist.) In other words,
neoliberals cast the corporation as a glorified partnership, to be operated in the interest of its
imagined owners and principals, the stockholders.
This account superficially squares the corporation with market principles of private property
and contract. But the social cost has been high. The institutionalization of this account in recent
decades has transformed both the boardroom and the workplace, producing what I call the "neoliberal
corporation." And this is responsible for many of the economic inequities and dislocations that plague
us today.
First it transformed the boardroom. Starting in the 1980s, under the influence of the Chicago
school of "law and economics"-one of the founding strongholds of neoliberal thought-both law and
norms changed to reorient corporations towards maximizing "shareholder value." This was done partly
by empowering stockholders in the boardroom-although unfortunately at a time when the character of
the typical stockholder was changing, from an individual long-term investor to an institutional investor
(a pension fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, or private equity fund) working under quarterly profit
imperatives. Executives who didn't look out for this new (and impatient) Number One were liable to
find themselves replaced.
Even more effectively, this reorientation was done by bribing executives with compensation packages
heavily skewed towards stock and stock options. A generation ago, stock compensation was an insignificant
part of CEO pay. Today, in Fortune 500 companies, it constitutes over 80 percent of a CEO's pay.
5 In the tinted view of human psychology typical of Chicago School neoliberalism,
it is assumed that CEOs will strive narrowly to maximize their personal income, not the welfare of
the firm. Therefore, the Chicago neoliberal reasons, structure their pay so that, in maximizing it,
they simultaneously maximize (short-term) stockholder returns.
Two effective means of quickly juicing a stock price are to increase dividend payments and to
buy back stock. As William Lazonick details, stock buybacks-that is, corporate repurchases of its
previous stock issues, which decrease the supply of outstanding stock, and thus increase its price-have
become so popular with executives that buybacks now consume on average over 50 percent of the profits
of S&P 500 firms. In some years, the buybacks of some firms have topped 100 percent of corporate
profits.
6 That is, the companies spent more on repurchasing their stock than they earned for
the year, which is done by cutting into their reserves, taking on debt, or selling off assets. Increasing
dividend payments, even when profits are not rising, similarly robs the future to pay off the present.
This is what I call "vampire management," sucking out the accumulated life force of the company to
feed current stockholders. Others have likened it to cannibalism-of stockholders eating the corporate
body. What it means, in Bell's terms, is that the hedonism and immediate gratification of the rentier
has gained control over the arena of production.
The societal consequences have been overwhelmingly negative. On the one hand, it means that the
revenues of the firm have been massively reallocated, with much of what used to be shared with workers
now disgorged to shareholders and executives. Wages stagnated even when productivity continued to
climb. This is at the root of our growing economic inequality. But it also affects the rate of economic
growth itself. Production is still an arena wherein focus on the long term-that is, delayed gratification-works
best. But the refocus on short-term share price means that research and development get cut, reinvestment
in plant expansion gets cut, and worker training gets cut, because their payoffs are not immediate.
The result is slower growth. What is more, the pressure against worker training encourages, as an
alternative, the de-skilling of the production process, which in turn facilitates the offshoring
of jobs, further suppressing domestic wages.
In short, when the short-term focus of the hedonist gains control of the arena of production,
all lose out in the long term, but the worker loses out disproportionately, in both
long term and short term. There is no longer a "cultural contradiction" between production and consumption,
as both are now ruled by an ethos of immediate gratification. It turns out we were better off when
there was a contradiction.
Second, neoliberal retheorization of the corporation has transformed the workplace. As part of
this retheorization, neoliberals adopted a newfangled principal-agent theory indebted to game theory,
according to which principal and agent always act opportunistically towards one another. In the neoliberal
view, shareholders are assumed to be the principals (rather than the corporate entity and its authorized
purpose), and the employees-whether top managers or line employees-are assumed to be their agents,
who will shirk if left to their own vices. Fortunately for top managers, boards primarily use the
carrot of stock and stock options to align the managers' interests with the shareholders (although
this is arguably the most expensive way to motivate managers). But there aren't enough carrots
to go around. So line workers get the stick-that is, an increasingly coercive workplace with electronic
monitoring, shaming, and so forth. This of course decreases their actual commitment to their employer
and, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, can turn them into actual shirkers.
In sum, the rise of the neoliberal corporation creates a slow-growth, high-inequality, high-coercion
economy.
Neoliberalism and the New Scarcity
What neoliberalism has done to the realm of production must also be placed in the context of what
neoliberalism has done to the realm of consumption. This can be summarized by saying that neoliberalism
reimposes the logic of scarcity on the economy of abundance. It does so in several ways.
First, as just explained, are the distributive effects of neoliberalism. Workers are deprived
of their productivity gains, with almost all of it conferred upon the executives and the rentiers.
So their purchasing power remains stagnant even as wealth explodes all around them. This is both
a material and psychological reimposition of scarcity.
Second are the privatization effects of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism shrinks the sphere
of public services and "privatizes"-or rather, corporatizes-the provision of the public services
that remain. In most instances, corporate provision has proven to be more expensive than public provision,
since the rentier investor needs his cut. Think of privately operated toll roads, or Chicago's privately
operated parking. And it shifts the cost of service from the wealthy taxpayer to the general public
of users, which pays cost plus profit. Relatedly, college has gotten so expensive, as its own managerial
costs have exploded while state legislatures have cut public funding, that parents' expectation of
a "return on investment" becomes understandable. Students feel forced into the moneymaking occupations,
rather than artistic or care occupations, because of student debt, and because essential goods increasingly
must be purchased, including education for the students' own anticipated children. The tightening
of personal bankruptcy laws increases this pressure. There is limited public provision of the basics
to liberate one for risk-taking, including entrepreneurial risk-taking, and fewer second chances
if one gets in financial trouble. So even the youth become extremely risk averse. With fewer going
into the helping professions and creative professions, there is less help for those in need, and
an impoverishment of the culture.
Third are the monopoly effects of neoliberalism. One of the first targets of the Chicago
neoliberals, both on the law faculty and the economics faculty, was the country's antitrust regime.
Breaking up monopolies was just one more unnecessary government intervention in the market. Given
enough time, the market would itself undermine monopolies, as new entrants brought disruptive technologies
to bear. Their recommended rollback of antitrust enforcement was finally institutionalized under
President Reagan.
Unfortunately, neoliberal argumentation on this point was always tendentious. Firms naturally
pursue "pricing power," and when industry concentration can occur through acquisition even more easily
than through organic growth, it is foolhardy to imagine that new entrants will keep markets competitive.
They can simply be bought out. Indeed, in a corporate economy, this can be done even against the
will of the target company's management. And sure enough, monopoly has returned to the United States
with a vengeance, as Barry Lynn and Philip Longman of New America have argued. Commodity food producers
are hit especially hard. Their productive inputs-seeds and sprays, for example-are in the hands of
a few suppliers. Meanwhile, their productive outputs-chicken, beef, pork, corn, soy, dairy, and so
on-often have only one local buyer. A few enormous processors operate as monopsonists with respect
to the food producers, and monopolists with respect to the consumer, lowering incomes on the one
end, and raising prices on the other. Monopoly pricing pervades other consumer markets as well-cable
television and Internet service, eyewear, beer, breakfast cereal, pet food, department stores and
office supply stores, and so on-where monopoly is often concealed behind a veneer of brand diversity.
Standing at the end of supply chains riddled with unchecked monopolies, the consumer finds the reach
of her dollar considerably foreshortened. Lynn and Longman also argue persuasively that monopoly
has suppressed innovation and job creation. Monopoly is thus a double burden, producing fewer good
incomes in an economy of overpriced goods.
Fourth are the globalization effects of neoliberalism. For those who control corporations,
the new mobility of corporate capital has been a race to the top, as national jurisdictions compete
to offer ever more favorable terms of operation for those who control. For everyone else, that means
a race to the bottom, as corporate tax rates are cut along with environmental regulations, health
and safety regulations, and worker wages. The decline in tax receipts means a decline of funding
for what still remains in the public sphere, even as the other declines mean these funds are more
needed. It may be the case that there are productive efficiencies to be gained through the mobility
of capital-although as we've seen, if this comes at the expense of long-term investments in productivity,
this may not be true on balance. But even supposing there are, the costs and benefits of these productivity
gains are being distributed most unequally.
In this new neoliberal world, the economic drive elicited by the siren song of hedonism is replaced
by the spur of deprivation, as wages fail to keep up with the cost of living.
7 American households have the highest credit card debt load in the world (over $6,000
on average, but over $16,000 on average among those that have credit card debt), which is perhaps
not surprising given that over half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, with an estimated 62
percent lacking liquid funds sufficient to cover a $1,000 emergency expenditure.
8 Debt that was racked up to live large becomes debt racked up to stay afloat. It
is all the same to the creditor rentier. The economic ideal of the financier, banker, and rentier
in general is that all purchases, whether of private individuals or governments, be made on credit,
so that all income streams are channeled to themselves, the debt holders, to pay interest and principal.
Why the debts are being contracted is immaterial.
In sum, the neoliberal effort to square the corporation with free market principles of private
property, contract, and self-interest has had the consequence of increasing inequality, coercion,
and mediocrity in the corporation. And since the neoliberal push for "privatization" really means
corporatization, these maladies of the neoliberal corporation are pushed ever further into American
life. The American worker and consumer is then undermined further by the exodus of capital abroad
and the return of monopoly at home. Neoliberalism has thus created a world that is almost the inverse
of the world Bell was diagnosing. The short-term orientation of the hedonist has been imposed on
the production process, while the logic of scarcity has been reimposed upon the working class and
middle class in the sphere of consumption, even as productivity continues to rise, but is siphoned
off by plutocrats. It is an economy of abundance for the few, but of scarcity and coercion for the
many.
There is no virtue today in poverty and abstinence. Work, as Bell notes, is no longer proof of
salvation, nor an end in itself as a "calling," but a means to consumption and social status. Stagnant
or declining wages, especially when set next to the exploding wealth of those at the top, is therefore
only experienced as great frustration. And so one gets the kind of elections we have been seeing
around the world.
The Contradictions of Neoliberalism
Because modern economies are corporate, not atomistic, there is a yawning chasm between the legitimating
ideals of neoliberalism and the reality it creates. And this chasm is even wider than first appears
if the true nature of the business corporation is kept in view. For example:
(1) Neoliberalism idealizes an individualistic, private property economy. But the economy it actually
promotes is a socialized, corporate property economy, where property is controlled by, but unowned
by, natural persons, with all the problems of moral hazard that this raises.
(2) Neoliberalism idealizes a free market economy, with minimal state intervention, beyond protecting
property and contract. Yet the economy it promotes is dominated by state-created legal entities.
State intervention makes the corporation.
(3) Neoliberalism holds that the state is a sphere of coercion, while the market is a sphere of
freedom. But in most contexts, the state only makes general laws that must be followed as one pursues
one's own ends. In contrast, the corporation, for which most people must now work, issues
direct commands to its ends, and under neoliberalism it has only become more coercive in seeing
that these commands are carried out.
(4) Neoliberalism promises to increase economic growth. But corporations reconstructed on neoliberal
lines retard growth, in favor of redirecting revenues to those who control and finance.
(5) Neoliberalism advocates an ethic of individual responsibility. If you fail in the market,
you should accept the consequences, and not expect the wealth generated by others to be redistributed
to you. But thanks to the principle of limited liability, the corporate form spares those who control
the corporation from the legal or direct economic consequences of their actions. The corporation
is institutionalized irresponsibility. In the neoliberal economy, individual responsibility is imposed
on the weak (with a downsized social safety net, tightened personal bankruptcy laws, etc.); freedom
from responsibility is enjoyed by the strong-those who invest, and those who control.
It is hard to exaggerate how far neoliberal ideology is contradicted by our economic reality.
The contradiction ultimately stems from the failure of neoliberals to understand the corporate form,
and thus a failure to understand the corporate economy. Indeed, it means a failure to understand
the modern world as a whole, which is fundamentally corporate in its construction. Its corporatization
began in medieval Europe in the wake of the recovery of the Roman law of corporations. The corporate
form first transformed the semi-subordinate bodies of the Church (its monasteries, cathedral chapters,
confraternities, chantries), and eventually the Church as a whole, all modeled as corporations. It
then transformed civil society (its towns, universities, and guilds). And then it transformed the
state (inspiring the positing of an abstract and sovereign juridical person, the "state," distinct
from the ruler).
Briefly, it looked like that would be the end of the line for the corporate form. Rhetoric, and
to an extent, reality, suggested that the corporate form would be swept away, with corporate rights
replaced by the rights of man. In the Age of Enlightenment, corporate bodies came under attack as
remnants of the ancien régime-examples of legal privilege obnoxious to the demand for equality under
the law. At the Constitutional Convention, America's founders, fearing the rise of monopoly and a
monied aristocracy, refused to grant the power of incorporation to the federal government.
9 The French Constitution of 1791 went so far as to dissolve all corporations for
being "injurious to liberty and equality of rights." But, in America, federal incorporation was later
held to be an implied power, and, in France, the corporate ban would prove to be short-lived.
The problem with neoliberalism is that it construes the idealized, individualist world of eighteenth-century
rhetoric as a good approximation of twenty-first-century reality. But in the nineteenth-century United
States especially, a new corporate age was birthed as the corporate form made its final and most
potent conquest, transforming the business firm and economy. In our "social imaginary," to use a
coinage of Charles Taylor, the United States is the individualist society sans pareil -the
most modern of modern societies because it is the most thorough in its realization of the individualist
impulses of the Renaissance and the radical Reformation. Yet, in reality, it is now the most corporate
of societies, teeming with franchised governments large and small: towns, state governments, and
the federal government (franchised by "the People"), but also and especially our myriad for-profit
and non-profit corporations (business firms, churches, foundations, and other "non-governmental,"
yet actually quite governmental, associations).
Our ability to come to grips with our current predicament requires as its first step a fundamental
reworking of our picture of modern society. Ours is not the world of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
It is a world in which the means of production and the means of rule are owned by juridical entities,
not natural persons. A world wherein control is exercised by officeholders, not owners; wherein the
officeholders-of corporate government no less than of civil government-dodge direct economic and
legal responsibility for the consequences of their control; and wherein the officeholders are therefore
supposed to be guided by a fiduciary duty to the organization's authorized purposes, not by
individual self-interest. This is the world we inhabit, and it is a world that falls into dysfunction
and exploitation when neoliberal categories and prescriptions are imposed upon it.
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer
2017): 58–71.
Notes
1 See Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, eds., The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making
of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009).
2 For further detail on this view of corporations, see my "Beyond Public and Private:
Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political Science Review 107, no.
1 (Feb. 2013): 139–58.
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in Four Books , vol.
1 (1753; Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1893), 297, 324; see also 180–81.
4 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
, vol. 2 of The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1976), pt. 2, pp. 225–30, 246–47.
5 William Lazonick, "Profits without Prosperity," Harvard Business Review 92,
no. 9 (Sept. 2014): 46–55.
6 Ibid.
7 Erin El Issa, "2016 American Household Credit Card Debt Study," NerdWallet
, https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/average-credit-card-debt-household/.
8 Ibid.; Scott Dylan, "American Credit Card Debt at Record High-Should You Be Worried?,"
Get , May 24, 2016, https://www.get.com/news/american-credit-card-debt/; Quentin Fottrell,
"Most Americans Are One Paycheck Away from the Street," MarketWatch , January 7, 2015, https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07.
9 Pauline Maier, "The Revolutionary Origins of the American Corporation," William
and Mary Quarterly 50, no. 1 (Jan. 1993): 51–84.
David Ciepley is associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. He
is the author of Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (Harvard University Press, 2006) as
well as of "Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political
Science Review 107, no. 1 (February 2013): 139–58.
The most tantalizing predictions of cyberpunk never came true. There are no gangs of cyborgs ruling
shantytowns in New York City and there are no corporations larger than the federal government. But
the sci-fi subgenre envisions such dystopias being underpinned by something subtler: the state of
man's soul when there are no longer limits.
The 1980s provided fertile ground for the piercing new vision of science fiction pioneered by
William Gibson and his contemporaries. The global capitalism of Reagan and Thatcher ceded agency
from nation-states to nation-agnostic corporations. Less obvious but just as important was the fact
that the space race was over and Star Trek 's naivety was laid bare. Computers, not spaceships,
would become the measure of progression towards the future. The sleek, utopian vision of the mid-century
futurism was further discredited by soaring crime in urban centers.
Modernity that was once expected to bring matching space unitards instead brought radical self-expression.
The overabundance of choice, these authors suggested, leads to decadence, decay and a society where
people can't see clearly without losing their humanity.
And so the heroes of cyberpunk are outsiders -- the punks to which the genre owes half its name.
In cyberpunk, there are no more grand narratives about progress and triumph. Humans have nowhere
to go and decay is globalized; this is sci-fi without the comforting thought of alien life. Readers
experience an Earth where the concept of "place" has passed its expiration date. Protagonists, like
the megacorporations they tangle with, exist across borders, anywhere being as familiar or foreign
as anywhere else. Neon Japanese syllabary studs skyscrapers that loom over the crowded downtowns
of American cities. Virtual reality is at once a catalyst and a coping mechanism for social breakdown.
What is an individual to do in the face of such brutal atomization? Why, he takes individualism
to its perverse conclusions, William Gibson's
Neuromancer
suggests. Take the following passage:
His face was a simple graft grown on collagen and shark-cartilage polysaccharides, smooth and
hideous.
The novel implies that the character might appear a little later with a completely different face.
Self was another uncertainty that had been sloughed off by ceaseless momentum. Even the author's
jargon serves to impart a feeling of unfamiliarity.
We're starting to live in a time when such terrible and wondrous things are not only technically
possible but socially acceptable. Headlines were made last month over a fetal
lamb being grown in an artificial uterus. The creature, invaded with tubes, suckles and kicks
inside its bulging, rippling enclosure. The juxtaposition of twitching organism and sterile, utilitarian
plastic is simply cyberpunk. Gender is going the way of that thug's cartilage-grown face. Male and
female is looking more like Coke and Pepsi, with some opting to make their own artisanal cola blends.
As rootlessness moves from exception to rule, obligations to others begin to look like hindrances.
It isn't difficult to see how three-parent babies in polycarbonate wombs fit into all of this.
Change is fast these days. We can feel acceleration that was once only perceptible between generations.
At the same time, the past is more crystallized than it's ever been before. Today's everyman, immersed
in a data-sphere orders of magnitude more efficient than any library, can see more clearly than ever
that things were different in an ever-familiar past. A world with meaning resolves ever sharper as
we speed away from it.
But the left-liberal ethic that was once a vantage point from which the genre's founders saw so
far is now fogging their sight, restricting them to toiling within the status quo. Cyberpunk has
come true in ways that makes progressives uncomfortable if they are unpacked. The genre's founders
married a criticism of corporations to the dreary aesthetic of rootlessness, but progressivism only
offers a critique of the former on its own merits. Take away the violence and grit and you get
Brave New World , a world that the gender ideologue can't levy an argument against. Consumerization
of the body, reproduction and social relations lost their conspicuous ugliness when they were rebranded
as "liberation." (Outside of sci-fi, the
only major literary figure
who tackles these issues , Michel Houellebecq,
is painted as a reactionary.)
Gibson's upcoming book,
Agency , has a plot one would expect from a lesser author: the future is awful because
Trump was elected president. This might seem like a perplexing lack of creativity, but consider the
intervening third of a century. Gibson was in the business of scrutinizing Frankensteinization when
it was a distant flight of fancy. But becoming a Frankenstein monster of hormones and surgery is
here and celebration is mandatory. Dialing down one's own ability to notice things to the level of
a Daily Kos commenter becomes a matter of survival. This new subject matter reflects the aesthetics
of culture that snapped his leash: lifeless and brutal in its insipid repetition.
Stories motivated by political disappointment are doomed to be forgotten as the election cycle
resets. Cyberpunk, on the other hand, is more popular now than even during its literary heyday of
the 80s. The blockbuster Ghost in the Shell hit theaters earlier this year and will be followed
by a sequel to the seminal Blade Runner in October. Their combined budget probably exceeds
that of every cyberpunk film that came before (there aren't many.) Cyberpunk 2077 is set to
cost around $100 million, making it the most expensive role-playing video game ever made. If we put
on our cyberpunk goggles, all of this means something. Capitalism is a computer that processes desire.
Cyberpunk is not becoming marketable because it offers a solution for society. The message is
clear that, in face of inexorable rot, the individual loses his sanity or loses his soul. What the
genre does offer is a third choice: to view breakneck dehumanization as a roller coaster ride. There
is grim exhilaration in the acceptance that an awesome decline cannot be stopped. A future that was
once dark and hopeless is now dark and beautiful when one dives headlong into it. Ugliness becomes
thrilling and alienation becomes adventure. The homogenous, numbing light of Brave New World's
dystopia is replaced by the dreamy atmosphere of neon-lit alleys. Sisyphus can't change his fate,
but he can refuse to nod and clap, blank-eyed, at the world's loss of meaning.
Robert Mariani is the opinion editor at The Daily Caller and the co-founder of Jacobite
, a magazine of the post-political right. Follow him on Twitter
@robert_mariani
Weyrich first aired his conception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech to the
Civitas Institute's
Conservative
Leadership Conference , later repeating this usage in his widely syndicated
Culture War
Letter . [64]
[66]
[67]
At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural
Marxism for The
Free Congress Foundation ; in it Lind identifies the presence of
homosexuals on television
as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered
a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution.
[55]
[63]
[68]
Lind has since published his own depiction of a fictional Cultural Marxist apocalypse.
[69]
[70]
Lind and Weyrich's writings on this subject advocate fighting what they perceive as Cultural
Marxism with "a vibrant
cultural conservatism
" composed of "retroculture" fashions from the past, a return to rail systems as public transport
and an agrarian culture of
self-reliance modeled after the Amish
. [55]
[70]
[71] [72]
[73]
[74] [75]
[
excessive citations ] Paul Weyrich and his protégé Eric Heubeck later openly advocated
for a more direct form of "taking over political structures" by the "New Traditionalist Movement"
in his 2001 paper
The
Integration of Theory and Practice written for Weyrich's
Free Congress Foundation
.
[76] [77]
[78]
In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The
Frankfurt School" . [53]
Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film
"CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" . [79]
The intellectual historian
Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:
"... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical
right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which
feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly
simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual
liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are
ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social
Research who came to America in the 1930's." [53]
Dr. Heidi Beirich likewise claims the conspiracy theory is used to
demonize various conservative
"bêtes noires" including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators,
environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationalists." [80]
The Southern
Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a
Holocaust denial conference
on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt
School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to "question whether the
Holocaust occurred" and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the
Free Congress Foundation
"to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis". [84]
[85]
Adherents of the theory often seem to mean that the existence of things like modern
feminism , anti-white racism,
and sexualization are dependent
on the Frankfurt School, even though these processes and movements predate the 1920s. Although the
theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the
theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political
Correctness'", published in
Fidelio Magazine
by the Schiller
Institute . [53]
[86] [87] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the
LaRouche movement ,
further promoted the idea in 1994. [88] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted
Modernism
in the arts as a form of
Cultural pessimism
, and shaped the
Counterculture
of the 1960s (such as the British pop band
The Beatles ) after the
Wandervogel of the
Ascona commune .
[86] The Larouche movement is otherwise mostly known for believing that the
British Empire still exists,
is trying to take control of the world (mostly, but not exclusively by economical means), and, among
other things, also controls the
global drug trade
. [89]
[90]
More recently, the Norwegian terrorist
Anders Behring Breivik
included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" , which
along with The Free
Congress Foundation 's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was e-mailed
to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before
the 2011 bomb blast in
Oslo for which Breivik was responsible. [91]
[92] [93]
Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's
manifesto. [94]
Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated, "Next to the global dimension
of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which
lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy". [54]
Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war
German concept of Cultural
Bolshevism locating it as part of the
degeneration theory
that aided in
Hitler's rise to power . [95]
William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It [Cultural Marxism]
is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to
World War I." [85]
Back in 2011 VDARE posted a
commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the "Cultural Marxist" concept. (I reluctantly accepted
the term only because I couldn't think of a better one.)
As I pointed out, this ideology was very far from orthodox Marxism and was viewed by
serious
Marxists as a kind of bastard child. Yet many of those designated as "Cultural Marxists" still
viewed themselves as classical Marxists and some still do.
Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the bourgeoisie as a counterrevolutionary class. Like orthodox
Marxists, they viewed the world, arguably simplistically, in terms of interest groups and power
relationships. Like orthodox Marxists-whose break from Victorian classical liberalism in this
respect was shocking in a way that is easily overlooked after the totalitarian experience of the
twentieth century-they explicitly eschewed debate in favor of reviling and if possible repressing
their opponents. (This is fundamental to the Marxist method: although
it claims to be "scientific"
, it is in fact an a priori value system that
rejects debate and its concomitant, "bourgeois science".
Hence Political Correctness-the
most prominent
product of "cultural Marxism" .) Like orthodox Marxist, they supported, at least in principle,
a socialist i.e. government-controlled economy. Like orthodox Marxists, they inclined, in varying
degrees, toward the Communist side during the Cold War. (
Marcuse , who
cheered the
Soviet suppression
of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, was an outright Stalinist-as I can confirm from personal
knowledge as his onetime student.)
These disciples of the Frankfurt School, like Marx, were eager to replace what they defined as
bourgeois society by a new social order. In this envisaged new order, humankind would experience
true equality for the first time. This would be possible because, in a politically and socially reconstructed
society, we would no longer be alienated from our real selves, which had been warped by the inequalities
that existed until now.
But unlike authentic Marxists, Cultural Marxists have been principally opposed to the culture
of bourgeois societies -- and only secondarily to their material arrangements.
Homophobia ,
nationalism , Christianity,
masculinity
, and anti-Semitism have been the prime villains in the Cultural Marxist script.
This is especially true as one moves from the philosophy of the interwar German founders of the
Frankfurt school, like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, to the second generation.
This second generation is represented by
Jürgen
Habermas and most of the multicultural theorists ensconced in Western universities.
For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the
crusade against
capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against "prejudice" and "discrimination."
They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because
it will bring the working class to power, but to fight "racism," "fascism," and the other residues
of the Western past.
If they can't accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing
our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags–
hedge fund managers, Mark
Zuckerberg
etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers' state, i.e. the
leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary
program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of
command economies
in the Soviet bloc
. Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures,
the
obliteration of
gender roles and the utter devastation of "the
patriarchal
family."
Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus
even
with Paris burning , National Review was still
attacking the Right . In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for
Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a
"socialist" because she "supports protectionism." Macron's actual onetime membership in the Socialist
Party, and his view that there was
no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [
French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron , April 24, 2017].
Conservatism Inc. goes along because these goals are partially achieved through corporate capitalists,
who actively push Leftist social agendas and punish entire communities if they're insufficiently
enthusiastic about gay marriage, gay scout leaders, transgendered rest rooms, sanctuary cities etc..
Wedded as it is to a clichéd defense of the "free market," the Beltway Right not only won't oppose
this plutocratic agenda, but instead offers tax cuts to the wealthiest and most malevolent actors.
It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure
that our so-called "conservatives" are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right.
The behavior of our own captains of industry shows the rot is deep and that multiculturalism is very
much part of American "liberal democratic" thinking, even informing our bogus conservatism. "Conservatism"
is now defined as waging endless wars in the name of
universalist
values that any other generation would have
called radically leftist. And Cultural Marxists themselves now define what we call "Western values"-for
example, accepting homosexuality
The takeover is so complete, we might even say "Cultural Marxism" has outlived its usefulness
as a label or as a description of a hostile foreign ideology. Instead, we're dealing with "conservatives,"
who are, in many ways, more extreme and more destructive than the Frankfurt School itself.
Many conservatives seem to believe Cultural Marxism is just a foreign eccentricity somehow smuggled
into our country. Allan Bloom's "
conservative " bestseller The Closing of the American Mind [
PDF ]
contended that multiculturalism was just another example of "The German Connection." This is
ludicrous.
Case in point: unlike Horkheimer, or my onetime teacher Herbert Marcuse, leading writers within
Conservatism Inc. are sympathetic to something like
gay marriage . These include:
Indeed, homosexual liberation is so central to modern conservatism that the Beltway Right's pundits
urge American soldiers to impose it at bayonet point around the world. Kirchick complains we haven't
pressed the Russian "thug" Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such "conservative" features of public
life as gay pride parades. [
Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom , by
James Kirchick, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2014]
Another frequent
contributor
to National Review , Jillian Kay Melchior, expressed concern that American withdrawal
from Ukraine might expose that region to greater Russian control and thereby diminish rights for
the transgendered. [
Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom , New York Post,
October 8, 2015]
If that's how our Respectable Right reacts to social issues, then it may be ridiculous to continue
denouncing the original Cultural Marxists. Our revolutionary thinking has whizzed past those iconoclastic
German Jews who created the Frankfurt Institute in the 1920s and then moved their enterprise to the
US in the 1930s. Blaming these long-dead intellectuals for our present aberrations may be like blaming
Nazi atrocities on Latin fascists in 1920. We're better served by examining those who selectively
adopted the original model to find out what really happened.
At this point we should ask not whether the Frankfurt School continues to cast a shadow over us
but instead ask why are "conservatives" acquiescing to or even championing reforms more radical than
anything one encounters in Adorno and Horkheimer?
Admittedly, Conservatism Inc. has drifted so far to the Left that one no longer blinks in surprise
when a
respected conservative journalist extolls Leon Trotsky and the Communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade
in the Spanish Civil War. Yet it's still startling to see just how far left the Beltway
"Right" has moved on social issues. Even more noteworthy is how unwilling the movement is to see
any contradiction between this process and the claim they are "conservatives."
And let's not pretend that Conservatism Inc. is simply running a "Big Tent." Those who
direct the top-down
Beltway Right are eager to reach out to the Left, providing those they recruit share their belligerent
interventionist foreign policy views and do nothing to offend neoconservative benefactors,
while purging everything on their right .
This post-Christian, post-bourgeois consensus is now centered in the US and in affiliate Western
countries and transmitted through our culture industry, educational system, Deep-State bureaucracy,
and Establishment political parties.
The Beltway Right operates like front parties under the old Soviet system. Like those parties,
our Establishment Right tries to "fit in" by dutifully undermining those to its the Right and slowly
absorbing the social positions and
heroes of the
Left .
Occasionally it catches hell for not moving fast enough to the Left. But this only bolsters the
image of Conservatism, Inc. as defenders of traditional America against the Left-an image that it
won't lose even as it veers farther in the direction of its supposed adversary.
In short, Conservatism Inc. is not just a scam-but it's become a Cultural Marxist puppet. And
the
Dissident Right consists of those who can see through it.
I think the problem with this article is that the author can't distinguish were Neoliberalism starts
and ends and were Anglo Zionism (which we will understand simply as Neocon ideology starts and ends.
both are variants of Trotskyism -- "Trotskyism for the rich" to be exact. Also it is economic interest
that trump all others, so that alliance of the USA and Israel is pragmatic and is about USA access to
ME oil
They definitely highly intersect, but they are still distinct political ideas ("The USA global empire
uber alles in case of neocons; translational elites uber alles in case of neoliberals) and somewhat
distinct ideologies. I am not convinced that Cheney cabals (which included Paul Wolfiwitz and several
other neocons) was only or mostly pro-Israel political faction. And if tail really wags the dog -- the
idea that Israel determine foreign policy of the USA -- is true of not. It can be be that empire has
its own dynamics and Israel is just a convenient and valuable ally for now, much like Saudies
Notable quotes:
"... To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity). ..."
"... Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader ..."
"... as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise ..."
"... My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression. ..."
"... doubleplusgoodthinking ..."
"... The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la ..."
"... There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist . Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet. ..."
"... Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. ..."
"... Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity. ..."
"... The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide ..."
"... Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies. ..."
"... Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. ..."
"... The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. ..."
"... we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress ..."
"... I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and " ass-kissing little chickenshit s " à la ..."
"... ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. ..."
"... at the same time ..."
"... ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. ..."
"... To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do. ..."
"... They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. ..."
"... I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses ..."
"... Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. ..."
"... From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan , many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality. ..."
"... The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian] ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say ..."
"... Hollywood movies proclaimed that " greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. ..."
"... Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. ..."
"... for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values ..."
"... You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. ..."
"... Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. ..."
"... ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ..."
"... Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. ..."
"... I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it. ..."
"... That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them. ..."
"... Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. ..."
"... US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. ..."
"... If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names, addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible. I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney. ..."
"... Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world: Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules. ..."
"... In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response to the attack on the USS Liberty. ..."
"... One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well. ..."
"... But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more. ..."
"... So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right – it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism. ..."
"... You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies. ..."
"... With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East. ..."
"... There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment. The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central power in the Middle East. ..."
"... Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about the Empire, not about Americans. ..."
"... My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than his son in law Jared. ..."
"... Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to end. Highly credible, in my opinion. ..."
"... The Zionist attempt to control language. The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY ..."
"... But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!! ..."
"... It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of "Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off ..."
"... Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured by a parasitoid. ..."
"... How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel? We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. ..."
"... Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies belong to that plan. ..."
"... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation " ..."
"... when I read that I thought you might have meant Charlie Reese. he used to write for the Orlando Sentinel in Florida, until ((they)) ran him out ..."
"... Doesn't matter. It was a political defeat, and war is an extension of politics. ..."
First, a painful, but needed, clarification:
Basement crazies
.
Neocons .
Zionists .
Israel
Lobbyists . Judaics .
Jews
. Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial "elephant in the room". For some this
bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will
be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make
us run away from that topic. I won't. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing
this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic
right now. So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.
First, terminology. For those who have not seen it, please read my article "
Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important ". Second, please read my friend Gilad
Atzmon's article "
Jews, Judaism & Jewishness " (or, even better, please read his seminal book
The Wondering
Who ). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion.
He writes "I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity . I also generally
avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)". I very much include them in my discussion. However, I
also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that "
Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist " (those having any doubts about Jews not being
a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand's excellent book "
The Invention of the Jewish People "). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism
as spelled out in my " moderation
policies ":
Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from
each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human
groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics
of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but
not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over
Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all
"brothers in Adam", that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection)
of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).
To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint
them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a
person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which
one is born with (race, ethnicity).
Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires
defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities
linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically
having a recognized leader ). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or
leave (Gilad Atzmon).
Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing:
no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or
"sensitivity" – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow
human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31).
So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism,
then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those
who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe
that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish
identity and ideology.
Now let's come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists.
Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that "Jews
by birth only", what Alain Soral in France calls "the everyday Jews", are not included in this list.
Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference
still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the
ideological racism of secular Jews with the
religious racism
of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I
listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century
now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists.
Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative
expression.
[Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it
the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try
to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite). By the
way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will
still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge
them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].
The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who
broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political
180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into
on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la
Cheney or McCain. These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress,
most of academia, etc . These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the "nationalist"
or "patriotic" wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically
staged a color revolution against Trump . There is some pretty good evidence that the person
in charge of this quiet coup is
Jared Kushner, a rabid
Zionist .
Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all
means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the
planet.
Making sense of the crazies
Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of "logic" in this case) of self-deluded
racists can be a difficult exercise. But when the "basement crazies" (reminder: the term from from
here ) are
basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this exercise becomes crucial, vital for the
survival of the mentally sane. I will now try to outline the reasons behind the "new" Trump policies
using two examples: Syria and Russia.
Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus
would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This
is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because
Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect
pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. And that, in plain English,
means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (an old Israeli dream). Even better, the Israelis know
Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh
is a mortal threat to Hezbollah. By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long,
bloody and never ending war in Lebanon and Syria. While their northern neighbors would be plugged
into maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their
border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent
civilians under whatever pretext. Remember how the
Israelis watched in total delight how their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014? With
Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to. Finally, and
last but most definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out.
For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even
today ) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically
a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.
Russia . Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian. Particularly the ex-Trotskyists
turned Neocons. I have
explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere and I won't repeat it all here. You just need
to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the first Bolshevik government (which
was 80%-85% Jews; don't believe me? Then listen
to Putin himself ). I have already discussed "
The ancient
spiritual roots of russophobia " in a past article and I have also explain what
rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called "Judaism" nowadays) is little more than an "anti-Christianity
"(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you).
The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found
a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support
bona fide Nazis (isn't this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical
if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what
is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today.
In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving
since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate
Jews. While you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared
to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly
expressed in the media (in fact, 'hate speech' is illegal in Russia). One thing to keep in mind is
that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially amongst
those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country
(those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion
here ). Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different
attitude than the attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out
of Russia as soon as possible. Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present
hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations.
Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and
their demented policies.
Making sense of Trump
I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of
him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings. There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli,
but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA. I doubt that Trump even knows where the
Golan Heights even are. He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies.
Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas
than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody.
More generally, the guy is really not ideological. The best evidence is his goofy idea of building
a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then
he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution.
The same goes for his views on Russia. He probably figured out something along these lines: "Putin
is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let's join
forces". The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the
Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently
does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they
will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely
will). Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to "drain the swamp"
but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease
the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid). But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their"
plant all along (I still don't believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have
the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the
Ziocon party in Congress ), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood.
I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable
and spineless figures military Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are
only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and "
ass-kissing little chickenshit s " à la Petraeus. Not good. Not good at all. As for
the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) "three letter agencies soup", it appears
that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community
whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream
up. Again. Not good. Not good at all.
Living with ZOG
ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various
Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet,
that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly
forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into
a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia.
To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG I will reply this: believe me,
I am even more upset about having to admit that ZOG is real than you are: I really don't care for
racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me. But, alas, they are
also right! Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because
of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially
"sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor
and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions
when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show
that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. I just feel that committing the
crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely. At the
very least, asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is
an extremely important exercise all by itself. Hence, today I ZOG-away
Some might argue with the "occupation" part of the label. Okay – what would you call a regime
which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of the people
and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal
treaty)? Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon. I think that
it all began with Reagan and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton. Others think
that it all began with Kennedy. Whatever may be the case, what is clear is that election after election
Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars . It is true that
most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with
no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest
of the planet spends of defense. Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligences
agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with 2-5. Lastly, most Americans do
believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet. True. But at the same time
, they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends
and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely
hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all
but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there. Most Americans also would prefer that the
money spent aboard on "defending democracy" (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions
of Americans in need in the USA. As the southern rock band Lynyrd Snynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville,
Florida) once put it in their songs " Things
goin' on ":
Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
Too much money been spent upon the moon
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon
Soon? That song was written in 1978! And since then, nothing has changed. If anything, things
got worse, much worse.
Houston, we got a problem
ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls
the US nuclear arsenal. And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform,
is now sending a "
very powerful armada " to the coast of the DPRK. Powerful as this armada might be, it can do
absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens. You think
that I am exaggerating? Business Insider estimated in 2010 that
it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul . Why? Because
the
DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of
a conflict , that's why. Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces.
Wikipedia
says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems. Two
days a go a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20'000 artillery pieces. Whatever
thee exact figure, suffice to say that it is "a lot".
The
DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities . Of special importance here
are the roughly 200'000 North Korean special forces. Oh sure, these 200'000 are not US Green Beret
or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and
create chaos and destroy key objectives. You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike
group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10'000+ artillery pieces and 200'000 special
forces? Exactly, nothing at all.
And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?
No, I did not. First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for
delivery on a missile. Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable
of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another. I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply
drive a nuke down near Seoul on a simple army truck and blow it up. Or bring it in a container ship
somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up there. One neat trick would
be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl
Vinson and then blow it up. Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these
ships would be total. To be honest, this mostly Tom Clancy stuff, in real warfare I don't think that
the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack. But you never know, necessity is
the mother of invention , as the British like to say.
I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that
his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great
again" or something equally asinine. The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un
and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face. What if they decided that they needed
to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed
US targets all over the place). Then what? How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the
block? Could he decide to "punish" the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat
airbase in Syria? And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un's reaction be?
To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other
than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance
over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special
effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of
Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid
tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike
group as pathetic and useless as I do.
Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing about of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the
US. This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are
less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result. In direct contrast, both Kim
Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to
themselves!) that they are tough guys. Exactly the most dangerous kind of mindset you want in any
nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.
So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons? Everything.
They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump
made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the
Empire. And yet now is is playing a crazy game of "nuclear chicken" with the DPRK. Does that
sound like the "real Trump" to you? Maybe – but not to me. All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and
the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to "play empire", to show that, as Obama
liked to say, the USA is the "
indispensable
nation ". God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier
strike groups involved in the "solving" of this problem!
[Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly
organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference
in Astana, Kazakhstan. Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even
invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real. The said indispensable
nation therefore "invited itself" by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and,
having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage
of the negotiations about the future of Syria. In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]
So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will
never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.
I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG
expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show
you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses . As
with all the other forms of crimethink , I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably
in public, and you will get used to it. First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it
is also great fun). Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream "
the emperor has no clothes ". Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe
and more follow. The key thing here is not to allow ideological "sacred cows" to roam around your
intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking. Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations,
not human ideological constructs.
Where do we go from here?
Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate
warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is
just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. The good news is that those
who were sincere in their opposition to war are now openly speaking about Trump great betrayal.
From Ann Coulter to
Pat Buchanan , many
paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the
real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies
who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused
efforts to basically bring them back to reality.
The key issue here is how do we bring together those who are still capable of thought? I think
that a minimalist agenda we can all agree upon could be composed of the following points:
Peace/pacifism International law Human and civil rights Democracy Pluralism Anti-racism Ethics and
morality
Sounds harmless? It ain't, I assure you. ZOG can only survive by violence, terror and war. Furthermore,
the AngloZionist Empire cannot abide by any principles of international law. As for human and civil
right, once quick look at the Patriot Act (which was already ready by the time the 9/11 false flag
operation was executed) will tell you how ZOG feels about these issues. More proof? How about the
entire "fake news" canard? How about the new levels of censorship in YouTube, Facebook or Google?
Don't you see that this is simply a frontal attack on free speech and the First Amendment?! What
about Black Lives Matter – is that not a perfect pretext to justify more police powers and a further
militarization of police forces? To think that the Zionists care about human or civil rights is a
joke! Just read what the Uber-Zionist and [putative] human right lawyer, the great Alan Dershowitz
writes about torture, Israel or free speech (for Norman Finkelstein). Heck, just read what ultra-liberal
super-mega human righter (well, after he returned to civilian life) and ex-President
Jimmy Carter writes about Israel -- Or look at the policies of the Bolshevik regime in Russia.
It it pretty clear that these guys not only don't give a damn about human or civil right, but that
they are deeply offended and outraged when they are told that they cannot violate these rights.
What about democracy? How can that be a intellectual weapon? Simple – you show that every time
the people (in the USA or Europe) voted for X they got Y. Or they were told to re-vote and re-vote
and re-vote again and again until, finally, the Y won. That is a clear lack of democracy. So if you
say that you want to restore democracy, you are basically advocating regime-change, but nicely wrapped
into a "good" ideological wrapper. Western democracies are profoundly anti-democratic. Show it!
Pluralism? Same deal. All this takes is to prove that the western society has become a "mono-ideological"
society were real dissent is simply not tolerated and were real pluralism is completely ascent from
the public discourse. Demand that the enemies of the system be given equal time on air and always
make sure that you give the supporters of the system equal time on media outlets you (we) control.
Then ask them to compare. This is exactly what Russia is doing nowadays (see
here if you are
interested). Western democracies are profoundly anti-pluralistic. Again, show it!
Anti-racism. Should be obvious to the reader by now. Denounce, reject and attack any idea which
gives any group any special status. Force your opponents to fess up to the fact that what they
really want when they claim to struggle for "equality" is a special status for their single-issue
minority. Reject any and all special interest groups and, especially, reject the notion that democracy
is about defending the minority against the majority. In reality, minorities are always much more
driven and motivated by a single issue which is why a coalition of minorities inevitably comes to
power. What the world needs is the exact opposite: a democracy which would protect the majority against
the minorities. Oh, sure, they will fight you on this one, but since you are right this is an intellectual
argument you ought to be capable of winning pretty easily (just remember, don't let accusations of
crimethink freeze you in terror).
Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality.
The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian]
ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject
and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can
tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in
basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected
by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled
greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans
like to say .
Hollywood movies proclaimed that "
greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief
that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible.
Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. All I will say that that
rehabilitating notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, healthy and natural
versus unnatural and pathological is a great legal way (at least so far) to fight the Empire. Ditto
for sexual morality and family. There is a reason why all Hollywood movies inevitably present only
divorced or sexually promiscuous heroes: they are trying to destroy the natural family unit because
they *correctly* identify the traditional family unit as a threat to the AngloZionist order. Likewise,
there is also a reason why all the western elites are constantly plagued by accusations of pedophilia
and other sexual scandals. One Russian commentator, Vitalii Tretiakov, recently hilariously paraphrased
the old communist slogan and declared "naturals of all countries – come to Russia" [in modern Russian
"naturals" is the antonym of "homosexual"). He was joking, of course, but he was also making a serious
point: Russia has become the only country which dares to openly uphold the core values of Christianity
and Islam (that, of course, only adds to the Ziocon's hatred of Russia).
[ Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious
country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem
to support religious values as civilizational ones. I don't think that this is sustainable for
too long, Russia will either become more religious or more secularized, but for the time being
we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional
and religious values ]
You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism,
anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly
do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire
from within. And look at the alternatives:
Organizing political parties does not work in a system where money determine the outcome. "Direct
action" does not work in a system which treats libertarians and ecologists as potential terrorists.
Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration
gets coverage and which one does not. Civil disobedience does not work in a regime which has
no problem having the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet. Running for office does
not work in a regime which selects for spinelessness, immorality and, above all, subservience. Even
running away abroad does not work when dealing with an Empire which has 700-1000 (depends on how
you count) military bases worldwide and which will bomb the crap out of any government which strives
at even a modicum of true sovereignty.
The only other option is "internal exile", when you build yourself you own inner world of spiritual
and intellectual freedom and you basically "live there" with no external signs of you having "fled"
the Empire's ugly reality. But if nuclear-tipped ICBMs start flying no amount of "internal exile"
will protect you, not even if you combine that internal exile with with a life far away in the boonies.
Orthodox Christian eschatology teaches that the End Times are inevitable. However, the Fathers
also teach that we can push the End Times back by our collective actions, be it in the form of prayers
or in the form of an open resistance to Evil in our world. I have three children, 1 girl and 2 boys,
and I feel like I owe it to them to fight to make the world they will have to live even marginally
better.
... ... ..
nsa, April 17, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT
ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice,
mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.
exiled off mainstreet, April 17, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT • 100 Words
Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan
Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. I'm
not sure it is internationally recognized, though the US, as an Israeli acolyte as indicated by
the article in spades, may have done so at some point.
Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's
not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the
propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.
That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70
years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA.
US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they
might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used
to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans.
Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews
were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the
victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being
used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of
the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow
on their image as eternal victims.
People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck
novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with
great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled,
they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material.
Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic
relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.
WorkingClass, April 17, 2017 at 4:20 am GMT /p>
If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names,
addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible.
I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney.
Well done Saker. Please keep up the good work.
Anon, April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT
Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world:
Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules.
But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.
Nice try, but what have you to say about the originators of the Zionist project?
P.S.: In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled
enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response
to the attack on the USS Liberty.
One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well.
Mark Green, April 17, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
This is a very thoughtful article. The Saker covers a lot of ground. Basically, he has provided
his readers with not only a highly perceptive overview, but a blueprint from which they can begin
resisting ZOG (or ZIG) tyranny. And let's make no mistake about it: ZOG exists and its impact
is immense.
But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions
including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or
course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this
highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes
are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more.
The Saker also correctly notes that the distorting influence of Zionism has become too apparent
to deny–even though it is, at the same time, nearly invisible; as it operates in plain sight under
various pseudonyms, disguises and false pretenses.
Indeed, its influence remains mostly unrecognized and it is therefore unresisted. For now.
Indeed, even Trump–after only months in office–has fallen under its clever spell. We must therefore
strive to examine, discuss, critique and resist this extra-national force of malevolence. Step
one: Identify the source.
The intellectual and culture-wide power of ZOG emanates in great part via our mainstream media.
The mind-numbing and destructive impact of ZOG in Western media must be understood and unmasked.
Fran Macadam, April 18, 2017 at 2:13 am GMT
When you're right you're right. Logic like this is what leads the paranoiacs to think Russkis
are taking over! When you make good sense, it can't help but "control" minds.
One of the saddest developments, to a former implacable Cold Warrior and anticommunist, is
that when by a miracle (yes, I count it that) the Russians ended communism by their own choice,
without shots being fired, our side did not respond honorably (at least the ones at the commanding
heights of our society.)
Like your description of what Trump thought, "Hey Russia's fighting ISIS, let's have them take
care of it and save us the trouble" I'm a simple guy too who'd rather see the destructive waste
of war money instead be spent on infrastructure for our folks.
I think of "House of the Dead" where the picture of the prisoners waiting for release through
the coming of Christ, is a picture of us poor prisoners, but still of faith, waiting in this world
too. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.
CalDre, April 18, 2017 at 2:56 am GMT
@Cyrano
Wow, where to start when someone claims white is black .
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around.
So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli
government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop
US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right
– it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism.
US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that
they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it.
That's not the case. The Jews were turned away because the Jewish Establishment/Zionists ordered
the US to turn them back. Why? Because they wanted them to go to Israel to rob the Palestinians
of their land instead. So it was not the Nazis the US was afraid of (then or now), but the Jewish
oligarchs.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
There is not to this day any "overwhelming" or even "underwhelming" evidence of the Holohoax.
Soviets made a bunch of propaganda out of the (labor) camps in large part to get back at Germany
for the terrible losses the Soviets suffered, as well as the huge embarrassment when the Nazis
revealed the Soviet crimes in Katlyn Forest. However when in the early 1990s Gorbachev released
the notorious Auschwitz "death books", it turns out hardly any Jews were killed, and none by gassings,
rather the vast majority of the dead succumbed to typhus (typhus being carried by lice, and Zyklon-B,
the chemical Germany is (falsely) accused of using to murder Jews by the millions, was actually
used to kill lice and thereby save Jews in the camps).
utu, April 18, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT
But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along
It's possible that Trump did not even know that he was their plant but at some point after
psychological profiling of him and assessing all leverages available to them to pry and prod him
it was decided he will be just fine for the job. That's why he was allowed to win the election.
The anti-Trump color revolution conducted by the so-called liberal left was a crucial part from
the arsenal of the leverages. In the end it worked out beautifully for them. Gen. Flynn was not
too bright to realize what hit him but Bannon is perhaps the only guy, in the good guys camp,
who knows what is really going on. I am just wondering why he is still there. Perhaps they are
forcing him to stay for the sake of the deluded iron electorate of Trump to prolong their delusion.
they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends
and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans
absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing
wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there
You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very
low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more
dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies.
With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam
War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning
of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East.
This was a new task for the Empire. So everything goes according to the plan, e.g. Iraq war
goals were 100% accomplished. There is no more state of Iraq. Iraq will no pose a thread to anybody
and Israel in particular. There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long
as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment.
The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central
power in the Middle East.
Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about
the Empire, not about Americans.
The best Saker's essay so far, the most inspired and the most identifiable. Just two quick
notes from me.
First, the ZOG/ZIG is so ubiquitous and powerful that the past election with Trump against
Hillary was really a duel between pro-Trump young Zionists and the pro-Hillary old Zionists, in
other words it was a generational change among the Masters (it was also a change in who will profit
from political power). Since Trump turned to the Dark Side, I have realised that Jared was always
there, even during the election, as an éminence grise and he pulled Trump's strings a forced a
switch from election rhetoric to post-election reality. I have no doubt that Jared is the man
behind the man, except that he also must have a fairly powerful Zionist base behind him.
Second, Saker just like Mr Giraldi has become a magnet for all and sundry Hasbara trolls, obviously
because both are the most prominent exposers of the ZOG/ZIG. It is important to remember that
all Western Governments are ZOG/ZIG, without exception. Only BRICS countries appear free at the
moment, despite 1000 military basis of the global ZOG/ZIG.
My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and
are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than
his son in law Jared.
He could have coerced her into doing something stupid on camera like group sex or being
blacked and little Jared would not think twice to use this to control a weak man like Trump.
Translation from "alt-rightish" into English:
"Ive been a dupe and a stupid sucker for the last 2 1/2 years, and I need to believe that somehow
the Jooz corrupted and bent this fine American hero to their own will in two months, instead of
acknowledging the obvious truth that he was a weak, pathetic asset, and a literal as well as figurative,
cocksucker, all along."
I don't know if you wrote this as a response to my comment some time back arguing you were
ignoring the elephant in the room, but this article reflects my thoughts more or less on Zion.
I would add the historical record of Zion from Pharoah, the catacombs under Rome, to Spain,
to Edwardian England, Tsarist Russia and so on is a record much like a locust. You have to wonder
where all the 'persecution' comes from. Where the causuality?
Its seeks economic surplus.
And yes, they are missing the part of the brain associated with white high empathy and 'fair
play' as Jayman has mentioned. They studied that weakness in Tavistock to find these pavlonian
words like 'rac-ism' and when designing the themes in their movies and the fiction work they publish.
The way to defeat Zion is to say the Necromancers name. Say it. If you say whats going on,
the power of the Illusion and the fraud subsists entirely. No violence is needed. Repeat no violence
is needed. Just say it. Bring it up in a discussion about politics politely and with evidence.
The higher IQ people you meet will cotton on when you anchor the pattern recognition.
They are the real 1%, they cannot govern with enlightened chattel. This is why philosophy,
psychology, economics, history, anthropology, biology, and so on have been debased into slogans
in the academy.
In time, they will come after your daughters and mothers and sisters and turn them into whores.
They will send your sons to war. They will fleece your pension funds.
The truth, is that the most persecuted race of man in history – with a notable minority of
followers of truth like the editor of this webzine -Mr Unz, Mr Sanders, Mr Marx and so on – is
that there is a number who are essentially a very high IQ version of the mafia.
• 100 Words My own reading leads me to identify the following as the Elders of Zion:
Steve Schwarzmann
Paul Singer
Robert Rubin
David Rubenstein
Summer Rothstein
Evelyn Rothschild
Stephen Friedman
Elliot Abrams
There are some more. Put them on a map and draw the links between them and their agents. Khordovsky
gave his money to Rothschild to mind after the 1990s pillaging of Russia when Putin imprisoned
him.
Ohhh they hate Putin because he stopped them in the 90s more than anything. Khordovsky was
trying to buy a media outlet.
Also the Protocols may be based on a satire but as Lord Syndenham mentioned in the Times 100
years ago, it was a spooky blueprint for the Bolshevik revolution .and the EU.
Lena Dunham social policy for jewish social freedom
Milton Autism on economics to stop redistribution to the goyim
Kristol on foreign policy for Israel's world domination.
e.g Tony Blair, Macron, Cameroon, Merkel, Juncker, Bush, Clinton etc etc.
There is no difference. They are all the same party.
@Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized
the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.
That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years
now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US
even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might
offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be
back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who
were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were
the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims
can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today,
but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just
too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image
as eternal victims.
People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck
novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with
great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they
are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material.
Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic
relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. With no disrespect Cyrano,
you may need to read the 1996 report 'A Clean Break'
- and you'll quickly discover its the zionist entity that is the tail that wags the American dog.
The zionist entity is not limited to the geographical borders of the state of Israel, either.
Before blaming "The Jews" for the ills of the world it would behoove everyone to take a good
long hard look in the mirror. If you think you get an affirmative answer to "Who is the most beautiful
of all?" you are living in a fairy tale.
Deeply
Concerned ,
April 19, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT
• 100 Words May I add that calling for a worldwide demonstration on a preannouced day (similar
to the one against W's Iraq war) is critically needed. The slogan of this demonstration should
be "ANY US CITIZEN WHO PUTS THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL ABOVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE US IS –
A TRAITOR . ANYONE WHO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, DEFEND A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR". Traitor is the key word
in my opinion and it should be the rallying word.
Vires
,
April 19, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
• 300 Words
@Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized
the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.
That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years
now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US
even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might
offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be
back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who
were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were
the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims
can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today,
but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just
too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image
as eternal victims.
People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck
novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with
great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they
are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material.
Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic
relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. Why are you trying to
conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference between the two concepts?
It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has
on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal
Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.
Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel
Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia
and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around
When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average
"Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?
If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one
of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree
with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting
their claims:
John Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
Chicago University
Stephen Walt
Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more
detailed book, refuting your claims.
Are you familiar with their work? Are you rejecting their claims?
If yes, on what are you basing your rebuttal and what is your background?
Or are you trying to frame the blogger and everyone concerned with the subject as old Jew-haters
and anti-semites?
Now, if after reading the Saker's post, the only thing you understood was:
The Saker: "The Jews" are to blame for the ills of the world folks
Then I would recommend you should seriously improve your English, at least reading comprehension
skills – perhaps some online courses – before commenting and making a fool of yourself again publicly.
• 200 Words
@Vires Why are you trying to conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference
between the two concepts?
It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has
on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal
Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.
Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel
Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia
and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around
When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average
"Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?
If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one
of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree
with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting
their claims:
John Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
Chicago University
Stephen Walt
Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more
detailed book, refuting your claims.
What is your background, and on what are you basing your claims?
Have you published an official rebuttal?
Or is your theory just a "hunch"? I am just a writer, I don't have any agenda and I call the
things as I see them. I don't buy the theory of the all-powerful Zionist lobby steering the American
foreign policy either. Why? Because it makes no sense. Sure there is such a lobby, but US allows
it to exist because it suits their interests. They (US establishment) are the ones responsible,
not the Israel lobby.
If all anyone had to do in order to influence US government – was to form a lobby – then during
the cold war there would have been a communist lobby in Washington, financed by the USSR. They
would have poured billions of dollars, and not only the cold war could have ended quickly, but
maybe today America would have been communist. Do you see where I am going with this? US government
allows lobbies to exist only after they comply with their interests. They are the initiators of
policies, not lobbies. Have a nice day.
Cyrano, April 20, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT
• 100 Word\
@Vires
You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because you
make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of evil
Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world,
bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into
the abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to
me, keep on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about
the Jewish lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured
out.
Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.
Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians,
Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We
like to mock Russian nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you.
Okay, maybe we do hate Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.
And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.
I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to
suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably
the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving!
Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more
than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to
end. Highly credible, in my opinion. Wally
,
April 20, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT
Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.
Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians, Palestinians,
Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We like to mock Russian
nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you. Okay, maybe we do hate
Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.
And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.
I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to
suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably
the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving! The True Cost of Israel
Forced U.S. taxpayers money goes far beyond the official numbers.
Israel's occupation of the West Bank is an internationally-recognized human rights crime-but
those being impacted are harshly punished for not only acts of resistance, but even mere advocacy
for their rights.
When Trump basically fellated AIPAC during his campaign it worried me. But I thought maybe
just maybe, Trump was playing the Jews ..this article in all it's glory suggests I am very wrong.
That any potential president has to genuflect to Israel and Jews is the saddest thing in American
History. You can almost wish it would all implode. A hard reset minus Jewish whining and control
would be a true utopia.
@Cyrano You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because
you make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of
evil Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world,
bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into the
abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to me, keep
on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about the Jewish
lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured out. Jew finance
capitalists [ the master money manipulators] and their cohort in MEDIA are most certainly jewish..
Who the hell do you think promotes all this homo rights crap? It's not so much the jew Svengali
-but you- the rube in the mirror, who will have to be dealt with first when the lights go out..
Bruce
Marshall ,
April 20, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT
But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!!
It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of
"Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together
per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off
World War III.
" you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. "
Don't you imply that "so much propaganda in US" is anti-Zionist? If yes, then you have no idea
about MSM in the US. Just to give you a hint, try to google this name: Helen Thomas, specifically
a story of her private conversation with a Jewish man (who happened to be a born informer).
Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual
meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured
by a parasitoid.
@Quartermaster And so was Russia's annexation of Crimea. You don't think Saker would want
to call attention to such things do you?
How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel?
We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. Tell us, when did
the Golan Heights belong to Israel?
Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz
Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel
could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies
belong to that plan.
The ziocons' cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazis is another story. "Never again," indeed.
In the Middle Ages, antisemitism defined Jews as a religious group and focused on their
religious separateness.
In the more secular era of Dreyfus and the Nazis and Nasser, antisemitism defined Jews as
an ethnic group and focused on their ethnic separateness.
Now that we are in an era which celebrates group identity and views it as a virtue, antisemitism
focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.
" antisemitism focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.states "
The article is about ziocons and it emphasizes, specifically, that conflating Jews and Zionists
is dishonest. You need to read the article before making your generalizations.
Considering the number of synagogues in the US and the prominence of ziocons among policy-makers
in the US, please tell us, who exactly "denies Jews their ethnic or religious identity." Have
you heard about Wolfowitz, Feith, and Kagans? How about Nuland-Kagan fraternizing with neo-Nazis?
Still OK?
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/
ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks,
lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.
Zionist Infested Government! Brilliant! I'm going to start using this term.
Anyone who's spent any time inside the beltway quickly realizes that AngloZionists – the Saker's
term is really useful if one wants to accurately and concisely summarize these people, their ideology,
and their ultimate loyalties – infest from top to bottom the three branches of the federal government,
all the supporting bureaucracies, and all the parasitic lobbying groups, consultants, foundations,
think tanks, etc., that wield less official powers. Their proportional presence in Washington
is many orders of magnitude greater than their proportion in the general population and their
power is magnified by their informally shared ideologies and goals.
Not many of these people are actually aware of the harm they are causing. Most are fundamentally
decent people. Some I count as close friends. Yet the combined power these people wield and the
varying levels of allegiance they bear to foreign powers whose interests are inimical to those
of the USA and its citizens make them, considered en masse, an existential threat to this country,
to world peace, and to international law and order.
Few US citizens nowadays seem to know any foreign language, pity, for the following book explains
Russian anti semitism:
Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen
<<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
Who is interested in the why of German anti semitism after 1870 has more luck:
Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914', New York 1972
Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire', New
York, 1977.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
Also interesting is:
Horace Meyer Kallen, 'Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology', New
York, 1921
Pre WWII 'neocons':
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two
Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
jacques sheete ,
April 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Wally
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"
The so called non-profit scene also appears to me little more than a cesspool of corruption
and I wonder who or what dominates those rackets.
ZOG is an excellent term that describes the situation in America perfectly. The fact of ZOG
is undeniable to everyone politically involved in the US government.
The question is will people use the term "ZOG" to attack Jews? It has one great advantage –
the word "Jew" is not used.
The thing that Jews themselves fear the most, is the word "Jew" used by Gentiles. The American
population is conditioned not to use the word. Subliminal fear is attached to using the word "Jew."
The goal of the American population must be to eliminate ZOG – but not Jews.
The question is – can this be done without using the word "Jew" and all that goes with it?
@blaggard I applaud your honesty and logic. What a fight...
Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the 'conservatives' and 'liberals'
is not a battle of ideas or even of political organizations. It's is a battle of force, terror
and power. The Jews and their accomplices and dupes are not running our country and its people
because of the excellence of their ideas or the merit of their work or because they have the
genuine backing of the majority. The Zionists are in power in spite of the lack of these things,
and only because they have driven their way into power by daring minority tactics. They can
stay in power only because people are afraid to oppose them, afraid they will be socially ostracized,
afraid they will be smeared in the press, afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will
not be able to run their businesses, afraid they will lose their political offices. It is fear
and fear alone which keeps these filthy left-wing sneaks in power.
@naro No one is more critical of Jews and Israel than other Jews. Jews are and have been a
NATION in exile. Their genetic identity has been proven several times using Mitochondrial DNA
in prestigious medical journals such as Nature and Science...so it is not in doubt. There is continuous
historical record of Jews for at least 2000 years. Christian guilt is well deserved for their
historical hounding, persecutions, exiled and pogroms against innocent Jews under their jurisdictions.
The writer of this article is a hate monger. There are Jews of all political spectrum. They
are not homogeneous in their political position.
Jews succeed because they study hard, work hard, and take risks in business and politics. They
think outside the box, and are inventive and scientifically curious. Instead of envying their
success try to learn and emulate it losers.
They also engage in pretty intense ethnic networking and favoritism, things they typically castigate
others for doing.
Re. diversity of Jewish political opinion, I don't see it. Most Jews are partisan Democrats
in the US and there is very broad agreement on major issues, like immigration and Israeli-centric
foreign policy, details notwithstanding. And very few Jews will acknowledge that historically,
collective Jewish behavior has played a role in the negative opinions so many peoples hold against
them, indeed they strenuously deny it. (Smoke but no fire? Unlikely.)
Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality. The modern western society has been built on
a categorical rejection of ethics and morality.
Bravo – that paragraph was golden in my book. If this is gone – kiss your society good bye
– you're just living on borrowed time – all the gold and all the nuclear spears in the world will
not save you.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
– Henry David Thoreau
Ivanka's mommy is of the tribe too: "Ivana is also Jewish. Geni.com lists her father's name
as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint: drop the second "e". You get Zelnick. It is
Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish, too. See Robert Zelnick, Strauss Zelnick, Bob
Zelnick, etc. Robert was a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Strauss was President of
20th Century Fox. Bob was ABC News producer. Also Friedrich Zelnik, silent film producer. Also
David O. Selznick, whose name was originally Zeleznick, or, alternately, Zelnick. He and his father
were major Hollywood produ - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.4xaQKh2i.dpuf
It's all in the family (La famiglia, Kosher Nostra). The ones who voted for him are the suckers.
Kosher Nostra!!!
The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything
under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and
government.
Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner
Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Jewish-American organized crime":
'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late
19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture
as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער
שטיק). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza
nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the
latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was
at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States
In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli
and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .
Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through
donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters
used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "
Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT
@wayfarer
Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.
He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed
that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.
Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires
defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities
linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically
having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or
leave (Gilad Atzmon).
It's true that US Jews are mixed race (about 55% European and 45% Semitic) although they choose
to Obama-ize the fact (the European part disappears).
Also, after a lifetime of contact, I would say that the best guys leave the Tribe (often the
most Semitic and through disgust ) and the worst girls join (Gentiles attracted by money and power).
FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Saker
(et al on this site) are not interested in "solving Jewish question." – We are interested in the
survival of humanity, specifically in stopping a WWIII that could happen thanks to ziocons' policies.
" fomenting sectarian strife in order to forestal the development of a unified Arab nation which
could threaten it and creating the circumstances in which land could be acquired was at the root
of Israel's relationship with its northern neighbor."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-and-islamist-militias-a-strange-and-recurring-alliance/5586075
" the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even
if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to
call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti- Stalinist"
are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed).
In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions"
and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly
as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
My German is not of the best, but I have been interested in 200 Years Together for a while,
so maybe I can give it a try. I will try to check out these other titles you have provided, too.
Sol Bloom, 'The Autobiography of Sol Bloom', New York 1948
also is interesting, though just for one sentence, something like 'the great accomplishment
of Roosevelt was that he slowy prepared the USA people for war'.
This is in one sentence the book
Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities',
New Haven, 1946
Alas few people seem to read books any more, especially old books. The interesting thing about
a book, great contrast with a web article, is, once printed, it cannot be changed any more.
Sol Bloom was a jewish friend of Roosevelt. You might also want to read
Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New Yirk, 1918
Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
and
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
How the USA, and especially Morgenthau, wanted to fight Germany, in WWI.
Both Bloom and Morgenthau were of German descent, I suppose they hated Germany because of its
antisemitism.
@Ilyana_Rozumova @ Saker!!!!
FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Are maybe
present events solving the jewish question ?
There seems to be little doubt that Trump is in conflict with Deep State, neocons in the lead,
mainly jews.
See also:
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', New York
2007
It is possible that Marine le Pen of FN wins the French elections.
FN is accused of being antisemitic:
Pierre-André Taguieff, Michèle Tribalat, 'Face au Front national, Arguments pour une contre-offensive',
Paris, 1998 is an anti FN book written by two jews.
Hungary is closing Soros's university.
Putin already closed his institutions in Russia.
Joe Levantine , April 21, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@Cyrano
Americans using Jews or vice versa? Just check the roles that Bernard Baruck and Rabbi Steven
Wise have played from the administration of crooked Woodrow Wilson to the more crooked Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. Two names among thousands of Jews who have shaped U.S. policies while hiding
behind the facade of their puppet presidents should give anyone food for thought.
If Cyrano can bring back into circulation the forbidden book of ' The Controversy of Zion' by
the late Douglas Reed who turned from bestseller author to a nonexistent nothing the moment he
published his 400+ book, I am positive that the commentator would apologise for this comment.
@naro Mr. Petras you are a vile old man. Nazis were quite capable at merciless killing of
defenseless Jewish (and others) men, women and children by the millions, as they were unprepared
for the utter vile brutality that Nazism represented. Now the Jews are well defended and strong,
and will defend themselves to the utmost. So come to to the fight old boy, we can take on Nazis
. We know them better now. "Now the Jews are well defended and strong we can take on Nazis."
A member of the powerful Kagans' clan of warmongers, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan has been an eager collaborator
with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (do you know about Baby Yar and such? – Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is obviously
OK with the history of Ukrainian Jews during WWII). Neither ADL nor AIPAC made any noises about
bringing Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in Kiev in 2014. Why?
And what about Israel' collaboration with ISIS against sovereign Syria? "The documents show
that Israel has been doing more than simply treating wounded Syrian civilians in hospitals. This
and a few past reports have described transfer of unspecified supplies from Israel to the Syrian
rebels, and sightings of IDF soldiers meeting with the Syrian opposition east of the green zone,
as well as incidents when Israeli soldiers opened up the fence to allow Syrians through who did
not appear to be injured.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926
A Canadian darling of the US State Dept, Chrystia Freeland, happened to be a progeny of a Nazi
collaborator from Ukraine (Mr. Chomiak), though Mrs. Freeland proclaimed loudly that her grandpa
was "persecuted by the Soviets:"
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
" it appears Freeland's grandfather – rather than being a helpless victim – was given a prestigious
job to spread Nazi propaganda, praising Hitler from a publishing house stolen from Jews and given
to Ukrainians who shared the values of Nazism. Chomiak's editorials also described a Poland "infected
by Jews." Mrs. Freeland is still in office, spreading Russophobia that is so dear to ziocon hearts.
In case you did not notice, Zionists (ziocons) are modern-day Nazis.
" the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even
if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to
call "the constructive criticism." In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed
that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan
would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not
mentioned."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20th
We are guilty by proxy of murder, land theft, destruction of property and all the other
human misery that Israel has caused in the region.
So, if you're one of those rah-rah Israel First supporters, don't complain when the terrorists
come looking for you. You've allowed your politicians to enlist you in somebody else's war,
and in war there are always casualties on both sides.
America has become a nation of pathological irresponsibility. Nobody wants to take responsibility
for his or her own actions, which is the basic cause of the litigation flood. Least of all
do American politicians wish to do so. They would rather heap on the manure that the terrorism
directed at us has nothing whatsoever to do with the policies they have followed for the past
30 years or more. In truth, it has everything to do with those policies.
So, if you or your loved ones get bloodied by terrorists, then blame your Christian Zionists,
your Israel First crowd and your corrupt politicians who have their tongues in the ears and
their hands in the pockets of the Israeli lobby.
@turtle Sooner or later, the U.S. will go down to defeat, at which point "da Joos" will have
to find a new host.
I expect they will have a bit of a tough row to hoe in this, the New Chinese Century.
No matter how hard you try, I doubt you can pass off this woman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Chung
or any of her countrywomen, as "Semitic,"
thus disproving that "Jewish" = "Semitic" or vice versa.
Shlomo Wong? I think not. I read Jewish community publications all the time I have concluded they
are planning their next jump to China after they destroy America
There are endless articles about how much Jews and Chinese have in common (lie, cheat and steal).
They discovered that in medieval and early modern times there was a community of Persian Jews
in China and blather on about that.
And there is approval of marriage of Jewish men to Chinese women.
But the Chinese are not love thy neighbor Christians. Nor do they have millions of wanna be
Jews Old Testament obsessed Protestants. Chinese officials are well known for accepting bribes
and then doing exactly what they want.
On the other hand, Israel and American DOD employees sell lots of stolen American military
secrets to China.
Jewish attempted takeover of China will be a battle of the Titans.
• 100 Words
@Wally Indeed, "non-profit", but Jews Only and huge salaries
Recall the corrupt & hate mongering ADL, or SPLC.
Look at the 'holocau$t' scam.
Build yet another laughable 'holocaust' Theme Park, Potemkin Village, put up a picture of MLK,
falsely claim that it's all about 'tolerance', 'diversity and civil rights while down playing
it's obvious Jewish supremacism, and voila! Massive taxpayers subsidies.
"One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because
it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding
this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of
the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
- endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on February
21, 1979
====================================
"These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts
and figures."
- Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, Newark Star-Ledger,
23 Oct. 1996, p 15.
Here's the top non-profits. None are identifiably Jewish:
1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation United States Seattle, Washington $42.3 billion 1994 [1]
2 Stichting INGKA Foundation Netherlands Leiden $34.6 billion €33.0 billion (EUR) 1982 [2]
3 Wellcome Trust United Kingdom London $26.0 billion £20.9 billion (GBP) 1936 [3]
4 Howard Hughes Medical Institute United States Chevy Chase, Maryland $18.2 billion 1953 [4]
5 Ford Foundation United States New York City, New York $11.2 billion 1936 [5]
6 Kamehameha Schools United States Honolulu, Hawaii $11.1 billion 1887 [6]
7 J. Paul Getty Trust United States Los Angeles, California $10.5 billion 1982 [5]
8 Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation United Arab Emirates Dubai $10.0 billion 37 billion
د.إ (AED) 2007 [7]
9 Azim Premji Foundation India Bangalore $9.8 billion 2001 [8]
10 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation United States Princeton, New Jersey $9.53 billion 1972 [5]
@Alden I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed
anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any
mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.
They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his
father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars?
They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living
– did they get special tax treatment?
Hmm?
Peace - Art
p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist – how can this work out good for America?
Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether
they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all
the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed
to be the good guys?
There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying,
their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from
everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains
their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority,
but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths
to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great
enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property
is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A
psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths
having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting.
So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment
towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong.
Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass
outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack
and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are
attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised
and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The
Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does
all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look
at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain
tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.
I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their
behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog
of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a
duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the
behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths.
Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very
dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.
I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist
too.
@wayfarer The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about
anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system
and government.
Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner
Thanks, very interesting. Funny thing, most of the Jews I know are such fervent liberals they
think Kushner is a traitor to the cause of liberalism.
Seraphim
,
April 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT
@Art You are a nazi. Your generalization are the vile ranting of a hate filled animal.
Oh my - straight to the "N" word - what happened to "anti-Semite" - has it lost its sting?
Ah' to bad.
What are you going to call us next?
Peace --- Art
p.s. By the way Nazism and Zionism are brothers - both are fascists.
p.s. What about you Jew animals in Israel - you have the most immoral army in the world.
p.s. You Jews and your hateful bluster - you are fooling no one.
p.s. ZOG is going to lose. It is an irrefragable law:
"Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage which asserts that
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches
-that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner
or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred
specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion,
such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and
other rhetoric where 'reductio ad Hitlerum'* occurs.
*Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum,
"argument to Hitler", ad Nazium, "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate
someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,
for example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, X is a vegetarian, therefore X is a Nazi". A variation
of this fallacy, reductio ad Stalinum, also known as "red-baiting", has also been used in political
discourse.
Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in
logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd). According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum
is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale
is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons
tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern
world.
@Sam J. "... Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,)..."
Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether
they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all
the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed
to be the good guys?
There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying,
their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from
everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains
their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority,
but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths
to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great
enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property
is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A
psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths
having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting.
So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment
towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong.
Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass
outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack
and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are
attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised
and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The
Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does
all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look
at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain
tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.
I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their
behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog
of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a
duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the
behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths.
Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very
dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.
I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist
too. I don't know if this guy is real or if it's true or not but there's a vast amount of information
and cases which readily conform to the idea that everything he says is true. According to the
witnesses in the dutroux-affair all the participants had to break the law to be in business with
them on an intimate level. Mostly this was done through sexual abuse of children. Twenty years
ago you might could laugh this off as some foolish rantings of conspiracy freaks but there's been
too many verifiable cases with lots of physical evidence.
Pizzagate Pedogate Dutch Whistleblower Real Big Money Revelations by an Insider
I'm also not saying it's just Jews but I am saying they are the root of it all. They're the
glue that keeps the whole thing together due to their insider grouping tribalism.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
– Henry David Thoreau
@Naro Again To Summarize JEWS ARE THE BRAINIEST AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED HUMANS ALIVE TRYING
TO SURVIVE IN A WORLD OF MORONS AND IMPRESSIONABLE IDIOTS! Examples of the psychopathology and
idiocy of the Nazis is obvious on this thread-ironically in a web site owned by a Jew.
The envious losers, and political manipulators have always looked for scapegoats for their failures,
and Jews were easy targets. Not any more. Jews are quite able to defend themselves ..thank you.
You don't believe me? just try. " Jews are quite able to defend themselves .."
At least now you have prudently omitted references to Nazis, since you became educated from
other posts that American Jews – see Kagans' clan of warmongers – are in bed with Ukrainian neo-Nazis
and, moreover, that an Israeli citizen is known as a financier of the bloody neo-Nazi battalion
that had burnt a score of civilians to death in Odessa.
American (and UK) Israel-firsters have betrayed western civilization for the benefit of mythological
Eretz Israel. Your tribe was pushing for the slaughter in Iraq (see treasonous Wolfowitz and Feith
and the despicable Kristol) and in Libya (the former pearl of North Africa, where citizens used
to enjoy free education, free health care, and a sizable gold reserve – the latter stolen by the
US "deciders"). Currently, it is an ongoing bloodbath in Syria, which Israel wants to prolong
as much as possible in order to steal the Golan Heights. For the same reason your "most accomplished"
Israeli generals proclaimed loudly their preference for ISIS. What have you claimed, that your
tribe is the "brainiest?" – Relax. With such "activists" like the openly racist Avigdor Lieberman
(ex-convict) and your half-wit hater Ayelet Shaked you are safely among mediocrities. As for the
truly brainiest and ethical like Baruch Spinoza and Hanna Arend, they were rejected by your supremacist
tribe. Check the location of Spinoza' grave.
@Anonymous shut up naziscum. where is your thousand year reich? in the garbage An Israeli
demonstrates her regular poor manners Aren't you trying to imply that Israelis are striving for
their thousand-year reich? Good luck. Don't forget to take the neo-Nazi-loving Kagans' clan with
you.
Johnny F. Ive,
April 23, 2017 at 6:48 am GMT
What if the US Empire was financially bankrupted? How would it behave afterwards? I think
it will end with military overstretch and bankruptcy or nuclear war. One or the other. Its sad
that all this suffering is a tribal war. On man's way to civilization he forgot to leave that
behind. Would the US behave after bankruptcy like the Soviets did after losing in Afghanistan
or is the US going to be even more like a huge North Korea? Besides Israel there is the manipulations
of other countries like the Europeans.
I agree Trump is very concerned about appearance and that makes him weak. He like the rest
of the American Establishment is like Narcissus and in their pond the Empire is reflected back
at them. They won't let go of it.
I disagree that the American people vote against war. The American people have had plenty of
chances. They've had chances to turn the world's fortunes around plenty of times with Pat Buchanan,
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader. That pretty much covers the whole ideological spectrum
except the neocons. The American people have consistently voted for war at least since 1992. They
had these men who ran for president in order to save us all and the were consistently rejected
by the electorate. Its not just the government. Its the 4th estate. The corporations. I'm now
a pessimist. War will come and it will fail. The question is who will the Empire wage war against
and who will survive the war?
Is Pauline Christianity legitimate? The problem with it has always been that it was built on
a tribal story. A lot of good came from it. It was used to justify some bad things too. Its origins
are not the classical world. That is probably why the alt-right has a fascination with modern
pseudo-pagan religions. I think the real story is that the Ancient Greeks particularly the Epicureans
have won the argument: https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Stoic-Epic-comp.html
– these ideas are older than Christianity.
The AngloZionist tribe is now considered what the Catholics considered the pagans were. The
word paganus means hick. Pagan now means new age and Christian in the West means hick. The AngloZionist
don't even like them but require their obedience and support. Perhaps its only a matter of time
before the Judeo-Christian fairy tail loses its political power and just becomes good literature.
It has no hope especially with the transhumanist wonders about to bequeathed to the world. It
can't compete. They avoided the truth for about 2000 years and couldn't develop a convincing response
against Epicureanism. Genesis is the best they could muster against natural selection after thousands
of years of knowing about it? Epikoros (Hebrew for heretic) in the end won! But the US Empire
has an unhealthy appetite of playing chicken with nuclear powers and western Judeo-Christianity
will not go peacefully into the night. Read More
Agree:
Beefcake the Mighty
@Yevardian Um, the Golan Heights was officially annexed by Israel in 1981.
I enjoy your articles, but you can't be taken seriously whilst you keep making amateurish mistakes
like this.
Ditto on Russia being the only country truly upholding Islamic values. If Israel officially
annexed the Golan heights in 1981, why is Netanyahu making noise about it now? Seems insecure.
Also consider that "true" Islamic or Christian values would be those proposed by the actual adherents.
Would Russians have any reason to discount or misrepresent their stated values if they were altruistic
and high minded? I suggest you try and critique the Sakers comments on their intended merits if
you wish to be taken seriously.
@nsa ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks,
lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ZOP is accurate too, and ZOP is the specific
cause of ZOG.
ZOP is Zionist Occupied People, and ZOP is a description of the US and Israeli voter obsession
with and participation in a neurotic victim cult.
ZOP is the elephant in the room that nobody in broadcast media will discuss.
US and Israeli victim cult lobbyist are obsessed with cult dominance of national elections
and society.
The US and Israel have a dominant victim cult that displays a neurotic persecution complex
and frequently demands government remedies.
A US and Israeli victim cultist is conditioned to demand government reparations and entitlements
in exchange for their votes.
A typical US and Israeli victim cultist is obsessed with Nazi and white supremacy, claiming
that white-straight-Christian-males are deplorable Nazi or Nazi sympathizers.
The US and Israeli victim cult is aggressive toward foreign nations that are a perceived threat
to the cult.
As an example, here are some of the government entitlements enjoyed by victim cultists in Israel:
Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality at the country's establishment in 1948,
making an unusual distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality." Although all Israelis
qualify as "citizens of Israel," the state is defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation,"
meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the
diaspora.
Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship
rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some
30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights,
naturalization, access to land and employment.
Arab leaders have also long complained that indications of "Arab" nationality on ID cards make
it easy for police and government officials to target Arab citizens for harsher treatment.
The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens,
most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with "Jewish" and "Arab" being the main
categories.
@wayne Read about King David in the Bible. He was a genocidal psychopath. It states in the
Bible how he vicioulsy murdered civilian prisoners of war. And on at least one occasion he gave
his men all the pre-puberty girls to "do with as they pleased", which was after they had murdered
their parents and all family members. I am sure this was a great sadistical delight to him and
his troops. Men of God? No God damned way. Undoubtely men of Satan. Different time, different
standards. You are judging him with the modern "for show" standards, by which the "civilized"
nations, which have instituted them, do not abide. The US govt has killed 10s of millions of mostly
civilians (men, women, children) since the end of WWII, around the world, and now their clients
in the Middle East and Ukraine continue mass rapes and murder. David's crimes pale by comparison.
Those in Washington D.C. will never face justice for what they are doing, at least in this world,
nor do they repent at all. You can read about King David's repentance in the same Bible.
Anon ,
April 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT
300 Words
@Incitatus I deeply apologize, Anon/Keith. I overestimated you. Mea colpa.
The fable was intended to illustrate the difference between embarrassing irrational instinct
(canine leg-humpers) and intelligent criticism. You excelled, once again, at the former, and proudly
so. Knock yourself out. Polish those table legs.
"I know I confuse you."
The only one confused is you, Anon, the evader of any record who still fancies the distinction
'Keith.' Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily indict you for your narrow agenda
and regurgitative screeds?
No matter.
You might look up Julius Streicher, your patron saint. A man so vile cardinal Nazis at Nüremberg
avoided him as if he would leave excrement on them in any prolonged contact. They knew best. Keith
,
"Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily endict you".
Indict me for wanting to bring down the elephant in the room? Did the Jewnited states already
pass hate speech laws, forbidding all criticism of Israel and for exposing Jewish power in America?
Did the Jewmerica pass laws criminalizing Holocaust Revisionism? Did I wake up in a country without
first amendment rights. Or is all of this wishful thinking on your part?
Should I be indicted for a hate crime for asking for an autopsy proving several million Jews
were gassed at the Auschwitz labor camps? Should I be hung because there is no autopsy evidence?
Maybe this is the purpose of the Unz Review. My Unz Review remarks will be use to retro actively
endict me for laws that weren't on the books when I made my forbidden remarks, just like the Germans
were endicted, convicted and hung at Nuremberg?
It is you and the other Hasbara trolls who have a defensive agenda and regurgitate
the same old name calling " Its a trick, the Jews always use it"
When the Jewish Bolshevik NeoCons take over America, I am convinced I will be one of the first
to be put in a NKVD Gulag. I also know my cell mates will be other patriotic Unz Review Americans
along with millions of others who want to bring down the elephant in the room.
I apologize for mentioning the forbidden news about Rabbis and Herpes and the Jewish Egypt
slave myth. I know this upset you. Both of these stories were news published in the Israeli Haaretz
News. I guess these stories were for Jews eyes only.
"... Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission. ..."
"... Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda. ..."
"... When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. ..."
"... For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for. ..."
"... But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework. ..."
"... An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme. ..."
"... Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes. ..."
"... It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists. ..."
"... And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasé and misleading popularizers. ..."
"So I wonder if economism was really as unrealistic and useless as Kwak seems to imply.
Did countries that resisted economism -- Japan, for example, or France [Germany?] -- do better
for their poor and middle classes than the U.S.? Wages have stagnated in those countries, and
inequality has increased, even as those countries remain poorer than the U.S. Did the U.S.'s
problems really all come from economism, or did forces such as globalization and technological
change play a part? Cross-country comparisons suggest that the deregulation and tax cuts of
the 1980s and 1990s, although ultimately excessive, probably increased economic output somewhat."
Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces."
No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe.
The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission.
libezkova -> Peter K.... , -1
Thank you --
Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is
very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda.
I think it is proper to view Economism as a flavor of Lysenkoism. As such it is not very effective
in acquiring the dominant position and suppressing of dissent, but it also can be very damaging.
...When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption,
the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. For far too
many years, free-marketers have gotten away with winning debates by just sitting back and saying
"Oh yeah? Show me the market failure!" That deck-stacking has long forced public intellectuals
on the left have to work twice as hard as those safely ensconced in think tanks on the free-market
right, and given the latter a louder voice in public life than their ideas warrant.
It's also true that simple theories, especially those we learn in our formative years, can
maintain an almost unshakeable grip on our thinking.
For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products,
but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining
both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration.
Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for.
But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve"
and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example,
overtime rules -- using the same old framework.
An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory
-- it's an infectious meme.
Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories
for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic
econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes.
It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the
words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople.
But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street
Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real
economists.
And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced
by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed,
not the blasé and misleading popularizers.
... ... ...
Russia and China have given up communism not because they stopped having working classes, but
because it became obvious that their communist systems were keeping them in poverty. And Americans
are now starting to question economism because of declining median income, spiraling inequality
and a huge financial and economic crisis.
Economism is
reduction of all
social facts to
economic
dimensions. The term is often used to criticize economics as an
ideology, in which
supply and
demand are the only important factors in decisions, and outstrip or permit ignoring all
other factors.
It is believed to be a side effect of
neoclassical economics and blind faith in an "invisible
hand" or "laissez-faire"
means of making decisions, extended far beyond controlled and regulated markets, and used to
make political and military decisions.
Conventional ethics would play no role in
decisions under pure economism, except insofar as supply would be withheld, demand curtailed,
by moral choices of individuals. Thus, critics of economism insist on
political and other
cultural dimensions in
society.
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
That's not so much about Eurocentric modernism as America-centric neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?" demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist Joan Robinson. ..."
"... Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists: a society of hustlers. ..."
"... how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. ..."
"... he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become too high? ..."
"... "That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ..."
"... Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken. Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant of the struggles against heresy. ..."
"... Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a description of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day. ..."
"... I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly of their ways, and become normal humans. ..."
"... So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people, ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that had just been destroyed. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way or another, they get flattened. ..."
"... I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices in "morality". ..."
"... At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did. ..."
"... "They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression and better weapons. ..."
"... It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status, things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence, an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb. ..."
"... Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to win. But when all resources ..."
"... I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire. I propose hockey. Beats starting a war . ..."
"... When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa (Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election). ..."
"... The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously "It would be a good idea". ..."
"... I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization. But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc. ..."
"... I believe that one element of modern life that should be removed forever is the infinite search for maximizing profits. ..."
"... On more than one occasion I've compared the rent-seeking profit mongers to Molocks that cultivate us milder Eloi and cannabalize us. ..."
"... But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in THEM anyway. ..."
"... Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory (yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility. We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different, at best. ..."
"... Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark Age be? ..."
"... Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome, or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar institution have we now? ..."
"... Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful. ..."
"... The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm. ..."
"... I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism, free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time. ..."
"... But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems, the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis. ..."
"... IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing. ..."
"... Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent seeking. ..."
"... Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations. ..."
"... It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument, but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to the blight of NeoLiberalism ..."
"... The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage. But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise, things have reached an unlovely pass. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... For further reading, I strongly recommend John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards". ..."
"... I think that people who are interested in how the Enlightenment may or may not have contributed to the problems of modernity would do well to read Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity , by Darrin McMahon. Another book of value is The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters , by Anthony Pagden. ..."
"... I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West". ..."
Across the globe, a collective freak-out spanning the whole political system is picking up steam
with every new "surprise" election, rush of tormented souls across borders, and tweet from the star
of America's great unreality show, Donald Trump.
But what exactly is the force that seems to be pushing us towards Armageddon? Is it capitalism
gone wild? Globalization? Political corruption? Techno-nightmares?
Rajani Kanth, a political economist, social thinker, and poet , goes beyond any of these
explanations for the answer. In his view, what's throwing most of us off kilter - whether we think
of ourselves as on the left or right, capitalist or socialist -was birthed 400 years ago during the
period of the Enlightenment. It's a set of assumptions, a particular way of looking at the world
that pushed out previous modes of existence, many quite ancient and time-tested, and eventually rose
to dominate the world in its Anglo-American form.
We're taught to think of the Enlightenment as the blessed end to the Dark Ages, a splendid blossoming
of human reason. But what if instead of bringing us to a better world, some of this period's key
ideas ended up producing something even darker?
Kanth argues that this framework, which he calls Eurocentric modernism, is collapsing, and unless
we understand why and how it has distorted our reality, we might just end up burnt to a crisp as
this misanthropic Death Star starts to bulge and blaze in its dying throes.
A Mass Incarceration of Humanity
Kanth's latest book, Farewell to Modernism: On Human Devolution in the Twenty-First Century , tells the history
of a set of bad ideas. He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student
in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline,
the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from
start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?"
demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist
Joan Robinson.
Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly
self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species
capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists:
a society of hustlers.
Using his training in history and cultural theory, Kanth dedicated himself to investigating
how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially
asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. Eurocentric
modernism, he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every
expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For
every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become
too high?
The Creed of Capture
The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence to
achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the welfare
of community and society.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to the Western
spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into song, calling on
the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From the Eurocentric
modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly do it so that we can
say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach of somebody else." Hooray for
me!
"That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal
glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly
by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
Sounds bad, but didn't Eurocentric modernism also give us our great democratic ideals of equality
and liberty to elevate and protect us?
Maybe these notions are not really our salvation, suggests Kanth. He notes that when we replace
the vital ties of kinship and community with abstract contractual relations, or when we find that
the only sanctioned paths in life are that of consumer or producer, we become alienated and depressed
in spirit. Abstract rights like liberty and equality turn out to be rather cold comfort. These ideas,
however lofty, may not get at the most basic human wants and needs. .
... ... ...
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus of
reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
"The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence
to achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the
welfare of community and society."
