Is mathbabe a terrorist or a lazy hippy? (#OWS)

Cathy O'Neil asks if Is mathbabe a terrorist or a lazy hippy? (#OWS).

O'Neil contends that the Occupy Movement is “scary” because;

It’s our ideas that threaten, not our violence. We ignore the rules, when they oppress and when they make no sense and when they serve to entrench an already entrenched elite. And ignoring rules is sometimes more threatening than breaking them.

This setting aside of rules was part the ethos of the Occupy Movement which O'Neil says were:

• that we must overcome or even ignore structured and rigid rules to help one another at a human level,
• that we must connect directly with suffering and organically respond to it as we each know how to, depending on circumstances, and
• that moral and ethical responsibilities are just plain more important than rules.

It is interesting that the State had to respond with violence against the Occupy Movement. The system had run out of ideas to counter the movement. And, yet, this is not the first time the State has done this:

• The Civil Rights Movement (see Deacons for Defense).
• The Anti-War Movement of the 1960's and 1970's
• Rachel Corrie

In 2005, I had posted a table about four (4) non-violent protests with their outcomes in Trucker Blockades - One Day On. The interesting one for me has always been the Rosenstrasse protests which succeeded against the Nazi regime. But that protest was not a clash of ideas. The regime could live with the outcome.

The ideas raised by the Occupy Movement threaten the Capitalist system. Other ideas in the past did the same when the social conservatives sought to maintain the status quo. The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism reflected on the tension between the political and economic forces within the Capitalist elite. In many times in the past, Capitalism has successfully absorbed these new progressive forces after trying to violently supress them.

Read more!

Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit

Barry Ritholtz points via his 10 Friday AM Reads to the case “Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit” by David Graeber in The Baffler.

Graeber wonders:

Where, in short, are the flying cars? Where are the force fields, tractor beams, teleportation pods, antigravity sleds, tricorders, immortality drugs, colonies on Mars, and all the other technological wonders any child growing up in the mid-to-late twentieth century assumed would exist by now? Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge—like cloning or cryogenics—ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them?

In contrast to The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism, Graeber argues that the social conservative nature of Capitalism is holding back break=through innovations such as listed above. Instead, the Capitalists are providing incremental improvements as an illusion that Capitalism is a progressive force.

Defenders of capitalism make three broad historical claims: first, that it has fostered rapid scientific and technological growth; second, that however much it may throw enormous wealth to a small minority, it does so in such a way as to increase overall prosperity; third, that in doing so, it creates a more secure and democratic world for everyone. It is clear that capitalism is not doing any of these things any longer. In fact, many of its defenders are retreating from claiming that it is a good system and instead falling back on the claim that it is the only possible system—or, at least, the only possible system for a complex, technologically sophisticated society such as our own.

In other words, Capitalism is running out of ideas that keep the current social order while maintaining the impetus of historical changes that Capitalism has unleashed. The concentration of wealth means that the spread of ideas among the elite is restricted by the small numbers involved and their defensive attitude towards wealth retention. They do not want to rock the boat, yet they must fight off anyone who tries to climb aboard.

Read more!

Government & Big Banks Join Forces to Violently Crush Peaceful Protests

Barry Ritholz reposts an argument that Government & Big Banks Join Forces to Violently Crush Peaceful Protests is the manifestation of Fascism in the USA:

The definition of fascism used by Mussolini is the “merger of state and corporate power“. Government and the big banks are in a malignant, symbiotic relationship. And our economy now exhibits a merger of state and bank power.

This is a different definition from that given by Trotsky (see Fascism: What it is and how to fight it):

At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium -- the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.

The article reposted by Ritholtz indicates that the instruments of State oppression are still functioning to hold dissent in place by successfully crushing the Occupy movement.

Yet, as I argued in Proto-Fascism in the USA, Fascism could still arise if the Capitalist system fails the petite-bourgeoisie.

What is being described in this post is not Fascism, but merely the naked expression of state power in support of the Capitalist system. Fascism could still develop out of the Tea Party.

Read more!

