Ted Rall: Here Comes the Rise of the Anti-Trump Left

Ted Rall writes that Here Comes the Rise of the Anti-Trump Left.

Meanwhile, out in the streets where real political change can happen, I expect to see an anti-Trump resistance incorporating anarchists, veterans of the Occupy Wall Street movement, communists and socialists, radicalized left-wing Democrats, old hippies from the 1960s, Black Lives Matter activists, pro-immigrant people, work together and individually to oppose the radical right policies that we are going to see flying out of Washington over the next few years.

Out on the streets, Trump’s repressive tone will prompt brutal police tactics to which nonviolence will no longer be seen as the only acceptable counteraction. The “peace police” of the wimpy protests of the 1990s and 2000s will go extinct. Nonviolence will retake its rightful place as a noble and desirable tactic, but no longer the exclusive approach to taking on repressive government goons.

Donald Trump will be atrocious for the United States, especially with the Republican House and Senate. He’ll attack immigrants, Latinos, Muslims, victims of police brutality, God knows who else.

But he’ll be good for the Left. And, in the long run, the Left will be great for us.

Emphasis Mine

Trump might be good for the Left, but he will con those who do not have a grounding in Marxism. He is a Capitalist through and through. In looking out for himself, he is looking out for Capitalism.

The opposition to Trump must be based on principles, not on what we think he said. Trump has undergone a great journey that his own supporters do not comprehend. They think he is still the racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and islamophobic misogynist bigot that they had come to love.

They do not understand that Capitalism uses racism, homophobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, misogynism, and bigotry as tools of social control to divide workers against themselves. These tools are only useful in that they keep society under control, and will be abandoned once they cease to be useful.

I predict that Trump will legalise Gay Marriage in the USA before Australia does. Homophobia is losing its edge as a means of social control.

Even if Capitalism stripped itself of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, misogynism, and bigotry, we would still oppose Capitalism and work to replace it with Socialism, because the underlying social relations in Capitalism prevents people from reaching their full potential as human beings.

Read more!

Hanson wants Assange released

Hanson wants Assange released..

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson will petition the Australian and American governments to work on the immediate release of "political prisoner" Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for four years fearing extradition to Sweden then the US.

"I hope that in light of his great service towards freedom and truth, President-elect Donald Trump will consider granting Mr Assange a full presidential pardon," Senator Hanson said in a statement on Thursday.

Emphasis Mine

I was stunned when I read about this on Twitter. Some of the comments that followed were ignorant in they said that Donald Trump was not the President of Sweden (should be Prime-Minister). They missed the point that Hanson raised: extradition to Sweden would surely be followed by extradition to the USA to suffer the same fate as Chelsea Manning.

This appeal should be extended to:

1. Edward Snowden
2. Chelsea Manning

It is especially important in Manning's case because she is suicidal, and needs to be released from torture.

Even though some of the people who are now campaigning for Assange's pardon are racists, I agree with their reasoning.

Read more!

US election: Donald Trump rules out US presidential debate with Bernie Sanders

US election: Donald Trump rules out US presidential debate with Bernie Sanders.

US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has ruled out a one-on-one debate with second-place Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders, killing off a potentially high-ratings television spectacle.

The suggested debate would have sidelined likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton but given Mr Sanders a huge platform ahead of California's June 7 primary.

Emphasis Mine

Trump is afraid of Sanders because a debate would show Sanders to be a compelling candidate against him. Sanders is able to articulate policy positions that align with the values of the American voters without being condescending. His ordinariness would contrast strongly with Trump's garishness.

If this debate ran before the California and New Jersey primaries, Democratic voters would probably vote for Sanders over Hillary Clinton. This might even give Sanders a majority in the pledged delegates.

With a majority or close count in pledged delegates, the super-delegates would come under great pressure to choose Sanders. Clinton may still win the Democratic Party nomination because she has managed to give the sanction of the Democratic Party machine from whom the super-delegates are chosen.

If that were the case, then Trump would benefit from the perceived corruption of the Democratic Party nomination process, and may even attract sufficient Sanders supporters to win the Presidental Election.

Agreeing to this debate would be a high-risk strategy for Trump, as:

• Sanders has to be convincing enough for voters in the remaining primaries to vote for him over Clinton;
• Sanders has to be damaged enough by Trump so that the super-delegates choose Clinton over him;
• Sanders' supporters have to remain upset enough to vote for Trump over Clinton.