Kanth hasn't dealt much with the wild skepticism of Enlightenment and modernist thinkers: That
would put a strain on such simplistic thinking. He's never heard of Kant or Rousseau? Pascal?
He's never even read Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach"? Dickens? A speech by Abraham Lincoln? The
novels of Jane Austen? Maybe some articles by Antonio Gramsci? The Leopard by Tomasi di Lampedusa?
Anything about Einstein? Or even Freud for that matter? Looked at a painting or etching or work
in ceramic by Picasso?
Just because economics has devolved into looting and excuse-making for looting isn't a critique
of the cultural and scientific flowering that were part of the Enlightenment and Modernism. Are
we really supposed to think that Milton Friedman and his delusions have destroyed all aspects
of the enormous changes since 1600 or so? And I, for one, don't want to backslide into the Baroque–when
states used their power for religious wars so virulent that Silesia and Alsace were depopulated.
Alienation is not the name of a river in Egypt BTW, Did any of your examples lead to anything
other than this?
The sum of individuals adds up to the bizarre creature we call "culture." A flower in the air,
to be sure.
They didn't even have food delivery! This post isn't the best evah in the history of NC - I
mean it shouldn't be censored or taken down or anything and everybody has a right to an opinion,
but "Oy Vey what a shock to a reader's delicate intellectual sensibilities."
You wonder if it's Beer Goggles that are being looked through or if this is a case of transference
and projection. The fact that the post author is a poet raises suspicion, since they aren't the
most reliable sources when it come so sober factual analysis.
Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken.
Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church
Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant
of the struggles against heresy.
If one is going to criticize societies for lacking "moral economies", it's not just the European
(and American) based societies that need to be targeted. Other societies have deep failures that
extend back for millennia, such as the caste system of India.
Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a
description of the Enlightenment.
Been a while since I read Candide , but the end where he meets the world famous sage
and asks for the secret of happiness in a terrible world only to be told 'Tend your own garden'
and then having the gate slammed in his face has always stuck with me.
You could interpret that to mean isolate yourself from your fellow human beings and just look
out for yourself, but I don't think that's what Voltaire was getting at.
Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption
of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll
take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day.
Perhaps, beyond anthropology, there are lessons in evolutionary biology. Individual humans
are fairly weak animals. Our ancestors were obligated to "huddle" to survive, or as Richard Dawkins
might suggest, huddling, banding together in families and groups, was an evolutionarily successful
strategy. Those well adapted to communal living were more likely to survive, so that tendency
was selected for. However, "cheaters" can also survive. That is, it is not uncommon in the natural
world to find individuals and groups of individuals who cheat the group – expend less energy to
reproduce, such as male sunfish that display the secondary sexual characteristics of females,
so are not driven off by nest building males, make a mad dash in to fertilize eggs when a real
female shows up, but provides no protection for the young – the adult male does that. In human
culture, there are also cheaters, those who provide little to the larger society, yet reap a disproportionate
level of resources.
So, learning more of our cultural roots and adopting positive measures for social cohesion
is a good idea, but much like Jesus' view that the poor will always be with us, cheaters, from
banksters to dictators, will too.
As Kanth sees it, most of our utopian visions carry on the errors and limitations born of
a misguided view of human nature. That's why communism, as it was practiced in the Soviet Union
and elsewhere, projected a materialist perspective on progress while ignoring the natural human
instinct for autonomy- the ability to decide for ourselves where to go and what to say and
create. On flip side, capitalism runs against our instinct to trust and take care of each other.
I think this paragraph speaks volumes for transitioning to a society with a BGI with libertarian
socialist leanings. Let people be free to create what they are passionate about while allowing
humans to express their innate desire to care for one another without it signifying weakness or
at their time own personal expense. I don't think this approach necessarily precludes rockets
to Mars either. The engineers who are passionate will still get together and build one. It may
take a little longer if they can't convince others to help but hopefully this will foster more
cooperative approaches and less viewing of other humans as consumables.
Libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two different things. Libertarianism is a less
authoritative conservatism while libertarian socialism is a less authoritative social democracy.
Think Chomsky, not Ron Paul. Or think of it as a more relaxed Bernie who thinks things should
be done on a smaller, more local scale.
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus
of reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco
after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly
of their ways, and become normal humans.
So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people,
ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that
had just been destroyed.
I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way
or another, they get flattened.
I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism
and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were
writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices
in "morality".
At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy
the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to
care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did.
The most frequent response from professors and classmates to my thesis? But those clans, tribes,
families, etc., didn't accomplish much, did they? As if the only reason for humanity's existence
was to compete against itself
Needless to say, I didn't stick with Philosophy ..
And we need new syntheses, at which this is an attempt.
It's not a stretch to say the trend since the renaissance has been to exalt the individual.
Kanth is aiming for a communitarian philosophy. An interesting departure point for discussion.
I don't see what people find so offensive.
"They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression
and better weapons.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this
one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When
the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and
die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status,
things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence,
an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb.
Capitalism made the stakes too high. But it was designed by the winners.
You might argue that there were plenty of "hopeless losers" in the systems that preceded capitalism
- the orphans, elderly crones, and beggars without livelihoods who used to wander the hedgerows
in medieval times. We have more resources now which also means no excuses.
Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought
them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for
status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to
win. But when all resources are restricted to the market, it's unjust to exclude any
group from access. Once again the stakes are too high. Social democracies are better places to
live for exactly this reason.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect.
I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop
a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire.
I propose hockey. Beats starting a war .
When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which
the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa
(Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a
representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially
male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election).
I take this example to point out that both Lynn Parramore and Rajni Kanth declaring in a version
of mumbo-jumbo are sadly wrong-modernism has always been skin-deep excepting in accommodating
the technological element in the tone of life. Voltaire and Rousseau aside, both Kanth and Parramore
know which side of the mumbo-jumbo bread is their butter; even bemoaning the collapsing supposed
ruins of modernism they do not fail to take advantage! "Eurocentric modernism has unhinged us
from our human nature" asserts Kanth in his "book" but I would like to bluntly ask him: Please
define your "us" and "our" in that proposition and clarify if poor Indians like Yours Truly find
a dot in that set.
The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of
my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist
asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously
"It would be a good idea".
It does not at all. This is the price one pays as an innocent reader by reading social science
mumbo jumbo which is so irksome. It lacks the grace of the real mumbo jumbo too. Kanth is bluffing;
the author misunderstands his stupid linguistic constructions of Kanth and incomprehension and
chaos follow. The whole article seems to be a bluff about a bluff(the book).
I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization.
But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a
purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky
little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told
her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc.
We have been very successful as a species; surviving all of our own inquisitions, pogroms,
hallucinations and yes, this is a serious situation we are in. We might even try to guide ourselves
out of it, using science and technology, as we huddle.
I suspect there was a fatal error long, long ago: you lend me your ram so my ewe can have offspring.
If there are twins, we each get one; if not, we agree upon future breeding rights and grazing
areas. After generations of this sort of breeding activity, I have in my mind the notion that
there is a 'natural increase' from lending or swapping.
Along comes a scribe with a tablet, whom I have now hired to list the number of my flocks (wealth
on the hoof); I lend you forms of wealth (rams, ewes, oxen, axes, boats) , and the scribe assumes
there must be some 'natural increase' as the outcome of this lending and swapping. Consequently,
the scribe carves cuneiform markings to represent what we might call 'compound interest' that
result from lending and swapping of non-biological resources - despite the fact that if you sit
two clay tablets in the sun, they do not (and never will!) create an additional clay tablet. Ditto
heaps of dollar bills; it's not the money that creates increase; it's the assumption of 'increase'
(originating in breeding activity of flocks and herds) that makes the money generate surplus -
not any property of those scraps of paper themselves.
BTW: FWIW, double entry bookkeeping seems to trace the earliest period of modernism, which
IMVHO adds heft to Kanth's argument about something shifting probably earlier than 400 years
ago.
It's possible that Michael Hudson has covered this; if so, I've not had time to read it yet.
I hope to in future. David Graeber's work on redemption ('buying back' someone enslaved or indentured)
and his anthropological findings also lend heft to Kanth's analysis.
"He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering
why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always
escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish.""
But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure
to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in
THEM anyway.
I think our problems do not stem from any theories or ideologies, they are the predictable
result of human nature – specifically of the fact that the balance between the loving side of
human nature and the aggressive side is not evenly distributed among individuals. It is precisely
the most aggressive among us who most desire, and work the hardest, to dominate and control others.
I had the same experience as he had with economics with law, ok I only studied it when studying
business and that does not a lawyer make, but it made no sense for me. But I do think I maybe
just have the wrong kind of brain for it, expect a logic that isn't there.
Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory
(yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine
if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can
walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford
to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility.
We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different,
at best.
Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark
Age be? I don't think you can get rid of Modernism very easily, for certain parts would survive.
Science and tech, for example. Ideas of surveillance and control. But along with this, new prejudices,
new superstitions, perhaps? What perverse new form of religion or philosophy might arise from
the ashes of our civilization?
Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome,
or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople
provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar
institution have we now?
Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon
that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful.
The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with
spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to
the Western spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into
song, calling on the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From
the Eurocentric modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly
do it so that we can say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach
of somebody else." Hooray for me!
Many would part company with Kanth over the above characterization. There are many reasons
why people climb mountains and ford streams that do not include, or even consider, that element
of exclusive personal achievement. Some might even aver that climbing and fording and so many
other human activities are done "because it is there", while others appreciate a spiritual or
other inspirational aspect.
Will we climbers and forders be told that we are selfish or otherwise deficient or on the wrong
side of history or whatever the mal du jour is because we like a little bit of hygge
or Gemütlichkeit as we live our lives?
Quite that is indeed the point where I stopped reading and started skimming someone who mistakes
metaphors in a musical for physical actions is not going to enlighten my world (no matter how
much I dislike the film).
climbing every mountain and fording every stream is probably impossible in the literal sense
(aren't there way too many streams for this? and mountains probably too), and certainly it is
impossible in the metaphoric one.
I don't see why poor Julie Andrews, of all people, has to be singled out here as exemplifying
malign post-Enlightenment discourses of proprietorship and exploitation. That's just mean
. Surely those ideologies are better examined through a close reading of the Shamen's inexcusable
'90s electro hit "Move Every Mountain"?
I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism,
free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time.
But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none
of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems,
the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis.
IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial
aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto
fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing.
While it's obvious how this thesis deflates modern capitalism, it would also appear to me that
the idea of refocusing on "kinship and community" would present a challenge to the "global solidarity"
mentality underlying most leftist thinking as well. You cannot simultaneously have an emphasis
on the huddled community, while also arguing that workers worldwide have a deeper and more important
connection than the business owner and his or her employees (assuming both are from within the
same community, natch). Either you assume humans have a universal commonness, which effectively
obliterates the notion of community, or you accept humans tend towards tribalism, which both discounts
any notion of creating a global, uniform leftist economics, but also suggests a troubling tendency
towards xenophobia.
Good point, "kinship and community" are analogous to tribalism and nationalism on a larger
scale unless you rephrase it to mean kinship with your family and neighbors on the local level,
and with humanity on a national/global level. Unfortunately, some of our current liberal globalists
seem to be forgetting the part about local kinship and community while embracing global humanity.
I dunno, may have something to do with cheaper labor abroad.
Partly, but there's also an association in the minds of many liberals and leftists of localized
control and thinking equating with oppression, historically. Things like segregation, discrimination,
violations of the separation of church and state, anti-labor employment & worksite laws, etc.
I think Kanth is quick to criticize materialism and scientific progress for all our ills while
seeming to have missed the horrid standards of living in his anthropological studies prior to
scientific progress with enlightenment principles over theocracy. I'd like to know what the longevity
of per-enlightenment citizens was compared to today. In fact, longevity in this country around
1900 was still in the mid 40's for most.
What I find would have been a better argument is to focus his critique not on scientific progress,
but on how there always seems to be a certain small minority of the population which seems to
have an out sized voice in how we choose to self govern. What we seem to be losing today is the
silent majority of voices who are for universal health care, not eroding further entitlements,
bodily security as well as economic security while still being able to encourage those who chose
to take risks and put themselves through more work and strain to be fairly rewarded.
The problem as I see it today, is that the pendulum, both politically, and socially, has swung
too far towards the selfish individualist.
The problem with how science is seen in a modernist context is two-fold. The "blind faith"
leads people to see it as all-encompassing, all-powerful, and not recognizing its scope and where
that scope ends. Ergo, anything that is successfully sold to the public and TPTB as "science"
gets said treatment and is viewed as being unquestionable (like, say, neoclassical economics).
Bruno Latour has been on this for decades in 1991 the book "We Have Never Been Modern" This has been followed by many other books, prizes, invited lectures, and thought exhibition
called Reset Modernity. The book, published last year, is related to the exhibition with that
title. Published by MIT press with 60 authors.
Reset Modernity
Reset Modernity!
Edited by Bruno Latour and Christophe Leclerc
Overview
Modernity has had so many meanings and tries to combine so many contradictory sets of attitudes
and values that it has become impossible to use it to define the future. It has ended up crashing
like an overloaded computer. Hence the idea is that modernity might need a sort of reset. Not
a clean break, not a "tabula rasa," not another iconoclastic gesture, but rather a restart
of the complicated programs that have been accumulated, over the course of history, in what
is often called the "modernist project." This operation has become all the more urgent now
that the ecological mutation is forcing us to reorient ourselves toward an experience of the
material world for which we don't seem to have good recording devices.
Reset Modernity! is organized around six procedures that might induce the readers to reset
some of those instruments. Once this reset has been completed, readers might be better prepared
for a series of new encounters with other cultures. After having been thrown into the modernist
maelstrom, those cultures have difficulties that are just as grave as ours in orienting themselves
within the notion of modernity. It is not impossible that the course of those encounters might
be altered after modernizers have reset their own way of recording their experience of the
world.
At the intersection of art, philosophy, and anthropology, Reset Modernity! has assembled
close to sixty authors, most of whom have participated, in one way or another, in the Inquiry
into Modes of Existence initiated by Bruno Latour. Together they try to see whether such a
reset and such encounters have any practicality. Much like the two exhibitions Iconoclash and
Making Things Public, this book documents and completes what could be called a "thought exhibition:"
Reset Modernity! held at ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe from April to August 2016.
Like the two others, this book, generously illustrated, includes contributions, excerpts, and
works from many authors and artists.
Seems to me that the insight into the relevancy of anthropology vis a vis economics is a product
of science. And Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent
seeking.
Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different
side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations.
It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument,
but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It
was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The
author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the
valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment.
This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to
the blight of NeoLiberalism. Rather, there were those, such as Burke, or some of our "Founding
Fathers" who were students of history, and while discriminating observers of the deleterious elements
of human nature, they were also cognizant of the more helpful elements of that same human nature.
They, however, tended toward the view that those helpful elements required deliberate nurturance
in order to come to the fore. Some of this nurturance could be achieved by partially neutralizing
the deleterious elements by balancing interests (you weren't going to get rid of the propensities,
but you could limit the scope of their play by pitting societal forces one against the other in
political structures, vide the doctrine of separation of powers), while nurturance could
also be achieved through perpetuation of those societal institutions that address the individual
conscience and behaviors like religious doctrine and examples.
The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing
currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage.
But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout
much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise,
things have reached an unlovely pass.
But it would be incorrect to solely blame Enlightenment themes for where we are today. Much
of what was presumed to be necessary to the proper, humane functioning of the ideal Enlightenment
society has been pushed aside in favor of the degraded every-man-for-himself, homo economicus
scourge that holds sway.
Joseph de Maistre, the conservative critic of Enlightenment values, deserves far more blame
for the horrors of modernity than do Voltaire or his like minded colleagues. And I can't even
find de Maistre mentioned in the index of Saul's book.
Thanks for mentioning Joseph de Maistre. I have never heard of him. I think you'd enjoy this
book, nonetheless. Saul doesn't actually "blame" Voltaire. He blames those who came after Voltaire.
For that matter, the bulk of the book is about the 20th century's (mis)interpretation of the Enlightment
project. I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West".
Interesting story Waring told when I heard her speak in Toronto – As she boarded a bus at the
airport to travel to her hotel, and a young man (20s) recognized her because the film is shown
to high school students throughout Canada.
And Capital Institute's John Fullerton
FIELD GUIDE TO A REGENERATIVE
ECONOMY Primarily due to reading George Monbiot's inane rejection of the work of Allan Savory
and Capital Institute's work with Grasslands LLC. Brought to me this morning by Nicole Foss and
the Guardian.
And for farmer's and lovers of the land, I couldn't help but hear Wendell Berry, "It all turns
on affection."
Interesting to have these things intersect with this morning's coffee. Thank you.
"... "Precarity" has become a popular way to refer to economic and labor conditions that force people-and particularly low-income service workers-into uncertainty. Temporary labor and flexwork offer examples. ..."
"... Such conditions are not new. As union-supported blue-collar labor declined in the 20th century, the service economy took over its mantle absent its benefits. But the information economy further accelerated precarity. ..."
"... ...Facebook and Google, so the saying goes, make their users into their products-the real customer is the advertiser or data speculator preying on the information generated by the companies' free services. ..."
"... Consider phone answering services. Its simple speech recognition, which was once at the forefront of artificial intelligence, has made them ubiquityous. Yet Dante would need a new circle for a person who said "I just heard you say 5...3...7...is this correct?" ..."
"... Some of these adaptations subtract from our quality of life, as the article nicely describes. Some add to it, e.g we no longer spend time at the mall arranging when and where to meet if we get separated. Some are interesting and hard to evaluate, e.g. Chessplayers' relation to the game has changed radically since computers became good at it. ..."
"... And there is one I find insidious: the homogeneization of human activity and even thought. The information we ALL get on a subject will be what sorts to the top among google answers; the rest might as well not exist, much like newspaper articles buried in a back page. ..."
"... And on the economic front, the same homogeneization, with giant multinationals and crossmarketing deals. You'll be in a country with great food, like Turkey, get into your rented Toyota, say "I want dinner", and end up at a Domino's because they have a deal with Toyota. ..."
On the Crooked Timber piece: Quiggin makes a very astute observation about 'propertarians' and
Divine Providence in his concluding paragraphs. If one takes it as a matter of faith (religious
or secular) that human activity inherently leads to good outcomes that'll be a huge influence
on how you engage with the world. It blows away humility and restraint. It fosters a sense of
entitlement.
Yep. All roads lead to scapegoating. The anti-social capabilities of base desires and greed are
often paled in comparison to those of detached indifference supported by abstract high-mindedness.
For example, both sides can blame the robots for the loss of decent blue collar jobs.
Not sure that there are "both sides" any more in elite circles. There are at least two types though.
There is very little presence among elites on the progressive side.
"...When spun on its ungeared mechanism, an analogous, glorious measure of towel appears directly
and immediately, as if sent from heaven..."
[This was highly relevant to today's lead article "The Jobs Americans Do:"]
... "Precarity" has become a popular way to refer to economic and labor conditions that
force people-and particularly low-income service workers-into uncertainty. Temporary labor and
flexwork offer examples.
That includes hourly service work in which schedules are adjusted ad-hoc and just-in-time,
so that workers don't know when or how often they might be working. For low-wage food service
and retail workers, for instance, that uncertainty makes budgeting and time-management difficult.
Arranging for transit and childcare is difficult, and even more costly, for people who don't know
when-or if-they'll be working.
Such conditions are not new. As union-supported blue-collar labor declined in the 20th
century, the service economy took over its mantle absent its benefits. But the information economy
further accelerated precarity. For one part, it consolidated existing businesses and made
efficiency its primary concern. For another, economic downturns like the 2008 global recession
facilitated austerity measures both deliberate and accidental. Immaterial labor also rose-everything
from the unpaid, unseen work of women in and out of the workplace, to creative work done on-spec
or for exposure, to the invisible work everyone does to construct the data infrastructure that
technology companies like Google and Facebook sell to advertisers...
[This was very insightful into its own topic of the separation of technology "from serving
human users to pushing them out of the way so that the technologized world can service its own
ends," but I would rather classify that as serving owners of proprietary technology rights.]
...Facebook and Google, so the saying goes, make their users into their products-the real customer
is the advertiser or data speculator preying on the information generated by the companies' free
services. But things are bound to get even weirder than that. When automobiles drive themselves,
for example, their human passengers will not become masters of a new form of urban freedom, but
rather a fuel to drive the expansion of connected cities, in order to spread further the gospel
of computerized automation.
If artificial intelligence ends up running the news, it will not do
so in order to improve citizen's access to information necessary to make choices in a democracy,
but to further cement the supremacy of machine automation over human editorial in establishing
what is relevant...
[THANKS! It was an exceptionally good article in places despite that it wandered a bit off
into the ozone at times.] ...
It hits on one of the reasons why I am less skeptical than Darryl that AI will succeed, an
soon, in all kinds of fields: it may remain stupid in some ways, but we will adapt to it.
Consider phone answering services. Its simple speech recognition, which was once at the forefront
of artificial intelligence, has made them ubiquityous. Yet Dante would need a new circle for a
person who said "I just heard you say 5...3...7...is this correct?"
Some of these adaptations subtract from our quality of life, as the article nicely describes.
Some add to it, e.g we no longer spend time at the mall arranging when and where to meet if we
get separated. Some are interesting and hard to evaluate, e.g. Chessplayers' relation to the game
has changed radically since computers became good at it.
And there is one I find insidious: the homogeneization of human activity and even thought.
The information we ALL get on a subject will be what sorts to the top among google answers; the
rest might as well not exist, much like newspaper articles buried in a back page.
On the political front, Winston will not be necessary, nobody will click through to the old
information, we will all just know that we were always at war with Eurasia.
And on the economic front, the same homogeneization, with giant multinationals and crossmarketing
deals. You'll be in a country with great food, like Turkey, get into your rented Toyota, say "I
want dinner", and end up at a Domino's because they have a deal with Toyota.
There was probably more than one movie about this topic - people not happy with their "peaceful"
but bland, boring, and intellectually stifling environment.
Not too far from Huxley's "Brave New World" actually.
One would think that a Berkeley Prof would be better at
arithmetic, or counting. In the early days, companies did
indeed create tech bureaucracies that offset any gains in
reduction of work force, say back in the 70s, maybe 80s.
Today, these groups number in the tens. Point being, these
are indeed middle class jobs, just no where near the number
of jobs replaced.
Many working- and middle-class Americans believe that
free-trade agreements are why their incomes have stagnated
over the past two decades. So Trump intends to provide them
with "protection" by putting protectionists in charge.
But
Trump and his triumvirate have misdiagnosed the problem.
While globalization is an important factor in the hollowing
out of the middle class, so, too, is automation.
Trump and his team are missing a simple point:
twenty-first-century globalization is knowledge-led, not
trade-led. Radically reduced communication costs have enabled
US firms to move production to lower-wage countries.
Meanwhile, to keep their production processes synced, firms
have also offshored much of their technical, marketing, and
managerial knowhow. This "knowledge offshoring" is what has
really changed the game for American workers.
The information revolution changed the world in ways that
tariffs cannot reverse. With US workers already competing
against robots at home, and against low-wage workers abroad,
disrupting imports will just create more jobs for robots.
Trump should be protecting individual workers, not
individual jobs. The processes of twenty-first-century
globalization are too sudden, unpredictable, and
uncontrollable to rely on static measures like tariffs.
Instead, the US needs to restore its social contract so that
its workers have a fair shot at sharing in the gains
generated by global openness and automation. Globalization
and technological innovation are not painless processes, so
there will always be a need for retraining initiatives,
lifelong education, mobility and income-support programs, and
regional transfers.
By pursuing such policies, the Trump administration would
stand a much better chance of making America "great again"
for the working and middle classes. Globalization has always
created more opportunities for the most competitive workers,
and more insecurity for others. This is why a strong social
contract was established during the post-war period of
liberalization in the West. In the 1960s and 1970s
institutions such as unions expanded, and governments made
new commitments to affordable education, social security, and
progressive taxation. These all helped members of the middle
class seize new opportunities as they emerged.
Over the last two decades, this situation has changed
dramatically: globalization has continued, but the social
contract has been torn up. Trump's top priority should be to
stitch it back together; but his trade advisers do not
understand this.
Thank you -- Social contract is the key. And it was
abolished with the ascendance of neoliberalism with its wolf
eats wolf philosophy of "individual responsibility" (read the
law of jungles in job market).
For some times, while neoliberalism was eating the carcass
of New Deal there was almost no rebellion against it. Even in
2008 none of the top honchos of financial institutions who
caused the disaster went to jail, although rank-and-file
employees of major banks and investment firms did feel very
insecure. "Jump suckers" was the slogan on the corner NYC
cafe close to Wall Street.
This time probably ended now. The problems is that
financial oligarchy does not want to share spoils of their
stealing with anybody.
And yes, communication technologies + huge growth of the
power of personal computers since 1986 are two very important
factors here.
They allowed new level of centralization, which was
impossible before. With the corporate headquarters on a
different continent then factories (among other things) and
teams consisting of members of different continents.
"... People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded. ..."
"... As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface. ..."
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally right and we can argue along those
lines that Hillary is a neoliberal too (Her track record as a senator suggests exactly that),
it is way too narrow.
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings."
(see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the
state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment
of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe
this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace
toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception
of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial
so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism
should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on
human beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with
suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of
identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under
the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining,
such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should
be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management
system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages
or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with
the gun"). She promotes so called "neoliberal rationality" a perverted "market-based" rationality
typical for neoliberalism:
== quote ==
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to demands for reregulation of finance,
for instance-that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding
of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a
revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states
are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings.
Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic
theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and
a half centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field
is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market.
We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market
fundamentalism," and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation,
i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue
that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous
ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would
claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an
existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds
their sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the
way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing
to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question
of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e.,
the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is not
how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left
over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become
the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the
form we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about
whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will
be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism-i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society,
and the self-has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual
entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic
figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
"... People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded. ..."
"... And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining, such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)." ..."
"... The project of neoliberalism -- i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society, and the self-has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy. ..."
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally right and we can argue along those lines that Hillary is a neoliberal
too (Her track record as a senator suggests exactly that), it is way too narrow.
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of the market, including
the state, civil society, and of course human beings." (see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have
ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates,
she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort
among the populace toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings
striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted), which means that those
who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on human beings as capital), which
is why this project has become increasingly associated with suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse
to go along with the kind of identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under the Clintons, of both neoliberal
globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining, such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients
(every able-bodied person should be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management
system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages or the loss of parental responsibilities,
all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with the gun"). She promotes so called
"neoliberal rationality" a perverted "market-based" rationality typical for neoliberalism:
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to demands for reregulation of finance, for instance -- that we have
to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market,
the law after it has undergone a revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way out, and everything
in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of the market, including
the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs
to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half
centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual
economic exchange-which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described -- and this creates a lot of confusion -- as "market fundamentalism," and while this may
be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the
gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous
ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would claim that a new entity is being
created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world
and is something that exceeds their sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way
that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question of whether the state is strong
or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e., the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting
that the issue is not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond
the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state,
and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about whether Hillary Clinton is more
neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism -- i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society, and the self-has come
so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its penetration
has gone too deep, and none of the democratic figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in
redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves,
their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams
and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a
half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism
succeeded less well in realizing the "new man."
It cannot be emphasized
enough that neoliberalism is
not
classical liberalism, or a return
to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a
new
thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered
and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it.
Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the
wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality,
unlike the classical liberal state.
I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of
capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform
everything
-every object, every living thing, every fact on the
planet-in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any
preceding ideology. Neoliberalism happens to be the ideology-unlike the
three major forerunners in the last 250 years-that has the fortune of
coinciding with technological change on a scale that makes its complete
penetration into every realm of being a possibility for the first time in
human history.
From the early 1930s, when the Great Depression threatened the classical
liberal consensus (the idea that markets were self-regulating, and the state
should play no more than a night-watchman role), until the early 1970s, when
global instability including currency chaos unraveled it,
the democratic world lived under the Keynesian paradigm
: markets were
understood to be inherently unstable, and the interventionist hand of
government, in the form of countercyclical policy, was necessary to make
capitalism work, otherwise the economy had a tendency to get out of whack
and crash.
It's an interesting question if it was the stagflation of the 1970s,
following the unhitching of the United States from the gold standard and the
arrival of the oil embargo, that brought on the neoliberal revolution, with
Milton Friedman
discrediting fiscal policy and advocating a by-the-numbers monetarist policy
,
or if it was neoliberalism itself, in the form of Friedmanite ideas that the
Nixon administration was already pursuing, that made stagflation and the end
of Keynesianism inevitable.
It should be said that neoliberalism thrives on prompting crisis after
crisis, and has proven more adept than previous ideologies at exploiting
these crises to its benefit, which then makes the situation worse, so that
each succeeding crisis only erodes the power of the working class and makes
the wealthy wealthier. There is a certain self-fulfilling aura to
neoliberalism, couched in the jargon of economic orthodoxy, that has
remained immune from political criticism, because of the dogma that was
perpetuated-
by
Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes-that There Is No Alternative (TINA)
.
Neoliberalism is excused for the crises it repeatedly brings on-one can
think of a regular cycle of debt and speculation-fueled emergencies in the
last forty years, such as
the developing country debt overhang of the 1970s
,
the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s
,
the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s
, and the subprime mortgage crisis
of the 2000s-better than any ideology I know of. This is partly because its
very existence as ruling ideology is not even noted by the population at
large, which continues to derive some residual benefits from the welfare
state inaugurated by Keynesianism but has been led to believe by neoliberal
ideologues to think of their reliance on government as worthy of provoking
guilt, shame, and melancholy, rather than something to which they have
legitimate claim.
It is not surprising to find neoliberal multiculturalists-
comfortably
established in the academy
-likewise demonizing, or othering, not
Muslims, Mexicans, or African Americans, but working-class whites (the
quintessential Trump proletariat) who have a difficult time accepting the
fluidity of self-definition that goes well with neoliberalism, something
that we might call the market capitalization of the self.
George W. Bush's useful function was to introduce necessary crisis into a
system that had grown too stable for its own good; he injected desirable
panic, which served as fuel to the fire of the neoliberal revolution. Trump
is an apostate-at least until now-in desiring chaos on terms that do not
sound neoliberal, which is unacceptable; hence
Jeb Bush's
characterization of him as the "candidate of chaos.
" Neoliberalism
loves
chaos, that has been its modus operandi since the early 1970s,
but only the kind of chaos it can direct and control.
To go back to origins, the Great Depression only ended conclusively with
the onset of the second world war, after which Keynesianism had the upper
hand for thirty-five years. But just as the global institutions of
Keynesianism, specifically the IMF and the World Bank, were being founded at
the New Hampshire resort of Bretton Woods in 1944, the founders of the
neoliberal revolution, namely Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton
Friedman,
and
others were forming the Mount Pelerin Society (MPS) at the eponymous Swiss
resort in 1947
, creating the ideology which eventually defeated
Keynesianism and gained the upper hand during the 1970s.
So what exactly is neoliberalism, and how is it different from classical
liberalism, whose final manifestation came under Keynesianism?
Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves,
that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of
human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization,
deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of
government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as
human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly
diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions
on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in
transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.
Neoliberals seem very concerned not to have a label. I posit this is because the founders of the
malign ideology didn't want their victims be able to reliably identify them. The deliberately and misleadingly
promote the view of the economy as an isolated scientific subject, like the interior of a test tube,
and treat politics and policy as a sort of exterior force, that can be isolated from the world of the
chemist and pushed off-to-one side. Neoclassic economists consistently and deliberately blinds itself
to politics and the dynamics of power, despite the deep entanglement of politics with everything economic.
"I look at politics and the economy and see one thing, not two things, and I am astonished at the extent
to which economists focus on the part they like to play with intellectually, while deliberately looking
away from what is probably the more important part. "
Notable quotes:
"... when left-wing people say that economists are defenders and supporters of the current order of things, they have a point: ignoring power relationships and their impact on the world supports the continued existence of those relationships. ..."
"... Neoliberalism may have been in part so successful because it appeals to (and tries to explain many things in terms of) a narrative of competition (and assignment of reward and acknowedlgement) by merit. ..."
"... Most people, esp. when young (still largely sheltered) or (still) successful, probably have an exaggerated assessment of their own merit (absolute and relative) - often actively instilled and encouraged by an "enabling" environment. ..."
"... It promises a lake Wobegon of sorts where everybody (even though not all!) are above average, and it is finally recognized. ..."
What Wren-Lewis misses, I think, is that something I've noticed in my roughly a decade of reading
economic blogs on the Internet. Economists have blinkers on. They want to view the economy as an
isolated scientific subject, like the interior of a test tube, and treat politics and policy as a
sort of exterior force, that can be isolated from the world of the chemist and pushed off-to-one
side. It seems fairly clear to me that the two elements--politics and the economy--are obviously
continuously co-mingled, and have all sorts of feedback loops running between them.
The discipline really consistently and deliberately blinds itself to politics and the dynamics
of power, despite the deep entanglement of politics with everything economic. Wren-Lewis admits that
macroeconomists "missed" the impacts of very high financial sector leverage, but finds that now that
economists have noticed it, and suggested remedies, that the power of bank lobby prevents those remedies
from being enacted. But shouldn't the political power of the finance lobby been a part of economic
analysis of the world along with the dangers of the financial sector's use of extreme leverage? Does
he think the two phenomena are unrelated?
Shouldn't economics pay more attention to the ongoing attempts of various groups to orient government
policy in their favor, just like they pay attention to the trade deficit and GDP numbers?
I look at politics and the economy and see one thing, not two things, and I am astonished at the
extent to which economists focus on the part they like to play with intellectually, while deliberately
looking away from what is probably the more important part. Its like economists obsessively focus
on the part that can be studied via numbers (money) and don't' want to think about the part that
is harder to look quantify (political policy). And there is a political issue there, which Mr. Wren-Lewis,
keeps ignoring in his defense of "mainstream economics."
The neoclassical economics tendency of not looking at power relationships makes power imbalances
and their great influence on economics seem like "givens" or "natural endowments", which is clearly
an intellectual sin of omission.
Many people, even within the halls of mainstream economics, note economists are "uncomfortable"
with distributional issues.
Whether they like the implication or not, economists need to acknowledge that this discomfort
has a profoundly conservative intellectual bias, in the sense that it make the status quo arrangement
of society seem "natural" and "normal", when it is obviously humanly constructed and not in any sense
"natural." So when left-wing people say that economists are defenders and supporters of the current
order of things, they have a point: ignoring power relationships and their impact on the world supports
the continued existence of those relationships.
Mr. Wren-Lewis seems like a nice guy, but he needs to take that simple home truth in. I'm not
sure why he seems to struggle so with acknowledging it.
Oh you mean the success of being able to raise asset prices without the growth in wages, make
education costly and unaffordable without student loans, not chargeable under bankruptcy, spruce
up employment figures by not counting the people who have stopped look for jobs because they cannot
find one, make people debt serfs, make savers miserable by keeping interest rates at zero and
making them take risks that they may not want to take though it is picking pennies in front of
a steamroller, keeping wages stagnant for decades and thus impoverishing people.
The list of successes is endless and you should be glad we are NOT talking about them. Because
if we do, the clan called economists might well be torched.
Neoliberalism may have been in part so successful because it appeals to (and tries to explain
many things in terms of) a narrative of competition (and assignment of reward and acknowedlgement)
by merit.
Most people, esp. when young (still largely sheltered) or (still) successful, probably
have an exaggerated assessment of their own merit (absolute and relative) - often actively instilled
and encouraged by an "enabling" environment.
A large part is probably the idea that "markets" are "objective" or at least "impartial" in
bringing out and rewarding merit - also technology and "data driven" technocratic management,
which are attributed "objectivity". All in the explicitly stated or implied service of impartially
recognizing merit and its lack.
It promises a lake Wobegon of sorts where everybody (even though not all!) are above average,
and it is finally recognized.
"Neoliberalism may have been in part so successful because it appeals to (and tries to explain
many things in terms of) a narrative of competition (and assignment of reward and acknowedlgement)
by merit."
Disillusioned
in Davos : Edmund Burke famously cautioned that "the only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing." I have been reminded of Burke's words as I have observed
the behavior of US business leaders in Davos over the last few days. They know better but in their
public rhetoric they have embraced and enabled our new President and his policies.
I understand and sympathize with the pressures they feel. ... Businesses who get on the wrong
side of the new President have
lost billions of dollars of value in sixty seconds because of a tweet. ...
Yet I am disturbed by (i) the spectacle of financiers who three months ago were telling anyone
who would listen that they would never do business with a Trump company rushing to praise the
new Administration (ii) the unwillingness of business leaders who rightly take pride in their
corporate efforts to promote women and minorities to say anything about Presidentially
sanctioned intolerance
(iii) the failure of the leaders of global companies to say a critical word about US efforts to
encourage the breakup of European unity and more generally to step away from underwriting an open
global system (iv) the reluctance of business leaders who have a huge stake in the current global
order to criticize provocative rhetoric with regard to China, Mexico or the Middle East (v) the
willingness of too many to praise Trump nominees who advocate blatant protection merely because
they have a business background.
I have
my differences with the new Administration's
economic policies and suspect the recent market rally and run of economic statistics is a
sugar high. Reasonable people who I respect differ and time will tell. My objection is not to
disagreements over economic policy. It is to enabling if not encouraging immoral and reckless
policies in other spheres that ultimately bear on our prosperity. Burke was right. It is a lesson
of human experience whether the issue is playground bullying, Enron or Europe in the 1930s that
the worst outcomes occur when good people find reasons to accommodate themselves to what they
know is wrong. That is what I think happened much too often in Davos this week.
No man, who is not inflamed by vainglory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single,
unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle designs and
united Cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they
will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
-- Edmund Burke
anne -> anne... , -1
Edmund Burke famously cautioned that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for
good men to do nothing."
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
By Milton Friedman - New York Times
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in
a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered
at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they
are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit
but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes
seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding
pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact
they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated
socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that
have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades....
When I used to read Delong's blog before Delong went off on Sanders because Delong thought that
Hillary Clinton would give Delongs son a job...
There was economics student that penned a response where he mentioned that the economics profession
generally dislikes models with negative externalities. But truly loath models that incorporate
positive externalities.
A positive externality is where some action on your part benefits you _and_ benefits some third
party.
One can assume Milton Friedman and his followers find that concept revolting indeed.
While I was not in Davos, I read about the proceedings and meeting in the Western European and
Chinese press and was impressed by the community emphasis placed on social justice. Possibly there
was considerable individual resistance to the public theme, and Lawrence Summers would readily
sense such resistance, but the public theme from the speech by Xi Jinping on was encouraging and
portrayed in Western Europe and China as encouraging.
Let me rephrase: Name me some Fortune 500 companies who consider potential societal impacts of
their actions and, as a result, sometimes make decisions which don't maximize their profits but
are the "right" thing to do for the community/their workers/the environment/etc.? What Fortune
500 companies are motivated by things beyond maximizing profits for shareholders?
My point is that corporate leaders who are charged to act to maximize profits will always be
cowards when it comes to moral and ethical issues. If their job is to maximize profits. If they
don't want to lose their job then that's what they'll do - act to maximize profits. Where would
Summers get the idea that they would act any differently? Do the people he's referring to have
a track record of choosing the moral high ground over profits? If they do then I could understand
surprise and disappointment that they're folding. But they've never had to face that choice before
let alone chosen moral high ground over money, have they?
My point is that corporate leaders who are charged to act to maximize profits will always be cowards
when it comes to moral and ethical issues. If their job is to maximize profits. If they don't
want to lose their job then that's what they'll do - act to maximize profits. Where would Summers
get the idea that they would act any differently? Do the people he's referring to have a track
record of choosing the moral high ground over profits? ...
I recall Summers/Romer with both houses and Obama blowing their chances to do something for the
middle/working class.
Summers/Delong said if the stimulus was too small we could always get another later, yet that
chance to do something never came and he did nothing.....
I'd like Larry to ponder whether it was he who did nothing.
I blogged yesterday * on how "Davos Man," the world's
super-rich, is very supportive of all sorts of protectionist
measures in spite of his reputation as a free trader. I
pointed out that Davos Man is fond of items like ever
stronger and longer patent and copyright protections and
measures that protect doctors, dentists, and other highly
paid professionals. Davos Man only dislikes protectionism
when it might benefit folks like autoworkers or textile
workers.
I thought it was worth pointing out that the protectionism
supported by the Davos set is real money. The chart below
shows the additional amount we pay for prescription drugs
each year as a result of patent and related protections, the
additional amount we pay for physicians as a result of
excluding qualified foreign doctors, and the total annual
wage income ** for the bottom 50 percent of wage earners. (I
added 5 percent to the 2015 wage numbers to incorporate wage
growth in the last year.)
[Graph *** ]
As can be seen, the extra amount we pay for doctors as a
result of excluding foreign competition is roughly one-third
of the total wage bill for the bottom half of all wage
earners. The extra amount we pay for drugs as a result of
patent protection is roughly twenty percent more than the
total wage bill for the bottom half of wage earners. Of
course we would have to pay for the research through another
mechanism, but we also pay higher prices for medical
equipment, software, and a wide variety of other products as
a result of patent and copyright protections. In other words,
there is real money here.
Davos Man isn't interested in nickel and dime
protectionism, he wants to rake in the big bucks. And, the
whole time he will run around saying he is a free trader (and
get most of the media to believe him).
The New York Times had an article * on the annual meeting
of the world's super-rich at Davos, Switzerland. It refers to
Davos Man as "an economic elite who built unheard-of fortunes
on the seemingly high-minded notions of free trade, low taxes
and low regulation that they championed." While "Davos Man"
may like to be described this way, it is not an accurate
description.
Davos Man is actually totally supportive of protectionism
that redistributes income upward. In particular Davos Man
supports stronger and longer patent and copyright protection.
These forms of protection raise the price of protected items
by factors of tens or hundreds, making them equivalent to
tariffs of several thousand percent or even tens of thousands
of percent. In the case of prescription drugs these
protections force us to spend more than $430 billion a year
(2.3 percent of GDP) on drugs that would likely cost one
tenth of this amount if they were sold in a free market.
(Yes, we need alternative mechanisms to finance the
development of new drugs. These are discussed in my free book
"Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern
Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer." ** )
Davos Man is also just fine with protectionist barriers
that raise the cost of physicians services as well as pay of
other highly educated professionals. For example, Davos Man
has never been known to object to the ban on foreign doctors
practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S.
residency program or the ban on foreign dentists who did not
complete a U.S. dental school (or recently a Canadian
school). Davos Man is only bothered by protectionist barriers
that raise the incomes of autoworkers, textile workers, or
other non-college educated workers.
Davos Man is also fine with government regulations that
reduce the bargaining power of ordinary workers. For example,
Davos Man has not objected to central bank rules that target
low inflation even at the cost of raising unemployment. Nor
has Davos Man objected to meaningless caps on budget
deficits, like those in the European Union, that have kept
millions of workers from getting jobs.
Davos Man also strongly supported the bank bailouts in
which governments provided trillions of dollars in loans and
guarantees to the world's largest banks in order to protect
them from the market. This kept too big to fail banks in
business and protected the huge salaries received by their
top executives.
In short, Davos Man has no particular interest in a free
market or unregulated economic system. They only object to
interventions that reduce their income. Of course, Davos Man
is happy to have the New York Times and other news outlets
describe him as a devotee of the free market, as opposed to
simply getting incredibly rich.
"... Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced from self promotion the study would have more effective application. ..."
"... For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing, as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government, plus bag brownie points for patriotism. ..."
"... But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making a show of "governing". ..."
"... So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald. ..."
"... I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations. ..."
"... And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits. Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation. ..."
"... I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being "in the service." ..."
"... That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost most of what made them unique. ..."
"... there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience. ..."
"... The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society. We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity & racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill' that the rest of the world will want to follow. ..."
"... A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest -- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect. ..."
"... This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable. ..."
"... Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here, then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them. ..."
"... The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws. ..."
"... The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy. ..."
"... The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected. If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves. The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties, so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for the plutocrats. ..."
"... The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own. ..."
"Make America Great Again," the slogan of President-elect
Donald
J. Trump 's successful election campaign, has been etched in the national consciousness. But
it is hard to know what to make of those vague words.
We don't have a clear definition of "great," for example, or of the historical moment when, presumably,
America was truly great. From an economic standpoint, we can't be talking about national wealth,
because the country is wealthier than it has ever been: Real per capita household net worth has reached
a record high, as Federal Reserve Board data shows.
But the distribution of wealth has certainly changed: Inequality has widened significantly. Including
the effects of taxes and government transfer payments, real incomes for the bottom half of the population
increased only 21 percent from 1980 to 2014. That compares with a 194 percent increase for the richest
1 percent, according to a new study
by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
That's why it makes sense that Mr. Trump's call for a return to greatness resonated especially
well among non-college-educated workers in Rust Belt states - people who have been hurt as good jobs
in their region disappeared. But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable,
and creating sustainable new jobs is a complex endeavor.
Difficult as job creation may be, making America great surely entails more than that, and it's
worth considering just what we should be trying to accomplish. Fortunately, political leaders and
scholars have been thinking about national greatness for a very long time, and the answer clearly
goes beyond achieving high levels of wealth.
Adam Smith, perhaps the first true economist, gave some answers in "
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations ." That treatise is sometimes
thought of as a capitalist bible. It is at least partly about the achieving of greatness through
the pursuit of wealth in free markets. But Smith didn't believe that money alone assured national
stature. He also wrote
disapprovingly of the single-minded impulse to secure wealth, saying it was "the most universal
cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Instead, he emphasized that decent people should
seek real achievement - "not only praise, but praiseworthiness."
Strikingly, national greatness was a central issue in a previous presidential election campaign:
Lyndon B. Johnson , in 1964, called for the creation of a
Great Society, not merely a rich society or a powerful society. Instead, he spoke of achieving
equal opportunity and fulfillment. "The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents," he said. "It is a place where leisure is a welcome
chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness."
President Johnson's words still ring true. Opportunity is not equal for everyone in America. Enforced
leisure has indeed become a feared cause of boredom and restlessness for those who have lost jobs,
who have lost overtime work, who hold part-time jobs when they desire full-time employment, or who
were pushed into unwanted early retirement.
But there are limits to what government can do.
Jane Jacobs , the great urbanist,
wrote
that great nations need great cities, yet they cannot easily create them. "The great capitals of
modern Europe did not become great cities because they were the capitals," Ms. Jacobs said. "Cause
and effect ran the other way. Paris was at first no more the seat of French kings than were the sites
of half a dozen other royal residences."
Cities grow organically, she said, capturing a certain dynamic, a virtuous circle, a specialized
culture of expertise, with one industry leading to another, and with a reputation that attracts motivated
and capable immigrants.
America still has cities like this, but a fact not widely remembered is that Detroit used to be
one of them. Its rise to greatness was gradual. As Ms. Jacobs wrote, milled flour in the 1820s and
1830s required boats to ship the flour on the Great Lakes, which led to steamboats, marine engines
and a proliferation of other industries, which set the stage for automobiles, which made Detroit
a global center for anyone interested in that technology.
I experienced the beauty and excitement of Detroit as a child there among relatives who had ties
to the auto industry. Today, residents of Detroit and other fading metropolises want their old cities
back, but generations of people must create the fresh ideas and industries that spawn great cities,
and they can't do it by fiat from Washington.
All of which is to say that government intervention to enhance greatness will not be a simple
matter. There is a risk that well-meaning change may make matters worse. Protectionist policies and
penalties for exporters of jobs may not increase long-term opportunities for Americans who have been
left behind. Large-scale reduction of environmental or social regulations or in health care benefits,
or in America's involvement in the wider world may increase our consumption, yet leave all of us
with a sense of deeper loss.
Greatness reflects not only prosperity, but it is also linked with an atmosphere, a social environment
that makes life meaningful. In President Johnson's words, greatness requires meeting not just "the
needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community."
Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets
and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced
from self promotion the study would have more effective application.
For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing,
as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise
of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered
by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word
and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government,
plus bag brownie points for patriotism.
But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness
Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making
a show of "governing".
But Reagan did not hesitate to govern on the international stage. That credit goes solely to
Obama, a president who's turned non-governance into something of an art. From refusing to regulate
bathroom etiquette, to egging people to have more casual sex (condoms on government, no worries,
go at it all you want), to unleashing 5 million illegals on domestic soil with a stroke of the
pen, this President has been the most ungoverning president in US history.
So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every
day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals
in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald.
I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many
corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations.
And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress
and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits.
Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance
of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation.
I was born in America in 1956 to native-born Americans. My father served starting right after
the Berlin Blockade, up through the Korean Conflict. My political consciousness was formed by
Vietnam, Kent State, the COINTELPRO Papers, the Pentagon Papers, the Church Committee reports.
My father had trust in the federal government, whereas I have none. I became a lawyer, and
married a lawyer. My brothers and my wife's sisters are all college-educated professionals.
Financially speaking, America has been very good to me. But as far as having any intellectual
or visceral concept of what America is, or what being an American means, I couldn't tell you.
I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared
something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being
"in the service."
That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the
sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost
most of what made them unique.
Given how very little we are expected to contribute to our city, state or country, or even
our neighbors, and as there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to
being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense
of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience.
I think this article touches on not only what will make America great, but also on how we should
act in order to show the rest of the world why liberal democracies are truly the path to prosperity
& peace in this oh so imperfect world.
How do we go about defeating ISIL & winning the smoldering economic/military contest with Russia
& China & other authoritarian regimes? By living righteously & daily demonstrating that treating
the planet & each other justly & humanely is the way to real happiness on Earth. & that we can
at the same time create plenty of wealth & life-fulfilling opportunities for all our citizens.
The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful
country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society.
We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity
& racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill'
that the rest of the world will want to follow.
If the great liberal democracies of Europe & North America & the southern pacific region can
reinvigorate our optimism & our commitment to the communal values that have driven the world's
prosperity since WWII, we can surely convince the rest of the world through the awesome leverage
of 'social media' that our liberal values of education, fairness, & love for all of our fellow
humans is the true path to happiness & peace on Earth.
As a Britisher, educated at Wharton by the grace of an American-owned company, I feel gratitude
for American generosity; yet I am now a Canadian citizen, having decided that the US in the time
of Nixon could never be a place where my family could be happy. So I write this with mixed feelings.
A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest
-- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge
to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being
used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality
of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to
point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic
ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect.
Having made a modest livelihood as an executive coach, I do not pretend that being honest (without
being self-relievingly so) is easy in high-level negotiations. Indeed it requires enormous courage,
intellect, empathy, and articulation skills. So I have enormous grief and considerable anxiety
for the state of US society today. But efforts like this one by the New York Times are certain
to be helpful. Thank you. I hope my contribution will be valuable to this fine newspaper and its
readers alike.
This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in
the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding
of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable.
Yet almost every policy and piece of legislation by Republicans seems aimed at making more
money for business. They assume it will trickle down to the workers (and we have seen over 30
years of how good that is working). So Republicans will ignore your plea or denigrate it. Doing
anything close to what you suggest gets in the way of making money.
"But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable, "
Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other
countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods
which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers
to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here,
then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them.
The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations
to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much
money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions
cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They
should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws.
The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America
is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy.
It's great for the Trumps and his cabinet members. These people have so much wealth that they
have bought our government. The gleeful look on McConnell's face last night after the GOP moved
to get rid of health care for millions, and to turn it back to the whim of the insurance companies,
said it all: America is great again for him. It's great for his owners.
The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined
to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected.
If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves.
The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties,
so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for
the plutocrats.
The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own.
"... For him, the Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable. ..."
" In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil
Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan who
advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not so fast
-- says Alexei Yurchak. He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in
California. He employs linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the
Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people
-- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language
and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.
Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its
own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse
by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master
signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. According to Yurchak
"In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much more than a deconstruction of Soviet
authoritative discourse". This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet
Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to
admit.
The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian
people. The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with
the Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project. The Soviet Union
wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite
its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet
socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very
important to people themselves in their lives. These values were: solidarity, community, altruism,
education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western
values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important. For
many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily
equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.
Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological
enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological rule,
which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet Union the
paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master signifier
[Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to totalitarian
temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed. The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state
are waiting in the shadows here as well, may be ready to appropriate discourse.
It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective. I wish
Alexei Yurchak would explore more implications of Roman Jacobson's "poetic function of language"
and its connection to Russian experiment in communism. It seems to me, as a Russian native speaker,
that Russians put stress on form, sound, and poetics. The English-language tradition prioritizes
content and meaning. Can we speak of "Hermeneutics" of the West versus "Poetics" of Russia? Perhaps
the tragedy of Russia was under-development of Hermeneutics? How does one explain the feeble attempts
to throw a light of reason into the loopy texts and theories of Marks, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin?
Perhaps the Russians read it as a kind of magical text, a poetry, a bad poetry -- not Pasternak
or Blok -- but kind of poetry nevertheless?
Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters
or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the
powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little
more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures. Yurchak demolishes the view that
the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts
of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same
time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship,
community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. While his entire account is
a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under the Soviet system, Yurchak
also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed for some people (such as theoretical
physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways freer than for their peers in the West.
All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an explanation for the nostalgia that many
in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable to those who claim that Communism
was simply and nothing but an evil.
The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative
rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime.
One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities
was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them."
Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an official
resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement
of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected to
perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological
meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject
a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to
a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)
The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist
incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards),
Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief,
which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning.
Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or art
collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue
their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created
new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their
(inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation
of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the
regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that
transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.
"... Normalisation is what has historically happened in the wake of financial crises. During the booms that precede busts, low interest rates encourage people to make investments with borrowed money. However, even after all of the prudent investment opportunities have been taken, people continue borrowing to invest in projects and ideas that are unlikely to ever generate profits. ..."
"... Eventually, the precariousness of some of these later investments becomes apparent. Those that arrive at this realization early sell up, settle their debts and pocket profits, but their selling often triggers a rush for the exits that bankrupts companies and individuals and, in many cases, the banks which lent to them. ..."
"... By contrast, the responses of policy-makers to 2008's financial crisis suggest the psychology of hypernormalisation. Quantitative easing (also known as money printing) and interest rate suppression (to zero percent and, in Europe, negative interest rates) are not working and will never result in sustained increases in productivity, income and employment. However, as our leaders are unable to consider alternative policy solutions, they have to pretend that they are working. ..."
"... Statistical chicanery has helped understate unemployment and inflation while global cooperation has served to obscure the currency depreciation and loss of confidence in paper money (as opposed to 'hard money' such as gold and silver) that are to be expected from rampant money printing. ..."
"... The recent fuss over 'fake news' seems intended to remove alternative news and information sources from a population that, alarmingly for those in charge, is both ever-more aware that the system is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is . Just this month U.S. President Barack Obama signed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act into law. United States, meet your Ministry of Truth. ..."
"... Great article. I think it does describe the USSA at the present time. Everything works until it doesn't. ..."
"... The funny thing is I had almost identical thoughts just a few days ago. But I was thinking in comparison more of East Germany's last 20 years before they imploded - peacefully, because not a single non-leading-rank person believed any of the official facts anymore (and therefore they even simply ignored orders from high command to crush the Leipzig Monday demonstrations.) ..."
"... I'm ok with a world led by Trump and Putin. ..."
"... I recall the joke from the old Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." In the USSA these last few years, Barry pretends to tell the truth. Libtards pretend to believe him. ..."
"... Wrong. They believe him. Look at the gaggle of libtard/shiteaters at Soetero's Friday night bash at the White House. ..."
"... Reagan used to quip that in the Soviet Union, the people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. We're not the Soviet Union, but we have become a farce. Next stop - the fall. Followed by chaos, then onto something new. The new elites will just be the old elites, well, the ones that escape the noose. ..."
"... The real ugly problem with the Soviet Union is that whatever they broke it into isn't working well either. ..."
"... Russia's problem post collapse was the good ol' USSA and its capitalist, plunderer banking mavens. ..."
"... The only way to normalize banking in a contemporary banking paradigm of QE Infinity & Beyond is to start over again without the bankers & accountants that knowingly bet the ranch for a short term gain at the expense of long term profitability. In Japan an honourable businessman/CEO would suicide for bringing this kind of devastation to the company shareholders. ..."
"... In America they don't give a shit because it is always someone else other than the CEO that takes the fall. ..."
"... This, after I'd point out his evasion and deflection every time I addressed his bias and belief in the MSM propaganda mantras of racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all the usual labeling bullshit up to insinuating Russia hacked the election ..."
"... I've been using the term Hypernormalisation to describe aspects of western society for the last 15 years, before Adam Curtis's brilliant BBC documentary Hypernormalisation , afflicting western society and particularly politics. There are lies and gross distortions everywhere in western society and it straddles/effects all races, colours, social classes and the disease is most acute in our politics. ..."
"... We all know the hypernoprmalisation in politics, as we witness stories everyday on Zerohedge of the disconnect from reality ..."
"... It is called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE .. ..."
"... "When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief." ..."
"... During their final days as a world power, the Soviet Union allowed cognitive dissonance to rule its better judgment as so many Americans are doing in 2012. The handwriting on the wall was pretty clear for Gorbachev. The Soviet economy was failing. They did none of the necessary things to save their economy. In 2012, the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for the American people. The economy is failing. The people and the Congress do none of the necessary things to save their economy. Why? Go re-read the definition of cognitive dissonance. That's why. We have a classic fight going on between those who want government to take care of them who will pay the price of lost freedom to get that care, and those who value freedom above all else. ..."
"... to me the PTB are "Japanifying" the u.s. (decades of no growth, near total demoralization of a generation of worker bees (as in, 'things will never get any better, be glad for what little you've got' etc... look what they've done to u.s. millenials just since '08... fooled (crushed) them TWICE already) ..."
"... But the PTB Plan B is to emulate the USSR with a crackup, replete with fire sale to oligarchs of public assets. ..."
The term comes from Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The
Last Soviet Generation. The book argues that over the last 20 years of the Soviet Union, everyone
knew the system wasn't working, but as no one could imagine any alternative, politicians and citizens
were resigned to pretending that it was. Eventually this pretending was accepted as normal and the
fake reality thus created was accepted as real, an effect which Yurchak termed "hypernormalisation."
Looking at events over the past few years, one wonders if our own society is experiencing the
same phenomenon. A contrast with what economic policy-makers term "normalisation" is instructive.
Normalisation is what has historically happened in the wake of financial crises. During the
booms that precede busts, low interest rates encourage people to make investments with borrowed money.
However, even after all of the prudent investment opportunities have been taken, people continue
borrowing to invest in projects and ideas that are unlikely to ever generate profits.
Eventually, the precariousness of some of these later investments becomes apparent. Those
that arrive at this realization early sell up, settle their debts and pocket profits, but their selling
often triggers a rush for the exits that bankrupts companies and individuals and, in many cases,
the banks which lent to them.
In the normalisation which follows (usually held during 'special' bank holidays) auditors and
accountants go through financial records and decide which companies and individuals are insolvent
(and should therefore go bankrupt) and which are merely illiquid (and therefore eligible for additional
loans, pledged against good collateral). In a similar fashion, central bank officials decide which
banks are to close and which are to remain open. Lenders made freshly aware of bankruptcy risk raise
(or normalise) interest rates and in so doing complete the process of clearing bad debt out of the
system. Overall, reality replaces wishful thinking.
While this process is by no means pleasant for the people involved, from a societal standpoint
bankruptcy and higher interest rates are necessary to keep businesses focused on profitable investment,
banks focused on prudent lending and overall debt levels manageable.
By contrast, the responses of policy-makers to 2008's financial crisis suggest the psychology
of hypernormalisation. Quantitative easing (also known as money printing) and interest rate suppression
(to zero percent and, in Europe, negative interest rates) are not working and will never result in
sustained increases in productivity, income and employment. However, as our leaders are unable to
consider alternative policy solutions, they have to pretend that they are working.
To understand why our leaders are unable to consider alternative policy solutions such as interest
rate normalization and banking reform one only needs to understand that while such policies would
lay the groundwork for a sustained recovery, they would also expose many of the world's biggest banks
as insolvent. As the financial sector is a powerful constituency (and a generous donor to political
campaigns) the banks get the free money they need, even if such policies harm society as a whole.
As we live in a democratic society, it is necessary for our leaders to convince us that there
are no other solutions and that the monetary policy fixes of the past 8 years have been effective
and have done no harm.
Statistical chicanery has helped understate unemployment and inflation while global cooperation
has served to obscure the currency depreciation and loss of confidence in paper money (as opposed
to 'hard money' such as gold and silver) that are to be expected from rampant money printing.
Looking at unemployment figures first, while the unemployment rate is currently very low, the
number of Americans of working age not in the labour force is currently at an all-time high of over
95 million people. Discouraged workers who stop looking for work are no longer classified as unemployed
but instead become economically inactive, but clearly many of these people really should be counted
as unemployed. Similarly, while government statistical agencies record inflation rates of between
one and two percent, measures that use methodologies used in the past (such as John Williams' Shadowstats
measures) show consumer prices rising at annual rates of 6 to 8 percent. In addition, many people
have noticed what has been termed 'shrinkflation', where prices remain the same even as package sizes
shrink. A common example is bacon, which used to be sold by the pound but which is now commonly sold
in 12 ounce slabs.
Meanwhile central banks have coordinated their money printing to ensure that no major currency
(the dollar, the yen, the euro or the Chinese renminbi) depreciates noticeably against the others
for a sustained period of time. Further, since gold hit a peak of over $1900 per ounce in 2011, central
banks have worked hard to keep the gold price suppressed through the futures market. On more than
a few occasions, contracts for many months worth of global gold production have been sold in a matter
of a few minutes, with predictable consequences for the gold price. At all costs, people's confidence
in and acceptance of the paper (or, more commonly, electronic) money issued by central banks must
be maintained.
Despite these efforts people nonetheless sense that something is wrong. The Brexit vote and the
election of Donald Trump to the White House represent to a large degree a rejection of the fake reality
propagated by the policymaking elite. Increasingly, people recognize that a financial system dependent
upon zero percent interest rates is not sustainable and are responding by taking their money out
of the banks in favour of holding cash or other forms of wealth. In the face of such understanding
and resistance, governments are showing themselves willing to use coercion to enforce acceptance
of their fake reality.
The recent fuss over 'fake news' seems intended to remove alternative news and information
sources from a population that, alarmingly for those in charge, is both ever-more aware that the
system is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is . Just this month U.S. President
Barack Obama signed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act into law. United States, meet
your Ministry of Truth.
Meanwhile, in India last month, people were told that the highest denomination bills in common
circulation would be 'demonetized' or made worthless as of December 30th. People were allowed to
deposit or exchange a certain quantity of the demonetized bills in banks but many people who had
accumulated their savings in rupee notes (often the poor who did not have bank accounts) have been
ruined. Ostensibly, this demonetization policy was aimed at curbing corruption and terrorism, but
it is fairly obvious that its real objective was to force people into the banking system and electronic
money. Unsurprisingly, the demonetization drive was accompanied by limits on the quantity of gold
people are allowed to hold.
Despite such attempts to influence our thinking and our behaviour, we don't need to resign ourselves
to pretending that our system is working when it so clearly isn't. Looking at the eventual fate of
the Soviet Union, it should be clear that the sooner we abandon the drift towards hypernormalisation
and start on the path to normalisation the better off we will be.
Correct. I seen with sufficient level of comprehending consciousness the last 5 years of it
- copy-cat perfection with the current times in US(S)A, terrifying how similar the times are as
it is a clear indication of the times to come.
The funny thing is I had almost identical thoughts just a few days ago. But I was thinking
in comparison more of East Germany's last 20 years before they imploded - peacefully, because
not a single non-leading-rank person believed any of the official facts anymore (and therefore
they even simply ignored orders from high command to crush the Leipzig Monday demonstrations.)
I was just thinking that the whole economic world sees us in a sort of equilibrium at the moment.
There will be some adjustments under Trump, but nothing serious. We shall see ..
Repeat something often enough and it becomes hypernormalised. With that in mind the number
of eyes/minds/hits is all that matters. This has been known and exploited for hundreds of years.
That a handful of individuals can have a monopoly over the single most important aspect of
whether you live or die is the ultimate success of hypernormalisation. CENTRAL BANKING.
Mrs.M is of the last Soviet generation. Her .gov papers say so. There is never
a day when I don't hear something soviet. She still has a her red pioneer ribbon.
I have tried to encourage her to write about it on ZH so that we know. Do you think she
will? No. She's says that we can't understand what it was like no matter what she
says.
Mrs.M was born in 1981 so she has lived an interesting life. I married her in 2004 after
much paperwork and $15000. I wanted that female because we got along quite well. She
is who I needed with me this and I would do it all over again.
Needless to say, I do not support any aggression towards Russia. And to my fellow Americans,
I advise caution because the half you are broke ass fucks and are already ropes with me.
I recall the joke from the old Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."
In the USSA these last few years, Barry pretends to tell the truth. Libtards pretend to believe
him.
Geezer, I'd change only one thing... I believe libtards bought Barry's bullshit hook, line
and sinker... it was the rest of us who not-so-subtly were saying WTF!!!
Reagan used to quip that in the Soviet Union, the people pretend to work and the government
pretends to pay them. We're not the Soviet Union, but we have become a farce. Next stop
- the fall. Followed by chaos, then onto something new. The new elites will just be the old elites,
well, the ones that escape the noose.
what noose? you think joe 6p is going to identify the culprits? i think not. "no one saw this
coming!!!" is still ringing in my ears from the last time.
I really don't know how people can keep on getting clicks with this tired crap. It didn't happen
in 2008 just get over it. The delusional people are the people that think the world is going to
end tomorrow.
Maybe the world has ended, for 95 million? I haven't paid a single Fed income tax dollar
in over 8 yrs., for a specific reason, I refuse to support the new normal circus, and quite frankly
I would have gotten out during the GWBush regime, but I couldn't afford to at the time.
The real ugly problem with the Soviet Union is that whatever they broke it into isn't working
well either. Same with the USSA. No one really knows what to do. Feudalism would probably
work, but it is not possible to go back to it. My bet is that we will end up with some form of
socialism, universal income and whatever else, just because there is no good alternative for dealing
with lots and lots of people who are not needed anymore.
Do you mean useless eaters or fuckers deserving the guillotine? Russia's problem post collapse
was the good ol' USSA and its capitalist, plunderer banking mavens.
The Soviet Union pushed its old culture to near destruction but failed to establish a new and
better culture to replace it, writes Angelo M. Codevilla in "The Rise of Political Correctness,"
and as a result the U.S.S.R fell, just as America's current "politically correct" and dysfunctional
"progressive utopia" will implode.
As such, Codevilla would agree that the US population " is both ever-more aware that the system
is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is."
As for the U.S.S.R., "this step turned out instead to destroy the very basis of Soviet power,"
writes Codevilla. "[C]ontinued efforts to force people to celebrate the party's ersatz reality,
to affirm things that they know are not true and to deny others they know to be true – to live
by lies – requires breaking them , reducing them to a sense of fearful isolation, destroying their
self-esteem and their capacity to trust others. George Orwell's novel 1984 dramatized this culture
war's ends and means : nothing less than the substitution of the party's authority for the reality
conveyed by human senses and reason. Big Brother's agent, having berated the hapless Winston
for preferring his own views to society's dictates, finished breaking his spirit by holding up
four fingers and demanding that Winston acknowledge seeing five.
"Thus did the Soviet regime create dysfunctional, cynical, and resentful subjects. Because
Communism confused destruction of 'bourgeois culture' with cultural conquest, it won all the cultural
battles while losing its culture war long before it collapsed politically. As Communists identified
themselves in people's minds with falsehood and fraud, people came to identify truth with anything
other than the officials and their doctrines. Inevitably, they also identified them with corruption
and privation. A nd so it was that, whenever the authorities announced that the harvest had been
good, the people hoarded potatoes; and that more and more people who knew nothing of Christianity
except that the authorities had anathematized it, started wearing crosses."
And if you want to see the ruling class's culture war in action today in America, pick up the
latest issues of Vogue Magazine or O, The Oprah Magazine with their multitude of role reversals
between whites and minorities. Or check out the latest decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court forcing
people to acknowledge that America is not a Christian nation, or making it "more difficult for
men, women and children to exist as a family" or demanding via law "that their subjects join them
in celebrating the new order that reflects their identity."
As to just how far the ruling class has gone to serve the interests and proclivities of its
leaders and to reject the majority's demand for representation, Codevilla notes, "In 2012 no one
would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S.
law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called 'homophobia,'
subject to fines and near-outlaw status. Not until 2015-16 did it occur to anyone that requiring
persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the
same pathology
"On the wholesale level, it is a war on civilization waged to indulge identity politics."
This article is so flawed! People[impoverished] aren't trying to jump over a wall patrolled
by guards into Mexico -YET. Tyler, why do you repost shit like this?
That's because the Yankees, fleeing high taxes, can move to the sunbelt states w/o freezing.
The USA went broke in 2008. Mexico got a head start by 22 years when oil prices collapsed in '86.
The only way to normalize banking in a contemporary banking paradigm of QE Infinity & Beyond
is to start over again without the bankers & accountants that knowingly bet the ranch for a short
term gain at the expense of long term profitability. In Japan an honourable businessman/CEO would
suicide for bringing this kind of devastation to the company shareholders.
In America they don't give a shit because it is always someone else other than the CEO
that takes the fall. 08 was proof that America is not equipped to participate in a Multinational
& Multipolar world of business & investment in business. America can't get along in business in
this world anymore. Greed has rendered America unemployable as a major market participant in a
Globally run network of businesses.
America is the odd man out these days even though the next POTUS promises better management
from a business perspective. Whilst the Mafia Cartel bosses trust TrumpO's business savvy the
rest of the planet Earth does not.
A liberal friend laid this movie on me to show me why he supported Hillary. A smart cookie,
a PHd teaching English in Japan. A Khazarnazi Jew, he even spent time in Kyiv, Ukraine pre-coup,
only mingling with "poets and writers". He went out of his way to tell me how bad the Russians
were, informed as he was prior to the rejection of the EU's usurious offer.
He even quite dramatically pulled out the Anti-Semite card. I had to throw Banderas in his
face and the US sponsored regime. I had respect for this guy and his knowledge but he just - could
- not - let - go the cult assumptions. I finally came to believe Liberal Arts educators are victims
of inbred conditioning. In retaliation, he wanted to somehow prove Putin a charlatan or villian
and Trump his proxie.
This, after I'd point out his evasion and deflection every time I addressed his bias and
belief in the MSM propaganda mantras of racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all the usual labeling
bullshit up to insinuating Russia hacked the election. Excerpts from a correspondence wherein
I go full asshole on the guy follow. Try and make sense of it if you watch this trash:
HyperNormalization 50:29 Not Ronald Rayguns, or Quadaffi plays along. Say what? They're, i.e.
Curtis, assuming what Q thought?
1:15 USSR collapses. No shit. Cronyism in a centralized organization grown too large is inevitable
it seems. So the premise has evolved to cultural/societal "management". Right. USSR collapses
but let's repeat the same mistakes 'cause "it's different this time". We got us a computer!
Then Fink the failed Squid (how do Squids climb the corporate ladder?) builds one and programs
historical data to,,,, forecast? I heard a' this. Let me guess. He couldn't avoid bias, making
his models fallacious. Whoops. Well, he does intend to manipulate society, or was that not the
goal? Come again? Some authority ran with it and ... captured an entire nation's media, conspired
with other like-minded sycophants and their mysterious masters to capture an election by ... I
may be getting ahead of myself.
Oh, boy, I have an inkling of where this is going. Perceptions modified by the word, advanced
by the herd, in order to capture a vulnerable society under duress, who then pick sides, fool
themselves in the process, miss the three hour tour never to live happily ever after on a deserted
isle because they eschew (pick a bias here from the list provided). The one you think the "others"
have, 'cause, shit, we're above it all, right? " Are we not entertained" is probably not the most
appropriate question here.
Point being, Curtis, the BBC documentarian, totally negates the reality of pathological Imperialism
as has been practiced by the West over the last half century, causing so many of the effects
he so casually eludes to in the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, Russia, the US and elsewhere. Perhaps
the most blatant is this; Curtis asserts that Trump "defeated journalism" by rendering its fact-checking
abilities irrelevant. Wikipedia He Hypernormalizes the very audience that believes itself to be
enlightened. As for my erstwhile friend, the fucker never once admitted all the people *killed*
for the ideals he supported. I finally blew him off for good.
I've been using the term Hypernormalisation to describe aspects of western society for
the last 15 years, before Adam Curtis's brilliant BBC documentary Hypernormalisation , afflicting
western society and particularly politics. There are lies and gross distortions everywhere in
western society and it straddles/effects all races, colours, social classes and the disease is
most acute in our politics.
We all know the hypernoprmalisation in politics, as we witness stories everyday on Zerohedge
of the disconnect from reality...
Enter Operation Stillpoint: William Colby, William Casey and Leo Emil Wanta.
At the time it started, President Reagan wanted to get a better handle on ways to keep the
Soviets from expansionary tactics used to spread Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin's philosophy of
communism around the world. He looked to his Special Task Force to provide a means of doing so.
One thing was certain: The economy of the Soviets had never been strong and corruption, always
present in government and always growing at least as fast as a government grows, made the USSR
vulnerable to outside interference just as the United States is today.
According to Gorbachev's Prime Minister, Nikolai Ryzhkov, the "moral [nravstennoe] state of
the society" in 1985 was its "most terrifying" feature: "[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave
bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals
on one another. And all of this – from top to bottom and from bottom to top."
Again, it sounds like today's America, doesn't it?
Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze made equally painful comments about the lawlessness and
corruption dominating the Soviet Union. During the winter months of 1984-85, he told Gorbachev
that "Everything is rotten. It has to be changed."
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong," Frantz Fanon said in his 1952 book
Black Skin, White Masks (originally published in French as Peau Noire, Masques Blancs). "When
they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because
it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything
that doesn't fit with the core belief."
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
During their final days as a world power, the Soviet Union allowed cognitive dissonance
to rule its better judgment as so many Americans are doing in 2012. The handwriting on the wall
was pretty clear for Gorbachev. The Soviet economy was failing. They did none of the necessary
things to save their economy. In 2012, the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for the American
people. The economy is failing. The people and the Congress do none of the necessary things to
save their economy. Why? Go re-read the definition of cognitive dissonance. That's why. We have
a classic fight going on between those who want government to take care of them who will pay the
price of lost freedom to get that care, and those who value freedom above all else.
On one day we have 50 state attorneys general suing Bank of America for making fraudulent mortgages,
and on the next we have M.F. Global losing billions upon billions of customer dollars because
they got mixed with the firm's funds – which is against the law – or we have J.P. Morgan Chase
losing $2 billion (or is it $5 billion?) in bad investments. As Eduard Shevardnadze said, "Everything
is rotten. It has to be changed." As I would say it, "There is no Rule of Law in America today.
There has been no real Rule of Law since George Herbert Walker Bush took office."
No one listened then; no one is listening in America now. The primary reason? Cognitive dissonance.
-- Chapter 2, "Wanta! Black Swan, White Hat" (2013)
Okay then, forget what was said in 1985, that was later reported in 2013 ..
Lee Wanta. I've heard of him before. He was screwed over for some bullshit charges. And the
CIA made a firm warning... How long did that dude spent in jail?
Just looked up his story as it was blurry. Cronyism at its finest. So now that I got my refreshing
course. Trump stole/adopted (however you want to look at that) his plan and the project the gov
(DOT) proposes sucks donkey balls compared to Wanta's.
So where are all the climate hoaxers now by the way? You'd figure they'd be all over this.
to me the PTB are "Japanifying" the u.s. (decades of no growth, near total demoralization
of a generation of worker bees (as in, 'things will never get any better, be glad for what little
you've got' etc... look what they've done to u.s. millenials just since '08... fooled (crushed)
them TWICE already)
But the PTB Plan B is to emulate the USSR with a crackup, replete with fire sale to oligarchs
of public assets. They will Japan as long as they can (so it will be difficult to forecast
any crackup anymore than six months beforehand). Hope they have a Gorbachev lined up, to limit
the bloodshed
"... High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). ..."
"... "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. ..."
"... Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" ..."
"... The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" ..."
"... Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law ..."
"... "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" ..."
"... US Trotskyites gravitated mostly to neoconservatism, not "pure" neoliberalism. They were definitely contributors and players at later stage, but Monte Peregrine society was instrumental in creation of the initial version of the neoliberal ideology. And only later it became clear that neoconservatism is "neoliberalism with the gun". ..."
"... I think that after "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered, it became clear that the idea of proletariat as a new "progressive" class that destined to become the leading force in the society was a utopia. ..."
"... But if you replace "proletariat" with the "creative class" then Trotskyism ideology makes a lot of sense, as a "muscular" interpretation of neoliberalism. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have "neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution we have permanent "democratization" via color revolutions with the same key idea. In this case creating a global neoliberal empire that will make everybody happy and prosperous. So it makes perfect sense to bring neoliberal flavor democracy on the tips of bayonets to those backward nations that resist the inevitable. ..."
"... From this point of view neoliberalism is yet another stunning "economico-political" utopia that competes as for the level of economic determinism with classic Marxism... ..."
"... Consider Christopher Hitchens: the former Trotskyist wrote, following his 2002 resignation as a Nation columnist, that by not embracing things like the Iraq War, "The Nation joined the amoral side . I say that they stand for neutralism where no such thing is possible or desirable, and I say the hell with it." ..."
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind,
and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional
wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help
feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are
seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that
it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a
long time.
This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda,
the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.
And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had
been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism
can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no
longer work well and are starting to course the backlash:
High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via
higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
"Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market.Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity
seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should
be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as
learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs
them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly
tend to their own present and future market value.
Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under
neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.
The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war
for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant
regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of
citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1%
or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura"
was in the USSR.
"Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making
transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said.
Who decide about level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that
previously were prerogative of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism
in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its
power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling
the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism"
of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR
to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up
the USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
This is a difficult question. They did not spawned neoliberalism and for some time neoconservatism
existed as a separate ideology.
US Trotskyites gravitated mostly to neoconservatism, not "pure" neoliberalism. They were
definitely contributors and players at later stage, but Monte Peregrine society was instrumental
in creation of the initial version of the neoliberal ideology. And only later it became clear
that neoconservatism is "neoliberalism with the gun".
I think that after "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered, it became clear that the idea
of proletariat as a new "progressive" class that destined to become the leading force in the society
was a utopia.
But if you replace "proletariat" with the "creative class" then Trotskyism ideology makes
a lot of sense, as a "muscular" interpretation of neoliberalism. Instead of "proletarians of all
countries unite" we have "neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution
we have permanent "democratization" via color revolutions with the same key idea. In this case
creating a global neoliberal empire that will make everybody happy and prosperous. So it makes
perfect sense to bring neoliberal flavor democracy on the tips of bayonets to those backward nations
that resist the inevitable.
From this point of view neoliberalism is yet another stunning "economico-political" utopia
that competes as for the level of economic determinism with classic Marxism...
Also this process started long ago and lasted more then 50 years. The first who did this
jump was probably James Burnham. The latest was probably Christopher Hitchens.
https://www.thenation.com/article/going-all-way/
Consider Christopher Hitchens: the former Trotskyist wrote, following his 2002 resignation
as a Nation columnist, that by not embracing things like the Iraq War, "The Nation joined the
amoral side . I say that they stand for neutralism where no such thing is possible or desirable,
and I say the hell with it."
It is the turncoat's greatest gift to his new hosts: the affirmation that the world exists
only in black and white.
Lord -> likbez... ,
Boudreaux assures us it would be unethical and uneconomical to do otherwise, by those with the
gold anyway.
Republicans in House Vote to Curtail Power of Ethics Office
By ERIC LIPTON
The vote came as a surprise and apparently without the support of the House speaker or
the majority leader. The full House is scheduled to vote Tuesday.
The move would take away power and independence from an investigative body, and give
lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.
Institutions, Rule of Law, and Civil Rights Deteriorate in Brazil as Government Doubles
Down on Failed Economic Policies
By Mark Weisbrot
When Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was impeached in May and removed from office in
August, many called it a coup.
The president was not charged with anything that could legitimately be called a crime,
and the leaders of the impeachment appeared, in taped conversations, to be getting rid of
her in order to cut off a corruption investigation in which they and their political allies
were implicated.
Others warned that once starting down this road, further degradation of state
institutions and the rule of law would follow. And that's just what has happened, along
with some of the political repression that generally accompanies this type of regime
change.
On November 4, police raided a school run by the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem
Terra (MST), in Guararema, São Paulo. They fired live (not rubber bullet) ammunition and
made a number of arrests, bringing international condemnation. There had previously been
eight arrests of MST organizers in the state of Paraná. The MST is a powerful social
movement that has won land rights for hundreds of thousands of rural Brazilians over the
past three decades, and has also been a prominent opponent of the August coup.
The politicization of the judiciary was already a major problem in the run-up to
Rousseff's removal. Now we have seen further corrosion of institutions when a justice of
the Supreme Court issued an injunction removing Senate President Renan Calheiros because he
had been indicted for embezzlement.
Calheiros defied the order, whereupon the sitting president of the republic, Michel
Temer, negotiated with the rest of the Supreme Court to keep Calheiros in place. The great
fear of Temer and his allies was that Calheiros's removal could have derailed an outrageous
constitutional amendment that would freeze real (inflation-adjusted) government spending
for the next 20 years, which has now been passed by the Congress.
Given that Brazil's population is projected to grow by about 12 percent over the next 20
years, and the population will also be aging, the amendment is an unprecedented long-term
commitment to worsening poverty. It will "place Brazil in a socially retrogressive category
all of its own," noted Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and
human rights, describing the measure as an attack on the poor.
The government's proposed public pension cuts would hit working and poor people the
hardest....
Free market is a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberal secular region.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, duh. "Policy" and "Capitalism" don't go together and never have. When you enact policy, you destroy the ability to make profit and you get the 1970's. ..."
Two of my criticisms about Krugman/Friedman, etc is that is 'free markets' are supposed to substitute
for policy in the government sphere. Except very telling except when we're talking about funding
the security state.
The other is that the real power of markets is that in a real free market (not a Potemkin one)
decisions are made often at the point where needs, information, incentives, and economic power
come together. But the large scale decisions the governments have to make, markets fail. Policy
though doesn't.
But Neoliberals hate policy.
AngloSaxon -> Gibbon1...
Well, duh. "Policy" and "Capitalism" don't go together and never have. When you enact policy,
you destroy the ability to make profit and you get the 1970's.
Free market is a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberalism as a secular religion. Somewhat
similar to "Immaculate Conception" in Catholicism.
In reality market almost by definition is controlled by government, who enforces the rules
and punish for the transgressions.
Also note interesting Orwellian "corruption of the language" trick neoliberals use: neoliberals
talk about "free market, not "fair market".
After 2008 few are buying this fairy tale about how markets can operate and can solve society
problems independently of political power, and state's instruments of violence (the police and
the military). This myths is essentially dead.
But like Adventists did not disappear when the second coming of Christ did not occurred in
predicted timeframe, neoliberals did not did not disappeared after 2008 either. And neither did
neoliberalism, it just entered into zombie, more bloodthirsty stage. the fact that even the term
"neoliberalism" is prohibited in the US MSM also helped. It is kind of stealth ideology, unlike
say, Marxists, neoliberals do not like to identify themselves as such. The behave more like members
of some secret society, free market masons.
Friedmanism is a flavor of economic Lysenkoism. Note that Lysenko like Friedman was not a complete
charlatan. Some of his ideas were pretty sound and withstood the test of time. But that does not
make his less evil.
And for those who try to embellish this person, I would remind his role in 1973 Chilean coup
d'état ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
) and bringing Pinochet to power. His "Chicago boys" played a vital role in the events. This
man did has blood on his hands.
=== quote ===
Of course, bringing a reign of terror to Chile was not why the CIA had sponsored him. The reason
he was there was to reverse the gains of the Allende social democracy and return control of the
country's economic and political assets to the oligarchy. Pinochet was convinced, through supporters
among the academics in the elite Chilean universities, to try a new series of economic policies,
called "neoliberal" by their founders, the economists of the University of Chicago, led by an
economist by the name of Milton Friedman, who three years later would go on to win a Nobel Prize
in Economics for what he was about to unleash upon Chile.
Friedman and his colleagues were referred to by the Chileans as "the Chicago Boys." The term
originally meant the economists from the University of Chicago, but as time went on, as their
policies began to disliquidate the middle class and poor, it took on a perjorative meaning. That
was because as the reforms were implemented, and began to take hold, the results were not what
Friedman and company had been predicting. But what were the reforms?
The reforms were what has come to be called "neoliberalism." To understand what "neoliberal"
economics is, one must first understand what "liberal" economics are, and so we'll digress briefly
from our look at Chile for a quick...
=== end of quote ===
Krugman is a neoliberal stooge. Since when Social Security is an entitlement program. If you start
contributing at 25 and retire at 67 (40 years of monthly contributions), you actually get less then
you contribute, unless you live more then 80 years. It just protects you from "free market casino".
Notable quotes:
"... A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production. Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product of their work and of the resources that they own. ..."
"... n a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in. ..."
"... If not about people, what is an economy about? ..."
"... I hadn't realized that Democrats now view Social Security and Medicare as "government handouts". ..."
"... Some Democrats like Krugman are Social Darwinists. ..."
"... PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an ignorant jerk. ..."
"... What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Delong and Krugman? Higher education. Damn welfare queens! :) ..."
"... No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism. ..."
"... People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust belt." ..."
"... Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview. ..."
"... He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health. ..."
"... For a long time DeLong was mocking the notion of "economic anxiety" amongst the voters. Does this blog post mean he's rethinking that idea? ..."
"... The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white congregations), then it is not deserved. ..."
Brad DeLong has an interesting meditation * on markets and political demands - inspired by
a note from Noah Smith ** - that offers food for thought. I wonder, however, if Brad's discussion
is too abstract; and I also wonder whether it fully recognizes the disconnect between what Trump
voters think they want and reality. So, an entry of my own.
What Brad is getting at is the widespread belief by, well, almost everyone that they are entitled
to - have earned - whatever good hand they have been dealt by the market economy. This is reflected
in the more or less universal belief of the affluent that they deserve what they have; you could
see this in the rage of rentiers at low interest rates, because it's the Federal Reserve's job
to reward savers, right? In this terrible political year, the story was in part one of people
in Appalachia angrily demanding a return of the good jobs they used to have mining coal - even
though the world doesn't want more coal given fracking, and it can get the coal it still wants
from strip mines and mountaintop removal, which don't employ many people.
And what Brad is saying, I think, is that what those longing for the return to coal want is
those jobs they deserve, where they earn their money - not government handouts, no sir.
A fact-constrained candidate wouldn't have been able to promise such people what they want;
Trump, of course, had no problem.
But is that really all there is? Working-class Trump voters do, in fact, receive a lot of government
handouts - they're almost totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, Medicare for health
care when old, are quite dependent on food stamps, and many have recently received coverage from
Obamacare. Quite a few receive disability payments too. They don't want those benefits to go away.
But they managed to convince themselves (with a lot of help from Fox News etc) that they aren't
really beneficiaries of government programs, or that they're not getting the "good welfare", which
only goes to Those People.
And you can really see this in the regional patterns. California is an affluent state, a heavy
net contributor to the federal budget; it went 2-1 Clinton. West Virginia is poor and a huge net
recipient of federal aid; it went 2 1/2-1 Trump.
I don't think any kind of economic analysis can explain this. It has to be about culture and,
as always, race.
Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value
and Contribution of Knowledge- and Network-Based Increasing Returns
Pascal Lamy: "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger..."
Perhaps in the end the problem is that people want to pretend that they are filling a valuable
role in the societal division of labor, and are receiving no more than they earn--than they contribute.
But that is not the case. The value--the societal dividend--is in the accumulated knowledge
of humanity and in the painfully constructed networks that make up our value chains.
A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made
coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production.
Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product
of their work and of the resources that they own.
That, however, is not the world we live in.
In a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge
and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good
livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near
Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their
luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because
there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in.
All of this "what you deserve" language is tied up with some vague idea that you deserve what
you contribute--that what your work adds to the pool of society's resources is what you deserve.
This illusion is punctured by any recognition that there is a large societal dividend to be
distributed, and that the government can distribute it by supplementing (inadequate) market wages
determined by your (low) societal marginal product, or by explicitly providing income support
or services unconnected with work via social insurance. Instead, the government is supposed to,
somehow, via clever redistribution, rearrange the pattern of market power in the economy so that
the increasing-returns knowledge- and network-based societal dividend is predistributed in a relatively
egalitarian way so that everybody can pretend that their income is just "to each according to
his work", and that they are not heirs and heiresses coupon clipping off of the societal capital
of our predecessors' accumulated knowledge and networks.
On top of this we add: Polanyian disruption of patterns of life--local communities, income
levels, industrial specialization--that you believed you had a right to obtain or maintain, and
a right to believe that you deserve. But in a market capitalist society, nobody has a right to
the preservation of their local communities, to their income levels, or to an occupation in their
industrial specialization. In a market capitalist society, those survive only if they pass a market
profitability test. And so the only rights that matter are those property rights that at the moment
carry with them market power--the combination of the (almost inevitably low) marginal societal
products of your skills and the resources you own, plus the (sometimes high) market power that
those resources grant to you.
This wish to believe that you are not a moocher is what keeps people from seeing issues of
distribution and allocation clearly--and generates hostility to social insurance and to wage supplement
policies, for they rip the veil off of the idea that you deserve to be highly paid because you
are worth it. You aren't.
And this ties itself up with regional issues: regional decline can come very quickly whenever
a region finds that its key industries have, for whatever reason, lost the market power that diverted
its previously substantial share of the knowledge- and network-based societal dividend into the
coffers of its firms. The resources cannot be simply redeployed in other industries unless those
two have market power to control the direction of a share of the knowledge- and network-based
societal dividend. And so communities decline and die. And the social contract--which was supposed
to have given you a right to a healthy community--is broken.
As I have said before, humans are, at a very deep and basic level, gift-exchange animals. We
create and reinforce our social bonds by establishing patterns of "owing" other people and by
"being owed". We want to enter into reciprocal gift-exchange relationships. We create and reinforce
social bonds by giving each other presents. We like to give. We like to receive. We like neither
to feel like cheaters nor to feel cheated. We like, instead, to feel embedded in networks of mutual
reciprocal obligation. We don't like being too much on the downside of the gift exchange: to have
received much more than we have given in return makes us feel very small. We don't like being
too much on the upside of the gift exchange either: to give and give and give and never receive
makes us feel like suckers.
PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and
Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on
disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an
ignorant jerk.
Exactly the same could be said about many of those inner city minorities that the "dependent hillbillies"
look down on as "welfare queens". That may be one of the reasons they take special issues with
"food stamps", because in contrast to the hillbillies, inner city poor people cannot grow their
own food. What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism - and also the idiocy,
because the dismantling of society would ultimately hurt the morons that voted GOP into power
this round.
"What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism "
No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate
themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism.
People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age
and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust
belt."
His tone is supercilious and offensive. But your argument is that they are not "dependent" because
they earned every benefit they get from the government. I think his point is that "dependent"
is not offensive -- the term jus reflects how we all depend on government services. DeLong makes
the point much better in the article quoted by anne above.
Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief
struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated
by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview.
He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health.
The New York Times is easily the finest newspaper in the world, is broadly recognized as such
and is of course flourishing. Such an institution will always have sections or editors and writers
of relative strength but these relative strengths change over time as the newspaper continually
changes.
NYT Co. to revamp HQ, vacate eight floors in consolidation
"In an SEC filing, New York Times Co. discloses a staff communication it provided today to
employees about a revamp of its headquarters -- including consolidating floors.
The company will vacate at least eight floors, consolidating workspaces and allowing for "significant"
rental income, the memo says."
The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters
are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white
congregations), then it is not deserved. But if that same government money goes to themselves
(or their real close relatives), then it is a hard earned and well-deserved payback for their
sacrifices and tax payments. So the GOP leadership has always called it "saving social security"
and "cracking down on fraud" rather than admitting to their attempts to dismantle those programs.
The Dems better be on the ball and call it what it is. If you want to save those programs you
just have to prevent rich people from wiggling out of paying for them (don't repeal the Obamacare
medicare taxes on the rich).
