Understanding and Overcoming America's Plutocracy

Jeffrey Sachs opines about Understanding and Overcoming America's Plutocracy.

Despite the results of the recent mid-term elections in the USA, Sachs writes that:

The evidence is overwhelming that politicians vote the interests of their donors, not of society at large. This has now been demonstrated rigorously by many researchers, most notably Princeton Professor Martin Gilens. Whether the Republicans or Democrats are in office, the results are little different. The interests at the top of the income distribution will prevail.

Emphasis Mine

Sachs is beguiled by the illusion that the Capitalist State can be bent to the will of the people, even though he has evidence clearly before him that it serves the interests of the Capitalists. Thus, he moans about the recent trend of politics in the USA.

Sachs hopes that the people will rescue the Capitalist State from itself:

Is there a way out? Yes, but it's a very tough path. Plutocracy has a way of spreading like an epidemic until democracy itself is abandoned. History shows the wreckage of democracies killed from within. And yet America has rallied in the past to push democratic reforms, notably in the Progressive Era from 1890-1914, the New Deal from 1933-1940, and the Great Society from 1961-1969.

All of these transformative successes required grass-roots activism, public protests and demonstrations, and eventually bold leaders, indeed drawn from the rich but with their hearts with the people: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Yet in all of those cases, the mass public led and the great leaders followed the cause. This is our time and responsibility to help save democracy. The Occupy Movement and the 400,000 New Yorkers who marched for climate-change control in September are pointing the way.

Emphasis Mine

The three (3) periods cited by Sachs do, indeed, correspond to times of great radical movements: rise of radical trade-unionism (IWW, CIO); communist revolutions in Russia, Italy, Germany, Hungry, Romania; Youth Revolt and the Anti-Vietnam movement. All of these periods called into question the validity of the Capitalist system. Under such an existential threat, the Capitalist State responded by granting sufficient reforms in order to drain these movements of their momentum.

Though hugely unpopular with the ruling class, those leaders saved the system from itself. Sachs is calling for popular movements to be again subverted by the ruling class in order to save the system.

Barak Obama was supposed to be such a leader. His modest reform of affordable health care is unlikely to last as long as his presidency. He will leave no legacy. Richard Nixon left a far greater reformist legacy than Obama will leave.

Sachs has forgotten the largest mass mobilisation in history occurred in February 2003 (almost twelve (12) years ago)—ten (10) million people marched against the war in Iraq. And yet the war went ahead again.

The ruling class know that the workers are defenceless and leaderless. That is why they are so blatant in their attacks.

Until the workers expand their consciousness to see that the Capitalist system will always have it for them, these crises will continue.

Read more!

Australia: How and why the Gough Whitlam government's far-reaching reforms were won

Jim McIlroy opines about Australia: How and why the Gough Whitlam government's far-reaching reforms were won.

These reforms were the reactions to the radicalisation of the masses:

However, it is important to emphasise that the Whitlam victory occurred on the crest of a wave of popular mass struggles — most centrally the anti-Vietnam War moratoriums — and the rise of a new youth radicalisation that began on the university campuses and spread to broad layers of society from the 1960s to the early 1970s.

This upsurge also involved the new wave of women's liberation, the growing Aboriginal rights movement, the start of gay liberation and the modern environment movements. The youth revolt also challenged traditional authority roles in the family, education, morality, culture and politics.

…

In Australia, the anti-war movement grew from a small minority to a mass movement expressed in the Moratoriums of 1970 and 1971. General anti-war sentiment gradually increased to become a large majority by the time of the 1972 election.

It was in this tumultuous social context that the Whitlam Labor government came to power, carried on a huge wave of popular demand for real change.

As Capitalism has shown time and time again, it can co-opt these movements into the mainstream where they can be safely defused. Radicals are turned into reformist then into bureaucrats. From the barricades to the warrens of the bureaucracy. This has happened with the environmental, feminist, and Aboriginal radicals. They now fill in forms to get funding to keep going on. Thus, the slow grinding down of youthful vigour into middle-age malaise begins.

McIlroy writes that there are three (3) important lessons from the Whitlam Era:

First, that progressive change is possible — if we could afford free education in 1974, for instance, we surely can now.

Second, that the corporate elite will not accept any challenge to its interests, however mild. It will violate democracy to protect its interests.

And third, that the Labor Party is not an appropriate vehicle to achieve social change. Faced with a challenge to its mild reformist agenda in the mid-70s, Labor capitulated.

The problem with the ALP since its very beginnings was that it was not a party of the working-man but of a would-be petite burgeoisie. Their dream was not of an international working class, but of owning their own little business.

McIlroy concludes that:

We should remember the progressive gains from Whitlam's government, but remember they were not handed down but won by the struggles of ordinary people. And we can win them again — and more — in the future.

We now need to accelerate the vital task of building an alternative political movement to eventually challenge the status quo of big business rule, and to struggle for a socialist society.