The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism

Barry Ritholtz's 10 New Year’s Eve Reads points to The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism by Nancy Folbre who writes that:

The economic interests of capitalists (defined as those who earn most of their income from capital) are beginning to diverge significantly from the interests of social conservatives (defined as those who prefer traditional gender relations and oppose government efforts to promote racial and ethnic equality).

As recounted by Folbre, this has always been the case during the history of Capitalism. The social conservatives have always sought to defend their existing privileges gained through an earlier stage of Capitalism against those who have gained from economic changes. The political struggle has always been about the alignment of political power with economic reality.

Folbre lists three (3) areas where the conflict between conservatism and Capitalism has occurred:

1. One of the most beneficial consequences of a pattern of capitalist development shaped by political democracy was a growing demand for human capital that helped members of previously disempowered groups compete effectively for economic success and political leadership.
2. …the polarization of income itself reflects the evolution of a partly denationalized form of capitalism in which our largest companies create more jobs in other countries than at home and minimize their tax payments in overseas tax shelters.
3. …the role that the powerful banking sector played in the recession highlighted growing divisions within the business community.

I think Folbre misses the point that Capitalism is a dynamic system as opposed to slavery or Feudalism. By its very nature, Capitalism is always seeking new ways to make profits. Any Capitalist who becomes a conservative dooms themself.

It is this dynamic of Capitalism that has confounded Communists who followed the dictum that revolutions tend to occur when the political superstructure does not match the economic reality. The Communists had expected the revolutions to overthrow Capitalism, not sustain it as in the following crises:

• The growth in political power of the union movement through the rise of the Labour Parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries;
• The extension of suffrage, in stages, to:
• All white men
• All white women
• All adults
• The creation of the welfare state as seen in 'A Conservative Case for the Welfare State'
• The Civil Right's Movement
• The Land Right's Movement
• The Women's Movement

All of these covulsions have been absorbed into the Capitalist system. The danger for the Capitalist system is when it is no longer willing to absorb these changes. Such changes that need to be absorbed are:

• Gay Marriage
• Refugee Rights
• Climate Change
• Third World Debt

Read more!

Why Next to No Political Reaction to the Second Gilded Age?

Mark Thoma comments on Why Next to No Political Reaction to the Second Gilded Age?, by Brad DeLong.

DeLong asks:

But the political economy of Gilded Ages? Why the first Gilded age produces a Populist and a Progressive reaction and the second, so far, does not? There I throw up my hands and say that my economic historian training betrays me. I have no clue as to what is going on here.

Thoma's response is:

I think it matters a lot whether we think of inequality as arising from a problem in the system as a whole, or as the result of individual failures. When people think it's the system as a whole — the rich and powerful are scheming to hold everyone else down (e.g. robber barons) — mass movements are more likely than when it is viewed as simply the failings of individuals.

I think both DeLong and Thoma miss several important points:

• The populist movements of the early 20th Century arose as a reaction to several trends:
• The great depression of the 1890's
• The rapid industrialisation of the USA from 1890 to 1930 as agriculture gave way to industry as the main employer
• Rise of Socialist thought (among which was Marxism and the various strands of Anarchism)
• The rapid growth and radicalisation of the union movement in response to these trends
• In the past 30 years, the union movement has been defeated again and again. The main defensive weapon of the workers is now in a much weaker state now than a century ago.
• In the 1930's, there was a serious alternative to the Capitalist system in the form of the USSR. Ideologically and economically, Communism was seen as superior to Capitalism especially during the Great Depression.
• The fall of the USSR has removed that alternative from the public consciousness.
• There have been several significant mass movements over the past 15 years:
• The Anti-Globalisation movements starting in Seattle in 1999.
• The Anti-War movements of 2003. (See 15 February 2003)
• The various Occupy movements starting in 2011.
• The Arab Spring starting in 2012

I think the populist movements alluded to be DeLong and Thoma were the last real chance of the Capitalist system to bribe the workers away from Communism. The advent of neo-liberalism has destroyed that project once and for all.

There is a political reaction to the second Gilded Age, but it is muted as the traditional expressions of popular will have been emasculated.

Read more!