On the Pk piece. I think it is really about human dignity, and the need for it. There were a lot
of factors in this horrific election, but just as urban blacks need to be spared police brutality,
rural whites need a dignified path in their lives. Everyone, united, deserves such a path.
This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed.
I agree to a point, but what the piece is about is that in search of a solution to the problems
of the rustbelt (whatever the definition is),people voted for Trump who had absolutely no plan
to solve such a problem, other than going back to the future and redoing Nafta and getting rid
of regulations.
Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was
being placed in severe risk.
Those voters were fixed on his rhetoric and right arm extended while his left hand was grabbing
them by the (in deference to Anne I will not say the words, but Trump himself has said one of
them and the other is the male version).
Really? You didn't seem to before. You'd say what Duy or Noah Smith or DeLong were mulling about was
off-limits. You'd ban them from the comment section if you could. "This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed." I don't see why this is such a controversial point for centrist like Krugman. How do we appeal to the white working class without contradicting our principles?
By promoting policies that raise living standards. By delivering, which mean left-wing policies
not centrist tinkering. It's the Clinton vs. Sanders primary. Hillary could have nominated Elizabeth Warren as her VP candidate but her corporate masters
wouldn't let her.
"Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was being
placed in severe risk."
That safety net is an improvement over 1930. But it's been fraying so badly over the last 20-30
years that it's almost lost all meaning. It's something people turn to before total destitution,
but for rebuilding a life? A sick joke, filled with petty hassles and frustrations.
And the fraying has been a solidly bipartisan project. Who can forget welfare "reform"?
So maybe the yokels you're blaming for the 10,000-th time might not buy your logic or your
intentions.
... At the height of their influence in the 1950s, labor unions could claim to represent about
1 of every 3 American workers. Today, it's 1 in 9 - and falling.
Some have seen the shrinking size and waning influence of labor unions as a sign that the US
economy is growing more flexible and dynamic, but there's mounting evidence that it is also contributing
to slow wage growth and the rise in inequality. ...
(Union membership) NY 24.7%, MA 12.4%, SC 2.1%
... Are unions faring any better here in Massachusetts?
While Massachusetts's unions are stronger than average, it's not among the most heavily unionized
states. That honor goes to New York, where 1 in every 4 workers belongs to a union. After New
York, there are 11 other states with higher union membership rates then Massachusetts.
Here too, though, the decline in union membership over time has been steep.
... In 2015, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below
that of the U.S. average, 11.1 percent, and 20 states had rates above it. All states
in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had union membership rates
below the national average, and all states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions
had rates above it. Union membership rates increased over the year in 24 states and
the District of Columbia, declined in 23 states, and were unchanged in 3 states.
(See table 5.)
Five states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2015: South Carolina
(2.1 percent), North Carolina (3.0 percent), Utah (3.9 percent), Georgia (4.0 percent),
and Texas (4.5 percent).
Two states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent in
2015: New York (24.7 percent) and Hawaii (20.4 percent).
State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
and New York (2.0 million).
Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally.
(It appears that New England union participation
lags in the northeast, and also in the rest of
the US not in the Red Zone.)
I have noted before that New England
is doing better 'than average' (IMO)
because of high-tech industry & education.
Not necessarily because of a lack of
unionization, which is prevalent here
in public education & among service
workers. Note that in higher ed,
much here is private.
Private industry here traditionally
is not heavily unionized, although
that is probably not the case
among defense corps.
As to causation, I think the
implication is that 'Dems dealing
with unions' has not been working
all that well, recovery-wise,
particularly in the rust belt.
That must have as much to do with
industrial management as it does
with labor, and the ubiquitous
on-going industrial revolution.
Everybody needs, and desperately crave, self-confidence and dignity. In white rural culture that
has always been connected to the old settler mentality and values of personal "freedom" and "independence".
It is unfortunate that this freedom/independence mythology has been what attracted all the immigrants
from Europe over here. So it is as strongly engrained (both in culture and individual values)
as it is outdated and counterproductive in the world of the future. I am not sure that society
can help a community where people find themselves humiliated by being helped (especially by bad
government). Maybe somehow try to get them to think of the government help as an earned benefit?
"... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
"... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
"... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
"... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
"... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
"... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
"... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
"... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
"... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
"... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
"Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital
- and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation
of the same tradition?"
You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different
from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here
about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump
is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.
... ... ...
T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm
RP @683
That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely
in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But
that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not
been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan)
are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals
w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.
Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade
and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.
But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much
more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against
gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure
spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.
T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.
There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents.
The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading
our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked
together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.
These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.
I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance
for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger
vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing
and distressing.
Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American
life, but there aren't 7th acts.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It
can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very
rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown
by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than
Sanders or Trump have been offering.<
Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few
allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification
that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the
consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard
Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."
You've studied this more than I have,
but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon
from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out
of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair
number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running
against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated
largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.
To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would
actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty
as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was
against Nixon during watergate.
OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from
the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would
require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win
the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a
landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.
From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power
to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable
election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit
and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates
left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower
the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates",
and enable them to whitewash their history.
Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal
to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left
until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.
Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen
by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."
That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating
insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant
to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something
she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine
that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her
because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every
time she comments.
That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support
her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's
response to her comment.
"... In practice, however, neoliberalism has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state. ..."
"... The Neoliberal State ..."
"... Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing a minimum level of security against poverty. ..."
"... Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart ..."
"... Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects; they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the former. ..."
"... But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social cohesion. ..."
"... Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory. It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice. ..."
"... A more likely course of events is that social democracy will be eroded even further. ..."
"... The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism has no remedy for its own failure. ..."
"... Although the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that social democracy requires will be next to impossible. ..."
John Gray Neoliberals
wanted to limit government, but the upshot of their policies has been a huge expansion in the power
of the state. Deregulating the financial system left banks free to speculate, and they did so with
reckless enthusiasm. The result was a build-up of toxic assets that threatened the entire banking
system. The government was forced to step in to save the system from self-destruction, but only at
the cost of becoming itself hugely indebted. As a result, the state has a greater stake in the financial
system than it did in the time of Clement Attlee. Yet the government is reluctant to use its power,
even to curb the gross bonuses that bankers are awarding themselves from public funds. The neoliberal
financial regime may have collapsed, but politicians continue to defer to the authority of the market.
Hardcore Thatcherites, and their fellow-travellers in New Labour, sometimes question whether there
was ever a time when neoliberal ideas shaped policy. Has public spending not continued to rise over
recent decades? Is the state not bigger than it has ever been? In practice, however, neoliberalism
has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically
impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions
on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state.
An increase in state power has always been the inner logic of neoliberalism, because, in order
to inject markets into every corner of social life, a government needs to be highly invasive. Health,
education and the arts are now more controlled by the state than they were in the era of Labour collectivism.
Once-autonomous institutions are entangled in an apparatus of government targets and incentives.
The consequence of reshaping society on a market model has been to make the state omnipresent.
Raymond Plant is a rarity among academic political theorists, in that he has deep experience of
political life (before becoming a Labour peer he was a long-time adviser to Neil Kinnock). But he
remains a philosopher, and the central focus of The Neoliberal State is not on the ways
in which neoliberalism has self-destructed in practice. Instead, using a method of immanent criticism,
Plant aims to uncover contradictions in neoliberal ideology itself. Examining a wide variety of thinkers
- Michael Oakeshott, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, James Buchanan and others - he develops a rigorous
and compelling argument that neoliberal ideas are inherently unstable.
Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who
want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state
can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize
an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and
contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine
individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing
a minimum level of security against poverty.
This is a reasonable summary of the neoliberal view of the state. Whether this view is underpinned
by any coherent theory is another matter. The thinkers who helped shape neoliberal ideas are a very
mixed bag, differing widely among themselves on many fundamental issues. Oakeshott's scepticism has
very little in common with Hayek's view of the market as the engine of human progress, for example,
or with Nozick's cult of individual rights.
It is a mistake to look for a systematic body of neoliberal theory, for none has ever existed.
In order to criticise neoliberal ideology, one must first reconstruct it, and this is exactly what
Plant does. The result is the most authoritative and comprehensive critique of neoliberal thinking
to date.
Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart
and is finally indistinguishable from a mild form of social democracy. Plant is a distinguished
scholar of Hegel, and his critique of neoliberalism has a strongly Hegelian flavour. The ethical
basis of the neoliberal state is a concern for negative freedom and the rule of law; but when these
ideals are examined closely, they prove either to be compatible with social democracy or actually
to require it. Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects;
they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the
former. Himself a social democrat, Plant believes that the neoliberal state is bound as a matter
of morality and logic to develop in a social-democratic direction.
But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to
suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the
sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social
cohesion. A similar view has recently surfaced in British politics in Phillip Blond's "Red Toryism".
Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory.
It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have
become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually
become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people
for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice.
If there is no reason in theory why the neoliberal state must develop in a social-democratic direction,
neither is there any reason in practice. A more likely course of events is that social democracy
will be eroded even further. The banking crisis rules out any prospect of a return to neoliberal
business-as-usual. As Plant writes towards the end of the book: "It has been argued that the central
cause of the banking crisis is a failure of regulation in relation to toxic assets . . . This, however,
completely neglects the systemic nature of the problems - a systemic structure that has itself been
developed as a result of liberalisation, that is, the creation of new assets without normal market
prices and their diffusion throughout the banking system." The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism
has no remedy for its own failure.
The upshot of the crisis is unlikely, however, to be a revival of social democracy. Although
the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the
banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign
debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that
social democracy requires will be next to impossible. Neoliberalism and social democracy may
be dialectically related, but only in the sense that when the neoliberal state collapses it takes
down much of what remains of social democracy as well.
The Neoliberal State
Raymond Plant Oxford University Press, 304pp, £50
John Gray is the New Statesman's lead book reviewer. His book "False Dawn: the Delusions
of Global Capitalism", first published in 1998, has been reissued by Granta Books with a new introduction
(£8.99) His latest book is
The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom .
"... The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . ..."
"... Brave New World ..."
"... The Demon In Democracy ..."
"... he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate: ..."
"... Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship and a different enemy. ..."
"... The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the new man. ..."
"... Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of the language to the entire social organism and all its cells. ..."
"... Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. ..."
"... More and more people say No ..."
"... What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments. ..."
"... This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe (and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability; second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been such long enough for the voters to notice. ..."
"... Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. ..."
"... The new aristocrats are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic. ..."
"... When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences. ..."
"... Many Christians are understandably relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. ..."
"... Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any philosophical or cultural sense. ..."
"... Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states, today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist Trump? ..."
"... The new generations of the neocons gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact on the Republican mainstream. ..."
"... The Demon in Democracy ..."
"... Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian Bach. ..."
"... Considering that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language sounds somewhat surrealist. ..."
"... The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of European peoples. ..."
Legutko is a Polish philosopher and politician who was active in the anti-communist resistance.
He is most recently the author of
The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . In this post from September,
I said that reading the book - which is clearly and punchily written - was like
taking a red pill - meaning that it's hard to see our own political culture the same way after
reading Legutko. His provocative thesis is that liberal democracy, as a modern political philosophy,
has a lot more in common with that other great modern political philosophy, communism, than we care
to think. He speaks as a philosopher who grew up under communism, who fought it as a member of Solidarity,
and who took part in the reconstruction of Poland as a liberal democracy. It has been said that the
two famous inhuman dystopias of 20th century English literature - Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's
Brave New World - correspond, respectively, to Soviet communism and mass hedonistic technocracy.
Reading Legutko, you understand the point very well.
In
this post , I quote several passages from The Demon In Democracy . Among them, these
paragraphs in which he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that
liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate:
Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became
hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory
rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship
and a different enemy.
The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just
as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy
and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the
new man.
Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the
forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of
the language to the entire social organism and all its cells.
And:
If the old communists lived long enough to see the world of today, they would be devastated
by the contrast between how little they themselves had managed to achieve in their antireligious
war and how successful the liberal democrats have been. All the objectives the communists set
for themselves, and which they pursued with savage brutality, were achieved by the liberal democrats
who, almost without any effort and simply by allowing people to drift along with the flow of modernity,
succeeded in converting churches into museums, restaurants, and public buildings, secularizing
entire societies, making secularism the militant ideology, pushing religions to the sidelines,
pressing the clergy into docility, and inspiring powerful mass culture with a strong antireligious
bias in which a priest must be either a liberal challenging the Church of a disgusting villain.
After the US election, Prof. Legutko agreed to answer a few questions from me via e-mail. Here
is our correspondence:
RD:What do you think of Donald Trump's victory, especially in context of Brexit
and the changing currents of Western politics?
RL: In hindsight, Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general
process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political
reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. What this process, having many currents and
facets, boils down to is difficult to say as it appears more negative than positive. More
and more people say No , whereas it is not clear what exactly they are in favor of.
What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust
towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling
that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments.
This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe
(and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative
to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person
may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability;
second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been
such long enough for the voters to notice.
Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only
correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political
culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and
manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. In Europe it sometimes looks like an attempt
to build a new form of an aristocratic order, since a place in the hierarchy is allotted to individuals
and groups not according to their actual education, or by the power of their minds, or by the
strength of their arguments, but by a membership in this or that class. The new aristocrats
are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break
the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic.
It is, I think, this contrast between, on the one hand, arrogance with which the new aristocrats
preach their orthodoxy, and on the other, a leaping-to-the-eye low quality of their leadership
that ultimately pushed a lot of people in Europe and the US to look for alternatives in the world
that for too long was presented to them as having no alternative.
When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced
politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally
acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize
in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation
of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment
and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences.
For an outside observer like myself, America after the election appears to be divided
but in a peculiar way. On the one side there is the Obama-Clinton America claiming to represent
what is best in the modern politics, more or less united by a clear left-wing agenda whose aim
is to continue the restructuring of the American society, family, schools, communities, morals.
This America is in tune with what is considered to be a general tendency of the modern world,
including Europe and non-European Western countries. But there seems to exist another America,
deeply dissatisfied with the first one, angry and determined, but at the same time confused and
chaotic, longing for action and energy, but unsure of itself, proud of their country's lost greatness,
but having no great leaders, full of hope but short of ideas, a strange mixture of groups and
ideologies, with no clear identity or political agenda. This other America, if personified, would
resemble somebody not very different from Donald Trump.
Q: Trump won 52 percent of the Catholic vote, and over 80 percent of the white Evangelical
Christian vote - this, despite the fact that he is in no way a serious Christian, and, on evidence
of his words and deeds, is barely a Christian at all. Many Christians are understandably
relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name
of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. From your
perspective, should US Christians be hopeful about their prospects under a Trump presidency, or
instead wary of being tempted by a false prophet?
A: Christians have been the largest persecuted religious group in the non-Western world, but
sadly they have also been the largest victimized religious group in those Western countries that
have contracted a disease of political correctness (which in practice means almost all of them).
Some Western Christians, including the clergy, abandoned any thought of resistance and not only
capitulated but joined the forces of the enemy and started disciplining their own flock. No wonder
that many Christians pray for better times hoping that at last there will appear a party or a
leader that could loosen the straitjacket of political correctness and blunt its anti-Christian
edge. It was then to be expected that having a choice between Trump and Clinton, they would turn
to the former. But is Trump such a leader?
Anti-Christian prejudices have taken an institutional and legal form of such magnitude that
no president, no matter how much committed to the cause, can change it quickly. Today in America
it is difficult even to articulate one's opposition to political correctness because the public
and private discourse has been profoundly corrupted by the left-wing ideology, and the American
people have weaned themselves from any alternative language (and so have the Europeans). Any movement
away from this discourse requires more awareness of the problem and more courage than Trump and
his people seem to have. What Trump could and should do, and it will be a test of his intentions,
are three things.
First, he should refrain from involving his administration in the anti-Christian actions, whether
direct or indirect, thus breaking off with the practice of his predecessor. Second, he should
nominate the right persons for the vacancies in the Supreme Court. Third, he should resist the
temptation to cajole the politically correct establishment, as some Republicans have been doing,
because not only will it be a bad signal, but also display naïvete: this establishment is never
satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents.
Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public.
Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any
philosophical or cultural sense.Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states,
today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican
Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party
has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say
that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through
its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist
Trump?
A: Conservatism has always been problematic in America, where the word itself has acquired
more meanings, some of them quite bizarre, than in Europe. A quite common habit, to give an example,
of mentioning libertarianism and conservatism in one breath, thereby suggesting that they are
somehow essentially related, is proof enough that a conservative agenda is difficult for the Americans
to swallow. If I am not mistaken, the Republican Party has long relinquished, with very few exceptions,
any closer link with conservatism. If conservatism, whatever the precise definition, has something
to do with a continuity of culture, Christian and Classical roots of this culture, classical metaphysics
and anthropology, beauty and virtue, a sense of decorum, liberal education, family, republican
paideia, and other related notions, these are not the elements that constitute an integral part
of an ideal type of an Republican identity in today's America. Whether it has been different before,
I am not competent to judge, but certainly there was a time when the intellectual institutions
somehow linked to the Republican Party debated these issues. The new generations of the neocons
gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact
on the Republican mainstream.
Given that there is this essential philosophical weakness within the modern Republican identity,
Donald Trump does not look like an obvious person to change it by inspiring a resurgence of conservative
thinking. I do not exclude however, unlikely as it seems today, that the new administration will
need – solely for instrumental reasons – some big ideas to mobilize its electorate and to give
them a sense of direction, and that a possible candidate to perform this function will be some
kind of conservatism. Liberalism, libertarianism and saying 'no' to everything will certainly
not serve the purpose. Nationalism looks good and played its role during two or three months of
the campaign, but might be insufficient for the four (eight?) years that will follow.
Q: Though the Republicans will soon have their hands firmly on the levers of political power,
cultural institutions - especially academia and the news and entertainment media - are still thoroughly
progressive. In The Demon in Democracy , you write that "it is hard to imagine freedom
without classical philosophy and the heritage of antiquity, without Christianity and scholasticism
[and] many other components of the entire Western civilization." How can we hope to return to
the roots of Western civilization when the culture-forming institutions are so hostile to it?
A: It is true that we live at a time of practically one orthodoxy which the majority of intellectuals
and artists piously accept, and this orthodoxy - being some kind of liberal progressivism - has
less and less connection with the foundations of Western civilization. This is perhaps more visible
in Europe than in the US. In Europe, the very term "Europe" has been consistently applied to the
European Union. Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more
Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving
more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear
about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian
Bach.
It seems thus obvious that those who want to strengthen or, as is more often the case, reintroduce
classical culture in the modern world will not find allies among the liberal elites. For a liberal
it is natural to distance himself from the classical philosophy, from Christianity and scholasticism
rather than to advocate their indispensability for the cultivation of the Western mind. After
all, these philosophies – they would say - were created in a pre-modern non-democratic and non-liberal
world by men who despised women, kept slaves and took seriously religious superstitions. But it
is not only the liberal prejudices that are in the way. A break-up with the classical tradition
is not a recent phenomenon, and we have been for too long exposed to the world from which this
tradition was absent.
There is little chance that a change may be implemented through a democratic process. Considering
that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and
that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical
education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language
sounds somewhat surrealist. A rule that bad education drives out good education seems to
prevail in democratic societies. And yet I cannot accept the conclusion that we are doomed to
live in societies in which neo-barbarism is becoming a norm.
How can we reverse this process then? In countries where education is primarily the responsibility
of the state, it is the governments that may - hypothetically at least - have some role to play
by using the economic and political instruments to stimulate the desired changes in education.
In the US – I suspect - the government's role is substantially more reduced. So far however the
European governments, including the conservative ones, have not made much progress in reversing
the destructive trend.
The problem is a more fundamental one because it touches upon the controversy about what constitutes
the Western civilization. The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion
that Christianity, classical metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity.
A lot of conservatives – intellectuals and politicians – have readily acquiesced to this notion.
Unless and until this changes and our position of what constitutes the West becomes an integral
part of the conservative agenda and a subject of public debate, there is not much hope things
can change. The election of Donald Trump has obviously as little to do with Scholasticism or Greek
philosophy as it has with quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it may provide an occasion to reopen
an old question about what makes the American identity and to reject a silly but popular answer
that this identity is procedural rather than substantive. And this might be a first step to talk
about the importance of the roots of the Western civilization.
You have written that "liberalism is more about struggle with non-liberal adversaries than
deliberation with them." Now even some on the left admit that its embrace of political correctness,
multiculturalism, and so-called "diversity," is partly responsible for Trump's victory. How do
Brexit and Trump change the terms of the political conversation, especially now that it has been
shown that there is no such thing as "the right side of history"?
Liberalism, despite its boastful declarations to the contrary, is not and has never been about
diversity, multiplicity or pluralism. It is about homogeneity and unanimity. [Neo]Liberalism wants
everyone and everything to be [neo]liberal, and does not tolerate anyone or anything that is not
liberal. This is the reason why the [neo]liberals have such a strong sense of the enemy. Whoever
disagrees with them is not just an opponent who may hold different views but a potential or actual
fascist, a Hitlerite, a xenophobe, a nationalist, or – as they often say in the EU – a populist.
Such a miserable person deserves to be condemned, derided, humiliated and abused.
The Brexit vote could have been looked at as an exercise in diversity and, as such, dear to
every pluralist, or empirical evidence that the EU in its present form failed to accommodate diversity.
But the reaction of the European elites was different and predictable – threats and condemnations.
Before Brexit the EU reacted in a similar way to the non-[neo][neo]liberals winning elections
in Hungary and then in Poland, the winners being immediately classified as fascists and the elections
as not quite legitimate. The [neo]liberal mindset is such that accepts only those elections and
choices in which the correct party wins.
I am afraid there will be a similar reaction to Donald Trump and his administration. As long
as the [neo]liberals set the tone of the public debate, they will continue to bully both those
who, they say, were wrongly elected and those who wrongly voted. This will not stop until it becomes
clear beyond any doubt that the changes in Europe and in the US are not temporary and ephemeral
and that there is a viable alternative which will not disappear with the next swing of the democratic
pendulum. But this alternative, as I said before, is still in the process of formation and we
are not sure what will be the final result.
There will be elections in several key European nations next year - Germany and France, in
particular. What effect do you expect Trump's victory to have on European voters? How do you,
as a Pole, view Trump's fondness for Vladimir Putin?
From a European perspective, Clinton's victory would have meant a tremendous boost to the EU
bureaucracy, its ideology and its "more Europe" strategy. The forces of the self-proclaimed Enlightenment
would have gone ecstatic and, consequently, would have made the world even more unbearable not
only for conservatives. The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from
that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the
federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen
in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and
that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of
European peoples.
"The fact that he made some warm remarks about Putin during the campaign does not make me happy."
You would think an advocate against the Western liberal establishment would view Putin favorably,
as Pat Buchanan does. I guess old nationalist rivalries trump sticking it to the snooty elitists
in this case.
[NFR: Are you serious? Legutko's country was occupied and tyrannized by the Soviets for
nearly 50 years. Poland has had to worry about Russian imperialism for much longer than that,
as a matter of national survival. Any Pole that doesn't worry about Putin's ambitions is nuts.
- RD]
"it may provide an occasion to reopen an old question about what makes the American identity and
to reject a silly but popular answer that this identity is procedural rather than substantive"
That's a good assessment, from an outside observer.
However, his anti-Russian views appear to be driven by his own Polish nationalism and past
Warsaw Pact Soviet imperialism, the latter ideologically and practically as dead as Josef Stalin,
and objectivity thus distorted, are much less clear. Imagine, welcoming a foreign imperial occupation
– one tied to the very liberal order he critiques so effectively.
I think that anti-interventionists, cheered by those Trump campaign statements questioning
the NATO mission post-communism, and defense cost bearing so that clients become real allies instead,
or not, are far more objectively considerate of Americans' interests through a drawdown from aggressive
globalist/militarist hegemony, than his understandable but very subjective Polish parochial prejudices.
re education: Andrew Pudewa for Secretary of Education! (Seriously, he said on FB he has some
idea what he'd do if he could get that post.)
re Russia: Hillary's rhetoric must not have translated very well over there At any rate, if
the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to defend them. Or maybe
they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
"The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion that Christianity, classical
metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity."
I'm sorry, but this is a lunatic idea. Too bad it is the lynchpin of all "new right" thought.
You want to return to some imaginary West in which nothing happened in intellectual life after
about 1650.
It would take a book to properly refute Legutko and I am not inclined to do the work of writing
one but to put it simply, he has no knowledge of how Americans think. Americans are, at heart,
pragmatists. We don't care about ideology and most of the time we don't bother much with religion
either except to give polite lip service to it. It has no claim on the American soul.
Americans are at heart easy going people who have no use for either the loons of Liberalism
or Conservatism. Right now it is the Liberals, with their particular brand of silliness that are
out of favor. A few years ago it was Conservatives that no one wanted for next door neighbors.
The things Legutko writes of Americans could not care less about.
The American embrace of Putin is simply the result of American disgust with Europe, a continent
populated by a peculiar species of coward and ungrateful wretch, a museum that produces nothing
of any value any more and is governed by self-righteous morons who have nothing better to do with
their time than to lecture the infinitely more intelligent Americans. The American attitude towards
Europe is, "To Hell with it." In such an environment, of course we are willing to let Putin have
the damned place and the Devil give him good office. Trump, with his expressed contempt for the
opinions of foreign leaders, especially the Europeans, fits this perfectly.
I think an acceptable deal could be reached with Russia.
You have to think about it from their perspective: They have lost all power and influence not
only in the territories that Stalin seized, but also in many that were in the traditional sphere
of the Russian Empire. They view extension of Western influence and NATO into these territories
as an act of aggression and American aggrandizement. The loss of Ukraine is the cruelest cut of
all, because Kiev is the cradle of Russian Orthodox civilization.
Russian nationalists loathe Gorbachev, in part because he could easily have negotiated a deal
enforcing neutrality in formally Soviet-dominated territories as Soviet troops were withdrawn.
Instead, from their point of view, he gave it all away for nothing and left the Motherland open
to encirclement.
There is plainly space for a deal that would include security guarantees for Russia's neighbors
but also mandatory neutrality. Russia would take that deal. So far at least, we wouldn't, because
US policymakers want encirclement and domination in the region.
Let's see if Trump rethinks this. Russia is very imperfect, but we face much bigger and more
important threats. We'd be better off forging an alliance with Russia if we can.
Mr. Legutko is a member of PiS, the party which currently rules Poland. Immediately after coming
to power they turned all public TV Stations into Government mouthpieces, and practically shut
down the supreme court.
Communism is not a "political philosophy"; it's an economic theory. If they guy actually called
it a political theory (he may not have; those may be Rod's words, written in haste) then he's
no more worth listening to than a astronomer who asserts that the sun and planet revolve around
the Earth.
"this establishment is never satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents."
The Right should have learned this lesson with the Regan Amnesty. "A Deal is never a Deal"
with the left. For the Left, any comprise is just an opportunity to move sidelines yard markers.
Rod, do yourself a huge favor and if you don't have it already, pick up a copy of C. Lasch's
posthumous book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. For some reason
I'd missed this one along the way, but I bought a copy recently and started it over the weekend.
He wrote it in the early 90's, but it's so on-target you'd think it was written yesterday. The
introduction alone is worth the price of the book - obviously he did not have Trump, or even a
Trump-like character in mind, but his observations on conservatism, liberalism, populism, etc.,
are head-shakingly accurate. Not to be missed.
"he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed
similar interdictions on free thought and debate."
I am sorry, but I have travelled throughout Eastern Europe before and after the fall of communism.
Anyone who tells me that liberal democracy there (where it exists) imposes "similar interdictions
on free thought and debate" is just not to be taken seriously.
This is an article I would have posted on Facebook if the tag line were not so inflammatory that
it would go unread and in fact do more harm than good.
This makes perfect sense . . . or it's utter nonsense. The problem is Donald Trump is a wild card.
No one knows exactly how Trump will play or be played. If Trump accepts the role of Head of State,
leaving the details of governing to others (Pense, Ryan, McConnell, whomever) there might be some
consistency. A conservative agenda (as Americans have come to know it) will be possible.
But if the Donald Trump who has displayed zero substantive knowledge about anything decides
to actually govern (or worse yet, sporadically and whimsically govern) then in the immortal words
of Bette Davis: "Fasten your seat belts! It's going to be a bumpy night."
Legutko is going to be disappointed but, I suspect, not surprised when Trump simply throws open
the door. And then asks Putin if he can get the base construction contracts.
I'm reminded of the lyrics in a song by The Who: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss." The
song title is "We won't get fooled again." Good luck with that.
Maybe there is just something in the nature of humans which compels us to want to impose our
biases, beliefs, and visions of society and the future upon those around us. Maybe it just boils
down to eventual fatigue from constantly arguing with people who will never end up agreeing to
your point of view: the simple solution has always been to make your opponents shut up. Failing
that, we resort to locking them up, or driving them out, or ultimately killing them.
With regard to this quote:
"Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public."
I'm not sure how to take this. Is he merely hoping to carve out some space for Christians to
co-exist with a larger secular majority. Or does he still harbor hope of restoring Christianity
as a central element of Western Culture, against the resistance of the secularists? If the latter
is his dream, I would point out that using institutional and political power to re-impose Christianity
upon the masses is no different that what the Left is doing now impose its preferred set of beliefs.
He would just be looking for a new Boss, if you will.
With regard to the European Project: It is worth remembering that European Nationalism resulted
many centuries of warfare between contending powers on the continent. It culminated in two world
wars, the second of which left most of that area of the world in ruins. The original motivation
for the European Union was to end that cycle of warfare, by more tightly linking together the
economies of these nations.
Now we see a resurgence of Russian Nationalism, with that country seeking to expand its sphere
of influence again, and gleefully egging on the Nationalists in Western Europe, with the hope
of finishing off the NATO military alliance. As emotionally satisfying as it might be to stop
the drive toward further unification and uniformity, a return to something worse is clearly possible.
Now Legutko clearly believes that the European Union and NATO were failing at the task of restraining
Russian imperialism anyway. From a Eastern European perspective, that is probably true. But if
you look around the conservative blogosphere, it isn't hard to find self described conservatives
who see that as a pragmatic necessity. They say it was a mistake to expand NATO, that those countries
were always naturally in the Russian sphere of influence, and coping with that reality it their
problem, and not our problem. The irony is that the more nationalistic and less global we become
in our perspective, the less likely we are to help protect Legutko's homeland from its larger,
aggressive neighbor to the East.
This guy derides the neocons, but on Russia, he is as bad or worse than them. How is Russia an
imperial nation when they have stood by and let NATO expand to their doorstep when the US promised
it would go no further east than Berlin? How is it imperialist that they secured their military
foothold in Crimea (killing no one I might add) against a US backed, fascist coup against the
democratically elected government of Ukraine?
[NFR: I think you should consider
the history of Poland
in the 19th and 20th centuries - especially from 1945 through 1989 - if you want to understand
why Poles worry about Russian imperialism. - RD]
I loathe the election of Trump and what it will do here (so much so, that our family will likely
move to Switzerland, where my wife is from and in which my 3 daughters all have citizenship),
but one of the quite reasonable things that Trump has said is that "If we got along with Russia,
it wouldn't be a bad thing."
I don't think that means letting Putin do whatever he wants, and I have zero or sub-zero faith
that Trump will implement anything like a sensible approach to whatever Putin does, but trying
to get along with Russia is not crazy.
At any rate, if the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to
defend them. Or maybe they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
These beastly Poles. Always provoking their Russian and German neighbors.
Legato embraces his own set of traumatic, reactionary 'isms' which, like most 'isms', are covered
with a patina of light philosophy to make them seem like the wisdom of the ages. I'm not sure
he's entirely comfortable with the outcomes of the Enlightenment
[NFR: Of course he's not! Neither am I. Where you been? - RD]
"... In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the existing bonds that hold the society together. ..."
"the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right
in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon
orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking."
That's a very apt observation, especially in the part "the Left (or what
passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right ".
The key question here" "Is neoliberalism a flavor of conservatism or not?".
Or it is some perversion of the left? I doubt that "Neolib/Neocon orthodoxy"
that is really completely dominant in the USA can be viewed as a flavor of
conservatism. IMHO it's actually more resembles Trotskyism with its idea of
"world revolution" and classic Marxist slogan "Working Men of All Countries,
Unite!"
The first slogan was replaced with "Permanent neoliberal revolution" and
"New American Militarism" that we saw in action in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia,
Ukraine. They are eager to bring the neoliberal revolution into other countries
on the tips of bayonets.
The second was replaced by the slogan "Transnational corporate and financial
elites unite". Instead of Congresses of "Communist International" we have
similar congresses of financial oligarchy and neoliberal politicians like in
Davos.
In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals
with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the
existing bonds that hold the society together.
Still in other sense it resembles " the ancien regime", especially in the
USA :
The opening chapters of Maistre's Considerations on France
are an unrelenting assault on the three pillars of the ancien regime:
the aristocracy, the church, and the monarchy. Maistre divides the
nobility into two categories: the treasonous and the clueless. The
clergy is corrupt, weakened by its wealth and lax morals. The monarchy is soft and lacks the will to punish. Maistre dismisses all three
with a line from Racine: "Now see the sad fruits your faults pro-duced, / Feel the blows you have yourselves induced."5
If we equate "ancien regime" with the neoliberalism, the quote suddenly
obtains quite modern significance. It does have a punch. Now we see Trump
supporters attacking neoliberalism with the same intensity. And we can
definitely divide the USA financial oligarchy into "the treasonous" and "the
clueless." While neoliberal MSM are as corrupt as "ancien regime" clergy, if
not more.
Like in the past there is a part of the USA conservatives that bitterly
oppose neoliberalism (paleoconservatives).
The key problem here is that as there is no real left (in European sense) in
the USA, the challenge to neoliberalism arose from the right. Trump with all
his warts is definitely anti-globalization candidate. That's why we see such a
hysteria in neoliberal MSM about his candidacy.
Neoconservatism
The Autobiography of an Idea
By Irving Kristol
Irving Kristol has been a formidable presence in American intellectual life for over forty
years. After an early stint as an editor at Commentary, he helped to start three other influential
magazines -- Encounter, in 1953; The Public Interest, in 1965; and The National Interest, in 1985.
A Trotskyist in his student days, Kristol has moved in stages to the right, first becoming
a liberal anticommunist, then a conservative antiliberal. At one point in this evolution, in the
early 1970s, he embraced the label "neoconservative," which the socialist Michael Harrington had
introduced as a pejorative. Since then he has happily made himself so entirely synonymous with
neoconservatism that he now offers his latest collection of essays as its, not his, "autobiography."
But a label is not necessarily evidence of a coherent philosophy, or of a living one. As Kristol
himself acknowledges, neoconservatism has been swallowed by the larger conservative movement--[neoliberalism movement and ideology --NNB].
And his own views have evolved far beyond what he and others originally conceived as neoconservatism.
Several of his early collaborators at The Public Interest, notably Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, have long since parted ways. And well they might, considering the tone and substance
of Kristol's writing in recent years.
When neoconservatism first took shape in the late 1960s and '70s, it seemed to be different
from the older varieties of the American right. The Public Interest, and Kristol himself, accepted
the New Deal, but rejected the political and cultural currents of the '60s.
Yet even with
respect to the policies of that era, their stance was meliorism, not repudiation. They presented
themselves as defending the achievements of a capitalist civilization, often positively described
as liberal and secular, from the assaults of a radicalized liberalism. Nearly all were from New
York, most were Jewish, and they carried with them a sensibility that was urban and modern, even
when arguing on behalf of moral and cultural standards that were traditional or, to use Kristol's
preferred term, "bourgeois."
People who know neoconservatism only from that era might therefore be surprised to read
Kristol's recent fulminations against "secular humanism" and his praise of Christian fundamentalism.
Remembering the calm civility of his earlier essays, they might especially fasten on the following
passage from an article, written in 1993, with which Kristol concludes his new book: "So far from
having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life
has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos.... Now that the other 'Cold War' is over,
the real cold war has begun." ...
The Myth of the Powell Memo
A secret note from a future Supreme Court justice did not give rise to today's conservative infrastructure.
Something more insidious did.
By Mark Schmitt
At one end of a block of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., sometimes known as "Think
Tank Row"-the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution are neighbors-a
monument to intellectual victory has been under reconstruction for a year. It will soon be the
home of the American Enterprise Institute, a 60,000-square-foot Beaux-Arts masterpiece where Andrew
Mellon lived when he was treasury secretary during the 1920s. AEI purchased the building with
a $20 million donation from one of the founders of the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm.
Right Moves
The Conservative Think Tank in American Political Culture Since 1945
By Jason Stahl
In the story of the rise of the political right in America since the late 1970s, think tanks,
and sometimes the glorious edifices in which they are housed, have played an iconic role. The
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the libertarian Cato Institute, along
with their dozens of smaller but well-funded cousins, have seemed central to the "war of ideas"
that drove American policy in the 1980s, in the backlash of 1994, in the George W. Bush era, and
again after 2010.
For the center left, these institutions have become role models. While Brookings or the Urban
Institute once eschewed ideology in favor of mild policy analysis or dispassionate technical assessment
of social programs, AEI and Heritage seemed to build virtual war rooms for conservative ideas,
investing more in public relations than in scholarship or credibility, and nurturing young talent
(or, more often, the glib but not-very-talented). Their strategy seemed savvier. Conservative
think tanks nurtured supply-side economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the entire agenda
of the Reagan administration, which took the form of a twenty-volume tome produced by Heritage
in 1980 called Mandate for Leadership.
In the last decade or so, much of the intellectual architecture of the conservative think tanks
has been credited to a single document known as the Powell Memo. This 1971 note from future Supreme
Court Justice Lewis Powell to a Virginia neighbor who worked at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged
business to do more to respond to the rising "New Left," countering forces such as Ralph Nader's
nascent consumer movement in the courts, in media, and in academia....
DeDude -> anne... , -1
The part where the neo-con-men get the scientific process wrong is where they begin with the conclusion,
before they even collect any facts. And then they whine that Universities are full of Liberals.
No they are full of scientists - and they are supposed to be.
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
"... A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin, Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically." ..."
"... Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared of their own country. ..."
"... France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who will save America from its own Vichy regime? ..."
For the French, revisiting the time period when the Vichy Regime ruled what was left of the
country after its humiliating defeat by the Germans in 1940 involves trauma. But the lessons
imparted by those dark years of Nazi occupation transcend historical era and nationality,
touching upon equivalent circumstances in the United States for the past few years. Equivalent,
not identical: clearly, phalanxes of Nazi troops aren't goose-stepping down Pennsylvania
Avenue....
A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin,
Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining
chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities
on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically."
France's new leader, the 84-year-old Marshall Petain, was a deeply reactionary veteran who loathed
the Third Republic crushed by the Germans and vowed to take advantage of France's crisis to obliterate
the past and install a centralized, authoritarian government. His rejection of liberalism, egalitarianism,
and democracy prompted measures designed to return France to its pre-revolutionary roots: cities,
industrial plants, and factories were rejected in favor of a return to nature, to villages and small
shops. On top of this heap of nouveau-peasantry loomed the Marshall himself, whose grandfatherly
physiognomy was plastered on buildings in public arenas all over the country to remind French subjects
of who was in charge.
Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed
their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's
measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie
of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared
of their own country.
... .. ..
Further, like his aged counterpart before him, President Obama took advantage of a crisis to
"transform" American institutions instead of grappling with the country's main problems --
national debt, unemployment, recession, and burgeoning entitlement costs, to name a few. He made
matters worse by augmenting entitlements, exploding federal deficits, exacerbating unemployment,
and blaming others for the inevitable mess that ensued...
... ... ...
France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham
Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who
will save America from its own Vichy regime?
Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with
The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy
novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."
Paul Krugman's recent posts have been most peculiar. Several have looked uncomfortably like special
pleading for political figures he likes, notably Hillary Clinton. He has, in my judgement, stooped
rather far down in attacking people well below him in the public relations food chain
Perhaps the most egregious and clearest cut case is his refusal to address the substance of a
completely legitimate, well-documented article by David Dayen outing Krugman, and to a lesser degree,
his fellow traveler Mike Konczal, in abjectly misrepresenting Sanders' financial reform proposals
The Krugman that was early to stand up to the Iraq War, who was incisive before and during the
crisis has been very much in absence since Obama took office. It's hard to understand the loss of
intellectual independence. That may not make Krugman any worse than other Democratic party apparatchiks,
but he continues to believe he is other than that, and the lashing out at Dayen looks like a wounded
denial of his current role. Krugman and Konczal need to be seen as what they are: part of the Vichy
Left brand cover for the Democratic party messaging apparatus. Krugman, sadly, has chosen to diminish
himself for a not very worthy cause.
"... That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure. ..."
"... But, mostly the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash back on their credit cards. ..."
"... I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations. ..."
"... The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of that control. ..."
"... Never mind how powerful their tools, managers who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility. My advice to them: feed that to your big data and your AI, right along with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a dead end. ..."
"... it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is: a: worse b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism. A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa. ..."
"... Trump is a dispicable human being but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"! ..."
But, isn't "boring" an argument too? A third way to
dissolve all the noisier contention, make it meaningless and then complain of
its meaninglessness?
I haven't quite recovered from merian challenging your argument from pattern
and precedent as decontextualized and ahistorical or then announcing that she
was not a supporter of Clinton after having previously justified her own
unqualified (though time-limited) support for Clinton.
I see the rhetorical power of Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur", which Adam
Curtis explains as a basis for the propaganda of the inverted totalitarian
state in some detail. I've long argued that the dominating power of
neoliberalism - not just as the ideology of the managerial classes, but as the
one ideology to rule them all at the end of history - has to do with the way
(left) neoliberals argue almost exclusively with conservative libertarians
(right neoliberals). It is in that narrow, bounded dynamic of one completely
synthetic and artificial thesis with another closely related and also
completely synthetic and artificial antithesis that we got stuck in the
Groundhog Day, where history tails off after a few weeks and evidence consists
of counterfactuals projected a few weeks into the future.
It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds
like one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out
anyone's ability to figure out what is going on. And, really, nothing is going
on - or rather, nothing about which voters have a realistic choice to make.
That's the problem. (Left) neoliberalism was born* in the decision to abandon
the actual representation of a common interest (and most especially a working
class interest). Instead, it is all about combining an atomizing politics of
personal identity with Ezra Klein's wonkiness, where statistics are used to
filter out more information than revealed and esoteric jargon obscures the
rest. Paul Krugman, Reagan Administration veteran and Enron advisor, becomes
the authoritative voice of the moderate centre-Left.
*That's why the now ancient Charles Peters' Neoliberal Manifesto matters -
not because Peters was or is important, but because it was such a clear and
timely statement of the managerial / professional class Left abandoning
advocacy for the poor or labor interests against the interests of capital,
corporations and the wealthy. The basic antagonism of interests in politics was
to be abandoned and what was gained was financial support from capital and
business corporations. The Liberal Class, the institutional foundations of
which were eroding rapidly in the 1980s, with the decline of social
affiliation, mainline Protestant religions, public universities, organized
labor could no longer be relied upon to fund the chattering classes so the
chattering classes represented by Peters found a new gig and rationalized it,
and that is the (left) neoliberalism we know today as Vox speak.
The 10% gets free a completely artificial (because not rooted in class
interests or any interests) ideology bought and paid for by the 1/10th of 1%
and the executive class) ideology, but it gets it free and as long as the
system continues to lumber along, employing them (which makes them the 10%)
they remain complacent. They don't understand their world, but their world
seems to work anyway, so why worry? Any apparently alarming development can be
normalized by confusion and made boring.
More than 20 years after Luttwak / McMurtry, I would think inability of the
10% to understand how the world works might be the most worrying thing of all.
The 10% are the people who make the world work in a technical sense - that is
the responsibility of the professionals and professional managers, after all.
That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized
economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive
classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate
change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to
accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well
Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least
some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she
can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure.
But, mostly
the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash
back on their credit cards.
I read with fascination articles about the travails
of that Virginia Tech guy who persisted in the Flint Water case; again, a
lonely figure.
I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and
therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is
quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations.
And yet . In the more or less cobwebbed corners of the Internet, like CT, we
are in fact having this conversation, and others much like it - even when, as
inevitably happens, it leaves us vulnerable to accusations of leftist onanism
by self-appointed realists of the status quo. They may not be easy to ignore,
but knowing that their opinions can't possibly be as securely held as they
claim, and are in fact more vulnerable to events than they're capable of
imagining, we shouldn't feel obliged to pay their denunciations any more
attention than they deserve.
The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich
are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to
control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of
that control.
If we really want to foster a future in which institutions are
stable again, and can successfully design and implement effective protections
for the general welfare, we're going to have to get a lot more comfortable with
chaos, unintended consequences, the residual perversity, in short, of
large-scale human interactions.
Never mind how powerful their tools, managers
who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility.
My advice to them: feed
that
to your big data and your AI, right along
with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and
devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a
dead end.
> It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds like
one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out anyone's
ability to figure out what is going on.
Pretty sure it is. Precisely because
it is not left neoliberalism versus
right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:
a: worse
b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.
A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa.
The 50-55 year old male, white, college-educated former exemplar of the
American Dream, still perhaps living in his lavishly-equipped suburban
house, with two or three cars in the driveway, one or two children in
$20,000 per annum higher education (tuition, board and lodging – all extras
are extra) and an ex-job 're-engineered' out of existence, who now exists on
savings, second and third mortgages and scant earnings as a self-described
'consultant', has become a familiar figure in the contemporary United
States.
It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy
land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a
personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny.
They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a
fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict
on the poor.
It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get
implemented . It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits
but it makes us look like we care."
boo321
, 14 Oct 2016 07:53
Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making
these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major
institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a
toss for their suffering.
Trump is a dispicable human being but he has touched those who are
desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the
change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've
had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for
change but the establishment made sure he could not win by the
manipulation of the "super delegate vote"!
Olens defended Georgia's gay marriage ban and sued the federal government over the transgender
bathroom directive. That's why students organized Monday afternoon's protest and drafted a petition
that has more than 5,000 signatures.
In the petition, students ask the Georgia Board of Regents to not appoint Olens as KSU's next
president.One student, who wouldn't give 11Alive his name, said he's disappointed.
"The support groups would probably be disbanded and not to mention the scholarships that are
offered for people active in LGBT rights," he said
After the rally ended, he stayed around to continue the protest.
"I feel it's my duty. I'm a student here and I have to make sure the school is safe for me
and students. If this place becomes unsafe, I'd have to leave," he said.
Oh for pity's sake, this snowflake thinks hiring the Georgia AG as the school's president would
lead to anti-gay pogroms? I hate the way this Orwellian "safe space" concept has become the cudgel
with which campus progressives use to club the expression of opinions with which they disagree. Anyway,
the reader comments:
Okay, a couple things. First, KSU gives scholarships for "people active in LGBT rights"? I'd
love to know details on that. Second, note the alleged disqualification here: Olens defended the
laws of his state - laws that were created by a democratically elected legislature. In other words,
he did the job he is elected to do. But as you and I know, this now constitutes Thoughtcrime.
Leonard Witt, a KSU professor, wrote
a column
criticizing the choice in which he concludes: "Let's, this time, show the world that
Cobb County carries the torch for all its diverse communities." Yes, diverse communities - as
long as one of those communities isn't Christians or people fulfilling the duties of their elected
office.
Now, I should note that as a college professor myself I happen to agree with Witt's other point:
that a college president should be an academic, not someone plucked from business or politics.
If I taught at KSU, I would oppose Olens for that reason. But this is something different: opposition
to him because of something he believes, and because he did his job according to the constitution
of the state of Georgia.
Eventually we're going to have to call explanations like Witt's the "Eich Maneuver," as an
homage to Mozilla's preposterous explanation that they had to fire Eich because of how much they
value diversity of viewpoint.
The reader says to be sure to note this reasoning from KSU's Prof. Witt (what follows is a quote
from Witt's column):
Already the KSU LGBTQ community members are signing petitions. A headline in Project Q, a popular
Atlanta blog, screams out "Gay marriage bigot Sam Olens to become KSU president." Unfair? Perhaps,
but how do we know,since the selection process is coming from the darkest corners of state government.
As attorney general, Olens ardently opposed both gay marriage and now gender neutral bathrooms.
Hence, the headline.
Given Cobb County's history, try as the chancellor may argue otherwise, important national
constituencies are going to be outraged about the secret meetings aimed at appointing a candidate
who they know will infuriate the LGBTQ community and their allies at Kennesaw State, in Cobb County
and throughout the state and nation.
The nation's largest foundations that support higher education demand respecting diversity
in all its forms. An active foe of gay marriage or transgender neutral bathrooms for KSU president?
Cobb County again? We have better places to put our money. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Nike and
just about every other major corporation may well openly or silently boycott Kennesaw State University.
Plus, the tainted brand name will not exactly be a student resume builder.
Says the reader:
Echoes of Indiana and RFRA.
If we don't keep up with the LGBT agenda, no corporations will
want to do business with us!
And note the fear that we could "infuriate the LGBTQ community
and their allies." If I even mentioned to my academic colleagues that something could upset we
Christians and our allies, I'd probably hear laughter.
We should be hearing Republican politicians, churches, and civic leaders calling this stuff out
for what it is: diversity McCarthyism. Olens may or may not be qualified to run the university, but
what these SJWs are attempting is frightening - or should be. Where does it stop?
Bobby M. Wilson
(bio)
In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances according to the workings of the market as
opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like
racism and economic inequality. The market exchange is an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all of human action (
Harvey
2005
). In many ways, the discourse of neoliberalism represents a radical
inversion of the notion of "human agency," as conceived through the
prophetic politics of Martin Luther King. As originally conceived, human
agency focused on people's capability of doing things that can make a
difference, that is, to exercise some sort of power and self-reliance. As a
central concern among many in the social sciences, this concept sought to
expose the power of human beings. Reverend Martin Luther King's prophetic
politics were determinedly "this worldly" and social in their focus. He
encouraged people to direct their attention to matters of social justice
rather than concern for personal well-being or salvation. He believed in the
power of people to make a difference.
But the concept of "justice" has
been reconstructed to fit neoliberal political and economic objectives. This
reconstruction is part of a larger discourse to reconstitute liberalism to
include human conduct. The invisible hand of the market not only allocates
resources but also the conduct of citizens. Economie agency is no longer
just about the market allocation of resources, but the allocation of people
into cultural worlds. This represents a radical inversion of the economic
agent as conceived by the liberalism of Adam Smith. As agents, humans are
implicated as players and partners in the market game. The context in which
individuals define themselves is privatized rather than publicized; the
focus of concerns is on the self rather than the collective. Power operates
internally, not externally, by inducing people to aim for
"self-improvement." The effect has been to negate the "social" in issues of
"justice" or "injustice." Individual subjects are rendered responsible,
shifting the responsibility for social risk (unemployment, poverty, etc.) to
the individual.
Black inner city spaces compete freely within a deregulated global
market. Central cities of large metropolitan areas have become the epicenter
of segregation. In 1988, approximately 55% of black students in the South
attended schools that were 50% to 100% minorities. By 2000, almost 70%
attended such schools. Only 15% of intensely segregated white schools are
schools of concentrated poverty, whereas 88% of the intensely segregated
racial minority schools are schools of concentrated poverty. Fifty years
after the
Brown
decision, we continue to heap more disadvantages on
children in poor communities. The community where a student resides
[End Page 97]
and goes to school is now the best predictor of
whether that student will go to college and succeed after graduation. High
school graduation rates in the South were lowest in the most isolated
black-majority districts-those separated by both race and poverty. Across
the South, we have created public and private systems that encourage the
accumulation of wealth and privilege in mostly white and socially isolated
communities separated by ever greater distances from the increasingly
invisible working poor (
Orfield
and Mei 2004
).
The most fundamental difference between today's segregated black
communities and those of the past is the much higher level of joblessness (
Wilson
1997
). Black unemployment and poverty level consistently remains at
twice the level of the total population. Access to jobs, already
disproportionately tenuous for black workers, has become even more
constricted in the current era of global capital. Without meaningful work,
the impact of racially segregated communities is much more pervasive and
devastating. The vast majority of intensely racial and ethnic segregated
minority places face a growing surplus labor determined to survive by any
means necessary. Two-thirds of the people in prison are now racial and
ethnic minorities. The proportion of young black males who are incarcerated,
on parole, or on probation nationwide continues to reach record levels.
Blacks represent 12.3% of the total population but make up 43.7% of the
incarcerated population. The number of black men in prisons increased from
508,800 in...
"... the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore First-World leftists need to shut up". ..."
"... in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all. ..."
"... It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs. ..."
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of
aristocracy.
This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law
of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual
literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".
At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic"
mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists
always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in in many countries where low rank military
officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to
hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.
Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the
law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members
of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.
USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal
elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.
In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the
social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite
(actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it
is even higher in the former Eastern block).
Re Will G-R: Your constant references to "liberals" as if they are all hideous, foul, disgusting,
and evil, dripping in blood of the victims of global capitalism's exploitative ways (do you
have a smartphone by the way? [I don't]; do you know who mined its ingredients?) is getting
perhaps a bit, um, repetitive.
If by liberals we would understand neoliberals, this might not be an overstatement. Neoliberals
destroy the notion of social justice and pervert the notion of the "rule of the law". See, for
example, The Neo-Liberal State by Raymond Plant
social justice is incompatible with the rule of law because its demands cannot be embodied
in general and impartial rules; and rights have to be the rights to non-interference rather
than understood in terms of claims to resources because rules against interference can be understood
in general terms whereas rights to resources cannot. There is no such thing as a substantive
common good for the state to pursue and for the law to embody and thus the political pursuit
of something like social justice or a greater sense of solidarity and community lies outside
the rule of law.
But surely, it might be argued, a nomocratic state and its laws have to
acknowledge some set of goals. It cannot be impartial or indifferent to all goals.
Law cannot be pointless. It cannot be totally non-instrumental. It has to facilitate
the achievement of some goals. If this is recognized, it might be argued, it will
modify the sharpness of the distinction between a nomocratic and telocratic state,
between a civil association and an enterprise association.
IMHO for neoliberals social justice and the rule of law is applicable only to Untermensch.
For Ubermensch (aka "creative class") it undermines their individual freedom and thus they need
to be above the law.
To ensure their freedom and cut "unnecessary and undesirable interference" of the society in
their creative activities the role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market
as the playground for their "creativity" (note "free" as in "free ride", not "fair")
LFC, the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated
often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore
First-World leftists need to shut up". The point about repetition is particularly ironic,
though, coming in the midst of yet another repetitive liberal circlejerk about Donald Trump blowing
the Gabriel's trumpet of a civilization-destroying neo-Nazi apocalypse.
likbez: "USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to
neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless."
One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when
in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres
are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all.
It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't
just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs.
"It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just
an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."
"... Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions. ..."
"... - Eduardo Galeano ..."
"... Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." ..."
"... One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. ..."
"... As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital ..."
"... As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy ..."
"... Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. ..."
"... The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. ..."
"... They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. ..."
"... dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. ..."
"... Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2). ..."
"... In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. ..."
"... What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... London Review of Books ..."
"... This is not a diary ..."
"... Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment ..."
"... Against the terror of neoliberalism ..."
"... Against the violence of organized forgetting: beyond America's disimagination machine ..."
"... Debt: The First 5,000 Years ..."
"... The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement ..."
"... 5th assessment report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change ..."
"... Unlearning With Hannah Arendt ..."
"... Agnonistics: thinking the world politically ..."
Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with
an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting.
A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked
questions.
- Eduardo Galeano
Neoliberalism's Assault on Democracy
Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of
the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." He goes on to say that
"We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way
of imagining the end of the world" (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding
Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which
the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized,
there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting
that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage,
and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability,
is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more
recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers
at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reinforce this dystopian possibility. [1]
To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the
Public Intellectual Project, click
here.
As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of
a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating
the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux
2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes "the deregulation of finance,
privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare
programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws" (Yates
2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market
rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy,
consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational
belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for
structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities,
subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded
in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of
ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics
and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization
of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and
public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade
in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of
financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state
and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural
apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves
as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and
supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism
and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further
one's individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect,
and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization
and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult
to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations.
As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught
of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly
weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear,
and the increasing use of state violence. One consequence is that it has become
more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the
widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers,
and other segments of society - now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes
which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the
ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices
heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree
to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing
what Chantal Mouffe calls "a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing
societies" under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This
is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students,
have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States,
and England.
The Rise of Disposable Youth
What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture
is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority
youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already
weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central
to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight
of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them
in countries such as England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed
and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many
countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50
per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find
work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States,
young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food
stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing
surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living
far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a
rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the
political arena.
This is the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which
the "plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation." (Bauman
2012a; 2012b; 2012c) He rightly insists that today's youth have been "cast in
a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory
or permanent" (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged
place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal
notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence
of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak,
and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed
next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out
pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce
a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military.
Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations
have been replaced by dashed hopes and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013;
On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).
The Revival of the Radical Imagination
Within the various regimes of neoliberalism that have emerged particularly
in North since the late 1970s, the ethical grammars that drew attention to the
violence and suffering withered or, as in the United States, seemed to disappear
altogether, while dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies,
and material goods to the machineries of disposability. The fear of losing everything,
the horror of an engulfing and crippling precarity, the quest to merely survive,
the rise of the punishing state and police violence, along with the impending
reality of social and civil death, became a way of life for the 99 percent in
the United States and other countries. Under such circumstances, youth were
no longer the place where society reveals its dreams, but increasingly hid its
nightmares. Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones
of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering,
cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility,
and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2).
In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance
and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the
possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it.
Such movements produced a new understanding of politics based on horizontal
forms of collaboration and political participation. In doing so, they resurrected
revitalized and much needed questions about class power, inequality, financial
corruption, and the shredding of the democratic process. They also explored
as well as what it meant to create new communities of mutual support, democratic
modes of exchange and governance, and public spheres in which critical dialogue
and exchanges could take place (For an excellent analysis on neoliberal-induced
financial corruption, see Anderson 2004).
A wave of youth protests starting in 2010 in Tunisia, and spreading across
the globe to the United States and Europe, eventually posed a direct challenge
to neoliberal modes of domination and the corruption of politics, if not democracy
itself (Hardt & Negri 2012). The legitimating, debilitating, and depoliticizing
notion that politics could only be challenged within established methods of
reform and existing relations of power was rejected outright by students and
other young people across the globe. For a couple of years, young people transformed
basic assumptions about what politics is and how the radical imagination could
be mobilized to challenge the basic beliefs of neoliberalism and other modes
of authoritarianism. They also challenged dominant discourses ranging from deficit
reduction and taxing the poor to important issues that included poverty, joblessness,
the growing unmanageable levels of student debt, and the massive spread of corporate
corruption. As Jonathan Schell argued, youth across the globe were enormously
successfully in unleashing "a new spirit of action", an expression of outrage
fueled less by policy demands than by a cry of collective moral and political
indignation whose message was
'Enough!' to a corrupt political, economic and media establishment that
hijacked the world's wealth for itself… sabotaging the rule of law, waging
interminable savage and futile wars, plundering the world's finite resources,
and lying about all this to the public [while] threatening Earth's life
forms into the bargain. (Schell 2011)
Yet, some theorists have recently argued that little has changed since 2011,
in spite of this expression of collective rage and accompanying demonstrations
by youth groups across the globe.
The Collapse or Reconfiguration of Youthful Protests?
Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki,
writing in The Guardian, argue that as the "economic and social
disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013", youth in Greece, France, Portugal, and
Spain have largely been absent from "politics, social movements and even from
the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe"
(Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). Yet, at the same time, they insist that more and
more young people have been "attracted to nihilistic ends of the political spectrum,
including varieties of anarchism and fascism" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014).
This indicates that young people have hardly been absent from politics. On the
contrary, those youth moving to the right are being mobilized around needs that
simply promise the swindle of fulfillment. This does not suggest youth are becoming
invisible. On the contrary, the move on the part of students and others to the
right implies that the economic crisis has not been matched by a crisis of ideas,
one that would propel young people towards left political parties or social
formations that effectively articulate a critical understanding of the present
economic and political crisis. Missing here is also a strategy to create
and sustain a radical democratic political movement that avoids cooptation of
the prevailing economic and political systems of oppression now dominating the
United States, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, France, and England, among other countries.
This critique of youthful protesters as a suspect generation is repeated
in greater detail by Andrew R. Myers in Student Pulse (Myers 2012).
He argues that deteriorating economic and educational conditions for youth all
over Europe have created not only a profound sense of political pessimism among
young people, but also a dangerous, if not cynical, distrust towards established
politics. Regrettably, Myers seems less concerned about the conditions that
have written young people out of jobs, a decent education, imposed a massive
debt on them, and offers up a future of despair and dashed hopes than the alleged
unfortunate willingness of young people to turn their back on traditional parties.
Myers argues rightly that globalization is the enemy of young people and is
undermining democracy, but he wrongly insists that traditional social democratic
parties are the only vehicles and hope left for real reform. As such, Myers
argues that youth who exhibit distrust towards established governments and call
for the construction of another world symbolize political defeat, if not cynicism
itself. Unfortunately, with his lament about how little youth are protesting
today and about their lack of engagement in the traditional forms of politics,
he endorses, in the end, a defense of those left/liberal parties that embrace
social democracy and the new labor policies of centrist-left coalitions. His
rebuke borders on bad faith, given his criticism of young people for not engaging
in electoral politics and joining with unions, both of which, for many youth,
rightfully represent elements of a reformist politics they reject.
It is ironic that both of these critiques of the alleged passivity of youth
and the failure of their politics have nothing to say about the generations
of adults that failed these young people - that is, what disappears in these
narratives is the fact that an older generation accepted the "realization that
one generation no longer holds out a hand to the next" (Knott 2011:ix). What
is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and
dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who
shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments
and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and
willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization.
In fact, what was distinctive about the protesting youth across the globe
was their rejection to the injustices of neoliberalism and their attempts to
redefine the meaning of politics and democracy, while fashioning new forms of
revolt (Hardt & Negri 2012; Graeber 2013). Among their many criticisms, youthful
protesters argued vehemently that traditional social democratic, left, and liberal
parties suffered from an "extremism of the center" that made them complicitous
with the corporate and ruling political elites, resulting in their embrace of
the inequities of a form of casino capitalism which assumed that the market
should govern the entirety of social life, not just the economic realm (Hardt
& Negri 2012:88).
Henry A.
Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship
in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a
Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent
books include: Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013),
America's Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013)
Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014), and The Violence
of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America's Disimagination Machine (City
Lights, 2014). The Toronto Star named Henry Giroux one of the twelve Canadians
changing the way we think! Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors.
His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed
the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess,
as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them.
The rich shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other
societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to senior party members,
senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money
at all).
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary
rival, but in this instance I think the debunking is merited. It's quite
possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and
that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession with rich people didn't cut very deep.
Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change
as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the
way they think, does not change the fact that, while they have more money,
they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone
else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that an Alpha Chimp has
fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's.
According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between
Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other
people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasnt about Fitzgerald
and wasnt even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more attacking the "rich have
more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald
got the basic idea right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of
those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered
by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we
are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life
for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below
us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored
of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race" but ultimately became
disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found
they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked
him."
"... If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them..... I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood. Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched so much. And Obama called off the DoJ. ..."
"... It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc. ..."
"... I.e. reverse puritanism of sorts - lack of success is always to be explained in terms of lack in virtue and striving. ..."
"... Yes. This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too Their support for the tax and transfer system Humanist noblesse " oblige". ..."
"... . "This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too" ..."
"... This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely gets it support and success from). ..."
"... Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but I'm under the impression that before Globalization_blowback/technology supported loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled", etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated). ..."
The disregard of the winners towards the losers helps to bring about the
popularity of people like Trump. I am not at all surprised at the level
of his popularity, even though I personally despise him.
If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them.....
I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump
is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood.
Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched
so much. And Obama called off the DoJ.
A room full of cognitive dissonance and brainwashed.
It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing
the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of
virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc.
Yes. This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too
Their support for the tax and transfer system Humanist noblesse " oblige".
In their opinion the system of merit rewards is largely firm but fair
cm said in reply to Paine...
"This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too"
This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely
gets it support and success from).
Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people
so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but
I'm under the impression that before Globalization_blowback/technology supported
loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private
circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you
will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled",
etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated).
"... I think the key difference between successful politicians and business people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians, you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years after they go into politics. ..."
"... "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." ..."
"... Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. ..."
"... Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests of business and the wealthy are the same. ..."
"... There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy with low cost housing and services. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business. ..."
"... "…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives. ..."
"... The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring this new ideology to developing nations. ..."
"... "The Chicago Boys" headed out from the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California to bring the new way to Indonesia ..."
"... Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance had to be quashed by whatever means necessary ..."
"... Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was ready to roll out across the world. ..."
"... Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever. The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't like to feel or experience crazy. ..."
"... Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government. Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against government and demanding good government- fighting for it. ..."
"... "Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say about love. No good end can come of it. ..."
"... This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than the narrow interest of investors." ..."
"... Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown, there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in "must"). ..."
"... Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some and positively for others, they are managing for all. ..."
Electorates believe that business leaders are qualified for and likely to
be effective in politics. Yet, with some notable exceptions, business people
have rarely had successful political careers.
The assumption is that corporate vision, leadership skills, administrative
skills and a proven record of wealth creation will translate into political
success. It presupposes personal qualities such drive, ambition and ruthlessness.
The allure is also grounded in the romantic belief that outsiders can fix all
that is wrong with the political process. The faith is misplaced.
First, the required skills are different.
Successful business leaders generally serve a technical apprenticeship in
the business, industry or a related profession giving them familiarity with
the firm's activities. Political success requires party fealty, calculating
partisanship, managing coalitions and networking. It requires a capacity to
engage in the retail electoral process, such as inspirational public speaking
and an easy familiarity with voters in a wide variety of settings. It requires
formidable powers of fund raising to finance campaigns. Where individuals shift
from business to politics in mid or later life, he or she is at a significant
disadvantage to career political operatives who have had years to build the
necessary relationships and organisation to support political aspirations.
Second, the scope of the task is different. A nation is typically larger
than a business. The range of issues is broader, encompassing economics, finance,
welfare, health, social policy as well as defence and international relations.
Few chief executives will, during a single day, have to consider budgetary or
economic issues, health policy, gender matters, privacy concerns, manage involvement
in a foreign conflict in between meeting and greeting a range of visitors varying
from schoolchildren to foreign dignitaries as well as attending to party political
matters.
Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than
the narrow interest of investors. They must take into account the effect of
decisions on a wide range of constituencies including many implacably opposed
to their positions.
Third, business objectives, such as profit maximisation, are narrow, well
defined and constant. Political objectives are amorphous and ideological. The
emphasis is on living standards, security and social justice. Priorities between
conflicting objectives shift constantly. The benefits of decisions by governments
in infrastructure, education and welfare are frequently difficult to measure
and frequently will not emerge for a long time.
Business decisions rarely focus on the societal impact. Firms can reduce
workforce, shift production overseas, seek subsidies or legally minimise taxes.
Politicians must deal with the side effects of individual profit maximisation
decisions such as closed factories, reduced employment, welfare and retraining
costs, security implications as well as social breakdown and inequality or exclusion.
Fourth, the operating environment is different. Businesses usually operate
within relatively defined product-market structures. In contrast, governments
operate in a complex environment shaped by domestic and foreign factors, many
of which they do not control or influence. Government actions require co-operation
across different layers of government or countries. Businesses can withdraw
from certain activities, while government do not have the same option.
Fifth, within boundaries set by laws and regulations, business leaders enjoy
great freedom and power to implement their policies. Boards of directors and
shareholders exercise limited control, usually setting broad financial parameters.
They do not intervene in individual decisions. Most important government actions
require legislative or parliamentary support. Unlike commercial operations,
government face restrictions, such as separation of powers, restraints on executive
or governmental action and international obligations.
Business leaders have unrivalled authority over their organisation based
on threats (termination) or rewards (remuneration or promotion). Political leaders
cannot fire legislators. They face significant barriers in rewarding or replacing
public servants. Policy implementation requires negotiations and consensus.
It requires overcoming opposition from opposing politicians, factions within
one's own party, supporters, funders and the bureaucracy. It requires overcoming
passively resistance from legislators and public servants who can simply outlast
the current incumbent, whose tenure is likely to be shorter than their own.
The lack of clear goals, unrivalled authority and multiple and shifting power
centres means that political power is more limited than assumed Many Presidents
of the United States, regarded as the most powerful position on earth, have
found that they had little ability to implement their agendas.
Sixth, unless they choose to be, business leaders are rarely public figures
outside business circles. Politicians cannot avoid constant public attention.
Modern political debate and discourse has become increasingly tabloid in tone,
with unprecedented levels of invective and ridicule. There is no separation
of the public and the personal. Business leaders frequently find the focus on
personal matters as well as the tone of criticism discomforting.
There are commonalities. Both fields attract a particular type of individual.
In addition, paraphrasing John Ruskin, successful political and business leaders
not only know what must be done but actually do what must be done and do it
when it must be done. A further commonality is the ultimate fate of leaders
generally. Enoch Powell, himself a long-serving Member of the British Parliament,
once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most
business leaders.
I think the key difference between successful politicians and business
people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians,
you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years
of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken
dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing
elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years
after they go into politics.
Much the same seems to apply to military leaders, although off the top
of my head I can think of more successful examples of the latter than of
business people (Eisenhower and De Gaulle come to mind). Berlusconi comes
to mind as a 'successful' politician and businessman, but then Italy does
seem to be an outlier in some respects.
One key difference I think between 'good' politicians and 'good' businesspeople
is in making decisions. Good businesspeople are decisive. Good politicians
never make a decision until they absolutely have to.
This is clearly a consequence of 'The government is like a household'
misinformation campaign, which I think is really conceptualized as 'government
is like a small business.' So why not get a businessman to run the thing?
Interesting point. It also comes out of 30+ years of demonization of
government as being less well run than business, when IMHO the problems
of government are 1. the result of scale (think of how well run GM and Citigroup
were in the mid 200s…and both are better now that they have downsized and
shaped up) and 2. inevitable given that you do not want government employees
making stuff as they go, i.e., overruling the legislature and courts. The
latter point is that some rigidity is part of how government works, and
it's necessary to protect citizens.
Adam Smith on the businessmen you shouldn't trust:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes
from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and
ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined,
not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with
that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both
deceived and oppressed it."
What they knew in the 18th century, we have forgotten today, but nothing
has changed.
Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the
difference between "earned" and "unearned" income.
Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests
of business and the wealthy are the same.
We lowered taxes on the wealthy to remove free and subsidised services
for those at the bottom. These costs now have to be covered by business through wages. All known and thoroughly studied in the 18th and 19th Centuries, they
even came up with solutions.
There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should
fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy
with low cost housing and services.
This allows lower wages and an internationally competitive economy.
Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally
parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.
He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from
their land and capital.
He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.
The UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio,
living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation
rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and
leisure.
"…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public,
and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives.
We have seen left wing revolutions before; we are now dealing with a
right wing revolution.
Left wing revolutions usually involve much violence and eventually lead
to tyranny, as any means are deemed acceptable to implement the one true
solution and the new ideology. Pol Pot was the most extreme example where
he decided to return to year zero by wiping out the bourgeoisie in Cambodia.
When the dust has settled the revolution just leads to a new elite who maintain
their ideology with force and brutality.
When Francis Fukuyama talked of the end of history, a new year zero was
envisaged, this one based on a right wing ideology. A right wing revolution
that could take place globally and was not confined to individual nations
like left wing revolutions.
Its theories had already been tested in South America and Indonesia where
extreme brutality was employed to implement their one true solution and
the new ideology. The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of
this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring
this new ideology to developing nations.
"The Chicago Boys" headed out from
the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations
and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California
to bring the new way to Indonesia.
Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and
the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off
the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance
had to be quashed by whatever means necessary.
Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the
top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became
prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US
storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was
ready to roll out across the world.
Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier
with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned"
income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying
a life of luxury and leisure.
Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government
is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever.
The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't
like to feel or experience crazy.
Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government.
Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That
is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against
government and demanding good government- fighting for it.
Fighting fraud and corruption follows these same lines. Reading about
the various forms of fraud and corruption here at NC daily provides the
framework to address the problem. The real work begins convincing fellow
citizens to not accept the criminality- the new normal. It is sometimes
distressing seeing the reaction of fellow citizens to these crimes not as
outrage, but more along the lines of begrudging admiration for the criminals.
The subtile conditioning of the population to accept criminality needs a
countervailing force.
Modern mass media projects a false picture of the world. The meme they
push is that violence and corruption are so pervasive in the world, vast
resources must be expended addressing the problem, and when these efforts
fail, settle for apathy and avoidance. The creation of the Businessman/Politician
is the perfect vehicle to move this agenda forward.
Politics controlling and driving business decisions must be reestablished,
not the other way around- business driving politics and society. That truly
is the distinction between authoritarianism and democracy. Small authoritarians
are tolerable in society- large ones not so much.
Bang on. Especially being a political leader in a democracy is too tough
and I am surprised that people want the job given the landmine they have
to navigate and the compromises you have to make on a daily basis. Similarity
is closest when you compare a benevolent dictator and a successful businessman,
something like how Lee Kuan Yew ran Singapore.
"Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure.
It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say
about love. No good end can come of it.
There is a mistaken assumption here that business people are responsible
for their own or their organization's success. Or even that they're qualified
as business people. The higher up the business ladder you go, the more it
is other people making the important decisions, even deciding what you think,
do and say.
In this way it's similar to politics. It's likely that neither the successful
business person nor the politician is qualified for their roles, that nobody
can be. Also their roles are essentially to be authorities, and likewise
nobody is truly qualified nor has the justification or legitimacy for authority.
This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather
than the narrow interest of investors."
Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown,
there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in
"must").
Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic
requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some
and positively for others, they are managing for all.
This is part of the introduction to an essay by Mike Konczal on how to "insure
people against the hardships of life..., accident, illness, old age, and loss
of a job." Should we rely mostly upon government social insurance programs such
as Medicare and Social Security, or would a system that relies upon private
charity be better? History provides a very clear answer:
The Voluntarism Fantasy: Ideology is as much about understanding the
past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a
fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be
again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were
able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back
before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive
Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing
social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed
to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could
do it again.
This vision has always been implicit in the conservative ascendancy. It
existed in the 1980s, when President Reagan announced, "The size of the
federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable
concern," and called for voluntarism to fill in the yawning gaps in the
social safety net. It was made explicit in the 1990s, notably through Marvin
Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion, a treatise hailed by the likes
of Newt Gingrich and William Bennett, which argued that a purely private
nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did
a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare
state. This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryan's budget, which seeks to
devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety
net turn "into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency
and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make
the most of their lives." It's what Utah Senator Mike Lee references when
he says that the "alternative to big government is not small government"
but instead "a voluntary civil society." As conservatives face the possibility
of a permanent Democratic majority fueled by changing demographics, they
understand that time is running out on their cherished project to dismantle
the federal welfare state.
But this conservative vision of social insurance is wrong. It's incorrect
as a matter of history; it ignores the complex interaction between public
and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States.
It completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was
put in its place. It fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed
the welfare state at its most necessary and that a voluntary system would
have failed under the same circumstances. Most importantly, it points us
in the wrong direction. The last 30 years have seen effort after effort
to try and push the policy agenda away from the state's capabilities and
toward private mechanisms for mitigating the risks we face in the world.
This effort is exhausted, and future endeavors will require a greater, not
lesser, role for the public. ...
The state does many things, but this essay will focus specifically on its
role in providing social insurance against the risks we face. Specifically,
we'll look at what the progressive economist and actuary I.M. Rubinow described
in 1934 as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: "accident, illness, old
age, loss of a job. These are the four horsemen that ride roughshod over
lives and fortunes of millions of wage workers of every modern industrial
community." These were the same evils that Truman singled out in his speech.
And these are the ills that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance,
and our other public systems of social insurance set out to combat in the
New Deal and Great Society.
Over the past 30 years the public role in social insurance has taken a backseat
to the idea that private institutions will expand to cover these risks.
Yet our current system of workplace private insurance is rapidly falling
apart. In its wake, we'll need to make a choice between an expanded role
for the state or a fantasy of voluntary protection instead. We need to understand
why this voluntary system didn't work in the first place to make the case
for the state's role in fighting the Four Horsemen. ...
"... That was the sad tragedy of Marx and Marxism. Instead of focusing on a practical agenda for achieving and sustaining a democratically administered state in an imperfect human world, a state based on a more equal distribution of capital, a workable balance between private and public ownership of capital, and a regulatory framework and rule of law designed to sustain this balance in the face of social and economic forces that will *always* be acting to disrupt it, Marx veered off into the fantasy lands ..."
"... In this utopian future, every single person is intelligent, relaxed, cooperative, and preternaturally enlightened. There are no thieves, psychopaths, predators, raiders or uncooperative deadbeats and spongers. Since there is no law, there is no government; and since there is no government; there are no elections or other ways of forming government. There is also no division of labor, because somehow human beings have passed beyond the "realm of necessity" into the "realm of freedom." ..."
"... Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha program and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society." ..."
"... In the end, Marx had a very unrealistic view of human nature and history. His analytic and scientific powers were betrayed by an infantile romanticism that both weakened his social theory and crippled much of left progressive politics for a century. The problem is still floating around with the insipid anarcho-libertarian silliness of much of the late 20th and early 21st century left. ..."
"... The key value of Marxism is that it gave a solid platform for analyzing capitalism as politico-economic system. All those utopian ideas about proletariat as a future ruling class of an ideal society that is not based on private property belong to the garbage damp of history, although the very idea of countervailing forces for capitalists is not. ..."
"... In this sense the very existence of the USSR was critical for the health of the US capitalism as it limited self-destructive instincts of the ruling class. Not so good for people of the USSR, it was definitely a blessing for the US population. ..."
"... Now we have neoliberal garbage and TINA as a state religion, which at least in the level in their religious fervor are not that different from Marxism. ..."
"... Republicans (US 'capitalism' salespersons) believe that "liberty", the right of property, is necessary for "freedom". State is necessary for property despite what the Hobbits (libertarians) preach. Communism is as far from Marxism as the US billionaire empire is from capitalism. Marx was a fair labor economist. ..."
"... {Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is unbalanced...} ..."
"... Thus, capitalism is an integral and key part of the market-economy since it provides the means by which the other major input-component is labor. Capital is an investment input to the process, for which there is a Return-on-Investment largely accepted as bonafide criteria of any market-economy. ..."
Chris Dillow on common ground between Marxists and Conservatives:
Fairness, decentralization & capitalism: Marxists and Conservatives have more in common than
either side would like to admit. This thought occurred to me whilst reading a superb
piece by Andrew Lilico.
He describes the Brams-Taylor
procedure for
cutting a cake in a fair way - in the sense of ensuring envy-freeness
- and says that this shows that a central agency such as the state is unnecessary to achieve
fairness:...
The appropriate mechanism here is one in which there is a balance of power, such that no individual
can say: "take it or leave it."
This is where Marxism enters. Marxists claim that, under capitalism, the appropriate mechanism
is absent. Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is unbalanced...
Nor do Marxists expect the state to correct this, because the state is
captured by capitalists - it is "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie."...
Instead, Marx thought that fairness can only be achieved by abolishing both capitalism and
the state - something which is only feasible at a high level of economic development - and replacing
it with some forms of decentralized decision-making. ...
In this sense, Marxists agree with Andrew: people can find fair allocations themselves without
a central agency. ...
How silly. Marxism and its centralization of power will attract the hyper control freak who
are not likely to ever give up power. Disingenuous utopianism.
Dan Kervick:
That was the sad tragedy of Marx and Marxism. Instead of focusing on a practical agenda
for achieving and sustaining a democratically administered state in an imperfect human world,
a state based on a more equal distribution of capital, a workable balance between private and
public ownership of capital, and a regulatory framework and rule of law designed to sustain this
balance in the face of social and economic forces that will *always* be acting to disrupt it,
Marx veered off into the fantasy lands of his hectoring anarchist critics and adversaries,
and came up with a social pseudo-science positing a millennarian heaven on earth where somehow
perfect voluntariness and perfect equality magically come together. The Marxists are still twisted
up in that foolishness, perpetually incapable of formulating practical political plans and agendas
because they have some "crisis theory" telling them that the current messes are the harbingers
of a revolution that are going to actualize that kingdom of heaven.
Peter K. -> pgl...
yes Kervick again provides a fact-free rant. The Communist Manifesto demanded many reforms
that came pass:
"The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands - among them a progressive income
tax; abolition of inheritances; free public education etc.-the implementation of which would
be a precursor to a stateless and classless society."
"Short-term demands" as you say: Marx and Engels saw such socialist measures as merely a transitional
stage on the way via the dictatorship of the proletariat to a classless and stateless society
in which even the rule of law would not exist, since human beings would somehow manage to coordinate
all of the economic functions of a complex society through 100% non-coercive means.
In this utopian future, every single person is intelligent, relaxed, cooperative, and preternaturally
enlightened. There are no thieves, psychopaths, predators, raiders or uncooperative deadbeats
and spongers. Since there is no law, there is no government; and since there is no government;
there are no elections or other ways of forming government. There is also no division of labor,
because somehow human beings have passed beyond the "realm of necessity" into the "realm of freedom."
Real-world possibilities for democratic socialist alternatives under a practical and egalitarian
rule of law have frequently been thwarted and undermined by Marxian communists drunk on these
infantile millenarian fantasies, and the Marxian pseudo-sciences of underlying dialectical laws
of social evolution directing history toward this fantastical telos.
Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha
program and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society."
Guess what guys. Maybe I have actually read some of this stuff.
likbez -> Dan Kervick...
Marxism has two district faces. A very sharp analysis of capitalist society and utopian vision
of the future.
=== quote ===
Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha program
and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society."
=== end of quote ===
Very true. Authors of Gotha programs were nicknamed "revisionists" by Orthodox Marxists.
mulp:
"He describes the Brams-Taylor procedure for cutting a cake in a fair way - in the sense of
ensuring envy-freeness - and says that this shows that a central agency such as the state is unnecessary
to achieve fairness:..."
That is exactly the description of "authoritarian elite intellectual technocrats dictating
how society works."
Conservatives would never accept that solution because they would immediately argue that not
everyone deserves an equal portion, and that the liberal elites are dictating from on high.
Marx would simply point out that conservatives would never accept that based on their denial
of equality as a principle and would require evolution of man, or too few or too many resources
to care about dividing. But that would never satisfy conservatives....
Obviously actually existing socialist nations ruled by Communist parties have always featured
highly centralized authoritarian non-democratic systems (although China is somewhat of an exception
regarding the matter of centralization, with its provinces having a lot of power, but then, it
is the world's largest nation in population).
As it was, Marx (and Engels) had a practical side. One can see it in the "platform" put forward
at the end of the Communist Manifesto. Several of the items there have been nearly universally
adopted by modern capitalist democracies, such as a progressive income tax and universal state-supported
education. Others are standard items for more or less socialist nations, such as nationalizing
the leading sectors of the economy.
Only one looks at all utopian, their call for ending the division between the city and the
country, although this dream has inspired such things as the New Town movement, not to mention
arguably the suburbs.
It was only in the Critique of the Gotha Program that Marx at one point suggested that eventually
in the "higher stage of socialism" there would be a "withering away of the state." Curiously most
nations ruled by Communist parties never claimed to have achieved true communism because they
were aware of this statement and generally referred to themselves as being "in transition" towards
true communism without having gotten there. Later most would turn around have transitions back
towards market capitalism.
DrDick -> Barkley Rosser...
All existing and former communist countries are Leninist and not Marxist, with a large influence
from whatever the prior local autocratic system was.
Dan Kervick -> Barkley Rosser...
"It was only in the Critique of the Gotha Program that Marx at one point suggested that
eventually in the "higher stage of socialism" there would be a "withering away of the state.""
That's what I meant by the tragedy of Marxism. In the end, Marx had a very unrealistic
view of human nature and history. His analytic and scientific powers were betrayed by an infantile
romanticism that both weakened his social theory and crippled much of left progressive politics
for a century. The problem is still floating around with the insipid anarcho-libertarian silliness
of much of the late 20th and early 21st century left.
likbez:
Actually Marxism was the source of social-democratic parties programs. Which definitely made
capitalism more bearable.
The key value of Marxism is that it gave a solid platform for analyzing capitalism as politico-economic
system. All those utopian ideas about proletariat as a future ruling class of an ideal society
that is not based on private property belong to the garbage damp of history, although the very
idea of countervailing forces for capitalists is not.
In this sense the very existence of the USSR was critical for the health of the US capitalism
as it limited self-destructive instincts of the ruling class. Not so good for people of the USSR,
it was definitely a blessing for the US population.
Now we have neoliberal garbage and TINA as a state religion, which at least in the level in
their religious fervor are not that different from Marxism.
And neocons are actually very close, almost undistinguishable from to Trotskyites, as for their
"permanent revolution" (aka "permanent democratization") drive.
Ben Groves -> likbez...
You obviously think it wasn't that good for the USSR people, yet don't understand the Tsarist
wreck that Russia itself had turned into. With the Soviet, they became strong at the expense of
what they considered colonies.
The true origin of Bolshevism isn't Lenin or Trotsky, but the anti-ashkenazi anti-European
movement. Stalin joined them in 1904 for this very reason and blasted the Menhs as jews. Thus
the program had to cleanse out people who still insisted Russia be European and instead, push
a Asiatic program they believed they really were.
kthomas:
Though I do love seeing this argument being made, I'm not sure we can derive any real benefits
from having it anymore. Ideology is one thing. If we are discussing Power, and how it attracts
the Power Hungry, that is a separate argument, one largely covered by Machiavelli.
As for Marx, I do not ever recall him advising on the abolishment of the State. He was not
an Anarchist.
Ben Groves:
The state can't be abolished. It simply changes by what part of nature controls it.
Only the anarchists thinks the state can be abolished. The state is eternal. Whether it is
the Imperial State (the true conservative organic ideal) City State, the Nation State, the Market
State, the Workers State, the Propertarian State. There will always be rule.
DrDick -> Ben Groves...
The state is far from eternal. It is in fact a very recent development in humanity's 3.5 million
year history, having arisen about 5500 years ago. States can and do collapse and disappear, as
has happened in Somalia.
likbez:
I think the discussion deviated from the key thesis "Marxists and Conservatives Have More in
Common than Either Side Would Like to Admit"
This thesis has the right for existence. Still Marxism remains miles ahead of conservatives
in understanding the capitalism "as is" with all its warts.
Neoliberalism is probably the most obvious branch of conservatism which adopted considerable
part of Marxism doctrine. From this point of view it is a stunning utopia with the level of economic
determinism even more ambitious than that of Marx...
The simplest way to understand the power of neoliberalism as an ideology, is to view it as
Trotskyism refashioned for elite. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have slogan
"neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution we have permanent
democratization via color revolutions.
Instead of revolt of proletariat which Marxists expected we got the revolt of financial oligarchy.
And this revolt led to forming powerful Transnational Elite International (with Congresses in
Basel) instead of Communist International (with Congresses in Moscow). Marx probably is rolling
in his grave seeing such turn of events and such a wicked mutation of his political theories.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism has a totalitarian vision for a world-encompassing monolithic
state governed by an ideologically charged "vanguard". One single state (Soviet Russia) in case
of Trotskyism, and the USA in case of neoliberalism is assigned the place of "holy country" and
the leader of this country has special privileges not unlike Rome Pope in Catholicism.
The pseudoscientific 'free-market' theory which replaces Marxist political economy and provides
a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and poverty endemic to the system, and the main
beneficiaries are the global mega-corporations and major western powers (G7).
Like Marxism in general neoliberalism on the one hand this reduces individuals to statistics
contained within aggregate economic performance, on the other like was in the USSR, it places
the control of the economy in comparatively few hands; and that might be neoliberalism's Achilles
heel which we say in action in 2008.
The role of propaganda machine and journalists, writers, etc as the solders of the party that
should advance its interests. Compete, blatant disregard of truth to the extent that Pravda journalists
can be viewed as paragons of objectivity (Fox news)
== end of quote ==
ilsm:
Republicans (US 'capitalism' salespersons) believe that "liberty", the right of property,
is necessary for "freedom".
State is necessary for property despite what the Hobbits (libertarians) preach.
Communism is as far from Marxism as the US billionaire empire is from capitalism. Marx was a fair labor economist.
Lafayette:
MARKET ECONOMY CRITERIA
{Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is
unbalanced...}
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "capitalism", which is fundamentally this:
An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals
or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Which was common up to and including the latter decades of the last century. Wherein, some
countries adopted state-enterprises to have either entire monopolies or substantial presence
in some sectors of the market-economy. The ownership of the means of production were owned by
the state and management/workforce were state employees.
This applies to any entity the object of which is provide to a market goods and services. One
can therefore say the defense of the nation is a service provided by a state-owned entity
called the Dept. of Defense (in the US and similarly elsewhere).
Moreover that practice can be modified to other areas of public need, for instance
health-care and education. Where the "means of production" of the service are owned once again
by the state, but this time the management and workers are independent and work for
themselves. (In which case they may or may not be represented by organizations some of which
are called "unions".)
The above variations are all well known in European "capitalist" countries - which employ
capital as central financial mechanism. Capital is "any form of wealth employed or capable of
being employed in the production of more wealth."
Thus, capitalism is an integral and key part of the market-economy since it provides
the means by which the other major input-component is labor. Capital is an investment input to
the process, for which there is a Return-on-Investment largely accepted as bonafide criteria
of any market-economy.
Likewise, there should therefore be accounted a Return on Labor, and that return should be
paid to all who work in a company - not all equally but all equitably. A Return-on-Labor is
also a bonafide criteria of any market-economy.
There is no real reason why the RoI should be the sole criteria for investment purposes,
except that of common usage historically. RoC should also have its place as a bonafide
criteria for investment purposes - and probably one that determines which "services" are
better performed by government-owned agencies and which not.
How much is the RoC of Defense worth to you and our family? How much is HealthCare? How
much Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education?
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (MNA) -- Most of the neoconservatives in the United States advocate globalization
and the neoliberal economic model. What's wrong with this picture?
At first glance, nothing is wrong with the statement because it is basically true. At second glance,
everything is wrong with it.
Liberal and conservative used to be opposites. Now we have neoliberal neoconservatives. If the
neocons are also neoliberals, how do we avoid confusion when using the words liberal and conservative?
It is natural for language to evolve, but when antonyms become synonyms, there is a problem.
The situation is similar to the Newspeak and doublethink of George Orwell's book 1984. Newspeak
was a language meant to control people by decreasing their power of reasoning through oversimplification
of the language and doublethink.
Orwell wrote: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
There are now countless examples of this in the English language.
In war, civilian casualties are called collateral damage. The use of the expression collateral
damage allows people to avoid the unpleasantry of having to think about innocent civilians being
killed.
Every country used to have a war ministry, but they all later changed the name to the defense
ministry or the defense department. In 1984, it was called the Ministry of Peace, or Minipax in Newspeak.
Try this simple exercise. Imagine you are listening to the radio and the newscaster says: "The
war minister has just issued a statement."
Now suppose the newscaster said: "The defense minister has just issued a statement." Notice how
a change of one word changed your reaction.
Consider the many acronyms that have entered the language such as NATO, NAFTA, and CIA Their
complete names, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement, and Central
Intelligence Agency, contain the words treaty, free, free trade, agreement, and intelligence. On
hearing these words, the mind naturally makes many free associations that cannot occur when the acronyms
are used.
The neoliberal neocons themselves use a form of Newspeak.
The most glaring example of this is when neoliberal neocon officials in the United States tell
citizens that they must take away some of their freedom in order to protect their freedom. Shades
of Orwell's "freedom is slavery".
U.S. officials have spoken of the need to cancel elections in order to safeguard democracy if
a serious crisis arises. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that in a national emergency the
U.S. Constitution may have to be temporarily suspended in order to protect the civil liberties enshrined
in that document.
Bizarrely, very few U.S. citizens are protesting. Apparently, they have already learned how to
employ doublethink.
Language is being used to control people. People are actually subconsciously brainwashing themselves
through the language they use.