There are too many moving parts for this to work for Trump successfully.

Read more!

Eric Blanc: Party, class, and Marxism: Did Kautsky advocate 'Leninism'?

Eric Blanc discusses Party, class, and Marxism: Did Kautsky advocate 'Leninism'?.

Experience over the past decades would seem to demonstrate that while non-Marxist broad parties cannot effectively transcend capitalism, projects of building Marxist parties will likely flounder if they are divorced from wider efforts to promote a mass political representation of and for the working-class majority. Socialists today might do well to rediscover Kautsky’s forgotten 1909 contribution and to reconsider its strategic conclusion:

It is not a question as to whether we prefer a small resolute Social-Democratic Party to a big class party with no definite programme … A Socialist organisation of the S.D.P. type is as insufficient by itself as the Labour Party. We must encourage both.

Emphasis Mine

This would mean that the Socialist Alliance should continue with other parties like the Greens and with groups within the Australian Labour Party on common issues like Workers' Rights, defending Trade Unions, Refugees, Environmental Issues, etc.

Read more!

Salar Mohandesi: The Afterbern: How Bernie Sanders has changed the US and what we do now

Salar Mohandesi writes about The Afterbern: How Bernie Sanders has changed the US and what we do now.

What we have emerging, then, is a new, diverse cohort of predominantly young people, the majority of whom belong to the working class or a collapsing “middle class,” now open to socialist ideas, clamoring for systematic change, and who are increasingly networked, trained, and experienced in organizing. The vast majority of these people are, like Bernie, not socialists in any specific historical sense, but they are willing to fight for major changes. The potential here is enormous, and for this, we have to thank the Sanders campaign, whether or not we like Bernie’s social democratic politics.

The major question, of course, is what happens next. It’s very possible that these young, politicized Sanders supporters will be incorporated into the Democratic Party. If Bernie wins the nomination, the risks are enormous. But even if he doesn’t, which seems far more likely now, he may produce the same effect if he throws his weight behind Clinton at the Convention in July. Or possibly, if Hillary emerges victorious, she may tap someone like Elizabeth Warren to serve as Vice President as part of some calculated strategy to win over Bernie’s supporters. It is also safe to assume that the Democratic Party will itself try to make the most of this opportunity by organizing many of these young people into its ranks. All this highlights the great contradiction of Bernie’s campaign: he would not have reached — and radicalized — such a vast audience if he did not run as a Democrat, but in working within the Democratic Party, he has potentially wedded this new audience to perhaps the greatest counter-revolutionary force in the United States.

Emphasis Mine

This is normal for the start of a revolutionary process. People want to fix the system from within. When this fails, then they either choose despair or radicalization.

It is significant that people are still relatively radical after seven (7) of Obama's inertia. The desire for change generated by George W Bush was channelled by Barak Obama into a safe Democratic presidency. Obama was successful in limiting the damage from the radical demands of the people.

Our chances for such a qualitative leap are more propitious than they have been in decades. The established political configuration in the United States hasn’t been this vulnerable since the 1970s. The Republican Party is undergoing a profound structural transformation, and Trump’s impending nomination has provoked defections and a potential mutiny. The Democratic Party is being pulled in two directions and may be headed for a contested convention. Record numbers of Americans are leaving both parties ­— 43% now identify as Independents, as opposed to 30% as Democrats and only 26% as Republican. Across the board tens of millions of Americans are rejecting “establishment politics,” turning to either Trump or Sanders.

We should also be encouraged by the fact that many of these newly radicalized Sanders supporters may already be prepared to break with the logic of the political system — according to one poll, for instance, one third of Sanders supporters say they won’t vote for Clinton in the general election. But without a viable alternative in the form of an organizational presence, we won’t be able to transform this inchoate #BernieOrBust sentiment into revolutionary politics. And if, against all odds, Sanders wins, it is very likely that only a unified, alternative organization embedded in today’s many ongoing struggles can prevent radicalized Sanders supporters from integrating into a fundamentally unreformable Democratic Party. In short, we need an organization to fuse together the millions of enthusiastic people who may otherwise disperse or find themselves subsumed and then disorganized by the state apparatuses.