The 12 Step Program for Recovery From Stupid Capitalism

Ted Rall offers his The 12 Step Program for Recovery From Stupid Capitalism.

Among his steps are:

6. Understand that radical change is usually impossible without revolutionary overthrow of the state and the destruction of the ruling class and the stupid capitalist system that sustains it.

7. Accept that revolutionary movements require a combination of nonviolent and violent tactics in order to have a chance of succeeding.

8. Make common cause with anyone and everyone opposed to the existing order, no matter how repugnant, because nothing else matters until we have emancipated ourselves.

Point #8 is problematic because, during a revolution, the situation is very fluid. Having the wrong ideas can lead one into a dead end which may be impossible to get out of.

Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution re-iterates time and again that the revolutionary party must have the confidence of the revolutionary masses. The party can only gain that confidence by having:

1. Correct assessment of the situation;
2. Correct actions for the situation

The second depends on the first. The second is very difficult to achieve, and mistakes will be made. The important thing, however, is recover quickly from those mistakes.

In the Russian Revolutions of 1917, the Bolshevik Party initially failed in both cases. It had failed to assess the situation of the February Revolution correctly and thereby take the correct actions.

It was not until Lenin returned, and started agitation for a realignment that the Bolshevik Party started to make a correct assessment. This was not enough to gain the confidence of the revolutionary masses because the Party had failed to act correctly during the February Revolution.

This came to a head during the defeat of the July Days. The Party had finally gained the correct assessment, and came with a programme of action which was rejected by the revolutionary masses.

But, it was this defeat that started the long process of building confidence of the revolutionary masses in the Bolshevik Party and in itself. This process made the October Revolution possible.

I would have to reject Rall's point #8 in general, but we can use a weaker version called the United Front in which aims are shared, and general principles are agreed. It is not possible to for a Bolshevik type party to join forces with another party that espouses racist policies and actions. Although the aims may be similar, the versions of society we are trying to build are anathema to each other.

Read more!

Workers burn boss to death

Workers burn boss to death in India. The police say that the workers are quite open about admitting what they did.

The proximate reasons for these murders (of the boss and his wife) are given as:

• Police have reported the situation escalated when management asked some workers to leave their accommodation
• The bosses had allegedly taken church land
• The bosses were also accused of being rude, especially to the women
• One female worker said that They deserved to be killed as the planter has exploited us for a long time and tortured us for petty things.

Once again, the women lead the way in fighting back against oppression that is sexual and economic. This was also the case in the French and Russian Revolutions. Even the birth of the Roman Republic was said to originate in the backlash by the Roman populace against the sexual abuse by the Etuscan rulers.

What amazes me is how unafraid the workers are of the police. The workers were freely admitting what they had done. The instruments of state oppression are clearly not working to protect the scum of the Capitalist class.

Read more!

'A Conservative Case for the Welfare State'

Mark Thoma comments on A Conservative Case for the Welfare State, by Bruce Bartlett, Commentary, NY Times at 'A Conservative Case for the Welfare State'.

Thoma comments that:

If conservatives want to support the welfare state out of the desire to defend capitalism from "socialists and communists" -- to defend it against the instability that high degrees of inequality cause -- no problem, though it's interesting that they would acknowledge that the system itself can lead to societal inequities that are so dangerous the government needs to intervene to fix them.

Emphasis Mine

Thoma is pointing to the contradiction in the conservative's position. This is the realisation that there is a flaw in the capitalist model through its instability and inequality. Yet, Marx said that this is the fundamental law of Capitalism: Wealth concentrates naturally under Capitalism.

However, Bartlett contends that American conservatives are blind to this. They are fervent believers in the functioning of the market to solve all of societal ills despite having no empirical evidence that it does.

Yet, Bartlett does not examine the primacy source of wealth that underpins the welfare state of Western Europe — third world debt. This debt funnels wealth from the Third World in order to bribe the proletariat into accepting the current state of affairs. This is also the reason that debt forgiveness is never going to be achieved under Capitalism. The stability of the system is too dependent on the harsh exploitation of the rest of the world.

Thoma's own opinion on why government intervention is required is that:

I prefer the efficiency argument (which is not to say that the other argument has no merit, it does).