The word neocon itself is Newspeak since its use in place of the longer form eliminates all the
connotations of the words neoconservative and conservative.
Let's look at a few more quotes from 1984 to get a better understanding of what is happening today.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed
lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to
it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to
forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment
when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process
to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and
then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand
the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry
of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental,
nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it
is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could
the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be for ever averted -- if the High, as we have
called them, are to keep their places permanently -- then the prevailing mental condition must be
controlled insanity."
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and
mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical
thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable,
at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
"Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was
indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum."
"But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much
to express meanings as to destroy them."
"The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral,
as nearly as possible independent of consciousness."
"Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the
higher brain centres at all."
The advocates of globalization often use a form of Newspeak.
When government officials and economists say the economy of a Third World country is booming,
despite the fact that they know the masses live in abject poverty, and the media repeat the lie,
that is doublethink through Newspeak. Of course, the economy of the country in question is only booming
for the globalist and local upper classes, and perhaps also for the middle classes, but somehow almost
nobody questions the lie. And the neoliberal globalists are laughing all the way to the bank.
The acceptance of such a lie by the general public is an even greater real-life catastrophe than
the fictional one described in 1984. Worse still, some people acknowledge that it is a lie but respond
with apathy or slavish resignation in the belief that nothing can be done about the situation.
Do we want to live in dystopia, the worst of all possible worlds, the doubleplusungood of all
possible worlds?
If not, we should watch our language and take care that we are still using our higher brain centers.
"... People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are. The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations of repaying their base ..."
"... On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership, not leadership. ..."
"... Solidarity is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good. ..."
"... Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious resources if it is long at work. ..."
"... What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective ..."
"... If so, maybe we ought to try being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly political ones. ..."
CR: "that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats
running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton,
but it's not good for the party."
It's Obama redux. Remember how he wanted
to work with his friends across the aisle in a Grand Bargain that would
bring moderation and centrist agreement to all things? He validated budget-balance
mania during austerity and would have bargained away Social Security if
he could have. He predictably lost the Congress in the first mid-term election
and did nothing to build the party back up.
People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are.
The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do
with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy
to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they
have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations
of repaying their base or creating a party that will work for anyone
else. This goes beyond ordinary political selfishness to the fact that they
don't really want a populist party: that would push them to harm the interests
of their real base.
And people don't react to this, fundamentally, because they don't really
do politics outside of 4-year scareathons. Look at LFC's description above
about how people should march if candidates don't follow through on their
promises. Why aren't they marching now: why haven't they in the Obama years?
I am with you on your main thesis, but I thought
I would offer this sidenote.
On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships
among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership,
not leadership.
Solidarity can feel good. "We are all in this together, united."
Or, it can feel constricting, as it demands conformity and senseless uniformity,
obeisance to unnecessary authority. Resentments are its solvent and
its boundary-keepers. Social affiliation and common rituals are its nurturers
in its fallow times, which can be historically frequent and long. Solidarity
is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership
and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good.
Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive
force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to
intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger
not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots
and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars
of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate
it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort
and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious
resources if it is long at work.
As American Party politics have degenerated, solidarity has come to have
a fraught relationship with identity politics. In both Parties.
I don't see anything in the conceptual logic driving things forward.
I see this state of affairs as the playing out of historical processes,
one step after another. But, this year's "scareathon" puts identity politics
squarely against the economic claims of class or even national solidarity.
The identity politics frame of equal opportunity exploitation has Paul Krugman
talking up "horizontal inequality". Memes float about suggesting that free
trade is aiding global equality even if it is at the expense of increasing
domestic inequality. Or, suggesting that labor unions were the implacable
enemy of racial equality back in the day or that FDR's New Deal was only
for white people. Hillary Clinton's stump speech, for a while, had her asking,
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, . . . would that end racism? would
that end sexism?"
It is convenient politics in several ways. First, no one can hold Clinton
responsible for not ending racism and sexism any more than GWB could be
held responsible for not winning the war on terrorism. These are perpetual
struggles by definition.
Second, it combines the display of righteous do-good ism with a promise
of social progress that might actually benefit directly the most ambitious,
even if it leaves most people without support. People who have done well
in the system, or who might expect to, can feel good about themselves. And,
ignore the system or rationalize away the system's manifest shortcomings.
The people who are complaining are racists! BernieBros! It is all about
the loss of status being experienced by white men, and they shouldn't be
heard anyway.
The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that
goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the
tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both
an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity
exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis.
If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction,
they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism
cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian
state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism,
but a particular claim of racism or sexism.
What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship
between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and
legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective.
I suppose you could argue that we've evolved beyond what we were when we
first came to understand these relationships in the abstract (in the 18th
century?), and that, accordingly, they can no longer be understood in the
way we once thought we understood them.
If so, maybe we ought to try
being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals
for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we
can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being
confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly
political ones.
The analogy with Trotskyism, which is also a secular religion here are so evident, that they can't
be missed. And that explains why it is so tenacious: all cults are extremely tenacious and very difficult
to eradiate.
Notable quotes:
"... As the neoliberal revolution instigated by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980 has spread, however,
Polanyi has been rediscovered. His great book – now republished with a foreword by Joseph Stiglitz –
has attracted a new generation of readers. ..."
"... The cult of free market fundamentalism has become so normative in our times, and economics
as a discipline so hidebound and insular, that reading Polanyi today is akin to walking into a stiff
gust of fresh air. We can suddenly see clear, sweeping vistas of social reality. Instead of the mandarin,
quantitative and faux-scientific presumptions of standard economics – an orthodoxy of complex illusions
about "autonomous" markets – Polanyi explains how markets are in fact embedded in a complex web of social,
cultural and historical realities. ..."
"... Markets can only work, for example, if political and legal institutions contrive to transform
people, land and money into assets that can be bought and sold. Polanyi calls these "fictional commodities"
because people, land and money are not in fact commodities. People and land have their own existence
and purposes apart from the market – and money is a social institution, even if many pretend that gold
is a self-evident medium of value. ..."
"... Block and Somers point to a closed and coherent ideational scheme that knits together several
key belief systems. The first is the idea that the laws of nature govern human society, and thus the
workings of the economy are seen as a biological and evolutionary inevitability. A second theme is the
idea of "theoretical realism," a belief that the theoretical schema is more true and enduring than any
single piece of empirical evidence, and thus one can argue from the claims of theory and not from facts.
..."
"... Finally, a "conversion narrative" enables free marketeers tell to neutralize and delegitimate
any contrary arguments, and enabling them to introduce its alternative story. This approach is routinely
used to re-cast the reasons (and blame) for poverty. ..."
"... What makes The Power of Market Fundamentalism so illuminating is its patient, careful reconstruction
of these recurring and deceptive polemical patterns. The wealthy invoke the same rhetorical strategies
again and again over the course of hundreds of years in extremely different contexts. With their mastery
of an enormous contemporary literature, Block and Somers document the remarkable parallels and show
just how deep and durable Polanyi's analysis truly is ..."
One of the great economists of the twentieth century had the misfortune of publishing his magnum
opus, The Great Transformation, in 1944, months before the inauguration of a new era
of postwar economic growth and consumer culture. Few people in the 1940s or 1950s wanted to hear
piercing criticisms of "free markets," let alone consider the devastating impacts that markets tend
to have on social solidarity and the foundational institutions of civil society. And so for decades
Polanyi remained something of a curiosity, not least because he was an unconventional academic with
a keen interest in the historical and anthropological dimensions of economics.
As the neoliberal revolution instigated by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980 has spread, however,
Polanyi has been rediscovered. His great book – now republished with a foreword by Joseph Stiglitz
– has attracted a new generation of readers.
But how to make sense of Polanyi's work with all that has happened in the past 70 years? Why does
he still speak so eloquently to our contemporary problems? For answers, we can be grateful that we
have The Power
of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's Critique, written by Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers,
and published last year. The book is a first-rate reinterpretation of Polanyi's work, giving it a
rich context and commentary. Polanyi focused on the deep fallacies of economistic thinking and its
failures to understand society and people as they really are. What could be more timely?
The cult of free market fundamentalism has become so normative in our times, and economics
as a discipline so hidebound and insular, that reading Polanyi today is akin to walking into a stiff
gust of fresh air. We can suddenly see clear, sweeping vistas of social reality. Instead of the mandarin,
quantitative and faux-scientific presumptions of standard economics – an orthodoxy of complex illusions
about "autonomous" markets – Polanyi explains how markets are in fact embedded in a complex web of
social, cultural and historical realities.
Markets can only work, for example, if political and legal institutions contrive to transform
people, land and money into assets that can be bought and sold. Polanyi calls these "fictional commodities"
because people, land and money are not in fact commodities. People and land have their own existence
and purposes apart from the market – and money is a social institution, even if many pretend that
gold is a self-evident medium of value.
Notwithstanding these realities, capitalist societies ahve created these fictional commodities.
People have in effect been transformed into units of "labor" that can be bought and sold in the market,
and discarded when their value is depleted. Land, too, is treated as a market asset that has no connection
to a larger, living ecosystem or human community. Inevitably, people and users of land (and ecosystems
themselves) rebel against their treatment as raw commodities. The result is a permanent counter-movement
against those who insist upon treating people and land as commodities.
Unlike Keynes, who was willing to accept some of these economic illusions in order to have political
impact, Polanyi rejected them as a recipe for a dangerous and unachievable utopianism. That is in
fact what has emerged over the past several generations as business ideologues have advanced quasi-religious
visions of free market fundamentalism. The planet's natural systems and our communities simply cannot
fulfill these utopian dreams of endless economic growth, vast consumption of resources and the massive
social engineering. And yet it continues.
Polanyi was courageous enough to strip away the pretenses that the economy is a "force of nature"
that cannot be stopped. The economy, he said, is an "instituted process," not a natural one, and
it can only survive through massive governmental interventions and cultural regimentation. The free
market system is hardly autonomous and self-executing. It requires enormous amounts of government
purchasing, research subsidies, legal privileges, regulatory agencies to enhance fairness and public
trust, military interventions to secure access to resources and markets, and the sabotage of democratic
processes that might threaten investments and market growth. The 2008 financial crisis revealed in
outrageous detail how financial markets are anything but autonomous.
So what accounts for the insidious power of market fundamentalism and its illusions? Why do its
premises remain intact and influential in the face of so much contrary evidence?
Block and Somers point to a closed and coherent ideational scheme that knits together several
key belief systems. The first is the idea that the laws of nature govern human society, and thus
the workings of the economy are seen as a biological and evolutionary inevitability. A second theme
is the idea of "theoretical realism," a belief that the theoretical schema is more true and enduring
than any single piece of empirical evidence, and thus one can argue from the claims of theory and
not from facts. Free market narratives assert their own self-validating claims to what is true;
epistemological categories trump all empirical challenges.
Finally, a "conversion narrative" enables free marketeers tell to neutralize and delegitimate
any contrary arguments, and enabling them to introduce its alternative story. This approach is routinely
used to re-cast the reasons (and blame) for poverty. Instead of acknowledging institutional
or structural explanations for why many people are poor, the free market narrative boldly attacks
government for making people poor through aid programs. Government programs supposedly have
a perverse effect, aggravating, not aleviating poverty. The poor are cast as morally responsible
– along with government – for their own sorry circumstances. Thus, a higher minimum wage is perverse,
say free market champions, because it will hurt the poor rather than help them.
What makes The Power of Market Fundamentalism so illuminating is its patient, careful reconstruction
of these recurring and deceptive polemical patterns. The wealthy invoke the same rhetorical strategies
again and again over the course of hundreds of years in extremely different contexts. With their
mastery of an enormous contemporary literature, Block and Somers document the remarkable parallels
and show just how deep and durable Polanyi's analysis truly is .
"...Europe's neoliberal elite was after, especially after being fully aware of the fact that
Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government
but finishing them off completely to send a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area
of the fate awaiting them if they dared challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new
Rome." . "...Mr. Tsipras and his one-night "superstar" finance minister tied up with a dog chain and
paraded in front of the European political stage for all to see - utterly defeated and humiliated, with
their political futures up in the air, whether they accept or reject a humiliating Greek deal." . "...as it usually happens in situations of negotiations between ordinates and subordinates,
master and slave, rich and poor, strong and weak, the more compromises the latter makes, the more compromises
the former demands.""
IMF and Germany Are Hell-Bent on Finishing Off Even a Moderate Left in Greece
...Reflecting a political organization/party that had invited and accepted under the same roof
extremely diverse political and ideological groups, the Syriza-led government not only failed to
set out a clear strategic vision for getting the country out of its current crisis but walked straight
into the trap that the euromasters and the "criminal IMF" were setting up for them throughout the
course of the negotiations.
Indeed, the leftist Greek government failed to see that what Europe's neoliberal elite was after,
especially after being fully aware of the fact that Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely
a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government but finishing them off completely to send
a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area of the fate awaiting them if they dared
challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new Rome.
Working in collaboration with the IMF (whom Mr. Tsipras has charged with "criminal responsibility"
for the economic and social catastrophe of Greece), Germany's plan (a nation that has failed to pay
its debts repeatedly in modern times and had the bigger part of its foreign debt wiped off in 1953,
yet has the audacity now to try to teach moral lessons to Greece) is to have Mr. Tsipras and
his one-night "superstar" finance minister tied up with a dog chain and paraded in front of the European
political stage for all to see - utterly defeated and humiliated, with their political futures up
in the air, whether they accept or reject a humiliating Greek deal.
... ... ...
The members of the Greek government negotiation team had submitted a list of proposals for
the June 22 Euro summit that were fully in line with the logic of the EU/IMF bailout program for
Greece: more austerity and additional structural adjustments. All in all, the proposals they made
amounted to over 8 billion euro in additional cuts between 2015 and 2016! The leftist Greek government
even proposed a tax increase to incomes above 30,000 euro, thus suggesting that individuals in that
income bracket rank among the wealthy! Basic food items and services were to carry a 23 percent VAT.
The special VAT rate on Greek islands, which is so crucial for the tourist sector of the economy,
was to be removed. The early retirement age was to be increased as of the start of 2016, and a benefit
for low-income pensioners was to be gradually substituted, beginning from 2018.
The obvious capitulation on the part of the Syriza-led government to the euromasters and the IMF
thugs, which was not the first one, was made just to get a deal done as time was running out for
Greece (it has a huge payment to make to the IMF at the end of June in the tune of 1.6 billion euro)
and thus to remove the dark clouds of a Grexit that had begun to spread dangerously over Greece,
as it had finally become clear that Germany and the IMF were calling Syriza's bluff and were ready
for the unthinkable, i.e., the possibility of a Grexit.
But as it usually happens in situations of negotiations between ordinates and subordinates, master
and slave, rich and poor, strong and weak, the more compromises the latter makes, the more compromises
the former demands.
Thus, the Greek proposals were found to be inadequate, and there were demands for more blood and
tears. Germany and the IMF wanted to force the Syriza-led government to cross its last and final
"red line," which was over additional antisocial measures in the nation's social security and pension
system. Among other things, the Lagarde/Schäuble duo wants the benefit for low-income pensioners
to be completed eliminated by 2017. This would mean that a person who receives today a monthly
pension for the amount of 500 euro (close to 50 percent of Greek pensioners receive pensions below
the official poverty line) would be deprived of about 200 euro, which come as a welfare payment of
sorts.
... ... ...
Footnotes:
1. The political babel of Syriza consists of right-wing and ultra-nationalist
camps (ie., the Independent Greeks party, Syriza's coalition partner in government) to defunct social
democrats and outdated Keynesians who saw primarily the crisis in Greece as a threat to capitalism
itself and were suggesting, accordingly, all sort of interventionist schemes to keep Greece in the
euro area and the emergence of an alternative socio-economic system at bay, including recycling unemployment
schemes with the minimum wage so as not to upset the exploitation rate in the private sector (!)
and IOUs, and from remnants of euro-communism and the old communist left to post-leftism, postmodernist
tendencies devoid of any true understanding of contemporary political realities and without structured
support at the popular, working-class level. Indicative of its political nature, not even one large,
mass protest or demonstration has ever been organized or successfully carried out by Syriza. Its
official organ Avgi still sells thousands of copies less on a daily and a weekly basis than the official
organ of the Greek Communist Party, which in the elections of January 2015 barely got over 5 percent
of the popular vote.
2. Syriza had been converted long ago into an utterly
confusing, "non-left" left political organization, and the restructuring of the Greek economy and
its moribund political culture, the abandonment of outworn, antediluvian modes of political thinking
and behaviors, and the transformation of capitalism and its transition to a socialist economy had
been completely removed from its political radar. For an argument along those lines,
see C. J. Polychroniou, "To Change Greece Requires Changing the Political Culture - and This
Could Be a Tall Order, Especially for the Left." Truthout (September 1, 2013).
... ... ...
C.J. Polychroniou is a research associate and policy fellow at the Levy Economics Institute
of Bard College and a former columnist for a Greek major national newspaper. His main research interests
are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He has taught for many years at
universities in the United States and Europe and is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as
a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles
have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of
his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French,
Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish.
"...The wealthy's acceptance of the New Deal was always grudging, and lasted only as long as
they thought their wealth/safety depended on some of the rest of us being fairly prosperous. When they
found a way out of it (globalization) they were happy to toss the New Deal away." . "...What happens to the concept of economic bubbles if we do not assume that markets are self-correcting?
It goes out the window because there is no norm from which to stray." . "...modern financier capitalism has no plan other than "loot while you can". The last comment
of Scheer points to pyramidal or Ponzi schemes being all what is, and, if that's the backbone of the
economy, we are certainly in for a massive shock that will make the 2007-08 one look almost anecdotal.
" . "...Something will eventually break, if only for the reason that the 'elites' have forgotten
the basic rule of parasitism: Do not kill your host."
If someone had used the word "elites" in 2006, they would have been seen as a hair-on-fire hysteric,
long on conspiracy theories and short on sober understanding of How Things Work. But as the 1% and
0.1% amass more and more of total income and wealth, so too have they come to believe their interest
diverge from those of the rest of us (and in a literal sense, they often do, since in too many cases,
their wealth rests at least in part on predatory conduct). And now that that gap has become obvious,
it has reshaped the role of the ruling class, as in the people who are in charge of the administrative
apparatus of society. While some members of these top income groups play a direct role in running
powerful organizations (CEOs of large an/or strategically important businesses, for instance), it
also includes much less affluent individuals, like government officials and those who influence values
and collective perceptions, like major publishers and public intellectuals.
Increasingly, these administrators, influencers, and top professionals seek to use their roles
as an entry ticket to the top cohort. The prototype is the revolving door regulator, but there are
plenty of other embodiments.
Date just sold Fenway Summer to Promontory. As a well-recognized banking expert said via e-mail:
Not surprised. I read it as a failure of Fenway Summer. It was supposed to be a rival to Promontory,
not bought out by it. I sure as hell wouldn't pay for Raj's advice.
But members of the elite like Raj manage to fail upwards, or at worst sideways. And that helps
preserve the widening gap between them and everyone else.
This Real News Network interview with Robert Scheer, which is number six in a ten part series,
discusses how the self-serving attitudes among the supposed leaders of our society became entrenched.
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network.
We're continuing our discussion with Bob Scheer. Bob is a veteran U.S. journalist, currently the
editor-in-chief of the Webby Award-winning online magazine Truthdig. And his whole biography you'll
find beneath the video player.
We're just going to pick up where we were.
So here's what I'm accusing you off, that you seem to be suggesting that there's some rationality
left in this system within the elites. And I'm not talking–of course there are some individuals that
have some rational long-term view. I mean, even people like Soros has been crying about the lack
of banking regulation. And there's people in different sectors of the elites who realize this is
a train wreck and about go over a cliff. But those voices are actually marginalized. Even somebody
who's got as much money as Soros within the banking and financial elite is completely marginalized.
Nobody really listens to a word he says–people with power, at any rate. [1:07]
PROF. ROBERT SCHEER, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Well, they listen to–.
JAY: Let me finish the point.
SCHEER: They listen to Buffett.
JAY: Well, maybe. But Buffett doesn't raise as much alarm as Soros does. But within there–they
don't even seem to be able to rule in their own interest. It would be in the interest of global capitalism
to have more rational banking regulations as they introduced in the 1930s. It would be in the interest
of global capitalism to deal with the threat of catastrophic climate change. It would be in the interest
of any rationality not to let fossil fuel and the arms industry so dominate U.S. foreign policy,
particularly in the Middle East, I mean, this fueling of a Saudi-Iranian conflict. The idea that,
you know, could there be a United States without a massive military, yeah, there could, but not this
United States, not this economic system, not this elite. These guys aren't going to come around to
some kind if view of we could be an equal, modest country.
SCHEER: Well, you're absolutely right that the current configuration of power in America is irrational.
We don't have adults watching the store. And we go from one disastrous pursuit to another. I mean,
there was no reason whatsoever, if we had adults watching the store, you'd go knock off Saddam Hussein
in Iraq, who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, was a force against Iran, which–you know, we backed
him in his war with Iran. So the contradictions are obvious, that we don't have adults watching the
store, we don't have rational policy.
However, I think you are not the only person that now knows that.
JAY: Oh, I'm sure lots of–I would say most ordinary people kind of know it.
SCHEER: No, I think even in those circles there's an awareness that we're not doing very well,
and there are reminders that we're not doing well. You know, our economy is stagnant. We're up against
some real problems in terms of our future. Income inequality is one. You don't have to be some wild
lefty liberal to see that. I mean, the whole foundation of our country was always on a stable middle
class and an expanding middle class, opportunity, equal playing field. I'm not saying that was the
reality, but that was always the expectation. You know. And, you know, whether it's de Tocqueville
or the founding fathers, there was always an assumption that at least for what you thought was the
base population there would be this opportunity. You know. And we have been forced over the last
couple of decades to recognize that no, it's going alarmingly in a different direction.
Internationally, we know we're not doing very well. I mean, we don't produce a whole lot of products
that everybody in the world is dying to get their hands on. The main thing that we've been effective
on is this tech stuff, and our tech companies are the ones that are most concerned that our political
model is not a good one. They're the ones that are out there having to sell this stuff, and this
stuff involves getting confidence and knowing the culture, caring about other people, winning their
confidence. And that's been endangered.
So the only thing I would–I don't disagree with you at all as to whether our model is in trouble.
It's in trouble. I disagree with you only on whether–the number of people who know it's in trouble.
JAY: I would say even most of them–I would probably think most of the elite know it's in trouble.
They're just going to cash in on it, and it's going to be someone else's problem to do something
about it.
SCHEER: Okay. You're putting your finger on something that I feel is very critical. And I have
spent my life interviewing people generally around power, in government and so forth. I've traveled
with Nelson Rockefeller and David Rockefeller. You know, I have interviewed people who became president,
from Richard Nixon, Clinton, and so forth and so on.
And if I were to try to explain, the big shift that I've seen is long-term as opposed to short-term,
that most of the people I had interviewed in the first stage of my career, say somewhere up until
1970, were people that at least were concerned what their grandchildren might think. You know? There
was either through family, inherited wealth, or going to certain schools, or there was some sense
of social responsibility, you know, that you could find, that we have to leave our mark, we have
to leave it a better place, we have to–and just for our place in history, that it mattered. Okay?
So you could be concerned, oh, we'd better get with the civil rights movement, because otherwise
we're going to fall apart, or we'd better care about the economic condition of the rest of the world,
because otherwise it will rebel, we'd better worry about the living condition of our own people here
or they'll rise up with pitchforks and toss you out.
I think what happened is we went into this madcap period of short-term greed.
JAY: And let me just–Bob wrote a book called The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans
and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street. And this was a kind of turning
point you're talking about.
SCHEER: Yeah, that's really what my book is about, because you had sensible rules of the road
that came out of the New Deal, and there was a recognition, because of the Great Depression, that
you just can't have this madcap, crazy, Gilded Age society. Again I overuse this concept of adults
watching the store, but I remember going back to just being a kid in the Bronx, and you didn't leave
the children to run the fruit stand, 'cause they'd give everything away or they'd go off themselves
and play stickball. Somebody had to be there to make sure the stuff got sold and money was paid and
things. And you lost that. You got people coming out of the law schools and the business schools
that were shysters. You know, they just wanted some hustle, some scam. That's how you got into credit
default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.
JAY: Yeah, but the bubbles are euphoric,–
SCHEER: Yeah.
JAY: –if you're in on cashing in on the bubble.
SCHEER: And anybody who looked at that knew. I mean, I was interviewing people during those years,
and they'd say, this is, you know, as Buffett said, financial instruments of mass destruction. You
know, how could you believe in any of this stuff? How could anybody believe if you–this is what my
book was about–you take all these loans and you redefine them and you talk about the risk in stupid
ways and you give loans to people who can't support it, and somehow, okay, and whether you were in
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or whether you were in the private sector, 'cause Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac were being traded on the stock market, you had to know that this was going to explode. They knew
it. And they got the laws to change to make it legal. It should have been illegal.
You know. I mean, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Bill Clinton signed off as a
lame duck president in 2000, after it was already–you know, the election was over, he was now a lame
duck, and he signed this bill. What was the purpose of it? It was to make all of this garbage legal.
It said–I think it was Section 3 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act–a Republican-Democratic
bipartisan bill–said no existing law or regulatory agency will have jurisdiction over credit default
swaps or collateralized debt obligations or any of these new financial mechanisms. Why? Because they
said this is modern. We have to compete with Europe. You have to be able to do these things. We can't
let–we have to give legal certainty–Lawrence Summers, you know, secretary of the Treasury–we have
to have legal certainty for these financial instruments; otherwise, they won't be effective. Right?
Legal certainty meant no one's going to look at it, no one's going to challenge it, no one's going
to set any standards, no existing regulatory agency or law will apply. So it was a license to steal.
JAY: Now, for people that don't understand the concept, quickly.
SCHEER: Well, quickly, what happens is they developed all these new financial gimmicks. You know,
a credit default swap was something that was an insurance policy, but it was not an insurance policy.
It's what AIG did and got into so much trouble. They said, you do these collateralized debt obligations,
you take all these different loans, subprime mortgages–.
JAY: Which were invented in Baltimore, by the way.
SCHEER: Yeah, auto loans, or any of these things, and then they don't make sense on their own
and they all seem quite risky, but we'll put them into a pool and we'll assess their value and we'll
get these credit rating agencies that have a stake in saying, yeah, they're all good to go because
they're going to get money from it. So there was no regulation. And then you pass a law that says
you're allowed to do this, no one will look at it carefully, no existing regulatory agency will have
control. So you've got a license to steal. Go knock yourself out. You know? And they, selling all
these loans, packaging them, and then reselling them to people over the world. Right? And we can
predict, you know, get this income and so forth. And then, if it looks shaky, we're going to give
you these phony insurance policies, right, that will seem to back them up. But there's no money behind
it. It's not like a real insurance policy. Nobody's putting any resources.
So, suddenly, you've got this thing that's going to explode, and AIG, which is supposed to be
backing up the insurance, says, hey, we can't do that; we have no money for that. So now your housing
bubble has collapsed and AIG can't support it. And it's nothing more than the mafia doing a scam,
only you have passed laws that say that's all legal, that's all legal.
Now, you're absolutely right. You wouldn't do that if you were worried about how even you would
appear to your grandchildren. Okay? People looking back now know these people were crooks, whether
they went to–they didn't go to jail, 'cause they they get the law passed to make it that it's not
a crime to defraud people. It's legal. It wipes out half of the wealth of African Americans in this
country, wipes out the economic gains of the civil rights movement, 'cause they were particularly
a group that was particularly victimized. It wipes out two-thirds–these are Pew Research Center figures–wipes
out two-thirds of the wealth, the collected wealth over generations of Hispanics in this country
because they were subject to these subprime. They lose everything when they lose their house. But
the guys putting it all together, they escape with their billions. They don't go to jail. So, yes,
if what you mean by your opening statement was we don't have solid, responsible people who even care
how they will appear to their grandchildren–.
You've got a guy like Robert Rubin, okay? Robert Rubin was secretary of the Treasury under Bill
Clinton. He had come from Goldman Sachs. He had convinced Clinton you could do all this stuff, this
is all great, we'll do all this crap. He brings in Lawrence Summers. Timothy Geithner, who's a younger
person working in there, he becomes the Treasury secretary under Obama. They do all this stuff. They
get Clinton to sign off on it. He does it with Phil Gramm, the Republican, so it's bipartisan. Very
few people challenge it. You know, now, I think if you ask anybody about Robert Rubin, they say,
God, yeah, he wasn't too good for it. I'll bet you his own family members think he got his–you know,
what happens? He leaves the Clinton administration; he goes to work for a bank that he makes legal,
right? The merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance they make legal with their reversal of Glass-Steagall,
the Financial Services Modernization Act, and then they got the Commodity Futures [Modernization
Act], which makes these gimmicks legal. He gets $10 million a year for the next decade. Sure, he's
got money salted away. But I don't think he's got a reputation that's worth anything. I don't know.
Lawrence Summers, again, I don't think people particularly treat those with respect. But they have
money. You know, they can take care of their nephews and nieces. But I think it's generally accepted
they caused a lot of damage to the economy.
JAY: But it's not, like, that it's just a bad group of people happened to get into power. And
I'm not suggesting you're suggesting that.
SCHEER: No, it's the best and the brightest that Halberstam wrote about in Vietnam. These are
very well educated people who know what they're doing and, I believe, have to know it's going to
destroy the lives of millions of people, and they go ahead and do it. It's just like–.
JAY: Yeah, 'cause they say if it ain't me doing it, it's going to be him doing it, or her.
SCHEER: Whatever their rationalizations, they surround themselves with lawyers and PR people who
tell them this is all wonderful, and they get away with it.
JAY: But it's the way the system has evolved that so much money is in so few hands. There's not
much else for them to do with it than bet and gamble against each other, create this massive speculative
sector of the economy, which is financializing everything. Even when they talk about climate change,
all they really have in mind is a way to financialize it. So whether it's this group or the other
group, the sort of system itself is created where there's–so much capital has become completely parasitical.
SCHEER: Yes, but they could also be decent people. They could actually wonder about what would
Jesus do. They could actually think about what does their lives mean.
JAY: I think some do and drop out.
SCHEER: A few.
JAY: Some do, and they can't take it anymore, and they drop out.
SCHEER: Yeah.
JAY: But they're not in any position to change the course of the ship.
SCHEER: Well, but also the question you should ask is why aren't they being observed in doing
this. And the reason is because they can buy off everyone.
JAY: Especially the media.
SCHEER: The media, but the universities, the grants of–you know, build buildings at universities.
Come on.
JAY: I want to stress the media 'cause they have this theatrical show going in the elections–I'm
not saying there isn't a real contention for power, but when you have unlimited contributions, unlimited
spending, what are they spending it on? They're spending it on TV advertising.
SCHEER: Yeah, and they're spending it on candidates who will not give them a hard time. There's
no question about it.
But it's not just the media. I mean, I don't want to exonerate the media, but you–you know, in
the day of the internet, you should have more critical voices, right, 'cause–but even there you look
at where could–you know, okay, to understand the economy or foreign policy requires a little brainwork,
okay? Most people have got to take care of their job and their family and pick the kid up and how
do I pay this bill and am I going to lose my job and/or how am I going to make that sale. And so
their lives are taken up. And then we have a group of people, whether they're called journalists
or professors or consultants or what have you who actually have the time and are really charged with
figuring stuff out.
Now, most of this stuff is not all that difficult to figure out. So then you have to ask yourself
the question, why didn't you figure it out? I mean, why didn't the media–in my book I describe how
The New York Times was a cheerleader for this radical deregulation. They used words like modernization.
They said long overdue. Now, why? You know, because they were living in a culture and benefiting
from a culture that was benefiting from the ripoff. These are the people who advertise. These are
the people who invest in your venture, in your media. These are the people who buy chairs at the
schools where you're teaching. These are people who support the charities or political causes that
you happen to agree with. There is a culture of corruption, I mean, 'cause anyone else looking at
this, they say, wait a minute, this is nonsensical, this is bad. Why are you selling–I remember writing
about this stuff. I would go out to what they call the Inland Empire in California where they're
building all of these–. I said, who's going to live here? How are they going to get to work? Who's
paying for this? Why are they making the loans? And then you realize there is no there there. Don't
confuse the thing–I remember an old advertising [incompr.] don't confuse the thing being sold with
the thing itself. They're not selling a house to somebody who needs a house and is going to live
and be able to afford the payment; they're selling this collateralized debt obligation that's 1,000
of those houses that you have made and chopped up and iced and diced and everything and sliced, and
then you're going to make that seem like a good bet to somebody. Where? In Saudi Arabia or in France
or–.
JAY: Knowing it's all going to default.
SCHEER: Yeah, but you're going to get in and out before it defaults.
JAY: Yeah
William C, June 26, 2015 at 4:05 am
O tempora O mores.
Little changes really?
Benedict@Large, June 26, 2015 at 8:08 am
Scheer understates (just a bit) what the Commodities Futures Modernization act was all about.
What all these credit default swaps and other exotic new derivative instruments were all about
was recreating and expanding the list of instruments in use on Wall Street. CFMA's purpose was
to insure that this parallel market was unregulated. I one fell swoop, CFMA gave Wall Street the
ability to recreate itself, only the recreation was to be entirely without government oversight.
I'm sure there were a few incompetent fools (like Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm) who actually
believed the toxic hype that this was all about leading the curve to the new Nirvana, but pretty
much everyone else knew that is was nothing more than a government-sanctioned heist, because almost
at once, everyone started acting like it was. Even as early as 2000, the national association
of real estate appraisers was petitioning the government for relief from bankers forcing them
to scam their appraisals or get kicked out of business.
By 2002, Dean Baker was complaining that the rent-vs-own ratios that had been constant for
a hundred years were careening wildly, with no apparent cause.
By 2004, the FBI was begging Congress to fund more investigators, saying that the mortgage
industry had become a swamp of corruption.
By the end of 2005, the entire mortgage market began collapsing, and the only thing that delayed
it for another 30 or so months was that the Bush administration forced Fannie and Freddie to take
their hundreds of billions of wealth … OUR WEALTH … and throw it against that market's collapsing
edifice.
The only thing left was that the next President would have to owe his election to the very
people who needed to be indicted, convicted, and jailed.
LifelongLib, June 26, 2015 at 4:48 am
The wealthy's acceptance of the New Deal was always grudging, and lasted only as long as
they thought their wealth/safety depended on some of the rest of us being fairly prosperous. When
they found a way out of it (globalization) they were happy to toss the New Deal away.
Ben Johannson, June 26, 2015 at 5:45 am
Bubble talk leads us back to the mainstream of economic thought. The notion of bubble is a
deviation from some normal state of affairs, namely a growing, self-equilibrating economy and
markets (called growth theory among neoliberals.) Some event, it is presumed, external to the
normal state forces the economy out of kilter but once this is dealt with economic growth and
employment will return to the trajectory everybody knows and loves.
What happens to the concept of economic bubbles if we do not assume that markets are self-correcting?
It goes out the window because there is no norm from which to stray.
Maju, June 26, 2015 at 8:08 am
Actually what happens is that we reach an overproduction crisis, which is the natural thing
to do for Capitalism, at least according to Marx.
But while we are in that overproduction crisis, the financier capitalists still grow in power
and wealth, because they speculate with it, being almost the only ones able to still make a sustained
profit, and use that power to contain any attempt of reform and rather promote even greater deregulation,
like the triple-T secret treaties. All very natural and expectable, albeit unfortunate, in good
economic and political science.
Maju, June 26, 2015 at 6:26 am
TRNN are generally very worth watching, thank you. Although they may have overdone the interviewer's
makeup on this occasion.
This links very well with what I was saying in another thread: modern financier capitalism
has no plan other than "loot while you can". The last comment of Scheer points to pyramidal or
Ponzi schemes being all what is, and, if that's the backbone of the economy, we are certainly
in for a massive shock that will make the 2007-08 one look almost anecdotal.
Another interesting comment of Scheer is that a key "rational" (or "productive") US economic sector
is the technological one, what is no doubt true. I am under the strong impression that the USA
could for example be leading the transition to renewables, as most technological advances in solar
energies, for instance, happen in the USA. But paradoxically the republic is actually betting
heavily on oil and not using that advantage to reaffirm itself as avant-guard global economic
power, what could well give Washington another whole century of hegemony.
So indeed there is no plan, only short-termism and loot-while-you-can.
ambrit, June 26, 2015 at 6:33 am
I'm glad that the concept of 'elites' is finally gaining widespread acceptability. It is a
sorry state of affairs when a class of people develops an "us or them" worldview, but there it
is. If I understand it correctly, MMT is a system based on a rational and pragmatic view of how
money works. 'Elites,' as an organizing model serves a similar function in the socio political
sphere of human endeavour. Each contends with 'official' ideologies promoted by the system itself.
I agree with Feynmans' contention that the system architecture of a human institution defines
and circumscribes it's functionality. His addendum to the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Report
lays out his contention. Essentially, the idea is something I've read in other accounts of how
the government bureaucracies work. Functionaries are punished for presenting facts and analysis
counter to the perceived desired outcome. The perceptions guiding the process are generally internally
produced and shaped. No sinister 'master criminal' is required. The group as a whole develops
it's own world view, and designs systems to support and expand that "World."
It has been asserted that Bernays et. al. applied the scientific method to crowd control and
manipulation. That generation is now long gone, and with them the concept of 'public service.'
Even if one were to apply a maximum degree of cynicism, that bygone generation of 'elites' had
an infinitely greater regard for the 'public good' than today's 'elites.' As the article above
plainly states, even that degree of concern for out groups is gone.
Something will eventually break, if only for the reason that the 'elites' have forgotten
the basic rule of parasitism: Do not kill your host.
Am struck with the NASA managers over-riding their engineers' concerns. This is not a result of
a "bureaucratic mind-set" but of people not being held responsible for their actions. The managers
were paid to have a flight go on time. The engineers held to their belief that the flight should
be as safe as they could make it.
The fault is not in our stars, but in our compensation systems. I don't think any NASA manager
lost their job, got demoted, or a letter of reprimand over the Challenger accident.
ambrit, June 27, 2015 at 10:27 am
Yes, but that very "flight go on time" consideration is a part of the "bureaucratic mind set."
When a functionary believes that adherence to an even unstated expectation will determine that
bureaucrats future career arc, ways will be found.
The other dimension of this, seldom voiced, is the fact that President Reagan was scheduled
to give the annual State of the Union speech the night of the launch day, January 28, 1986. Rumours
have since circulated that Christina McAuliffe was scheduled to participate by remote camera link
from orbit. Having a cameo in the State of the Union speech by Americas favourite teacher in space
is exactly the sort of stunt a trained Hollywood actor would endorse. I blame Ronnie Reagan and
"politics as usual" for this disaster.
As for bureaucrats overriding the opinions of technocrats, well, that's life. The political
actors keep pushing the envelope regarding safety, and especially cost, until someone gets killed.
Then the game is reset. I have personally seen this dynamic play out several times.
Even better than the Challenger fiasco was the outright negligence that caused the Columbia 'event'
in 2003. There had been serious concern voiced by engineers about the big piece of foam that broke
off of the main tank and struck the underside of the shuttle during launch. This was no love tap.
The foam chunk hit the shuttle going approximately 1900 miles per hour. This made a hole in the
underside left wing heat tile array. Hot gasses from re-entry entered the wing root and broke
up the shuttle. The defining factor again was the mindset of the NASA bureaucracy. This excerpt
from the Columbia disaster wiki shows how it happened.
In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to
recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety for imaging to inspect possible damage,
and failed to respond to engineer requests about the status of astronaut inspection of the left
wing. Engineers made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle
in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the
damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination.
NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting.[11]
The CAIB recommended subsequent shuttle flights be imaged while in orbit using ground-based or
space-based DOD assets.[12]
Details of the DOD's unfulfilled participation with Columbia remain secret; retired NASA official
Wayne Hale stated in 2012 that "[a]ctivity regarding other national assets and agencies remains
classified and I cannot comment on that aspect of the Columbia tragedy."[13]
So, there you have it. Bureaucracies, large and small, exhibit definable and consistent patterns
of behavior. The fault lies not in our stars, as you observed, but in our Chairs.
ewmayer, June 27, 2015 at 7:40 pm
NASA also exhibited such managerial fubar-ness in the run-up to the Hubble main mirror fiasco
– here is a 1990 NYT piece on that. The punchline: For more than a year pre-launch NASA had not
one but TWO fully finished main mirrors in storage – the flawed one made by Perkin-Elmer, and
a perfectly sound one subcontracted by P-E to Eastman Kodak. Did NASA bother to do the simple
"let's comparison-test these 2 mirrors and use the better one, if one proves superior, in the
Hubble" thing? Of course not. Hell, a simple scaled-up Foucault test of the kind amateur telescope
makers have been doing for over 150 years using primitive tools would have revealed the problem
right quick. Classic other-people's-money insular elite stupidity.
Vatch, June 26, 2015 at 10:16 am
Something will eventually break, if only for the reason that the 'elites' have forgotten
the basic rule of parasitism: Do not kill your host.
I like that! Biologically true, and also true in the realm of political economy.
John Smith, June 26, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Except the parasites think TINA and therefore are unaware that they ARE parasites and thus
don't have the good sense to recognize that their lucre is filthy.
Capitalism. What is most exceptional about this site is its name. The mere fact that it uses
the name capitalism at all, even nakedcapitalism, is the most taboo breaking aspect announcing
a real discussion about a real topic. Notice how Yves preambles this discussion to pre-2006 conformity
of thought:
"If someone had used the word "elites" in 2006, they would have been seen as a hair-on-fire
hysteric, long on conspiracy theories and short on sober understanding of How Things Work."
You might as well add "capitalism" to ill chosen words.
The apex of American power in the aftermath of the Clinton years coupling robust job creation
and technological advancement of an extensive internet infrastructure to produce the capitalist
propaganda theme of the coming the 21st Century: Supertanker America! Remember when the unbroken
quarters of growth, low interest rates, steady stock market index rising and company after company
emerging from the pages of science fiction to launch from NASDAQ into the real economy? The American
Economy would ride out any boom or bust, out sail any crashing waves of stormy global contraction
and lead the world economy out of any doldrums just as our military stood dominant across the
oceans to the West and East of the continental hegemon. Our military might, our economic resilience
and now, our triumphant ideology of capitalism would be consumed by the world more readily than
any other export. There was a plan drawn up for a bold new global order of the ages, The Project
for a New American Century PNAC. Of course, that failed miserably, unleashing WWIII across the
Arab/Muslim world.
But amidst all of the talk of globalization, world trade organization, international summits
of G-7s and G-20s, NATO and NAFTA, we have Davos. The Woodstock for capitalists, but never spoken
of any such terms. In the above TRNN interview, "the system" and its "elites" are discussed. But
as usual, there is always an internalize euphemism, socialized squeamishness for giving the system
a formal name and giving its actors a title. Capitalism and the capitalists who love it. There,
I said it, the love that dare not speak its name! And the key to breakdown from long term perspective
to short term greed came from banking deregulation. Not surprising for capitalism to turn
its longing eyes to banking, the platform it was built upon 500 years ago from the banking centers
of Genoa, Venice, Florence etc. Despite Simon Johnson's supposed revelation of a silent financial
coup, capitalism all along has ruled implicitly, with the only silence coming from the people
who master the rules of capitalism not resorting to its name.
Giovanni Arrighi in an essay points out the disappearance of capitalism from academic research,
almost in its entirety from economics. Notice, there are Marxist Economists or Keynesian Economics,
and then there is just plain Economics. Not Capitalist Economics, that would not be value free
positivism, the purest of methodological based scientific endeavors.
Arrighi finds in an almost 800 page " THE HANDBOOK OF ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY", sparse mention of
capitalism. Basically, a small usage of the word and a single reference, but mostly, a great number
of writings by Marx, Weber and what others have had to say about capitalism, but not much about
capitalism by its presume supporters. Much of this Arrighi attributes to the micro focus of the
social sciences and its failure and or unwillingness to deal with long term structural features
of capitalism. Basically, an ahistoric or short term approach has capitalism disappearing altogether
under the weakened methodology too attenuated to measure the processes that compose capitalism.
It is not there because the unit of analysis is too small, too short in time or too segmented
by focusing on one nation or one enterprise and not the whole economy of one nation connected
with and trading with other nations in a global system.
An entire generation of myopia induced social science, including economics has produced nothing
less but the short term crisis producing best and brightest, who can't see beyond the next quarter.
The motto is; "Are we there yet?". Impatience, hyper frequency trading, dedicated fiber optic
fast as the speed of light trading cables from where ever to Wall St, all to shave off a few seconds
or micro seconds or quantum seconds, in order to turn a profit of pennies a few billion times
over a second or a minute, hour after hour, day after day. No wonder this cognitively captured
educated elite can not see anything larger than a minute portion of reality that their algorithms
symbolically represent.
There's nothing inherently wrong with managing risk by aggregation. In fact insurance companies
have been doing that for centurie as the fact that the mortgage insurance business (where traditional
underwriters and experts set the price for insurance) was effectively pricing the risk of default
for riskier mortgages VERY differently than the bond market was pricing the exact same risk.
The godly person has perished from the land,
And there is no upright person among men.
All of them lie in wait for bloodshed;
Each of them hunts the other with a net.
Concerning evil, both hands do it well.
The prince asks, also the judge, for a bribe,
And a great man speaks the desire of his soul;
So they weave it together.
Some if it's a little dated, but the key points remain pertinent.
"The central goal of an establishment is to insure that the system works so that the country
will in the long run be successful. An establishment is self-confident that if the system works
and if their country does well, they will personally do well. Being self-confident they don't
have to make their own immediate self-interest paramount when they influence public decisions."
"In contrast an oligarchy is a group of insecure individuals who amass funds in secret Swiss
bank accounts. Because they think that they must always look out for their own immediate self-interest,
they aren't interested in taking time and effort to improve their country's long-run prospects.
They aren't confident that if the country is successful, they will be successful."
Sheer talks about the aftermath of going off the gold standard. After 1970 there was a long
hysteria (still in motion) that translated into austerity (supply side nonsense) because maintaining
the value of the dollar meant everything. If the dollar took a dive, both our military and our
finance complex would begin to fail. There would be no confidence in the once great USA.
Witness the EU today. Those guys would rather bleed Greece to death than allow the euro to
slide too much. They only pretend that they are protecting the EU taxpayers. It is such a fiction
to try to maintain austerity for a strong currency because it defeats itself every time, and in
order to surface an economy must do bubbles because there is no economy left after austerity.
So it all turns into froth. There is a reason derivatives were invented and laws were passed making
them legal. Because Larry Summers et.al. all knew their own positions were at stake if capitalism
no longer produced profits for the elite. As Stephanie Kelton has informed us, we do not need
to worry about the "value" of the dollar – the exchange rate – all we need to do is manufacture
products that people want to buy. But that won't save the bloated ranks of the elite.
I must say that the moral and intellectual depravity of the world's elites is great news
for the planet. From the point of view of the robin building her nest in the tree outside
my window, humans are a toxic cancer, poisoning the soil that produces the worms she needs to
feed her hatchlings. (assuming they survive the overly thin eggshells that agricultural chemicals
have caused her to produce).
Indeed, for most of the planet's inhabitants homo sapiens are the biggest threat to their continued
survival. So rapid economic collapse brought on by the Masters of the Universe's insatiable greed
and the human species fatal inability to behave as part of an interconnected ecosystem is the
best hope for the survival of a planet capable of supporting all the other life forms that have
evolved with it.
Thinking back to elites past, at least civilization got some great art or architecture or literature
out of the surplus. Sure, the Italian elites were adept at poisoning each other, but the world
got Michelangelo and DaVinci. The Elizabethan elites had the Star Chamber, but the world got Shakespeare.
The Victorians had the empire, but also Alice in Wonderland and Dickens. The Bourbons
lost their heads, but the world got the Louvre. And on and on and on.
But for this elite, I'm trying to think of one great artist and I can't come up with one. Jeff
Koons?
OK, the meta, I get it. But still. Am I wrong on this? Is there a squillionaire Medici out
there somewhere?
Stupidest, most vile, and destructive elites in the history of the world and that is saying
something.
I really appreciate Paul Jay insisting on calling out the media for their role in all of
this. It really puts me up the wall how supposedly left wing media outlets always insist on having
a right wing propagandist sit in as a counter weight to the lefty when conducting an interview,
but then NOBODY calls out the right wing propagandist on his/her blatantly obvious, totally false
bullshit regardless of crazy their claims.
Perfect example was the Amy Goodman hosted "Democracy Now" segment on the TPP which was
linked here yesterday. They had a guy from Public Citizen on to denounce the TPP and a professional
liar from the Cato institute to defend it and no one batted an eye or piped up to say word when
the Cato guy floated this howler:
"You know, I certainly do think that the TPP, to the extent that it liberalizes trade, is
going to increase wages. It's going to improve the economy of the United States. By opening
markets to exports, the TPP will help create jobs. By opening up access to imports, the TPP
will help create jobs. Most of the imports that come to this country are used by American manufacturers.
It will increase productivity, increase wages and promote growth. So I think that for the criteria
that Hillary Clinton sets out, the TPP will most likely be a good deal."
Why in the world Amy Goodman the host of the show or her guest from Public Citizen doesn't
even make an attempt to counter this blatant lie in the interest of truth or journalistic ethics
is beyond me. Why not something like this: " Excuse me Bill, what did you just say? Did you just
claim the TPP is going to raise wages and create jobs in the United States? My god Bill, that
is the biggest fucking lie I have ever heard and you know it. As I'm sure you know Bill the entire
point of the TPP and other Free Trade pacts is to open the borders of low wage, low regulation
countries so companies in the United States can offshore more jobs or at least use the threat
of relocating as leverage to further drive down wages, so don't you dare sit there with a straight
face and your little American Flag lapel pin and insult this show and my audience with such blatantly
false lies. Shame on you Bill, you're a disgrace."
Jerry, I agree with you on the Democracy Now show (I listened to it, too) … but what really
got me was this lovely exchange:
"JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bill Watson of the Cato Institute, your reaction to the impending, now
appears to be, passage of the fast-track legislation?
BILL WATSON: Well, I'm really looking forward to seeing the TPP be completed, find out what's
in the agreement and how well it liberalizes trade between the United States and the other 11
members in the agreement."
Um … explain to me how you're looking forward to the TPP being completed, but you still need
to "find out what's in the agreement …"
WHAT? You don't know what's in it, but it's all good?
I read comments like Scheers, that "these are educated people" and they knew what they were
doing, and I just am not sure how correct they are. It just does not make sense to me that these
people allowed what is essentially a "crimogenic environment" (as Bill Black often writes) to
devolve into the open sociopathy and psychopathy we have today. Something is missing; it all just
does not fit together.
The one thing nobody ever mentions is the role of organized crime. The mergers and acquisitions
and the leveraged buy outs of the 1960s through 1990s was heavily financed and influenced by organized
crime. Look at Penny Pritzker's family, and its roots in The Outfit of Chicago. Look at Lord Hanson
and his connections to organized crime. Look at the historical legacy of HSBC as the Hong Kong
and Shanghai Bank in the opium trade and opium wars. Good lord, look at Ronald Reagan – who is
fingered as organized crimes' favorite politician by Gus Russo in his book Supermob.
Was it a good thing that organized crime "went legit"? Or is the true legacy the "crimogenic
environment" we have today?
"...The troika had two goals from the start. First to give the banksters and plutocrats enough
time to exit the country they had plundered (with help from local plutocrats). There was a large amount
of privately held debt that could not be unloaded during a crisis, so they needed a pretend bailout
such that most of that private risk could be transferred onto public organizations. Second they needed
to keep the public in the other European countries from understanding that the fault was with their
own banksters and plutocrats, not the people of Greece; and that the bailout plan (rather than immediate
debt restructuring) actually was a plan to move the inevitable cost away from the banksters and onto
the taxpayers."
It's the Politics, Stupid!: I have been silent on Greece, because scores of excellent economists
from all sides commented at length...
But last week has transformed in certainty what had been a fear since the beginning. The troika,
backed by the quasi totality of EU governments, were not interested in finding a solution that
would allow Greece to recover while embarking in a fiscally sustainable path. No, they were interested
in a complete and public defeat of the
"radical" Greek government. ...
What happened...? Well, contrary to what is heard in European circles, most of the concessions
came from the Greek government. On retirement age, on the size of budget surplus (yes, the Greek
government gave up its intention to stop austerity, and just obtained to soften it), on VAT, on
privatizations, we are today much closer to the Troika initial positions than to the initial Greek
position. Much closer.
The point that the Greek government made repeatedly is that some reforms, like improving the tax
collection capacity, actually demanded an increase of resources, and hence of public spending.
Reforms need to be disconnected from austerity, to maximize their chance to work. Syriza, precisely
like the Papandreou government in 2010 asked for time and possibly money. It got neither.
Tsipras had only two red lines it would and it could not cross: Trying to increase taxes on the
rich (most notably large coroporations), and not agreeing to further cuts to low pensions. if
he crossed those lines, he would become virtually indistinguishable from Samaras and from the
policies that led Greece to be a broken State.
What the past week made clear is that this, and only this was the objective of the creditors.
This has been since the beginning about politics. Creditors cannot afford that an alternative
to policies followed since 2010 in Greece and in the rest of the Eurozone materializes.
Austerity and structural reforms need to be the only way to go. Otherwise people could start asking
questions; a risk you don't want to run a few months before Spanish elections. Syriza needed to
be made an example. You cannot survive in Europe, if you don't embrace the Brussels-Berlin Consensus.
Tsipras, like Papandreou, was left with the only option too ask for the Greek people's opinion,
because there has been no negotiation, just a huge smoke screen. Those of us who were discussing
pros and cons of the different options on the table, well, we were wasting our time.
And if Greece needs to go down to prove it, so be it. If we transform the euro in a club in which
countries come and go, so be it.
The darkest moment for the EU.
RGC said...
by MICHAEL HUDSON
Many readers of the European and American press must be confused about what actually is happening
in the negotiations between Greece (Alexis Tsipras and Yannis Varoufakis). The European Troika
(the IMF, European Central Bank and European Council now object to the name and want to be called
simply "the Institutions") have stepped up their demands on Syriza. What is called "negotiation"
is in reality a demand for total surrender. The Troika's demand is to force Syriza to go back
on the campaign promises that it made to voters who replaced the old right-wing Pasok ("socialist")
and Conservative New Democracy coalition, or else simply apply the austerity program to which
that coalition had agreed:cutbacks in pensions, deeper austerity, more privatization selloffs,
and a tax shift off business onto labor. In short, economic suicide.
Last weekend a group of us met in Delphi to discuss and draft the following Declaration of
Support for Greece against the neoliberal Institutions. It is now clear that finance is the new
mode of warfare. The creditors' objective is the same as military conquest: they want the land,
the natural resource rights and monopolies, and they want tribute (in this case, debt service).
And they don't want sovereign Greece to tax the economic rent from these assets. In short, the
negotiation between The Institutions and Greece is a bold exercise in rent extraction.
I agree with what Saraceno wrote. "The troika, backed by the quasi totality of EU governments,
were not interested in finding a solution that would allow Greece to recover while embarking in
a fiscally sustainable path."
The austerity program they forced Greece to follow was a failure and the troika doesn't care
what Syriza was elected to do. It can overrule democracy.
As good as the IMF research department has been regarding Keynesian policies lately, the IMF
is coming off really bad here, just going along with insane policy.
If Greece doesn't pay by the 30th do they get kicked out? If they kicked out will they hold
the July 5th referendum anyway?
Maybe the troika don't kick them out immediately and the referendum votes no on the bailout
package. Then Greece defaults but possibly stays in the EU on the drachma with capital controls.
Possibly Greece can rejoin the EU later on.
anne said in reply to anne...
What still puzzles me is whether and by what authority Greece can be forced to leave the European
Union, even if Greece has to abandon the Euro.
As for the leadership of the European Union, no matter the title of the various governing parties,
there has been an increasingly conservative political-economic bent to the leadership in domestic,
Europe-wide and international affairs.
DeDude said in reply to anne...
They can not be forced to leave the European (political) Union. The may have to abandon the
Euro currency, but a number of other EU countries have their own currency (enjoying the free trade
and political advantages of being an EU country). They would likely be forced to either back out
of the Euro or face a complete collapse of their banks and economy (without banks no business)
if the ECB close their banks access to funds. But there is no way that they could be kicked out
of the Euro if they refused to leave.
James Stewart has a piece * in the New York Times telling readers that if Greece were to leave
the euro it would face a disaster. The headline warns readers, "imagine Argentina, but much worse."
The article includes several assertions that are misleading or false.
First, it is difficult to describe the default in Argentina as a disaster. The economy had
been plummeting prior to the default, which occurred at the end of the year in 2001. The country's
GDP had actually fallen more before the default than it did after the default. (This is not entirely
clear on the graph, since the data is annual. At the point where the default took place in December
of 2001, Argentina's GDP was already well below the year-round average.) While the economy did
fall more sharply after the default, it soon rebounded and by the end of 2003 it had regained
all the ground lost following the default.
[Graph]
Argentina's economy continued to grow rapidly for several more years, rising above pre-recession
levels in 2004. Given the fuller picture, it is difficult to see the default as an especially
disastrous event even if it did lead to several months of uncertainty for the people of Argentina.
In this respect, it is worth noting that Paul Volcker is widely praised in policy circles for
bringing down the inflation rate. To accomplish this goal he induced a recession that pushed the
unemployment rate to almost 11 percent. So the idea that short-term pain might be a price worth
paying for a longer term benefit is widely accepted in policy circles.
At one point the piece refers to the views of Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's finance minister,
on the difficulties of leaving the euro. It relies on what it describes as a "recent blogpost."
Actually the post * is from 2012.
To support the argument that Greece has little prospect for increasing its exports it quotes
Daniel Gros, director of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, on the impact of
devaluation on tourism:
"But they've already cut prices and tourism has gone up. But it hasn't really helped because
total revenue hasn't gone up."
Actually tourism revenue has risen. It rose by 8.0 percent from 2011 to 2013 (the most recent
data available) measured in euros and by roughly 20 percent measured in dollars. In arguing that
Greece can't increase revenue from fishing the piece tells readers:
"The European Union has strict quotas to prevent overfishing."
However the piece also tells readers that leaving the euro would cause Greece to be thrown
out of the European Union. If that's true, the EU limits on fishing would be irrelevant.
The piece also make a big point of the fact that Greece does not at present have a currency
other than the euro. There are plenty of countries, including many which are poorer than Greece,
who have managed to switch over to a new currency in a relatively short period of time. While
this process will never be painless, it must be compared to the pain associated with an indefinite
period of unemployment in excess of 20.0 percent which is almost certainly the path associated
with remaining in the euro on the Troika's terms.
In making comparisons between Greece and Argentina, it is also worth noting that almost all
economists projected disaster at the time Argentina defaulted in 2001. Perhaps they have learned
more about economics in the last 14 years, but this is not obviously true.
Tsipras had only two red lines it would and it could not cross: Trying to increase taxes on
the rich (most notably large corporations), and not agreeing to further cuts to low pensions.
if he crossed those lines, he would become virtually indistinguishable from Samaras and from the
policies that led Greece to be a broken State.
-- Francesco Saraceno
[ I believe that this passage is wrong. Prime Minister Tsipras, to my understanding, was willing
and had offered to increase taxes on the rich or "large corporations."
I will try to find a reference, but I am fairly sure I read this in regard to the offer by
Tsipras. I recall the insistence on preserving low pension levels came with an express proposal
to increase taxes on those with relatively high incomes. ]
DeDude said...
The troika had two goals from the start. First to give the banksters and plutocrats enough
time to exit the country they had plundered (with help from local plutocrats). There was a large
amount of privately held debt that could not be unloaded during a crisis, so they needed a pretend
bailout such that most of that private risk could be transferred onto public organizations. Second
they needed to keep the public in the other European countries from understanding that the fault
was with their own banksters and plutocrats, not the people of Greece; and that the bailout plan
(rather than immediate debt restructuring) actually was a plan to move the inevitable cost away from
the banksters and onto the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, European tribalistic politics (further inflamed by the second goal) forced such
austerity upon the people of Greece that they rebelled and elected a socialist government. Now there
is a third goal for the troika (as dictated by their plutocrat masters); to punish the people of
Greece (and scare voters in other countries) for electing socialist leaders. Be ready for an all
out war of sabotaging any and all Greek economic recovery. They are desperate to set the example
and scare away any thought of rebellion against economic tyranny in countries like Portugal, Spain,
Ireland (Italy, France). They are not even trying to hide their sabotage of the Syriza government
– just compare what they demand to what Syriza is offering. The objectives are for the same goals,
it is just that Syriza has a plan that can reach those goals without sinking the Greek economy into
an even deeper hole.
Fred C. Dobbs said...
If you owe your bank a million euros
and can't pay, YOU have a problem.
If it's a billion euros, THEY have a problem.
If it's a trillion, *you* are back
to having a problem, as it turns out.
Who knew?
RGC said...
IMF policy re Greece and Ukraine:
Greece: IMF Warns No Leeway on Payment as Merkel Urges Greece to Bow
Businesses Worry About Shouldering Burden of Greek Debt
By LANDON THOMAS Jr.
THESSALONIKI, Greece - From the beginning, officials at the International Monetary Fund, one
of the country's creditors, have criticized the proposal's reliance on raising corporate tax,
arguing that such increases will only hurt the country's already fragile economy....
[ This is the IMF; sacrifice ordinary already damaged Greek people for the sake of corporate
or relatively rich Greeks. ]
Having read the Dominique Strauss Kahn memo carefully again, I am not sure just what is being
argued other than a little more generous debt forgiveness a little earlier.
"Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurogroup of finance ministers, said before the meeting
he was 'disappointed' by the surprise plans to stage a popular vote on debt financing proposals.
"'It's a very sad decision for Greece because it's closed the door to further talks, a door
that was still open in my mind,' he said."
I think of my dad's friend Phil in these cases of indebtedness. Phil was a successful businessman
who functioned as a lender of last resort for a number of his acquaintances. Phil wanted his money
first and foremost. When a borrower could not pay on time, Phil gave a brief grace period. If
the borrower still could not pay, Phil would counsel the guy to get an honest job if he didn't
already have one or get a second job if he had one and only one. If the guy already had two jobs
or was ineligible for honest work, he was advised to consult a pawnbroker. If necessary, stealing
and fencing outside of Phil's network might be a last resort. If the borrower still could not
pay, Phil was not above resorting to strong collection methods that might persuade the borrower
to come up with some cash courtesy of friends and family. Like legal collection methods Phil's
cost money so was only resorted to in unusual cases. If the borrower still could not come up with
the money, Phil had to face the loss. Needless to say, no further credit would be forthcoming.
It may be impossible for Greece to pay its debts because its prospects for growth are inadequate
given the nature of its politics, the size of the debt, and relatively small size of its economy.
If its lenders have concluded that that is the case, Greece would have to default and take the
consequences. Its lenders will have to take the consequences as well. Phil would not have felt
obliged to continue to make loans to a customer who had demonstrated an inability to repay his
loan after the usual forbearance.
Chris Herbert said...
Greece doesn't need any loans. Greece doesn't need any debt. Once you are a monetary sovereign
you call the shots. Just ask the United States, or China, or Japan. Or Iceland. The central bank
can recapitalize the economy with a new drachma, the only currency that can be used domestically.
It can fund infrastructure projects that invigorate the Greek economy without issuing debt because
it is producing assets, not liabilities. It can do so by avoiding what Keynes describe as 'a bookkeepers
nightmare.' Keynes:
"The divorce between ownership and the real responsibility of management is serious within
a country when, as a result of joint-stock enterprise, ownership is broken up between innumerable
individuals who buy their interest today and sell it tomorrow and lack altogether both knowledge
and responsibility towards what they momentarily own. But when the same principle is applied
internationally, it is, in times of stress, intolerable - I am irresponsible towards what I
own and those who operate what I own are irresponsible towards me. There may be some financial
calculation which shows it to be advantageous that my savings should be invested in whatever
quarter of the habitable globe shows the greatest marginal efficiency of capital or the highest
rate of interest. But experience is accumulating that remoteness between ownership and operation
is an evil in the relations between men, likely or certain in the long run to set up strains
and enmities which will bring to nought the financial calculation....
National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury
which we can afford if we happen to want it. Are there sufficient good reasons why we may happen
to want it? The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which
we found ourselves after the War, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful,
it is not just, it is not virtuous - and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike
it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are
extremely perplexed."
Until now, every warning about an imminent breakup of the euro has proved wrong. Governments,
whatever they said during the election, give in to the demands of the troika; meanwhile, the ECB
steps in to calm the markets. This process has held the currency together, but it has also perpetuated
deeply destructive austerity - don't let a few quarters of modest growth in some debtors obscure
the immense cost of five years of mass unemployment.
As a political matter, the big losers from this process have been the parties of the center-left,
whose acquiescence in harsh austerity - and hence abandonment of whatever they supposedly stood
for - does them far more damage than similar policies do to the center-right.
It seems to me that the troika - I think it's time to stop the pretense that anything changed,
and go back to the old name - expected, or at least hoped, that Greece would be a repeat of this
story. Either Tsipras would do the usual thing, abandoning much of his coalition and probably
being forced into alliance with the center-right, or the Syriza government would fall. And it
might yet happen.
But at least as of right now Tsipras seems unwilling to fall on his sword. Instead, faced with
a troika ultimatum, he has scheduled a referendum on whether to accept. This is leading to much
hand-wringing and declarations that he's being irresponsible, but he is, in fact, doing the right
thing, for two reasons.
First, if it wins the referendum, the Greek government will be empowered by democratic
legitimacy, which still, I think, matters in Europe. (And if it doesn't, we need to know that,
too.)
Second, until now Syriza has been in an awkward place politically, with voters both furious
at ever-greater demands for austerity and unwilling to leave the euro. It has always been hard
to see how these desires could be reconciled; it's even harder now. The referendum will, in
effect, ask voters to choose their priority, and give Tsipras a mandate to do what he must
if the troika pushes it all the way.
If you ask me, it has been an act of monstrous folly on the part of the creditor governments
and institutions to push it to this point. But they have, and I can't at all blame Tsipras for
turning to the voters, instead of turning on them.
RGC said in reply to anne...
"If you ask me, it has been an act of monstrous folly on the part of the creditor governments
and institutions to push it to this point."
The US banks promoted loans that obviously could not be repaid. They committed massive fraud.
They caused a horrendous debt deflation and concomitant great recession. Yet they were bailed
out by Obama. Why shouldn't the European banks expect the same of their politicians?
Breaking Greece: I've been staying
fairly quiet on Greece... But given reports from the negotiations in Brussels, something must be said...
This ought to be a negotiation about targets for the primary surplus, and then about debt relief that heads off endless future
crises. And the Greek government has agreed to what are actually fairly high surplus targets, especially given the fact that the
budget would be in huge
primary surplus if the economy weren't so depressed. But the creditors keep rejecting Greek proposals on the grounds that
they rely too much on taxes and not enough on spending cuts. So we're still in the business of dictating domestic policy.
The supposed reason for the rejection of a tax-based response is that it will hurt growth. The obvious response is, are you kidding
us? The people who utterly failed to see the damage austerity would do - see the chart, which compares the projections in the
2010 standby agreement with reality - are
now lecturing others on growth? Furthermore, the growth concerns are all supply-side, in an economy surely operating at least
20 percent below capacity. ...
At this point it's time to stop talking about "Graccident"; if Grexit happens it will be because the creditors, or at least the
IMF, wanted it to happen.
Sandwichman said...
The class nature of the IMF position is evident to anyone who chooses to see. Olivier Blanchard is the IMF's chief economist.
Professor Krugman politely omits mentioning that salient fact. Professional courtesy, I presume.
anne said in reply to Sandwichman...
Olivier Blanchard is the IMF's chief economist.
[ Meaning what exactly? ]
Sandwichman said in reply to anne...
Meaning if "unserious" Olivier (see below) was serious about his unseriousness maybe he would publicly repudiate the economics
of the policy of the organization that he is presumably chief economist for.
Sandwichman said in reply to anne...
"The IMF's 'Tough Choices' on Greece," Jamie Galbraith
"Blanchard should know better than to persist with this fiasco. Once the link between "reform" and growth is broken – as it
has been in Greece – his argument collapses. With no path to growth, the creditors' demand for an eventual 3.5%-of-GDP primary
surplus is actually a call for more contraction, beginning with another deep slump this year.
"But, rather than recognizing this reality and adjusting accordingly, Blanchard doubles down on pensions. He writes:
"'Why insist on pensions? Pensions and wages account for about 75% of primary spending; the other 25% have already been cut
to the bone. Pension expenditures account for over 16% of GDP, and transfers from the budget to the pension system are close to
10% of GDP. We believe a reduction of pension expenditures of 1% of GDP (out of 16%) is needed, and that it can be done while
protecting the poorest pensioners.'
"Note first the damning admission: apart from pensions and wages, spending has already been "cut to the bone." And remember:
the effect of this approach on growth was negative. So, in defiance of overwhelming evidence, the IMF now wants to target the
remaining sector, pensions, where massive cuts – more than 40% in many cases – have already been made. The new cuts being demanded
would hit the poor very hard."
anne said in reply to Sandwichman...
Understood completely, darn.
Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...
So Galbraith and Krugman basically agree on the stupidity of the policy. Galbraith names the name. Krugman hesitates. Basic
social psychology.
"Blanchard insists that now is the time for "tough choices, and tough commitments to be made on both sides." Indeed it is.
But the Greeks have already made tough choices. Now it is the IMF's turn, beginning with the decision to admit that the policies
it has imposed for five long years created a disaster. For the other creditors, the toughest choice is to admit – as the IMF
knows – that their Greek debts must be restructured. New loans for failed policies – the current joint creditor proposal
– is, for them, no adjustment at all."
Final two paragraphs of Krugman's:
"Talk to IMF people and they will go on about the impossibility of dealing with Syriza, their annoyance at the grandstanding,
and so on. But we're not in high school here. And right now it's the creditors, much more than the Greeks, who keep moving
the goalposts. So what is happening? Is the goal to break Syriza? Is it to force Greece into a presumably disastrous default,
to encourage the others?
"At this point it's time to stop talking about "Graccident"; if Grexit happens it will be because the creditors, or at least
the IMF, wanted it to happen."
This is sounding a lot like our Federal government. Nondefense purchasing is not that high even though we need a lot more infrastructure.
Republicans have bitched about Social Security retirement benefits for decades. Cut taxes to hell and then demand a balanced budget
even during weak aggregate demand. OK, Greece's problems are enormous but listen to Paul Ryan enough and we will become a banana
republic.
"...not just greece. the collusion between the ECB and the French and German governments/banks, along with the IMF sends a clear
message to all the European "junior" states."
.
"...He stated that default would be "catastrophic" and that he saw his job as "attempting to save capitalism from itself." In short
exactly the role that FDR played in the U.S. "
.
"...Surely you can't believe Syriza is going to come out of that stronger? The banking system has basically collapsed, deal or no
deal. Plus. the Troika proposal also contains the poison pill of VAT increases for the islands, which would drive a wedge between Syriza
and it's nationalist allies. "
.
"...The combination of political cravenness combined with short-sightedness and a recklessness built on arrogance displayed by the
Troika should be truly sobering and is the real story, regardless of what now happens in Greece."
Greece doesn't need any loans. Greece doesn't need any debt. Once you are a monetary sovereign you call the shots. Just ask the
United States, or China, or Japan. Or Iceland. The central bank can recapitalize the economy with a new drachma, the only currency
that can be used domestically. It can fund infrastructure projects that invigorate the Greek economy without issuing debt because
it is producing assets, not liabilities. It can do so by avoiding what Keynes describe as 'a bookkeepers nightmare.' Keynes: "The
divorce between ownership and the real responsibility of management is serious within a country when, as a result of joint-stock
enterprise, ownership is broken up between innumerable individuals who buy their interest today and sell it tomorrow and lack altogether
both knowledge and responsibility towards what they momentarily own. But when the same principle is applied internationally, it is,
in times of stress, intolerable - I am irresponsible towards what I own and those who operate what I own are irresponsible towards
me. There may be some financial calculation which shows it to be advantageous that my savings should be invested in whatever quarter
of the habitable globe shows the greatest marginal efficiency of capital or the highest rate of interest. But experience is accumulating
that remoteness between ownership and operation is an evil in the relations between men, likely or certain in the long run to set
up strains and enmities which will bring to nought the financial calculation....
National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury which we can afford if we happen to want
it. Are there sufficient good reasons why we may happen to want it? The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in
the hands of which we found ourselves after the War, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just,
it is not virtuous - and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder
what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed."
While Tsipras, Syriza & Co. certainly are not the team that would win the Super bowl, far from it, they are nevertheless not
worse than the Troika in terms of incompetence, internal inconsistencies, having made populistic and crazy promises to voters
on false pretenses, etc. Greece is the unruly teenager and the Troika are supposed to be the enlightened and responsible parents,
even if it means being harsh. What we have instead is one entirely dysfunctional family.
My point is that even a 24 karat Greek Government would have an impossible task in negociating with the Ayatollahs of the Troika.
This game is therefore (unfortunately) not about acting rationally. Doing the right and responsible thing will not make you
win or at least lose less.
Therefore I think that Tsipras move to launch a referendum is not bad. If the ECB shuts off the ELA – a couple of days before
the citizens of Greece get to vote on the situation – then the ECB will (again) be confirmed at the Institution that kills democracy.
The Greek referendum has in my view been an option for the Greeks all the time. By doing it now "Ach mein Gott, way too late",
the Greeks show that the creditors, and their parliaments, do not own the agenda (and hence cannot use it as pressure point).
What we are witnessing is clearly not a negotiation. It is political warfare with one pygmy state against a totally overwhelming
force. I do not expect Greece to win this, in the end, but I hope that they will lose with dignity while the creditors win in
infamy. This is not irrelevant since the next generation of Greeks will need to know that their parents refused to surrender to
the, objectively, suicidal demands of the creditors....
Swedish Lex, June 27, 2015 at 7:33 am
I also believe that a Greek default would blow a big hole in the ECB's balance sheet, meaning that the euro states would have
to inject tens of billions of new equity. Real money. TBC.
Freddo, June 27, 2015 at 7:52 am
I wonder how Merkel is feeling right now. I would interpret telling Tspiras to "shut up" as a sign she sees her legacy disappearing
down a drain. Powerful leaders holding all the cards don't talk like that. Maybe she has suddenly realized she doesn't hold all
the cards.
ennui, June 27, 2015 at 10:06 am
not just greece. the collusion between the ECB and the French and German governments/banks, along with the IMF sends a
clear message to all the European "junior" states. the fact that the ECB has conducted a slow bank run in Greece destroys
any trust national political leaders might have in a European banking system. you can't have a central bank which is willing to
destroy the banking system of a member state to advance the political aims of other member states….
steviefinn, June 27, 2015 at 7:56 am
Swedish Lex
Agreed – & what is the difference in the end result between bowing & scraping & at least putting up some sort of fight ? Strikes
me that it would eventually end up in much the same place anyway. Maybe morals don't count in this counting house world anymore,
but however it ends, I personally am grateful to Syriza for allowing us more insight into the dealings of the EU Junta – which
hopefully others will learn from, leading to a way of destoying this hydra.
Lambert Strether, June 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Not sure what mechanism you have in mind. From the post:
[Syriza's] assumption appears to have been that the national governments
would find it too politically toxic to recognize losses on the debt they had extended to Greece through the EFSF and the Greek
Bailout Fund. But maturities on these facilities have been extended and payments deferred. And the national governments do not
have to mark to market. They will recognize losses only if and when Greece fails to make payments, which is years down the road.
And even then, the pain is spread out over decades. That means Greece's supposed nuclear weapon turns out to be a pop gun.
Granted, these are country losses (after they were left holding the bag for German banks) but you do't explain how the ECB
would lose. Would you, please?
Cugel, June 27, 2015 at 7:42 pm
Varoufakis last year explained everything before Syriza even took power. He stated that default would be "catastrophic"
and that he saw his job as "attempting to save capitalism from itself." In short exactly the role that FDR played in the U.S.
The difference of course is that the U.S. had a sovereign currency and could run deficits and FDR didn't have to answer to
the Troika. So, Syriza tried to get the creditors to see reason and see that it was in their long-term best interests to grant
debt-relief. They failed because of EU arrogance, blind adherence to dogma, and short-term thinking. But, they certainly didn't
have any other choice.
Yves has criticized them severely for not negotiating better. It is impossible to prove she's wrong that Syriza missed opportunities
for finding a workable compromise, but I've never seen it as remotely plausible that the creditors would agree to anything Greece
could accept.
The attempt at a referendum is obvious political theater and will be rejected by the Troika. It wouldn't work anyway. It
is just another political ploy by Tsipras to cast the blame on the Troika by making them look bad, but they are long past the
point of caring and just want Greece out of the EU.
Ben Johannson, June 27, 2015 at 3:35 pm
I can see no evidence that eurozone CB's must be in positive territory regarding its balance sheet or that member states must
make any "hole" whole. They may demand it anyway given the leaders of the eurogang are likely as stupid as they look but it isn't
an inevitability given the ECB does not require balance sheet solvency to conduct its operations.
ennui, June 27, 2015 at 1:15 pm
As Varoufakis notes in his recent statement, an agreement now would leave Syriza with a Greek economy in a deep depression,
a banking system that has been strangled by the ECB with no commitment to confidence building, a requirement to create a fiscal
surplus and monthly reviews by the IMF culminating in a repeat performance of this whole charade in November.
Surely you can't believe Syriza is going to come out of that stronger? The banking system has basically collapsed, deal
or no deal. Plus. the Troika proposal also contains the poison pill of VAT increases for the islands, which would drive a wedge
between Syriza and it's nationalist allies.
Whether it was intentional or not, Syriza's dogged commitment to this "negotiation" has illustrated just the degree to which
the Troika are acting in bad faith. There were just two outcomes that were possible from this process: Syriza signing a deal which
would be politically suicidal or Greek exit, and this was by design by the powers of Europe.
The combination of political cravenness combined with short-sightedness and a recklessness built on arrogance displayed
by the Troika should be truly sobering and is the real story, regardless of what now happens in Greece.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with http://neweconomicperspectives.org " rel="nofollow">New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... laissez faire. ..."
"... The Gospel According to St. Lloyd Blankfein ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with
http://neweconomicperspectives.org" rel="nofollow">New Economic Perspectives
A New York Times
article entitled "Championing Environment, Francis Takes Aim at Global Capitalism" quotes a conventional
Harvard economist, Robert N. Stavins. Stavins is enraged by Pope Francis' position on the environment
because the Pope is "opposed to the world economic order." The rage, unintentionally, reveals why
conventional economics is the most dangerous ideology pretending to be a "science."
Stavins' attacks on the Pope quickly became personal and dismissive. This is odd, for Pope Francis'
positions on the environment are the same as Stavins' most important positions. Stavins' natural
response to the Pope's views on the environment – had Stavin not been an economist – would have been
along the lines of "Pope Francis is right, and we urgently need to make his vision a reality."
Stavins' fundamental position is that there is an urgent need for a "radical restructuring" of
the markets to prevent them from causing a global catastrophe. That is Pope Francis' fundamental
position. But Stavins ends up mocking and trying to discredit the Pope.
I was struck by the similarity of Stavins response to Pope Francis to the rich man's response
to Jesus. The episode is reported in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in similar terms. I'll use Matthew's
version (KJAV), which begins at 19:16 with the verse:
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life?
Jesus responds:
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but
if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
The young rich man wants to know which commandments he needs to follow to gain eternal life.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
The young, wealthy man is enthused. The Rabbi that he believes has the secret of eternal life
has agreed to personally answer his question as to how to obtain it. He passes the requirements the
Rabbi lists, indeed, he has met those requirements since he was a child.
But then Jesus lowers the boom in response to the young man's question on what he "lacks."
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
We need to "review the bidding" at this juncture. The young man is wealthy. He believes that Jesus
knows the secret to obtaining eternal life. His quest was to discover – and comply – with the requirement
to achieve eternal life. The Rabbi has told him the secret – and then gone well beyond the young
man's greatest hopes by offering to make him a disciple. The door to eternal life is within the young
man's power to open. All he needs to do is give all that he owns to the poor. The Rabbi goes further
and offers to make the young man his disciple. In exchange, the young man will secure "treasure in
heaven" – eternal life and a place of particular honor for his sacrifice and his faith in Jesus.
Jesus' answer – the answer the young man thought he wished to receive more than anything in the
world – the secret of eternal life, causes the young man great distress.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
The young man rejects eternal life because he cannot bear the thought of giving his "great possessions"
to "the poor." Notice that the young man is not evil. He keeps the commandments. He is eager to do
a "good thing" to gain eternal life. He has "great possessions" and is eager to trade a generous
portion of his wealth as a good deed to achieve eternal life. In essence, he is seeking to purchase
an indulgence from Jesus.
But Jesus' response causes the young, wealthy man to realize that he must make a choice. He must
decide which he loves more – eternal life or his great possessions. He is "sorrowful" for Jesus'
response causes him to realize that he loves having his great possessions for his remaining span
of life on earth more than eternal life itself.
Jesus offers him not only the means to open the door to eternal life but the honor of joining
him as a disciple. The young man is forced by Jesus' offer to realize that his wealth has so fundamentally
changed him that he will voluntarily give up his entry into eternal life. He is not simply "sorrowful"
that he will not enter heaven – he is "sorrowful" to realize that heaven is open to him – but he
will refuse to enter it because of his greed. His wealth has become a golden trap of his own creation
that will damn him. The golden bars of his cell are invisible and he can remove them at any time
and enter heaven, but the young man realizes that his greed for his "great possessions" has become
so powerful that his self-created jail cell has become inescapable. It is only when Jesus opens the
door to heaven that the young man realizes for the first time in his life how completely his great
possessions have corrupted and doomed him. He knows he is committing the suicide of his soul – and
that he is powerless to change because he has been taught to value his own worth as a person by the
extent of his great possessions.
Jesus then makes his famous saying that captures the corrupting effects of great wealth.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The remainder of the passage is of great importance to Luther's doctrine of "justification by
faith alone" and leads to Jesus' famous discussion of why "the last shall be first," (in which his
anti-market views are made even more explicit) but the portions I have quoted are adequate to my
purpose.
Pope Francis' positions on the environment and climate are the greatest boon that Stavin has received
in decades. The Pope, like Stavins, tells us that climate change is a disaster that requires urgent
governmental action to fix. Stavins could receive no more joyous news. Instead of being joyous, however,
Stavins is sorrowful. Indeed, unlike the wealthy man who simply leaves after hearing the Rabbi's
views, Stavins rages at and heaps scorn on the prelate, Pope Francis. Stavins' email to the New
York Times about the Pope's position on climate change contains this double ideological smear.
The approach by the pope, an Argentine who is the first pontiff from the developing world,
is similar to that of a "small set of socialist Latin American countries that are opposed to the
world economic order, fearful of free markets, and have been utterly dismissive and uncooperative
in the international climate negotiations," Dr. Stavins said.
Stavins' work explicitly states that the "free markets" he worships are causing "mass extinction"
and a range of other disasters. Stavins' work explicitly states that the same "free markets" are
incapable of change – they cause incentives so perverse that they are literally suicidal – and the
markets are incapable of reform even when they are committing suicide by laissez faire.
That French term is what Stavins uses to describe our current markets. Pope Francis agrees with each
of these points.
Pope Francis says, as did Jesus, that this means that we must not worship "free markets," that
we must think first of the poor, and that justice and fairness should be our guides to proper conduct.
Stavins, like the wealthy young man, is forced to make a choice. He chooses "great possessions."
Unlike the wealthy young man, however, Stavins is enraged rather than "sorrowful" and Stavins lashes
out at the religious leader. He is appalled that an Argentine was made Pope, for Pope Francis holds
views "that are opposed to the world economic order [and] fearful of free markets." Well, yes. A
very large portion of the world's people oppose "the Washington Consensus" and want a very different
"world economic order." Most of the world's top religious leaders are strong critics of the "world
economic order."
As to being "fearful of free markets," Stavins' own work shows that his use of the word "free"
in that phrase is not simply meaningless, but false. Stavins explains that the people, animals, and
plants that are the imminent victims of "mass extinction" have no ability in the "markets" to protect
themselves from mass murder. They are "free" only to become extinct, which makes a mockery of the
word "free."
Similarly, Stavins' work shows that any sentient species would be "fearful" of markets that Stavins
proclaims are literally suicidal and incapable of self-reform. Stavins writes that only urgent government
intervention that forces a "radical restructuring" of the markets can save our planet from "mass
extinction." When I read that I believed that he was "fearful of free markets."
We have all had the experience of seeing the "free markets" blow up the global economy as recently
as 2008. We saw there, as well, that only massive government intervention could save the markets
from a global meltdown. Broad aspects of the financial markets became dominated by our three epidemics
of "accounting control fraud."
Stavins is appalled that a religious leader could oppose a system based on the pursuit and glorification
of "great possessions." He is appalled that a religious leader is living out the Church's mission
to provide a "preferential option for the poor." Stavins hates the Church's mission because it is
"socialist" – and therefore so obviously awful that it does not require refutation by Stavins. This
cavalier dismissal of religious beliefs held by most humans is revealing coming from a field that
proudly boasts the twin lies that it is a "positive" "science." Theoclassical economists embrace
an ideology that is antithetical to nearly every major religion.
Stavins, therefore, refuses to enter the door that Pope Francis has opened. Stavins worships a
system based on the desire to accumulate "great possessions" – even though he knows that the markets
pose an existential threat to most species on this planet and even though he knows that his dogmas
increasingly aid the worst, most fraudulent members of our society to become wealthy through forms
of "looting" (Akerlof and Romer 1993) that make other people poorer. The result is that Stavins denounces
Pope Francis rather than embracing him as his most valuable ally.
Conclusion: Greed and Markets Kill: Suicide by Laissez Faire
The old truths remain. The worship of "great possessions" wreaks such damage on our humanity that
we come to love them more than life itself and act in a suicidal fashion toward our species and as
mass destroyers of other species. Jesus' insight was that this self-corruption is so common, so subtle,
and so powerful that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God." Today, he would probably use "economist" rather than "camel."
Theoclassical economists are the high priests of this celebration of greed that Stavins admits
poses the greatest threat to life on our planet. When Pope Francis posed a choice to Stavins, he
chose to maintain his dogmatic belief in a system that he admits is suicidal and incapable of self-reform.
The reason that the mythical and mystical "free markets" that Stavins worships are suicidal and incapable
of self-reform even when they are producing "mass extinction" is that the markets are a system based
on greed and the desire to obtain "great possessions" even if the result is to damn us and life on
our planet.
Adam Smith propounded the paradox that greed could lead the butcher and baker (in a village where
everyone could judge reputation and quality) to reliably produce goods of high quality at the lowest
price. The butcher and baker, therefore, would act (regardless of their actual motivations) as if
they cared about their customers. Smith observed that the customer of small village merchant's products
would find the merchant's self-interest a more reliable assurance of high quality than the merchant's
altruism.
But Stavins makes clear in his writing that this is not how markets function in the context of
"external" costs to the environment. In the modern context, the energy markets routinely function
in a manner that Stavins rightly depicts as leading to mass murder. Stavins so loves the worship
of the quest for "great possessions" that he is eager to try to discredit Pope Francis as a leader
in the effort to prevent "mass extinction" (Stavins' term) – suicide by laissez faire.
(No, I am not now and never was or will be a Catholic.)
The Pope's recent comments stirred an old memory from when I was a child, for some reason.
Growing up in England in the 1980's, it didn't escape even my childish notice that the series
"Dr. Who" was often a vehicle for what would now been deemed outrageously left wing thinking and
ideas.
One such episode was
The Pirate Planet. The plot's premise was that a race had created a mechanism for consuming
entire planets at a time, extracting mineral wealth from the doomed planet being destroyed in
the process and using energy and resources for the benefit of a tiny ruling elite with the remnants
being offered as trinkets for the masses.
A small subset of the evil race was subliminally aware of what was happening. One of the lines
spoken by a character really stuck in my mind, when he said after the reality of their existence
was explained to him "so people die to make us rich?"
At the time, it was intended I think more as an allegory on the exploitation of South African
gold miners under apartheid than as a general critique of capitalism by the prevailing socialist
thinking in Britain in that era (it seems impossible now for me to believe how left wing Britain
was in the late 1970s and even into the very early 1980s, but that is indeed the case; it feels
like it was a completely different country. Perhaps it was ). No wonder the Thatcher government
aggressively targeted the BBC (who produced the show), seeing it, probably rightly, as a hotbed
of Trotskyite ideology.
But the point the show was trying to make is as valid now as it was then and is the same point
the Pope Francis is making. A great deal of our material wealth and affluence is built on others'
suffering. It is wrong. And the system which both perpetrates the suffering and the people who
benefit from it needs to change. Us turkeys are going to have to vote for Christmas.
Nice post, Clive. But I thought Brits ate goose at Christmas, and Americans eat turkey at Thanksgiving
;-)
Yes, where have all the leftists gone? Is Cornel West the only one "left" in America? Forty
years ago I was moving to the Right, in reaction to the Left. The Cold War was still on, patriotism
et al.
The current paradigm is insane so nature will not allow it to continue much longer. G-d not
so much. The US today is qualitatively different than it was in the 70s.
Trotsky was one of the first people to understand Hitler. Stalin not so much. Our current crop
of elder pundits of Neoliberalism originally were Jewish trotskyites back in the 60s. Neoliberalism
was perhaps pragmatic back then, but has outlived its usefulness.
The overweening arrogance of the Thatcherites and the neoclassical ideologues that are in evidence
at Harvard is their insistence that what they peddle is not a set of values, but a "science",
and that their set of values is the only set of values even worth considering (TINA). The Pope's
job is to remind us all of another possible set of values and organizing principles. No one said
you have to believe in them. But they have a right to be on the table when we collectively chose
what kind of world we want to live in.
"All he needs to do is give all that he owns to the poor." Bill Black
No. He is to sell all he owns but Jesus does not say that he is to then give away ALL the money.
The rich guy's problem is his possessions, not money. Note that Matthew, another rich guy, did
not give away all his money yet he was a disciple of Jesus.
As for "free markets", what is free market about government-subsidized/privileged banks?
something didn't read right about this piece to me. hard to put my finger on it, but it came
across as a bit hypocritical and a lot bitter. apart from that, the style is eclectic and the
thoughts are scrambled all over the place. more a rant than a coherent argument.
It all began when I arrived. After travelling some 48 hours from South Africa to Southern
California, carrying films and books for the conference, I was not even met at the airport.
So I took a taxi. But nobody met me at the place where I was supposed to stay. I stood on the
street for more than one hour.
in this passage he sounds like he suffers from affluenza. in those poor but righteous third
world countries, he is treated like a rockstar. in the rotten US, he is dismayed at the lack of
attention. although no doubt he has a point, it smacks a bit of entitlement.
not vltchek's best work, but then again, he did admit to writing most of it on the plane.
it seems impossible now for me to believe how left wing Britain was in the late 1970s
and even into the very early 1980s, but that is indeed the case; it feels like it was a completely
different country.
True. And greed, as described by Bill Black. has no limits.
"Theoclassical economists are the high priests of this celebration of greed that Stavins
admits poses the greatest threat to life on our planet. When Pope Francis posed a choice to
Stavins, he chose to maintain his dogmatic belief in a system that he admits is suicidal and
incapable of self-reform. The reason that the mythical and mystical "free markets" that Stavins
worships are suicidal and incapable of self-reform even when they are producing "mass extinction"
is that the markets are a system based on greed and the desire to obtain "great possessions"
even if the result is to damn us and life on our planet."
This is an extremely important point. We cannot combat neoliberal ideology as if it were simply
a set of rational assumptions, albeit flowing from flawed premises. No, it is a religious
dogma of greed, set up to combat all of the more communitarian and gentle schools of
religious thought– including the Christianity of Pope Francis, or the environmentalism of St.
Francis, the patron saint of ecologists.
Good to see that someone else pulls out the "rich young man" bit occasionally. Not many Christians
I've talked to seem to be aware of it, much less of the implications. Good on ya'.
fundamentalists like to take things in the bible literally, but they know that jesus
didn't mean it when he said that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
Maybe he didn't realize that his possessions owned him, but the rich young man knew that *something*
was wrong. For all his virtue and good works, he could feel things weren't right inside himself.