Read more!

Fierce Entanglements require Dialogue: Israeli-Palestinian conflict rooted in their different stories about the World

Donald Ellis argues that Fierce Entanglements require Dialogue: Israeli-Palestinian conflict rooted in their different stories about the World.

The goal of conflict resolution is to moderate and bridge these incommensurate realities. Political solutions by leaders and elites, necessary as they are, do not directly redress subjugation, inequality, and oppression. Decisions that emerge from political leaders and elites become directives that are “sold” to the masses. Issues and solutions do not emerge naturally from the conflicting parties and the more resolutions reflect political accommodations and elite interests the more remote they are from the population.

The fundamental problem with this type of argument is that common ground can be achieved between the genocidists and their victims. The State of Israel wants no less than the complete obliteration of the Palestinians by whatever means necessary.

The Zionists have never accepted nor will accept a two state solution in the former British Mandate of Palestine.

The mere existence of Palestinians de-legitimises the State of Israel. They have claims that recognised under international law. They have rights due to them as human beings.

By denying Palestinians their claims and rights, the Zionists act outside of the law of nations and states.

Those with great power refuse to see the rights and claims of the powerless. This is why justice requires the overthrow of systems that permit such outrages.

Read more!

Feminism and Exclusion from Power

In Rebecca Solnit blog post, “The War Is Over (If You Want It), Feminism and Men”, she writes that:

The highest powers in the country [USA] have begun calling on men to take responsibility not only for their own conduct, but for that of the men around them, to be agents of change.

In my initial assessment of this post, I disagreed by writing that:

This war can not be won by participating in the current power structure because misogyny is the key to power. In order to have power in a Capitalist, one must be a misogynist. Becoming a feminist excludes one from power.

This is because of the fundamental authoritarianism of male culture: violence. Women see the direct violence violence through rape, murder, domestic violence, pornography, sexual harassment, office politics, slurs, glances. But there is also the hidden violence under which men live their lives.

Violence among males starts early with bullying, abuse, punishment, masculinisation. This is mainly violence for violence's sake. The message is that you can be hurt no matter what you do or say. It is important to know that violence can be inflicted and you are powerless to stop it.

Indeed, during my school years, corporal punishment was seen as a way of taming the wild beasts that we boys were seen as. This could be administered by almost anyone: parents, elder siblings, teachers, police, priests, nuns, and even total strangers. It was okay as long as there was seen to be taming the wildness or beastliness of the boys.

Looking back now, the degree of beastliness seemed to be determined by class and ethnicity. Aboriginal boys got the worst no matter how well behaved they were. And their parents believed that they deserved it. No wonder the boys turned into men with no belief in decency or society. They had been beaten into beasts.

We, of the lower orders and paler complexions, fared somewhat better. Yet, we were turned into beats. I know of two (2) boys from my youth who murdered their fathers. There was always a tension within the neighbourhood about there would be one beating too far, and an orgy of violence would erupt.

This is the sheer terror of living in a violence-saturated world. One small mistake could be your last. So, you become cautious and predictable.

And this leads to the problem of alcohol during our adolescence: the reactions are intensified and the violence becomes deadly. Mistakes are truly fatal.

Yet, this problem of hidden violence does not disappear in adulthood. I am still threatened with rape or serious injury if I get too uppity. I am more adept at avoiding it. It is a part of my life.

What can I do about it? One thing I could do is join the power structure. I could become a dispenser of violence. This would take the edge off being a victim.

And I would be rewarded for doing so. I get access to more social status, more power, more credibility, more money, more sex, and better health.

So, why don't I? If I did, I would have to become someone I truly hate. I remember almost all of that abuse I suffered. I hate the perpetrators for doing that. I understand why they did it—they were trying to survive. It was them or me. Sensibly, they chose me.

In order to be a male feminist, one has to stand outside of the power structure and be seen as being weak. Therefore one becomes a target.

Those in power are not going to seriously weaken the basis of their power. It is up to we outsiders to do that for them.

Read more!

The War Is Over (If You Want It), Feminism and Men

Rebecca Solnit argues strongly that The War Is Over (If You Want It), Feminism and Men.

The situation as it has long existed needs to be described bluntly. Let's just say that a significant number of men hate women, whether it's the stranger harassed in the street, the Twitter user threatened into silence online, or the wife who's beaten. Some men believe they are entitled to humiliate, punish, silence, violate, and even annihilate women. As a consequence, women face a startling amount of everyday violence and an atmosphere of menace, as well as a host of smaller insults and aggressions meant to keep us down. It's not surprising, then, that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies some men's rights groups as hate groups.

In this context, consider what we mean by rape culture. It's hate. Those sports-team and fraternity rapes, the ones that sometimes result in young men swapping phone videos that they never seem to recognize as evidence of felonies, are predicated on the idea that violating the rights, dignity, and body of another human being is a cool thing to do. Such group acts are based on a predatory-monster notion of what masculinity is, one to which many men don't subscribe but that affects us all. It's also a problem that men are capable of rectifying in ways women are not.