Here, Thoma sidesteps the political meaning of Government intervention by appealing to efiiciency. This is a neutral term to cover the brutal reality of the welfare state.

Read more!

Deacons for Defense

Dan Little reflects on the tension between self-defense and non-violence in Deacons for Defense.

Most of the story we remember of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s centers around the philosophy of non-violence espoused by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the major civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the SCLC. A few historians give emphasis to a very different part of the movement in the South, however — a movement that was based on armed self-defense by local people.

Little notes that the history of the Civil Rights movement in the USA is silent about self-defense of communities against the violence of white people. He speculates that:

But there is no discussion of the self-defense movement in Mississippi and the ideas that underlay the philosophy of self-defense that were the core of the Deacons for Defense. One possible reason for this has to do with how the narrative was framed at the time. The mainstream civil rights movement itself did not approve of the self-defense movement, and its leaders shaped the narrative towards moral protest and the philosophy of non-violence.

Another possible reason for neglect of the self-defense organizations that emerged in the South early 1960s is the idea that these organizations were harmful to the progress of the struggle for political and civil rights, and that violent conflicts between police, national guard, klansmen, and deacons were likely to lead to a bloodbath throughout the black population. … The idea here is that the balance of power so greatly favored the forces of white supremacy that armed self-defense was likely to produce horrible retaliation.

Emphasis Mine

Little concludes that:

There is a clear logic to the idea that the non-violent movement needed support from men and women who were willing to face armed attackers with their own guns, and Hill offers a number of strong examples of incidents where klan and police thugs were forced to back off.

The question of non-violence centres about the moral superiority of non-violence overcomes the actual violence of the oppression.

Read more!

Masdar – The First Green City (Video)

Juan Cole posts about Masdar – The First Green City (Video).

Masdar City is a new city in Abu Dhabi.

The things I found interesting about the video were:

• The ambition is to have the entire city powered by renewable energy.
• The city is generating far more power now than it needs—so it is exporting to the rest of the country.
• This is a government project with central planning
• Design is a key feature of reducing energy requirements
• The designers are revisiting historical solutions to problems of cooling
• The government is clearly focused on a future beyond cheap oil
• The project is using research results from earlier stages to design better solutions

In Australia, we could have the same chance to do something similar in Port Augusta with Port Augusta’s solar thermal future:

No city has more to gain from this shift to renewable clean energy than Port Augusta.

It has first rate resources of solar power, dependable sea breezes and an existing high capacity grid connection … all of the ingredients to become an energy hub.

Solar thermal plants are baseload solar power, which use mirrors to concentrate the sun’s energy to create heat. In turn, that heat is stored to generate electricity 24 hours a day.

Solar thermal plants are a commercial off-the-shelf technology, so they are ready to go now. The materials required are concrete, glass and steel, of which this nation has an abundance.

Because they are thermal plants they have the same turbines and generators as coal-fired plants. But it would be best to commence with a greenfield site.

They can be air-cooled so will use about a tenth of the water of coal-fired plants.

In Australia, this drive towards renewable energy has to be community-led rather than by the Government is still beholden to the Coal Mining industry.

Read more!

How Coal Brought Us Democracy, and Oil Ended It: Lessons from the New Book “Carbon Democracy” « naked capitalism

Yves Smith posts an article about How Coal Brought Us Democracy, and Oil Ended It: Lessons from the New Book “Carbon Democracy”. This is a review of Carbon Democracy Political Power in the Age of Oil by Matt Stoller.

Stoller writes that:

Everything in our politics flows through dense carbon-based energy sources, and has for three to four hundred years.…[Winston] Churchill supported this occupation not just because he wanted Iraq’s oil, but because he wanted to defeat democratic forces – particularly militant coal miner unions – at home. Churchill and conservative elites running through British history (most recently Margaret Thatcher) understood that as long as the British power grid, and more importantly the military, was dependent on radical coal miners, his left-leaning labor opponents would be able to demand higher wages, social insurance, voting rights, and a share of the economic gains of the British economy. He preferred to have the British economy running on oil, so he sought imperial strategies to ensure access to resources without being reliant on his political opponents. Globally, in fact, the switch from coal to oil was a fight about labor.