Pope Francis probably hasn't read The Gospel According to St. Lloyd Blankfein. If
he had read it, he would know that investment bankers are doing God's work.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union liberated Americans from our fear of nuclear Armageddon, the
foreign policy of the United States has come to rely almost exclusively on economic sanctions,
military deterrence, and the use of force. Coercion replaced diplomacy and for some reason several female psychopaths
was selected to implement this policy. all of them were single trick ponies: "my way or highway" was
the only method they have in their arsenal. For a while it produced results because dominance
of the USA after 1991, but since 2008 with crisis of neoliberalism, it started to produce the level
hate which became a became factor limiting possibilities of the USA to conduct foreign policy. As the result, as Chas Freena noted in
The American Conservative, "The United States has forfeited its capacity to pursue American
interests through negotiated solutions." Andrew Bacevich promoted the same thesis even earlier
in his book The
Limits of Power The End of American Exceptionalism
"...This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force
of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not."
"..."Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political
base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue."
"...While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her
European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well."
...In interviews with Foreign Policy, her European colleagues have described her as "brash," "direct,"
"forceful," "blunt," "crude," and occasionally, "undiplomatic." But they also stressed that genuine
policy differences account for their frustrations with her - in particular, her support for sending
arms to Ukraine as the country fends off a Russian-backed rebellion, a policy not supported by the
White House.
"She doesn't engage like most diplomats," said a European official. "She comes off
as rather ideological."
While European complaints about Nuland's diplomatic style are genuine and fairly ubiquitous, she
has also been dealt an incredibly difficult hand.
Nuland frequently meets with senior European leaders who outrank her and delivers messages they
often don't want to hear.
In a crisis of this magnitude, many of these delicate tasks would traditionally get kicked up
to Nuland's boss, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman. But Sherman has
been saddled with the momentous job of leading the U.S. negotiating team in the Iran nuclear talks,
giving Nuland an unusual degree of latitude and influence for an assistant secretary.
This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force
of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not.
"Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political
base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue.
In Europe, Nuland is widely presumed to be the leading advocate for shipping weapons to Kiev -
a proposal bitterly opposed by the Germans, Hungarians, Italians, and Greeks who fear setting off
a wider conflict with Moscow.
The White House has also argued against providing lethal assistance to Kiev because Moscow enjoys
what's known as "escalation dominance," or the ability to outmatch and overwhelm Ukrainian forces
regardless of the type of assistance the United States would provide.
Nuland is not the only Obama administration official who has supported arming Ukraine, but in
Europe, she has become the face of this policy, thanks to a pivotal event that occurred in February
during the annual Munich Security Conference.
At the outset of the forum, Nuland and Gen. Philip Breedlove delivered an off-the-record briefing
to the visiting U.S. delegation, which included about a dozen U.S. lawmakers in the House and Senate.
Unbeknownst to Nuland and Breedlove, a reporter from the German newspaper Bild snuck into
the briefing room and published a report that reverberated across Germany but gained little to no
traction in English-language media.
The report said Nuland and Breedlove were pressing U.S. lawmakers to support the shipment of defensive
weapons to Ukraine and belittling the diplomatic efforts German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French
President François Hollande were making in Russia.
"We would not be in the position to supply so many weapons that Ukraine could defeat Russia. That
is not our goal," Breedlove was quoted as saying. "But we must try to raise the price for Putin on
the battlefield."
Nuland reportedly added, "I would like to urge you to use the word 'defensive system' to describe
what we would be delivering against Putin's offensive systems," according to a translation.
... ... ...
In December, Democrats and Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation authorizing
the president to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, including ammunition, troop-operated surveillance
drones, and antitank weapons. The president agreed to sign the legislation only because it did not
require him to provide the aid, which he has yet to do. Trying a new tactic this week, the Senate
included a provision in its military policy bill that would withhold half of the $300 million for
Ukrainian security assistance until 20 percent of the funds is spent on lethal weaponry for Kiev.
The provision is opposed by the White House for fear that lethal assistance would only serve to escalate
the bloodshed in Ukraine and hand Putin an excuse for further violent transgressions.
While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her
European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well.
"Some tend to perceive Nuland's assertiveness as a bit too over the edge, at least for the muffled
European diplomatic environment," said Federiga Bindi, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University's
School of Advanced International Studies.
... ... ...
Despite the fact that Nuland is not outside the mainstream of many State Department views on the
Ukraine crisis, her reputation as the most pugnacious of hawks isn't likely to subside in the minds
of Europeans anytime soon. In many ways, that's because she'll never live down the moment that made
her famous: the leaking of a private phone call of her disparaging the European Union in 2014 as
the political standoff between the Ukrainian opposition and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
unfurled.
In addition to sanctions, Western-controlled Ukraine increases pressure on the Russian elite,
by going after their property.
We already wrote about the Ukrainian junta making moves primarily, legal, on the seizure of Russian
state property in Ukraine -
http://pravoe-org.livejournal.com/521470.html
Perhaps the most serious take over was a pipeline in Western Ukraine of the Russian state corporation
"Transneft".
Now, however, the situation has changed. Ukraine started seizing the property of the Russian oligarchs.
The hype just increased in the last few days, especially on June 10 and 11, when it became clear
that the Minsk-2 is going down the drain. Basically, the flood gates had opened.
In the period from June 8 to 11 a process of requisition of property of the Russian oligarchs
began in Ukraine. First of all, Oleg Deripaska lost (in favor of the state) the Zaporozhye Aluminum
plant, and Viktor Vekselberg, with a combination of pressure from the Prosecutor's office and an
armed takeover, is losing the Pobuzhsky Ferronikel plant.
However, ukies honestly warned about such scenario by the raider №1 in Ukraine - Gennady Korban
(a person close to "Benya" Kolomoisky [Korban is former deputy governor of Dnepropetrovsk region
- KR], and Korban had the experience of seizing the Russian property in the pre-Maidan era). At the
end of May, Korban announced his plan on how to repossess the Russian property:
"Russian banks on the territory of Ukraine shall be confiscated in the first place. They can affect
both the exchange rate and loan servicing and property of state corporations. Today a number of Ukrainian
state corporations just service the enemy credits".
"If these or other capitals, originating from Russia, are related to specific individuals, directly
or indirectly involved in the funding or facilitating terrorism, separatism and the war in our country,
then, on the basis of this law, their property on mainland Ukraine must be confiscated," - said Korban,
and as an example, listed a number of large Ukrainian enterprises, owned by Russian oligarchs:
Nikolaev Alumina refinery and ZAlK [Zaporozhye Aluminum plant] of Oleg Deripaska
Pobujsky Ferronickel plant of Viktor Vekselberg
Coal coke enterprises, the "South" mine and Dnepropetrovsk Petrovsky metallurgical plant,
belonging to the group "Evraz"
Purchased by VTB group, assets of the Industrial Union of Donbass
Today, the "Cunning Plan of Korban", unlike the CPP [the Cunning Plan of Putin], is being implemented.
Actively implemented. Here are the facts:
First, nationalization
On June 9, junta has completed the process of "nationalization" of Zaporozhye Aluminium plant:
ZALK was adjudged from the holding "RUSAL" of Russian Oleg Deripaska. The controlling stake, which
is 68.01% of the total number of shares was credited to the account of the State Property Fund of
Ukraine. State raiding by the junta became possible after March 11, when the supreme court upheld
the "legitimacy" of demands for the return of shares to the state due to the failure by the investor
(Deripaska's holding company) to fulfill obligations (formally, the Russian "AVTOVAZ-Invest" and
Cyprus company Velbay Holdings could not settle a debt). The official message of junta Prosecutor
General can be found here:
http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=157430
It's also important to note that Korban's gang set its sights on ZALK since the end of last year:
"In early November, the plant (ZALK) came under the cross-hairs of fighters of battalion "Aidar",
the financing of which is connected to the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, Igor Kolomoisky. On
the night of November 9, 2014 the fighters of Aydar barricaded themselves in the building of Zaporozhzhye
Aluminium plant, allegedly "to prevent looting". Zaporozhye police had to aid in liberating
the plant from the patriots.
But it was too rough, now they decided to maintain the facade of legitimacy.
Second, revocation of licenses and liquidation
On June 11, in the afternoon, the National Bank of Ukraine adopted the decision on revocation of
the banking license and liquidation of "Energobank", according to the resolution of the board of
the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) No. 370, dated June 11.
Formally "Energobank" is owned by a Russian businessman, Anatoly Danilitskiy. Previously, it belonged
to the group of oligarch Alexander Lebedev, the one who likes to engage in publishing activity in
London. However, two years ago information surfaced, that there is a written obligation of the new
owner Anatoly Danilitsky on reissuance of shares of the bank to the "National Reserve Company" (NRK)
of Lebedev. Thus, Danilitsky owns "Energobank" nominally, but the real owner is still Alexander Lebedev.
Security services of Ukraine considered the bank a financial "wash" of the Russian oligarchs.
June 11, in the evening. A capture of Pobujsky Ferronickel plant (PFC). This is the only enterprise
in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union, producing ferronickel on an industrial scale from poor oxidized
nickel ores. Located on the territory of Kirovograd region, on the border with Nikolaev region.
Here is the sequence of events:
1. In Golovanevsk district, Kirovograd region, at around 21:00 a group of armed men tried to enter
the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant, at the moment they were negotiating with the administration, reported
the head of the village council of Dolgaya Pristan of the Nikolaev region, Sergey Titarenko (this
settlement is adjacent to the Kirovograd region). "About an hour ago armed men tried to enter the
Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant. Our town is a mile from the plant. We could hear shooting. At the moment
there is information on negotiations between the invaders and the administration, " said Sergey Titarenko.
In Pobuzhye, the village head, Sergey Slobodyanyuk explained: "Even this morning the representatives
of the prosecutor and tax authorities of Kirovograd region, accompanied by the detachment of police,
tried to enter the territory of the enterprise, but only a tax investigator went into the plant.
At 9 p.m. about 50 people with guns in black uniforms arrived on buses. They failed to get inside,
facing resistance from the staff and the guards. Meanwhile, armed men accompanied the man, who declared
that according to the decision of the court, he is the new owner of the Ferronickel plant", - said
Sergey Slobodyanyuk. He also added that tomorrow morning, to avoid bloodshed a meeting for the employees,
the current administration and the alleged new owner of the enterprise will be held in Pobuzhye House
of Culture to determine the fate of the plant.
2. In the evening, at a press conference in Kiev, the CEO of the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant,
Oleg Bespalov has informed that on June 11, unknown persons were trying to block the products of
Pobujsky Ferronickel plant in Kirovograd region, the investor of which is Solway Investment Group:
"Actions by unknown persons to block the import of a large batch of nickel ore and ferronickel
and the prosecutor's office of Kirovograd region conducting simultaneous search actions, we
consider as an attempt of illegal seizure of the property of the group"
Deputy director of the PFC on legal affairs, Rustam Dzhamgurov, in turn added that accusations
towards PFC are absurd, because PFC provides processing services and does not produce the product,
and added that enforcement proceedings opened against PFC were opened due to a claim of a physical
person, who has no relation to the company. Dzhamgurov clarified that this individual has never appeared
in court and did not provide explanatory materials on the case:
"In this case we are talking about an organized judicial arbitrariness and lawlessness ... 72
thousand tonnes of ore and 7 thousand tons of ferronickel were arrested. The company is carrying
huge losses."
3. The products of PFC are shipped through the port of Ilyichevsk, and there it was detained.
(Ilyichevsk - is Odessa region, where Saakashvili is now governor). It is important that on June
8 a scandal was raised claiming the products of PFC are used for defense purposes and are illegally
shipped to Russia:
"Press service (of the port) stated that on Monday, June 8, false information was circulated about
the alleged illegal shipment of ferronickel products used in the defense industry, in particular,
in the production of alloy steel for armored vehicles. At the port this media campaign to discredit
the head of the enterprise, Yury Kruk, was connected to the search for the position of director of
the Ilyichevsk Commercial Sea Port, conducted by the Ministry of Infrastructure. On June 8, some
online media, indeed, reported that allegedly the arrested batch of 7 thousand tons of ferronickel
was being loaded on the ship "Seldonis" at terminal 4 of Pier 18 of the Ilyichevsk port. ... The
shipment of ferronickel is allegedly owned by "Bowring Trading", and it was going to be transported
to Russia."
Oh, and by the way, who is watching TV? Is there anything on Russia-24 or the Channel 1 on the
an armed seizure of a Ferronickel plant, which essentially belongs to Russian investors? And on the
liquidation of a Russian Bank? Nothing? Let's pretend, it's not ours?... Oh, well...
And more. Such an attack on the property of the Russian oligarchs (Deripaska, and most importantly,
Vekselberg, and the attack will likely continue) is going on with the full support of the state -
Prosecutor General. Therefore, it is planned. Consequently, it's a part of a master plan. A
plan of pressure on their property, in addition to the sanctions of the West against Russia, which
were largely intended to cause discontent in the Russian oligarchy. Today, yesterday, the day before
yesterday a second front was opened in this direction.
A two-part Al Jazeera documentary examines how technology is hollowing out former mid-range skill,
middle income jobs, and how that process is set to intensify over the coming decade. My brother and
sister-in-law, who are both in outsourcing, say the studies they've seen on the number of jobs expected
to be displaced come up with mind-bogglingly high estimates.
The documentary acknowledges that Luddites in the past have worried about workers being threatened
by the march of technology when in fact growth has led to more jobs. But things aren't that simple.
The first two generations of the Industrial Revolution led to lower standards of large swathes of
the population. And the prognosis for lower and even many higher skilled workers now is grim, with
experts saying that they see the potential for substitution of workers as far greater than in other
periods of technological advances.
Needless to say, these forecasts explain the reluctance of the top wealthy to continue to support
public education. They don't anticipate needing as many skilled workers. Moreover, well educated
under-employed citizens would make for a more effective opposition.
Kas Thomas, June 8, 2015 at 4:26 am
In 1900, if you lost your job due to technology, you could find another one because 99.99%
of all jobs could be done only by humans. That's no longer the case. From here on out, an ever-greater
number of unemployed will be chasing the ever-shrinking number of jobs that can't be eliminated
(or crapified) by technology. That's why this time, things for the Luddites are qualitatively
quite different indeed. Historically so.
The musical chairs game will continue until (as Frey and Osborne say) half of all jobs have been
either been eliminated or turned into Mechanical Turk "gigs" a la Thumbtack (which pay far less
than minimum wage and come with zero benefits). In the Uber economy there will be plenty of (non)employees
living in their cars, perhaps giving new meaning to the word "livery."
James Levy, June 8, 2015 at 6:48 am
I agree, and furthermore I object to the contention that in the past lost jobs are automatically
replaced with new ones. If you scan the Rust Belt you'll find that jobs lost in the 70s-80s were
either 1) never replaced, 2) replaced with much less well-paid and socially valorized jobs, or
3) jobs did emerge, but the actual men (almost always men) who lost those jobs were not the ones
to get the new ones.
What Economists and their minions demand is that we be a nation of vagabonds, endlessly tramping
from place to place like farmworkers in The Grapes of Wrath. And even that peripatetic way of
living no longer guarantees anything. This inability of Economists to quantify the value of communities
and rootedness and the self-esteem that comes from performing a socially respected occupation
(like steel worker or tool and die maker) is one critical way in which their pronouncements are
not only flawed, they are socially destructive.
JTMcPhee, June 8, 2015 at 9:22 pm
Both bio- and nanotech offer some really great likelihoods that accident, error, and/ or misanthropic
evil intent will turn loose all four of the Horsemen..http://jcb.utoronto.ca/people/publications/nanotechnology_paper.pdf
, a mild link among some with hair maybe justifiably on fire.
Not to mention that a few people are starting to see some thorns among the roses of infinite Skynet,
and that so artfully ill-named "artificial intelligence…" Some
And a Commission has been commissioned to study the issue.. I wonder if any of them will review
the "Terminator" movies, or that children's favorite, the "Transformers" franchise, let alone
generations of speculative sci-fi thought experiments that examine the Golem theme and fables…
Stupid f___king humans. We do it to ourselves, for pride and profit and pseudopatiotism 'n stuff…
Ep3, June 8, 2015 at 6:15 am
Yves, my first level accounting professor told me to minor in computers, and he was tremendously
correct. All accounting today relies on database management, either SQL or some close cousin.
Sure, u still have to be able to put together a balance sheet and P&L. But the more u can automate
that, the less the traditional accounting function is needed.
sam s smith, June 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm
Automation has been very useful to accounting fraud.
washunate, June 8, 2015 at 7:48 am
This is one of those areas where I will continue politely but firmly pushing back against the
technology/jobs neoliberal meme.
The issue is not skills or technology or outsourcing or anything like that. Those are concepts
created out of thin air to distract attention from the looting.
Work is crappy today because public policy makes it that way.
Jesper, June 8, 2015 at 8:05 am
The three bottlenecks:
1. Need for social intelligence. Not a bottleneck, just not there yet but voice- and
facial-analysis is making progress. Maybe add the body-monitor read-outs (blood-pressure, pulse
etc) and the feeling of the human can be analysed well. The tricky part might be the response
but people are already today easily manipulated by sociopaths so….
2. Need for creativity. Not a bottleneck. Music, movies and literature is more formulaic
than ever now. Yep, I'm feeling old…. & already today many creative people work for nothing, some
earn a little and even less can live on their creative talents.
3. Environment is needs to be more structured. Not a bottleneck. Most working environments
were many are working are hugely structured.
If nothing is changed then the future will belong to two groups: capital owners and the few who
managed to out-compete the rest. Impossible to guess which of the two group will be the largest.
The question is how to divide all the efficiency gains.
dk, June 8, 2015 at 8:41 am
When population increases past the point where each individual can contribute unique or rare
capability, that population (the individuals in it, by eventual extension the population as a
whole) becomes more vulnerable to predation in the form of consolidation of skill for competitive
advantage. Being able to off load work performance from the species entirely only exacerbates
the problem.
In our quest for preserving life from challenge (disease, trauma, war, disaster) we have generated
a population too huge to manage to our own satisfaction(1).. We achieved this by creating elaborate
technologies; we have always leveraged these technologies against what we considered threats,
without foreseeing that over-leverage would cause us to threaten ourselves. This is now happening
on several fronts, it distresses me somewhat when people notice one or more fronts without including
population as a driving factor in the base scenario. Of course, this is not the only way in which
a group/community/culture/species can fail, but it's the one that's happening now.
1) Diversities, which are healthy for populations in the biological and cultural sense, make uniform
management impossible; the ideal of uniform management is purely abstract, arising when an individual
(or small group) sees themselves as independently superior to others. This kind of thinking arises
from a limited view of hierarchy which limits itself to pyramidal tree models. Pyramidal trees
are powerful general tools, but they can be optimized for given tasks, by rendering to other models/shapes.
TG, June 8, 2015 at 9:05 am
The rich don't care about higher education because they know that there is a virtually
infinite supply of skilled (and unskilled) workers in the overpopulated third world. Oh,
and of course, because our present generation of oligarchs is completely short term: it's how
much can I strip-mine from the nation before it's all used up, then I will simply sail away on
my yacht, renounce my now-worthless citizenship and wring my hands that the American people were
not worthy of my great leadership.
Automation does not greatly threaten unskilled jobs. This is sometimes called "Moravec's Paradox":
what seems simple to us, like sorting laundry, is in reality a very complex task, and what seems
hard – like playing chess at the master level – is actually easy. It's just that sorting laundry
SEEMS easy because this is the kind of task that the human body evolved to do. For example, the
"Roomba" robotic vacuum cleaner is, after all these years of development, still just an expensive
toy. It has zero impact on the market for janitors and maids. Wages for American janitors and
maids have fallen because of massive immigration, combined with all those people displaced from
outsourcing, flooding the market for labor.
The issue of automation displacing "skilled" workers is more complex. Certainly it is not having
a substantive impact NOW. It may have an impact in automated tech support and things like that.
More generally? Until computers have true natural language ability and have solved the "grounding
problem", I suspect not that much. As of this moment, we are a lot farther away from solving these
issues than you might think.
Steven, June 8, 2015 at 11:33 am
This country's fate was sealed when the children of its Robber Barons turned the wealth their
ancestors had accumulated for them to Wall Street and its banks, just as Britain's was foreordained
when the wealth of its landed aristocracy and its first industrialists was monetized and sent
beyond its borders in search of higher returns than could be had at home. For the monetarily wealthy,
all that matters is the ability to buy low(er) and sell high(er). There is no 'long term', no
'investing'; there is only day-trading, nothing beyond the legally enforceable details of the
current deal, beyond finding the next 'greater fool'.
It is a measure of just how insane the public mind has become that someone like Mitt Romney could
get away with calling himself a patriotic American and 'wealth creator' by selling out the country.
(It was probably the same kind of thinking behind all the treason by Ford, IBM, Standard Oil et
al. during WWII, i.e. they had a higher duty to make themselves rich regardless of who won.)
Frederick Soddy listed the three ingredients of genuine wealth creation as discovery, natural
(i.e. inanimate) energy, and diligence. Mechanization and automation have perhaps all but annihilated
the need for diligence. But along with it they may have also destroyed opportunities for discovery,
at least in connection with the processes necessary for sustaining life. How many of us would
have a basic grasp of the science required to make a 'discovery', e.g. to understand and perhaps
improve the processes employed in say an oil refinery or a magnetic imaging device?
Oligarchs, not just in the US but the world over, are probably united in their belief of the transcendent
importance of money. Who needs science and technology, an industrial society, when the world is
teeming with skilled and unskilled labor and resources you can buy with money you don't even have
to have? Just ask Janet Yellen and her Fed to create it for you.
It is not yet clear that the leaders of China and other developing nations understand what
Western oligarchs apparently do not – the real sources of wealth and power in the modern world.
Particularly in the US there seems to be a belief a country can specialize in high technology
death and destruction, leaving the production of day to day necessities to countries that haven't
yet caught onto the secrets of financial engineering and the essential worthlessness of the private
money they are creating – even when they succeed in offloading it onto a gullible public using
clever euphemisms like QE for their looting.
But the day may be fast approaching when we find out – whether the Chinese, for example, remember
that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." ('and our enemies are so stupid
they have destroyed the foundations of the power they once used so effectively to colonize and
oppress us'.) The date of the last 'big game' is fast approaching with the West's oligarchs staking
their (our) all on the US dollars they've been able to stack up in their off-shore bank accounts
(a pair of twos) against a combination of most of the world's industrial capacity and a workforce
that knows how to use it and Russian fossil fuel resources and military technology.
Mark, June 8, 2015 at 11:41 am
In the fall of 1970, Governor Reagan's aide Roger Freeman, who later served as President Nixon's
educational policy advisor, while he was working at the time for California Governor Ronald Reagan's
reelection campaign, commented on Reagan's education policy: "We are in danger of producing an
educated proletariat. That's dynamite! We have to be selective about who we allow to through higher
education. If not, we will have a large number of highly trained and unemployed people."
I'd bet the first draft of the Patriot Act came shortly thereafter. Now I know why we need
the Homeland Security Agency!
sam s smith, June 8, 2015 at 2:30 pm
If you watch film from the protests and riots of the 1960's, that is what the oligarchs are
afraid of.
Dealing with that is the true mission of the Dept of Homeland Security.
Anonymous123, June 8, 2015 at 11:41 am
My husband and I were actually discussing this exact issue yesterday. I was pointing out that
in economics, the Solow model assumes that technology increases the potential output of the economy–the
tide rises for everyone. But what we see in reality is that technology actually contributes to
massive job losses for some groups, which is never accounted for in the model–groups that may
have very specialized skills and are hard to retrain, in some cases.
My husband argued that since the Solow model predicts long term growth, so many of these
short term inefficiencies are moot in the long run. But I think the problem remains that you can
have a skill mismatch that persists for quite some time. Can a radiologist (a job ripe for automation)
really be retrained into a job that still gives that individual a similar level of income? Doubtful.
I think models like this show just how much economists are divorced from the reality of what's
happening on the ground.
craazyboy, June 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Well, combine massive job loss and the fact that corporate American has been successful in
reducing the effective corporate tax "burden" over the last 20 years to half of what it was, in
terms of the percentage of USG tax revenues collected from individuals vs. corporations, we should
be able to more accurately predict when America ends.
OTOH, in the mundane biz world we began transitioning from sneaker net in the '80s, so I'm rather
pleased the "professions" are finally catching up. IBM's Dr. Watson could be a huge benefit –
depending on what his fees are, of course.
Then again, Dr Watson's fees could be mitigated by going to the advertising model. Health care
and pharma companies could buy ads from Dr. Watson and Dr. Watson would diagnose illnesses and
recommend the advertiser's products and services. That could happen too. Dr. Google!
casino implosion, June 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm
This guy has a great blog dealing with this:
https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/
Also check out Nick Land's blogs and Martin Ford's "LIghts In the Tunnel".
Bill Houghton, June 8, 2015 at 9:15 pm
In medicine, a computer scanner can look at a tissue slice and diagnosis it as well as the
pathologist, most of the time. The pathologist is out of a job. In some subtle cases the scanner
gets it wrong. Nurse practitioners can prescribe medication almost as well as doctors, for large
numbers of people.
What are called "treatment guidelines" can steer them pretty well, and even the MD workers
start to use the guidelines after a while. The technology has advantages for large numbers of
patients.
The two areas where it misses are more subtle diagnostic challenges, and the fact that many
ordinary citizens, as patients, can tell that they do not have a full human being helping them.
They can tell they are doing with a robot . The result is that they will not form a firm attachment
to the caretaker. Feeling more alone, particularly under a time of stress, it's apt to lead to
more mental illness. Not only will there be fewer jobs for the middle class, but many people will
be more depressed. Would you rather live to be 110 years old, and be unhappy, or would you rather
work and be happy, but die at 60?
Felix, June 8, 2015 at 9:46 pm
An easier and cheaper way to make medical care more efficient would be to eliminate measures
of patient satisfaction and outlaw the use of antibiotics for the common cold…..don't bother visiting
the doctor because you are not going to get what you want…….outlaw the use of narcotics for chronic
musculoskeletal pain……don't bother visiting the doctor because all you are going to get is over
the counter motrin………and eliminate the entire work/disability/cash nexus……you don't get to visit
the doctor to get an off work order……..perhaps there could be a mandatory allocation of sick days
to be taken for whatever cause……..That would take care of about 80% of all primary care visits……with
no deterioration in the quality of care…….
And why would a hospital buy a DaVinci robot for surgery for 2 million if it was really anything
other than a marketing tool?
Invest the 2 million and hire yourself a surgeon from Bombay…..a lot cheaper……surgical robots
are just that……marketing gimmicks aimed at unsophisticated consumers. Even better……a computerized
laser Robot!!!!!
New Research Does Not Provide Any Reason to Doubt that CEO Pay Fueled Top 1% Income Growth:
A new paper, Firming up Inequality, has been
receiving substantial attention in the media for its claim that wage inequality is not
occurring within firms but only occurs between firms. The authors claim that their results
disprove the claim made by me and others, such as Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, that the
growth of top 1 percent incomes was driven by the pay of executives and those in the financial
sector. Though the authors present valuable new data, which offers the possibility of great
insights, their current analysis does not disprove that executive pay has fueled top 1 percent
income growth. In fact, the study neither examines nor rebuts claims about executive pay.
The authors also offer a "we live in the best possible world" interpretation of their
findings-inequality is due to high productivity growth of "superfirms." This is pure
speculation and is completely disconnected from their actual empirical work.
A similar study examined productivity
trends and contradicts their narrative about superfirms.
Last, there are reasons to be skeptical of their findings because they imply huge wage
disparities have opened up between median workers across firms within an industry that are
implausible. ...
He goes in to explain in detail.
anne said...
There is a trick played by the writers of "Firming up Inequality," the trick is that the
writers begin the study after there had been a dramatic increase in the relative wage levels of
top corporate executives. By 1980, the difference in wages of ordinary workers and top executives
was largely in place.
The 1970s was a time of corporate manager or executive "revolution," as John Bogle remarked in
a lecture I heard, and I have wondered for several years whether the ideas of Milton Friedman *
provided a basis for this revolution.
Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said bankers who have engaged in wrongdoing
should be punished, and he chided the industry for pushing back against financial regulations
adopted to prevent another conflagration.
"Individuals should be punished for any misconduct they personally engaged in," Fischer
said in a speech to bankers Monday in Toronto. While massive fines are being imposed on banks,
"one does not see the individuals who were responsible for some of the worst aspects of bank
behavior, for example in the Libor and foreign-exchange scandals, being punished severely."
Some of the world's biggest banks, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and
Barclays Plc, have agreed to pay more than $10 billion to U.S., U.K. and Swiss authorities to
settle probes into rigging of foreign-exchange rates.
Financial firms have also paid about $9 billion to settle allegations they were involved in
rigging the London interbank offered rate, a benchmark used in more than an estimated $300
trillion of securities, from interest-rate swaps to mortgages and student loans.
Fischer, who leads a committee to avoid the emergence of asset-price bubbles, also said
central bankers shouldn't rule out using interest rates to maintain financial stability. Policy
makers want to ensure that six years of near-zero rates don't lead to a repeat of the U.S.
housing boom and subsequent financial crisis.
"I don't at present see a major financial crisis on the horizon, but whenever you say that
you know you're looking for trouble," Fischer said in response to an audience question after
his speech.
With the costs of the crisis still being felt in the form of persistently slow growth, Fischer
warned central bankers against complacency about the risks of another crisis.
"There is now growing evidence that recessions lead not only to a lower level of future
output, but also to a persistently lower growth rate," Fischer, 71, said in a speech that
surveyed the lessons of financial crises over the past 20 years.
He cited a "lively discussion" led by former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who has
argued the U.S. could face a period of "secular stagnation." Others, including economists Carmen
Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, say the U.S. and other economies are slow to recover from crises
fueled by debt.
"It may take many years until we know the answer to the question of whether we are in a
situation of secular stagnation or a debt supercycle," Fischer said to the International
Monetary Conference.
Fischer criticized efforts to roll back financial regulation.
Banker Complaints
"Often when bankers complain about regulations, they give the impression that financial crises
are now a thing of the past, and furthermore in many cases, that they played no role in the
previous crisis."
Fischer joined the Fed a year ago. He led the Bank of Israel from 2005 to 2013. He was the
International Monetary Fund's No. 2 official from 1994 to 2001, years that encompassed the Asian
crisis, and the World Bank's chief economist from 1988 to 1990.
Fischer didn't comment on the outlook for monetary policy. Fed officials led by Chair Janet
Yellen are considering when to raise their benchmark lending rate, with the next meeting
scheduled for June 16-17.
Yellen said on May 22 that the central bank plans to raise interest rates at some point this
year, even though the economy contracted in the first quarter. She said that "the pace of
normalization is likely to be gradual."
Growth Potential
A slowdown in the long-run potential growth rate of the economy has lowered the bar that gross
domestic product must clear for the central bank to increase rates, according to Fed watchers
including Michael Feroli of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Feroli estimated the long-term growth rate at
1.75 percent, which is lower than Fed estimates.
Gross domestic product shrank at a 0.7 percent annualized rate in the first quarter. Since the
recession ended in June 2009, GDP has grown at an average annual pace of 2.2 percent.
The author proposes an alternative strategy called conservative American realism. It is designed
to appeal to the center mass of today's conservatives by triangulating the three factions. This
strategy seeks to counter the perceived retrenchment of the last six years, and explicitly embraces
American primacy. Primacy, to Dueck, is "a circumstance and an interest, not a strategy." Conservative
American realism emphasizes reassuring allies that the United States seeks to remain a key player
in the international arena by expanding forward presence and bolstering deterrence. Dueck details
U.S. fundamental interests, and defines the specific adversaries that must be countered. These
include state competitors (China and Russia), rogue states like North Korea, and jihadi terrorists.
To deal with the latter, the author chides Mr. Obama for half-hearted approaches, and suggests
these implacable foes require solutions that are "appropriately Carthaginian." One wonders how
far Dueck would really take that historical analogy - enslave Muslims or salt their lands?
Based on the description of Dueck's "conservative American realism" in the review, it is debatable
whether the proposed strategy qualifies as either conservative or realist. It would appear to
commit the U.S. in too many places to bear burdens that our allies and clients should be taking on
for themselves, and it does so out of a misguided concern that the U.S. has not been activist enough
during the Obama presidency. I don't know what Dueck means by "appropriately Carthaginian" solutions,
but the implication that the U.S. should be seeking to ruin and dominate other nations in such a
fashion is disturbing in itself. It is not at all clear that the U.S. should be doing more "reassure"
allies and clients. Most of them are already too dependent on the U.S. for their security and should
be expected to do more to provide for themselves, and their endless demands for "reassurance" are
attempts to get the U.S. to give them extra support they don't need or that the U.S. has no interest
in giving them. The U.S. currently has too many commitments overseas and hardly needs to expand the
presence that it already has.
Dueck places great emphasis on applying coercive measures against various states, but there
doesn't seem to much attention paid to the costs that applying these measures can have on the U.S.
and its allies. Imposing costs and intensifying pressure on other states aren't ends in themselves,
and they have proven time and again to be ineffective tools for changing the behavior of recalcitrant
and hostile regimes. Coercive measures can backfire and can have effects that their advocates don't
anticipate, and they can provoke the targeted state to pursue more hostile and dangerous policies
than there would have been otherwise. Dueck's interest in relying on coercive measures seems to be
little more than a reaction against the perceived laxity of the Obama administration, which has itself
been too reliant on imposing sanctions as an all-purpose response to the undesirable behavior of
other governments. If Obama failed to apply enough pressure, Dueck's thinking appears to be that
more pressure must be the answer. Missing from all of this is any explanation of why the U.S. needs
to be cajoling and pressuring these states in the first place. To what end?
Dueck also wants to throw more money at the military by insisting on setting the military budget
at 4% of GDP. As Hoffman notes, tying the military budget to an arbitrary figure like this represents
the absence of strategy:
The basis for this amount appears aspirational, and I have previously written on why such general
goals are astrategic if not tied to specific requirements and threats. More importantly, details
about how he would employ the additional $170 billion per year in defense spending are lacking.
If one wants huge increases in military spending and the pursuit of pointlessly confrontational
policies against both major authoritarian powers, Dueck's book would appear to offer the desired
guidance. What it has to do with either realism or conservatism remains a mystery.
"...Neoliberalism is a small-state
economic ideology based on promoting "rational self-interest" through policies such as privatisation,
deregulation, globalisation and tax cuts."
"...Neoliberalism is certainly a form of free-market neoclassical economic theory, but it quite difficult
to pin down further than that, especially since neoliberal governments and economists carefully avoid
referring to themselves as neoliberals and the mainstream media seem to avoid using the word at all
costs (think about the last time you saw a BBC or CNN news reporter use the word "neoliberal" to
describe the IMF or a particularly right-wing government policy)."
"...The economic model that the word "neoliberalism" was coined to describe was developed by Chicago
school economists in the 1960s and 1970s based upon Austrian neoclassical economic theories,
but heavily influenced by
Ayn Rand's barmy pseudo-philosophy of Übermenschen and greed-worship. "
"...One of the most transparent of these neoliberal
justification narratives is the one that I describe as
the Great Neoliberal Lie: The fallacious and utterly misleading argument that the global economic
crisis (credit crunch) was caused by excessive state spending, rather than by the reckless gambling
of the deregulated, neoliberalised financial sector. "
"...one of the main problems with the concept of "neoliberalism" is the nebulousness of the
definition. It is like a form of libertarianism, however it completely neglects the fundamental libertarian
idea of non-aggression. In fact, it is so closely related to that other (highly aggressive)
US born political ideology of Neo-Conservatism that many people get the two concepts muddled up.
A true libertarian would never approve of vast taxpayer funded military budgets, the waging of imperialist
wars of aggression nor the wanton destruction of the environment in pursuit of profit.
"
Neoliberalism is a very important,
yet often misunderstood concept. To give a short, oversimplified definition: Neoliberalism is a small-state
economic ideology based on promoting "rational self-interest" through policies such as privatisation,
deregulation, globalisation and tax cuts.
People often boggle at the use of the word "neoliberal" as if the utterer were some
kind of crazed tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist raving about insane lizard-man conspiracies,
rather than someone attempting to concisely define the global economic orthodoxy of the last three
decades or so.
One of the main problems we encounter when discussing neoliberalism is the haziness of the definition.
Neoliberalism is certainly a form of free-market neoclassical economic theory, but it quite difficult
to pin down further than that, especially since neoliberal governments and economists carefully avoid
referring to themselves as neoliberals and the mainstream media seem to avoid using the word at all
costs (think about the last time you saw a BBC or CNN news reporter use the word "neoliberal" to
describe the IMF or a particularly right-wing government policy).
The economic model that the word "neoliberalism" was coined to describe was developed by Chicago
school economists in the 1960s and 1970s based upon Austrian neoclassical economic theories,
but heavily influenced by
Ayn Rand's barmy pseudo-philosophy of Übermenschen and greed-worship.
The first experiment in applied neoliberal theory began
on September 11th 1973 in Chile, when a US backed military coup resulted in the death of social-democratic
leader Salvador Allende and his replacement with the brutal military dictator General Pinochet (Margaret
Thatcher's friend and idol).
Thousands of people were murdered by the Pinochet regime for political
reasons and tens of thousands more were tortured as Pinochet and the "Chicago boys" set about implementing
neoliberal economic reforms and brutally suppressing anyone that stood in their way. The US financially
doped the Chilean economy in order to create the impression that these rabid-right wing reforms were
successful. After the "success" of the Chilean neoliberal experiment, the instillation and economic
support of right-wing military dictatorships to impose neoliberal economic reforms became unofficial
US foreign policy.
The first of the democratically elected neoliberals were
Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US. They both set about introducing ideologically
driven neoliberal reforms, such as the complete withdrawal of capital controls by Tory Chancellor
Geoffrey Howe and the deregulation of the US financial markets that led to vast corruption scandals
like Enron and
the global financial sector insolvency crisis of 2007-08.
By 1989 the ideology of neoliberalism was enshrined as the economic orthodoxy of the world as undemocratic
Washington based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the
US Treasury Department signed up to a ten point economic plan which was riddled with neoliberal ideology
such as trade liberalisation, privatisation, financial sector deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy.
This agreement between anti-democratic organisations is misleadingly referred to as "The Washington
Consensus".
These days, the IMF is the most high profile pusher of neoliberal economic policies. Their strategy
involves applying strict "structural adjustment" conditions on their loans. These conditions are
invariably neoliberal reforms such as privatisation of utilities, services and government owned industries,
tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, the abandonment of capital controls, the removal of democratic
controls over central banks and monetary policy and the deregulation of financial industries.
Neoliberal economic policies have created
economic disaster after economic disaster, virtually wherever they have been tried out. Some of the
most high profile examples include:
South Africa: When the racist Apartheid system was finally overthrown in 1994, the new
ANC government embraced neoliberal economic theory and set about privatising virtually everything,
cutting taxes for the wealthy, destroying capital controls and deregulating their financial sector.
After 18 years of neoliberal government, more black South Africans are living in extreme poverty,
more people are unemployed and South Africa is an even more unequal society than it was under
the racist Apartheid regime. Between 1994 and 2006 the number of South Africans living on less
than $1 a day doubled from 2 million to 4 million, by 2002, eight years after the end of Apartheid
2002 the unemployment rate for black South Africans had risen to 48%.*
Russia: After the fall of communism,
neoliberal economists flooded into Russia to create their free-market utopia, however all they
managed to do was massively increase levels of absolute poverty, reduce productivity and create
a few dozen absurdly wealthy oligarchs who siphoned their $trillions out of Russia to "invest"
in vanity projects such as Chelsea FC. Within less than a decade of being one of the world's two
great super-powers, the neoliberal revolution resulted in Russia defaulting on their debts in
1998.
Argentina: Praised as the poster-boys
of neoliberalism by the IMF in the 1990s for the speed and scale of their neoliberal reforms,
the Argentine economy collapsed into chaos between 1999-2002, only recovering after Argentina
defaulted on their debts and prioritised repayment of their IMF loans, which allowed them to tear
up the IMF book of neoliberal dogma and begin implementing an investment based growth strategy
which boosted the Argentine economy out of their prolonged recession. The late Argentine President
Néstor Kirchner famously stated that the IMF had "transformed
itself from being a lender for development to a creditor demanding privileges".
The Eurozone: The right-wing love to drivel on about how the EU is a "leftie" organisation,
but the unelected technocrats that run the EU (the European commission and the European Central
Bank) are fully signed up to the neoliberal economic orthodoxy, where economic interests are separated
from democratic control. Take the economic crisis in Greece: The EC and the ECB lined up with
the neoliberal pushing IMF to
force hard line neoliberal reforms onto the Greek economy in return for vast multi-billion "bailouts"
that flowed directly out of Greece to "bail out" their reckless creditors (mainly German and
French banks). When the neoliberalisation reforms resulted in further economic contraction, rising
unemployment and worsening economic conditions the ECB, EC, IMF troika simply removed the
democratic Greek government and appointed their own stooge, an economic coup trick they also carried
out in Italy.
Spain and Ireland are other cracking examples of neoliberal failure in the Eurozone. These
two nations were more fiscally responsible than Germany, France or the UK in terms of government
borrowing before the neoliberal economic meltdown, however their deregulated financial sectors
inflated absurd property bubbles, leaving the Irish and Spanish economies in ruins once the bubbles
burst around 2007-08.
One of the most transparent of these neoliberal
justification narratives is the one that I describe as
the Great Neoliberal Lie: The fallacious and utterly misleading argument that the global economic
crisis (credit crunch) was caused by excessive state spending, rather than by the reckless gambling
of the deregulated, neoliberalised financial sector.
Just as with other pseudo-scientific theories and fundamentalist ideologies, the excuse that "we
just weren't fundamentalist enough last time" is always there. The neoliberal pushers
of the establishment know that pure free-market economies are as much of an absurd fairytale as
100% pure communist economies, however they keep pushing for further privatisations, tax cuts
for the rich,
wage repression for the ordinary, and reckless financial sector deregulations precicely because
they are the direct beneficiaries of these policies. Take the
constantly widening wealth gap in the UK throughout three decades of neoliberal policy. The minority
of beneficiaries from this ever widening wealth gap are the business classes, financial sector workers,
the mainstream media elite and the political classes. It is no wonder at all that these people think
neoliberalism is a successful ideology. Within their bubbles of wealth and privilege it has been.
To everyone else it has been an absolute disaster.
Returning to a point I raised earlier in the
article; one of the main problems with the concept of "neoliberalism" is the nebulousness of
the definition. It is like a form of libertarianism, however it completely neglects the
fundamental libertarian idea of non-aggression. In fact, it is so closely related to that other (highly aggressive)
US born political ideology of Neo-Conservatism that many people get the two concepts muddled up.
A true libertarian would never approve of vast taxpayer funded military budgets, the waging of imperialist
wars of aggression nor the wanton destruction of the environment in pursuit of profit.
Another concept that is closely related to
neoliberalism is the ideology of minarchism (small stateism), however the neoliberal brigade seem
perfectly happy to ignore the small-state ideology when it suits their personal interests. Take the
vast banker bailouts (the biggest state subsidies in human history) that were needed to save the neoliberalised global financial sector from the consequences of their own reckless gambling, the
exponential growth of the parasitic corporate outsourcing sector (corporations that make virtually
100% of their turnover from the state) and the ludicrous housing subsidies (such as "Help to Buy
and Housing Benefits) that have fueled the reinflation of yet another property Ponzi bubble.
The Godfather of neoliberalism was Milton
Friedman. He made the case that illegal drugs should be legalised in order to create a free-market
drug trade, which is one of the very few things I agreed with him about. However this is politically
inconvenient (because
the illegal drug market is a vital source of financial sector liquidity) so unlike so many of
his neoliberal ideas that have consistently failed, yet remain incredibly popular with the wealthy
elite, Friedman's libertarian drug legalisation proposals have never even been tried out.
The fact that neoliberals are so often prepared to ignore the fundamental principles of libertarianism
(the non-aggression principle, drug legalisation, individual freedoms, the right to peaceful protest
...) and abuse the fundamental principles of small state minarchism (vast taxpayer funded bailouts
for their financial sector friends, £billions in taxpayer funded outsourcing contracts, alcohol price
fixing schemes) demonstrate that neoliberalism is actually more like
Ayn Rand's barmy (greed is the only virtue, all other "virtues" are aberrations) pseudo-philosophical
ideology of objectivism than a set of formal economic theories.
The result of neoliberal economic theories has been proven time and again. Countries that embrace
the neoliberal pseudo-economic ideology end up with "crony capitalism", where the poor and ordinary
suffer "austerity", wage repression, revocation of labour rights and the right to protest, whilst
a tiny cabal of corporate interests and establishment insiders enrich themselves via anti-competitive
practices, outright criminality and corruption and vast socialism-for-the-rich schemes.
Neoliberal fanatics in powerful positions have demonstrated time and again that they will willingly
ditch their right-wing libertarian and minarchist "principles" if those principles happen to conflict
with their own personal self-interest. Neoliberalism is less of a formal set of economic theories
than an error strewn obfuscation narrative to promote the economic interests, and justify the
personal greed of the wealthy, self-serving establishment elite.
Another
Angry Voice is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising
and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for
Another Angry Voice is the
PayPal donations
box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly
near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site
going, it would be massively appreciated.
"There is a lack of critical assessment of the past. But you have to understand that the
current ruling elite is actually the old ruling elite. So they are incapable of a self-critical
approach to the past."
Ryszard Kapuscinski
Are they incapable, or merely unwilling? That is the credibility trap, the inability
to address the key problems because the ruling elite must risk or even undermine their own undeserved
power to do so.
I think this interview below highlights the false dichotomy between communism and free market
capitalism that was created in the 1980's largely by Thatcher's and Reagan's handlers. The
dichotomy was more properly between communist government and democracy, of the primacy of the individual
over the primacy of the organization and the state as embodied in fascism and the real world implementations
of communism in Russia and China.
But we never think of it that way any more, if at all. It is one of the greatest public relation
coups in history. One form of organizational oppression by the Russian nomenklatura
was replaced by the oppression by the oligarchs and their Corporations, in the name of freedom.
Free market capitalism, under the banner of the efficient markets hypothesis, has taken the place
of democratic ideals as the primary good as embodied in the original framing of the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution.
It is no accident that the individual and their concerns have become subordinated to the corporate
welfare and the profits of the upper one percent. We even see this in religion with the
'gospel of prosperity.' In their delusion they make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness,
so that after they may be received into their everlasting habitations.
The market as the highest good has stood on the shoulders of the 'greed is good' philosophy promulgated
by the pied pipers of the me generation, and has turned the Western democracies on their
heads, as a series of political leaders have capitulated to this false idol of money as the measure
of all things, and all virtue.
Policy is now crafted to maximize profits as an end to itself without regard to the overall impact
on freedom and the public good. It measures 'costs' in the most narrow and biased of terms,
and allocated wealth based on the subversion of good sense to false economy theories.
Greed is a portion of the will to power. And that madness serves none but itself.
This is a brief excerpt. You may read the entire interview
here.
Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism
19 October 2014
By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout
"...We're talking about an ideology marked by the selling off of public goods to private
interests; the attack on social provisions; the rise of the corporate state organized around privatization,
free trade, and deregulation; the celebration of self interests over social needs; the celebration
of profit-making as the essence of democracy coupled with the utterly reductionist notion that
consumption is the only applicable form of citizenship.
But even more than that, it upholds the notion that the market serves as a model for structuring
all social relations: not just the economy, but the governing of all of social life...
That's a key issue. I mean, this is a particular political and economic and social project
that not only consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility, that these things get in the way.
And I think the consequences of these policies across the globe have caused massive suffering,
misery, and the spread of a massive inequalities in wealth, power, and income. Moreover, increasingly,
we are witnessing a number of people who are committing suicide because they have lost their pensions,
jobs and dignity.
We see the attack on the welfare state; we see the privatization of public services, the
dismantling of the connection between private issues and public problems, the selling off of state
functions, deregulations, an unchecked emphasis on self-interest, the refusal to tax the rich,
and really the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the ruling class,
the elite class, what the Occupy movement called the one percent. It really has created a very
bleak emotional and economic landscape for the 99 percent of the population throughout the world."
"This is a particular political and economic and social project that not only
consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility."
I think that as a mode of governance, it is really quite dreadful because it tends to produce
identities, subjects and ways of life driven by a kind of "survival of the fittest" ethic,
grounded in the notion of the free, possessive individual and committed to the right of individual
and ruling groups to accrue wealth removed from matters of ethics and social cost.
That's a key issue. I mean, this is a particular political and economic and social project
that not only consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility, that these things get in the way. And I think the consequences
of these policies across the globe have caused massive suffering, misery, and the spread of a
massive inequalities in wealth, power, and income. Moreover, increasingly, we are witnessing a
number of people who are committing suicide because they have lost their pensions, jobs and dignity.
We see the attack on the welfare state; we see the privatization of public services, the dismantling
of the connection between private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions,
deregulations, an unchecked emphasis on self-interest, the refusal to tax the rich, and really
the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the ruling class, the elite
class, what the Occupy movement called the one percent. It really has created a very bleak emotional
and economic landscape for the 99 percent of the population throughout the world.
And having mentioned this impact on the social state and the 99%, would you go as far
as to say that these ideologies have been the direct cause of the economic crisis the world is
presently experiencing?
Oh, absolutely. I think when you look at the crisis in 2007, what are you looking at? You're
looking at the merging of unchecked financial power and a pathological notion of greed that implemented
banking policies and deregulated the financial world and allowed the financial elite, the one
percent, to pursue a series of policies, particularly the selling of junk bonds and the illegality
of what we call subprime mortgages to people who couldn't pay for them. This created a bubble
and it exploded. This is directly related to the assumption that the market should drive all aspects
of political, economic, and social life and that the ruling elite can exercise their ruthless
power and financial tools in ways that defy accountability. And what we saw is that it failed,
and it not only failed, but it caused an enormous amount of cruelty and hardship across the world.
More importantly, it emerged from the crisis not only entirely unapologetic about what it did,
but reinvented itself, particularly in the United States under the Rubin boys along with Larry
Summers and others, by attempting to prevent any policies from being implemented that would have
overturned this massively failed policy of deregulation.
It gets worse. In the aftermath of this sordid crisis produced by the banks and financial elite,
we have also learned that the feudal politics of the rich was legitimated by the false notion
that they were too big to fail, an irrational conceit that gave way to the notion that they
were too big to jail, which is a more realistic measure of the criminogenic/zombie culture
that nourishes casino capitalism.
The Conservatives getting a landslide victory is the worst possible result for the UK. They
won it basically on middle England votes. The middle classes have been hit nearly as hard as the
working classes. It just shows how effective the combination of a dumbed down education system
and modern media bombardment is at brainwashing people, the electorate have voted themselves into
redoubled Austerity, voted against there own best interests.
Everyone better hope they don't get
ill anytime soon or lose there jobs, because they have voted away the social programs that would
have helped them.
Krippner defines financialization as "the growing importance of financial activities as a source
of profits in the economy." The excellent second chapter of Capitalizing on Crisis makes clear that
a process of significant financialization has indeed occurred in the United States. The share of
total corporate profits made by financial corporations rose from around 15% in the 1950s to about
45% (!) in 2000. At the same time, for nonfinancial corporations, the ratio of portfolio income to
total cash flow increased sharply. These changes mark a structural change in the US economy, with
corporations apparently channeling more of their retained earnings toward the finance of consumer
credit and other unproductive activities, rather than fixed capital investment. It is also worth
noting that by driving up rentier incomes, financialization has played a major role in making the
distribution of income more regressive. Obviously there are a number of questions one could ask about
all this. Krippner focusses on one of the most fundamental: why did financialization occur?
Krippner's
answer goes essentially as follows. Starting in the late 1960s, various social movements (especially
groups of women, African Americans, and unionized workers) in the United States became more powerful
and demanded a larger share of national income for their members. The government responded by offering
a bunch of expensive new public programs. At the same time, the government was ramping up military
spending for the Vietnam war. This "guns and butter" policy, when coupled with the declining growth
rate of the US economy, was highly inflationary. At the same time, since, under the New Deal regulatory
system, the *nominal* interest rates on both bank deposits and mortgages were essentially fixed,
the high rate of inflation drove the corresponding *real* rates of interest to low or negative levels,
leading to a massive reallocation of credit in the economy. On the one hand, money flowed out of
mortgage financing, so many middle-income people suddenly could not buy homes; on the other hand,
banks lost deposits and were at risk of becoming insolvent. All of this set off a wave of financial
innovation and political lobbying that undermined, and eventually destroyed, the policy of fixed
interest rates that was at the heart of the New Deal bank-regulation system; this set off the process
of financialization.
I think several aspects of the above account are correct; it explains why *some* powerful social
groups would be willing to support and agitate for financial deregulation. The problem comes when
Krippner tries to explain why policy makers ultimately supported the interests of these particular
social groups over the others, which had strong reasons to oppose deregulation. For example, Krippner
describes in the book how early experiments (during the mid-1970s) with adjustable-rate mortgages
were met with fierce public opposition, and quickly fell apart as a result. But then this opposition
seems to simply disappear by the end of the 1970s, when interest rates were completely deregulated.
What happened? And why did policy makers ultimately deregulate interest rates?
The answer, according the Krippner, is that the deregulation of interest rates was part of a larger
package of reforms, which allowed policy makers to avoid dealing with the conflict over income distribution
that boiled over in the 1970s. It is argued that the expanded supply of credit in the US economy
after the 1970s – which would not have been forthcoming without the deregulation of interest rates
– made it possible to appease the various social groups that were demanding a better standard of
living, and to do so without squeezing profits, increasing taxes or feeding inflation. The argument
is that, by borrowing the money from abroad to finance social programs, and by increasing the amount
of credit available to consumers, policy makers did not have to choose between different social priorities.
Thus Krippner writes in the concluding chapter that financialization deferred "questions that first
confronted U.S. society in the late 1960s and 1970s regarding which social actors should bear the
burden of a fading prosperity."
I see two major problems with that argument.
The first problem is that the questions about "which social actors should bear the burden of a
fading prosperity" were NOT deferred. In a process that started in the late 1970s (under Carter!)
and accelerated in the 1980s, politicians and wealthy people initiated an onslaught of new policies
that were clearly intended to both redistribute income upward and also crush the social movements
which had been working to redistribute income downward in the 1960s and 1970s. Various forms of aid
to the poor were cut, the tax system became much more regressive, huge sums of money flowed to right-wing
advocacy groups and think tanks, the Fed implemented a tight-money policy which drove the unemployment
rate sharply upward, there was an all-out assault on unions, government and foundation support for
community activist groups was cut, etc. (For a detailed account of all this, I recommend the book
Right Turn by Ferguson and Rogers). The success of this project is evidenced by the sharp change
in the income distribution trends after the 1970s. In fact, far from *deferring* the conflict over
income distribution, the financialization of the US economy seems to have actually been one of the
biggest factors which helped to *settle* the conflict in favor of the upper socio-economic strata
(see the paper "Financialization and US Income Inequality, 1970-2008" by Lin and Tomaskovic-Devey,
published March 2013 in the American Journal of Sociology).
Second, it is far from clear that the increased availability of consumer credit did much of
anything to compensate for the stagnating incomes received by the poor and working-class people after
the 1970s. I have read, for example, that the consumption-fueled boom during the 1990s was financed
entirely by loans taken out by *upper-income households* – the people who saw their share of income
RISE during the era of financialization. And even if consumer credit did become significantly more
available to the poor and working people in the 1980s (and I am not convinced this is true), why
would they passively accept this as an alternative to the rising incomes they were demanding in the
1970s? I think the obvious explanation is that increased flows of credit were not what resolved the
crisis of the 1970s; policy makers resolved the crisis of the 1970s by curtailing the political power
of poor and working people, and by crushing progressive social movements.
Thus Krippner's argument that financialization, rather than being a class project, was simply
an inadvertent result of policy makers' attempts to make voters happy, seems unconvincing to me.
And I could go on much longer; I think Krippner's refusal to apply class analysis creates unnecessary
problems throughout the book. Nevertheless, Capitalizing on Crisis is interesting and informative,
and should be read by anyone who wants to better understand financialization. I found the chapter
on Fed policy, in particular, to be illuminating. And like I said above, chapter 2 is excellent.
But there are better books on financialization. I particularly recommend the work of Dumenil and
Levy.
"Events have satisfied my mind, and I think the minds of the American people, that the mischiefs
and dangers which flow from a national [central] bank far over-balance all its advantages. The
bold effort the present bank has made to control the Government, the distresses it has wantonly
produced, the violence of which it has been the occasion in one of our cities famed for its observance
of law and order, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they
be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."
- Andrew Jackson, Sixth Annual Message, December 1, 1834
"Another cause of today's instability is that we now have a society in America, Europe and
much of the world which is totally dominated by the two elements of sovereignty that are not included
in the state structure: control of credit and banking, and the corporation.
These are free of political controls and social responsibility and have largely monopolized
power in Western Civilization and in American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate
land, labor, entrepreneurial-managerial skills, and everything else the economists once told us
were the chief elements of production.
The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they can control: capital."
- Professor Carroll Quigley, Oscar Iden Lecture Series 3, 1976
Money is power. And those who control the money, if they have the will for it, can use it as
a means to incredible power, to create debt, and to control it, thereby controlling the debtors,
both as individuals, as communities, as regions, and whole nations.
This is the story of global trade deals, the Dollar, and the foul marriage between politics, money,
and central banking. The more discretion and secrecy that is granted to those who create money
and debt, the more vulnerable is the freedom of the people.
This is the story of Cyprus, of Greece, and of the Ukraine.
And there will be more.
This will to power is as old as Babylon, and as evil as hell.
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create
a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of
each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist
fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in
frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International
Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central
banks which were themselves private corporations.
Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong
of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht
of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans,
to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and
to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966
"He promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind.
He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them.
He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids
you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods.
Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his
fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."
John Henry Newman
Posted by Jesse at 8:03 PM
Category: audacious oligarchy, central banks, debt slavery, Federal Reserve, financial corruption,
modern monetary theory, money corruption, political corruption
The propaganda against Syria is milking the capture of Idlib city by Jabhat al-Nusra and assorted
other Islamist groups. The general tone is "Assad is losing" illogically combined with a demand that
the U.S. should now bomb the Syrian government troops. Why would that be necessary if the Syrian
government were really losing control?
A prime
example comes via Foreign Policy from Charles Lister, an analyst from Brooking Doha, which is
paid with Qatari money but often cooperating with the Obama administration. That headline declares
that Assad is losing and the assault on Idlib is lauded in the highest tone. Then the piece admits
that this small victory against retreating Syrian troops was only possible because AlQaeda was leading
in the assault.
The piece admits that the U.S. which wants to
balance between AlQaeda and the Syrian government forces prolonging the conflict in the hope
that both sides will lose, was behind that move:
The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions' backers have changed their tune
regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations
confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey,
which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups,
was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards.
That operations room - along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria's south - also appears
to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence
to vetted groups in recent weeks.
Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military
assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib
appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to
the so-called "vetted groups," but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer
cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
The U.S. led operations room encouraged cooperation between the Islamists of the so called Fee
Syrian Army and AlQaeda. A U.S. drone,
shot down over Latakia in March, was gathering intelligence for the AlQaeda attack on Idlib.
More that 600 TOW U.S. anti-tank missiles have been used against Syrian troops in north Syria. These
are part of the 14,000 the Saudis
had ordered
from the U.S. producer.
Even if the U.S., as now admitted, would not officially urge its mercenaries to cooperate with
Jabhat al-Nusra such cooperation was always obvious to anyone who dared to look:
In southern Syria [..] factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat
al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
The reality is that the directly U.S. supported, equipped and paid "moderate" Fee Syrian Army
Jihadi mercenaries are just as hostile to other sects as the AlQaeda derivative Jabhat al-Nusra and
the Islamic State. They may not behead those who they declare to be unbelievers but they will kill
them just as much.
While the U.S. is nurturing AlQaeda in Syria, Turkey is taking care of the Islamic State. Tons
of Ammonium Sulfate, used to make road side bombs, is
"smuggled" from Turkey to the Islamic State under official eyes. Turkish recruiters incite Muslims
from the Turkman Uighur people in west China and
from Tajikistan to emigrate to the Islamic State. They
give awayTurkish
passports to allow those people to travel to Turkey from where they reach Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile
the Saudis bomb everyone and everything in Yemen except the cities and areas captured by AlQaeda
in the Arab Peninsula.
The U.S. and its allies are now in full support of violent Sunni Jihadists throughout the Middle
East. At the same time they use the "threat of AlQaeda" to fearmonger and suppress opposition within
their countries.
Charles Lister and the other Brooking propagandists want the U.S. to bomb Syria to bring the Assad
government to the table to negotiate. But who is the Syrian government to negotiate with? AlQaeda?
Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported
"moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over
and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?
Who comes up with such phantasies?
Posted by b on May 6, 2015 at 03:37 AM |
Permalink
The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and
large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling
abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the
Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help
improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience
from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results.
In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.
To the US and other western governments in that area ;) it probably does not matter too much,
who rules "Syria", as long as they don't own any serious military hardware.
I'm not an expert ;) but looking at the past three years, my conclusion about the goals of
the "west" would be: support the local militias just as much that they can destroy as many
tanks, helis, air defence and aircraft as possible.
Ideally, have them use up all the anti-tank weapons we give them, so, when they've "won",
they're sitting on rubble with nothing but handguns.
A second goal, maybe more of the regional enemies, would obviously be to drive out of the "former
syrian territory" all non-sunni population. Severe the head of one, have 1000 flee to elsewhere...
Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 9:43:48 AM | 8
Re: @Anonymous@5
Well, that about does it. The U.S is completely deranged and there's no hope.
There is always hope. Russia, China, and Iran know they come next in the list if they don't
stop Al-Qaeda hydra in Syria/Iraq et al. Russian intelligence has declared ISIS a threat for Russia,
the Chinese have been battling the Uighurs for long time now, and now they are being trained by
the US to become a fifth-column on their return to China. Iran is in the surroundings, and have
been preparing ever since the war with Iraq for a military maelstrom of gigantic proportions.
Idlib was taken by a coalition of taqfiris renamed "Army of Conquest," the same coalition getting
ready to fight Hezbollah in the Qalamoun barrens facing Lebanon, for control of the heights that
open to the Bekaa Valley. Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah declared a couple of days ago the battle for
Qalamoun has reached high noon, and its start won't be announced.
On the taking of Idlib he stated any war is a pendulum with battles lost and won, and dismissed
the propaganda war b has just denounced as part of the psy-op war. The onslaught suffering by
Syria is flabbergasting, with US/Turkey training 15 thousand more taqfiris to throw into the war,
the purpose, Nasrallah denounced, is to keep the Axis of Resistance, and in general the Arab war,
in a 100 year war.
What we are seeing now, the dismembering of Iraq, the war of attrition on Syria, the destruction
of Libya, the bombing of Yemen, the attack on Lebanon, was planned long ago by the neocons as
a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc.,
are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world.
The most effective resistance against Israel consisted of broad coalitions consisting of Christian,
secular and Islamic groups. These were the panArab organizations inspired by Nasser and given
substance in the Palestinian resistance by the PLO. Israel knew this was a problem. That is why
they supported Hamas in the late 1970s when it first appeared. They quite explicitly supported
Hamas in order to undermine the PLO. That has proven very effective in splitting Palestinian resistance
into two warring camps centered respectively in Gaza and the West Bank.
The US has discovered this formula. That is why we continue to support the Islamist groups
who are more interested in killing fellow Muslims rather than fighting against Israel. It is quite
amazing that Al qaida, ISIS or whatever handle they carry these days has never attacked an Israeli
target.
As we all know Al nusra today in Southern Syria is being actively supported by the Israeli
military in the form of medical, "humanitarian" aid and the occasional bombing raid against the
Syrian army. US and Israeli support for these terrorist Islamic forces is so transparent that
what is puzzling is why this has not been exposed in the western media.
Editors and reporters must know this stuff and are deliberately avoiding these stories.
okie farmer | May 6, 2015 2:03:18 PM | 17
ToivoS, actually Hamas was created by Shin Bet. And you draw a very accurate picture The US
has discovered this formula. Yep.
Wonder if Harry Truman's comment after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 applies to current US
Mideast policies. To paraphrase if the Germans are winning we should help the Russians, if
the Russians are winning we should help the Germans. That way let them kill as many as possible
Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 3:16:07 PM | 20 @g_h@18@
Thanks! Those two are key documents to understand the current drive of the aptly baptized "Empire
of Chaos" and its minions.
Zico | May 6, 2015 3:53:36 PM | 21
The word AL-CIADA's lost it's scary factor in the West.. It's almost become acceptable/mainstream
word... These days, Western journos refer to them in different terms, depending on the circumstances
and location. How times change!!!
In Syria they're referred to as "rebels", "militants","Assad's opponent" and the best one
"moderate Islamists".
In Iraq, they're referred to as "Sunni rebels", "oppressed Sunni fighters" etc.
In Yemen AL_CIADA's knowns as "president" Hadi's forces, "Sunni rebels"
It gets to to point where you just wonder if these people scripting the "news" must really
think the rest of us simpletons are so stupid not to notice the contradictions...
We now have Western journos doing free propaganda for AL-CIADA :)
GoraDiva | May 6, 2015 4:02:56 PM | 22
More NYT propaganda on Syria? Well, it's A. Barnard...
Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported
"moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over
and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?
Who comes up with such phantasies?
the guys from General Electric, Honeywell, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumann, etc...
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Luca K | May 6, 2015 4:22:13 PM | 24
Good article by B. The following is nothing new, but adds more to what we already know, i.e, israeli
cooperation with al-ciada terrorists.
Price of oil has been rising. FT: Dollar under pressure as oil keeps rising (subscription required).
Christoph (German) | May 6, 2015 4:56:51 PM | 26
Lone Wolf said: "What we are seeing now ... was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy
for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all
there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came
as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world."
It was also contemplated
140 years ago by Pike: "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences
caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of
Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and
political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other".
I doubt that this old scheme to eliminate independent cultures will succeed - there is more
awareness and heavenly input today than could be envisioned in the 19th century.
In the US and Great-Britain top officers of large corporations formed in the 1970s a semi-autonomous
network which Michael Useem calls the 'Inner Circle'. It is a sort of institutionalized capitalism
with a classwide alongside a corporate logic and permits a centralized mobilization of corporate
resources.
This select group of business leaders assume a leading role in the support of political candidates,
in consultations with the highest levels of the national administrations, in public defense of
the free enterprise system and in the governance of foundations and universities.
One of its main goals is the promotion of a better political climate for big business through
philanthropy (image building via generous support of cultural programs), issue (not product) advertising
and political financing.
The reasons behind the constitution of this 'Inner Circle' were the declining power of the
individual companies and declining profitability together with, more specifically in GB, the threat
of labor socialism (nationalizations and worker participation in corporate governance) and in
the US, government intervention.
A main issue was also the desire to control the power of the media, which in the US were considered
far too liberal.
The interventions of this 'Inner Circle' were (and are) extremely successful. President
R. Reagan and Prime Minister M. Thatcher were partly products of business mobilizations.
They lowered taxation, reduced government (except military) spending, lifted controls on business
and installed cutbacks on unemployment benefits and welfare.
On the media front, the influence of corporate America is highly enhanced, directly through
media mergers, and indirectly through the high corporate advertising budgets.
This is an eminent study based on excellent research.
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, £16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle
East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually
settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in
one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself
is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The scepticism about arms
and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment
from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured
with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued
in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest,
in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted kaiser,
that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and
the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant
is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely
differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little
in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military
officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence
at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of
a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors
of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent
answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring
American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary
success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. And
let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight
Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military
power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the
support of much of the Congress, which often authorises defence spending on weapons systems the Pentagon
doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose
home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public,
it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to
the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict
which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and
no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections
of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah,
and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the
Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied
in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity
of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the
world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are
spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American
noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by
the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly
victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist
quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not
a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel
and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted
to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic
establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically
unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism.
Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with
heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honour, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to
enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated
that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess.
They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum:
the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly
or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign
affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people.
They are so much better than the country … they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister
pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see
his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading
liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the
19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed
military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have
regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet',
but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls
Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring
contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and
the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many
American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich
brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous
with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point
of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to
Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is
a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals
in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratisation has had a disastrous effect on the
party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies
in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand,
the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain
limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the
US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik.
This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov
tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much
of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses
alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration
for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed
services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich
notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude,
Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits.
His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so
briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing
has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique,
reassuring encounter with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve,
Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many
respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course
new. It characterised most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today,
the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary,
British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries
in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North
America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying
overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq
– and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot
suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the
Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to
seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where
it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration
of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians
are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire
several steps closer. Recognising this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering
citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot
approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire
and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now
dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of
revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force,
except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress
of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent
years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a
decision that the military should focus on the defence of the nation, not the projection of US power.
As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests
pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century
the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of
the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity
of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were
profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter
stages … long after an odour of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is
dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the
outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military.
For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible
Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American
soldier's true and honourable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic
conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and
still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the
Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable
one … But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush
administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering
foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound
moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical
left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives,
who define the problem … The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical,
but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is sceptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration
with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances
are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in
which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who
have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers
that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed
military that has characterised the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers
in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if
the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of
its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on
the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and
values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American
society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the
start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a
revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that
wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defence of the country.
The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened
the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative.
It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture.
The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats
facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed
by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military
ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting
moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another
warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had
died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly,
unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says
a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania,
soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to
curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited,
rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the
Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed
the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
Yves here. Andrew Bacevich excoriates policy intellectuals as "blight on the republic". His case
study focuses on the military/surveillance complex but he notes in passing that the first policy
intellectuals were in the economic realm. And we are plagued with plenty of malpractice there too.
by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations emeritus
at Boston University's Pardee School of Global Studies. He is writing a military history of
America's War for the Greater Middle East. His most recent book is
Breach
of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country. Originally published at
TomDispatch
Policy intellectuals - eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office
- are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where
their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability
to perceive reality. A benign appearance - well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating
in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch - belies a malign impact.
They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.
It all began innocently enough. Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great
Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join
the ranks of his New Deal. An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR
believed. Whether the contributions of this "Brains
Trust" made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash)
remains a subject for debate even today. At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph
Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington's bourbon-and-cigars social
scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet.
Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought
to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on "national security."
This eminently elastic concept - more properly, "national insecurity" - encompassed just about anything
related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design,
decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance
to the nation's survival. National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world's
equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving.
People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as "defense intellectuals."
Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think
tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions.
Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn, who took pride in "thinking about the unthinkable,"
and Albert Wohlstetter, who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining "the delicate balance
of terror."
In this wonky world, the coin of the realm has been and remains "policy relevance." This
means devising products that convey a sense of novelty, while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing
enterprise. The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is
Dr. Strangelove's
discovery of a "mineshaft gap" - successor to the "bomber gap" and the "missile gap" that, in the
1950s, had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing
to catch up. Now, with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet, the United States
is once more falling behind, Strangelove claims, this time in digging underground shelters enabling
some small proportion of the population to survive.
In a single, brilliant stroke, Strangelove posits a new raison d'être for the entire
national insecurity apparatus, thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever.
A sequel to Stanley Kubrick's movie would have shown General "Buck" Turgidson and the other brass
huddled in the War Room, developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred.
The Rise of the National Insecurity State
Yet only in the 1960s, right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie
theaters, did policy intellectuals really come into their own. The press now referred to them
as "action intellectuals," suggesting energy and impatience. Action intellectuals were thinkers,
but also doers, members of a "large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure
niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face
the nation," as LIFE Magazine put it in 1967. Among the most perplexing of those problems
was what to do about Vietnam, just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth
into.
Over the previous century-and-a-half, the United States had gone to war for many reasons, including
greed, fear, panic, righteous anger, and legitimate self-defense. On various occasions, each
of these, alone or in combination, had prompted Americans to fight. Vietnam marked the first
time that the United States went to war, at least in considerable part, in response to a bunch of
really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence. More
surprising still, action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it
had become self-evident, even to members of Congress, that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed
to end in failure.
As Exhibit A, Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser first for President
John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson. Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale, who famously
became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, having gained tenure there
without even bothering to get a graduate degree.
For Exhibit B, there is Walt Whitman Rostow, Bundy's successor as national security adviser.
Rostow was another Yalie, earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD. While taking
a break of sorts, he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. As a professor of economic
history at MIT, Rostow captured JFK's attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 book The Stages
of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, which offered a grand theory of development
with ostensibly universal applicability. Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories
of "modernization" in places like Southeast Asia.
Finally, as Exhibit C, Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington's contributions to
the Vietnam War. Huntington also attended Yale, before earning his PhD at Harvard and then
returning to teach there, becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World
War II era.
What the three shared in common, apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven, was an
unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War. Foremost among those verities
was this: that a monolith called Communism, controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden
behind the walls of the Kremlin, posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies,
but to the very idea of freedom itself. The claim came with this essential corollary: the only
hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist
threat wherever it reared its ugly head.
Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. North Vietnam, from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. South Vietnam,
into a single unified country; in other words, that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and
dying for. Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington not only bought that argument hook, line, and sinker,
but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well.
Yet even as he was urging the "Americanization" of the Vietnam War in 1965, Bundy already entertained
doubts about whether it was winnable. But not to worry: even if the effort ended in failure,
he counseled President Johnson, "the policy will be worth it."
How so? "At a minimum," Bundy wrote, "it will damp down the charge that we did not do all
that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own."
If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam, at least Americans would have died trying to
prevent that result - and through some perverted logic this, in the estimation of Harvard's youngest-ever
dean, was a redeeming prospect. The essential point, Bundy believed, was to prevent others
from seeing the United States as a "paper tiger." To avoid a fight, even a losing one, was
to forfeit credibility. "Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean
no major risk" - that was the problem to be avoided at all cost.
Rostow
outdid even Bundy in hawkishness. Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to
influence North Vietnamese policymakers, Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic
Hamlet Program. The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly
relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government
would provide security, education, medical care, and agricultural assistance. By winning hearts-and-minds
in this manner, the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow, with the people of South
Vietnam vaulted into the "age of high mass consumption," where Rostow believed all humankind was
destined to end up.
That was the theory. Reality differed somewhat. Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable
from concentration camps. The government in Saigon proved too weak, too incompetent, and too
corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain. Rather than winning hearts-and-minds, the program
induced alienation, even as it essentially destabilized peasant society. One result: an increasingly
rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam's cities where there was little work apart from
servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population - hardly the sort of activity conducive
to self-sustaining development.
Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat, Rostow still claimed vindication
for his theory. "We and the Southeast Asians," he wrote, had used the war years "so well that
there wasn't the panic [when Saigon fell] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene."
Indeed, regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news, all of it attributable to the American war.
"Since 1975 there has been a general expansion
of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West. In Thailand we have
seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs. Malaysia and Singapore have become countries
of diverse manufactured exports. We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats
in Indonesia."
So there you have it. If you want to know what 58,000 Americans (not to mention vastly larger
numbers of Vietnamese) died for, it was to encourage entrepreneurship, exports, and the emergence
of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility
for seeing the upside of catastrophe. In Huntington's view, the internal displacement of South
Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower, along with the failure of Rostow's
Strategic Hamlets, was actually good news. It promised, he insisted, to give the Americans
an edge over the insurgents.
The key to final victory, Huntington
wrote, was "forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question
out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength
to come to power." By emptying out the countryside, the U.S. could win the war in the cities.
"The urban slum, which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans, often becomes for the poor peasant
a gateway to a new and better way of life." The language may be a tad antiseptic, but the point
is clear enough: the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously
transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up
for social revolution.
Revisited decades later, claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy, Rostow,
and Huntington - action intellectuals of the very first rank - seem beyond preposterous. They
insult our intelligence, leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them
were ever taken seriously.
How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence? Why were those
ideas so impervious to challenge? Why, in short, was it so difficult for Americans to recognize
bullshit for what it was?
Creating a Twenty-First-Century Slow-Motion Vietnam
These questions are by no means of mere historical interest. They are no less relevant when applied
to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals, specializing in national
insecurity, whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and
prosecute the Vietnam War.
The present-day successors to Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities.
Chief among them is this: that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism, inspired by a
small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East, poses
an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but - yes, it's still with us - to the
very idea of freedom itself. That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and
imported from the Cold War: the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United
States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head.
At least since September 11, 2001, and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date, U.S.
policymakers have taken these propositions for granted. They have done so at least in part
because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question
them.
Indeed, those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions. Think
of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity. More or less like
Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter (or Dr. Strangelove), their function is to perpetuate the ongoing
enterprise.
The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such
efforts. Once widely known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, it has been transformed into
the War with No Name. A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography: we
can't define it, we just know it when we see it, with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington's
attention.
All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end
in sight. It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam, stimulating remarkably little honest
reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future. If there is an actual
Brains Trust at work in Washington, it operates on autopilot. Today, the second- and third-generation
bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington - the Center for this, the Institute
for that - spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets, with nary a thought
given to more fundamental concerns.
What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter's return to the Pentagon as President Obama's
fourth secretary of defense. Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy, Rostow,
Huntington mold, having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in "the Building."
He, too, is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar, with a PhD. from Oxford. "Ash" - in Washington, a
first-name-only identifier ("Henry," "Zbig," "Hillary") signifies that you have truly arrived
- is the author of books and articles galore, including
one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for
preventive war against North Korea. Military action "undoubtedly carries risk," he bravely
acknowledged at the time. "But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race
to threaten this country would be greater" - just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the
likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter.
As Carter has taken the Pentagon's reins, he also has taken pains to convey the impression of
being a big thinker. As one Wall Street Journal
headline enthused, "Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats." That multiple global
threats exist and that America's defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are, of
course, givens. His predecessor Chuck Hagel (no Yale degree) was a bit of a plodder.
By way of contrast, Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up.
So on his second day in office, for example, he dinedwith Kenneth Pollack, Michael
O'Hanlon, and Robert Kagan, ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one
and all. Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution, the three share the distinction
of having supported the
Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today. For assurances
that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound - we just need to try harder - who better
to consult than
Pollack,
O'Hanlon, and
Kagan (any
Kagan)?
Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions? Or was he letting
Washington's clubby network of fellows, senior fellows, and distinguished fellows know that, on his
watch, the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct? You decide.
Soon thereafter, Carter's first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions.
In Kuwait, he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the
campaign against ISIS. In a daring departure from standard practice, the new defense secretary
prohibited PowerPoint briefings. One participant described the ensuing event as "a five-hour-long
college seminar" - candid and freewheeling. "This is reversing the paradigm," one awed senior
Pentagon official
remarked. Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to "look at this problem differently."
Of course, Carter might have said, "Let's look at a different problem." That, however, was far
too radical to contemplate - the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing
the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined.
In any event - and to no one's surprise - the different look did not produce a different conclusion.
Instead of reversing the paradigm, Carter affirmed it: the existing U.S. approach to dealing with
ISIS is sound, he announced. It only needs a bit of
tweaking - just the result to give the Pollacks, O'Hanlons, and Kagans something to write about
as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate.
Do we really need that chatter? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy? If policy/defense/action
intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure?
Let me propose an experiment. Put them on furlough. Not permanently - just until the last of the
winter snow finally melts in New England. Send them back to Yale for reeducation. Let's see if we
are able to make do without them even for a month or two.
In the meantime, invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS.
Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers. Book English
majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows. Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up?
Not so sure this is conclusive -- it seems like the survey question could have been sharpened:
Generous welfare benefits
make people more likely to want to work, not less: Survey responses from 19,000 people in
18 European countries, including the UK, showed that "the notion that big welfare states are
associated with widespread cultures of dependency, or other adverse consequences of poor short
term incentives to work, receives little support."
Sociologists Dr Kjetil van der Wel and Dr Knut Halvorsen examined responses to the statement
'I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money' put to the interviewees for
the European Social Survey in 2010.
In a paper published in the journal Work, employment and society they compare this response
with the amount the country spent on welfare benefits and employment schemes, while taking into
account the population differences between states.
The researchers, of Oslo and Akershus University College, Norway, found that the more a country
paid to the unemployed or sick, and invested in employment schemes, the more its likely people
were likely to agree with the statement, whether employed or not. ...
The researchers also found that government programmes that intervene in the labour market to
help the unemployed find work made people in general more likely to agree that they wanted work
even if they didn't need the money. In the more active countries around 80% agreed with the
statement and in the least around 45%. ...
"This article concludes that there are few signs that groups with traditionally weaker bonds
to the labour market are less motivated to work if they live in generous and activating welfare
states.
"The notion that big welfare states are associated with widespread cultures of dependency, or
other adverse consequences of poor short term incentives to work, receives little support.
"On the contrary, employment commitment was much higher in all the studied groups in bigger
welfare states. ..."
Darryl FKA Ron said...
When surveyed Bill Clinton responded "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss
Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.
And I need to go back to work for the American people."
Bill's statement established strong precedents for both the validity of survey information and
the work ethic :<)
Personally I would stick with correlations of prime working age LFPR to employment insurance
and re-employment benefits among nations with various levels of support for unemployment.
Support can be either too weak or too strong perhaps, but too weak would be the obvious mistake.
Unemployment has high costs for individuals and prolonged unemployment makes re-employment more
difficult for several social reasons as well as possible skills erosion. Employers generally
avoid hiring the long term unemployed. The long term unemployed may lack the living conditions
to present themselves at their best for job interviews (clothes and appearance) or to even show
up (transporation or childcare). Necessity may place them into the grey or black markets for
employment that become increasingly difficult to separate from.
I am unable to find anywhere support for the unemployed is too strong; i.e., where high levels
of support correlate to high levels of unemployment. The unemployment rate in Qatar was 0.30%
in 2013. The maximum unemployment rate in Qatar during this century to date was 3.9% in 2012.
You can hardly be more supportive than Qatar.
This survey analysis is an example of discrediting the obvious truth of the veracity of support
for unemployment and re-employment with a ridiculous and unconvincing approach. It is more about
how to provide employment for inadequate social scientists than how to prove that the general
wage working population benefits greatly from support during unemployment without any overall
increase in the tendency to freeload.
Lafayette said in reply to Darryl FKA Ron...
Confucius say: "When employing tongue-in-cheek, be careful not to bite ..." ;^)
Darryl FKA Ron said in reply to Lafayette...
Not exactly sure which part you were referring to, but my comments were admittedly a rushed
bunch of snark. Generally I believe sociologists have a lot to add to the economics discussion,
but in this case the economists already had it covered and did not need their "help."
Lafayette said in reply to Darryl FKA Ron...
{Generally I believe sociologists have a lot to add to the economics discussion, but in this
case the economists already had it covered and did not need their "help."}
Which is what I have been trying to get across in this forum as well for a long, long time.
The numbers help formulate policy decision making, towards helping us understand where we
are going. But the end-results depend upon implementing those policies towards specific goals.
That aint happinin.
cm said...
The doubt comes from people apparently assuming that in the European "welfare states", somebody
who doesn't want to work can just apply for no questions asked welfare and then hang out on
their hammock.
The reality is that the amount and duration of UE benefits is based on one's history of (UE
insured) employment and past benefits receipt - more or less, so much UE for that much work;
and there are very stringent income and asset hurdles to qualifying for welfare, depending on
circumstances you may not be allowed to keep a car or live in larger square footage than deemed
necessary.
And anybody on benefits not of advanced and "unemployable" age will be strongly "encouraged"
with an array of "measures" to take work or "job market integration" programs. But in the end
there are still too few jobs.
Darryl FKA Ron said in reply to cm...
Yep. And also the benefits really are not all that great for someone that might have been
working and paying their mortgage each month before the 2008 crises. The benefit maximums here
in the US are such that a lot of people would lose their homes if they lost their jobs.
anne said in reply to anne...
The employment-population ratios for men and women 25 to 54 in the Nordic countries and the
United States were 86.1, 84.1, 82.1 80.6 and 76.8 at the close of 2014.
Guess which ratio belongs to the US.
Richard H. Serlin said in reply to 400 ppm...
Welfare payments are very poor. There's still a huge incentive to get a job, when any job
will be a huge increase in income. You're saying that if someone gets $10,000/year there's no
incentive to get a job paying $25,000 or 50. And besides, job search, and going to training
classes, etc. can just be required to still get the welfare.
This strikes me as very good big picture analysis:
"So there are two ways by which the current stand-off will play out.
The first one, and arguably the less likely one, is that Russia backs down and ultimately,
under continued economic pressure, agrees to privatize its national monopolies or even sell
them directly to Western firms, and thus become a sort of Saudi Arabia of the North.
The second one is that Russia fends off this latest Western encroachment, forcing the
West to re-examine the structure of its post-Cold War political economy. With economic expansion
no longer on the table, the West will have a choice of rediscovering the benefits of redistributive
policies, or embark on exclusionary policies that would have to be backed by a police state."
If the MSM will ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing,
then Western governments will take what they have learned from the junta and apply them to their
own societies.
Fern, March 23, 2015 at 6:23 am
Tim, thanks for posting the 'fortruss' article by J Hawk – a very good analysis. FWIW, my own
thoughts are that it is absolutely essential for the EU and the West generally that Crimea does
not prosper. i would go so far as to say that, to a large extent, the future of the neo-liberal
economic order depends on Crimea becoming an economic disaster zone. For what has happened as
a result of its reunification with Russia, almost an accidental bi-product, you might say, is
that the world and its wife has the opportunity to watch two different development models in action,
literally side by side. In Ukraine, there's the IMF 'austerity' model – privatisation, asset stripping,
foreign ownership of key parts of the economy, cutting back the role of the state to the bare
minimum, poverty for much of the population etc. In Crimea's there's a different model, one that
sees a role for the state as well as private enterprise – much like the mixed economies of the
west in the 1970's before the neo-liberals grabbed control – and where's there's genuine job-creating,
value-adding investment in infrastructure planned and already happening.
If Crimea delivers a much higher standard of living for its people than is achieved in Ukraine,
then what price neo-liberalism, what lessons might Greece, Spain, Portugal etc learn? Crimea cannot
be allowed to succeed, the threat of a good example is too dangerous.
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 7:49 am
An excellent point, Fern, and that might make a good subject for a post in the not-too-distant
future.
Oddlots, March 23, 2015 at 9:10 am
I think you are dead right. The stakes could barely be higher.
It's funny, Russian politics kind of reminds me of Canada in the 70s under Trudeau. Before
the southern strategy and the radical "government is the problem, not the solution" ideology of
Reagan, Thatcher etc. it was still possible in the west to voice a common purpose that roughly
mapped onto government initiative. After 30 years of this pro-oligarchy drivel we can barely conceive
of a common purpose. The parasite has taken over the host's mind.
et Al, March 23, 2015 at 9:45 am
I would quibble with this:
However, while Globalization was marketed as a win-win proposition for both the global North
and South, in reality the developing states have gotten the losing side of the bargain.
The smaller southern states have been picked off but are fighting back, as we see in Ecuador,
Venezuela, Boliva. The 'Developing World' successfully stopped the Doha round of globalization
talks because the North wanted full liberalization of their markets at drop of a hat so that they
can waltz in and buy anything worthwhile.
Brazil has refused this, India has (for example its textile and other industries) and Africa
was mostly ignored because the North is racist and thinks they have nothing to offer except South
Africa and a few northern bits (which is blatantly wrong as China has been the trailblazing investor
in Africa with serious money, development and actually building roads, hospitals and infrastructure
– followed eventually by Japan, India & the US).
I think that maybe the North's dismissing of Africa may well be part of its undoing.
As for the rest of it, I can agree, but I am weary of being presented with such a limited number
of outcomes.
rymlianin, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 am
Noam Chomsky agrees . Free markets are for the third world, so that 1st world countries can
easily get rid of their excess products.
yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 10:28 am
Here we go again! At first I thought this item was from a few days ago, but it's from today.
Then I thought it was GroundHog Day!
Because Kolomoisky has done it again, and his guys (maybe not him personally) have invaded
a different oil company, this time UkrNafta (not to be confused with UrkTransNafta, which is a
different company). Benny's guys have barricaded themselves inside the company HQ, at Nesterovsky
Street in Kiev.
A spokesperson says this siege is a continuation of the story (explained by Jen, in comment
above) whereby the rules were changed for what constitutes a quorum among shareholders.
The Ukrainian government owns (50% + 1) share of UkrNafta. Now, just like the previous case,
the government wants to put in its own management, while expelling Benny's henchmen from the big
boardroom.
The article states that Benny must not have listened to Pyatt's warnings.
[yalensis: I mentioned in comment, above, that Benny is a proud and stubborn man, who listens
to nobody.]
james, March 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm
thanks for these kolowonky updates… what i find fascinating is a guy being allowed to have
a goon squad and parading around ukraine with the goon squad doing these kinds of acts.. what
would happen if he had some competition and goon squads started to lock themselves into privatbank
locations?
how do ordinary citizens of ukraine view this guy? there are no parallels in western societies
that i am aware of!
2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".
3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:
"Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be
allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).
see the article for more..
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 pm
He is setting himself up for a mini civil war in Kiev if he thinks to order Benny to disperse
his private army now, because they are loyal to their employer – Benny, who pays them directly,
when they know all too clearly they are not going to be allowed to have this much fun roughing
up and killing people ever again while getting paid for it – and the time to do it was the second
it became known Benny was doing it, because the constitution forbids it and Porky always knew
that.
He let him get away with it because it was useful, and there is no use in his attempting to
stand on the law now: funny how when you trample on the law every day and only obey what suits
you, how difficult it is to get back to the world of law when you need to. And what else does
Porky have but the moral high ground he is attempting to claim? Would the Ukie army obey him if
he ordered them to wipe out Benny and his boys? Glad it's not my decision. If you run for it now,
Porky, you might avoid being turned into bacon. Yes, I said it. Bacon.
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am
Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on? Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta
yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:29 am
VZGLIAD is taking online poll as people place their bets on their cock-fight.
Results so far (of 11609 people voting):
64.6% think Benny will win the fight
15.7% think Porky will win.
19.7% say it will end in draw
I explained my reasons in above comment, I placed my bets on Porky, and I went ALL IN!
(or "va bank" as the Russians say!)
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 3:03 am
The Germans also use the expression "Va banque" – sometimes spelt "Vabanque".
A well known usage of this term allegedly took place during a conversation between Hermann
Göring und Adolf Hitler on their hearing of the British declaration of war against Germany on
September 3rd, something which they had not expected to happen as a result of the German invasion
of Poland two days earlier and had therefore considered that invasion a risk worth taking.
Apparently, Göring said to Hitler:
"Wir wollen doch das Vabanque-Spiel lassen", worauf Hitler antwortete: „Ich habe in meinem
Leben immer Vabanque gespielt.
"We should go for broke", whereupon Hitler answered: "I have my whole life always gone for
broke".
It means to play against the bank, to lay all your stakes against what the bank has; if you
win, you win big time: if you lose, you lose everything.
The vulgar expression where I come from is "shit or bust".
So rephrasing Hermann and Adolf's little exchange above:
TRANSLATION (of piece done by Bochkala on Ukrainian TV)
The (Ukrainian) people are suffering
real poverty. Here is just one sad example:
Yesterday I happened to be in Zaporozhie. We popped into a deli. Ahead of me in the queue was
a young girl and an old woman. And some very basic products on the belt. The girl was purchasing
yogurt, some hot dogs, margarine, and eggs. All this came to around 70 or so.
When she was ready to pay, she studied the receipt, and discovered that the real price was higher
than what was marked (on the products). "What you have on the price tags is lower than this,"
she told the check-out clerk. She said this matter-of-factly, not like she was disputing the price,
just complaining about it.
"We didn't have time to change the price tags. Sorry," the young clerk apologized. I concluded
that the young girl had calculated in her head how much she would pay, when selecting her products.
In other words, for her this was a serious sum. She doesn't have the option of just buying yogurt,
without factoring in the price. Then my attention was turned to the sound of coins clanking.
The old woman was pouring out of a cellophane (baggie) a small heap of coins, of varying denominations.
"That's all I have," she said. "I don't have any more money." The old woman was neatly dressed,
but looked hopeless.