With such exceptionally high stakes, the far left, usually so minuscule and ineffectual in this country, needs to devise a shared, coherent organizational strategy. Now, more than ever, we need an organization to continue radicalizing newer generations, keep people engaged in contemporary struggles, unite disparate movements, articulate different sectors of the working class, preserve continuity between waves of struggles, fashion a common project, and, above all, seize power — by which I do not mean simply winning a couple seats in Congress as some purely electoral party, but overthrowing capitalism through a mass revolutionary upheaval that unfolds both against and within the state apparatuses. There hasn’t been this much interest in radical change, nor this much anger against capitalism in the United States since the 1970s. If we, as committed socialists, miss this moment, the future will never forgive us.

Emphasis Mine

Co-option by the Democratic Party has been successfully used in the past to defuse radicals. Will it work in future?

Read more!

Jim Casey: Thanks Daily Telegraph, I welcome a debate about the overthrow of capitalism

Jim Casey writes “Thanks Daily Telegraph, I welcome a debate about the overthrow of capitalism”.

As a union leader used to speaking shorthand to comrades, I framed capitalism as an idea that could be overthrown. On reflection, it is something that is more likely to collapse under its own weight — we cannot adhere to a belief that is so obviously unable to make the transition into the future that awaits many of us and all of our children.

Emphasis Mine

This is a dangerous attitude to have—the collapse of Capitalism would be catastrophic. There would be mass starvation, mass migrations, genocide, reversion to a much more primitive economic system that Socialists called Barbarism.

We cannot simply wait for Capitalism to collapse. We must prepare an alternative economic and associated political system in order to save humanity from disaster.

This is not about a gotcha moment for Rupert Murdoch, it’s about having a national conversation about the kind of economic system we think will work in the challenging times ahead.

Economic policy is developed by communities and national conversations, not individuals or the most powerful elites.

Emphasis Mine

Casey is being too bland here. Yes, we need a discussion, but about a new economic and political system.

Read more!

Doug Enaa Greene: The rise of Marxism in France

Doug Enaa Greene describes The rise of Marxism in France.

Engels recognized the danger of a Boulangist dictatorship as spelling the end not only to the socialist movement in France, but the Third Republic itself. For him, the question was not just how to analyze Boulangism, but how to fight it.

Engels was enraged at the passivity of the POF, writing of the general's ties to royalists and that his threat of war would be used to kill off the workers' movement. Engels warned the socialists not to let their hatred of the radicals and the Republic blind them to the threat of dictatorship.

You will get him all the same, the good Boulanger whom you crave, and the Socialists will be his first victims. For a First Consul has got to be impartial and, for every time he lets the blood of the Stock Exchange, he will place another curb on the proletariat, if only to even things out.[39]

Engels told the workers that the defense of democracy was vital, so vital in fact, that its defense could not be left to the bourgeoisie. Rather the preservation of democratic freedoms needed to be led by the socialists, utilizing revolutionary means.

However, Engels' castigated Lafargue's tailing of Boulanger, warning that it was not the job of socialists to just go along with the tide, even if it appeared momentarily popular, stating that such a course was bankrupt. Rather, socialists needed to take a long-term view and not just follow whatever was popular:

But if we are not to go against the popular current of momentary tomfoolery, what in the name of the devil is our business?[40]

MWhat Engels stressed to Lafargue and Guesde was that the options before them were not simply between the Opportunists and Boulanger, but that there was a third option of independent political action by the working class. He urged the socialists to put up their own candidates, opposed to those of both camps. When the Marxists put up their own candidate in Paris in 1889, Engels hailed it as “at least one step in the right direction by proclaiming the necessity of an independent socialist candidature.”[41] As Engels, reminded Lafargue, “For the past twenty years we have been advocating the formation of a Party that was distinct from and opposed to all bourgeois parties.”[42]

What Engels advocated to the POF, was not renouncing the fight against Boulanger or seeing it as just another inter-bourgeois affair, but that the working class needed to protect democratic freedoms with their own revolutionary means, as opposed to relying on the good graces of the ruling class or the ballot box. And in order to defeat reaction, the working class needs their own flag in the field — an independent political party with its own revolutionary agenda.