Emphasis Mine

This puts Imperialism into a different light to the normal Marxist story as I understand it. Here Imperialism is used to acquire super-profits which enable the Capitalists to placate the Proletariat in the Imperial countries through higher wages and benefits. This buying off of the workers helps to align the working class with the Imperial project and breaks the international solidarity of workers.

Stoller goes on:

…England began using coal to fuel its economy, leading to substantial economic growth and imperial strength. Coal, though, presented a challenge to the governing elites, since the characteristics of coal, with its labor intensive extraction methods, were quite vulnerable to strikes. Coal was hard to transport, and miners operated underground in a collaborative manner. Once on the surface, coal had to be moved by fixed networks of trains. There were multiple bottlenecks here, and in the late 19th century, for the first time, the energy system of the industrialized world was reliant on workers who could withhold their labor and block a key resource. This translated directly into political power.

This political power manifested itself in greater democratic rights for workers. It was the production of oil that was used to drive the neo-liberalism project of rolling back the gains of the working class. Now, the advent of Peak Oil threatens this project by removing the energy source.

The post comes close to a class analysis but veers towards the idea that energy is the driving force behind world history instead of class warfare. I think it relies too much on the miners for an explanation of democratic growth.

Read more!

Tyranny of Merit

Samuel Goldman, at the The American Conservative, reviews the book Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy, by Christopher Hayes, in Tyranny of Merit.

His conclusion is that:

Hayes mounts a powerful critique of the meritocratic elite that has overseen one of the most disastrous periods of recent history. He lapses into utopianism, however, when he suggests that we can do without elites altogether. Like the poor, elites will always be with us. As the word’s original meaning suggests, the question is how they ought to be chosen.

Goldman's perspective is that the unruly masses have always needed a master to keep them in line. He cannot conceive of fully formed human beings being able to select their own rulers and sit in judgement of them regularly. For Goldman, true participatory democracy is an utopian ideal.

What Goldman is worried about is the radicalisation of the so-called upper middle class where this utopian ideal may take root:

Yet Hayes is optimistic about the prospects for egalitarian reform. He places his hopes on a radicalized upper-middle class. As recently as a decade ago, people with graduate degrees and six-figure incomes could think of themselves as prospective members of the elite. While the income and influence of the very rich has zoomed ahead, however, the stagnation of the economy has left the moderately well-off at risk of proletarianization.

Emphasis Mine

This radicalisation is reflected in both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement.

But, this proletarisation was predicted by Marx as a natural consequence of the development of Capitalism. The accumulation of riches by the Capitalists, for whom the elites work, was also predicted by Marx. And yet, people are surprised that it is happening.

The Tea Party and the Occupy Movement are not the same thing. The Tea Party is a proto-fascist movement in which the petite bourgeoise seeks to defend itself against proletarisation. And the Occupy Movement is a nascent movement that could lead to participatory democracy and the overthrow of Capitalism.

Read more!

Chris Hedges: Hear the 99% Roar

Yves Smiths posts an interview with Chris Hedges: Hear the 99% Roar on TVO. He answers some questions about his latest book, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, and the Occupy Movement in general.

Hedges sees the Occupy Movement as the genesis of a revolutionary movement. He sees parallels with the Solidarity and other East European movements of the 1980's as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

Hedges says that the revolutionary movements develop from the declasse intellectuals favoured by Mikhail Bakunin rather than the proletariat promoted by Karl Marx. My understanding is that some intellectuals will separate themselves from the ruling class and align themselves with the oppressed class in order to articulate what the oppressed are feeling. The oppressed classes lead the revolution, not the intellectuals.

The Tea Party in the USA is seen by Hedges as a proto-Fascist movement. He gives a checklist rather than a class analysis of the movement. My own opinion is posted at Proto-Fascism in the USA back in 2005.

Hedges sees the Black Bloc movement as disruptive and divisive in the Occupy Movement because they allow the police and media to discredit the Occupy Movement as violent, and so alienate it from the main-stream. This goes against the non-violence that Hedges is promoting as a necessary prerequisite for a successful revolution.