The clerk methodically moved the coins from one heap to another (while counting them). "You
need 27.5 but you only have 25," he concluded, counting the money again. It became an issue (for
her): what should she put back, the bread, or the flour?
I took out 200 hryvnas and gave it to the woman. She looked at me, with the look of a dog who
has been many times abused and deceived.
Then she burst out crying.
And such people are ever more numerous in Ukraine.
marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:39 am
I don't have the words to tell you how sad that is to me.
kirill, March 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm
Not a single squeak about this theme in the whole western media.
Quite the propaganda chorus the western media is.
Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:16 am
Igor Mosiychuk heads a meeting in mourning for and dedicated to the victims of the Holodomor.
kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:31 am
I should take this opportunity to point out, once again, that the western Ukraine did not live
through Holodmor. All of western Ukraine not just some part of it. But the Donbas did live through
Stalin's forced collectivization famines.
So we have the Nazi allied Bandera vermin using the deaths of people in the Donbas as a pretext
to kill people in the Donbas. Sick.
But they have the following logic: Before the Holodomor the Donbas was populated by virgin
ethnic Ukrs. The residents of the Donbas after the famine are all Russian squatters. My relatives
believe this SHIT. I need to stop treating them as my relatives.
Some facts about the Donbas:
There are many Ukrainians living there, which is inconsistent with the genocide claim.
Genocides totally remove demographic traces. You can see this in western Ukraine where there
are no longer Poles and Jews in regions they previously populated in large numbers.
There are Serbs and Greeks still living in eastern Ukraine. Did Stalin settle them there?
We should ask the current residents of the Donbas who tend to graves going back into the
1800s what they think about the Banderite claims.
kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:43 am
Ignore this BS map in the east. Novorossia was not part of Ukraine until the Soviets.
marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:42 am
I don't suppose he sees any irony at all in commemorating an event in which people starved
to death when he himself displaces roughly as much water as a Buick Skylark.
kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:47 am
To be fair, he likely has a thyroid disorder and insulin resistence. Obesity is not simply
due to stuffing your face and it is a fact that thin people can consume more calories than obese
people.
This applies to the insulin resistant who instead of turning glucose into heat (as "normal"
people do) turn it into fat. Calorie restriction for insulin resistant metabolism types is guaranteed
to fail.
They need high fat, low carbohydrate type diets.
Jen, March 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm
Symptoms of iodine deficiency include obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. They go together
in a vicious circle and teasing out which causes which almost amounts to time-wasting Titanic
deckchair rearrangements.
The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom
had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million
figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the
Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against
Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it?
So, one year after George W. Bush dedicated the monument, designed to exasperate the Chinese
government, then the first anniversary of this exercise in extreme hypocrisy, was held in Crimea,
with Tatars playing the role of "victims du jour".
The event organizers had selected Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as the background music. This
well-known symphony is regarded a symbol of both the beginning and the end of Communism in Eastern
Europe. In 1918, the top Communist leaders, including Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, participated
in the first anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution by attending a performance at
the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Seventy-one years later, shortly after the collapse of the Berlin
Wall in 1989, the American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein conducted the Ninth Symphony
on Christmas Day in West Berlin.
It was very touching to see more than 20 wreaths lined up in the grassy area adjacent to
the Memorial site waiting to be presented at the ceremony. They were in alphabetical order, starting
with Afghanistan and ending with Ukraine. (……)
The Crimean Tatar wreath was presented in the name of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (Assembly),
Simferopol, by the International Committee for Crimea (ICC), Washington, DC. The inscription on
one of the ribbons read: "Honoring the memory of more than 200,000 victims of famine, deportation
and political repression." I had the honor of presenting the Crimean Tatar wreath in person. We
are grateful to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for providing a platform where we
can link to other people of different national, ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who
were victimized by Communist authorities. Together we can support the Foundation and work toward
the common goal of educating the public about Communism's crimes against humanity.
Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose!
yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm
P.P.S. – one link leads to another . ICC still exists, and still sobbing about violated Tatars
rights. Meanwhile, in reality Tatars have more rights now, in Russian Crimea, than they ever had
in Ukie Crimea.
ICC logo appears to be a Ukie trident flipped upside down and ready to sink into the Black
Sea…
It's how things work: once a group of people has become a designated 'victim group', they
can do no wrong in the eyes of the MSM and of course their supporters in the West. It doesn't
matter if these designated 'victim groups' are in foreign countries or actually living on the
soil of a Western country.
I have no idea how the process of selecting a 'victim group' works. For example, in the UK
Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslims are 'victims' – Kurds, who've been persecuted by various Turkish
regimes, are not. And it's not about skin colour either, because neither Sikhs nor Hindus are
'victim groups' …
I think someone ought to do a bit of research into this!
(Not me – I'm pounding the pavements and doing other electioneering, until May 7th)
Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:57 am
Referring back to the previous posting concerning Psaki's replacement, Rathke, and Harfe and
how Matt Lee tackles these double-talking spokespersons for the State Department:
Miguel Francis, a Los Angeles film school graduate, travels to Crimea to discover how life
there has changed since it was reunited with Russia. He explores the beautiful peninsula's history
and cultural heritage, as well as taking in some of Crimea's tourist attractions while talking
to locals about their attitudes to becoming Russian citizens.
Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Did he graduate?
Jen, March 22, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Miguel Francis Santiago also made a documentary on Donetsk and the Donetsk rebels. From memory,
I think he visited the airport with the rebels and talks to Givi. http://rtd.rt.com/films/donetsk-an-american-glance/
Benny wants 90% of regions' tax take to stay with regional authorities.
So much for the champion of edina Ukraina.
kat kan, March 23, 2015 at 12:07 am
He'd love them to stay separate. With 90% of taxes? he has a racket worked out already for
taking it off them. Whereas they're of a bent to nationalise things they believe were illegally
obtained.
yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:07 am
American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine fires its president , most probably for his "pro-Russian"
views.
Namely, Bernard Casey was outspoken in his views against Maidan as a violent coup, and felt
that Crimea should return to Russia.
KievPost "exposed" Casey; after their expose, he was toast, and then he got fired from his
job.
Casey apparently hails from San Jose California [yalensis: I have been there, it's actually
a lovely place, the local inhabitants keep their property in perfect shape, almost obsessively
landscaping their yards], anyhow Casey's expertise is small business and start-up companies.
Nothing in Casey's bio that suggests that he is a rebel, or even anything "ethnic" going on
there…
Maybe he is simply an honorable man who tells the truth as he sees it, and pays the consequences
for that?
kirill, March 23, 2015 at 5:47 am
He is definitely a heretic. NATO is even going to establish rapid internet reaction forces
to stop the spread of Russian false narratives. We are back in the era of the crusades.
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 8:05 am
Because everyone knows the people are too stupid and unwordly to know for themselves that they
are being fed bullshit. In fact, NATO's successful transmission of its own narrative depends on
it.
james, March 23, 2015 at 8:46 am
thanks yalensis.. the kiev post is an interesting american publication, or at least that is
what it looks like to me! reading the article on caseys views which were also published in the
kiev post confirms the fact he was looking for objectivity in an atmosphere which was opposed
to it..i am surprised the kiev post let his thoughts be known!
KievPost has the WORST commenters, bunch of low-IQ, prejudiced Banderite diaspora trash.
Like this one, for example:
A commenter called "OlenaG" makes gratuitous attack not only against Mr. Casey but entire San
Jose State University, which is actually a component of the California State University system
(which is highly respected educational system, even internationally):
"He received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering at the San Jose State University
and an MBA degree at Santa Clara University."
Anyone that knows the reputation of San Jose State as a "Party College" (rated by U.S. News
and World Report in its annual College ratings) and knows the Political Correctness of Santa Clara
County both in California and in South San Francisco Bay would know to not have hired Casey.
(….)
Talk about ad hominem attacks! This idiot has no proof whatsoever that Mr. Casey spent his
time partying instead of studying electrical engineering; and moreover, the very fact that Mr.
Casey joined the Chamber of Commerce probably indicates that he was NOT politically correct at
all!
Pavlo Svolochenko, March 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm
The worst American university would still compare favourably with the best Ukrainian one, I
suspect.
yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 3:34 am
Well, Ukraine USED to have good universities, especially in Soviet times.
Now, I am not so sure…
yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:24 am
More on Kolomoisky's antics.
Linked piece is entitled: "Kolomoisky goes va-banque", which is a Russian phrase (actually
French), meaning, as Americans would say, in a poker game, "all in".
In other words, Benny continues to occupy the UkrNafta company offices in Kiev.
(Not to be confused with the other oil company, UkrTransNafta, which Benny had to cede.)
To beef up the ranks of his goons, Benny sent his personal battalion "Dnepr-1″. Leaving the
war zone of the "Anti-Terrorist Operation", this battalion arrived back in Kiev to seize UkrNafta.
Benny has explained that his military operation against UkrNafta is necessary to thwart the
"raider" attempt by his (Benny's) arch-enemy, Igor Eremeev. Eremeev is a fellow oligarch and also
a member of Ukrainian Parliament.
This exciting event is all happening on Monday, March 23.
There was a confrontation when one of Porky's allies, the deputy named Mustafu Nayem, attempted
to enter the building. Benny's goons would not allow Mustafu inside. Ukrainskaya Pravda reported
that Mustafu was beaten up. (see the video)
Mustafu elucidated on his Facebook that he was roughed up, but not badly beaten.
According to the description of the video (which I have not had time to watch), Mustafu asked
Benny: "What are you doing here, Igor Valeryevich?"
To which Benny replied: "I came to see a Parliamentary Deputy. And who are you, a journalist or
a deputy?"
Mustafu replied that within 2 months, UkrNafta will be a nationalized company belonging to
the state.
Benny shot back, that this will not happen, because UkrNafta is a private company, and that
he himself (=Benny) owns 42% of it.
And on and on… lots more… but the thrust of the article is that things are getting serious
now.
james, March 23, 2015 at 8:58 am
yalensis, i am confused by these actions. in most countries where the rule of law supposedly
operates, the police would come and evict these squatters… why isn't this happening here? or is
this the type of system they have where oligarchs goon squads can do whatever their goon demands
they do without any legal ramifications?
james, March 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm
2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".
Kolomoisky funds at least five paramilitary battalions including Aidar, Azov, Dnepr-1, Dnepr-2
and Donbass which are part of the National Guard.
A good proportion of his "goons" are probably members of these battalions. Whatever passes
for the police (under Arsen Avakov's authority) in Kiev doesn't have a hope against these people.
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm
Baby, what you said. Hopeless. Run for it, Porky.
yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:05 am
Are we in the process of placing bets? Because I am still betting on Porky. To be sure, he
doesn't have much of an army.
But he has Geoffrey Pyatt and the American marines behind him. That has to count for
something!
"From the halls of Montezuma, to the walls of UkrNafta…"
(or something like that)
colliemum, March 24, 2015 at 2:23 am
He's also got a squad of UK army 'instructors' …
;-)
Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:33 am
Which side is Yats Rats on? I reckon he's the one that runs the show there: he's Nudelman's
boy after all.
Alastair Crooke has posted two new articles at Conflicts Forum. The first discusses a possible
Iran agreement. To quote from the article:
"Iran has already dropped the dollar as a means of trading. And as the non-dollar economic
system expands with a SWIFT financial clearing system already launched, with Central Bank non-dollar
currency swaps in place and a putative non-dollar jurisdiction banking system under construction
by China and Russia, Iranians are now seeing the alternative, and getting fed up with hanging
on the eternal "will they/won't they" lift sanctions hiatus."
The second of Alastair Crooke's posts considers Greece's travails with the EU "system", which
he sees as similar to Russia's conflict with the global "system".
Kolomoisky is out of control – before any of those too-rich-to-give-a-fuck oligarchs start
thinking about an armed takeover, they should consider how their plan meshes with the west's plan.
Because if they are in competition rather than harmony, that oligarch will be squashed. And Benny
is embarrassing – it was already inconceivable that Ukraine would be accepted for membership in
the European Union, the west just wants to use it as a "stone frigate" against Russia, but how
much more inconceivable is it now, with Benny's antics? Besides, he did not even make Nuland's
"A" list, so obviously the notion of his being the rebel King of Ukraine was never entertained.
Nuland wants Yats, who is watching with interest to see who will emerge victorious from this street
fight.
On a totally unrelated subject, I just picked up Mrs. Stooge from the Ferry home; she spoke
glowingly of your handsomeness, enviable bearing and manner. Mrs. Exile will have to keep you
on a short leash, you lady-killer. For the prizewinners Jen and James, I have acquired perhaps
the only set of metal Novorossiyan soldiers in Canada. I haven't seen them yet, the missus just
dropped me off at work and headed home without even taking her suitcase out of the car, but I
will get about the business of sending them forthwith. I think I will save Strelkov for last or
for the 100,00th comment, but once I have a look at them I will describe the others for the winners'
choice – Jen first, and then James.
et Al, March 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm
RT OpEd: Anti-Russian propaganda is 'unconvincing', because Western narrative is false
Neil Clark doesn't mess about and it is not complicated. The West's response to the failure
of the general public to swallow hook, line and sinker its bs line on Ukraine is because it is
bs an people know it. Their strategy to counter 'Russian propaganda' is nothing more than shouting
louder. Now how retarded is that? As I posted from an earlier piece from euractiv, Brussels would
like a return on this investment! That's Planet Brussels for you!
marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm
In other news, there was no protest in Odessa yesterday, it was all a faked, crappy provocation
by a Kremlin-sponsored TV station that provided not only the phony protesters, but phony Right
Sektor goons to attack them. Totally phony, from the word "Go". Nothing to see here, return to
your homes.
Moscow Exile, March 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm
By way of Russia Insider by A. Karlin:
The Moor Has Done His Duty*
Freedom! Don't ya'll just love the sound of that word!
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press! You just cannot get enough of it in the Land of the
Free.
From a comment to the above:
I even think that Putin, where [sic] he a sane man, could have obtained the return of Crimea
peacefully had he not been a psychotic killer.
Another Internet clinical psychiatrist, I presume.
* "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go" .
From Schiller's "Die Verschwörung des Fiesco zu Genua" [Fiesco's Conspiracy at Genoa]: Der
Mohr hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, der Mohr kann gehen, meaning "once you have served your purpose,
you are no longer needed".
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend
to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt
ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government
somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability
created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention
there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air
traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least
£100m
to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access
to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed
due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period
of time, the government spent
$1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth
structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a
yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined.
A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every
single trace of your electronic life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent
patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state
whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial
cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in
the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex
societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation.
In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the
Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution
is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.
Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine
enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that
allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
More:
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is
not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is
Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as
a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status
quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own
best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On
March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of
these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when
we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will
have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the
chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically
abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes.
It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies,
if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second
career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried
government employee.
[3]
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities
we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin,
Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves
persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David
Petraeus
joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity
firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance.
General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however,
is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do
not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident
senior fellow at theBelfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred
bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the
protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus.
More:
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on
terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic
social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and
its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening
sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal
till ruin stared it in the face."
The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive
ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term
coined
by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents
a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers
have enumerated the
platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic
election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional
sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature
of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's
left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging
10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.
You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation?
labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that all
Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading
up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically,
I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the
Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at
all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with
Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus
has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for
some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage
is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the
thing. Lofgren:
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views
of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized
by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries.
Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in
the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing
move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they
work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man
to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of
it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life
is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol
dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening
and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience
that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary
of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least
noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You
mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is
classified?" No wonder so few people
are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless
one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of
one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that
I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social
circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that
the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were
attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized
by the events.
Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final
quote, one from
the Moyers interview with Lofgren:
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat
or republican, not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind
of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend
to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security
or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which
is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American
exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere
in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.
This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.
I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses - and
it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.
Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee
a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only
survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is
the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to
reform itself? If so, what then?
For years, Winston
Churchill's famous quote, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all the others that have been tried," has served as Americans' last word in
any political discussion which requires validation of the US government, no matter how corrupt or
flawed in its behavior, as the best in the planet, comparatively or by default. Never mind
the meaning that Mr. Churchill had intended back in 1947, or how the international political panorama
has changed during the past seven decades.
These remarks were made by Britain's prime minister before the House of Commons a few months
before there was a changing of the guards in the "Anglo-Saxon Empire" as the Brits gave
away their colonial hegemony in favor of the super-influential economic and military power represented
by the United States. And that was symbolically marked by Britain's relinquishing
its mandate in Palestine, and the creation of Israel.
Such reference to democracy in the quote, explicitly defining it as a "government by the people,"
basically applied to Britain and the United States at the close of World War II; but such
condition has deteriorated in the US to the point where the "common people" no longer have a say
as to how the nation is run, either directly or through politicians elected with financial support
provided by special interests, undoubtedly expecting their loyalty-vote. Yet, while
this un-democratization period in our system of government was happening, there were many nations
that were adopting a true code of democracy, their citizens having a greater say as to how their
countries are governed. Recognizing such occurrence, however, is a seditious sin for an American
mind still poisoned by the culture of exceptionalism and false pride in which it has been brainwashed.
And that's where our empire, or sphere of influence, stands these days… fighting the
windmills of the world, giants that we see menacing "American interests," and doing it under the
banner of "for democracy and human rights." Such lofty empire aims appear to rationalize
an obscene military budget almost twice as large as those of Russia, China, India and United Kingdom
combined! Americans, representing less than 5 percent of the world's population, are footing
a military bill almost twice as large as that expended by half of the world's population.
If that isn't imperialistic and obscene, it's difficult to image what other societal behavior could
be more detrimental to peace and harmony in this global village where we all try to co-exist.
Empires and global powers of the past most often resorted to deposing of antagonistic foreign
rulers by invading their countries and installing amicable/subservient puppet rulers. The
United States and the United Kingdom, perhaps trying to find refuge, or an excuse, in their democratic
tradition, have resorted to regime change "manipulations" to deal with adversary governments-nations.
[Bush43's Iraq invasion stands as a critical exception by a mongrel government: half-criminal (Dick
Cheney-as mentor), and half-moronic (George W. Bush-as mentee).]
Regime change has served the United States well throughout much of the Americas from time immemorial;
an endless litany of dictators attesting to shameless in-your-face puppetry… manipulations taking
the form of sheer military force, or the fear of such force; bribery of those in power, or about
to attain power – usually via military coup; or the promise of help from the Giant of the North
(US) in improving economic growth, education and health. Kennedy's 1961 Alliance for Progress
proved to be more political-PR than an honest, effective effort to help the people in Latin America…
such program becoming stale and passé in Washington by decade's end; the focus shifting in a feverish
attempt to counter the efforts by Castro's Cuba to awaken the revolutionary spirit of sister republics
in Central and South America (Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua…).
After almost two centuries of political and economic meddling in Latin America under
the Monroe Doctrine (1823) banner, much of it involving regime change, the US is
finally coming to terms with the reality that its influence has not just waned but disappeared.
Not just in nations which may have adopted socialist politics, but other nations as well.
US' recent attempt to get other regional republics to label Venezuela (Maduro's leftist government)
as a security threat not only met with opposition from the twelve-country Union of South American
Nations (UNASUR) but has brought in the end of an era. It's now highly unlikely that secretive
efforts by the CIA to effect regime change in Latin America will find support; certainly not the
support it had in the past.
To Washington's despair, similar results, if for other reasons, are happening throughout
North Africa and the extended Middle East; certainly not the results the US had hoped for or anticipated
from the revolutionary wave in the Arab Spring, now entering its fifth year. It is
no longer the flow of oil that keeps Washington committed to a very strong presence in the Middle
East. It is America's Siamese relationship with Israel.
But if regime change is no longer an effective weapon for the US in Latin America or the Middle
East, the hope is still high that it might work in Eastern Europe, as America keeps corralling
Russian defenses to within a holler of American missilery. Ukraine's year-old regime
change is possibly the last hurrah in US-instigated regime changes… and it is still too early to
determine its success; the US counting on its front-line European NATO partners to absorb the recoil
in terms of both the economy and a confrontational status now replacing prior smooth relations.
Somehow it is difficult to envision an outcome taking place in Ukraine which would allow
the United States a foothold at the very doorsteps of Russia; something totally as inconceivable
as if China or Russia were contemplating establishing military bases in Mexico or any part of Central
America or the Caribbean.
The era of using regime change as a weapon of mass deception may have already ended for
the United States of America… and hopefully for the entire world.
8. Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, 1964) -- Lies: Johnson said Vietnam attacked
our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in August, 1964.Truth: The US didn't want to lose the southeast
Asia region, and its oil and sea lanes, to China. This "attack" was convenient. Kennedy initiated
the first major increase in US troops (over 500).
9. Gulf War (G.H.W. Bush, 1991) -- Lies: To defend Kuwait from Iraq. Truth:
Saddam was a threat to Israel, and we wanted his oil and land for bases.
10. Balkans (Clinton, 1999) -- Lies: Prevent Serb killing of Bosnians. Truth:
Get the Chinese out of Eastern Europe (remember the "accidental" bombing of their embassy in Belgrade?)
so they could not get control of the oil in the Caspian region and Eastward. Control land
for bases such as our huge Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and for the proposed Trans-Balkan Oil pipeline
from the Caspian Sea area to the Albanian port of Valona on the Adriatic Sea.
11. Afghan (G.W. Bush, 2001) -- Lies: The Taliban were hiding Osama. Truth:
To build a gas/oil pipeline from Turkmenistan and other northern 'xxstan' countries to a warm water
(all year) port in the Arabian Sea near Karachi (same reason the Russians were there), plus land
for bases.
12. Iraq (G.W. Bush, 2003) -- Lies: Stop use of WMDs -- whoops, bring Democracy,
or whatever.Truth: Oil, defense of Israel, land for permanent bases (we were kicked out of Saudi
Arabia) to manage the greater Middle East, restore oil sales in USD (Saddam had changed to Euros)
Very poorly written article.
Better to say that Andy Jackson was about the last bad ass to fight of the banksters and die a natural
death, then Salmon Chase and his buddies passed the legal tender laws, and shortly thereafter (or
possibly before) London dispatched the Fabian socialists with their patient gradualism. We
were firmly back under the yoke of London banking cartel come 1913. And you are correct, a
republic is an EXTREMELY limited form of democracy (not truly akin to traditional 51% takes it democratic
concepts at all). The elected leader's function was supposed to be to guard the principles
of the Constitution and the limited Republic, and history will remember that, despite this cruft
of an article.
In the eyes of many who founded this nation, it was only a stepping stone to a global government,
the new Rome - but the new Rome will be the UN with a global bank, and the multinational corporations
holding court, and then the end come.
Like in the Middle East? And you will counter by saying that people are forced to live
under those governments and, yet, thousands are freely going there from around the world to join
ISIS.
Otherwise, such a system would work right up until one government church decided there wasn't
enough room in the area for competitors (probably within a year, maybe six months). Let the
political/religious tribal wars begin.
How should libertarians assess the crisis in Ukraine? Some would have us believe that a
true commitment to liberty entails (1) glorifying the "Euromaidan revolution" and the government it
installed in Kiev, (2) welcoming, excusing, or studiously ignoring US involvement with that
revolution and government, and (3) hysterically demonizing Vladimir Putin and his administration for
Russia's involvement in the affair. Since Ron Paul refuses to follow this formula or to remain
silent on the issue, these "NATO-tarians," as Justin Raimondo refers to them, deride him as an
anti-freedom, anti-American, shill for the Kremlin.
Dr. Paul takes it all in stride of course, having endured the same kind of smears and
dishonest rhetorical tricks his entire career. As he surely knows, the price of being a principled
anti-interventionist is eternal patience. Still, it must be frustrating. After all he has done to
teach Americans about the evils of empire and the bitter fruits of intervention, there are still
legions of self-styled libertarians whose non-interventionism seems to go little further than
admitting that the Iraq War was "a mistake," and who portray opposition to US hostility against
foreign governments as outright support for those governments.
"Yes, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake, but we have to confront Putin; we can't let
Iran 'get nukes;' we've got to save the Yazidis on the mountain; we must crush
ISIS, et cetera, et cetera. What are you, a stooge of the Czar/Ayatollah/Caliph?"
Some of these same libertarians supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and presumably
laughed along with the rest of us when the neocons tried to paint him as "pro-Saddam" for opposing
the Iraq War and for debunking the lies
and distortions that were used to sell it. Yet, today they do not hesitate to tar Dr. Paul as a
"confused Pro-Putin libertarian" over his efforts to oppose US/NATO interventions in Ukraine and
against Russia. Such tar has been extruded particularly profusely by an eastern-European-heavy
faction of Students for Liberty which might be dubbed "Students for Collective Security."
It should be obvious that Ron Paul holds no brief for Putin and the Kremlin. Let me
inform the smear-artists and their dupes what Ron Paul is trying to do with his statements and
articles about Ukraine and Russia. He is not trying to support Putin's government. He is doing what
he has always done. He is trying to prevent US intervention. He is trying to stop war.
Some NATO-tarians have responded to this assertion by asking, "If that is so, why can't
he just limit himself to simply stating his principled opposition to intervention? Why must he go
beyond that, all the way to reciting Kremlin talking points?"
First of all, this is one of the most egregious fallacies that Ron Paul's critics
regularly trot out: the allegation that, "because A voices agreement with B about statements of
fact, then A must be doing so in the service of B."
To see the fallacy involved clearly, let us draw out the Iraq War comparison a bit
more. Before and during that war, in spite of Bush Administration and media propaganda to the
contrary, Ron Paul argued that Saddam Hussein did not have a weapons of mass destruction program or
ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam argued the same thing. So was Ron Paul just "reciting Baghdad talking
points" back then? Was he being a "confused pro-Saddam libertarian"? No. Do you know why Ron Paul
was saying the same thing as Saddam? Because it was true. As is widely accepted today,
Saddam did nothave a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda. Is it valorizing Saddam to admit that
he told the truth? Again, no; it is simply to abstain from hysterically demonizing him. Of course
Saddam was a head of state, and as such, he was a lying murderer. But in this instance, telling the
truth happened to serve his interests, which included trying to avoid a war in which he might be
overthrown and killed. Ron Paul also told the truth, because he's not a lying murderer, and
because he also wanted to prevent such a disastrous war: although of course not for Saddam's sake,
but for the sake of avoiding all the catastrophic results that would surely (and did) flow from it.
Ron Paul had no love for Saddam then or for Putin today, just as, notwithstanding
endless smears to the contrary, there was no love nurtured by Murray Rothbard for Khrushchev, Justin
Raimondo for Milosevic, Lew Rockwell for Lukashenko, or Jacob Hornberger for Chavez. Rather, it just
so happens that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the truth has a well-known anti-war bias.
That is the only reason why, when speaking about the same international crises, principled
anti-war voices so frequently find themselves in agreement over points of fact with tyrants who want
to avoid being attacked. The truth can, in some cases, happen to serve the purposes of both good and
evil men. That doesn't stop it from being the truth.
Similarly, there are a great many true(and intervention-disfavoring) points
of fact concerning Ukraine and Russia that are being completely ignored by the media, which instead
regurgitates the intervention-favoring propaganda it imbibes directly from Washington, London, and
the NATO bureaucracy. These truths are broadcasted, and this propaganda refuted, both by the Kremlin
and by Ron Paul. But again this coincidence does not occur because the two are in cahoots. The
Kremlin engages in this broadcasting and refuting because it considers avoiding US/NATO intervention
to be in its state interest. Ron Paul does so because, again, it is the truth, and because he
considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be moral and in the interest of humanity in general
(Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians, included).
What is this propaganda that Ron Paul labors to refute, along with his Institute for
Peace and Prosperity, and like-minded alternative media outlets like Antiwar.com and
LewRockwell.com?
According to the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative, a peaceful protest movement
emerged in Kiev against an oppressive government, was met with a deadly, unprovoked, and
uncompromising crackdown, but ultimately prevailed, causing Ukraine's dictator to flee. A
popularly-supported, freedom-loving, self-determination-exemplifying government then emerged. But
dastardly Putin horribly invaded and conquered Crimea, and engineered a "terrorist" revolt in the
east of the country. Putin is the new Hitler, and if the US and Europe don't confront him now, he
will continue his conquests until he has recreated the Soviet Empire and re-erected the Iron
Curtain.
The reality of the situation, which Dr. Paul and only a handful of others strive to
represent, is far different.
First of all, the chief grievance of the protesters was not about domestic oppression;
it was over foreign policy and foreign aid. They wanted closer ties with the west, and they were
angry that (the duly elected) President Viktor Yanukovych had rejected a European Union Association
Agreement over its severe stringency.
Far from "organic," the movement was heavily subsidized and sponsored by the US
government. Before the crisis, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged about
the US "investing" $5 billion in "helping" Ukraine become more western-oriented.
Once the anti-government protests in Kiev were under way, both Nuland and Senator John
McCain personally joined the demonstrators in Maidan Square, implicitly promising US support for a
pro-western regime change. Nuland even went so far as to pass out cookies, like a sweet little
imperial auntie.
Far from peaceful, the protesters were very violent, and it is not clear which side
fired the first gunshot. The Foreign Minister of Estonia, while visiting Kiev, was shown evidence
that convinced him that protest
leaders had hired snipers to shoot at both sides. And the BBC recently
interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted to firing on the police before the conflict had
become pitched.
In fact, the hard core of the Euromaidan movement, and its most violent component, was
comprised of Nazis. And no, I don't mean to say "neo-Nazi," which is a term really only appropriate
for people who merely glean inspiration from historical Nazis. On the other hand, the torchlight
marching fascists that spearheaded the Ukraine coup (chief among them, the Svoboda and Right
Sector parties) are part of an unbroken lineal tradition that goes back to Stepan Bandera, the Nazi
collaborator who brought the Holocaust to Ukraine. Even a pro-Maidan blogger wrote
for The Daily Beast:
"Of course the role that the Right Sector played in the Euromaidan cannot be underestimated.
(…) They were the first to throw Molotov coctails and stones at police and to mount real and
well-fortified barricades."
Maidan protesters bearing armbands with the neo-Nazi wolf's hook symbol
More fundamentally, what is often forgotten by many libertarians, is that revolutionary
street and public square movements like Euromaidan are not "the people," but are comprised of
would-be members of and partisans for a new state, every one of which is inherently an
engine of violent aggression. What we saw in the clash at Maidan Square was not "Man Vs. State," but
"Incoming State vs. Outgoing State."
Far from being completely intransigent, Yanukovych agreed to early elections and
assented to US demands to withdraw the riot police from the square. As soon as he did that, the
government buildings were seized. The city hall was then draped
with white supremacist banners.
Far from being supported and appointed popularly and broadly, the new government's
backing is highly sectional and heavily foreign. It was installed by a capital city street coup, not
a countrywide revolution. In a deeply divided country, it only represented a particularly aggressive
component of one side of that divide. Moreover, its top officeholders were handpicked by
Nuland, and its installation was presided over by the US Vice President, as was famously revealed in
an intercepted and leaked telephone
recording.
And the only thing saving the extravagantly warlike new government from bankruptcy is
the unstinting flow of billions of dollars in aid from the
US, the
EU, and the
IMF, as well as "non-lethal"
military aid (including drones, armored Humvees, and training) from the US.
Far from being freedom-loving, top offices are held by an ex-bankster (Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom Nuland handpicked when she said "Yats is our guy" in the above
recording), a corrupt
oligarch (chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko), and, yes, Nazis (including
Andriy Parubiy, until recently the National
Security chief, and Oleh
Tyahnybok, also mentioned by Nuland in the recording as a key advisor to the new government, and
pictured at the top of this article with Nuland and "Yats").
Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda Party, formerly the "Social-National
Party." Get it? Social-National: National Socialist?
Far from being an exemplar of self-determination, the new regime responded to eastern
attempts to assert regional autonomy with all-out war, shelling civilian centers (with cluster
bombs, even) and killing
thousands. Of course Nazis have also played a key role in the war. As the famous journalist
Robert Parry wrote:
"The U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is knowingly sending neo-Nazi paramilitaries into
eastern Ukrainian neighborhoods to attack ethnic Russians who are regarded by some of these
storm troopers as "Untermenschen" or subhuman, according to Western press reports.
Recently, one eastern Ukrainian town, Marinka, fell to Ukraine's Azov battalion as it waved
the Wolfsangel flag, a symbol used by Adolf Hitler's SS divisions in World War II. The Azov
paramilitaries also attacked Donetsk, one of the remaining strongholds of ethnic Russians
opposed to the Kiev regime that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February."
Whatever involvement Moscow has in it, the revolt in the east is far from engineered.
People there do not need Russian money and threats to know they had absolutely no say in the regime
change in distant Kiev, and that it was executed by their political enemies. Russian-speaking and
heavily industrial, it would have suffered grievously, both economically and politically, had it
been dragged into a new expressly anti-Russian order. It was made abundantly clear which way the
wind was blowing when Tyahybok's Svoboda, as the Christian
Science Monitor put it, "pushed through the cancellation of a law that gave equal status to
minority languages, such as Russian," even if the cancellation was temporary.
Far from "terrorists," the rebels are not trying to destabilize or overthrow the
government in Kiev, but are seeking to establish autonomy from it. If anything, it is Kiev, with its
high civilian death toll, that has been more engaged in terrorism.
And far from Soviet revanchism, Russian policy has been largely reactive against US
aggressiveness. Since Moscow dropped its side of the Cold War by relinquishing its empire, including
both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the US has taken advantage by progressively expanding
NATO, an explicitly anti-Moscow military pact, all the way to Russia's borders: a policy that even
Cold War mastermind George Kennan, in 1998, predicted
would prove to be tragic. Moscow warned Washington
that Russia could not abide a hostile Ukraine, which would be a bridge too far.
But Washington blithely pushed on to snatch Ukraine anyway. The sheer flippancy of it can be seen
most vividly when Gideon Rose, editor of the US foreign policy establishment organ Foreign
Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) went on The Colbert Report in
the midst of the crisis and jocularly
boasted about how "we want to basically distract Russia" with the shiny Olympic medals it was
winning at the Sochi Olympics while getting Ukraine "to flip sides." Colbert aptly characterized
this geopolitical strategy as, "Here's a shiny object! We'll just take an entire country away from
you," to which Rose enthusiastically responded, "Basically!" (Perhaps to atone for such an
embarrassing and pandering display of naïveté and frivolity, Rose later published an excellent
article by respected establishment foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer arguing "Why
the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." Even that old CFR-associated murder-monger Henry
Kissinger has
urged reconsideration.)
The takeover included Crimea which is heavily Russian-speaking and has been under effective
Russian control since the 18th century. Unsurprisingly, Washington's brilliant "Shiny Object"
doctrine failed miserably, and rather than see its only warm-water port pass under the sway of an
increasingly antagonistic rival, Russia asserted control over Crimea, doing so without loss of life.
Later, following a referendum, Crimea was formally annexed.
Of course this act was not "libertarian"; hardly anything that a state does is. But it
is simply a warmongering distortion to characterize this bloodless foreign policy counter-move
as evidence of reckless imperial Russian expansionism, especially when you compare the "invasion" of
Crimea with the bloody havoc the US has wreaked upon the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest
Asia for the past 14 years.
As for whatever meddling Russia is guilty of in eastern Ukraine, let's try to put it in
perspective without absolving it. Just imagine what the US would do if Russia had supported a coup
in Ottawa that installed an anti-American Canadian government right on our border, and then
perpetually re-armed that government as it bombed English-speaking separatists in British Columbia.
Compared to what you'd expect to follow that, Russia's response to a US-sponsored, anti-Russian
junta bombing Russian speakers right on its border has been positively restrained.
After all, it is Putin who has been constantly pushing for ceasefires against American
militant obduracy and European reluctance, just as, in 2013, it was Putin who successfully pushed
for a deal that prevented the US from launching yet another air war, this time against the
Syrian government.
Again, this is not to claim that any foreign intervention on the part of Moscow is at
all justified on libertarian grounds, or to argue that Putin is anything more than a lying murderer
who happens to be more intelligent and sane than our own lying murderers. It is only to make clear
that in this respect too, Russia's involvement in the affair is hardly evidence of grand imperial
designs.
As an aside: Putin's foiling of neocon war aims in Syria (and potential future such
foilings) may be the reason that the anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, and the new Putin-threatening
Cold War it engendered, was advanced by Nuland, who is a neocon holdover from the Bush
Administration and the wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan, in the first place.
To think that any country is too big or too dangerous (especially if
destabilized) to be targeted by neocons for regime change would be naïve. And to think Putin is too
naïve to know this would be equally naïve.
So much for the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative. Now to return to the NATO-tarian
objection from above: why must Ron Paul stress these points of fact, especially when they make
wicked Putin look better, or at least not-so-wicked? Why can't Dr. Paul merely state his principled
opposition to intervention?
It might make sense for him to do so if that were enough to make a difference. But the
thing is, it's not. The sad but inescapable fact is that the American people are not
operating under the same moral premises as Ron Paul and other principled libertarians. As such, the
public is susceptible to war lies and distortions. And the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon
narrative about Ukraine and Russia is nothing but a tissue of war lies and distortions.
As the warmongers are abundantly aware, if Kiev is sufficiently falsely valorized,
Washington/NATO sufficiently falsely absolved, and Putin and the eastern separatists sufficiently
falsely demonized, then American opinion will provide cover for US intervention, regardless
of what principled libertarians say. So the only way to practically stop such intervention is to go
beyond statements of principle and to debunk those war lies and distortions; moreover, to debunk
them bravely and forthrightly, even if the Kremlin is also trying to debunk them, and even if
simple-minded or lying critics will use that parallel to smear you as an agent of a foreign power.
Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda,
how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing
in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has
is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the
only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention.
So much for Ron Paul's "ulterior motives." But what about some of his critics? A
question actually worth asking is as follows: Why are some of his avowedly libertarian critics, many
of whom profess not to favor intervention (or at least studiously avoid talking about that question
concretely) so absolutely livid over Ron Paul's challenge to their narrative? Their English-language
blasts against Dr. Paul are also not likely to effect Putin's domestic support one way or the other.
Their only possible impact is also on US foreign policy. So, why are they so extremely sensitive
about the acceptance in America of a narrative that lends itself toward intervention and
confrontation? The question answers itself.
Let me close with a few additional questions.
Why is it "defending tyranny" for Ron Paul to agree with Putin on points of fact, but
not for "libertarians" to hail a government that rose to power in a violent putsch, that welcomes
outright Nazis in its ranks, that conscripts its people, and that drops cluster bombs on civilians?
What exactly is "libertarian" about NATO, which amounts to an hegemonic,
dual-hemisphere, nuclear tripwire, species suicide pact?
What is so secure about a state of "collective security" in which petulant, reckless
nationalists in small eastern European countries can drag the whole world into nuclear war over a
border dispute?
And finally, why should a new Cold War be launched, and the risk of nuclear
annihilation for all our families and hometowns be heightened over the question of which clique
rules a particular river basin on the other side of the world?
Ron Paul has excellent, solidly libertarian answers to all these questions. Do his
critics?
Wow, what a sad mess the U.S. government is. It's quite frustrating how
little say we peons have on what our rulers arbitrarily do to other countries that are
no threat to us whatsoever. And these wannabe Ukrainian Nazis...I had no idea they were
so powerful in number. Are their attacks on ethnic Russians some sort of "cosmic
revenge" for the Soviet Union's starvation of Ukrainians in the 30's? The whole thing is
a nightmare. May our leaders burn in hell for the misery they've helped create.
johndavit66
Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior
pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda?
He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's
domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the
English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he
could hope to have is to dissuade intervention. Thank for share
Friv 100000
Michael
mind blowingly rational stream of conscious and geo-political conscience!
It makes tremendous sense particularly if you feel we have been recently duped into 20
or so highly profitable (for oligarchs and financial institutions) wars. Assuming they
are going to have another real war with Russia for fun and neo-con profit, where are
they going to live in blissful retirement to spend the loot without getting attacked or
dripped-on by glow-in the dark irradiated zombies? Are some wars better not started
regardless of the causus belli or opportunity for plunder? Is setting-up a game of
nuclear armed chicken with the second most powerful alliance on the planet still a good
idea if you were planning to retire and spend time growing rhodos and fishing and
playing baseball with your grandchildren?
Do neo-cons have a we-were-just-kidding plan "B" or are they truly to
committed to a global sepuku / samson option if they / we lose? Do neo-cons do anything
other than dream big about obliterating evil comic book enemies and ruling the world? Is
it too late to invent a drug or make a video game or addictive snuff porn to keep them
better occupied? How come all the neo-cons are moving to the USA and no one elsewhere is
complaining about a shortage of them?
Claus Eric Hamle
It is really like 2+2=4: Deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe (Poland
and Romania) leads to Launch On Warning (probably by 2017) and Suicide by
accident/mistake. What else can the Russians do to defend themselves ? Will they even
announce when they adopt Launch On Warning=Suicide Guaranteed. The crazy Americans asked
for it -- The Russians want to be certain that they won't die alone. Stupid, crazy,
bloody fools in the Pentagon !!!
The new authoritarianism,
by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Vox EU: The changing dictatorships Dictatorships
are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
or Pol Pot – employed terror, indoctrination, and isolation to monopolize power. Although less
ideological, many 20th-century military regimes also relied on mass violence to intimidate dissidents.
Pinochet's agents, for instance, are thought to have tortured and killed tens of thousands of
Chileans (Roht-Arriaza 2005).
However, in recent decades new types of authoritarianism have emerged that seem better adapted
to a world of open borders, global media, and knowledge-based economies. From the Peru of Alberto
Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without
fencing off their countries or resorting to mass murder. Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian
states remain – such as Syria and North Korea – but the balance has shifted.
The new autocracies often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost
always win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing comprehensive
political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010).
Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals.
State propaganda aims not to 'engineer human souls' but to boost the dictator's ratings. Political
opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate,
rather than being murdered en masse.
Dictatorships and information
In a recent paper, we argue that the distinctive feature of such new dictatorships is a preoccupation
with information (Guriev and Treisman 2015). Although they do use violence at times, they maintain
power less by terrorizing victims than by manipulating beliefs. Of course, surveillance and propaganda
were important to the old-style dictatorships, too. But violence came first. "Words are fine things,
but muskets are even better," Mussolini quipped. Compare that to the confession of Fujimori's
security chief, Vladimir Montesinos: "The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs".
Killing members of the elite struck Montesinos as foolish: "Remember why Pinochet had his problems.
We will not be so clumsy" (McMillan and Zoido 2004).
We study the logic of a dictatorship in which the leader survives by manipulating information.
Our key assumption is that citizens care about effective government and economic prosperity; first
and foremost, they want to select a competent rather than incompetent ruler. However, the general
public does not know the competence of the ruler; only the dictator himself and members of an
'informed elite' observe this directly. Ordinary citizens make what inferences they can, based
on their living standards – which depend in part on the leader's competence – and on messages
sent by the state and independent media. The latter carry reports on the leader's quality sent
by the informed elite. If a sufficient number of citizens come to believe their ruler is incompetent,
they revolt and overthrow him.
The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into thinking he is
competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools – propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation
of the elite, and censorship of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from
taxing the citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their estimate
of the dictator's competence. Hence the trade-off.
Certain findings emerge from the logic of this game.
First, we show how modern autocracies can survive while employing relatively little violence
against the public.
Repression is not necessary if mass beliefs can be manipulated sufficiently. Dictators win
a confidence game rather than an armed combat. Indeed, since in our model repression is only used
if equilibria based on non-violent methods no longer exist, violence can signal to opposition
forces that the regime is vulnerable.
Second, since members of the informed elite must coordinate among themselves on whether
to sell out to the regime, two alternative equilibria often exist under identical circumstances
– one based on a co-opted elite, the other based on a censored private media.
Since both bribing the elite and censoring the media are ways of preventing the sending of
embarrassing messages, they serve as substitutes. Propaganda, by contrast, complements all the
other tools.
Propaganda and a leader's competency
Why does anyone believe such propaganda? Given the dictator's obvious incentive to lie, this
is a perennial puzzle of authoritarian regimes. We offer an answer. We think of propaganda as
consisting of claims by the ruler that he is competent. Of course, genuinely competent rulers
also make such claims. However, backing them up with convincing evidence is costlier for the incompetent
dictators – who have to manufacture such evidence – than for their competent counterparts, who
can simply reveal their true characteristics. Since faking the evidence is costly, incompetent
dictators sometimes choose to spend their resources on other things. It follows that the public,
observing credible claims that the ruler is competent, rationally increases its estimate that
he really is.
Moreover, if incompetent dictators survive, they may over time acquire a reputation for competence,
as a result of Bayesian updating by the citizens. Such reputations can withstand temporary economic
downturns if these are not too large. This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian
leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez).
While a major economic crisis results in their overthrow, more gradual deteriorations may fail
to tarnish their reputations significantly.
A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes. As Turkey's growth rate fell from 7.8% in 2010 to 0.8%
in 2012, the number of journalists in jail increased from four to 49. Declines in press freedom
were also witnessed after the Global Crisis in countries such as Hungary and Russia. Conversely,
although this may be changing now, in both Singapore and China during the recent decades of rapid
growth, the regime's information control strategy shifted from one of more overt intimidation
to one that often used economic incentives and legal penalties to encourage self-censorship (Esarey
2005, Rodan 1998).
The kind of information-based dictatorship we identify is more compatible with a modernized
setting than with the rural underpinnings of totalitarianism in Asia or the traditional societies
in which monarchs retain legitimacy. Yet, modernization ultimately undermines the informational
equilibria on which such dictators rely. As education and information spread to broader segments
of the population, it becomes harder to control how this informed elite communicates with the
masses. This may be a key mechanism explaining the long-noted tendency for richer countries to
open up politically.
References
Esarey, A (2005), "Cornering the market: state strategies for controlling China's commercial
media", Asian Perspective 29(4): 37-83.
Gandhi, J (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Levitsky, S, and L A Way (2010), Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after
the cold war, New York: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J, and P Zoido (2004), "How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru",
Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 69-92.
Rodan, G (1998), "The Internet and political control in Singapore", Political Science
Quarterly 113(1): 63-89.
Roht-Arriaza, N (2005), The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human
Rights, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Peter K.:
"A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes."
Instead of military Keynesianism, it's "police state" Keynesianism.
More social spending coupled with more social control.
ilsm:
The corporation runs the governors.....
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is a new twist where the actions of government, like investor
"losses" from shuttering frackers would be compensated by a standing unelected nor appointed by
the locals "board" filled with corporate cronies to take sovereignty from governments when foreign
investors are denied pillaging "rights".
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is why you should oppose TPP fast track.
The kleptocarcy is well advanced in the US!
GeorgeK:
..."This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on
to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez"...
Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored. If you were
wealthy or upper middle class Chavez was a failure, if you were poor or indigenous he was a savior.
..."Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South
will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social
and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[262] The project is
endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of
the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those
in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the
market for development lending."[263]"...
Guess nobody told Stiglitz about Chavez's authoritarian incompetence.
Julio -> anne...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly
interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers;
and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.
But in a government attempting left-wing reforms, and where the government is less stable, there
is less room for the government to accept the unanimity and hostility of the press; it may need
to intervene more strongly to defend itself. Take e.g. Ecuador where Correa has been accused of
suppressing press liberties along these very lines.
anne -> Julio...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist,
since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness
of information is no threat to the regime....
[ Thinking further, I realize that the United States is wildly aggressive with governments
of countries considered strategic and does not hesitate to use media in those countries when our
"needs" do not seem met. I am thinking even of the effort to keep allied governments, even the
UK, France and Germany, from agreeing to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank that China has begun. ]
Peter K. -> GeorgeK...
"Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored."
This is how I see it. There are no objective standards.
Lefties criticize Obama for going after whistle blowers. Snowden is treated as a hero. Then
guys like Paine and Kervack defend the behaviro of a Putin or Chavez because the U.S. doesn't
like them.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
I think a lot of the older left is stuck in a Cold War mind set.
Opposing America is good because you're opposing multinational capitalism. So they'll provide
rhetorical support to any nutjob who opposes the West no matter how badly he mistreats his people.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
It's the flipside to the Dick Cheney-Security State rationalizations of torture and police
state tactics like warrantless surveillence.
It's okay if we do it, because they're trying to destroy us.
The ends justify the means.
hyperpolarizer -> Peter K....
I am the older left (born right after WW II). I grew up with the cold war, but -- despite its
poisonous legacy (particularly the linking of the domestic labor movement to international communism)--
I have assuredly left it behind.
In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United
States has undergone a coup d'etat.
Roger Gathmann -> anne...
Defending Chavez doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. So, Peter K., do you defend, say, Uribe?
Let's see - amended constitution so he could run again - Chavez, check, Uribe check. Associated with
paramilitaries, Uribe, check, Chavez, demi-check. Loved by the US, Uribe, check, Chavez, non-check.
Funny how chavez figures in these things, and Uribe doesn't. https://www.citizen.org/documents/TalkingPointsApril08.pdf
Peter K. -> Roger Gathmann...
I never said a thing about Uribe. I said there should be single standards across the board
for Uribe, America, Chavez, Putin, China, etc...
Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....
Right. Double standard. That is what I am talking about. The double standard that allows US
tax dollars to go into supporting a right wing dictator like Uribe. I don't have to piss off.
You can piss off. I doubt you will. I certainly won't. It is adolescent gestures like that which
make me wonder about your age.
Are you going to slam the door next and saY I hate you I hate you I hate you?
You need to get a little pillow that you can mash. Maybe with a hello kitty sewed on it.
Nietil -> Roger Gathmann...
I don't see how any of these criteria has anything to do with being an autocrat.
Autocracy is an answer to the question of the source of legitimacy (democratic, autocratic,
or theocratic). It has nothing to do with either the definition of the sovereign space (feudal,
racial or national) or with the number of people running the said government (anarchy, monarchy,
oligarchy).
The UK for example was a national and democratic monarchy for a long, long time. Now it's more
of a national and democratic oligarchy. And it can still change in the future.
DrDick -> Peter K....
I really do not think that is at all accurate. While there are certainly some like that, it
is far from the majority. Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they
have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their
refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people.
Much of that support is also conditional and qualified, for reasons that have been mentioned
here. All evaluations of current leaders is conditioned by both past history in the country and
region, as well as the available alternatives. By those standards, all of the men I mentioned
look pretty good, if far from perfect.
How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression
By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman
We develop an informational theory of dictatorship. Dictators survive not because of their
use of force or ideology but because they convince the public--rightly or wrongly--that they are
competent. Citizens do not observe the dictator's type but infer it from signals inherent in their
living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media.
If citizens conclude the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator
can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite,
or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings -- but he must finance such spending with taxes
that depress the public's living standards. We show that incompetent dictators can survive as
long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow
over time. Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of
propaganda. Repression of protests is a substitute for all the other techniques. In some equilibria
the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship.
The multiplicity of equilibria emerges due to coordination failure among members of the elite.
We show that repression is used against ordinary citizens only as a last resort when the opportunities
to survive through co-optation, censorship, and propaganda are exhausted. In the equilibrium with
censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda.
The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.
[ This is the discussion paper, which I find more coherent than the summary essay. ]
JayR:
Wow quite a few countries, maybe even the US with Obama's war on whistle blowers, could fit
this articles definition if the authors actually though more about it.
Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....
Yes, the people of Greece can vote to leave the Eurozone, just like the people of Crimea can
vote to leave the Ukraine, or the people of Kosovo could vote to leave Serbia. There are many
ways, though, of looking at soft dictatorship. I think the EU bureaucrats have been busy inventing
new ones, with new and ever more onerous chains. To say Greece can vote to leave the EU is like
saying the merchant can always defy the mafioso, or the moneylender. It isn't that easy.
If you compare this with Nuland's recent testimony, it's clear
Condoleezza Rice was higher quality diplomat then Victoria
Nuland. Both are neocons although Ms. Rise was less supportive of Israel. But true to neocon doctrine when she said "especially
because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values." she means neoliberal values (aka "Washington consensus")
under which Russia should play the role of vassal of the USA (like all other countries). A colony.
You should replace "democratization" with "neoliberalization"
globally in the text to understand the real interests she defends.
What is the national interest? This is a question that I took up in 2000 in these pages. That was a time that we as a nation revealingly
called "the post-Cold War era." We knew better where we had been than where we were going. Yet monumental changes were unfolding
-- changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear.
And then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States
was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective on what constituted
threats and what might emerge as opportunities. And as with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and
change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.
What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of
policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the "relationships with the big powers" -- Russia, China, and
emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia
remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.
What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power
among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak
or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international
order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full
range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant
changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the
broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability,
especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As in the past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried
to marry power and principle -- realism and idealism. At times, there have been short-term tensions between them. But we have always
known where our long-term interests lie. Thus, the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the
superiority of democracy as a form of government, both in principle and in practice. This uniquely American realism has guided us
over the past eight years, and it must guide us over the years to come.
GREAT POWER, OLD AND NEW
By necessity, our relationships with Russia and China have been rooted more in common interests than common values. With Russia,
we have found common ground, as evidenced by the "strategic framework" agreement that President George W. Bush and Russian President
Vladimir Putin signed in Sochi in March of this year. Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by
its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge.
And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was
moving closer to us in terms of values.
Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent
enemy nor a strategic threat. Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in
their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great
power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the
technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of
Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.
The last eight years have also challenged us to deal with rising Chinese influence, something we have no reason to fear if that
power is used responsibly. We have stressed to Beijing that with China's full membership in the international community comes responsibilities,
whether in the conduct of its economic and trade policy, its approach to energy and the environment, or its policies in the developing
world. China's leaders increasingly realize this, and they are moving, albeit slowly, to a more cooperative approach on a range of
problems. For instance, on Darfur, after years of unequivocally supporting Khartoum, China endorsed the UN Security Council resolution
authorizing the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force and dispatched an engineering battalion to
pave the way for those peacekeepers. China needs to do much more on issues such as Darfur, Burma, and Tibet, but we sustain an active
and candid dialogue with China's leaders on these challenges.
The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China's rapid development of high-tech weapons systems.
We understand that as countries develop, they will modernize their armed forces. But China's lack of transparency about its military
spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion. Although Beijing has agreed to take incremental steps
to deepen U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchanges, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of peaceful intentions toward true engagement
in order to reassure the international community.
Our relationships with Russia and China are complex and characterized simultaneously by competition and cooperation. But in the
absence of workable relations with both of these states, diplomatic solutions to many international problems would be elusive. Transnational
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and instability stemming from poverty and disease
-- these are dangers to all successful states, including those that might in another time have been violent rivals. It is incumbent
on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant
differences.
Obviously, Russia and China carry special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, but
this has not been the only forum in which we have worked together. Another example has emerged in Northeast Asia with the six-party
framework. The North Korean nuclear issue could have led to conflict among the states of Northeast Asia, or to the isolation of the
United States, given the varied and vital interests of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Instead, it has
become an opportunity for cooperation and coordination as the efforts toward verifiable denuclearization proceed. And when North
Korea tested a nuclear device last year, the five other parties already were an established coalition and went quickly to the Security
Council for a Chapter 7 resolution. That, in turn, put considerable pressure on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and
to shut down and begin disabling its Yongbyon reactor. The parties intend to institutionalize these habits of cooperation through
the establishment of a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism -- a first step toward a security forum in the region.
The importance of strong relations with global players extends to those that are emerging. With those, particularly India and
Brazil, the United States has built deeper and broader ties. India stands on the front lines of globalization. This democratic nation
promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law. Brazil's success
at using democracy and markets to address centuries of pernicious social inequality has global resonance. Today, India and Brazil
look outward as never before, secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. In both countries, national interests
are being redefined as Indians and Brazilians realize their direct stake in a democratic, secure, and open international order --
and their commensurate responsibilities for strengthening it and defending it against the major transnational challenges of our era.
We have a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies with global reach, such as
Indonesia and South Africa. And as these emerging powers change the geopolitical landscape, it will be important that international
institutions also change to reflect this reality. This is why President Bush has made clear his support for a reasonable expansion
of the UN Security Council.
SHARED VALUES AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values, that is
transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic
states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore,
should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and
extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.
In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and
Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have supported struggling states, such as Haiti,
in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal
gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming
transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old
suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic
development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social justice and inequality.
I believe that one of the most compelling stories of our time is our relationship with our oldest allies. The goal of a Europe
whole, free, and at peace is very close to completion. The United States welcomes a strong, united, and coherent Europe. There is
no doubt that the European Union has been a superb anchor for the democratic evolution of eastern Europe after the Cold War. Hopefully,
the day will come when Turkey takes its place in the EU.
Membership in the EU and NATO has been attractive enough to lead countries to make needed reforms and to seek the peaceful resolution
of long-standing conflicts with their neighbors. The reverse has been true as well: the new members have transformed these two pillars
of the transatlantic relationship. Twelve of the 28 members of NATO are former "captive nations," countries once in the Soviet
sphere. The effect of their joining the alliance is felt in a renewed dedication to promoting and protecting democracy.
Whether sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq or fiercely defending the continued expansion of NATO, these states have brought new
energy and fervor to the alliance.
In recent years, the mission and the purpose of the alliance have also been transformed. Indeed, many can remember when NATO viewed
the world in two parts: Europe and "out of area," which was basically everywhere else. If someone had said in 2000 that NATO today
would be rooting out terrorists in Kandahar, training the security forces of a free Iraq, providing critical support to peacekeepers
in Darfur, and moving forward on missile defenses, hopefully in partnership with Russia, who would have believed him? The endurance
and resilience of the transatlantic alliance is one reason that I believe Lord Palmerston got it wrong when he said that nations
have no permanent allies. The United States does have permanent allies: the nations with whom we share common values.
Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region. This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing
the goals we share. Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too -- and perhaps
to an even greater degree -- will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian states. This is the defining
geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it. We enjoy a strong, democratic
alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan -- an economic giant that is emerging as a "normal" state,
capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond. South Korea, too, has become a global partner whose history
can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity. Finally, the United States has a vital
stake in India's rise to global power and prosperity, and relations between the two countries have never been stronger or broader.
It will take continued work, but this is a dramatic breakthrough for both our strategic interests and our values.
It is now possible to speak of emerging democratic allies in Africa as well. Too often, Africa is thought of only as a humanitarian
concern or a zone of conflict. But the continent has seen successful transitions to democracy in several states, among them Ghana,
Liberia, Mali, and Mozambique. Our administration has worked to help the democratic leaders of these and other states provide for
their people -- most of all by attacking the continental scourge of HIV/AIDS in an unprecedented effort of power, imagination, and
mercy. We have also been an active partner in resolving conflicts -- from the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which
ended the civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, to active engagement in the Great Lakes region, to the intervention
of a small contingent of U.S. military forces in coordination with the African Union to end the conflict in Liberia. Although conflicts
in Darfur, Somalia, and other places tragically remain violent and unresolved, it is worth noting the considerable progress that
African states are making on many fronts and the role that the United States has played in supporting African efforts to solve the
continent's greatest problems.
A DEMOCRATIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT
Although the United States' ability to influence strong states is limited, our ability to enhance the peaceful political and economic
development of weak and poorly governed states can be considerable. We must be willing to use our power for this purpose -- not only
because it is necessary but also because it is right. Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as
separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation
of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy.
Democratic development is a unified political-economic model, and it offers the mix of flexibility and stability that best enables
states to seize globalization's opportunities and manage its challenges. And for those who think otherwise: What real alternative
worthy of America is there?
Democratic development is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits
are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence. We saw this recently in Kenya, where democracy
enabled civil society, the press, and business leaders to join together to insist on an inclusive political bargain that could stem
the country's slide into ethnic cleansing and lay a broader foundation for national reconciliation. In our own hemisphere, democratic
development has opened up old, elite-dominated systems to millions on the margins of society. These people are demanding the benefits
of citizenship long denied them, and because they are doing so democratically, the real story in our hemisphere since 2001 is not
that our neighbors have given up on democracy and open markets; it is that they are broadening our region's consensus in support
of democratic development by ensuring that it leads to social justice for the most marginalized citizens.
The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian
capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in
delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages
to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing
pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least
an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long
run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.
For the United States, promoting democratic development must remain a top priority. Indeed, there is no realistic alternative
that we can -- or should -- offer to influence the peaceful evolution of weak and poorly governed states. The real question is not
whether to pursue this course but how.
We first need to recognize that democratic development is always possible but never fast or easy. This is because democracy is
really the complex interplay of democratic practices and culture. In the experience of countless nations, ours especially, we see
that culture is not destiny. Nations of every culture, race, religion, and level of development have embraced democracy and adapted
it to their own circumstances and traditions. No cultural factor has yet been a stumbling block -- not German or Japanese "militarism,"
not "Asian values," not African "tribalism," not Latin America's alleged fondness for caudillos, not the once-purported preference
of eastern Europeans for despotism.
The fact is, few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture. The vast majority create one over time -- through
the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share
power justly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grow the habits of democracy in the controlled environment of authoritarianism, to
have them ready and in place when tyranny is lifted. The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but
it is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. This is true but beside the
point. It is more likely that tyranny has to be imposed.
The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy -- the right to choose those who will govern them and
other basic freedoms. It is, instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient with them and holding
them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life. It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders, support
their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security,
especially when their nations have experienced crippling conflicts. To do so will require long-term partnerships rooted in mutual
responsibility and the integration of all elements of our national power -- political, diplomatic, economic, and, at times, military.
We have recently built such partnerships to great effect with countries as different as Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Indeed, a
decade ago, Colombia was on the verge of failure. Today, in part because of our long-term partnership with courageous leaders and
citizens, Colombia is emerging as a normal nation, with democratic institutions that are defending the country, governing justly,
reducing poverty, and contributing to international security.
We must now build long-term partnerships with other new and fragile democracies, especially Afghanistan. The basics of democracy
are taking root in this country after nearly three decades of tyranny, violence, and war. For the first time in their history, Afghans
have a government of the people, elected in presidential and parliamentary elections, and guided by a constitution that codifies
the rights of all citizens. The challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a strong enemy. The Taliban offers a political vision
that very few Afghans embrace. Rather, they exploit the current limitations of the Afghan government, using violence against civilians
and revenues from illegal narcotics to impose their rule. Where the Afghan government, with support from the international community,
has been able to provide good governance and economic opportunity, the Taliban is in retreat. The United States and NATO have a vital
interest in supporting the emergence of an effective, democratic Afghan state that can defeat the Taliban and deliver "population
security" -- addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity. We share this goal
with the Afghan people, who do not want us to leave until we have accomplished our common mission. We can succeed in Afghanistan,
but we must be prepared to sustain a partnership with that new democracy for many years to come.
One of our best tools for supporting states in building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society is our foreign
assistance, but we must use it correctly. One of the great advances of the past eight years has been the creation of a bipartisan
consensus for the more strategic use of foreign assistance. We have begun to transform our assistance into an incentive for developing
states to govern justly, advance economic freedom, and invest in their people. This is the great innovation of the Millennium Challenge
Account initiative. More broadly, we are now better aligning our foreign aid with our foreign policy goals -- so as to help developing
countries move from war to peace, poverty to prosperity, poor governance to democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, we have
launched historic efforts to help remove obstacles to democratic development -- by forgiving old debts, feeding the hungry, expanding
access to education, and fighting pandemics such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Behind all of these efforts is the overwhelming generosity
of the American people, who since 2001 have supported the near tripling of the United States' official development assistance worldwide
-- doubling it for Latin America and quadrupling it for Africa.
Ultimately, one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institutions and civil society is to expand free and fair
trade and investment. The very process of implementing a trade agreement or a bilateral investment treaty helps to hasten and consolidate
democratic development. Legal and political institutions that can enforce property rights are better able to protect human rights
and the rule of law. Independent courts that can resolve commercial disputes can better resolve civil and political disputes. The
transparency needed to fight corporate corruption makes it harder for political corruption to go unnoticed and unpunished. A rising
middle class also creates new centers of social power for political movements and parties. Trade is a divisive issue in our country
right now, but we must not forget that it is essential not only for the health of our domestic economy but also for the success our
foreign policy.
There will always be humanitarian needs, but our goal must be to use the tools of foreign assistance, security cooperation, and
trade together to help countries graduate to self-sufficiency. We must insist that these tools be used to promote democratic development.
It is in our national interest to do so.
THE CHANGING MIDDLE EAST
What about the broader Middle East, the arc of states that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan? The Bush administration's approach
to this region has been its most vivid departure from prior policy. But our approach is, in reality, an extension of traditional
tenets -- incorporating human rights and the promotion of democratic development into a policy meant to further our national interest.
What is exceptional is that the Middle East was treated as an exception for so many decades. U.S. policy there focused almost exclusively
on stability. There was little dialogue, certainly not publicly, about the need for democratic change.
For six decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a basic bargain defined the United States' engagement in
the broader Middle East: we supported authoritarian regimes, and they supported our shared interest in regional stability. After
September 11, it became increasingly clear that this old bargain had produced false stability. There were virtually no legitimate
channels for political expression in the region. But this did not mean that there was no political activity. There was -- in madrasahs
and radical mosques. It is no wonder that the best-organized political forces were extremist groups. And it was there, in the shadows,
that al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers in its millenarian war against the "far enemy."
One response would have been to fight the terrorists without addressing this underlying cause. Perhaps it would have been possible
to manage these suppressed tensions for a while. Indeed, the quest for justice and a new equilibrium on which the nations of the
broader Middle East are now embarked is very turbulent. But is it really worse than the situation before? Worse than when Lebanon
suffered under the boot of Syrian military occupation? Worse than when the self-appointed rulers of the Palestinians personally pocketed
the world's generosity and squandered their best chance for a two-state peace? Worse than when the international community imposed
sanctions on innocent Iraqis in order to punish the man who tyrannized them, threatened Iraq's neighbors, and bulldozed 300,000 human
beings into unmarked mass graves? Or worse than the decades of oppression and denied opportunity that spawned hopelessness, fed hatreds,
and led to the sort of radicalization that brought about the ideology behind the September 11 attacks? Far from being the model of
stability that some seem to remember, the Middle East from 1945 on was wracked repeatedly by civil conflicts and cross-border wars.
Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East -- for they yielded neither
justice nor stability.
The president's second inaugural address and my speech at the American University in Cairo in June 2005 have been held up as rhetorical
declarations that have faded in the face of hard realities. No one will argue that the goal of democratization and modernization
in the broader Middle East lacks ambition, and we who support it fully acknowledge that it will be a difficult, generational task.
No one event, and certainly not a speech, will bring it into being. But if America does not set the goal, no one will.
This goal is made more complicated by the fact that the future of the Middle East is bound up in many of our other vital interests:
energy security, nonproliferation, the defense of friends and allies, the resolution of old conflicts, and, most of all, the need
for near-term partners in the global struggle against violent Islamist extremism. To state, however, that we must promote either
our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice. Admittedly, our interests and our ideals do come into
tension at times in the short term. America is not an NGO and must balance myriad factors in our relations with all countries. But
in the long term, our security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and
the rule of law.
The leaders and citizens of the broader Middle East are now searching for answers to the fundamental questions of modern state
building: What are to be the limits on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders? What will be the role of the
state in the lives of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics? How will traditional values and mores be reconciled
with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls? How is religious and ethnic diversity
to be accommodated in fragile political institutions when people tend to hold on to traditional associations? The answers to these
and other questions can come only from within the Middle East itself. The task for us is to support and shape these difficult processes
of change and to help the nations of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states.
The first challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, as embodied by groups, such as al Qaeda, that thoroughly
reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial
structure of the ancient caliphate. To resist this threat, the United States will need friends and allies in the region who are willing
and able to take action against the terrorists among them. Ultimately, however, this is more than just a struggle of arms; it is
a contest of ideas. Al Qaeda's theory of victory is to hijack the legitimate local and national grievances of Muslim societies and
twist them into an ideological narrative of endless struggle against Western, especially U.S., oppression. The good news is that
al Qaeda's intolerant ideology can be enforced only through brutality and violence. When people are free to choose, as we have seen
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq's Anbar Province, they reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. Our theory of
victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully -- to develop their talents,
to redress injustices, and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency:
the center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.
Admittedly, our interests in both promoting democratic development and fighting terrorism and extremism lead to some hard choices,
because we do need capable friends in the broader Middle East who can root out terrorists now. These states are often not democratic,
so we must balance the tensions between our short-term and our long-term goals. We cannot deny nondemocratic states the security
assistance to fight terrorism or defend themselves. At the same time, we must use other points of leverage to promote democracy and
hold our friends to account. That means supporting civil society, as we have done through the Forum for the Future and the Middle
East Partnership Initiative, and using public and private diplomacy to push our nondemocratic partners to reform. Changes are slowly
coming in terms of universal suffrage, more influential parliaments, and education for girls and women. We must continue to advocate
for reform and support indigenous agents of change in nondemocratic countries, even as we cooperate with their governments on security.
An example of how our administration has balanced these concerns is our relationship with Pakistan. Following years of U.S. neglect
of that relationship, our administration had to establish a partnership with Pakistan's military government to achieve a common goal
after September 11. We did so knowing that our security and that of Pakistan ultimately required a return to civilian and democratic
rule. So even as we worked with President Pervez Musharraf to fight terrorists and extremists, we invested more than $3 billion to
strengthen Pakistani society -- building schools and health clinics, providing emergency relief after the 2005 earthquake, and supporting
political parties and the rule of law. We urged Pakistan's military leaders to put their country on a modern and moderate trajectory,
which in some important respects they did. And when this progress was threatened last year by the declaration of emergency rule,
we pushed President Musharraf hard to take off his uniform and hold free elections. Although terrorists tried to thwart the return
of democracy and tragically killed many innocent people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani people dealt
extremism a crushing defeat at the polls. This restoration of democracy in Pakistan creates an opportunity for us to build the lasting
and broad-based partnership that we have never achieved with this nation, thereby enhancing our security and anchoring the success
of our values in a troubled region.
A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the
present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism. The question is not
whether any particular state should have influence in the region. They all do, and will. The real question is, What kind of influence
will these states wield -- and to what ends, constructive or destructive? It is this fundamental and still unresolved question that
is at the center of many of the geopolitical challenges in the Middle East today -- whether it is Syria's undermining of Lebanon's
sovereignty, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability, or both states' support for terrorism.
Iran poses a particular challenge. The Iranian regime pursues its disruptive policies both through state instruments, such as
the Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds force, and through nonstate proxies that extend Iranian power, such as elements of the Mahdi
Army in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world. The Iranian regime seeks to subvert states and extend
its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East. It threatens the state of Israel with extinction and
holds implacable hostility toward the United States. And it is destabilizing Iraq, endangering U.S. forces, and killing innocent
Iraqis. The United States is responding to these provocations. Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build
one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.
But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression. The Iranian
people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities. Indeed,
the United States has reached out to them with exchanges of sports teams, disaster-relief workers, and artists. By many accounts,
the Iranian people are favorably disposed to Americans and to the United States. Our relationship could be different. Should the
Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community
of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent
enemies.
Ultimately, the many threats that Iran poses must be seen in a broader context: that of a state fundamentally out of step with
the norms and values of the international community. Iran must make a strategic choice -- a choice that we have sought to clarify
with our approach -- about how and to what ends it will wield its power and influence: Does it want to continue thwarting the legitimate
demands of the world, advancing its interests through violence, and deepening the isolation of its people? Or is it open to a better
relationship, one of growing trade and exchange, deepening integration, and peaceful cooperation with its neighbors and the broader
international community? Tehran should know that changes in its behavior would meet with changes in ours. But Iran should also know
that the United States will defend its friends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.
A third challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Our administration has put the idea of democratic development at the center of our approach to this conflict, because we came to
believe that the Israelis will not achieve the security they deserve in their Jewish state and the Palestinians will not achieve
the better life they deserve in a state of their own until there is a Palestinian government capable of exercising its sovereign
responsibilities, both to its citizens and to its neighbors. Ultimately, a Palestinian state must be created that can live side by
side with Israel in peace and security. This state will be born not just through negotiations to resolve hard issues related to borders,
refugees, and the status of Jerusalem but also through the difficult effort to build effective democratic institutions that can fight
terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their
lives. This confers responsibilities on both parties.
As the experience of the past several years has shown, there is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of Palestinian society
-- between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. The Palestinian people must ultimately
make a choice about which future they desire, and it is only democracy that gives them that choice and holds open the possibility
of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question at the heart of their national life. The United States, Israel, other
states in the region, and the international community must do everything in their power to support those Palestinians who would choose
a future of peace and compromise. When the two-state solution is finally realized, it will be because of democracy, not despite it.
This is, indeed, a controversial view, and it speaks to one more challenge that must be resolved if democratic and modern states
are to emerge in the broader Middle East: how to deal with nonstate groups whose commitment to democracy, nonviolence, and the rule
of law is suspect. Because of the long history of authoritarianism in the region, many of the best-organized political parties are
Islamist, and some of them have not renounced violence used in the service of political goals. What should be their role in the democratic
process? Will they take power democratically only to subvert the very process that brought them victory? Are elections in the broader
Middle East therefore dangerous?
These questions are not easy. When Hamas won elections in the Palestinian territories, it was widely seen as a failure of policy.
But although this victory most certainly complicated affairs in the broader Middle East, in another way it helped to clarify matters.
Hamas had significant power before those elections -- largely the power to destroy. After the elections, Hamas also had to face real
accountability for its use of power for the first time. This has enabled the Palestinian people, and the international community,
to hold Hamas to the same basic standards of responsibility to which all governments should be held. Through its continued unwillingness
to behave like a responsible regime rather than a violent movement, Hamas has demonstrated that it is wholly incapable of governing.
Much attention has been focused on Gaza, which Hamas holds hostage to its incompetent and brutal policies. But in other places,
the Palestinians have held Hamas accountable. In the West Bank city of Qalqilya, for instance, where Hamas was elected in 2004, frustrated
and fed-up Palestinians voted it out of office in the next election. If there can be a legitimate, effective, and democratic alternative
to Hamas (something that Fatah has not yet been), people will likely choose it. This would especially be true if the Palestinians
could live a normal life within their own state.
The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather,
there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist
group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people
are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately
deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility.
This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic
processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRAQ
Then, of course, there is Iraq, which is perhaps the toughest test of the proposition that democracy can overcome deep divisions
and differences. Because Iraq is a microcosm of the region, with its layers of ethnic and sectarian diversity, the Iraqi people's
struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape not just of Iraq but of the broader Middle
East as well.
The cost of this war, in lives and treasure, for Americans and Iraqis, has been greater than we ever imagined. This story is still
being written, and will be for many years to come. Sanctions and weapons inspections, prewar intelligence and diplomacy, troop levels
and postwar planning -- these are all important issues that historians will analyze for decades. But the fundamental question that
we can ask and debate now is, Was removing Saddam from power the right decision? I continue to believe that it was.
After we fought one war against Saddam and then remained in a formal state of hostilities with him for over a decade, our containment
policy began to erode. The community of nations was losing its will to enforce containment, and Iraq's ruler was getting increasingly
good at exploiting it through programs such as oil-for-food -- indeed, more than we knew at the time. The failure of containment
was increasingly evident in the UN Security Council resolutions that were passed and then violated, in our regular clashes in the
no-fly zones, and in President Bill Clinton's decision to launch air strikes in 1998 and then join with Congress to make "regime
change" our government's official policy in Iraq. If Saddam was not a threat, why did the community of nations keep the Iraqi people
under the most brutal sanctions in modern history? In fact, as the Iraq Survey Group showed, Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute
his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated.
The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international
security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question
of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was
no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important
to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only
a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe.
The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were thus linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked
to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of
them. It is very hard to imagine how a more just and democratic Middle East could ever have emerged with Saddam still at the center
of the region.
Our effort in Iraq has been extremely arduous. Iraq was a broken state and a broken society under Saddam. We have made mistakes.
That is undeniable. The explosion to the surface of long-suppressed grievances has challenged fragile, young democratic institutions.
But there is no other decent and peaceful way for the Iraqis to reconcile.
As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. Ultimately, the
states of the Middle East need to reform. But they need to reform their relations, too. A strategic realignment is unfolding in the
broader Middle East, separating those states that are responsible and accept that the time for violence under the rubric of "resistance"
has passed and those that continue to fuel extremism, terrorism, and chaos. Support for moderate Palestinians and a two-state solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for democratic leaders and citizens in Lebanon have focused the energies of Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, and the states of the Persian Gulf. They must come to see that a democratic Iraq can be an ally in resisting extremism
in the region. When they invited Iraq to join the ranks of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Plus-Two (Egypt and Jordan), they took an
important step in that direction.
At the same time, these countries look to the United States to stay deeply involved in their troubled region and to counter and
deter threats from Iran. The United States now has the weight of its effort very much in the center of the broader Middle East. Our
long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia,
and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of
helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.
A UNIQUELY AMERICAN REALISM
Investing in strong and rising powers as stakeholders in the international order and supporting the democratic development of
weak and poorly governed states -- these broad goals for U.S. foreign policy are certainly ambitious, and they raise an obvious question:
Is the United States up to the challenge, or, as some fear and assert these days, is the United States a nation in decline?
We should be confident that the foundation of American power is and will remain strong -- for its source is the dynamism, vigor,
and resilience of American society. The United States still possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race,
religion, and culture into the fabric of our national and economic life. The same values that lead to success in the United States
also lead to success in the world: industriousness, innovation, entrepreneurialism. All of these positive habits, and more, are reinforced
by our system of education, which leads the world in teaching children not what to think but how to think -- how to address problems
critically and solve them creatively.
Indeed, one challenge to the national interest is to make certain that we can provide quality education to all, especially disadvantaged
children. The American ideal is one of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. This is the glue that holds together our multiethnic
democracy. If we ever stop believing that what matters is not where you came from but where you are going, we will most certainly
lose confidence. And an unconfident America cannot lead. We will turn inward. We will see economic competition, foreign trade and
investment, and the complicated world beyond our shores not as challenges to which our nation can rise but as threats that we should
avoid. That is why access to education is a critical national security issue.
We should also be confident that the foundations of the United States' economic power are strong, and will remain so. Even amid
financial turbulence and international crises, the U.S. economy has grown more and faster since 2001 than the economy of any other
leading industrial nation. The United States remains unquestionably the engine of global economic growth. To remain so, we must find
new, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The industries of the future are in the high-tech fields
(including in clean energy), which our nation has led for years and in which we remain on the global cutting edge. Other nations
are indeed experiencing amazing and welcome economic growth, but the United States will likely account for the largest share of global
GDP for decades to come.
Even in our government institutions of national security, the foundations of U.S. power are stronger than many assume. Despite
our waging two wars and rising to defend ourselves in a new global confrontation, U.S. defense spending today as a percentage of
GDP is still well below the average during the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed put an enormous strain on our
military, and President Bush has proposed to Congress an expansion of our force by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. The experience
of recent years has tested our armed forces, but it has also prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and
counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more. This experience has also reinforced the urgent need for a new kind
of partnership between our military and civilian institutions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the provincial reconstruction
teams that we deploy in Afghanistan and Iraq are a model of civil-military cooperation for the future.
In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008,
it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that
has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions such as the new Civilian
Response Corps must lead diplomats and development workers in a whole-of-government approach to our national security challenges.
We must help weak and poorly functioning states strengthen and reform themselves and thereby prevent their failure in the first place.
This will require the transformation and better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power -- a
difficult task and one that our administration has begun. Since 2001, the president has requested and Congress has approved a nearly
54 percent increase in funding for our institutions of diplomacy and development. And this year, the president and I asked Congress
to create 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new positions for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Those
who follow us must build on this foundation.
Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will.
We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that
of a republic, not an empire. There have been times in the past eight years when we have had to do new and difficult things -- things
that, at times, have tested the resolve and the patience of the American people. Our actions have not always been popular, or even
well understood. The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will
for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight: we need to be right one hundred percent of the time;
the terrorists, only once. Yet I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still
want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need
to recognize that, too.
Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination.
It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that
we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States,
because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been
a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they
are indivisible.
This has freed America to imagine that the world can always be better -- not perfect, but better -- than others have consistently
thought possible. America imagined that a democratic Germany might one day be the anchor of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. America
believed that a democratic Japan might one day be a source of peace in an increasingly free and prosperous Asia. America kept faith
with the people of the Baltics that they would be independent and thus brought the day when NATO held a summit in Riga, Latvia. To
realize these and other ambitious goals that we have imagined, America has often preferred preponderances of power that favor our
values over balances of power that do not. We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless
to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies
expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time.
How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that -- what I have called our uniquely
American realism. This makes us an incredibly impatient nation. We live in the future, not the past. We do not linger over
our own history. This has led our nation to make mistakes in the past, and we will surely make more in the future. Still, it
is our impatience to improve less-than-ideal situations and to accelerate the pace of change that leads to our most enduring achievements,
at home and abroad.
At the same time, ironically, our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We understand how long and trying the
course of democracy is. We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to
three-fifths of a man. Yet we are healing old wounds and living as one American people, and this shapes our engagement with the world.
We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect. This gives us reason
to be humble in our own endeavors and patient with the endeavors of others. We know that today's headlines are rarely the same as
history's judgments.
An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues
to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome. Indeed, we already see glimpses of this better world. We see it in Kuwaiti
women gaining the right to vote, in a provincial council meeting in Kirkuk, and in the improbable sight of the American president
standing with democratically elected leaders in front of the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the future state of Palestine. Shaping
that world will be the work of a generation, but we have done such work before. And if we remain confident in the power of our values,
we can succeed in such work again.
Quote: "Neoliberalism is a kind of pseudo-religion, a dogma, which is passionately believed
by its disciples, despite the evidence showing that it simply doesn't work in the real world, but like
most religious fanatics, the real world doesn't matter much to them. Which is another reason they remind
me of Stalinists in the old Soviet system."
We are living through an extraordinary political situation: the end of the debt-fuelled boom,
the banking crisis of 2007-10, the defeat of New Labour and the rise to power of a Conservative-Liberal
Democratic coalition. What sort of crisis is this? Is it a serious wobble in the trickle-down, win-win,
end-of-boom-and-bust economic model that has dominated global capitalism? Does it presage business
as usual, the deepening of present trends, or the mobilisation of social forces for a radical change
of direction? Is this the start of a new conjuncture?
My argument is that the present situation is another unresolved rupture of that conjuncture
which we can define as "the long march of the Neoliberal Revolution".
Each crisis since the 1970s has looked different, arising from specific historical circumstances.
However, they also seem to share some consistent underlying features, to be connected in their general
thrust and direction of travel. Paradoxically, such opposed political regimes as Thatcherism and
New Labour have contributed in different ways to expanding this project. Now the coalition is taking
up the same cause.
Neoliberalism is grounded in the "free, possessive individual", with the state cast as tyrannical
and oppressive. The welfare state, in particular, is the arch enemy of freedom. The state must never
govern society, dictate to free individuals how to dispose of their private property, regulate a
free-market economy or interfere with the God-given right to make profits and amass personal wealth.
State-led "social engineering" must never prevail over corporate and private interests. It must not
intervene in the "natural" mechanisms of the free market, or take as its objective the amelioration
of free-market capitalism's propensity to create inequality.
According to the neoliberal narrative, the welfare state mistakenly saw its task as intervening
in the economy, redistributing wealth, universalising life-chances, attacking unemployment, protecting
the socially vulnerable, ameliorating the condition of oppressed or maginalised groups and addressing
social injustice. Its do-gooding, utopian sentimentality enervated the nation's moral fibre, and
eroded personal responsibility and the overriding duty of the poor to work. State intervention must
never compromise the right of private capital to grow the business, improve share value, pay dividends
and reward its agents with enormous salaries, benefits and bonuses.
The formation of a Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in May 2010 was fully in line with
the dominant political logic of realignment. In the spirit of the times, Cameron, with Blair as his
role model, signalled his determination to reposition the Tories as a "compassionate conservative
party", though this has turned out to be something of a chimera.
At the same time, many underestimated how deeply being out of office and power had divided the
Lib Dem soul. Coalition now set the neoliberal-inclined
Orange Book supporters, who favoured an alliance with the Conservatives, against the "progressives",
including former social democrats, who leaned towards Labour. A deal – its detail now forgotten –
was stitched up, in which the social liberals were trounced, and
Cameron and Clegg "kissed hands" in the No 10 rose garden (the former looking like the cat that
had swallowed the cream). The Lib Dems thus provided the Cameron leadership with the fig leaf it
needed – while the banking crisis gave the alibi. The coalition government seized the opportunity
to launch the most radical, far-reaching and irreversible social revolution since the war.
Coalition policy often seems incompetent, with failures to think things through or join things
up. But, from another angle, it is arguably the best prepared, most wide-ranging, radical and ambitious
of the three regimes that, since the 1970s, have been maturing the neoliberal project. The Conservatives
had for some time been devoting themselves to preparing for office – not in policy detail but in
terms of how policy could be used in power to legislate into effect a new political settlement. They
had convinced themselves that deep, fast cuts would have to be made to satisfy the bond markets and
international assessors. But could the crisis be used, as the rightwing economist
Milton Friedman had suggested, to "produce real change"?
The legislative avalanche began immediately and has not let up. It begins negatively ("the mess
the previous government left us") but ends positively, in embracing radical structural reform as
the solution. Ideology is in the driving seat, though vigorously denied. The front-bench ideologues
– Osborne, Lansley, Gove, Maude, Duncan Smith, Pickles, Hunt – are saturated in neoliberal ideas
and determined to give them legislative effect. As One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest put it: "The crazies
are in charge of the asylum." They are single-minded about the irreversible transformation of society,
ruthless about the means, and in denial about the fallout. Osborne – smirking, clever, cynical, "the
smiler with the knife" – wields the chopper with zeal. Cameron – relaxed, plausible, charming, confident,
a silver-spooned patrician, "a smooth man" – fronts the coalition TV show. This crew long ago accepted
Schumpeter's adage that there is no alternative to
"creative destruction". They have given themselves, through legislative manoeuvring, an uninterrupted
five years to accomplish this task.
Its wide-ranging character must be judged in terms of the operational breadth of the institutions
and practices they aim to "reform", their boldness in siphoning state-funding to the private sector,
and the number of constituencies they are prepared to confront. Reform and choice – the words already
hijacked by New Labour – are the master narrative. They may be Conservatives but this is not a conserving
regime (it is a bemused Labour that is toying with the "blue-Labour" conservative alternative now).
Tories and Lib-Dems monotonously repeat the dissembling mantras of their press and public relations
people: "We are clearing up the mess inherited from the previous government." But the neoliberal
engine is at full throttle.
We cannot deal with the cuts in any detail here. They have only just started and there is much
more to come. Instead we limit ourselves to tracking the neoliberal logic behind the strategy.
First, targeted constituencies – ie anyone associated with, relying or dependent on the state
and public services. For the rich, the recession never happened. For the public sector, however,
there will be massive redundancies, a wage freeze, pay running well behind the rate of inflation,
pensions that will not survive in their present form, rising retirement ages. Support for the less
well off and the vulnerable will be whittled away, and welfare dependency broken. Benefits will be
capped, workfare will be enforced. The old must sell homes to pay for care; working parents must
buy childcare; and incapacity-benefit recipients must find work. Sure Start, the schools refurbishment
programme and the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme are on hold. Wealthy parents can buy children
an Oxbridge education: but many other students will go into lifelong debt to get a degree. You cannot
make £20bn savings in the NHS without affecting frontline, clinical and nursing services. Andrew
Lansley, however, "does not recognise that figure". Similarly, though everybody else knew that most
universities would charge the maximum £9,000 tuition fees, David "Two-Brains" Willetts doesn't recognise
that figure. Saying that square pegs fit into round holes has become a front-bench speciality.
Women stand where many of these savage lines intersect. As Beatrix Campbell reminds us, cutting
the state means minimising the arena in which women can find a voice, allies, social as well as material
support; and in which their concerns can be recognised. It means reducing the resources society collectively
allocates to children, to making children a shared responsibility, and to the general "labour" of
care and love.
Second, there is privatisation – returning public and state services to private capital, redrawing
the social architecture. The Blair government was an innovator here. To avoid the political hassle
of full privatisation, it found you could simply burrow beneath the state/market distinction. Outsourcing,
value for money and contract contestability opened the doors through which private capital could
slip into the public sector and hollow it out from within.
Privatisation now comes in three sizes:
(1) straight sell-off of public assets;
(2) contracting out to private companies for profit;
(3) two-step privatisation by stealth, where it is represented as an unintended consequence.
Some examples: in criminal justice, contracts for running prisons are being auctioned off and,
in true neoliberal fashion, Ken Clarke says he cannot see any difference in principle whether prisons
are publicly or privately owned; in healthcare, the private sector is already a massive, profit-making
presence, having cherry-picked for profit medical services that hospitals can no longer afford to
provide; while in the most far-reaching, top-down NHS reorganisation, GPs, grouped into private consortia
(part of whose profits they retain), will take charge of the £60bn health budget.
Since few GPs know how, or have time, to run complex budgets, they will "naturally" turn
to the private health companies, which are circling the NHS like sharks waiting to feed. Primary
Care Trusts, which represented a public interest in the funding process, are being scrapped. In the
general spirit of competition, hospitals must remove the cap on the number of private patients they
treat.
Third, the lure of "localism". In line with David Cameron's Big Society, "free schools" (funded
from the public purse – Gove's revenge) will "empower" parents and devolve power to "the people".
But parents – beset as they are by pressing domestic and care responsibilities, and lacking the capacity
to run schools, assess good teaching, define balanced curricula, remember much science or the new
maths, or speak a foreign language, while regarding history as boring, and not having read a serious
novel since GCSE – will have to turn to the private education sector to manage schools and define
the school's "vision". Could the two-step logic be clearer?
Fourth, phoney populism: pitching communities against local democracy. Eric Pickles intends
to wean councils permanently off the central grant system. Meanwhile, social housing is at a standstill,
housing benefits will be cut and council rents allowed to rise to commercial levels in urban centres.
Many will move to cheaper rentals, losing networks of friends, child support, family, school friends
and school places. Parents must find alternative employment locally – if there is any – or allow
extra travelling time. Jobseekers' allowances will be capped. As the private housing lobby spokesperson
said: "We are looking forward to a bonanza." Since the early days of Thatcher we have not seen
such a ferocious onslaught on the fabric of civil society, relationships and social life.
Fifth, cutting down to size state involvement in quality of life. Amenities such as libraries,
parks, swimming baths, sports facilities, youth clubs and community centres will either be privatised
or disappear. Either unpaid volunteers will "step up to the plate" or doors will close. In truth,
the aim is not – in the jargon of 1968 from which the promiscuous Cameron is not ashamed to borrow
– to "shift power to the people", but to undermine the structures of local democracy. The
left, which feels positively about volunteering, community involvement and participation – and who
doesn't? – finds itself once again triangulated into uncertainty. The concept of the Big Society
is so empty that universities have been obliged to put it at the top of their research agenda on
pain of a cut in funding – presumably so that politicians can discover what on earth it means: a
shabby, cavalier, duplicitous interference in freedom of thought.
What is intended is a permanent revolution. Can society be permanently reconstructed along these
lines? Is neoliberalism hegemonic?
The protests are growing. Weighty professional voices are ranged against structural reforms, and
the speed and scale of cuts in a fragile economy. There are pauses, rethinks and U-turns. Finally,
there are unexpected developments that come out of the blue, such as the phone-hacking scandal that
enveloped Rupert Murdoch's News International. In the free-for-all ethos of neoliberal times, this
sordid affair blew the media's cover, compromised the Cameron leadership and penetrated echelons
of the state itself. As Donald Rumsfeld ruefully remarked, "Stuff Happens!" If the Lib-Dem wheeze
of delivering cuts in government and campaigning against them at the next election fails to persuade,
they face the prospect of an electoral wipe-out. The coalition may fall apart, though at an election
the Conservatives might get the majority they failed to muster last time. What happens next is not
pregiven.
Hegemony is a tricky concept and provokes muddled thinking. No victories are permanent or final.
Hegemony has constantly to be worked on, maintained, renewed, revised. Excluded social forces, whose
consent has not been won, whose interests have not been taken into account, form the basis of counter-movements,
resistance, alternative strategies and visions … and the struggle over a hegemonic system starts
anew. They constitute what
Raymond Williams called "the emergent" – and the reason why history is never closed but maintains
an open horizon towards the future.