Emphasis Mine

Engels' critique of the POF (French Workers' Party) proved to right as later events revealed:

By the early 1890s, the POF had its first electoral breakthroughs, winning control of several municipal governments and electing Guesde and Lafargue to the Chamber of Deputies. The socialists seemed poised for greater gains in wake of the Panama Corruption scandal, which exposed the underlying bourgeois nature of the Third Republic. However, the POF suffered a serious setback by remaining aloof from the Dreyfus Affair. Guesde believed that the Dreyfus Affair, similar to the Boulanger Crisis, was a feud between two bourgeois factions in which workers had no stake. This time, their neutrality backfired as it became clear that reactionaries, conservatives and royalists were threatening to overthrow the Republic itself. Reformist socialists, such as the great orator Jean Jaures, thus stepped into the breach and rallied to the defense the Republic. Many Guesdists abandoned the movement's neutrality in order to collaborate with bourgeois republicans and reformists in a pact of “Republican Defense“ to defeat reaction.

Emphasis Mine

As revolutionaries, we can stand aloof from the democratic struggle. Politics is in both the mass movements and the electoral process.

Read more!

Links Magazine: Thinking and voting outside the two-party box: Interview with US Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein

Thinking and voting outside the two-party box: Interview with US Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein.

We say that not only do we have to bring the revolution to our workplaces, our schools and our streets, but we have to amplify that power in the context of the elections. The elections should not be allowed to silence what's really happening in the struggles that our frontline communities are leading.

Elections need to be used as a megaphone for the struggles for social, climate and racial justice. That's how we've defined the purpose of our campaign from the very start.

At the end of the day, the real engines of change are the social movements, but it's critical that they fight for power in the electoral arena, because that's where you can concretize change.

Just look at the labor movement in the first half of the 20th century. Not only was it alive and well in the streets and in workplaces, but it expressed itself in the voting booth with the Socialist and Communist Parties, and with the Farmer-Labor Parties and the Progressives and Populists. It really fought the battle on all fronts.

In fact, one can argue that the day the labor movement gave up its own political voice—by joining the Democratic Party as part of a New Deal coalition—was the day real progress ended. The third parties lost their agenda and identity inside the Democratic Party, and social and economic justice has been backsliding ever since.

Third parties are not only legitimate, they are absolutely necessary, because they, along with social movements on the ground, create the conditions for real change. So now is the time to gather our courage and stand up—just like the workers at Verizon, the students on the campuses, and the young people in Black Lives Matter.

Now is the time to bring that kind of courage into the voting booth—to forget the lesser evil and fight for the greater good.

Emphasis Mine

Political parties should be the voice of the social movements. Social movements are not beholden to political parties.

It is the duty of revolutionary parties to gather and preserve the experiences of mass movements so that they can educate future generations of revolutionaries. It is also the responsibility of these parties manage the dialetic between Marxist theory and revolutionary practice arising from these movements.

For an alternative in the coming Australian elections, vote Socialist Alliance.

Read more!

Chris Dillow: The errors of the oppressed

Chris Dillow explores The errors of the oppressed.

It is of course true that one of the great problems for Marxism has been that the working class has not developed the class consciousness that Marx hoped for. But why should other oppressed groups fare any better?

Now, this is NOT to say that such groups should not be heard and should instead be represented by wiser heads such as um, well white male PPE graduates. For one thing, the more privileged have weaker incentives to fight inequality. And for another, they/we too are also prone to cognitive biases: one of the sillier if unintended implications of the “nudge” agenda has been the idea that rulers are free of cognitive error.

Instead, we much distinguish sharply between two questions: “what do you think?” and “what do you know?” It’s the latter that matters. For example, the everyday sexism project has awakened me to the troubles that women face far more than windy feminist theory has done.

Which brings me to the problem. The institutions that might give voice to the lives of the most oppressed — the poor both here and globally; women and gays in backward communities and so on — are to say the least under-developed. One of the symptoms of genuine oppression is that one’s voice is not heard. When this absence is combined with the lack of mechanisms to counter false consciousness, it is small wonder that injustice is perpetuated.

Emphasis Mine

This is why an alternative media, such as Green Left Weekly, is so important as it allows the voices of the oppressed to be heard.

Read more!