Hedges sees the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917 as a putsch rather than a social revolution. I see this as a canard to discredit the Bolshevik Party.

I think Hedges sees revolution as a change in the power structure. He would see that a corrupt elite is replaced by a more liberal one. I see revolution as a change in the social relations. Serfs would become workers. Or workers would become owners.

Read more!

The Promise and Circumscribed Potential of Worker-Owned Businesses « naked capitalism

Yves Smith writes about The Promise and Circumscribed Potential of Worker-Owned Businesses

While our prolonged economic downturn is concentrating power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands, it is also stimulating efforts to create more democratic business models.

Smith thinks that the standard reference model of the Mondragon Corporation is successful because it may in part be a reflection of Basque culture which did not have a Feudal system.

One city, Richmond, California, is promoting worker co-operatives. The main difficulty is that these co-operatives cannot find funding. Banks are suspicious of such ventures.

Smith quotes from the Financial Times:

According to the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives, these businesses are mostly in urban areas, at businesses such as restaurants and cab companies. In other industries, such as home healthcare, co-ops have helped to prevent employee attrition and provide more reliable care for the elderly. “The worker co-op takes a profession that is low pay, low morale, and high turnover and makes people worker-owners so they’ve got a vested interest in that business,” says Liz Bailey, interim chief executive of the National Cooperative Business Association.

Emphasis Mine

Read more!

Israeli court throws out family's lawsuit over death of US activist Rachel Corrie

Israeli court throws out family's lawsuit over death of US activist Rachel Corrie:

Corrie's family had accused Israel of intentionally and unlawfully killing their 23-year-old daughter, launching a civil case in the northern Israeli city of Haifa after a military investigation had cleared the army of wrongdoing.

The principal reason for the decision is that Israel was at war:

In a ruling read out to the court, judge Oded Gershon called Corrie's death a "regrettable accident," but said the state was not responsible because the incident had occurred during what he termed a war-time situation.

Since Israel has always been at war with the Palestinians, then there can only be “regrettable accidents” for which the Israeli state is not responsible, no matter what the IDF does.

What I find most disturbing in this article is:

Few Israelis showed much sympathy for Corrie's death, which took place at the height of the uprising in which thousands of Palestinians were killed and hundreds of Israelis died in suicide bombings.

So much for Israel being a light unto the nations of the Earth.

Read more!

Mobilizing the masses

Dan Little reflects in Mobilizing the masses on the book called Mobilizing the Masses: Building Revolution in Henan by Odoric Wou.

Little reflects on the supposed differences between the Russian and Chinese Revolutions:

Here I want to focus on Wou's title itself: Mobilizing the Masses. Both parts of the title are important: the idea that the Chinese revolution was a mass-based revolution, and the idea that the Chinese Communist Party succeeded because it pursued successful strategies of mobilization. The Russian Revolution, by contrast, was not mass-based; Lenin's revolutionary group was able to seize power without mass support, and the Bolsheviks did not develop effective strategies of mass mobilization. So the Chinese Revolution is different. We have historical examples of revolutions that did not involve the masses in contemporary society; and perhaps we could imagine a mass-based revolution that succeed without the deliberate strategies of mobilization that emanated from a revolutionary party.

Emphasis in original

My Emphasis

I find the comment highlighted in red above incredulous. I have been reading Ten Days That Shook the World by John Reed and History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky.

If Little's thesis is correct, then the counter-revolution of 11 November 1917 should have succeeded. The reactionary forces controlled several army barracks, centres of communication, ministries, supply depots, etc. Surely, there were more than enough resources to put down by the coup by the Bolsheviks. And yet, the Bolsheviks were able to mobilise the population and garrisons of St Petersburg to defend the October Revolution.