However, in ambition, depth, degree of break with the past, variety of sites being colonized,
impact on common sense, shift in the social architecture, neoliberalism does constitute a hegemonic
project. Today, popular thinking and the systems of calculation in daily life offer very little friction
to the passage of its ideas. Delivery may be more difficult: new and old contradictions still haunt
the edifice, in the very process of its reconstruction. Still, in terms of laying foundations and
staging the future on favorable ground, the neoliberal project is several stages further on. To traduce
a phrase of Marx's: "Well grubbed, old mole." Alas!
• This article was amended on 14 September 2011. The original said "Independent
Maintenance Grants are on hold". This has been corrected to Education Maintenance Allowances.
Briar 15 Sep 2011 06:13
Back in 1979, when Thatcher kicked all this off (not that the Callaghan Government hadn't been
complicit - the IMF insisted on that) I thought the basic decency of the British voter would be
disgusted by the obviously unjust policies being pursued. Sacking hospital and school cleaners
so they could be re-employed by a private firm at a much lower wage?
Surely the ordinary voter would be so sickened they would vote against the Tories next time
round? After all, they had voted in the Labour government of 1945. But, of course, the ordinary
voter could swallow any kind of injustice so long as the promise of lower taxes and more consumerism
was maintained. I honestly don't think the clock can turn back now. Our neoliberal coup is entrained
in a global one - the real decisions aren't taken here but in the headquarters of international
companies which have to connection with their workforces in the various countries where they operate.
And the poeple still don't care. In fact contempt for the "underclass" and scorn for the Unions
which might lead the fightback have become automatic reflexes, while populist protest centres
itself in racist opposition to immigration, a reliable safety valve as far as the right is concerned,
since it backs nationalist and repressive policies. Yet nationalism, like localism, is more irrelevant
than ever - in a country where the likes of HSBC, G4S and the IMF really call the tune.
Girindor 15 Sep 2011 05:00
Liberalism is just what this country needs after Labour abused the tax paying public for the
ends of increasing its political base by massively bloating the public sector and after the years
of "government knows best" and "government is always right", which infantilised us and took away
our human and civil rights. Thank you, Labour, for giving the police the right to take innocent
citizens and lock them up for 26 days without any charges whatsoever. Just one example. Thank
you, Labour, for forcing ID cards onto us. Just another example. Step by step, Labour's main project
seems to have been the erosion of democracy and introduction of a police state.
So, frankly, I am greatly relieved that Liberals are in power. Even if I disagree with some of
the unfortunate policies that Conservative backbenchers are foisting on us, such as immigration
caps which harm the economy and make no moral sense either.
Attrition47 15 Sep 2011 04:28
Fascism is socialism's younger brother; they may not look identical but they are of the same
genotype.
No, fascism and socialism as liberalism's bastard children. The only remedy for such generic statist
facades of hereditary privilege is anarchism.
Attrition47 15 Sep 2011 04:25
Paradoxically, such opposed political regimes as Thatcherism and New Labour have contributed
in different ways to expanding this project. Now the coalition is taking up the same cause.
"Opposed"?
The history of Britain since the late 60s is the history of a class struggle in which the working
class has been sabotaged by the reformist institutions which served it relatively well between
1918 and 1951.
zapthecrap
one thing that strikes me is how the followers of this religion deny its very existence.
That's its main propaganda plank: we live in a post-ideological era and what we are doing arises
purely out of expediency.
JBowers 14 Sep 2011 05:04
I very much doubt that the Kochs or Murdoch share enthusiasm for the dingbat Tea Party world
view.
It's not so much Murdoch but more specifically FOX News and its head honcho, Roger Ailes.
"You know Roger [Ailes] is crazy. He really believes that stuff."
-- Rupert Murdoch
My jury's still out on your point about the Kochs, who I suspect could recite poor old messed
up Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged from cover to cover, and David Koch stood as vice-presidential candidate
for the Libertarians in 1980. But, libertarians don't really have the same goals as the Tea Party,
the latter being a form of authoritarianism, although they sidle up together due to common economic
goals. For example, I doubt a libertarian would enforce a woman to take a pregnancy to full term,
whereas most of the Teavengelical Taliban would. Teratornis has links to some insightful reading.
But, that said, they have been bankrolling Tea Party events and networks, and did set up astroturf
group Americans for Priosperity. Probably using the general public as useful idiots.
SteB1 13 Sep 2011 21:56
Thinking about this problem a bit more has made the problem clearer to me. To address a problem,
you first need to properly define the problem. I broadly agree with Stuart Hall's analysis. However,
there is another component that needs to be carefully identified. Stuart Hall is right about the
neoliberal agenda reinventing itself, and using crises to push through it's society altering agendas.
Nevertheless there is an important qualitative difference between modern neoliberals and their
predecessors. Previously neoliberals have to a certain extent been open as to what they were about.
Thatcher and others openly espoused this ideology. You won't see Cameron waxing lyrical about
this ideology like Thatcher. The modern neoliberal agenda is non-declared. The attempted
means to achieve this agenda is a covert wrecking ball approach, which they delusionally believe
will produce the real change they want.
Both Cameron's government, and the US Republicans with the Tea Party faction in a controlling
position share similarities, which might not at first be obvious. Those pulling the strings
and setting the agendas behind the scenes have a quite different outlook to the populist and sentimental
themes publically espoused. It is a stealth agenda.
Let's take the US Tea Party situation. On the face of it this is a grassroots organization, all
about homely simplistic moralism. It's about big government bad, and a citizen led agenda. The
referent it uses is American mythology, which never really existed except in fantasy. It harks
back to a mythological hotchpotch of the pilgrim fathers, the founding fathers of the US, the
Wild West, and evangelical Christianity. However, the tapestry it has woven with these disparate
threads has created a picture which never existed, and it is in reality a modern concoction. The
fake nostaligia is merely a facilitator.
The Tea Party faction is not what it superficially seems - it is a 2-headed monster. It has been
covertly backed and created by the likes of the Koch Brothers, and abley assisted by the likes
of Murdoch's Fox News, which pumps out propaganda to reinforce this delusional dingbat worldview.
I very much doubt that the Kochs or Murdoch share enthusiasm for the dingbat Tea Party world view.
To the billionaires they just a wrecking ball, a means to an end. The big money backers of the
Tea Party want it to smash environmental protection, and all the apparatus of government that
get in the way of their money making agendas. I'm certain that these billionairres and their mega
corporations would never want what the Tea Party's public supporters want. But then I suspect
that the vested interests cynically figure that the Tea Part faction will never last long enough
to do anything more than their dirty work.
The billionaires want a seriously weakened and emasculated government, which is easier for them
to manipulate, but certainly not what the Tea Party faction want.
Cameron has pursued a different overt strategy, because US culture is very different, although
the intended aim is similar The mythology the Tea Party faction is founded upon, does not exist
in the UK. So Cameron's emotional populist pitch is to a different audience. Essentially it's
a twintrack approach. It's meant to appeal to both the more centrist theme in UK politics, and
prejudicial populist themes in British culture. The fact that these threads are quite contrary,
doesn't matter, because neither Cameron nor his cronies are really pursuing either theme. It's
the same wrecking ball approach to the obstructions of big vested interests. The aim is to destroy
the institutional powers and traditions of the welfare state, which interfere with the objectives
of the powerful vested interests. It isn't even a neoliberal or monetarist agenda, it is a plutocratic
agenda - the neoliberal ideology is just borrowed as a means to an end. This is why it has so
much in common with the Tea Party agenda. It's all about unrestrained powerful vested interests
controlling everything.
However, whilst it's all very deceitful and apparently "Machiavellian", it's actually incredibly
stupid and incompetent. Far from having great vision, this agenda is irrational and delusional.
That is because the idiots who seek this wrecked society objective don't understand the dynamics
of what will happen, and how different it is to what they envisage. Instead of a divided and conquered
people with no coordination as they envisage, it will produce a shitstorm, which will sweep them
away. It will create such a mood of public anger when it all goes pear-shaped, that it will create
exactly the single purpose and coordinated society they definitely did not want. Unfortunately
apart from sweeping these parasites away, it will produce little else that is good. So what I
say is not wishful thinking, I think we must must urgentl prevent this societal wrecking.
Sturton 13 Sep 2011 20:11
The accelerating attack on the welfare state is already biting. My Down's Syndrome brother
is looked after by my elderly mother and myself (I travel to spend one day a week with them),
saving the state a small fortune. He could easily be put in care but we've never wanted that.
That hasn't stopped a new County Council means test with the result that £30 a week must now be
found out of their benefits for him to continue attending a day centre occasionally. Wealthier
families have been asked for up to £200 a week.
So I'm angry. Trouble is, your feature is almost as annoying as the Pickles et al of this world
you are targeting.
What is the point of writing something castigating right wing dogma, when you are so clearly contaminated
by its mirror image? You do realise, don't you, that this gives great succour to the froth-mouthed
Daily Mail readers of this world, and helps to justify their myopia?
Just one example: You claim eagerness to volunteer predominantly for the left in point five, then
follow it with the stupefying comment that "don't we all". So which is it, half the population,
or all of it?
I was under the impression that a lot of bowling'n'Rotary Club types, many of whom have to be
Tory voters, are up for voluntary work. Try giving a bit of credit to the other side, rather than
tying yourself up in contradictory knots trying not to. That's what the Palins of this world do,
it's corrosive to mature political debate, and both they and you drag us down into the cesspit
of dogma-laden argument when you do it.
The article's many sound contentions - I really appreciated the paragraph outlining the various
means of privatising by stealth - are undermined not only by this undercurrent of diehard dogma,
but by its descent into Sixth Form debating-calibre comment on occasion.
For example, we have talk of an "irreversible" social revolution and the "irreversible transformation
of society" in the first half of the piece. Then the statement towards the end that no victories
are final or permanent. And preceding that, by this gem: "What happens next is not pregiven".
Aristotelian or what.
The coup de grace is the clumsily-written revelation that "history is never closed but maintains
an open horizon into the future". Really? That would explain tomorrow, then.
No wonder we get the contention that hegemony provokes muddled thinking. It certainly has in this
piece.
And then there's the bizarre assertion that parents regard history as boring and haven't read
a serious novel since GCSEs. I'm not a parent but really, did you just have a word count to fill?
I showed the feature to my gay neighbours downstairs. Lovely blokes, if you ignore the fact that
they are diehard Thatcherites (yep, I know...).
They loved it, because it inadvertently serves to mirror their simplistic, un-nuanced world view.
My favourite sport when with them is listing the odd Tory politican I have liked over the years.
They can't stand hearing this from a liberal, because they can't bring themselves to return the
favour. I note that many of my fervent Left wing friends can't find a compliment about anything
from the Tory party either.
For a brilliant, proper grown-up article about the damage the Right can do, albeit from an American
perspective, see this from a disillusioned Republican:
Now that's proper political analysis, and as such it's not scared to critique diehards at either
end of the political spectrum.
Hall's confused polemic pales into insignificance alongside it.
VeronikaLarsson 13 Sep 2011 19:31
For a definition of fascism, let's go to the expert, Mussolini:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate
power. Benito Mussolini
How is neoliberalism different from this? No significant differences. Neoliberalism is fascism.
Just because they don't have Brownshirts or funny costumes or mass rallies doesn't mean they're
not fascists.
ScottSmith 13 Sep 2011 18:54
Keep shopping folks!, health care, yes we can make that work like a shop. Don't be selfish
and save, spend now, take a loan, you worked hard for it. Sorry, did you say you lost your job?.
Ah, we have a problem with that you see, we'd like our money back now, problem is, we didn't take
into account our friends at the bank would want such a big bonus, and we're all going on a nice
holiday in Tuscany at the end of the month, so do hurry up with the repayments. Ok, still haven't
paid back your money we lent the banks, thats fine, although, we're pleased to announce we're
cutting your benefits and repossessing your home, after all, those of us that still have work,
don't want to pay for your apathy. I mean, when are you people going to learn to look after yourselves,
instead of burdening the state, tax money after all, will be needed to put a down payment on my
second home. No, nepotism never did me any favours, my great, great, great grandfather was poor,
of course I can relate. You see we're not all equal, some of us are born with a silver spoon in
our mouths ,elected to represent, the underclass, the criminal class, of our classless society.
Theres nothing to intellectualise here...the kids said it best by robbing plasma screens whilst
we coward in the corner, "I don't care, I'll take what I want". Such a shame, but, "Englands dancing
days are done".
sarkany 13 Sep 2011 17:39
The great paradox about neoliberalism is that it is not in fact, liberal at all.
It can only survive under the heel of a jackboot - the rich are only able to amass the vast
wealth that they do now because they live under the protection of the state; which in countries
like the USA and Britain are controlled by this corporate clique.
As most people have noticed in recent years, the emphasis on policing has gone from general
order in the community to the protection of the ruling class and corporate property.
In fact, what has effectively happened under the neo-liberal regimes, from Thatcher through
to Blair and Cameron, is that the people have been forced to pay more and more of their income
to the state, local councils and PFI fund managers for less and less in return.
Where has the money gone ?
It has been spent on yachts, diamonds, chateaux in France and finishing schools in Switzerland.
Billions have 'disappeared' to private contractors and capital-intensive [not many workers] arms
firms employed in the spurious War on Terror - in reality, a war of terror, a fear-inducing illusion
conjured up by the very politicians who seamlessly glided into the very corporations and companies
they had awarded consulting contracts to when in power.
Other money drains out from our pockets every day when we use the public services such as the
trains - paid for many times over with subsidies from the public coffers, but still maximising
profits by screwing their weary customers every day they drag into work on delayed and overcrowded
cattle wagons.
And then there is the whole invisible army of drones who earn a living from pursuing us over
the ever-increasing laws we might be breaking; fine collectors, private security companies, debt-collectors,
bailiffs, privatised prisons . . .
And that's not mentioning the thousands of people paid to watch us on cameras, in stations,
streets and parks; trawl our emails, tap our phones [another paradox rarely mentioned in connection
with the Murdoch case] and search us at airports and train stations.
In fact, as was demonstrated on the real, original September 11th - when the US sponsored and
supported the first neo-liberal coup in a democratic country [Chile in 1973]; its true nature
was soon revealed.
If you want to read the extent to which the USA undermined a democracy, and replaced it with
a military dictatorship which pioneered the original Chicago School of neoliberalism;
In 1970, Salvadore Allende became the first Marxist to be democratically elected president
in the Western hemisphere. In the course of his sweeping socialist reforms, he nationalized not
only the copper mines but banks and other foreign-owned assets as well. Along with the redistribution
of land under land reform, these actions deeply antagonized Chile's business community and right
wing. It is now a matter of historical record that the CIA helped organize their opposition to
Allende. A massive campaign of strikes, social unrest and other political subversion followed.
In September 1973, the CIA helped General Pinochet launch a military coup in which Allende was
killed. The Pinochet government claimed he committed suicide; his supporters claimed he was murdered.
The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses that Allende had seized, as
well as reversing his other socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of his
own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent. Into this crisis stepped a group
of economists known as "the Chicago boys."
The Chicago boys were a group of 30 Chileans who had studied economics at the University of
Chicago between 1955 and 1963. During the course of their postgraduate studies they had become
disciples of Milton Friedman, and had returned to Chile completely indoctrinated in free market
theory. By the end of 1974, they had risen to positions of power in the Pinochet regime, controlling
most of its offices for economic planning.
Their model has been imposed ever since, across the globe, by force and deception - let's not
forget that Obama took with him into the White House neither his radical friends from his time
working the community, but economists from his home town, Chicago, to finish the work that was
started with the murder of Allende;
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of Chilean Leftists,
both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military imprisoned 40,000 political
enemies in the National Stadium of Chile; among the tortured and killed desaparecidos (disappeared)
were ... the Chilean song-writer Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated
by the Caravan of Death.
So that's where we're heading, folks . . .
keggsie 13 Sep 2011 17:23
I'm with you boycotthesun. We need a revolution. In fact I'm calling for it now.
And to think a war was fought to defeat fascism. How little we have learned.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 16:39
optimist99
Don't agree - it will be far worse yet completely different - there will be only that what you
can pay for, that includes Health, Police, Law, Justice, food, water, parliamentary representation,
the right not to beaten up by people selling protection, oh, I already said that didn't I - Police...well,
I mean the New Police controlled by your Politicly appointed Police Chief - unless you can pay
the politician enough to appoint someone less worse...you get t he point:
everything is up for grabs when you start to ignore concepts such as Social Fairness and morality
and besides, how on earth can a Politician really believe they are accountable to underachieving
failures...we need "Big Daddy" to run his Big Society Of Micro Transactions Because We Are Non
Competitors.
That is one point that has not really been discussed...If the Market is supreme arbiter of
what is desirable, then we become, in Cameron's Neo Liberal Nu Britain , servents of the Market
and we are accountable to that market - the State, as we understand it, must dissapear to be replaced
by an enforcement apparatus to ensure market stability and compliance with the expectation of
servility to the Market that is essential for NeoLiberalism to work.
This IS a matter of choice and I choose to reject, in it's entirity , the False Idol worshipped
by NeoLibs - which means I reject the legitimacy of this administration as it has no mandate to
change the basis by which we exist as human beings.
Yep, I declare civil war...at the moment I may be outnumbered by 60,000,000 to 1
but it could be worse...Clegg might join me...now that would be bad,
buildabridge 13 Sep 2011 16:28
If democracy changed anything it would have been banned a long timed ago. A friend told me
that, no idea who initially quoted it but I believe it.
The only reason Western Europe got its welfare state, and so some equality of wealth was due
to the threat of communism through revolution confiscating ALL property and even the concept of
property. That was enough to scare the wealthy to share some of their wealth. It was a survival
move to make sure they did not go the way the Russian aristocracy went
Now that communism is dead and totally discredited due to inept paranoid despotic leadership,
the neoliberals can take it all back and put normal people back to where they always were;to work
to and survive or do nothing.
mrfusticle 13 Sep 2011 16:27
Wow Stuart Hall.. Haven't heard from you since uni... and you're quite hot too!
Thanks for the timely article, hoping to see more in the near future... we're going to need them.
One word to the trolls ... What can you do when the OP explicitly points out the continuation
of NeoLiberal policy under NewLabour? Shot your fox rather, old chaps.
cultcrit 13 Sep 2011 16:23
Don't despair, professor! If historical actors have done this, then it can be undone.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 16:07
jayant
Milliband is trapped by Blairs Ghost and to challenge what has become NU Orthodox Labour will
be impossible as it would mean shifting from what he thinks people will vote for.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 16:00
ITS1789
Honesty is something I look for first in people - without it you have nothing but a dilemma on
legs.
NeoLiberalism is more that a Cancer, it is a pseudo philosophy which demotes humanity to nothing
more that a concurrent series of transactions which, by right, must be done in accordance with
whatever the Market dictates.
I recently suggested that Cameron would suggest the "poor" could ease their plight by selling
their blood and Kidneys - as in the States, I was given this reply by someone who works for a
NeolLib Minister:
Selling Blood and Kidneys: Autonomous assets to be used as collateral in negotiating with an investor.
Accurate?: yes, Right?: NO
The same criteria can be applied to selling babies and children - or even parts of them......morality,
ethics and fairness, along with Justice - do not generate a profit unless there is a market of
buyers for these "commodities" and who will be able to afford to pay for what were once fundamental
elements of Society?
That is what Thatcher meant by "there is no such thing as Society" she was alluding to the
overarching priority of a Free Market where we trade for the basics of life- and do without if
we cannot compete.
NeoLiberalism and those who think it should be imposed for "our own good" should be quarantined
on a sinking island with patrolling sharks for that is what they want for the a sizeable number
of us.
theEclectic 13 Sep 2011 15:45
Neoliberalism is grounded in the "free, possessive individual"...,
These are a bunch of dreamers who contemplate life that only the earliest humans in Africa
could have enjoyed. Individualism died with the caveman; and although it might still appeal to
some fellow dreamers, it is not tenable in modern society. Anyway, there is no harm in pretending
that we are free individuals – even though it is only a myth.
erealArtVandelay 13 Sep 2011 15:44
@VeronikaLarsson
I don't think you can equate fascism and neo-liberlism: fascism implies more state control and
use of the capitalist system for its ends, where as the current neo-liberal model we are witnessing
sees the state as a virtual puppet of the capitalist system.
Nayrbite 13 Sep 2011 15:31
ITS1789
I admire your honesty.
Most aren't against wealth as such except when that wealth is gained at the expense of others
which, unfortunately and historically, is more often the case than not. How many ennobled families
are wealthy because of the Slave trade?
For me, the most appalling thing about NeoLiberalism is that it is totally without compassion,
an ideology Satan himself would be proud of.
Tonight I watched a programme about the poverty stricken slums in London and Bristol which existed
only 3 generations ago and only relieved by the slum clearances.
I suggest NeoLiberals would not have lifted a finger - the "markets," after all are always happy
with cheap sources of labour whatever the conditions of its labour force. The neoliberals must
be champing at the bit at the prospect - fast approaching - for those halcyon days.
frontalcortexes 13 Sep 2011 15:30
neoliberalism was always flawed. Without the state it is a recipe for cat-burglary as the Subprime
Mortgage Bond Fraud has very tellingly revealed.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 14:51
terryburgess
You wouldn't be trying to divert us by any chance, from the article about how you Zombies are
willing to destroy everything that makes living worthwhile - no, you wouldn't do that would you,
you want people to be regarded with respect don't you, you would never agree that it is morally
right and desirable for a minority to manipulate the majority in order to feed off of them - would
you...course you would, you actually think there will be room for you at the top, Ha Ha Ha Ha.
See you in Hell, mate, that's where we are all going 'cos you and me are not important - even
if you think YOU are.
GizmoGizmo 13 Sep 2011 14:33
This:
The welfare state, in particular, is the arch enemy of freedom. The state must never govern society,
dictate to free individuals how to dispose of their private property, regulate a free-market economy
or interfere with the God-given right to make profits and amass personal wealth. State-led "social
engineering" must never prevail over corporate and private interests. It must not intervene in
the "natural" mechanisms of the free market, or take as its objective the amelioration of free-market
capitalism's propensity to create inequality.
Summarises just about every right-wing posting on these boards, and the narrow version of 'freedom'
they espouse. It can be boiled down to the following Orwellian maxim. "The market is totally free.
Oh, but some are freer than others: if you don't possess vast wealth, you must sell your body
to the accumulators or starve."
Hasn't stopped the usual tripe along precisely these lines BTL, though.
no2dogma 13 Sep 2011 14:33
"The legislative avalanche began immediately and has not let up" Really, compared to what -
not the 4300 new laws passed by the Labour government between 1997 and 2010?
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 14:33
ITS1789
Excellent post - you made the essential points clearly but what do we do now, just accept "their"
version of utopia and in effect become servants of The Market State or fight back?
There is no question that a united populace would defeat ANY government in a stand up fight, the
clever bit is to ensure there is no unity in the first place and thereby avoid direct or large
scale conflict - as in Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Pact and it seems to me, the USA that Cameron
admires so much.
(not the Culture, but the power the neoCons/Libs have over the people)
Our "Quislings" are already in place and when people are preoccupied by trying to climb over each
other in order to get more coin, you will have Goethe's
Free Market Slaves who think they are Free.
I can't live like that, I won't live like that and I will fight any Bastard that says I must.
ITS1789 13 Sep 2011 14:15
I'm not from the left, and I personally do really, really well out of the capitalist system,
and enjoy a life of relative luxury, but then I can afford to give half my annual income away
to charity and still live very well. I like capitalism, it's been very good to me, and my family
for over two centuries, but the ghastly version that's swept the world over the last thirty years
is something else.
I think neoliberalism is something close to a malignant cancer growing inside a healthy capitalism,
and with equally disasterous consequences. So my criticism comes not from the left, but from the
right, for what that's worth.
Neoliberalism is a kind of pseudo-religion, a dogma, which is passionately believed by
its disciples, despite the evidence showing that it simply doesn't work in the real world, but
like most religious fanatics, the real world doesn't matter much to them. Which is another reason
they remind me of Stalinists in the old Soviet system.
The historic irony, that it's not the socialists, but the neoliberals and revolutionaries like
Thatcher who have brought capitalism to its knees; is, difficult for many people to accept. It
seems like a contradiction. That those who trumpet their loyalty and suppport for "unfettered"
capitalism should by their collosal ignorance and stupidity, their crass oversimplifications,
confusion, and lack of understanding, lead to the destruction of the very system they worship,
well, perhaps irony isn't the right word, maybe tragic and grotesque is more accurate?
I think neoliberalism is a kind of dangerous and counter-productive heresy that risks destroying
captialism and plunging the western world into a permanent depression which will wipe out the
middle class and threaten the corporate, capitalsit state, itself.
An excellent article. I have no comment except to thank the author, for once.
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 14:12
Complete support for any ideology is simply not pragmatic. To look at problem and address according
to sum philosophy is the stupidity of the newly educated and indoctrinated. There is usually a
practical solution that would make it better.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 14:11
Grich
The article succinctly lays out the agenda and means: The Tory media will repeat the mantra and
right wing nutters will swallow it whole - thinking that a new dawn awaits us all.
More like Zulu Dawn unless there is mass opposition - which there won't be if Cameron and
the right wing Zombies on this site succeed in conning the majority that Xmas is good for turkeys.
Representative Democracy is already undermined by the duplicity and amoral
conduct of many of our representatives.
Cameron will eventually suck up to the Police and seek to politicise the Armed Forces in order
to prevent effective opposition.
Elected Police Chiefs are the first step in suborning a previously neutral and objective Police
Service into a force that protects the state and not the individual.
I believe that this Government is on a crusade that they will not allow to falter and that they
will do everything in their power to keep power - and if that means lying deceiving "the People"
or trying to extend their term by declaring a state of emergency - they will.
Just in case the Zombies havn't worked it out yet - re- read the article and decide if you will
be happy to be regarded solely as a servent of a free market where there is no such "commodity"
as compassion, fairness or justice.
If that is what you want then you and I will be true enemies.
This Government is fighting an undeclared war that may turn into a real one.
LordPosh 13 Sep 2011 14:05
North Korea vs South Korea.........
ITS1789 13 Sep 2011 13:54
For me neoliberalism is a primitive and dangerous delusion about society, economics, and
human nature, comparable to extreme forms of socialism, which are equally harebrained and destructive,
and arguably just as bloody.
Thatcherism was classic, class-warfare politics, but launched from the extreme right instead of
the left, and it was wildly successful, at least for those it benefitted, a narrow strata at the
top of society. Now that the entire charade is collapsing, and taking the welfare state, the middle
class, and probably capitalism itself, with it, it's time to pay the bill for this long, illusory,
party.
Capitalism has, seen in narrow perspective, changed the world for the better, trashing feudalism
for example, but like so much in life, it should have been kept in the market place where it belonged.
Allowing capitalism to expand until it consumed virtually all of society was a tremendous mistake
on many different levels, and now we are paying the price for allowing this to happen.
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:49
A dose of reality Mr Boycott
Violent people should be put in prison, reasonable people try to pass exams and get a job, rather
than bullying the poor hippie teacher...
EconomicDeterminist 13 Sep 2011 13:48
When we neo-liberals have our backs to the wall we turn around and come out fighting
(John Major)
Stuart! These guys are already in reverse!
JBowers 13 Sep 2011 13:40
nalex
What was it that caused the banking crisis?
Ayn Rand's lapdog, Alan Greenspan, and his zealous neoliberal drive to deregulate the markets,
especially the banks. It started when he was the top money dog for Reagan. Then, when everyone
was telling him in 2008 that deregulation was causing serious problem and there was disaster looming,
his only response was to push for more deregulation. When the head of the IMF later met with the
bankstas to find out what the hell had just happened they all told him, to his face, that deregulation
had let them go too wild.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 13:35
AlexanderKing
A dose of Reality
If you piss on people for long enough, they will eventualy lose patience and do something extremely
violent.
Keep pissing
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 13:28
flatpackhamster
I really don't think you understand anything other than what you want to believe
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:28
I apologise for repeat posting,
or like people who go to accident and emergency because they have a 'cold' or the 'flu', or having
to deal with tramps and melancholics, and wasting millions try to cure them. It is a noble ideal.
However, i would charge by the visit, and charge the weekend alkies quadruple for being wasted.
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:24
Or students studying subjects that seem like hobbies, like Art History, Literature, in there
thousands and expecting the average tax payer to fund them. In the 1970;s it was ridiculous.
They got all this money and they could live like complete wasters and have no problem with
it like in Withnail and I
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:17
It is noble viewpoint that we share, but it is not reality, human nature, particularly in poverty,
is acquisitive by its very nature, it will not correspond to your noble view-point, and they would
rob you if they could.
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:15
It should not be legal for someone to eat trays and trays of Sausage rolls, be a delinquent
at school, and then at the age of 23 manage to secure life long payment for their life of sloth
because they managed to get disability because they cannot get out of the house.
Those who receive such payment must perform some civic duty in order to gain this payment.
It is not 1890, the deserving poor are a bunch of thieves and aspire to be the top neighbours
from hell in their area.
Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay
too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different
means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader,
thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only
if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.
Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However,
we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made,
including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe.
They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain
harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore,
I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state
and the Government.
... ... ...
Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be
the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional
confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular
saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible
attitude to our job, we will succeed.
From comments: "It is really about power. The relative power between capital and labor.
The apologists for capital and the concentration of wealth believe or at least argue that technological
advances that increase productivity should accrue to the owners of the capital that made those improvements
possible. That those productivity increases therefore should be captured almost exclusively by capital.
By using every lever at their disposal over the course of the past thirty years or so they have been
quite successful in this effort. The result is essentially stagnant income for all but the very upper
levels of the distribution.
However a problem with this strategy has arisen and it seems that it may have been predictable. Without
some equitable sharing of the fruits of productivity increases there is the danger of warping the business
cycle. When labor share drops below a critical threshold a consumer driven economy stalls. You cannot
run a consumer driven economy on mansion and yatch sales. The ownership class may have convinced themselves
that it is their moral right to capture a larger share of the economic pie. But in the end morality
has little or nothing to do with it. There is a balance require to keep the system operating and that
balance has been lost."
I'm scrambling on last-minute course prep, so not much blogging today. But yesterday's Steve Rattner
article,
misuse of labor cost data aside, had me thinking about an issue that has had me annoyed ever
since this crisis began: the constant efforts on the part of Very Serious People to turn discussions
away from monetary and fiscal policy, recessions and sluggish recoveries, to the supposedly more
fundamental issues of structural reform and long-term growth. Rattner dismisses the austerity/stimulus
debate as "simplistic"; Jeff Sachs calls Keynesian concerns "crude"; many, many people (I'd guess
an especially large fraction of those at Davos) are eager to get away from all this deflation stuff
and talk about how what they imagine to be, or wish were, the really important issues like Big Data
and a world that's even flatter.
There were people like that during the Great Depression too - dismissing as naive any notion that
you could put the unemployed back to work just by spending more, and surely technological unemployment
was the real story, and anyway we should be looking at the broad sweep of history and institutions,
right?
So, a few points.
First, we're now in year eight of a massive setback to economic growth, to living standards; US
per capita GDP has barely surpassed 2007 levels, while median income is still far below, and Europe
is doing much worse. Technology hasn't retrogressed; institutions haven't suddenly gotten far worse.
This is about the business cycle, and about business cycle policy. If you want to ignore all that,
because in the long run it's the fundamentals that matter, you're exactly the kind of person Keynes
was mocking:
But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are
all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they
can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.
Second, more or less Keynesian macroeconomics - the macroeconomics of short-run fluctuations
driven by aggregate demand - has worked very well in this long slump. While people were very
seriously intoning that it was simplistic and crude to think that those little models could be of
any use in a changing world yada yada, macroeconomists were making remarkable, counterintuitive predictions
- about inflation (or the lack thereof), about interest rates, about the effects of austerity - that
came true and were, if you think about it, an intellectual triumph. Yes, good macro tends to be simple,
at least conceptually; but simple and simplistic aren't the same thing, and by and large people who
solemnly declared that things are more complicated than that ended up with lots of egg on their faces.
Third, what's really striking about all the talk about how long-run structural issues are the
real thing is how fuzzy the thinking is. In a world that is short of demand, how, exactly, is structural
reform that enhances the supply side (if it does) supposed to solve the problem? If Europe's problem
is lack of competitiveness, why doesn't a weaker euro solve it - and for that matter, why is Europe
as a whole, and Germany in particular in trade surplus? For people who are supposedly so serious,
the Very Serious seem remarkably casual about thinking things through.
Finally, I know that people who airily dismiss the austerity debate and all that and demand that
we focus on the long run think they're taking a brave stand; but you know, they aren't. In fact,
they're ducking the truly hard issues - because let's face it, stimulus and austerity, QE or not,
are politically charged issues where taking any kind of stand will get you attacked. And since they
are also important issues, pretending that they aren't is a form of moral cowardice.
Jed Harris, Berkeley, CA 50 minutes ago
The last few paragraphs give us the clues we need. The VSPs have no interest in facts or outcomes
as such. They are interested in *appearing* Very Serious and they are very good at that -- the
VSPs we see have been selected in an intense competition over many years.
The evidence indicates that actual seriousness (concern for facts and outcomes, deep understanding
of the threads of debate, etc.) does not help one appear Very Serious, in fact it gets in the
way. Ducking the hard issues is rather *the point*, they might get one into trouble.
So the question is, how do we change the process so people in these roles are selected by better
criteria?
Enobarbus37, Tours, France 2 hours ago
"If Europe's problem is lack of competitiveness, why doesn't a weaker euro solve it?"
That's worth an entire column to itself. Because you are absolutely right. France should be blasting
into outer space now on account of the weak euro. It isn't. It's slider deeper into despair.
Oh, and does anyone seriously think that Marine Le Pen is a) not going to stand up to Germany
or b) destroy France's social contract? Le Pen fille is not the same person as Le Pen père. They
are at each other's throat. She cannot remotely be tarred with the brush of homophobia. And would
you really rather have Hollande (Mr. Supply Side) than her?
Adrian Perry, Sheffield, UK 2 hours ago
Be wary always of the word 'simplistic'. Remember those who told us that just condemning the
Charlue Hebdo murderers was simplistic. In modern parlance, the word had come to mean "I know
you're right, but it makes me and my friends look bad".
SW, CO, USA Yesterday
It is really about power. The relative power between capital and labor. The apologists
for capital and the concentration of wealth believe or at least argue that technological advances
that increase productivity should accrue to the owners of the capital that made those improvements
possible. That those productivity increases therefore should be captured almost exclusively by
capital. By using every lever at their disposal over the course of the past thirty years or so
they have been quite successful in this effort. The result is essentially stagnant income for
all but the very upper levels of the distribution.
However a problem with this strategy has arisen and it seems that it may have been predictable.
Without some equitable sharing of the fruits of productivity increases there is the danger of
warping the business cycle. When labor share drops below a critical threshold a consumer driven
economy stalls. You cannot run a consumer driven economy on mansion and yatch sales. The ownership
class may have convinced themselves that it is their moral right to capture a larger share of
the economic pie. But in the end morality has little or nothing to do with it. There is a balance
require to keep the system operating and that balance has been lost.
Mike, Toronto Yesterday
It all comes down to this: some of us believe that if you reach out a hand and support people
in difficult times they will, by and large, strive to support themselves and their families and
become positive contributors to the economy to the extent of their ability.
Others believe that this very assistance will poison already weak minds and contribute to nothing
but waste and decadence. Strangely, the religious right and those ascribing to the boot strap
theory of success seem to be those least willing to believe in the former.
I think the term liberal and liberalism applied to liberasts
is a gross misnomer. Their adulation for oligarchs tags them as neo-feudalists and aristocrat
wannabes. They hate Putin because he represents over two thirds of Russians and not the 1%. Putin
is the rabble given power. He dares take it away from the entitled ones like Khodorkovsky. Latynina's
praise for Pinochet is sickening. This has absolutely nothing to do with Liberalism. She and the
rest of the liberasts are intrinsically anti-liberal. Calling the fascists would be a mistake
since fascism had and has some accommodation for the interests of the rabble or "bydlo". These
freaks want the "bydlo" as serfs on their plantations. They are the enlightened aristocracy in
their own minds.
I really hope that they take the initiative and brain drain themselves out of Russia. They
can learn to love their mythical utopian west from the inside. They will be bitterly disappointed.
Sucks to be them.
spartacus, February 1, 2015 at 2:38 pm
"They are the enlightened aristocracy in their own minds."
Yeap, I think you nailed it. I also think that they seem to see themselves as beacons of light,
as the chosen ones who get to guide the ignorant masses towards enlightenment. I never did get
it why it's totally OK if wealthy individuals and/or corporations make huge financial campaign
donations to politicians in order to secure preferential treatment if those politicians get elected,
but when ordinary people vote for someone whom they think will take care of them, it is somehow
reprehensible and, immediately, accusations about "voting with their belly" start flying off.
It is hard to generalize because in a storm there are portions of the population more vulnerable
than others. Certain workers (food delivery and rescue workers and sanitation for instance) have
a much harder job than the portion of the population expecting to get rescued, get transported,
get clean streets, get food deliveries, etc. Sanitation workers save and extend more lives than
any amount of surgeons and doctors with a lot less fanfare; let's not make their work and lives
more difficult. A sound regulatory rule can save a lot of expense and trouble downstream from
the regulated event. It is good economics, good public policy and good population health.
As a second controversial example: take overweight and obesity. It SEEMS like an individual choice
but is actually caused by man-made structural circumstances that has our culture distorted to
the profit of a few and the peril of many. The whole population is fatter than it used be 30 years
ago because of the proliferation of snacking/sugar beverages/high fat/high calorie fast foods
offered and built by capitalists - until it undermines physiological hormones that control metabolism.
This has caused an epidemic of diabetes which is a chronic/forever disease and very expensive
to treat.
Diabetes is a horrible disease to suffer from; it leads to deadly and deforming complications
(amputations, blindness, heart disease) and individual distress. Diabetics are twice as likely
to be depressed as people without the disease. Even if you do not have diabetes, your insurance
is costed to reflect the increase in cost to treat of those who do. I personally feel it is in
everyone's best interest to regulate food labels, force food menus to post calories, and control
available food offerings to captive populations (schools, airports, workplace cafeterias).
Charles Yaker, January 27, 2015 at 8:40 am
Simpler reason although related to dumbing down of public. 24 hour news cycle. The
weather "men" always have overhyped coming storms. There is nothing new there. Now however every
action or inaction is "Benghazi". Look back to what they did to Bloomberg a few years ago. Not
to mention reaction to Sandy. So now it's better for politians to over react then under react.
They seem to get less flack.
Throw in the falling dominoes what politician is not going to over react when the "guy" next
door does it. The public which has lost the ability to reason feeds on this "Bengazi effect" and
refuses to give Pol's any "benifit of the doubt". Thus round and round we go more security
and less freedom. "Be afraid be very afraid"
AQ, January 27, 2015 at 9:12 am
Isn't it interesting that we seem to have upfront overreaction as it were by Strong Father
(per MartyH) and yet on many levels complete or perhaps high levels of incompetence by said Strong
Father (I'm thinking Katina and Sandy for natural disasters. The Appalachian water contimation,
"saltwater" spill in the Bakkens, oil spill in Montana, aquifer contamination injection in California
from fracking, etc.)
Looking at these, I do have to wonder where the rulers of our nation think they are going to (airstrips
in the middle of nowhere notwithstanding per links yesterday) that someone on a major level hasn't
contaminated or actually destroyed. Fiat money is great and all that but if the system crashes,
those zeros and ones in a computer system are worth nothing.
What I am struck by is the need for the theatre of preparedness and the pointing and heckling
of calling people idiots.
Then the complete disappearance of actual accountability and follow-through by "Stong Father"
either real or types.
JerryN, January 27, 2015 at 10:21 am
Following up, it seems that the decision to shut down the subways was grandstanding by our
beloved governor. According to The Brooklyn Paper, the MTA was as surprised as the rest of us
when Cuomo announced the decision. They ended up running empty trains all night to keep the tracks
clear. Looks like it's still legal for public officials to be idiots.
McMike, January 27, 2015 at 10:55 am
There are a lot of factors steering officials to this. Including trade off of doing too much
versus not doing enough versus basing your choice on a forecast that is wrong. I have a little
sympathy here, but just a little, because officials have set themselves as Gods.
On the other hand, I have watched truck drivers chain up at the base of ice mountain passes, only
when forced by threat of steep fines, while wearing shorts and flip flops in a blizzard.
Officials have learned that closing things is the best way to control the outcomes, control the
masses, and control the message. We see it in the west after snowstorms where they don't hesitate,
they just close the highway for hours, until the worst of it has passed and the roads are sanded,
it's the simplest really, and to hell with the tens of thousands of people stuck in their cars
for an extra eight hours. I have seen it with wildfires and plane crashes, they shut down a massive
perimeter, spend as much energy patrolling the perimeter and fighting the fire, and don't even
let journalists in. We of course saw this in Boston with Martial Law after the bombing.
There are of course arguments for public safety, and firefighter safety in this, but it's a lowest
common denominator argument. It's really about control. And it's clearly simpler for them to just
shut it down and shut us out. That it allows them to control the message and filter outside eyes
out, that's a bonus.
They tell themselves that their jobs are of critical importance, so some eggs will be broken.
In a way they are right, they are held to a high standard, and no one wants to spend their time
saving people from a wildfire two hours after they refused the chance to evacuate, and if someone
dies, despite being told to evac, their will be scandal and lawsuits, and the media is all over
them looking for something salacious to report, and demanding immediate full perfect information
despite the chaos.
But underlying it is a shift in values. They value their convenience and safety more than they
value whatever it is the rest of us are concerned with. And they place no value on our right to
see what is happening, to see what they are doing, or the right for us to make our own choices.
Brooklin Bridge, January 27, 2015 at 11:55 am
But underlying it is a shift in values.
Exactly. A shift towards authority and control. And travel bans due to extreme weather (likely
caused by the policies of governments seeking "to protect us" by the bans) are a particularly
good way of acclimatising people to that shift since the arguments for the bans are so persuasive
on the face of it and the arguments of erosion of rights seem so far flung by comparison.
human, January 27, 2015 at 1:33 pm
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~ von Goethe
Jeff W, January 27, 2015 at 6:01 pm
They value their convenience and safety more than they value whatever it is the rest of us
are concerned with.
[emphasis added]
I think that's where the problem lies-officials are not seen as making those policy choices in
the public interest (which is what regulating health and safety are supposed to be about) but
primarily in their own. It's not that citizens are no longer "deemed competent to make prudent
choices" but that, if officials are acting in their own interests rather than in the public's,
they're not all that concerned about what the public can or cannot do.
What we have here is the clash between the once dominant Machiavellian school, symbolized by Henry
Kissinger, and the now dominant neoconservative school, symbolized by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
and thrust into dominance by George W. Bush (Bush II) and Barak Obama. I actually find the old Machiavelli
school preferable. We didn't have to endure the insufferable hypocrisy of how we are fighting in Ukraine
to "spread democracy."
The default of Lehman Brother in September 2008 rocked the global neo-liberal system which is
characterised by the absolute predominance of the speculative and predatory finance striving to dismantle
the gains achieved by the popular masses after the WWII.
Facing the crisis the tiny and omnipotent global oligarchy so far did not change paradigm. To
overcome the problems they even radicalised the neo-liberal policies which had led to the systemic
collapse. A new and even more devastating disaster is looming.
It is not by accident that the European Union is the epicentre of the systemic crisis. This stems
from its very structure, from the criteria on which the common market and the single currency has
been built.
Despite the obvious insustainability of the Euro, the rulers have been doing whatever possible
to keep the single currency alive. The consequences for the people are devastating especially for
those considered peripheral. To avoid decline and destruction leaving the Euro and the European Union
as well as regaining national sovereignty are for many countries necessary decisions though not sufficient
ones.
There are, however, different ways to exit the Euro zone and the Union.
The objective tendency eroding the EU is nurturing various antagonistic impulses. Reactionary
movements have gained ground proposing national-liberalist or even neo-fascist solutions.
Although the main enemy has been and remains being the eurocratic bloc, we regard it as our duty
to stop the ascent of the reactionary right wing.
Globalism is a major factor in many of the themes looked at it chapter 3.
The "markets", as we
know them, were let off their leash considerably under Thatcher and Regan in the 1980s. People
in "the city" worldwide popped champagne corks while gambling with what is essentially invisible
money, but which impacted upon real people's lives. When the markets demanded change from politicians,
politicians capitulated. If the politicians did something the markets did not like the "markets"
would fall, ordinary people would be punished.
It seems far too early to tell yet what the long term impacts of the financial crash stemming
from the cowboy marketeers in the USA in 2008 will be, in the context of long term human history.
What we can say is that in the short term, things are unstable worldwide.
"Marketeers" and bankers to some degree are being kept an eye on by politicians, but if there
is to be yet another financial crisis due to the actions of reckless gambling with real people's
lives by lots of rich greedy people, will the politicians continue to capitulate? Will the
masses of humanity become more forceful in objections to this set up?
We all know that there have been protests and demonstrations worldwide after 2008.
Some have turned violent as political leaders have gone too far in their austerity agendas.
In Greece this was especially visible to the world. Here in England, In London, students were
perhaps the most vocal, the "Occupy" movement rose up in various cities around the world.
Here in Britain one aspect of people's response to austerity has been to turn to a right wing
party called the "United Kingdom Independence Party". A dangerous move, when you consider that
this is a party which is pro austerity, and has some highly dangerous fascistic grassroots members
which, if allowed anywhere near power would hit people harder than the current Conservative led regime,
in a wide variety of ways.
Just yesterday in Paris, we saw another aspect of the changing world we live in.
In what was perhaps the most attended mass demonstration in French history since World War 2,
the people of France took to the streets in their millions, with many holding aloft "Je suis Charlie"
placcards. (Following the recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on the offices of French secular
cartoon magazine, "Charlie Hebdo")
Others demonstrated their solidarity leaning out of their Parisian windows, singing along to the
French national anthem, and applauding occasionally, some chanted "Charlie"
Many, when questioned by media outlets said they were attending to display "unity", others using
the more emotive "love" beating "hate". Many waving several different national flags from around
the world.
This was clearly a mass demonstration which many saw themselves as identifying with. Here
was perhaps a demonstration of strong French secular values. The separation of church and state,
and religion from politics in general of course being important to France, and which many of us can
identify with.
Just as capitalism, fundamentalism, violence, austerity, technology, scentific advancement etc
have gone global, so has protest, social movements, secularism etc….
How fighting back against one arcane, Nixon-era trade negotiating procedure could put a stop to
a global corporate coup.
When global justice groups wanted to halt expansion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1999,
they organized
massive demonstrations in Seattle, where the official ministerial conference was being held.
Tens of thousands of people filled the streets. Groups held rallies, marches, and teach-ins, conducted
civil disobedience, and in many cases faced attacks by police. With delegates unable to even reach
the convention hall, the opening ceremony was cancelled, and the talks eventually fell apart. The
"Battle of Seattle" not only succeeded in derailing the Millennial Round of negotiations, it also
turned opposition to corporate globalization into international headline news.
Fifteen years later, the "movement
of movements" has another opportunity to strike a dramatic blow to neoliberalism - this time
by stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The TPP is a deal the United States is negotiating with 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia,
Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam)
allegedly to boost "free trade."
However, the pact goes
far beyond traditional trade issues, to affect banking regulations, environmental protections,
access to medicines, use of the internet, and much more. Most notably, the deal would
undermine countries'
ability to make sovereign decisions and instead offer protections to transnational corporate
investors. And full information about the TPP is not even available - the level of transparency is
so low that all public access to the text has come from
leaks.
The TPP is a corporate power grab clearly worthy of Seattle-caliber mobilization. But the fight
against this reprehensible deal requires different types of tactics. And the place to start is by
derailing "Fast Track," the mechanism that would allow TPP approval to rush through the U.S. Congress
with little debate and no amendments.
An End Run Around Popular Influence
Social movements' success in Seattle has been enduring. Despite unfortunate recent "progress"
in arcane
areas such as trade facilitation, the WTO stalemate that took root in Seattle has on the whole
been a lasting one, frustrating neoliberal expansion for a decade and a half.
In many ways, the TPP is an end-run around that peoples' movement victory by
corporations
and their allies. Rather than continue facing the WTO's ostensibly consensus-based decision-making
process, transnational corporations are today using their proxy - the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
- to cherry-pick those countries most willing to play ball with their agenda. They're pushing
those governments to approve an omnibus package of corporate dream policies on energy, finance, intellectual
property, agriculture, and more, which they've disguised as a trade deal. And since the TPP
is a "docking agreement" - meaning that other countries can join over time - they can then pressure
other nations, from China on down, to sign on once the rules have already been set.
In negotiating the TPP, U.S. president Barack Obama has not only faced the challenge of getting
11 countries into line with the proposal. He's also had to overcome significant domestic opposition,
including
from members of his own party.
"Part of the argument I am making to Democrats is: 'don't fight the last war.'" He went
on to say that conditions for the practices critics object to - like outsourcing production to
countries with poor labor and environmental standards - already exist. In contrast, he said, the
TPP will be "forcing some countries to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental
standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption, increase intellectual property protection. And
so all that is good for us."
With these words, Obama implied that the TPP will differ from previous trade deals like the
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), the DR-Central
America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), and the WTO, which were negotiated under previous presidents
and have had disastrous results for workers and the environment. But it just takes a look at leaked
TPP texts packed with similar (and, in many instances, worse) provisions as those previous pacts
- or a look at the record of President Obama's own trade deals with
Colombia and
South Korea - to know that he's blowing smoke.
What Past Experience Tells Us About Trade Agreements
Look, for example, at the
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,
which took effect in March 2012. President Obama claimed it would support 70,000 American jobs through
increased exports. Instead, U.S. exports to South Korea are down under the pact, the bilateral trade
deficit has skyrocketed, and, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States has
already
lost a net 60,000 jobs as a result.
And then there's Colombia. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement was
supposed to protect
the rights of Colombian workers, who are routinely murdered if they dare advocate for better
working conditions. But a recent
Government Accountability Office report found that "threats of violence against unionists have
been increasing," and "of the 100 unionist murders that have occurred since 2011, Colombia's Prosecutor
General's Office has obtained only one conviction."
Will conditions be better for countries entering into the TPP? A recent
Department of
Labor report found that forced and child labor still infect export industries in a number of
TPP countries, including apparel in Vietnam, agriculture in Mexico, and electronics in Malaysia.
And despite Obama's words to the contrary, the TPP would hardly correct that. A new
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report finds that the labor provisions in recent free trade agreements, including those
passed under Obama's watch, have been inadequate for addressing labor rights abuses.
Another GAO study found the
same sorry results when it comes to environmental enforcement. While partner governments have passed
new environmental laws as required by trade agreements, the countries don't have the resources and/or
will to enforce them. Meanwhile, the United States hasn't offered adequate help or otherwise held
its trade partners accountable for enforcement. In fact, leaked documents reveal that the
Obama administration has even pushed to remove the term "climate change" from the TPP.
But labor and environmental standards are just the tip of the iceberg. The GAO studies don't even
touch upon the rules found in modern "trade" pacts' chapters on financial services, food safety,
public procurement, medicine patents, investment, and so-on, all of which the TPP would expand to
an estimated 40 percent of the global economy - with a built-in mechanism to cover more countries
still.
Organizing Against the TPP
So what's the global justice movement to do?
WTO opponents spent almost a year organizing - not just in Seattle, but also throughout the Pacific
Northwest, across the nation, and beyond - to ensure that tens of thousands of people would show
up outside the negotiations, prepared to disrupt business as usual.
Organizers against the TPP never have that kind of advance warning. For example, trade justice
organizers had only about two weeks' notice to prepare for the last TPP negotiating round held in
the United States (with the long Thanksgiving weekend wedged in between). So although there will
certainly be protests every time TPP negotiators dare to set foot in the United States (or any other
free country, for that matter), an exact replica of the "Battle in Seattle" seems unlikely these
days.
This time around, a key to stopping the TPP is convincing members of Congress to oppose Fast Track
authority. This less-than-sexy,
Nixon-era policymaking procedure would enable the TPP to be rushed through Congress - circumventing
ordinary review, amendment, and debate procedures.
While many activists unquestionably would be willing to face tear gas and rubber bullets to stop
the TPP, they've also proven themselves willing to do the much-needed district-by-districtwork: bird-dogging
politicians' fundraisers and town halls, circulating petitions, writing letters to the editor, and
convincing their city councils to pass "TPP
Free Zone" resolutions. Labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, faith, Internet freedom,
and other movements have spent the past year educating and mobilizing their supporters to influence
policymakers. Some outgoing congressional representatives were held accountable to the point of losing
critical local endorsements - and hence, their elections.
The Anti-Fast Track Strategy
Given the smaller number of negotiators at the TPP table than at the WTO - and the fact that so
many seem willing to sell out their nations' public health programs, family farms, financial stability
measures, and just plain sovereignty in order to cut a deal with the United States - it's unlikely
that protests in the United States are going to appeal to their sense of morality. Thus, the anti-Fast
Track strategy is not only more feasible than centralized mass protest; it's probably more effective.
TPP boosters have said time-and-again that passing Fast Track is critical not only to getting
a completed pact through Congress, but also to convincing foreign TPP negotiators to actually finish
the pact. Just imagine other governments' reasoning: Why bother giving in to Washington's most draconian
and politically risky demands when the White House can't even get the pact through the U.S. Congress
without more demands being tacked on?
TPP supporters and opponents alike both know that, with the U.S. presidential elections gearing
up in the latter half of 2015, the window of opportunity for concluding the TPP is fast closing.
Neither political party in the United States wants an unpopular trade debate on its hands while it's
trying to take the White House.
And so, anti-TPP activists are both extremely close to victory and about to face another major
pro-Fast Track onslaught.
Fast Track legislation introduced in January 2014 was met with a
tidal wave of public opposition that made it so
politically unpopular that Congress members refused to even consider it before the mid-term elections
last November. With the White House, Chamber of Commerce, and others "all in" behind Fast Track in
early 2015, social movements are going to need to push back even harder this time around.
The first months of the new year are the period when we'll win or lose. If activists are able
to escalate local expressions of
opposition to Fast Track for the TPP over the coming months, and to continue communicating to
their U.S. representatives that a Fast Track vote is something that they'll remember forever, they
will succeed in preventing the most harmful corporate sneak-attack since the 1990s.
Arthur Stamoulis is executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign
(CTC), a national coalition of labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, and human rights organizations
working together to improve U.S. trade policy. Follow CTC on Twitter at @citizenstrade.
Corporations wiping out large chunks of biodiversity and killing people with impunity in Honduras
and Brazil in collusion with the corrupt state machinery, are being rewarded for their contribution
to 'clean development' as are those throwing hundreds into abject poverty and total unemployment
in India. At the end, however, their projects are not 'clean' with no net gain for environment in
terms of carbon emission. In its march from one triumph to another, global capitalism brutally preys
upon the poorest, weakest and the most vulnerable.
We are an inclusive company that respects and celebrates the diversity and human rights of its employees,
customers and communities. But we never stop trying to improve as a company, employer and member
of the community.
A corporation concerned about the human rights of the employees, customers and communities, isn't
that something we are desperately looking for?
That was how Miguel Facusse, arguably the most powerful businessman in Honduras responded to the
news that he was being awarded with
CEAL International Award by Business Council of Latin America (CEAL).
Now juxtapose the noble words of Facusse with these words from the 'unidentified' kidnappers who
threatened the MUCA (Unified Campesino Movement of the Aguán) journalist
Karla Zelaya on 23 October 2012 after kidnapping her: "This time you're lucky. We're not going
to kill you because you're worth more to us alive than dead."
The association of these people to Facusse is the open secret in Honduras as is the collusion between
the Facusse's militia and the state's security forces, particularly after the 2009 coup-de-tat that
deposed the democratically elected president. According to the
Front for Popular National Resistance (FNRP), this new act of violence happened after two more
campesinos or peasant farmers were killed over the weekend and three more were found buried in Farallones,
lands belonging to Miguel Facussé.
The news coming from Honduras over the past few months is equally horrifying as indicated by these
two reports (here
and
here) from Amnesty International. After brutal murder of campesino leader Margarita Murilo on
27 August, another leader Juan Angel Lopez Miralda met with the same fate on 11 November this year.
After all, how long could have they tolerated Murilo-a survivor of twenty-two days of detention and
torture in the 1980's and life-long fighter against the oppressive state-who dared
say this
after disappearance of her son in 2009: "If the army took my son to deter me, it was very poor
judgment on their part. I've been in struggle for twenty-five years; I'm not going to abandon it."
Obviously, the state was forced to deter her by taking her life itself. Even though Facusse and his
corporation are not mentioned in the AI reports, there is no doubt as to either the motive or the
mechanism of her elimination.
With thousands of
hectares of
lands in Bazo Aguan region itself and more elsewhere, Facusse has every reason to eliminate anyone
who advocates the rights of the creatures who claim to be the rightful owners of the same land. Himself
having been the economic advisor for one of the Honduran past presidents and counting another past
president as his own nephew, there is literally nothing Facusse cannot do in Honduras.
There is no dearth of people like Facusse in this world where capitalism rules the roost. If we look
closely, every developing country and economy has its own shares of Facusses who not only decide
who wins and who loses in elections but also can depose or oust those who refuse to play by their
rule after gaining power. Indeed, these super-wealthy tycoons-with opaque business activities and
capability to both make and break rules and governments-in the under-developed countries, are the
equivalents of the wealthy and powerful multinational corporations in the developed countries and
economies.
The neo-liberal theologians would like us to believe that these people who value their own wealth-gathering
much more than lives of hundreds to thousands of paupers out in the communities are a transitory
phenomenon before rule of law comes to fruition in these modernizing societies. In other words, we
should bear with plutocracy and mass pauperization for the sake of capitalist economic development
that will somehow lead us into more prosperous if not egalitarian societies.
Is that the truth, after all? Let's draw some similarities between Facusse's Dinant corporation and
Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes (V&M), a joint venture of French Vallourec Group (with more than 23,000
employees, sales of $5.3 billion in 2012, 78% generated outside Europe, according to
Compay's site) and German Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG.
To start with, contempt and disregard for human rights is equally strong in both. As Facusse's militia
shoot the peasants in Honduras point blank and leave them to rot in the fields before police can
take their body, V&M poisons the lands to clear the natural vegetation in Brazil for its vast eucalyptus
plantations. As the usual fruits-the means of livelihood-and the underground water sources disappear,
people in small towns like Minas Grais are forced into hunger and misery all the same. Those who
dare to raise a finger at V&M here are killed as mercilessly as those challenging Dinant in Honduras
are.
The similarities, however, do not end there. Both the companies are now beneficiaries of a supposedly
noble initiative from Kyoto protocol intended to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emission. While
Dinant's palm trees are used to produce supposedly 'renewable' bio-fuels, V&M's eucalyptus are used
to make 'renewable' coal. They trade off their carbon credits to other big industrial polluters thereby
receiving huge amount of money under the 'Clean Development Mechanism' of the UN and the World Bank.
At the end however, both the biofuel and coal go on to be burnt thereby emitting the greenhouse gases.
Net outcome: as people keep being killed or stifled in Brazil and Honduras, profits for corporations
like Dinant and V&M keep rising exponentially, the biodiversity being irrecoverably damaged in both
the supposedly noble sources of clean development.
The pervasiveness of the greenhouse gas emissions, strong uncertainty and complexity combine to
prevent economists from substantiating their theoretical claims of cost-effectiveness. Corporate
power is shown to be a major force affecting emissions market operation and design. The potential
for manipulation to achieve financial gain, while showing little regard for environmental and
social consequences, is evident as markets have extended internationally and via trading offsets.
(...) I conclude that the focus on such markets is creating a distraction from the need for changing
human behavior, institutions and infrastructure.
As fortunes of people like Facusse multiply overnight, the real sufferers of the whole fiasco live
in abject poverty and increasing marginalization. As their fellow citizens face brutality of the
forest rangers from V&M and other big companies, the Brazilian middle class is pre-occupied by something
else. Apparently, the Rousseff administration's sellout to the corporations is too little for them:
142,000 of them recently signed a petition on the White House Website asking 'president Obama'
to take a stand against the 'Bolivarian Communist expansion in Brazil promoted by the administration
of Dilma Rousseff'.
That tells a lot about why the plight of indigenous people in Brazil, Honduras and elsewhere rarely
makes it to the mainstream media even as the street protests against leaders like Brazil's Rousseff
and Venezuela's Maduro receive a round-the-clock coverage.
But even as the mainstream media works day and night to manufacture consent for the neo-liberal economic
order and the resulting political order thereby obfuscating the reality, not everybody has abandoned
the poor and the downtrodden. Plight of these people in Brazil and Honduras has been retold vividly
in the 2012 documentary 'The Carbon Rush' directed by social justice organizer and activist Amy Miller.
The documentary was shown as the part of recently concluded Kathmandu International Mountain Film
Festival in Kathmandu (KIMFF), leaving the audience flabbergasted.
The documentary brilliantly captures the misfortune of the victims of some more projects under the
so called clean development mechanism including the one in India which snatches the livelihood of
the rag-pickers. As a big company moves on to produce energy from the garbage (the amount of energy
produced being minimal as air pollution reaches intolerable levels with use of incinerators in residential
areas) it is also bestowed with monopoly in recycling the recyclables from the garbage forcing the
already poor people into a vicious cycle of abject poverty and total unemployment.
So, what is in the store for these people duped by their states and hounded by the wealthy? The smart
and educated people in India may not have exactly petitioned the US president the way their Brazilian
counterparts did but their attitude about the economic and social malaise of the society is also
basically the same. The only solution to the crushing poverty and rampant unemployment is, for them,
to let the wealthy corporations exploit the natural resources even faster-thereby transforming this
planet into unlivable garbage dump even earlier than it would otherwise become-so that more jobs
are created. The living conditions of the workers and the plight of the displaced people is the luxury
that the state cannot afford to ponder over at this point of time.
It is then no wonder that after Narendra Modi came to power in India with a promise to 'development',
his government is now going to depend on the
'utmost good faith' of the polluting industries to control pollution rather than strict laws
enforced by the state.
So, when will this mad rush to seek solution of every problem in endless economic growth end? As
the wealth gap widens between the rich and poor leaving the wealthy few increasingly beholden to
the remainder of the rapidly depleting natural resources in the planet, how many more millions of
people will have to suffer before the illusion of mankind's invincibility over the nature crashes?
Miguel Facusse is already over 90 and still wants to gather wealth at the cost of thousands of Honduran
lives. But, will the fragile ecosystem of the planet survive for another 90 years without a major
disruption? Even if it does not survive, Facusse will be long gone by then having left a disastrous
track record of swallowing up entire genera and multiple species of flora and fauna in the South
American continent for his palm plantations. Likely, the V&M's owners will also be gone by that time
contributing to loss of an even large chunk of biodiversity in the planet for their eucalyptus plantations.
But who can blame them? They are neither the biggest nor the last culprits in the whole sordid saga.
These people will be remembered especially for one reason though: as they tore through the ecosystem
speeding the degradation of the most bio-diverse parts of planet earth, they were being paid for
precisely the opposite of that, in other words, they were getting rewards instead of punishments
for their crimes.
Author is a Kathmandu-based freelance writer who regularly blogs at
South Asia and Beyond.
"...so many still maintain that America is the greatest nation in the world.
They swear that America represents all that is good; freedom, democracy, merit based capitalism and
the rights of the individual. That is true America does represent such things. However,
it is fraudulent to consider our current nation America. America was a concept
that promoted all that is good. And so it would seem that the nation in which they find themselves
cannot be America. Their nation today represents the will of the political class at all costs,
period. Their sole motivation is themselves. Very different from America. And so
perhaps a renaming on the nation is required, at least until or if the people decide
to take it back and reintroduce the world to the concept that is America for as discussed below you
cannot destroy a concept and so there is hope to bring her back. But until then we need a name
for this geographic region and its new societal system... It seems"Neoconica" is most fitting."
"The war on terror had now reduced governance in the United States to a legalized apparatus of terror
that mimicked the very violence it was meant to combat." ... "Neoliberalism has created a society
of monsters for whom pain and suffering are viewed as entertainment or deserving of scorn, warfare is
a permanent state of existence, torture becomes a matter of expediency, and militarism is celebrated
as the most powerful mediator of human relationships."
The maiming and breaking of bodies and the forms of unimaginable pain inflicted by the Bush administration
on so-called "enemy combatants" was no longer seen in violation of either international human rights
or a constitutional commitment to democratic ideals. The war on terror had now reduced governance
in the United States to a legalized apparatus of terror that mimicked the very violence it was meant
to combat. In the aftermath of 9/11, under the leadership of Bush and his close neoconservative
band of merry criminal advisors, justice took a leave of absence and the "gloves came off."
As Mark Danner states, "the United States transformed itself from a country that, officially at least,
condemned torture to a country that practised it."[13]
But it did more. Under the Bush-Cheney reign of power, torture was embraced in unprecedented ways
through a no holds-barred approach to the war on terror that suggested the administration's need
to exhibit a kind of ethical and psychic hardening-a hyper-masculine, emotional callousness that
expressed itself in a warped militaristic mind-set fueled by a high testosterone quotient. State
secrecy and war crimes now became the only tributes now paid to democracy.
... ... ...
Waterboarding, which has been condemned by democracies all over the world, consists of the individual
being "bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's
feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied
to the cloth in a controlled manner [and] produces the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.'"[18]The highly detailed, amoral nature in which these abuses were first defined and endorsed by lawyers
from the Office of Legal Council was not only chilling but also reminiscent of the harsh and ethically
deprived instrumentalism used by those technicians of death in criminal states such as Nazi Germany.
Andy Worthington suggests that there is more than a hint of brutalization and dehumanization in
the language used by the OLC's Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Steven G. Bradbury, who
wrote a detailed memo recommending:
"nudity, dietary manipulation and sleep deprivation"-now revealed explicitly as not just keeping
a prisoner awake, but hanging him, naked except for a diaper, by a chain attached to shackles
around his wrists-[as,] essentially, techniques that produce insignificant and transient discomfort.
We are, for example, breezily told that caloric intake "will always be set at or above 1,000 kcal/day,"
and are encouraged to compare this enforced starvation with "several commercial weight-loss programs
in the United States which involve similar or even greater reductions in calorific intake" … and
when it comes to waterboarding, Bradbury clinically confirms that it can be used 12 times a day
over five days in a period of a month-a total of 60 times for a technique that is so horrible
that one application is supposed to have even the most hardened terrorist literally gagging to
tell all.[19]
... ... ...
In spite of the appalling evidence presented by the report, members s of the old Bush crowd, including
former Vice-President Cheney, former CIA directors, George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, and an
endless number of prominent Republican Party politicians are still defending their use of torture
or, as they euphemistically contend, "enhanced interrogation techniques." The psychopathic undercurrent
and the authoritarian impulse of such reactions finds its most instructive expression in former Bush
communications chief Nicolle Wallace who while appearing on the "Morning Joe" show screeched in response
to the revelations of the Senate Intelligence report "I don't care what we did." As Elias Isquith,
a writer for Salon, contends, as "grotesque as that was, though, the really scary part was
[the implication that] waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and sexual assault is part
of what makes 'America 'great.'"[25]
Wallace's comments are more than morally repugnant. Wallace embodies the stance of so many other
war criminals who were either indifferent to the massive suffering and deaths they caused or actually
took pride in their actions. They are the bureaucrats whose thoughtlessness and moral depravity Hannah
Arendt identified as the rear guard of totalitarianism.
Illegal legalities, moral depravity, and mad violence are now wrapped in the vocabulary of Orwellian
doublethink. For instance, the rhetorical gymnastics used by the torture squad are designed to
make the American public believe that if you refer to torture by some seemingly innocuous name then
the pain and suffering it causes will suddenly disappear. The latter represents not just the
discourse of magical thinking but a refusal to recognize that "If cruelty is the worst thing that
humans do to each other, torture [is] the most extreme expression of human cruelty."[26]
These apostles of torture are politicians who thrive in some sick zone of political and social abandonment,
and who unapologetically further acts of barbarism, fear, willful lies, and moral depravity. They
are the new totalitarians who hate democracy, embrace a punishing state, and believe that politics
is mostly an extension of war. They are the thoughtless gangsters reminiscent of the monsters who
made fascism possible at another time in history. For them, torture is an instrument of fear; one
sordid strategy and element in a war on terror that attempts to expand governmental power and put
into play a vast (il)legal and repressive apparatus that expands the field of violence and the technologies,
knowledge, and institutions central to fighting the all-encompassing war on terror. Americans now
live under a government in which the doctrine of permanent warfare is legitimated through a state
of emergency deeply rooted in a mass psychology of violence and culture of cruelty that are essential
to transforming a government of laws into a regime of lawlessness.
... ... ...
There is another story to be told about another kind of torture, one that is more capacious and
seemingly more abstract but just as deadly in its destruction of human life, justice, and democracy.
This is a mode of torture that resembles the "mind virus" mentioned in the Senate report, one that
induces fear, paralysis, and produces the toxic formative culture that characterizes the reign of
neoliberalism. Isolation, privatization, and the cold logic of instrumental rationality
have created a new kind of social formation and social order in which it becomes difficult to form
communal bonds, deep connections, a sense of intimacy, and long term commitments. Neoliberalism
has created a society of monsters for whom pain and suffering are viewed as entertainment or deserving
of scorn, warfare is a permanent state of existence, torture becomes a matter of expediency, and
militarism is celebrated as the most powerful mediator of human relationships.
Under the reign of neoliberalism, politics has taken an exit from ethics and thus the issue of
social costs is divorced from any form of intervention in the world. This is the ideological metrics
of political zombies. The key word here is atomization and it is the curse of both neoliberal societies
and democracy itself. A radical democracy demands a notion of educated hope capable of energizing
a generation of young people and others who connect the torture state to the violence and criminality
of an economic system that celebrates its own depravities. It demands a social movement unwilling
to abide by technological fixes or cheap reforms. It demands a new politics for which the word revolution
means going to the root of the problem and addressing it non-violently with dignity, civic courage,
and the refusal to accept a future that mimics the present. Torture is not just a matter of policy,
it is a deadening mindset, a point of identification, a form of moral paralysis, a war crime, an
element of the spectacle of violence, and it must be challenged in all of its dreadful registers.
[1] Cited in Edward S. Herman, "Folks Out There Have a 'Distaste of Western Civilization and
Cultural Values'," Center for Research on Globalization (September 15, 2001). Online at: ,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER109A.html
[2]. Carl Boggs supplies an excellent commentary on the historical amnesia in the U.S. media
surrounding the legacy of torture promoted by the United States. See Carl Boggs, "Torture: An American
Legacy," CounterPunch.org (June 17, 2009). Online at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/boggs06172009.html.
...a framework in economic theory, references to the latest in empirical research, grand historical
sweep, and crystal-clear explanation... [plus] the subversive element found in the best of Haldane's
work.... His Sept. 2, 2010 speech "Patience and Finance"... bowled over by how good it was....
Under one equilibrium, patience wins the day. When long-term investors start in the ascendency,
prices tend to correct towards fundamentals. The performance of untested investors pursuing
momentum strategies falters, while those pursuing longterm strategies flourish. The fraction
of long-term investors rises. The self-correcting tendencies of market prices are thus reinforced,
further supporting long-term investors. The patience gene thrives, the impatience gene dies.
Natural selection results in a self-improving cycle, as with dieting, happiness and exercise.
But there is a second equilibrium where this cycle operates in reverse gear.... Natural selection
results in a self-destructive cycle....
Haldane then goes on to meticulously document the ways that, over the past decade, financial
markets--especially in the U.S. and UK--succumbed to the impatience cycle.... Another Haldane
speech 'The Short Long'... 'Control Rights (and Wrongs)'.... As somebody who has long trafficked
in explanatory financial journalism, I stand somewhat in awe...
Axiomatically, in a democracy, everybody is not wrong. Practically, any time you find yourself
thinking "everyone but me is an idiot", you've made a mistake.
I'd suggest you consider that the pricing mechanism is just flat broken. (Prices, after all,
are chiefly socially determined.)
Pipeline and rail operators are very clearly totally indifferent to public safety; margins
get cut to support maximal profits, and the occasional immolated town provides no feedback because
there is no mechanism to impose the costs on a corporate entity; the corporate goes away, its
assets are sold to some other corporate for a song, and the liability, chained to the first corporate,
has vanished. It's completely rational for people to want some assurance that they won't be burned
to death in their beds, that their water won't be poisoned, that the pipeline won't pump their
land full of toxic sludge with no prospect of warning or recompense.
You can't actually say "broad benefits to the economy" without a working pricing structure,
which we haven't got. What you can -- and appear to be -- saying is "profits would be higher if
it was easier to impose localized suffering outside the accounting system", which, yeah, that's
probably factual. That doesn't make it good, or a wrong thing to oppose.
...Mirowski answers by suggesting that we must understand neoliberalism as a Russian doll. The
innermost doll of experts emerged from the Mont Pelerlin Society, an organization that was by design
very hierarchical. He describes, for instance, correspondence between Popper and Hayek. Popper, following
his philosophy of open debate suggested that MPS should have at least one respectable socialist.
Hayek shut down this idea, insisting that agreement on first principles was a necessary condition
for membership. This tightly networked group of intellectuals slowly incubated neoliberalism and
developed a political strategy for propagating it.
Mirowski further points out that the Neoliberal Thought Collective were excellent sloganeers.
Friedman's most famous academic text, for instance, argues that a lack of government intervention
caused the Great Depression: a series of rural bank failures caused by an overly tight supply of
money. However, when Friedman penned his Newsweek column he claimed with a straight face that the
government *caused* the Recession, that is, by a lack of action in expanding the supply of money
and reducing interest rates. This is how the Russian doll works: nuance for the insiders, ignorance
for the outsiders.
There is a further layer to the doll though. Pivoting off of Foucault's final lectures at the
College of France, Mirowski argues that there is an everyday neoliberalism that has emerged. Beyond
political theory and public policy, neoliberalism is experienced on a quotidian level and it is on
that potent terrain that it has survived the crisis. I, right now, am taking time out of my day to
write a book review which I will be paid nothing for, which is in the service of the Bezo empire
to sell even more books and probably destroy more local bookshops and which will be used to further
quantify me into some bits of data in the sky so I can be marketed to even more heavily. But but
but: I am individually expressing myself! How free am I!
The neoliberal self is a creature coerced into being a "free" entrepreneur. It is the
poor un/underemployed soul who thinks himself to be a failure or inadequate because he was not lucky
enough to ride the right wave. The old liberal arts dictum to "know thy self" becomes "express thy
self, and monetize it too!" This middle chapter here is the most engrossing part of the book. Mirowski
delves into a sundry of sources on our culture and then leverages a novel and erudite analysis of
Foucault to bring it all into sharp focus.
In closing, it is truly ironic that the other review of this book is so gravely concerned that
Mirowski might be a socialist. We have a wonderful little anthropological artifact here of the NTC
at work: "Whatever this book says, it's got 'Red' in a chapter title. I am a Very Reasonable Person
and thus must be suspicious." Let me assure him/her: there are no calls for a violent revolution
of the proletariat. On the contrary, Mirowski heads out to the outermost layer of the doll and analyzes
why neoliberalism won. In particular, he argues that the NTC provided a powerful account of the market
as a natural entity that *cannot* be messed with. Consequently, the Recession had nothing to do with
the structure of capitalism itself, it was just a "once in a lifetime" moment akin to a natural disaster.
An act of God.
Mirowski's careful history here shows that just the opposite is true. There was a concerted
effort to propagate a particular ignorance and the Recession itself is by no means removed from that
particular effort.
This book is exceptionally penetrating in its examination of the neoliberal project. Mirowski
has for many years been a persistent scourge of orthodox economics, attacking its ersatz scientism
in
More Heat than Light (1989), and later its conspiratorial inner circle in
The Road from Mont Pelerin (2009). Readers unfamiliar with the "Neoliberal Thought Collective"
(NTC) will probably feel overwhelmed with the scope of this book: its etiology of neoliberalism
is so relentless, it needs to examine both the moral philosophy and the anthropology spawned by
it.
For this reason, he does not see neoliberalism as merely a view of how economies "work";
rather, he shows how its luminaries sought to create nothing less than a permanent empire of motion,
in which all human agency was to be subordinated to an all-knowing market. While its votaries
deny the very existence of any neoliberal project, the NTC is not only quite active, it is multifarious
and ubiquitous. Mirowski briefly reviews some of the organs by which the NTC assures its acolytes
influence, prestige, and pelf (1), but mainly focuses on the way in which it built upon, and distanced
itself from, the neoclassical economics of the period 1870-1930.
I--In "Shock Block Doctrine" (2), Mirowski explains the outlook of Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS)
cofounder Friedrich von Hayek (3). Hayek argued that liberalism (never defined in Mirowski's book,
alas, but evidently meant to refer to the doctrine of negatively-defined individual rights) was
at odds with the doctrine of democracy, and potentially its antithesis (p.57).
Mirowski's analysis, as always, is schematic; he points to efforts by the NTC to replace citizenship
with consumerism (e.g., fixing education with school vouchers), and using orthodox economic models
to devise policies explicitly to bypass agency problems associated with electoral politics. Some
readers will no doubt object to his crash course in Hayek's political philosophy, which is traced
directly to the coercive nature of austerity measures adopted following the Global Financial Crisis.
However, the schemata does allow Mirowski to inject
Carl Schmitt's doctrine of the "exception" into his narrative--an undeniable benefit in view
of the austerity mania gripping the developed world right now (4).
II--"Everyday Neoliberalism" bores down to the pervasive character of neoliberalism, in which
"market" transactions have gone so far as to redefine what it means to be an individual or to
exercise volition.
III--"Mumbo Jumble" and "Shock of the New" explain both the self-apologia of orthodox economics
in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis--viz., so "underwhelming" (or defiant and insolent)
as to suggest some sort of higher power standing watch over that odious profession--and the structure
of that higher power. Heavily larded with quotes from prominent economists and statistics. "Shock
of the New" specifically addresses the inadequacies of attempts to incorporate "irrational" behavior
(5).
IV--"The Red Guide to the Neoliberal Playbook" explicitly rejects any prescriptive approach,
often encountered in crisis literature, and a lot of readers may object to the despairing tone
of this chapter. Nearly all of the countervailing movements to the NTC come under withering criticism,
none of which needs to be defended here because of the obvious historical outcomes (6).
A MINOR CRITICISM
Mirowski's overview of the literature of his subject is vast, especially if one includes materials
discussed in prior works. It's one thing to say that the task he set for himself was to diagnose,
and not prescribe; but this division of labor implies that someone else is expected to prescribe,
and yet this overview guns down all known ripostes to the NTC. In other words, Mirowski's expertise
in taxonomies of economic thought is SO broad that, if he reports no viable counterweight to the
NTC, then he probably thinks none exists. This is unlikely to be so.
Another objection is that Mirowski insists on the uniqueness of the NTC as an actor; the NTC
is the premier conspiracy, and other forms of the far right are its dupe. Without going into detail,
I think Mirowski wanted to tell a story of a preternaturally deft political movement and did so
by ignoring prior conditions, rival forms of the political right, and longstanding political verities
(e.g., for all recording history, it has been extremely hard to pass legislation over the objections
of the economic elites--even when "watered down"). The NTC has been only the latest (?) in a long
tradition of aristocrats resisting encroachments on their prerogatives by denouncing "tyranny.
__________________________________________
(1) A lot of information is available at Sourcewatch (an "org" domain; URLs are forbidden in Amazon
reviews). Mirowski says that he uses the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS) as a "Rosetta stone" (p.39)
to identify people or institutions that qualify as neoliberal.
(2) The title of the chapter is a reference to Naomi Klein's book,
The Shock Doctrine(2007). Mirowski's book is a detailed exposition of the personnel and outlook
behind the shock.
(3) Along with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Lionel Robbins, and a few others (in 1947).
Ludwig von Mises later broke with the MPS for being ideologically impure (see Murray Rothbard,
The Essential von Mises, p.112). Hayek understood "democracy" as reflecting the outcome of
a popular vote, including decisions made by legislators elected by popular vote. Mirowski doesn't
mention this here, but Hayek's view of the relationship between liberalism and democracy is explicitly
borrowed from Ortega y Gasset (Hayek,
The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition, 1960, pp.442-443). See
Roland Axtman (1996), p.38.
(4) Carl Schmitt is most famous as a legal theorist who served the Nazi regime, justifying
its every public act. His doctrine of the "state of exception," or inherently unforeseeable emergency,
was used to explain the urgent need to liquidate democratic institutions. Mirowski mentions the
examples of appointed prime ministers for Greece and Italy in order to administer austerity programs
there (p.85). Greece and Italy are governed by massive party coalitions that permitted the suspension
of democratic selection of the cabinet.
(5) Specifically, George Akerlof and Robert Shiller, whose book
Animal Spirits (2009) comes under extensive fire (pp.258-259); and architects of TARP. TARP,
of course, was actually just one of a vast complex of lending facilities for different types of
financial instruments.
(6) Mirowski is sympathetic to OWS, but as of publication, it was a damp squib. Even in European
countries, marked as they are by far higher standards of social justice and participatory democracy
(and suffering from more violent reversals than those in the USA), protests had the perverse effect
of enabling a continent-wide shift to the right.
This review is from: Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial
Meltdown (Hardcover)
My feelings regarding Mirowski's "Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste" are decidedly mixed, on
the one hand there is much fascinating information and analysis with regards to both Economists and
the Financial Meltdown, on the other... well imagine Thomas Franks (of
One Market Under God &
Pity the Billionaire fame) mainlining a hefty load of hard-core academic jargon, and you have some
idea of the style Mirowski writes in and the minor headache I developed from time to time while reading
it.
Some of it is brilliant, Mirowski has read up on his Hayek and Friedman and the rest of the Mont
Pelerin folks (spreading out to those with varying degrees of connections into what Mirowski terms the
Neo-Liberal Thought Collective), and their thoughts and methods; his examination of the links between
Macro Economists and the Federal Reserve and with Wall St throws much light on the reasons for the almost
total lack of innovation in their responses to the Financial Meltdown. But even these insights have
to be teased out from the heavy load of academic terminology that he has larded this book with.
This should have been (and perhaps will be if someone does a plain English translation) one of the
best books written on the Financial Meltdown of 2007 onwards, and certainly the best one on Economists
and the Meltdown, but instead Mirowski's raucous riff-a-rama of esoteric academic terminology means
that he may as well have erected a 'Keep Out!' sign for the general reader.
It also needs to be kept in mind that apart from the pursuit of truth, each individual becomes
the criterion for measuring himself and his own actions. The way is thus opened to a subjectivistic
assertion of rights, so that the concept of human rights, which has an intrinsically universal import,
is replaced by an individualistic conception of rights. This leads to an effective lack of concern
for others and favours that globalization of indifference born of selfishness, the result
of a conception of man incapable of embracing the truth and living an authentic social dimension.
This kind of individualism leads to human impoverishment and cultural aridity, since it effectively
cuts off the nourishing roots on which the tree grows. Indifferent individualism leads to the
cult of opulence reflected in the throwaway culture all around us. We have a surfeit of unnecessary
things, but we no longer have the capacity to build authentic human relationships marked by truth
and mutual respect. And so today we are presented with the image of a Europe which is hurt, not only
by its many past ordeals, but also by present-day crises which it no longer seems capable of facing
with its former vitality and energy; a Europe which is a bit tired and pessimistic, which feels besieged
by events and winds of change coming from other continents.
... ... ...
Similarly, the contemporary world offers a number of other challenges requiring careful study
and a common commitment, beginning with the welcoming of migrants, who immediately require the essentials
of subsistence, but more importantly a recognition of their dignity as persons. Then too, there is
the grave problem of labour, chiefly because of the high rate of young adults unemployed in many
countries – a veritable mortgage on the future – but also for the issue of the dignity of work.
It is my profound hope that the foundations will be laid for a new social and economic cooperation,
free of ideological pressures, capable of confronting a globalized world while at the same time encouraging
that sense of solidarity and mutual charity which has been a distinctive feature of Europe, thanks
to the generous efforts of hundreds of men and women – some of whom the Catholic Church considers
saints – who over the centuries have worked to develop the continent, both by entrepreneurial activity
and by works of education, welfare, and human promotion. These works, above all, represent an important
point of reference for the many poor people living in Europe. How many of them there are in our
streets! They ask not only for the food they need for survival, which is the most elementary of rights,
but also for a renewed appreciation of the value of their own life, which poverty obscures, and a
rediscovery of the dignity conferred by work.
One of the major criticisms of Capital in the Twenty First Century is that Thomas Piketty
relies heavily on the ideas of neoclassical economics in his presentation, as
here and
here. Others recognize what seems to me to be the most important aspect of the book, it's relentless
assault on neoclassical economic theory, and its political cousin, neoliberalism. Here's
one example.
It's not possible to tell what Piketty has in mind on this point.
As I noted before, he is quite capable of working out ideas in the neoclassical mold, as he does
with a study of the role of inheritance in wealth formation in a paper written with Gabriel Zucman.
I think he is cutting out the heart of neoclassical theory, and slapping at the neoliberals who love
it. To support my view, we can look at his discussion of marginal productivity as an explanation
for wildly unequal income distribution. Neoliberals claim that the market rewards people according
to their value in production.
John Foster and Michael Yates give a good example:
Likewise Robert Lucas, Jr. of the University of Chicago, the most influential macroeconomist
of his day, was merely stating the dominant view of the profession and of the establishment as
a whole when he opined in 2004, "Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most
seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of [income] distribution.
Fn omitted.
Piketty's discussion of marginal productivity begins at page 304, for those who want to follow
along in the text. He says that the main explanation for rising inequality of income is the race
between education and technology. Those who have more education are better able to cope with technology,
and thus are worth more in the marketplace of employment.
This theory rests on two hypotheses. First, a worker's wage is equal to his marginal productivity,
that is, his individual contribution to the output of the firm or office for which he works. Second,
the worker's productivity depends above all on his skill and on supply and demand for that skill
in a given society.
This theory is crucial in the construction of the neoliberal project. First, it justifies the
massive amount of money going to the C-Suite, the group Piketty sees as a crucial part of the new
wealth oligarchy. Second, it has been internalized by most of our fellow citizens, who blame themselves
for their economic status and are blind to the impact of social norms and governmental actions. Let's
first see what Piketty says, and then look at the impact on the neoliberal project.
"This theory is in some respects limited and naïve", he tells us. First, the productivity of any
given worker is not a fixed and immutable number, as he puts it, "inscribed on his forehead." Second,
he says that the relative power of each group is a crucial factor in determining how much each gets
from revenues produced by the firm. He thinks that education and technology play a significant role:
…[I]f the United States (or France) invested more heavily in high-quality professional training
and advanced educational opportunities and allowed broader segments of the population to have
access to them, this would surely be the most effective way of increasing wages at the low to
median end of the scale and decreasing the upper decile's share of both wages and total income.
This analysis is based on a book by Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz
The Race Between Education And Technology, and not any special analysis by Piketty.
It seems odd that one would draw the conclusion that raising the supply of educated workers would
increase the price paid for their labor. It seems to contradict the law of supply and demand, and
smells something like Say's Law. One way to think about it is that labor is not a commodity like
coke and iron ore; there is something special about it, an idea rejected by the neoliberals. And
even in the long run, how does it work for the unlucky sperm club? And how did it work out for everyone
who graduated in 2008 and thereafter? Perhaps he gets it right with this: "…theoretical discussion
of educational issues and of meritocracy is often out of touch with reality…." 307.
He then takes up marginal productivity theory in more detail, eviscerating the role of training
and education as setting wages in the short run. It is silly to believe that even trained workers
are paid according to marginal production. First, it is impossible to measure this accurately, even
in the case of repetitive tasks. Second, technology is not always available that requires highly
trained people. Third, education is not solely instrumental; it has value in itself. The biggest
issue, though, is that the simple theory is unable to account for differences across countries. Worker
pay is the outcome of the way the society is organized. He discusses the role of the minimum wage
in setting wages. It makes sense, he says to limit the power of the employer to set wages in many
settings, obviously where there is a monopsony of employment, but more generally where the power
of the employer is overwhelming. That would be the case where unemployment is ridiculously high,
as it is today, and where the ability of workers to organize is ridiculously low, as it is today
in the US.
In sum, Piketty rejects the theory of marginal productivity as a predictor of wages, and considers
it irrelevant in understanding the growth of inequality.
He then asks why there is such a large variance in the growth of wage income at the very top of
the income scale. The answer is not simply education, because most of the people in the top quintile
have equivalent educations. The explosion of incomes in the top centile happened in the US and England,
but not in continental European nations or in Japan. That blows another hole in the idea that marginal
productivity explains the rise in top incomes. The data show that the top .01% in France, Japan and
Sweden grew rapidly, almost doubling, while quintupling in the US. This difference cannot be explained
by differential technological change, because that is fairly constant in all these countries.
The idea that marginal productivity explains anything about the very top incomes is laughable
in Piketty's telling. Consider a firm with 100,000 employees and 10 million Euros in revenues, and
a cost of good and services purchased of 5 million Euros. The firm has 5 million Euros to divide
among its employees. How should it set the compensation of its CFO? The theory of marginal productivity
says we should figure out the value of the contribution of the CFO to the 5 million Euro figure.
That's not possible.
Let's put this into a real life setting.
Barry Ritzholz has the figures on the distribution of the bonus pool of $1.5 billion available
at Pimco to be divided among 60 managing directors.
Felix Salmon breaks it down:
The top of the food chain, that year, looked something like this*:
Bill Gross: $290 million
Mohamed El-Erian: $230 million
Daniel Ivascyn: $70 million
Wendy Cupps: $50 million
Douglas Hodge: $45 million
Jay Jacobs: $22 million
…
Obviously, the numbers here are mind-bogglingly enormous. But on top of that, they're incredibly
skewed towards the very, very top of the income distribution, in a perfectly Piketty-like manner.
The top two get 35% of the pool, the next three get 8%, and the other 55 get less than the average.
Gross managed The Total Return Fund, which shrank nearly 1/3 during the last 16 months. Ivascyn
managed the Income Fund, which has grown by 30% over that same year. In fact, Gross committed a stunning
mistake, betting on an increase in interest rates in 2011 that seriously damaged the fund.
Krugman called him on it in real time. So, it isn't competence that resulted in the giant paycheck.
Paying for lousy performance is pretty much the exact opposite of the marginal productivity theory.
But there are plenty of studies showing that paying for lousy performance is common in big businesses,
like
the recent paper described here.
…[T]he companies run by the CEOS who were paid at the top 10% of the scale, had the worst performance.
How much worse? The firms returned 10% less to their shareholders than did their industry peers.
The study also clearly shows that at the high end, the more CEOs were paid, the worse their companies
did; it looked at the very top, the 5% of CEOs who were the highest paid, and found that their
companies did 15% worse, on average, than their peers.
Read the comments, and you'll see how desperately people cling to the obviously false idea that
pay is related to performance, which brings us back to the neoliberal project.
Philip Mirowski gives a brief description of the neoliberal project
here, and a longer one in Chapters 2 and 3 of his book, Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To
Waste. As I read Mirowski, the point of the neoliberal project is to recreate the mass of humans
as homo economicus, the economic person. One of its principal ideas has to do with the notion
of human capital, that bizarre idea of Gary Becker of the University of Chicago. Mirowski quotes
Michel Foucault in his book:
The Entrepreneurial Self cannot be passive, but must move strategically in a world rife with
risk. Hence, reward and punishment are accepted by the agent as the outcome of calculated risk,
not the dictates of 'justice'. Id at 96.
Neoliberals have convinced the vast majority of our fellow citizens that they and they alone are
responsible for their fates. They took risks and they lost, but it was their choice. I can hear Rick
Santelli ranting in the background. At the same time, neoliberals insisted that governments everywhere
bail out the filthy rich and their corporations, especially their financial corporations, and governments
obliged. So, we screw the productive members of society and reward the slugs, all in line with neoliberal
theory.
Neoclassical economics undergirds the neoliberal project. Piketty slashes at a piece of that foundation
with his attack on marginal productivity. What now is the justification for the absurd compensation
of the filthy rich? Tort law failed to deal with the sins of the bankers. Why aren't they in jail?
One more block pulled from the
Jenga pile of vicious ideas so beloved of the rich and their government agents.
David Lentini, November 21, 2014 at 11:16 am
"Paying for lousy performance is pretty much the exact opposite of the marginal productivity
theory. But there are plenty of studies showing that paying for lousy performance is common in
big businesses, like the recent paper described here."