Emphasis Mine

Here is where the real time War on Terror should be waged. It should be waged against the terrorism that afflicts women everyday and every hour of the day. Terror forms their lives.

This war can not be won by participating in the current power structure because misogyny is the key to power. In order to have power in a Capitalist, one must be a misogynist. Becoming a feminist excludes one from power.

We must change the system to overcome this misogyny. An inclusive political system is the basis for an anti-rape culture.

Read more!

Israel's Gaza defeat a sign of Palestinian strength

Raul Bassi writes that Israel's Gaza defeat a sign of Palestinian strength.

Israel's July-August war on Gaza, under the pretext of Operation Protective Edge to counter Palestinian rocket fire, demonstrated why it will never defeat the Palestinian resistance.

As in Vietnam, the resistance in Gaza has to resort to war in the tunnels. This tactic is dictated by the overwhelming superiority of the occupying forces and the technical capabilities of the indigenous people.

Egypt is not North Vietnam nor China in this analogy. But the Gazans appear to be able to get sufficient support via the ordinary Egyptian and other Arabs in order to keep the tunnel networks open and operational.

I imagine that the Israeli offensive has exposed the blind-spots of their intelligence services because Hamas knows which tunnels were not discovered during the offensive. This will prove vital during the next Israeli offensive. And the one after that.

With each battle, Israel is slowly losing the war because Hamas learns more and more about the deficiencies of the IDF and associated intelligence services.

Hamas's popularity is based on the fact it has to date proven to be a useful instrument of resistance.

Israel may be able to kill large numbers of people, inflict tactical defeats, weaken Hamas' military capacity and destroy Palestinian infrastructure. But they will never be able to defeat the Palestinian peoples' resistance to colonial occupation.

After nearly seventy (70) years, it would have been obvious that the solution to the Palestinian problem for Israel is a political one. But is not easy for colonial powers to understand this. It took England 400 years to leave most of Ireland.

Read more!

Take Kurdish freedom fighters off terrorist list

Sue bolton says “Take Kurdish freedom fighters off terrorist list”.

There are two reasons to support the Kurds of Kobane. One reason is humanitarian: to prevent a massacre. The other reason is to protect and defend the building of an alternative society which should be a beacon for all left and progressive people in the world.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, their unacknowledged homeland, Kurdistan, is occuppied by four other states:

1. Iran
2. Iraq
3. Syria
4. Turkey

Turkey has been waging genocide against the Kurds. This is largely unreported in the West unless there is a terrorist attack in Istanbul.

Because Turkey is an important NATO ally (US client), this is tolerated in the West. Genocide is only wrong if it is done by official enemies. And since before 9/11, the PKK has classified as a terrorist even as it tries to defend against the genocidal attacks of the Turkish state.

This level of oppression calls for a new and substainable society in which everyone participates. This leads to progressive measures in governance and social norms:

The Kurds in Syria are building a society that should be a model for the Middle East — a society where the rights of minority religions and minority ethnic groups are protected, and where there is a revolution in women's rights. The US doesn't want to support the Kurds in Rojava because it is using sectarianism to keep compliant governments in power in various countries in the Middle East.

Once again, we see Capitalism relying on divise means to maintain power.

Bolton lists the demands of the Socialist Alliance as:

• Arms for the defenders of Kobane.
• Opening the border with Turkey and an aid corridor for Kurds.
• End Turkish support for IS.
• Remove the PKK from Australian terrorist list: they are freedom fighters not terrorists

Read more!

Video gamers on the feminist frontline

Jemma Nott writes that Video gamers on the feminist frontlines.

A fierce debate over women’s participation in video game culture has erupted online. Known as “GamerGate”, it is a battle over power and sexism in video games.

Women now represent nearly half of those who play video games, and the traditional gamer identity is being challenged. The problem of sexism in video games is part of a wider problem of misogyny in society, and in the same way misogyny is being confronted in parliament or at universities, it is also being confronted in gaming.

The women critics have been threatened with rape and death, but not the men critics. This is the same traditional response of all patriarchal societies to threats—whether in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Nigeria, DRC, UK, USA, etc.

What is lost is that GamerGate is just a widely publicised version of something that has been happening since feminism began — patriarchal society feeling threatened by the concept of cultural equality.

Men have been given a small space to rule over as compensation for loss of power in the rest of their lives: workplace, politics, culture. Like a rat defending their last bit of rotting cheese, men will fight tooth and claw to defend that rather than go after the big cheese in the elite's fridge. It is safer to do so.

We need to overcome what divides us as workers (racism, sexism, homophobia) before we can concentrate on overthrowing Capitalism. Capitalism needs sexism in order to survive.

Read more!