Trotsky notes in Chapter 25: Could the Bolsheviks Have Seized the Power in July? that the masses were not ready to hold onto power after taking it, if they had done so in July 1917:

But nevertheless the leadership of the party was completely right in not taking the road of armed insurrection. It is not enough to seize the power—you have to hold it. (p.406)

Thus the state of the popular consciousness—a decisive factor in revolutionary policy—made impossible the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in July. (p.409)

The value of a close-knit vanguard was first fully manifested in the July Days, when the party—at great cost—defended the proletariat from defeat, and safeguarded its own future revolution. (p.417)

Trotsky had come to see Lenin's strategy of aligning with the workers and peasants while raising their class consciousness as correct. This was the successful basis of the October Revolution and survival through the Russian Civil War.

Little concludes the Chinese Communist Party pursued a stategy based on class and nationalism, and:

These details are of interest chiefly because they illuminate the nuts and bolts of radical social change in a large country. It is plainly not enough to observe that a large group of people have interests that are in conflict with the policies and social relations of their country or region. In addition, several things are needed: a sustained and locally implemented strategy of mobilization and a revolutionary organization that acts intelligently and opportunistically as the balance of forces shifts at various times.

With regards to class and nationalism, Reed records an exchange between a student and a soldier:

We sallied out into the town. Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded.

A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack. “You realise, I presume,” he said insolently, “that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making yourselves the tools of murderers and traitors?”

“Now brother,” answered the soldier earnestly, “you don't understand. There are two classes, don't you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We—”

“Oh, I know that silly talk!” broke in the student rudely. “A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don't understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots.” The crowd laughed. “I'm a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn't Socialism you are fighting for. It's just plain pro-German anarchy!”

“Oh, yes, I know,” answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. “You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me—”

“I suppose,” interrupted the other contemptuously, “that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?”

“Yes, I do,” answered the soldier, suffering.

“Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?”

“Well, I don't know much about that,” answered the soldier stubbornly, “but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—”

“You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlüsselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing 'God Save the Tsar!' My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn't you ever hear of me?”

“I'm sorry to say I never did,” answered the soldier with humility. “But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero.”

“I am,” said the student with conviction. “And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?”

The soldier scratched his head. “I can't account for it at all,” he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. “To me it seems perfectly simple-but then, I'm not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—”

“There you go again with your silly formula!” cried the student.

“—only two classes,” went on the soldier, doggedly. “And whoever isn't on one side is on the other…”

Reed, John (2011-03-17). Ten Days That Shook the World (Kindle Locations 2499-2519). Kindle Edition.

A simple soldier explaining why he is on the side of the Bolshevik Revolution despite all of the lies told about Lenin being a German agent. The soldier has sided with the Poletariat in the class war.

Little misses out on the vital need for a disciplined and democratic revolutionary party in the Leninist model to sustain and lead a Communist revolution to a successful conclusion. This was the critical thesis from Lenin's theses of April 1917.

Read more!

Verdict in Corrie Lawsuit Postponed

The International Middle East Media Center posts Verdict in Corrie Lawsuit Postponed on 11 April 2012 by Rachel Corrie Foundation.

The announcement of a verdict in the civil lawsuit against the State of Israel for the killing of peace activist Rachel Corrie, which was scheduled for late April, has been postponed due to delays in the filing of closing arguments. A new verdict date has not yet been scheduled by the court, but is likely to be months away.

This has been going on since 2005. At least, the family got a hearing in an Israeli court and the government has provided witnesses.

After more than nine (9) years since her death, I can recall the sarcastic comments by co-workers about her death. Bravery in the face of hegemonic power is always ridiculed. Whereas bravery in service of the same is feted and lionised.

Read more!

Randy Wray: The Job Guarantee and Real World Experience

Yves Smiths reposts Randy Wray's post about The Job Guarantee and Real World Experience in Argentinia.

To deal with the looming crisis and skyrocketing unemployment and poverty rates, the Argentinean government implemented a limited job guarantee program called Plan Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupados (Program for the Unemployed Male and Female Heads of Households, or simply Jefes). Participation in the program grew quickly, to about 5% of the population, and about 13% of the labor force.

Italics in original

The program seems to be suffering from feminization in a macho society. The women wanted to participate in the program for the following reasons:

1. they felt (or would feel) useless sitting at home,
2. they felt like they were helping the community when they were working,
3. there is dignity in working,
4. they were meeting their neighbors and
5. they were learning new skills.