Indeed, having suffered watching the well-placed foolish getting to ride the gravy train into
the ground, these results really demonstrate that highly paid managers are not interested in doing
business; they're only interested in looting the firm or at least maximizing their deluded narcissistic
status indicators. So, in reality, marginal productivity theory actually destroys businesses and
economies by rewarding the worst of humanity.
"At the same time, neoliberals insisted that governments everywhere bail out the filthy rich
and their corporations, especially their financial corporations, and governments obliged. So,
we screw the productive members of society and reward the slugs, all in line with neoliberal theory."
The real issue is power. The neoliberal project is really about destroying collective public
power in favor of maximizing the power of a few. And our economists have been well rewarded
for their efforts. Creating the red herring of just compensation as defined by "productivity"
keeps everyone running around in circles or fighting amongst themselves; we never see who really
matters and what they do. Of course the bailouts are actually in line with neoliberal theory,
since they reflect the power of a few to avoid the consequences of their foolishness. Getting
paid for doing nothing useful, or even destroying what's valuable and productive, is a true sign
of power and therefore liberty.
susan the other, November 21, 2014
This is a good start for breaking down our misery. It fits with Picketty's theme that too
much money itself becomes unproductive and sucks the life out of the real economy by taking rents
and interest, etc. that over time are unaffordable because they create an imbalance that cannot
rebalance itself. I thought the Fed did an interesting thing the other day. It actually asked
the high level bankers what the overnight rate should look like now with plenty of liquidity and
low interest rates.
That sounds like asking Bill and Mohammed what their compensation rate for their long-time
productivity should be. So these new-normal bankers are being asked to predict the productivity
of the new economy going forward. (Which, everyone knows, is nada.) But somebody has to give us
a definition of what the "real economy" actually is. I think the answer will be astoundingly simple.
It might be simply that the real economy is people, after all the bullshit is reduced.
And that will prove once and for all that everyone deserves an equal share of society and its
"real" productivity. We should offer a prize to the firsts bankster who has the guts to say it.
Fair Economist, November 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm
As Karrass' bestseller says "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate". Real
labor productivity has doubled in the past 40 years, but wages haven't changed. Any claim that
raising productivity will necessarily raise wages has been refuted by reality. Gross' gross overpayment
for losing his company buckets of money is just the obverse.
Skilled workers doing what they're good at generate a benefit for society, but not necessarily
for themselves, as a huge number of enslaved artisans, entertainers, and even intellectuals have
discovered over the centuries.
The 0.1% are trying to recreate that kind of situation without it being so obvious who's exploiting
whom.
Ed S., November 21, 2014
The one model which can plausibly explain the insane levels of compensation at the top: the
"winner take most" tournament model.
The classic example is a tennis tournament – the winner of the 2014 US Open received $3mm;
2nd place $1.5mm (roughly); 3/4th gets $750k. If you get in (there are 128 entrants) - a measly
$35k. (of course, the real money is in endorsements).
The motivation to attract new players isn't the $35k – it's the $3mm. Same with business today
- a "winner take most" model – get the low to mid level people working 50 hours a week for $50k
because there's the possibility of the golden ticket to the C-Suite.
Marginal productivity has very little (if anything) to do with compensation - C-Suite execs
come and go regularly with little change in the dynamics of the business (although a true incompetent
can drive a company into the ground).
Sky high CEO and C-suite pay is, in a neoliberal way, pour encourager les autres
We are living through an extraordinary political situation: the end of the debt-fuelled boom, the
banking crisis of 2007-10, the defeat of New Labour and the rise to power of a Conservative-Liberal
Democratic coalition. What sort of crisis is this? Is it a serious wobble in the trickle-down, win-win,
end-of-boom-and-bust economic model that has dominated global capitalism? Does it presage business
as usual, the deepening of present trends, or the mobilisation of social forces for a radical change
of direction? Is this the start of a new conjuncture?
My argument is that the present situation
is another unresolved rupture of that conjuncture which we can define as "the long
march of the Neoliberal Revolution". Each crisis since the 1970s has looked different,
arising from specific historical circumstances. However, they also seem to share some consistent
underlying features, to be connected in their general thrust and direction of travel. Paradoxically,
such opposed political regimes as Thatcherism and New Labour have contributed in different ways to
expanding this project. Now the coalition is taking up the same cause.
Neoliberalism is grounded in the "free, possessive individual", with the state cast as tyrannical
and oppressive. The welfare state, in particular, is the arch enemy of freedom. The state must never
govern society, dictate to free individuals how to dispose of their private property, regulate a
free-market economy or interfere with the God-given right to make profits and amass personal wealth.
State-led "social engineering" must never prevail over corporate and private interests. It must not
intervene in the "natural" mechanisms of the free market, or take as its objective the amelioration
of free-market capitalism's propensity to create inequality.
According to the neoliberal narrative, the welfare state mistakenly saw its task as intervening
in the economy, redistributing wealth, universalising life-chances, attacking unemployment, protecting
the socially vulnerable, ameliorating the condition of oppressed or maginalised groups and addressing
social injustice. Its do-gooding, utopian sentimentality enervated the nation's moral fibre, and
eroded personal responsibility and the overriding duty of the poor to work. State intervention must
never compromise the right of private capital to grow the business, improve share value, pay dividends
and reward its agents with enormous salaries, benefits and bonuses.
The formation of a Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in May 2010 was fully in line with
the dominant political logic of realignment. In the spirit of the times, Cameron, with Blair as his
role model, signalled his determination to reposition the Tories as a "compassionate conservative
party", though this has turned out to be something of a chimera.
At the same time, many underestimated how deeply being out of office and power had divided the
Lib Dem soul. Coalition now set the neoliberal-inclined
Orange Book
supporters, who favoured an alliance with the Conservatives, against the "progressives", including
former social democrats, who leaned towards Labour. A deal – its detail now forgotten – was stitched
up, in which the social liberals were trounced, and
Cameron and Clegg "kissed hands"
in the No 10 rose garden (the former looking like the cat that had swallowed the cream). The
Lib Dems thus provided the Cameron leadership with the fig leaf it needed – while the banking crisis
gave the alibi. The coalition government seized the opportunity to launch the most radical, far-reaching
and irreversible social revolution since the war.
Coalition policy often seems incompetent, with failures to think things through or join things
up. But, from another angle, it is arguably the best prepared, most wide-ranging, radical and ambitious
of the three regimes that, since the 1970s, have been maturing the neoliberal project. The Conservatives
had for some time been devoting themselves to preparing for office – not in policy detail but in
terms of how policy could be used in power to legislate into effect a new political settlement. They
had convinced themselves that deep, fast cuts would have to be made to satisfy the bond markets and
international assessors. But could the crisis be used, as the rightwing economist
Milton Friedman had suggested, to "produce real change"?
The legislative avalanche began immediately and has not let up. It begins negatively ("the mess
the previous government left us") but ends positively, in embracing radical structural reform as
the solution. Ideology is in the driving seat, though vigorously denied. The front-bench ideologues
– Osborne, Lansley, Gove, Maude, Duncan Smith, Pickles, Hunt – are saturated in neoliberal ideas
and determined to give them legislative effect. As One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest put it: "The crazies
are in charge of the asylum." They are single-minded about the irreversible transformation of society,
ruthless about the means, and in denial about the fallout. Osborne – smirking, clever, cynical, "the
smiler with the knife" – wields the chopper with zeal. Cameron – relaxed, plausible, charming, confident,
a silver-spooned patrician, "a smooth man" – fronts the coalition TV show. This crew long ago accepted
Schumpeter's adage that there is no alternative to
"creative destruction". They have given themselves, through legislative manoeuvring, an uninterrupted
five years to accomplish this task.
Its wide-ranging character must be judged in terms of the operational breadth of the institutions
and practices they aim to "reform", their boldness in siphoning state-funding to the private sector,
and the number of constituencies they are prepared to confront. Reform and choice – the words already
hijacked by New Labour – are the master narrative. They may be Conservatives but this is not a conserving
regime (it is a bemused Labour that is toying with the "blue-Labour" conservative alternative now).
Tories and Lib-Dems monotonously repeat the dissembling mantras of their press and public relations
people: "We are clearing up the mess inherited from the previous government." But the neoliberal
engine is at full throttle.
We cannot deal with the cuts in any detail here. They have only just started and there is much
more to come. Instead we limit ourselves to tracking the neoliberal logic behind the strategy.
First, targeted constituencies – ie anyone associated with, relying or dependent on the state
and public services. For the rich, the recession never happened. For the public sector, however,
there will be massive redundancies, a wage freeze, pay running well behind the rate of inflation,
pensions that will not survive in their present form, rising retirement ages. Support for the less
well off and the vulnerable will be whittled away, and welfare dependency broken. Benefits will be
capped, workfare will be enforced. The old must sell homes to pay for care; working parents must
buy childcare; and incapacity-benefit recipients must find work. Sure Start, the schools refurbishment
programme and the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme are on hold. Wealthy parents can buy children
an Oxbridge education: but many other students will go into lifelong debt to get a degree. You cannot
make £20bn savings in the NHS without affecting frontline, clinical and nursing services. Andrew
Lansley, however, "does not recognise that figure". Similarly, though everybody else knew that most
universities would charge the maximum £9,000 tuition fees, David "Two-Brains" Willetts doesn't recognise
that figure. Saying that square pegs fit into round holes has become a front-bench speciality.
Women stand where many of these savage lines intersect. As Beatrix Campbell reminds us, cutting
the state means minimising the arena in which women can find a voice, allies, social as well as material
support; and in which their concerns can be recognised. It means reducing the resources society collectively
allocates to children, to making children a shared responsibility, and to the general "labour" of
care and love.
Second, there is privatisation – returning public and state services to private capital, redrawing
the social architecture. The Blair government was an innovator here. To avoid the political hassle
of full privatisation, it found you could simply burrow beneath the state/market distinction. Outsourcing,
value for money and contract contestability opened the doors through which private capital could
slip into the public sector and hollow it out from within.
Privatisation now comes in three sizes:
straight sell-off of public assets;
contracting out to private companies for profit;
two-step privatisation by stealth, where it is represented as an unintended consequence.
Some examples: in criminal justice, contracts for running prisons are being auctioned off and,
in true neoliberal fashion, Ken Clarke says he cannot see any difference in principle whether prisons
are publicly or privately owned; in healthcare, the private sector is already a massive, profit-making
presence, having cherry-picked for profit medical services that hospitals can no longer afford to
provide; while in the most far-reaching, top-down NHS reorganisation, GPs, grouped into private consortia
(part of whose profits they retain), will take charge of the £60bn health budget.
Since few GPs know how, or have time, to run complex budgets, they will "naturally" turn
to the private health companies, which are circling the NHS like sharks waiting to feed. Primary
Care Trusts, which represented a public interest in the funding process, are being scrapped. In the
general spirit of competition, hospitals must remove the cap on the number of private patients they
treat.
Third, the lure of "localism". In line with David Cameron's Big Society, "free schools" (funded
from the public purse – Gove's revenge) will "empower" parents and devolve power to "the people".
But parents – beset as they are by pressing domestic and care responsibilities, and lacking the capacity
to run schools, assess good teaching, define balanced curricula, remember much science or the new
maths, or speak a foreign language, while regarding history as boring, and not having read a serious
novel since GCSE – will have to turn to the private education sector to manage schools and define
the school's "vision". Could the two-step logic be clearer?
Fourth, phoney populism: pitching communities against local democracy. Eric Pickles intends
to wean councils permanently off the central grant system. Meanwhile, social housing is at a standstill,
housing benefits will be cut and council rents allowed to rise to commercial levels in urban centres.
Many will move to cheaper rentals, losing networks of friends, child support, family, school friends
and school places. Parents must find alternative employment locally – if there is any – or allow
extra travelling time. Jobseekers' allowances will be capped. As the private housing lobby spokesperson
said: "We are looking forward to a bonanza." Since the early days of Thatcher we have not seen
such a ferocious onslaught on the fabric of civil society, relationships and social life.
Fifth, cutting down to size state involvement in quality of life. Amenities such as libraries,
parks, swimming baths, sports facilities, youth clubs and community centres will either be privatised
or disappear. Either unpaid volunteers will "step up to the plate" or doors will close. In truth,
the aim is not – in the jargon of 1968 from which the promiscuous Cameron is not ashamed to borrow
– to "shift power to the people", but to undermine the structures of local democracy. The
left, which feels positively about volunteering, community involvement and participation – and who
doesn't? – finds itself once again triangulated into uncertainty. The concept of the Big Society
is so empty that universities have been obliged to put it at the top of their research agenda on
pain of a cut in funding – presumably so that politicians can discover what on earth it means: a
shabby, cavalier, duplicitous interference in freedom of thought.
What is intended is a permanent revolution. Can society be permanently reconstructed along these
lines? Is neoliberalism hegemonic?
The protests are growing. Weighty professional voices are ranged against structural reforms, and
the speed and scale of cuts in a fragile economy. There are pauses, rethinks and U-turns. Finally,
there are unexpected developments that come out of the blue, such as the phone-hacking scandal that
enveloped Rupert Murdoch's News International. In the free-for-all ethos of neoliberal times, this
sordid affair blew the media's cover, compromised the Cameron leadership and penetrated echelons
of the state itself. As Donald Rumsfeld ruefully remarked, "Stuff Happens!" If the Lib-Dem wheeze
of delivering cuts in government and campaigning against them at the next election fails to persuade,
they face the prospect of an electoral wipe-out. The coalition may fall apart, though at an election
the Conservatives might get the majority they failed to muster last time. What happens next is not
pregiven.
Hegemony is a tricky concept and provokes muddled thinking. No victories are permanent or final.
Hegemony has constantly to be worked on, maintained, renewed, revised. Excluded social forces, whose
consent has not been won, whose interests have not been taken into account, form the basis of counter-movements,
resistance, alternative strategies and visions … and the struggle over a hegemonic system starts
anew. They constitute what
Raymond Williams called
"the emergent" – and the reason why history is never closed but maintains an open horizon towards
the future.
However, in ambition, depth, degree of break with the past, variety of sites being colonized,
impact on common sense, shift in the social architecture, neoliberalism does constitute a hegemonic
project. Today, popular thinking and the systems of calculation in daily life offer very little
friction to the passage of its ideas. Delivery may be more difficult: new and old contradictions
still haunt the edifice, in the very process of its reconstruction. Still, in terms of laying foundations
and staging the future on favorable ground, the neoliberal project is several stages further on.
To traduce a phrase of Marx's: "Well grubbed, old mole." Alas!
• This article was amended on 14 September 2011. The original said "Independent Maintenance
Grants are on hold". This has been corrected to Education Maintenance Allowances.
Briar 15 Sep 2011 06:13
Back in 1979, when Thatcher kicked all this off (not that the Callaghan Government hadn't been
complicit - the IMF insisted on that) I thought the basic decency of the British voter would be
disgusted by the obviously unjust policies being pursued. Sacking hospital and school cleaners
so they could be re-employed by a private firm at a much lower wage?
Surely the ordinary voter would be so sickened they would vote against the Tories next time
round? After all, they had voted in the Labour government of 1945. But, of course, the ordinary
voter could swallow any kind of injustice so long as the promise of lower taxes and more consumerism
was maintained. I honestly don't think the clock can turn back now. Our neoliberal coup is entrained
in a global one - the real decisions aren't taken here but in the headquarters of international
companies which have to connection with their workforces in the various countries where they operate.
And the poeple still don't care. In fact contempt for the "underclass" and scorn for the Unions
which might lead the fightback have become automatic reflexes, while populist protest centres
itself in racist opposition to immigration, a reliable safety valve as far as the right is concerned,
since it backs nationalist and repressive policies. Yet nationalism, like localism, is more irrelevant
than ever - in a country where the likes of HSBC, G4S and the IMF really call the tune.
Girindor 15 Sep 2011 05:00
Liberalism is just what this country needs after Labour abused the tax paying public for the
ends of increasing its political base by massively bloating the public sector and after the years
of "government knows best" and "government is always right", which infantilised us and took away
our human and civil rights.
Thank you, Labour, for giving the police the right to take innocent citizens and lock them
up for 26 days without any charges whatsoever. Just one example. Thank you, Labour, for forcing
ID cards onto us. Just another example. Step by step, Labour's main project seems to have been
the erosion of democracy and introduction of a police state.
So, frankly, I am greatly relieved that Liberals are in power. Even if I disagree with some
of the unfortunate policies that Conservative backbenchers are foisting on us, such as immigration
caps which harm the economy and make no moral sense either.
Attrition47 15 Sep 2011 04:28
Fascism is socialism's younger brother; they may not look identical but they are of the same
genotype.
No, fascism and socialism as liberalism's bastard children...
Attrition47 15 Sep 2011 04:25
Paradoxically, such opposed political regimes as Thatcherism and New Labour have contributed
in different ways to expanding this project. Now the coalition is taking up the same cause.
"Opposed"?
The history of Britain since the late 60s is the history of a class struggle in which the
working class has been sabotaged by the reformist institutions which served it relatively
well between 1918 and 1951.
zapthecrap
one thing that strikes me is how the followers of this religion deny its very existence.
That's its main propaganda plank: we live in a post-ideological era and what we are doing arises
purely out of expediency.
JBowers 14 Sep 2011 05:04
I very much doubt that the Kochs or Murdoch share enthusiasm for the dingbat Tea Party world
view.
It's not so much Murdoch but more specifically FOX News and its head honcho, Roger Ailes.
"You know Roger [Ailes] is crazy. He really believes that stuff."
-- Rupert Murdoch
My jury's still out on your point about the Kochs, who I suspect could recite poor old messed
up Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged from cover to cover, and David Koch stood as vice-presidential candidate
for the Libertarians in 1980. But, libertarians don't really have the same goals as the Tea Party,
the latter being a form of authoritarianism, although they sidle up together due to common economic
goals. For example, I doubt a libertarian would enforce a woman to take a pregnancy to full term,
whereas most of the Teavengelical Taliban would.
Teratornis has links to some insightful reading. But, that said, they have been bankrolling
Tea Party events and networks, and did set up astroturf group Americans for Priosperity. Probably
using the general public as useful idiots.
SteB1 13 Sep 2011 21:56
Thinking about this problem a bit more has made the problem clearer to me. To address a problem,
you first need to properly define the problem. I broadly agree with Stuart Hall's analysis. However,
there is another component that needs to be carefully identified. Stuart Hall is right about the
neoliberal agenda reinventing itself, and using crises to push through it's society altering agendas.
Nevertheless there is an important qualitative difference between modern neoliberals and their
predecessors. Previously neoliberals have to a certain extent been open as to what they were about.
Thatcher and others openly espoused this ideology. You won't see Cameron waxing lyrical about
this ideology like Thatcher. The modern neoliberal agenda is non-declared. The attempted
means to achieve this agenda is a covert wrecking ball approach, which they delusionally believe
will produce the real change they want.
Both Cameron's government, and the US Republicans with the Tea Party faction in a controlling
position share similarities, which might not at first be obvious. Those pulling the strings
and setting the agendas behind the scenes have a quite different outlook to the populist and sentimental
themes publically espoused. It is a stealth agenda.
Let's take the US Tea Party situation. On the face of it this is a grassroots organization,
all about homely simplistic moralism. It's about big government bad, and a citizen led agenda.
The referent it uses is American mythology, which never really existed except in fantasy. It harks
back to a mythological hotchpotch of the pilgrim fathers, the founding fathers of the US, the
Wild West, and evangelical Christianity. However, the tapestry it has woven with these disparate
threads has created a picture which never existed, and it is in reality a modern concoction. The
fake nostaligia is merely a facilitator.
The Tea Party faction is not what it superficially seems - it is a 2-headed monster. It has
been covertly backed and created by the likes of the Koch Brothers, and abley assisted by the
likes of Murdoch's Fox News, which pumps out propaganda to reinforce this delusional dingbat worldview.
I very much doubt that the Kochs or Murdoch share enthusiasm for the dingbat Tea Party world view.
To the billionaires they just a wrecking ball, a means to an end. The big money backers of the
Tea Party want it to smash environmental protection, and all the apparatus of government that
get in the way of their money making agendas. I'm certain that these billionairres and their mega
corporations would never want what the Tea Party's public supporters want. But then I suspect
that the vested interests cynically figure that the Tea Part faction will never last long enough
to do anything more than their dirty work.
The billionaires want a seriously weakened and emasculated government, which is easier for
them to manipulate, but certainly not what the Tea Party faction want.
Cameron has pursued a different overt strategy, because US culture is very different, although
the intended aim is similar The mythology the Tea Party faction is founded upon, does not exist
in the UK. So Cameron's emotional populist pitch is to a different audience. Essentially it's
a twintrack approach. It's meant to appeal to both the more centrist theme in UK politics, and
prejudicial populist themes in British culture. The fact that these threads are quite contrary,
doesn't matter, because neither Cameron nor his cronies are really pursuing either theme. It's
the same wrecking ball approach to the obstructions of big vested interests. The aim is to destroy
the institutional powers and traditions of the welfare state, which interfere with the objectives
of the powerful vested interests. It isn't even a neoliberal or monetarist agenda, it is a plutocratic
agenda - the neoliberal ideology is just borrowed as a means to an end. This is why it has so
much in common with the Tea Party agenda. It's all about unrestrained powerful vested interests
controlling everything.
However, whilst it's all very deceitful and apparently "Machiavellian", it's actually incredibly
stupid and incompetent. Far from having great vision, this agenda is irrational and delusional.
That is because the idiots who seek this wrecked society objective don't understand the dynamics
of what will happen, and how different it is to what they envisage. Instead of a divided and conquered
people with no coordination as they envisage, it will produce a shitstorm, which will sweep them
away. It will create such a mood of public anger when it all goes pear-shaped, that it will create
exactly the single purpose and coordinated society they definitely did not want. Unfortunately
apart from sweeping these parasites away, it will produce little else that is good. So what I
say is not wishful thinking, I think we must must urgentl prevent this societal wrecking.
Sturton 13 Sep 2011 20:11
The accelerating attack on the welfare state is already biting. My Down's Syndrome brother
is looked after by my elderly mother and myself (I travel to spend one day a week with them),
saving the state a small fortune. He could easily be put in care but we've never wanted that.
That hasn't stopped a new County Council means test with the result that £30 a week must now
be found out of their benefits for him to continue attending a day centre occasionally. Wealthier
families have been asked for up to £200 a week.
So I'm angry. Trouble is, your feature is almost as annoying as the Pickles et al of this world
you are targeting.
What is the point of writing something castigating right wing dogma, when you are so clearly
contaminated by its mirror image? You do realise, don't you, that this gives great succour to
the froth-mouthed Daily Mail readers of this world, and helps to justify their myopia?
Just one example: You claim eagerness to volunteer predominantly for the left in point five,
then follow it with the stupefying comment that "don't we all". So which is it, half the population,
or all of it?
I was under the impression that a lot of bowling'n'Rotary Club types, many of whom have to
be Tory voters, are up for voluntary work. Try giving a bit of credit to the other side, rather
than tying yourself up in contradictory knots trying not to. That's what the Palins of this world
do, it's corrosive to mature political debate, and both they and you drag us down into the cesspit
of dogma-laden argument when you do it.
The article's many sound contentions - I really appreciated the paragraph outlining the various
means of privatising by stealth - are undermined not only by this undercurrent of diehard dogma,
but by its descent into Sixth Form debating-calibre comment on occasion.
For example, we have talk of an "irreversible" social revolution and the "irreversible transformation
of society" in the first half of the piece. Then the statement towards the end that no victories
are final or permanent. And preceding that, by this gem: "What happens next is not pregiven".
Aristotelian or what.
The coup de grace is the clumsily-written revelation that "history is never closed but maintains
an open horizon into the future". Really? That would explain tomorrow, then.
No wonder we get the contention that hegemony provokes muddled thinking. It certainly has in
this piece.
And then there's the bizarre assertion that parents regard history as boring and haven't read
a serious novel since GCSEs. I'm not a parent but really, did you just have a word count to fill?
I showed the feature to my gay neighbours downstairs. Lovely blokes, if you ignore the fact
that they are diehard Thatcherites (yep, I know...).
They loved it, because it inadvertently serves to mirror their simplistic, un-nuanced world
view. My favourite sport when with them is listing the odd Tory politican I have liked over the
years. They can't stand hearing this from a liberal, because they can't bring themselves to return
the favour. I note that many of my fervent Left wing friends can't find a compliment about anything
from the Tory party either.
For a brilliant, proper grown-up article about the damage the Right can do, albeit from an
American perspective, see this from a disillusioned Republican:
Now that's proper political analysis, and as such it's not scared to critique diehards at either
end of the political spectrum.
Hall's confused polemic pales into insignificance alongside it.
VeronikaLarsson 13 Sep 2011 19:31
For a definition of fascism, let's go to the expert, Mussolini:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and
corporate power. Benito Mussolini
How is neoliberalism different from this? No significant differences. Neoliberalism is fascism.
Just because they don't have Brownshirts or funny costumes or mass rallies doesn't mean they're
not fascists.
ScottSmith 13 Sep 2011 18:54
Keep shopping folks!, health care, yes we can make that work like a shop. Don't be selfish
and save, spend now, take a loan, you worked hard for it. Sorry, did you say you lost your job?.
Ah, we have a problem with that you see, we'd like our money back now, problem is, we didn't take
into account our friends at the bank would want such a big bonus, and we're all going on a nice
holiday in Tuscany at the end of the month, so do hurry up with the repayments. Ok, still haven't
paid back your money we lent the banks, thats fine, although, we're pleased to announce we're
cutting your benefits and repossessing your home, after all, those of us that still have work,
don't want to pay for your apathy. I mean, when are you people going to learn to look after yourselves,
instead of burdening the state, tax money after all, will be needed to put a down payment on my
second home. No, nepotism never did me any favours, my great, great, great grandfather was poor,
of course I can relate. You see we're not all equal, some of us are born with a silver spoon in
our mouths ,elected to represent, the underclass, the criminal class, of our classless society.
Theres nothing to intellectualise here...the kids said it best by robbing plasma screens whilst
we coward in the corner, "I don't care, I'll take what I want". Such a shame, but, "Englands dancing
days are done".
sarkany 13 Sep 2011 17:39
The great paradox about neoliberalism is that it is not in fact, liberal at all.
It can only survive under the heel of a jackboot - the rich are only able to amass the vast
wealth that they do now because they live under the protection of the state; which in countries
like the USA and Britain are controlled by this corporate clique.
As most people have noticed in recent years, the emphasis on policing has gone from general
order in the community to the protection of the ruling class and corporate property.
In fact, what has effectively happened under the neo-liberal regimes, from Thatcher through
to Blair and Cameron, is that the people have been forced to pay more and more of their income
to the state, local councils and PFI fund managers for less and less in return.
Where has the money gone ?
It has been spent on yachts, diamonds, chateaux in France and finishing schools in Switzerland.
Billions have 'disappeared' to private contractors and capital-intensive [not many workers] arms
firms employed in the spurious War on Terror - in reality, a war of terror, a fear-inducing illusion
conjured up by the very politicians who seamlessly glided into the very corporations and companies
they had awarded consulting contracts to when in power.
Other money drains out from our pockets every day when we use the public services such as the
trains - paid for many times over with subsidies from the public coffers, but still maximising
profits by screwing their weary customers every day they drag into work on delayed and overcrowded
cattle wagons.
And then there is the whole invisible army of drones who earn a living from pursuing us over
the ever-increasing laws we might be breaking; fine collectors, private security companies, debt-collectors,
bailiffs, privatised prisons . . .
And that's not mentioning the thousands of people paid to watch us on cameras, in stations,
streets and parks; trawl our emails, tap our phones [another paradox rarely mentioned in connection
with the Murdoch case] and search us at airports and train stations.
In fact, as was demonstrated on the real, original September 11th - when the US sponsored and
supported the first neo-liberal coup in a democratic country [Chile in 1973]; its true nature
was soon revealed.
If you want to read the extent to which the USA undermined a democracy, and replaced it with
a military dictatorship which pioneered the original Chicago School of neoliberalism;
In 1970, Salvadore Allende became the first Marxist to be democratically elected president
in the Western hemisphere. In the course of his sweeping socialist reforms, he nationalized not
only the copper mines but banks and other foreign-owned assets as well. Along with the redistribution
of land under land reform, these actions deeply antagonized Chile's business community and right
wing. It is now a matter of historical record that the CIA helped organize their opposition to
Allende. A massive campaign of strikes, social unrest and other political subversion followed.
In September 1973, the CIA helped General Pinochet launch a military coup in which Allende was
killed. The Pinochet government claimed he committed suicide; his supporters claimed he was murdered.
The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses that Allende had seized, as
well as reversing his other socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of his
own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent. Into this crisis stepped a group
of economists known as "the Chicago boys."
The Chicago boys were a group of 30 Chileans who had studied economics at the University of
Chicago between 1955 and 1963. During the course of their postgraduate studies they had become
disciples of Milton Friedman, and had returned to Chile completely indoctrinated in free market
theory. By the end of 1974, they had risen to positions of power in the Pinochet regime, controlling
most of its offices for economic planning.
Their model has been imposed ever since, across the globe, by force and deception - let's not
forget that Obama took with him into the White House neither his radical friends from his time
working the community, but economists from his home town, Chicago, to finish the work that was
started with the murder of Allende;
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of Chilean Leftists,
both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military imprisoned 40,000 political
enemies in the National Stadium of Chile; among the tortured and killed desaparecidos (disappeared)
were ... the Chilean song-writer Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated
by the Caravan of Death.
So that's where we're heading, folks . . .
keggsie 13 Sep 2011 17:23
I'm with you boycotthesun. We need a revolution. In fact I'm calling for it now.
And to think a war was fought to defeat fascism. How little we have learned.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 16:39
optimist99
Don't agree - it will be far worse yet completely different - there will be only that what
you can pay for, that includes Health, Police, Law, Justice, food, water, parliamentary representation,
the right not to beaten up by people selling protection, oh, I already said that didn't I - Police...well,
I mean the New Police controlled by your Politicly appointed Police Chief - unless you can pay
the politician enough to appoint someone less worse...you get t he point:
everything is up for grabs when you start to ignore concepts such as Social Fairness and morality
and besides, how on earth can a Politician really believe they are accountable to underachieving
failures...we need "Big Daddy" to run his Big Society Of Micro Transactions Because We Are Non
Competitors.
That is one point that has not really been discussed...If the Market is supreme arbiter of
what is desirable, then we become, in Cameron's Neo Liberal Nu Britain , servents of the Market
and we are accountable to that market - the State, as we understand it, must dissapear to be replaced
by an enforcement apparatus to ensure market stability and compliance with the expectation of
servility to the Market that is essential for NeoLiberalism to work.
This IS a matter of choice and I choose to reject, in it's entirity , the False Idol worshipped
by NeoLibs - which means I reject the legitimacy of this administration as it has no mandate to
change the basis by which we exist as human beings.
Yep, I declare civil war...at the moment I may be outnumbered by 60,000,000 to 1
but it could be worse...Clegg might join me...now that would be bad,
buildabridge 13 Sep 2011 16:28
If democracy changed anything it would have been banned a long timed ago. A friend told me
that, no idea who initially quoted it but I believe it.
The only reason Western Europe got its welfare state, and so some equality of wealth was
due to the threat of communism through revolution confiscating ALL property and even the concept
of property. That was enough to scare the wealthy to share some of their wealth. It was a
survival move to make sure they did not go the way the Russian aristocracy went
Now that communism is dead and totally discredited due to inept paranoid despotic leadership,
the neoliberals can take it all back and put normal people back to where they always were;to work
to and survive or do nothing.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 16:00
ITS1789
Honesty is something I look for first in people - without it you have nothing but a dilemma
on legs.
NeolLiberalism is more that a Cancer, it is a pseudo philosophy which demotes humanity
to nothing more that a concurrent series of transactions which, by right, must be done in accordance
with whatever the Market dictates.
I recently suggested that Cameron would suggest the "poor" could ease their plight by selling
their blood and Kidneys - as in the States, I was given this reply by someone who works for a
NeolLib Minister:
Selling Blood and Kidneys: Autonomous assets to be used as collateral in negotiating with an
investor.
Accurate?: yes, Right?: NO
The same criteria can be applied to selling babies and children - or even parts of them......morality,
ethics and fairness, along with Justice - do not generate a profit unless there is a market of
buyers for these "commodities" and who will be able to afford to pay for what were once fundamental
elements of Society?
That is what Thatcher meant by "there is no such thing as Society" she was alluding to the
overarching priority of a Free Market where we trade for the basics of life- and do without if
we cannot compete.
NeoLiberalism and those who think it should be imposed for "our own good" should be quarantined
on a sinking island with patrolling sharks for that is what they want for the a sizeable number
of us.
theEclectic 13 Sep 2011 15:45
Neoliberalism is grounded in the "free, possessive individual"...,
These are a bunch of dreamers who contemplate life that only the earliest humans in Africa
could have enjoyed. Individualism died with the caveman; and although it might still appeal to
some fellow dreamers, it is not tenable in modern society. Anyway, there is no harm in pretending
that we are free individuals – even though it is only a myth.
erealArtVandelay 13 Sep 2011 15:44
@VeronikaLarsson
I don't think you can equate fascism and neo-liberlism: fascism implies more state control
and use of the capitalist system for its ends, where as the current neo-liberal model we are witnessing
sees the state as a virtual puppet of the capitalist system.
Nayrbite 13 Sep 2011 15:31
ITS1789
I admire your honesty.
Most aren't against wealth as such except when that wealth is gained at the expense of
others which, unfortunately and historically, is more often the case than not. How many ennobled
families are wealthy because of the Slave trade?
For me, the most appalling thing about NeoLiberalism is that it is totally without compassion,
an ideology Satan himself would be proud of.
Tonight I watched a programme about the poverty stricken slums in London and Bristol which
existed only 3 generations ago and only relieved by the slum clearances.
I suggest NeoLiberals would not have lifted a finger - the "markets," after all are always
happy with cheap sources of labour whatever the conditions of its labour force. The neoliberals
must be champing at the bit at the prospect - fast approaching - for those halcyon days.
frontalcortexes 13 Sep 2011 15:30
neoliberalism was always flawed. Without the state it is a recipe for cat-burglary as the Subprime
Mortgage Bond Fraud has very tellingly revealed.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 14:51
terryburgess
You wouldn't be trying to divert us by any chance, from the article about how you Zombies are
willing to destroy everything that makes living worthwhile - no, you wouldn't do that would you,
you want people to be regarded with respect don't you, you would never agree that it is morally
right and desirable for a minority to manipulate the majority in order to feed off of them - would
you...course you would, you actually think there will be room for you at the top, Ha Ha Ha Ha.
See you in Hell, mate, that's where we are all going 'cos you and me are not important - even
if you think YOU are.
GizmoGizmo 13 Sep 2011 14:33
This:
The welfare state, in particular, is the arch enemy of freedom. The state must never govern society,
dictate to free individuals how to dispose of their private property, regulate a free-market economy
or interfere with the God-given right to make profits and amass personal wealth. State-led "social
engineering" must never prevail over corporate and private interests. It must not intervene in
the "natural" mechanisms of the free market, or take as its objective the amelioration of free-market
capitalism's propensity to create inequality.
Summarises just about every right-wing posting on these boards, and the narrow version of 'freedom'
they espouse. It can be boiled down to the following Orwellian maxim. "The market is totally free.
Oh, but some are freer than others: if you don't possess vast wealth, you must sell your body
to the accumulators or starve."
Hasn't stopped the usual tripe along precisely these lines BTL, though.
no2dogma 13 Sep 2011 14:33
"The legislative avalanche began immediately and has not let up" Really, compared to what -
not the 4300 new laws passed by the Labour government between 1997 and 2010?
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 14:33
ITS1789
Excellent post - you made the essential points clearly but what do we do now, just accept "their"
version of utopia and in effect become servants of The Market State or fight back?
There is no question that a united populace would defeat ANY government in a stand up fight,
the clever bit is to ensure there is no unity in the first place and thereby avoid direct or large
scale conflict - as in Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Pact and it seems to me, the USA that Cameron
admires so much.
(not the Culture, but the power the neoCons/Libs have over the people)
Our "Quislings" are already in place and when people are preoccupied by trying to climb over
each other in order to get more coin, you will have Goethe's Free Market Slaves who think
they are Free.
I can't live like that, I won't live like that and I will fight any Bastard that says I must.
I'm not from the left, and I personally do really, really well out of the capitalist system,
and enjoy a life of relative luxury, but then I can afford to give half my annual income away
to charity and still live very well. I like capitalism, it's been very good to me, and my family
for over two centuries, but the ghastly version that's swept the world over the last thirty years
is something else.
I think neoliberalism is something close to a malignant cancer growing inside a healthy capitalism,
and with equally disasterous consequences. So my criticism comes not from the left, but from the
right, for what that's worth.
Neoliberalism is a kind of psuedo-religion, a dogma, which is passionately believed by
its diciples, despite the evidence showing that it simply doesn't work in the real world, but
like most religious fanatics, the real world doesn't matter much to them. Which is another reason
they remind me of Stalinists in the old Soviet system.
The historic irony, that it's not the socialists, but the neoliberals and revolutionaries like
Thatcher who have brought capitalism to its knees; is, difficult for many people to accept. It
seems like a contradiction. That those who trumpet their loyalty and suppport for "unfettered"
capitalism should by their collosal ignorance and stupidity, their crass oversimplifications,
confusion, and lack of understanding, lead to the destruction of the very system they worship,
well, perhaps irony isn't the right word, maybe tragic and grotesque is more accurate?
I think neoliberalism is a kind of dangerous and counter-productive heresy that risks destroying
captialism and plunging the western world into a permanent depression which will wipe out the
middle class and threaten the corporate, capitalsit state, itself.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 14:11
Grich
The article succinctly lays out the agenda and means: The Tory media will repeat the mantra
and right wing nutters will swallow it whole - thinking that a new dawn awaits us all.
More like Zulu Dawn unless there is mass opposition - which there won't be if Cameron and the
right wing Zombies on this site succeed in conning the majority that Xmas is good for turkeys.
Representative Democracy is already undermined by the duplicity and amoral
conduct of many of our representatives.
Cameron will eventually suck up to the Police and seek to politicise the Armed Forces in order
to prevent effective opposition.
Elected Police Chiefs are the first step in suborning a previously neutral and objective Police
Service into a force that protects the state and not the individual.
I believe that this Government is on a crusade that they will not allow to falter and that
they will do everything in their power to keep power - and if that means lying deceiving "the
People" or trying to extend their term by declaring a state of emergency - they will.
Just in case the Zombies havn't worked it out yet - re- read the article and decide if you
will be happy to be regarded solely as a servent of a free market where there is no such "commodity"
as compassion, fairness or justice.
If that is what you want then you and I will be true enemies.
This Government is fighting an undeclared war that may turn into a real one.
ITS1789 13 Sep 2011 13:54
For me neoliberalism is a primative and dangerous delusion about society, economics, and
human nature, comparable to extreme forms of socialism, which are equally hairbrained and destructive,
and arguably just as bloody.
Thatcherism was classic, class-warfare politics, but launched from the extreme right instead
of the left, and it was wildly successful, at least for those it benefitted, a narrow strata at
the top of society. Now that the entire charade is collapsing, and taking the welfare state, the
middle class, and probably capitalism itself, with it, it's time to pay the bill for this long,
illusory, party.
Capitalism has, seen in narrow perspective, changed the world for the better, trashing feudalism
for example, but like so much in life, it should have been kept in the market place where it belonged.
Allowing capitalism to expand until it consumed virtually all of society was a tremendous mistake
on many different levels, and now we are paying the price for allowing this to happen.
EconomicDeterminist 13 Sep 2011 13:48
When we neo-liberals have our backs to the wall we turn around and come out fighting
(John Major)
Stuart! These guys are already in reverse!
JBowers 13 Sep 2011 13:40
nalex
What was it that caused the banking crisis?
Ayn Rand's lapdog, Alan Greenspan, and his zealous neoliberal drive to deregulate the markets,
especially the banks. It started when he was the top money dog for Reagan. Then, when everyone
was telling him in 2008 that deregulation was causing serious problem and there was disaster looming,
his only response was to push for more deregulation. When the head of the IMF later met with the
bankstas to find out what the hell had just happened they all told him, to his face, that deregulation
had let them go too wild.
boycotthesun 13 Sep 2011 13:35
AlexanderKing
A dose of Reality
If you piss on people for long enough, they will eventualy lose patience and do something extremely
violent.
Keep pissing
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:17
It is noble viewpoint that we share, but it is not reality, human nature, particularly in poverty,
is acquisitive by its very nature, it will not correspond to your noble view-point, and they would
rob you if they could.
AlexanderKing 13 Sep 2011 13:15
It should not be legal for someone to eat trays and trays of Sausage rolls, be a delinquent
at school, and then at the age of 23 manage to secure life long payment for their life of sloth
because they managed to get disability because they cannot get out of the house. Those who receive
such payment must perform some civic duty in order to gain this payment.
It is not 1890, the deserving poor are a bunch of thieves and aspire to be the top neighbours
from hell in their area.
As Social-democrats in nearly every European country have been "absorbed" by the neoliberal
perception carried mainly by the neoliberal European Right, there is a big political gap to
be filled by political forces who could fight against plutocracy and defend majority's rights. In
Greece, which was chosen to be the field of the new conditions, the Left, naturally, became a significant
power, taking the first position in recent Euro-elections through the radical-Left party, SYRIZA.
Costas Lapavitsas, professor in economics at the University of London School of Oriental and African
Studies, described it very well in an interesting discussion with the audience at the Real News network:
"... to me, the most important change and transformation over the last two decades, as financialization
went into overdrive, is the collapse of all social democracy, the social democrats. [...] obviously,
in Europe and elsewhere, it has collapsed.
And the reason it's collapsed is because it basically accepted, lock, stock, and barrel,
the arguments of neoliberalism, the idea of the market, the idea of financial growth, of financial
expansion. It really believed in it. And the ones who argue most forcefully still for that are
actually social democrats. It's incredible. And, therefore, their influence, certainly in Europe,
it's just a vanishing. The social democratic party in Greece has disappeared. The social democratic
party in Spain is disappearing nearly as fast. Social democrats in Portugal are nowhere to be seen.
In country after country--in Germany, the social democracy is hobbled because of that, because they've
accepted these--they've got nothing to propose which would be the equivalent of what they used to
propose back in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s, which was some kind of regulated capitalism within
those confines mentioned before, some kind of--you know, let's manage it.
The scope for that has become much less. In this context, there is room for the left, as in
the non social democratic left. The tragedy there is that the left in Europe and elsewhere has been
incredibly weak because of the events of the last two to three decades--the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the massive defeats of the '80s in terms of class struggle and so on. And the left hasn't
been able to take up the mantle. Not yet. There is life. It's not a corpse yet. There is life.
Things are happening, particularly because of the crisis. It took time for the left to
comprehend what happened in the crisis, and they're beginning to respond. Who will fill the
space left by the collapse of social democracy, by the ideological bankruptcy of social democracy,
is a most interesting question for politics today. Who will fill that space? How will it be filled?
It remains to be seen." (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12593)
Currently, people appear to be confused, in Europe, in the US and elsewhere, about the ways
they could mobilize to fight for their rights which are systematically abolished. During the
conversation, someone asked a question that shows this fact in the most characteristic way: "So
what is this kind of mobilization of the people, the labor markets, the small businesses, medium
businesses? What does that process look like to change the big business, to change the banking institutions,
and even the household dynamics?"(http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12562)
In Europe, the first signs of such a mobilization come from Spain with the Left-wing party Podemos.
Latest polls showed that Podemos has a bigger electoral preference than the two major parties in
Spain, only eight months after it was created. According to the poll, Podemos has 27 percent electoral
support in Spain, the former governing party PSOE (Spain Socialist Workers Party) has 25.5 percent,
while the currently governing conservative PP (Popular Party), which has recently being involved
in a corruption scandal, has only 20 percent. (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/New-Left-Wing-Party-Podemos-Over-takes-Major-Parties-in-Spain-20141102-0002.html)
As mentioned in a previous article: "Today's conditions are such that, the Left in Greece could
not be able to change the course of the class-war in favor of the majority by itself. It could trigger,
however, a general rise of the Left in Europe which could block, for a start, Europe's catastrophic
course towards the new, brutal Feudalism." (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/09/a-new-attempt-to-domesticate-left-in.html)
It seems that this "triggering" has started (there is also some mobilization in Croatia with the
creation of a Leftist party inspired by SYRIZA in Greece).
For the first time in Greece a Leftist party wins an election, but the message from Spain is even
more promising because Podemos was not created by small groups behind closed doors, but from
people protesting out in the streets.
The next big test for the Leftist parties would be to synchronize their efforts and create a solid
European front capable to fight against the neoliberal catastrophe. SYRIZA leader, Alexis Tsipras,
was called to speak today at the founding conference of Podemos in Madrid.
It seems that there are signs of resistance in Europe. Societies are politically mobilized to
face the new challenges. What is left to see, is whether this would be enough for Europe to change
its course, and bring back the lost values that have been sacrificed on the altar of the illusive
economic indexes. A Europe that will work for the benefit of the real democracy and majority, not
for the benefit of the bankers and lobbyists.
Secondly, Renewal organised
a symposium of critical reviews of the book, with a response from me. I was really delighted with
the quality of these commentaries from
Bob Jessop,
Stephanie Mudge and
Jonathan Derbyshire.
You can download the pdf of this symposium
here.
The crisis of Keynesian macroeconomics (occasioned by the rise of 'stagflation' in the early 1970s)
and of Fordist production (symptomized by declining productivity growth and profitability) created
an opportunity for a new paradigm of economic policy-making. This was initially exploited in the
United States and United Kingdom, before policies were exported internationally via multilateral
institutions and economic experts. Prior to this breakthrough, the Chicago School had already shaped
the policy regime of Pinochet in Chile, thanks to the training of Chilean economists in Chicago and
the advice provided by Friedman to the government.
Marxist analyses of applied neoliberalism view it as the mobilization of the state, so as
to restore the rate of profit. To this end, the neoliberal state targets inflation through deflationary,
monetarist policies, and targets trade union power through legislation, police power and privatization.
The effect of this is far greater returns to capital, and lower returns to labour, resulting in dramatic
increases in inequality from the 1980s onwards. With declining investment opportunities following
the crisis of Fordist-Keynesianism, the neoliberal state discovers non-productive paths to private
profit, in households, the public sector and financial sector.
Analyses that are more influenced by post-structuralism, by Foucault in particular, look at neoliberalism
more as an attempt to remake social and personal life in its entirety, around an ideal of enterprise
and performance. Here, an ethos of competitiveness is seen as permeating culture, education, personal
relations and orientation to the self, in ways that render inequality a fundamental indicator of
ethical worth or desire. For many such theorists, economists themselves are viewed as political actors,
who extend the limits of calculability. The state remains a central actor, according to this perspective,
in forcing institutions to reinvent themselves and measure themselves according to this vision of
agency. Distinctive neoliberal policies are those which encourage individuals, communities, students
and regions to exert themselves competitively, and produce 'scores' of who is winning and losing.
A common theme between the Marxist and the post-structuralist accounts of neoliberalism is
the rising power and authority of corporate and quasi-corporate actors and experts in public life.
During the 1990s, the sense that social life was increasingly regulated by non-state intermediaries
or private firms led to increased awareness of 'governance', 'governmentality' and risk as techniques
for managing neoliberal or 'advanced liberal' societies in a calculated fashion. Arguably it is the
managerial freedom of corporate and quasi-corporate actors which is maximized under applied neoliberalism,
and not markets as such.
- Amable, B. (2011). Morals and politics in the ideology
of neoliberalism. Socio-economic Review. 9: 1
- Babb, S. (2001). Managing Mexico: Economists from
Nationalism to Neoliberalism. NJ: Princeton University Press
- Dardot, P. & Laval, C. (2014). The New Way of the
World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso
- Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures
at the Collège De France, 1978-79. Basingtoke: Palgrave
- Gamble, A. (1988). The Free Economy & The Strong
State: The Politics of Thatcherism. Durham: Duke University Press
- Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Mirowski, P. (2009). Postface: Defining Neoliberalism.
In Mirowski & Plehwe (eds.) (2009).
- Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of Neoliberal Reason.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring
the territory of government. Economy & Society. 25
- Valdes, J. (1995). Pinochet's Economists: The Chicago
School in Chile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Financial crisis and the future of neoliberalism
In the years following the global financial crisis of 2007-09, and the subsequent 'Great Recession',
a couple of different slants appeared in the research on neoliberalism. Firstly, there was a heightened
awareness that applied neoliberalism has in practice translated into 'financialisation'.
This means that profits made in the financial sector account for an ever-greater share of profitability
overall, made thanks to financial deregulation and growing household, consumer and student indebtedness.
The banking bail-outs of 2008 highlighted the crucial role of the state in under-writing the
financial sector, to allow for privatization of gains and socialization of losses. In place
of profitable production, neoliberalism discovers sources of profit through expanding risk calculus
into non-productive areas of social life, which can then be drawn into the financial economy. When
it transpires that some of these risks cannot be handled by the private financial economy, they are
transferred to the state. The complex neoliberal symbiosis between state and corporations (in
this case, banks) attains a new form.
Secondly, the endurance of neoliberalism is itself a matter which requires explanation.
The global financial crisis appears to have resulted in a strengthening, and not a weakening,
of neoliberalism and the experts that propagate it. States appear even more committed to defending
the interests of finance, against other political interests, and increasing the reach of finance
into everyday life. Meanwhile, state borrowing is represented as the cause of the crisis, rather
than the result, leading to further dismantling of social protections and public sector institutions.
On the other hand, the ideology, legitimacy or hegemony of neoliberalism, as a system dedicated
to equal opportunity, enterprise and wealth-creation, is now far weaker than before the crisis. There
is thus some debate as to whether neoliberalism is 'alive', 'dead' or in some paradoxical 'zombie'
state.
- Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism.
London: Polity
- Engelen, E. et al (2011). After the Great Complacence:
Financial Crisis and the Politics of Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Gamble, A. (2009). The Spectre at the Feast: Capitalist
Crisis and the Politics of Recession. Basingstoke: Palgrave
- Krippner, G. (2012). Capitalizing on Crisis: The
Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
- Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go
to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso
- Peck, J. et al. (2010). Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents.
Antipode. 41.
- Streeck, W. (2011). The Crises of Democratic Capitalism.
New Left Review. 71. Oct-Nov
William Davies is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Interdisciplinary
Methodologies, University of Warwick (until March 2014) and Senior Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University
of London (from 7th April 2014). His research looks at the sociology and history of economic
thought, and its influence over public policy-making. His book,
The
Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition is published by
Sage (2014) in association with Theory Culture & Society. He is currently working on a second book
on the history of Benthamite psychological measurement, to be published by Verso in 2015. His weblog
is at www.potlatch.org.uk
"There is a lack of critical assessment of the past. But you have to understand that the
current ruling elite is actually the old ruling elite. So they are incapable of a self-critical
approach to the past."
Ryszard Kapuscinski
Are they incapable, or merely unwilling? That is the credibility trap, the inability
to address the key problems because the ruling elite must risk or even undermine their own undeserved
power to do so.
I think this interview below highlights the false dichotomy between communism and free market
capitalism that was created in the 1980's largely by Thatcher's and Reagan's handlers. The
dichotomy was more properly between communist government and democracy, of the primacy of the individual
over the primacy of the organization and the state as embodied in fascism and the real world implementations
of communism in Russia and China.
But we never think of it that way any more, if at all. It is one of the greatest public relation
coups in history. One form of organizational oppression by the Russian nomenklatura was
replaced by the oppression by the oligarchs and their Corporations, in the name of freedom.
Free market capitalism, under the banner of the efficient markets hypothesis, has taken the place
of democratic ideals as the primary good as embodied in the original framing of the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution.
It is no accident that the individual and their concerns have become subordinated to the corporate
welfare and the profits of the upper one percent. We even see this in religion with the
'gospel of prosperity.' In their delusion they make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness,
so that after they may be received into their everlasting habitations.
The market as the highest good has stood on the shoulders of the 'greed is good' philosophy promulgated
by the pied pipers of the me generation, and has turned the Western democracies on their
heads, as a series of political leaders have capitulated to this false idol of money as the measure
of all things, and all virtue.
Policy is now crafted to maximize profits as an end to itself without regard to the overall impact
on freedom and the public good. It measures 'costs' in the most narrow and biased of terms,
and allocated wealth based on the subversion of good sense to false economy theories.
Greed is a portion of the will to power. And that madness serves none but itself.
This is a brief excerpt. You may read the entire interview
here.
Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism
19 October 2014
By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout
"...We're talking about an ideology marked by the selling off of public goods to private interests;
the attack on social provisions; the rise of the corporate state organized around privatization,
free trade, and deregulation; the celebration of self interests over social needs; the celebration
of profit-making as the essence of democracy coupled with the utterly reductionist notion that
consumption is the only applicable form of citizenship.
But even more than that, it upholds the notion that the market serves as a model for structuring
all social relations: not just the economy, but the governing of all of social life...
That's a key issue. I mean, this is a particular political and economic and social project
that not only consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility, that these things get in the way.
And I think the consequences of these policies across the globe have caused massive suffering,
misery, and the spread of a massive inequalities in wealth, power, and income. Moreover, increasingly,
we are witnessing a number of people who are committing suicide because they have lost their pensions,
jobs and dignity.
We see the attack on the welfare state; we see the privatization of public services, the
dismantling of the connection between private issues and public problems, the selling off of state
functions, deregulations, an unchecked emphasis on self-interest, the refusal to tax the rich,
and really the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the ruling class,
the elite class, what the Occupy movement called the one percent. It really has created a very
bleak emotional and economic landscape for the 99 percent of the population throughout the world."
"This is a particular political and economic and social project that not only
consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility."
I think that as a mode of governance, it is really quite dreadful because it tends to produce
identities, subjects and ways of life driven by a kind of "survival of the fittest" ethic,
grounded in the notion of the free, possessive individual and committed to the right of individual
and ruling groups to accrue wealth removed from matters of ethics and social cost.
That's a key issue. I mean, this is a particular political and economic and social project
that not only consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility, that these things get in the way. And I think the consequences
of these policies across the globe have caused massive suffering, misery, and the spread of a
massive inequalities in wealth, power, and income. Moreover, increasingly, we are witnessing a
number of people who are committing suicide because they have lost their pensions, jobs and dignity.
We see the attack on the welfare state; we see the privatization of public services, the dismantling
of the connection between private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions,
deregulations, an unchecked emphasis on self-interest, the refusal to tax the rich, and really
the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the ruling class, the elite
class, what the Occupy movement called the one percent. It really has created a very bleak emotional
and economic landscape for the 99 percent of the population throughout the world.
And having mentioned this impact on the social state and the 99%, would you go as far
as to say that these ideologies have been the direct cause of the economic crisis the world is
presently experiencing?
Oh, absolutely. I think when you look at the crisis in 2007, what are you looking at? You're
looking at the merging of unchecked financial power and a pathological notion of greed that implemented
banking policies and deregulated the financial world and allowed the financial elite, the one
percent, to pursue a series of policies, particularly the selling of junk bonds and the illegality
of what we call subprime mortgages to people who couldn't pay for them. This created a bubble
and it exploded. This is directly related to the assumption that the market should drive all aspects
of political, economic, and social life and that the ruling elite can exercise their ruthless
power and financial tools in ways that defy accountability. And what we saw is that it failed,
and it not only failed, but it caused an enormous amount of cruelty and hardship across the world.
More importantly, it emerged from the crisis not only entirely unapologetic about what it did,
but reinvented itself, particularly in the United States under the Rubin boys along with Larry
Summers and others, by attempting to prevent any policies from being implemented that would have
overturned this massively failed policy of deregulation.
It gets worse. In the aftermath of this sordid crisis produced by the banks and financial elite,
we have also learned that the feudal politics of the rich was legitimated by the false notion
that they were too big to fail, an irrational conceit that gave way to the notion that they
were too big to jail, which is a more realistic measure of the criminogenic/zombie culture
that nourishes casino capitalism.
Quote: "That's because of the persistent belief that the financial sector is functioning less like
the nerve system of the economy and more like an autoimmune disease feeding on its host. This perception
is not entirely unjustified."
Trust is an essential part of a functioning economy, yet it is often one of the least understood
variables in economics. That's why the Institute for New Economic Thinking is supporting the
Thomson Reuters TRust index,
which provides concrete metrics for understanding the level of trust in the financial system using
a benchmark of the top 50 global financial institutions as a proxy for the sector as a whole.
While trust is difficult to understand and measure in the context of economics, this type
of innovative work enables new and important conversations about trust and how it affects the economy.
The Institute will be exploring this issue and the new economic thinking it facilitates In a series
of essays over the next week. Stay tuned for more.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, distrust in the financial sector was widespread.
Even after the mess appeared to be cleaned up, the uncertainty over whether the worst was over remained
real.
But since that time, financial institutions have shored up their balance sheets as their earnings
and capital cushions have improved and leverage ratios have shrunk. In short, banks today are safer
than they were before the crash. So surely trust should have returned as the likelihood of systemic
collapse declined.
That, however, does not appear to be the case, as is demonstrated by the persistent negative levels
of trust shown by the Thomson
Reuters TRust index.
Many people in the financial sector feel this distrust. But they aren't sure what to do about
it. How can they win back the public's trust? Aren't record profits enough?
Apparently, there are some things that money can't buy.
Trust is an essential part of a functioning economy. It provides an antidote to the fundamental
uncertainty that is part of any economic decision. Without trust, you would likely spend all of your
energy and resources protecting yourself rather than working on productive activities.
For the financial sector, trust is especially important. Finance is the nerve center of our economy,
and trust is an essential component of the financial system. As we saw in 2008, without trust and
a properly functioning financial system the economy breaks down. If people don't trust in financial
institutions, the entire economic system can be thrown out of balance.
This lack of trust leads to many dysfunctional symptoms. When people don't trust where to
put their savings, they hoard cash, or commodities like gold, which reached its highest price in
history in the aftermath the 2008 crisis. Similarly, when trust in the financial sector is low,
corporations also are more likely to hoard cash and less likely to invest in expansion or hire new
employees, leading to stagnant economic growth and persistent unemployment.
Despite the financial sector's economic resurgence, we are still dealing with these economic problems
today. The situation is a reflection of the distrust the public still feels for our financial institutions.
After 2008, when so many banks were rescued the public rightly felt that it was owed systemic
reform so it wouldn't be put in the position of having to rescue the financial sector again. And
while there has been an increase in regulation with Dodd-Frank, none of the changes have addressed
the fundamental issues underpinning the lasting distrust in the financial system. I'm talking about
major obstacles such as too big to fail, derivatives regulation, and the revolving door between regulators
and those they are supposed to regulate. Eric Holder's comment before the United States Senate in
March of this year that some banks are simply too big to effectively prosecute suggests that the
system is still very far out of balance.
So while profits have returned, if the financial sector wants to regain the public's trust, it
needs to offer something more than earnings reports.
That's because of the persistent belief that the financial sector is functioning less like
the nerve system of the economy and more like an autoimmune disease feeding on its host. This
perception is not entirely unjustified. Large multinational banks have been forced to pay billions
of dollars in fines for misdeeds leading up to and during the crisis. And yet fundamental change
remains illusive in the industry. As Holder's comments suggest, the ungovernability of some of the
most powerful entities in our society is a big barrier to reestablishing trust in our financial system.
While some in the financial sector may profess dismay at this state of affairs, most of the leaders
of behemoth banks have shown themselves more eager to coerce the process rather than agreeing to
necessary reform.
For example, consider the way underwater mortgage holders were treated when the housing market
collapsed. After already being bailed out by the public, the banks preached forbearance in mortgage
markets because of their still-fragile balance sheets. Yet, at the same time these same banks still
were offering their employees sizeable bonuses, even though the hole in the mortgage market could
have been substantially reduced by the more than $100 billion these firms handed out over the last
five years.
If our society had operated under a different set of priorities and required banks to put these
funds into helping underwater borrowers instead of toward bonuses for many of the same people who
helped sink the system in 2008, the hole in the mortgage market would no longer exist, there would
be no need for forbearance, and our economy would be in much better shape. But that's not what happened.
As long as this Wall Street versus Main Street dynamic persists, so too will the belief that the
financial sector plays by a different set of rules, rules tilted in their favor at the expense of
the rest of us.
In order to regain the public's trust, the financial sector must show itself willing to take meaningful
steps to address this concern. It must show the public that it is worthy of its trust by accepting
meaningful reform for the good of our society. Until that happens, all of the profits and equity
financing in the world won't win back the kind of trust that is essential for the financial sector
to serve its role at the center of our economy.
This situation isn't "heads I win, tails you lose." In this scenario, we all lose. Persistent
anger and mistrust cannot be good for anyone. We can do better.
Neoliberal dogma is consistent only in rabid Russophobia. In all other respects they are,
as in the joke: Q: How much will be 2 x 2 ? A: Well, what you want. We can make it from anywhere
from 3 to 5...
Here's an example how it looks like a dispute with normal, sane blogger, who is writing under
the nick - voronkov_kirill whose position is close to the positions staunch neoliberals:
- What is happening now with oil is called "short squeeze". And market mechanisms are not involved.
Oil depreciates against the logic of the market, " says Cyril.
But wait a minute, I replied, there are two ways of pricing:
Market price inherent in democratic countries with "free market"
Administrative inherent in the totalitarian countries without the latter
Do I understand correctly that the countries that define the price of oil and the price of the
ruble, are mostly totalitarian?
"No, not right. Well, absolute market, as well as absolute democracy does not exist. The market
is "free" only for small players. Big players with serious financial or political-administrative
levers, can influence "free market" and even control the price....
Here is everything you need to know about neoliberalism. And about so called "free market".
Here Voltaire equality of free individuals. Here's to you and all the liberal government non-intervention
in private Affairs. There is a "small players" and there are agents that can (I wonder by what right?)
this element of control.
Unfortunately neoliberal thinking is not capable of a simple two-step, otherwise it inevitably
would come to the conclusion that the absence of free competition in the economy will lead to the
same state as in politics, where free competition of ideas and authorities only for small players,
but not for TBTF -- like top government and industrial leaders. That is all about this now fashionable
word "corruption"
In 1988 one stubborn Communist (then he is the same stubborn nationalist (Latvia-forever), and
now no less staunch euro-emigrant ) promised to shoot me, because I argued that there were no socialism
in the USSR and the economic system was not consistent with the fundamental principle of socialism
is "from each according to his ability - to each according to his work"
Now here's the same thing with the market, with competition, with democracy. In reality like in
case with the pregnancy market is iether free or not. If the corruption rules in the "real"
market but illusions are force fed like in Guantanamo, sooner or later you will get full totalitarianism
and with it total corruption. This is where slowly but inexorably the West moves, and with it anyone
who tries to copy the Western model of the neoliberal economy. to this stable state called total
corruption.
Left-biased, but still very interesting assessment of the situation. Especially in the first part
(the first 14 questions) Quote: "All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based
on similar strategies (i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because
Russia does not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. "
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales
del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho,
pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo a una pregunta en un coloquio con el
economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model?
Or is this view an illusion based only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern values?
/ Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points
in the following article Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized
only the first 14 (the rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without
contradicting the class interests of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible
because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their accounts and assets in the
West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents
them from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the American plans.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity,
historical memory and material resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites would
have to take measures that would affect their own class status within both the Russian system
and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not willing
to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction. Quite the
opposite, in fact: Their own interest as the supporting base of the globalist hyperclass necessarily
forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial
and military base resides in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical
and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching off to other historical central
metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the "anglo" reference,
has to do with the North American British connection [...] the second, the "zionist" reference,
has to do with the interconnection among the economic and financial power groups that maintain
various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this
Zionist component consists of people who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified
with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries. Thus the term "zionist"
referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites
to being the executive base of a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting a
determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle
is now occurring in Moscow between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have
not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea, we
see that the strategic defeat implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude that
everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic that its implications are
frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair was
merely a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will
be unable to occupy a space among the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which
is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its country and its access to
and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily
to a intra-capitalist confrontation, as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the
current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions (color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies
(i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does
not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. It
can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class
contradictions come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on political-military
grounds, since the key to global power resides in the financial and military structures that
enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization, IMF, Free Trade agreements, World
Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows its displeasure at
not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it arrived late at modern
capitalism, it must play a secondary role. On the other hand, Russia is ignoring the deep contempt,
bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo Zionist elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative
social model is needed. Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional
sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model that stems from the modes of production.
In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most reactionary values.
And in regard to the social struggle, they don't want to enter that fray because they renounced
it long ago. They renounced the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however. Thus,
a coup in Kiev and the widespread appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine was all
that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world. The popular resistance in the
Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people's of the old USSR and its
war against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world's "left"
– or whatever remains of it - would come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already
does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic resistance in the Donbass,
many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the
anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow
against the globalist challenge. If it finally abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss
of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character
of class struggle open that has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide
some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle
of people in the Donbas, as it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred
to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their
structures are embroiled in the collapse, or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then
related to both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least from the time of fracture
of 1956. The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on
the elevation of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social
peace by sharing the power with the trade unions are at the base of the post-industrial society
and the resulting profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which
was preserved during the cold war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west, which
we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the social pact (forced abandonment of
New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global power
of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization system of
capitalism is in danger by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain this mode of
production, they need to speed up territorial domination in the form of control and access
to resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces, which are
managed autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the
area of Anglo-American, global parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well
as cannibalization of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis of climate change, peak
of the energy and raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the current
globalization framework ... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence and
the lack of real political autonomy of Russian elite with the respect to the dominant power in
neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples
of the discontent of the middle classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or
social trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent and does not question
the basis of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the
old good world of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic
party of North America, the propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological
interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical memory that unite the struggles of
the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension left
and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values of
the left - of the masses who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart of this
new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals who destroy the words and
empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate at the
language itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and to identify
the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal
world order and position itself as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe the
current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies in decay. Confusion which
have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are simultaneously
anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia far-right political
groups got the sympathy and support of factions of the anti EU far right forces in France, the
Nazis of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists. This line of political affiliation
will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative to monopolar neoliberal
capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces which
is comparable to the worst of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have any way
to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current neoliberal model in the terms of class
and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea for
those who seeks to achieve lease to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is the
actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist
elite and newcomers, redefining it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which avoid
using the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander Duguin who promote
similar ideas quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia,
which oscillates between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the
repetition (as a farce, and with 75 years of delay ) of fascist reactionary revolutions
in Western Europe, which were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix de
feu in France, CruzFlechados in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another
way: in the best cases, they proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian
elite as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this path is opened only the very
very rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global elite
certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated
depending on their achievements and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of the
Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs then, had tried with some success to regain control of
the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part of the power elite
-- basically the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of those with
the military-industrial lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian fifth column
of the Anglo Zionists to take back control of their territorial base of power. this idea is going
to be shredded into pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality of the class struggle
and interests of the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size, influence, and resources,
so huge that a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty strategic enters in collision
with the global power of neoliberalism. And that why it attracts disproportional reaction of the
Anglo Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU
alliance that give the viability of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia
and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European sovereignty. Which is was
non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration
of the Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient
national traditions, which were based on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic, and
political identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation for such states there
no space for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well as in EU
elite are Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian state without
confrontation? A confrontation that they, on the other hand are not willing and are not able to
pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914.
In 2014, the globalization of the elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious
resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those conditions the idea of
Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal
world is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters of
perestroika, and their current heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the class
contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian oligarchy has directed its monetary
flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That means that
Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and resources
by simply pressing the local neoliberal elite, giving them to choose between their interests as
a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized world, with its
brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both, except what
can be achieved in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space for the national
bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only have sovereignty if it is posed in terms of a rupture
with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which, in its core is Anglo
Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced, but in terms of scientific
analysis of the social processes is a logical consequence of following this path one way
or the other. To claim sovereignty over their own resources and territory inevitably leads to
confrontation, and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo Zionist empire. If you really
want to achieve the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the relationships and balance of
power in the world today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that
they have an alternative model to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization
with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure. The efforts of the BRIC countries can
generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very
fragile. It can be even said that they are on their way to implosion sooner or later, due
to the unbalanced structure of their internal classes, including first of all their own elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends)
and which led to current Ukrainian crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia wanted
to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player, they instantly saw opponents attacking
weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia and the Crimea
is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed precisely
because the class contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of Russian elite
to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the victory,
and their desire to avoid the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is that Royal
Dutch Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup regime in Kiev are already
internationally accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has brought to
its knees the armed resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia to the
hands of mafias sponsored by the local oligarchs with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase,
It is a claim based on a reality, as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow had
not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the hopes of Novorossia is the acceptance
of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the same alliance
of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist elite achieved
their goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia is defeated, they can expect being able to push a puppet
into the Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the heroic struggle
of the militia of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of the script designed
for Kiev as well as diminished chances of successful application of the same methods in Moscow.
The Minsk Agreements and the truce imposed by them are putting Novorossia on its knees, allowing
for its destruction, but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad spectacle for the Russian
security services, which were effective enough to organize the Donbas resistance, but now are
useless and powerless before the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian elite.
They have been forced to intervene to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population
of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a Donbas free of oligarchs and
with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are completely
incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a significant faction
of Russian elite aware of the contradictions of the global neoliberal game and who put their sense
of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge that they face. Only in this case there
would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance, because we already know
no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would
say impossible. But he insurrection of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order
to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk needs creation
of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which looking
to be a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready to resist
to the end. This output would be desperate move, without a doubt, and would represent the equivalent
of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow to show their cards to their
own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the organization of
the fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That would move the fight
toward more patriotic and popular goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions and first of
all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such a pulse, exists. Only
in this case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev in Stalingrad suggested:
"Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and lords of our land." In Novorossia
there are plenty of fighters who would agree with Záitsev, but they certainly lack political direction
and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a nationalist
ideology based on the manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various Slavic myths.
This objective is being challenged by the reality of the conflict, which should be defined in
terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be allowed to control
their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over territory and resources,
renounce their physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the nature of the challenge. Putin
is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch has the answer in their holy books. There is
not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality."
Compare argumentation with Sociología crítica To be a neoliberal
society and be free from US dominance is not very realistic until oil became at least twice more expensive
and neoliberal model of globalization start collapsing. While critique of the US policy is up to the
point, what is the alternative to the current situation? Russia is weaker then the USA neoliberal state
and so far it does not look like it decided to abandon neoliberalism. And if not, then what is the point
of confrontation ? Clearly the USA has geopolitical ambitions in Eastern Europe. And they want to exploit
their status as the pre-eminent neo-liberal state, like Moscow was for socialist camp, so to speak to
squeeze Russia, as a dissident state, which deviates from neoliberal agenda. Ukraine just fall victim
of this squeezing. Collateral damage so to speak. And the key problem with Ukraine neither the USA nor
EU want to compensate the damage their actions inflicted, to offer Marshall plan to Kiev.
...There is growing evidence of the contradiction between the need for collective, cooperative
efforts to provide adequate responses to challenges common to all, and the aspirations of a number
of countries for domination and the revival of archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline
and the erroneous logic of "friend or foe."
The US-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, rule of law and human
rights within individual countries,acts from a completely opposite position in the international
arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN
Charter and tires to decide for everyone what is good or bad.
Washington has openly declared its right to the unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its
own interests. Military interference has become common, even despite the dismal outcome of the use
of power that the US has carried out in recent years.
The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment of
Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, the attack against Libya and the failure of the operation in Afghanistan.
Thanks only to intensive diplomatic efforts, an aggression against Syria was averted in 2013.
There is the involuntary impression that the goal of various "colour revolutions" and other goals
to change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.
Today, Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there has revealed
the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in the Euro-Atlantic area.
The West has embarked upon a course towards "the vertical structuring of humanity" tailored
to its own hardly inoffensive standards. After they declared victory in the Cold War and the "end
of history," the US and the EU opted for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without
taking into account the balance of legitimate interests of all the people of Europe. Our Western
partners did not heed our numerous alerts on the unacceptability of the violation of the principles
of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, and time and again avoided serious cooperative work
to establish a common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation from the Atlantic to
the Pacific. The Russian proposal to draft a European security treaty was rejected. We were told
directly that only the members of the North Atlantic Alliance could have the legally binding guarantees
of security, and NATO expansion to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given
previously. NATO's change toward hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its cooperation with Russia
even to the detriment of the West's own interests, and the additional build-up of the military
infrastructure at Russian borders made the inability of the alliance to change its genetic code embedded
during the Cold War era obvious.
The US and the EU supported the coup in Ukraine and reverted to outright justification of any
act by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that used suppression by force on the part of the Ukrainian
people that had rejected the attempts to impose an anti-constitutional way of life to the entire
country and wanted to defend its rights to a native language, culture and history. It was precisely
the aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population of Crimea to take destiny into
its own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination. This was an absolutely free choice
no matter what has been invented by those who were, in the first place, responsible for the internal
conflict in Ukraine.
The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations have been undertaken
at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to track down and prosecute those
responsible for February's bloody events at Maidan and the massive loss of human life in Odessa,
Mariupol and other regions in Ukraine. The scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked
by the acts of the Ukrainian army in southeastern Ukraine has been deliberately underscored. Recently,
new horrible facts have been brought to light as mass graves were discovered in the outskirts of
Donetsk. Despite UNSC Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of the circumstances
into the loss of the Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has been protracted. The culprits
of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect
a national reconciliation in Ukraine.
... ... ...
Let me recall the not too distant past. As a condition for establishing diplomatic relations with
the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of Moscow the guarantees of non-interference
in the domestic affairs of the US and obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing
political or social order in America. At that time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and the
above guarantees were put on record and were based on reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to
return to this item and reproduce that demand of the US government on a universal scale. Shouldn't
the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the unacceptability of interference into the domestic
affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of a coup as a method for changing power? The time
has come to exclude from international interaction the attempts of illegitimate pressure of some
states on others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is obvious
if we review the US blockade of Cuba.
The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not meet the requirements
of the 21st century and run counter to the objective process of development for a polycentric
and democratic world order.
Russia is promoting a positive and unifying agenda. We always were and will be open to discussion
of the most complex issues no matter how unsolvable they would seem in the beginning. We will be
prepared to search for compromises and the balancing of interests and go as far as to exchange concessions
provided only that the discussion is respectful and equal.
... ... ...
New dividing lines in Europe should not be allowed, even more so given that under globalization
these lines can turn into a watershed between the West and the rest of the world. It should be stated
honestly that no one has a monopoly on truth and that no one can tailor global and regional processes
to one's own needs. There is no alternative today to the development of consensus regarding the rules
of sustainable global governance under new historical circumstances - with full respect for cultural
and civilizational diversity in the world and the multiplicity of the models of development. It will
be a difficult and perhaps tiresome task to achieve such a consensus on every issue. Nevertheless
the recognition of the fact that democracy in every state is the "worst form of government, except
for all the others" also took time to break through, until Winston Churchill passed his verdict.
The time has come to realize the inevitability of this axiom including in international affairs where
today there is a huge deficit of democracy. Of course someone will have to break up centuries-old
stereotypes and abandon the claims to eternal uniqueness. But there is no other way. Consolidated
efforts can only be built on the principles of mutual respect and by taking into account the interests
of each other as is the case, for example, under the framework of BRICS and the SCO, the G20 and
the UN Security Council.
The theory of the advantages of cooperative action has been supported by practice: this includes
progress in the settlement of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and the successful
conclusion of the chemical demilitarization of Syria. Also, regarding the issue of chemical weapons,
we would like to obtain authentic information on the condition of the chemical arsenals in Libya.
We understand that our NATO colleagues, after bombing this country in violation of a UNSC Resolution,
would not like to "stir up"" the mayhem they created. However, the problem of uncontrolled Libyan
chemical arsenals is too serious to turn a blind eye to. The UN Secretary General has an obligation
to show his responsibility on this issue as well.
What is important today is to see the global priorities and avoid making them hostages to a unilateral
agenda. There is an urgent need to refrain from double standards in the approaches to conflict settlement.
Everybody largely agrees that it is a key issue to resolutely counter the terrorists who are attempting
to control increasingly larger territories in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the Sahara-Sahel area.
If this is the case then this task should not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or a desire to
retaliate. Terrorists, no matter what their slogans, should remain outside the law.
Moreover, it goes without saying that the fight against terrorism should be based solidly on international
law. The unanimous adoption of a number of UNSC Resolutions including those on the issue of foreign
terrorist operatives became an important stage in this fight. And conversely, the attempts to act
against the Charter of our Organization do not contribute to the success of cooperative efforts.
The struggle against terrorists in Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian government,
which has clearly stated its willingness to join it. Damascus has already proven its ability to work
with the international community by delivering on its obligations under the programme to dispose
of its chemical weapons.
The Walking Dead reflect the darkening mood of this intensifying
Fourth Turning. I wrote one of my more pessimistic articles called Welcome
to Terminus in April regarding the season four finale of the Walking Dead series. I
essentially argued we are approaching the end of the line and the world is going to get real nasty.
In the six short months since I wrote that depressing article, we've seen men beheaded on Youtube
videos by terrorists no one had ever heard of at the beginning of this year. Somehow a ragtag band
of 30,000 Muslim terrorists, using American military equipment supplied to fight Assad in Syria and
taken from the Iraqi Army when they turned tail and ran away, have been able to defeat 600,000 Iraqi
and Kurd fighters with air support from the vaunted U.S. Air Force. Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan
descend into never ending religious based warfare. We've even had passenger planes mysteriously disappear
in Asia with no trace.
Crimea seceded from Ukraine and rejoined Russia, initiating a plan to punish Russia by the western
powers. America supported and planned the overthrow of a democratically elected government in the
Ukraine, with a predictable push back response by Russia, leading to a bloody civil war in the Eastern
Ukraine. We've had a false flag shooting down of an airliner over the Ukraine by the Ukrainian government,
blamed on Russia and Putin by Obama and his EU co-conspirators. The American corporate media mouthpieces
have ignored the cover-up of missing controller transmissions, black box recordings, and physical
evidence regarding the murder of hundreds of innocent people by western politicians. Israel and Hamas
resumed their endless religious war in Gaza, with thousands of casualties and destruction.
UK fear mongering and financial threats barely averted the secession of Scotland from the UK.
Cantalonia continues to push for a secession vote to leave Spain. Violent protests have broken out
in Spain, Italy, France and even Sweden. Turmoil, protests and riots in Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina
and Mexico have been driven by anger at political corruption, high inflation, and general economic
dysfunction. Saber rattling between China and Japan has increased and young people in Hong Kong have
been protesting the lack of democratic elections being permitted by China. The world economy, undergoing
central bank monetary stimulus withdraw, is headed back into recession as Germany, China and the
U.S. join the rest of the world in economic decline. And now the Western Africa outbreak of ebola
has gone worldwide, with predictions of an epidemic potentially causing worldwide economic chaos.
What's happening in the real world makes the dystopian zombie world of
Walking Dead seem almost quaint. The writers of this show brilliant use of symbolism
and imagery captures the violent, chaotic, inhumane, darkening, brutal world we inhabit as the
Fourth Turning crisis period we entered in 2008 deepens on a daily basis. There is a
good reason why the first episode of their fifth season drew the biggest cable TV audience in history.
The show is clearly tapping into the mood of the masses. Early in the latest episode you realize
Terminus has become a processing center run by cannibals. The line between victim and criminal, killer
and prey, good and evil, madness and sanity, and moral and immoral is blurred. Everything is relative
in the post-pandemic world of the
Walking Dead.
Seeing Wall Street cannibals walk away unscathed after devouring the worldwide economic system
in 2008 with their fraudulent financial schemes, corrupt politicians enriched by throwing taxpayers
under the bus, militarized police forces trampling the Fourth Amendment, the NSA spying on every
American, a private central bank enriching their owners by funneling trillions into their bank vaults,
a president trampling on the Constitution by issuing executive orders to bypass the other branches
of government, and billions of welfare and tax fraud from the urban ghettos to the penthouse suites
in NYC, has convinced a large swath of Americans that everything is relative and nothing matters
in our warped dystopian world. Right and wrong no longer matter. Morality is an antiquated concept.
Adhering to the Constitution is an outmoded notion. Our society celebrates and condones our dog eat
dog economic paradigm. Or zombie eats anything world in the case of
Walking Dead.
The Terminus complex is reminiscent of the concentration camp in Schindler's List. It is complete
with railroad cars to hold the prisoners, gates with barbed wire, armed guards, and extermination
facilities to "process" the prisoners. Thick black smoke belches into the air. There is a room stacked
full of booty, teddy bears, watches, clothes – everything except the gold fillings. The Nazi like
precision and attention to detail is reflected in the almost business-like method in which the Terminus
administrators go about gutting their prey. The bone chilling efficiency and antiseptic processing
facility evoke memories of the holocaust gas chambers. The opening sequence when Rick, Daryl, Glenn
and Bob are among a group of men lined up to be gutted like pigs over a trough in place to collect
their spilled blood, might have been the most brutal scene ever put on non-premium cable TV.
The callous and dispassionate way in which the prisoners (cattle) are lined up in front of a stainless
steel trough is disconcerting and bone chilling. The victims are hit with a baseball bat and then
their throats are slit over the trough by men in protective suits. They have become nothing but cattle
to be butchered and consumed by the Terminus cannibals. You see another part of the processing plant
where human remains are hanging from hooks like sides of beef. Gareth, the leader of Terminus, supervises
the operation like a CEO, berating the butchers for not meeting quotas and following standard operating
procedures. Not much different than how our mega-corporations are run today.
The other fascinating similarity between the dystopian "nightmare of want" setting of Terminus
and our modern day dystopian "empire of excess" is the use of false advertising and propaganda to
lure "customers" into their web. Their version of billboard advertising has plywood with the hand
written messages of "Sanctuary for All", "Community for All", and "Those Who Arrive Survive". The
Terminus cannibals would have fit in well on Madison Avenue with the highly paid spin artists, propagandists,
and whores for the corporate oligarchs.
The signs along train tracks and radio transmissions from a call center like facility showed the
calculated business-like efficiency of the cannibals in systematically and methodically luring victims
to their slaughterhouse. It is the same techniques used by the apostles of
Edward Bernays to consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits, opinions, tastes,
ideas and actions of the masses, in order to control and influence their buying habits, voting decisions,
and support of their rulers. The unseen men who constitute the "invisible government" use these techniques
to keep the cattle docile, fed, and ignorant, as they are led to slaughter.
The government and lack thereof is always lurking in the murky background of how and why the United
States has devolved into an infected world of the walking dead. This episode provided some clues
about government labs producing viruses as weapons to be used against some unexplained enemy. The
insinuation is that the government somehow lost control of the virus and the ensuing pandemic destroyed
our modern world and left the survivors to battle the biters and each other for the remaining scraps.
The Federal government caused the societal collapse and is nowhere to be found in rebuilding the
nation.
It is unclear how the apocalypse went down, but you can assume it began with fear, which led to
panic, chaos, economic collapse, violent upheaval, war, and total breakdown of governmental authority
and control. It is ironic that today fear of a worldwide ebola pandemic is coinciding with an inevitable
economic implosion, wars raging in te Middle East, violent protests raging around the globe, and
trust in governmental authority plunging to all-time lows.
The Walking Dead has wittingly or unwittingly captured the ambiance of our turbulent
times.
When you are faced with desperate circumstances you can either do whatever you need to survive
or you can submissively accept your fate and die. Gareth and his cannibalistic cohorts had been in
the same situation as Rick and his posse, but they had somehow turned the tables on their captors.
Gareth's survival of the fittest creed was "either you're the butcher or you're the cattle". Human
beings react to intense pressure and life threatening situations in different ways. Some people snap
and turn into monsters, like Gareth. Some people snap and lose their minds. Others, like Rick and
Carol, summon an inner strength to do whatever it takes to survive while barely maintaining their
humanity. Others turn into blind followers of a strong forceful leader, not questioning the morality,
legality or humanity of what they are ordered to do. The line between right and wrong, necessary
versus unnecessary, vengeance versus justice, and butcher versus cattle is blurred in a world without
rules, government or accepted norms.
I believe the "butcher or cattle" analogy is sadly a valid meme for the world we currently inhabit.
In the
Walking Dead world, individuals must choose to be butcher or cattle. It's a Darwinian
world of kill or be killed. Like minded individuals with common values and goals form communities
to protect themselves, provide for themselves, and attempt to bring a semblance of order in a chaotic
world. The community of Westbury, led by the governor and the community of Terminus, led by Gareth,
are founded upon a foundation of evil and ultimately destroyed. Rick's community of liberty minded
freedom fighters do whatever is necessary to survive, but retain their humanity, decency and desire
to create a better world.
Our present day world may not be as brutish as the
Walking Deadworld, though the line between reality and fiction is often indistinguishable
when you turn on the news, but the distinction between butchers and cattle is clear. The elected
and non-elected rulers of the deep state are the butchers, sending young men off to die for oil companies
and arms dealers, impoverishing the masses through inflation and their control of the currency, and
enriching themselves through their complete control of the political, financial, judicial, and economic
systems. This establishment, or invisible government as Bernays described, is committed to its own
enrichment and perpetuation. Its scope, financial resources, and global reach put it in a predator
class all by itself.
The common people are the cattle being led to slaughter. We are kept docile with incessant propaganda
from the mainstream media; marketing messages to consume from Madison Avenue; filtered, adjusted,
manipulated economic data fed to us by government agencies; an endless supply of iGadgets and other
electronic distractions; government education designed to keep us ignorant; 24/7 reality TV on six
hundred stations to keep us entertained; corporate toxic processed food to keep us obese and tame;
and an endless supply of Wall Street supplied debt to keep us caged in our pens with no hope of escape.
The butchers of the deep state have maintained control for decades, but we're entering a new era.
Fourth Turnings result in the tables being turned on the butchers. Some cattle are awakening
from their stupor. They can see the bloody writing on the slaughterhouse wall. Anyone who isn't sensing
a dramatic mood change in this country is either a mindless zombie or a functionary of the deep state.
The financial shenanigans of the ruling class are again being revealed as nothing but a Ponzi scheme
built on a foundation of debt and propped up by delusions and ignorance. When the house of cards
collapses in the near future, the tables will turn. When people have nothing left to lose, they will
lose it. The butchers will become the cattle. There will be no sanctuary for these evil men. Their
reign of terror will be swept away in a whirlwind of retribution, death and destruction. It might
even make the
Walking Dead look like a walk in the park.
Neoliberalism doesn't bring people together, but divides them, by destroying the bonds of solidarity.
People did feel solidarity with others throughout the United Kingdom in the past - but these bonds
have been loosened as our economic system has changed and we've been encouraged to become more individualistic.
A wise old 'One Nation' Tory, Sir Ian Gilmour, a consistent critic of Thatcherism, put it beautifully
in his book 'Inside Right':
"If people are not to be seduced by other attractions they must at least feel loyalty to the
State. This loyalty will not be deep unless they gain from the State protection and other benefits…Economic
liberalism because of its starkness and its failure to create a sense of community is likely to
repel people from the rest of liberalism."
Today, it's clear that many Scots believe that a return to the politics of solidarity will best
be achieved by voting 'Yes' and leaving the United Kingdom. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps they're
wrong. But it's important to understand why so many people in Scotland feel this way. It's a huge
mistake to believe that everyone who is planning to vote 'Yes' on Thursday is an SNP supporter, or
sees themselves as a Scottish nationalist.
In the wake of World War II, much of the western world, particularly the United States, adopted
a new form of capitalism called "managerial welfare-state capitalism."
The system by design constrained financial institutions with significant social welfare reforms
and large oligopolistic corporations that financed investment primarily out of retained earnings.
Private sector debt was small, but government debt left over from financing the War was large, providing
safe assets for households, firms, and banks. The structure of this system was financially robust
and unlikely to generate a deep recession. However, the constraints within the system didn't hold.
The relative stability of the first few decades after WWII encouraged ever-greater risk-taking,
and over time the financial system was transformed into our modern overly financialized economy.
Today, the dominant financial players are "managed money" - lightly regulated "shadow banks" like
pension funds, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and university endowments-with huge pools of
capital in search of the highest returns. In turn, innovations by financial engineers have encouraged
the growth of private debt relative to income and the increased reliance on volatile short-term finance
and massive uses of leverage.
What are the implications of this financialization on the modern global economy? According to
Adair Lord Turner, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and a former head of
the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority, it means that finance has become central to the
daily operations of the economic system. More precisely, the private nonfinancial sectors of the
economy have become more dependent on the smooth functioning of the financial sector in order to
maintain the liquidity and solvency of their balance sheets and to improve and maintain their economic
welfare. For example, households have increased their use of debt to fund education, healthcare,
housing, transportation, and leisure. And at the same time, they have become more dependent on interest,
dividends, and capital gains as a means to maintain and improve their standard of living.
Another major consequence of financialized economies is that they typically generate repeated
financial bubbles and major debt overhangs, the aftermath of which tends to exacerbate inequality
and retard economic growth. Booms turn to busts, distressed sellers sell their assets to the beneficiaries
of the previous bubble, and income inequality expands.
In the view of Lord Turner, we have yet to come up with a sufficiently robust policy response
to deal with the consequences of our new "money manager capitalism." The upshot likely will be years
more of economic stagnation and deteriorating living standards for many people around the world.
That careerism may be as lethal as idealism, that ambition is an adjunct of barbarism, that some
of the worst crimes are the result of ordinary vices rather than extraordinary ideas: these are the
implications of Eichmann in Jerusalem that neo-cons and neoliberals alike find too troubling
to acknowledge.
Many people believe that great crimes come from terrible ideas: Marxism, racism and Islamic fundamentalism
gave us the Gulag, Auschwitz and 9/11. It was the singular achievement of Eichmann in Jerusalem,
however, to remind us that the worst atrocities often arise from the simplest of vices. And few vices,
in Arendt's mind, were more vicious than careerism. 'The East is a career,' Disraeli wrote. And so
was the Holocaust, according to Arendt. 'What for Eichmann was a job, with its daily routine, its
ups and downs, was for the Jews quite literally the end of the world.' Genocide, she insisted, is
work. If it is to be done, people must be hired and paid; if it is to be done well, they must be
supervised and promoted.
Eichmann was a careerist of the first order. He had 'no motives at all', Arendt insisted,
'except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement'. He joined
the Nazis because he saw in them an opportunity to 'start from scratch and still make a career',
and 'what he fervently believed in up to the end was success.' Late in the war, as Nazi leaders brooded
in Berlin over their impending fate and that of Germany, Eichmann was fretting over superiors' refusing
to invite him to lunch. Years later, he had no memory of the Wannsee Conference, but clearly remembered
bowling with senior officials in Slovakia.
This aspect of Arendt's treatment of Eichmann is often overlooked in favour of her account of
the bureaucrat, the thoughtless follower of rules who could cite the letter of Kant's categorical
imperative without apprehending its spirit. The bureaucrat is a passive instrument, the careerist
an architect of his own advance. The first loses himself in paper, the second hoists himself up a
ladder. The first was how Eichmann saw himself; the second is how Arendt insisted he be seen.
Most modern theorists, from Montesquieu to the American Framers to Hayek, have considered ambition
and careerism to be checks against, rather than conduits of, oppression and tyranny. Arendt's account
of totalitarianism, too, makes it difficult to see how a careerist could survive or prosper among
Nazis and Stalinists. Totalitarianism, she argued, appeals to people who no longer care about their
lives, much less their careers, and destroys individuals who do. It preys on the dissolution of class
structures and established hierarchies – or dissolves those that remain – and replaces them with
a shapeless mass movement and a bureaucracy that resembles an onion more than a pyramid.
The main reason for the contemporary evasion of Arendt's critique of careerism, however, is that
addressing it would force a confrontation with the dominant ethos of our time. In an era when capitalism
is assumed to be not only efficient but also a source of freedom, the careerist seems like the agent
of an easy-going tolerance and pluralism. Unlike the ideologue, whose great sin is to think too much
and want too much from politics, the careerist is a genial caretaker of himself. He prefers the marketplace
to the corridors of state power. He is realistic and pragmatic, not utopian or fanatic. That careerism
may be as lethal as idealism, that ambition is an adjunct of barbarism, that some of the worst
crimes are the result of ordinary vices rather than extraordinary ideas: these are the implications
of Eichmann in Jerusalem that neo-cons and neoliberals alike find too troubling to acknowledge.