In other words, working allows people to become more human. Working allows people to become contributors to the societal good.

This type of program allows for community building through work. The people involved see themselves as building society.

Wray argues that:

The first great demand of a better social order…is the guarantee of the right, to every individual who is capable of it, to work—not the mere legal right, but a right which is enforceable so that the individual will always have the opportunity to engage in some form of useful activity and if the ordinary economic machinery breaks down through a crisis of some sort, then it is the duty of the state to come to the rescue and see that individuals have something to do that is worthwhile—not breaking stone in a stoneyard, or something else to get a soup ticket with, but some kind of productive work which a self-respecting person may engage in with interest and with more than mere pecuniary profit.

Emphasis Mine

This is a direct challenge to the use of unemployment as a bludgeon to the workers to keep wages low in a Capitalist economy. The right to work challenges the Capitalist right to crush workers.

Wray concludes:

In a sense, the jobs guarantee/employer of the last resort program really is targeted “to the bottom” since it “hires off the bottom”, offering a job to those left behind. Its wage and benefit package is the lowest, setting the minimum standard that private employers can offer. It does not try to outbid the private sector for workers, but rather takes those who cannot find a job. Further, by decentralizing the program, it allows the local communities to create the projects and organize the program. The local community probably has a better idea of the community’s needs, both in terms of jobs and in terms of projects. However, actual project formulation must be done on a case-by-case basis.

Emphasis Mine

Sounds like Socialism to me. To have communities decide on the tasks to be undertaken is a good first step towards to having popular democracy direct investment and economic activity.

Read more!

Argentina nationalises Spanish oil giant

On 16 April 2012, the government of Argentina nationalises Spanish oil giant (Federal Petroleum Deposits (YPF)).

Altogether, 51% of Spanish oil multinational Repsol's 57% stake in YPF has been claimed by the Argentine government.

[Argentine President Cristina] Kirchner said the move was justified by the intransigence of Repsol-YPF. Repsol has reduced investment in oil and gas extraction and refining since taking full control of the previously state-owned company in 1999.

As a result, oil imports cost Argentina US$9.4 billion in last year, more than double the cost in 2010.

This has raised Argentina's trade deficit at a time when it has little access to international credit markets, due to its default on international debt to groups such as the IMF in 2002.

The government has said one goal of the nationalisation is to return Argentina to an exporter of fossil fuels. Recent discoveries have given Argentina the third-largest reserves of shale oil and gas in the world.

When the interests of the business conflicts with that of the people, the people have to act.

… Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the decision “aligns with the principle of sovereign control over natural resources”.

The article concludes that:

Ultimately, it seems that both sides had little choice. Repsol is bound to the corporate principle of investing in the most profitable ventures available. This did not include providing affordable natural gas and petrol, under a scheme of price caps, to the people of Argentina.

Given the failure of Kirchner's policy of price controls, nationalisation was the most feasible way to maintain affordable access to energy for the population while seeking to end dependency on oil imports.

Emphasis Mine

Corporate interests and national interests are not aligned. However, the state in this case went against the interests of a foreign company to satisfy Argentine interests.

Read more!

Wall Street has always been War Street

Mickey Z writes that Wall Street has always been War Street.

The pursuit of profit long ago transcended national borders and well… anything resembling justice, community, solidarity, or morality.

He stresses that:

Please allow me to repeat: Wall Street has always been War Street.

Calling war "possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, sure the most vicious" racket of all, infamous U.S. Marine Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler declared (back in the 1930s): "It is the only [racket] in which profits are reckoned in dollars and losses in lives … I spent 33 years being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."

This is the same General Smedley who was approached by a group of US businessmen to stage a coup against the US Government of FDR. The subsequent Congressional inquiry supported his allegations, but no action was taken against either the general or the businessmen involved.

The examples given by Mickey Z. also reflect on the lawlessness of corporations during the Second World War. The class nature of the state is revealed. The state serves the ruling class.

This is why reformism ultimately fails. The state cannot be reformed against the interests of the ruling class.

Read more!