Dick Nichols: Greece: vulture creditors jostling for their next feed

Dick Nichols writes that vulture creditors jostling for their next feed in Greece.

The strategy is to increase the pain that the SYRIZA-led government has to inflict on its support base as the price of getting each new tranche of desperately needed funding: in this way, the government will hopefully become so unpopular that the conservative New Democracy can defeat it at the next election, which could be brought on early by the refusal of some SYRIZA MPs to support the next wave of austerity measures.

At the same time the idea of a radical left alternative can be discredited across Europe, especially with a view to undermining the position of anti-austerity forces in the repeat Spanish election due for June 26. If Germany and the IMF reject Tsakalotos' alternative to the creditors' “contingent” cuts package — the commitment to meet deficit targets in case of shortfall but with flexibility for the Greek government to decide how — it will be clear confirmation of their intention to remove SYRIZA from government as soon as politically practicable.

Emphasis Mine

The brutality imposed on the Greek people is a warning to everyone else that change is not possible within the Capitalist system.

Nonetheless, only six months after its September election win and despite its best efforts, SYRIZA's message looks to be wearing thin. In a context of ongoing social revolt voices expressing concern at growing popular alienation with the government are more and more heard within the radical coalition.

On April 15, according to the Macropolis web site, the “movement of 53”, the most left-leaning of the groupings within SYRIZA and with 11 MPs including Tsakalotos, issued a statement which said that, while SYRIZA had been able to argue convincingly enough at the September poll that it had been forced into signing the third bailout, the memorandum was now increasingly seen as the left coalition’s own program rather than one imposed by Greece’s creditors. The group also criticised slow progress in implementing the parallel program and stressed that much more was needed to maintain the belief of SYRIZA's supporters.

Most tellingly, it said that it disagreed with the opinion of the Tsipras leadership that SYRIZA should try to stay in government at all costs, stating that the government should “fall heroically resisting the internal or external troika rather than humiliatingly at the hands of [Greek] society itself.”

Emphasis Mine

This is the main problem of a reformist program—all of your efforts are tied to working within the Capitalist system while having minimal power. People should see that the attainment of government power does not lead to a better world. The Capitalists would not allow this.

The conclusion is:

What factors, then, would possibly prevent the German-IMF position from prevailing in the negotiations? As always, the creditors must calculate what the political price of that hard line might be. It might:

• Deepen the struggle of resistance inside Greece, strengthening forces to the left of SYRIZA and complicating the job of installing a more reliable New Democracy-centred administration;
• Revive the spectre of Grexit and of euro instability at a time when the European establishment is committed to avoiding Brexit;
• Provide another example of the brutality of the European Union powers-that-be that would become a factor in the June 26 Spanish election, at which it is not excluded that alliances of Podemos, the United Left and various left nationalist formations could overtake the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), setting it down the road to PASOK-like irrelevance; and
• Even help produce a left-wing government in the Spanish state after June 26, shifting the balance of forces on a European scale and potentially turning debt cancellation from a nice idea into a definite possibility.

All of that adds to Greece's narrow room to manoeuvre against its creditors. Given that, will the SYRIZA-led government resist or succumb to their aggression?

Emphasis Mine

I agree that only a widening of the left-wing revolt throughout Europe can give relief to the suffering of the Greek people. When the Capitalists see people revolting against their brutality, they begin to consider concessions in order to allow passions to cool.

Read more!

Michael Klare: The Coming World of "Peak Oil Demand," Not "Peak Oil"

Michael Klare writes that The Coming World of "Peak Oil Demand," Not "Peak Oil".

At the beginning of this century, many energy analysts were convinced that we were at the edge of the arrival of “peak oil”; a peak, that is, in the output of petroleum in which planetary reserves would be exhausted long before the demand for oil disappeared, triggering a global economic crisis. As a result of advances in drilling technology, however, the supply of oil has continued to grow, while demand has unexpectedly begun to stall.  This can be traced both to slowing economic growth globally and to an accelerating “green revolution” in which the planet will be transitioning to non-carbon fuel sources. With most nations now committed to measures aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases under the just-signed Paris climate accord, the demand for oil is likely to experience significant declines in the years ahead. In other words, global oil demand will peak long before supplies begin to run low, creating a monumental challenge for the oil-producing countries.

This is no theoretical construct.  It’s reality itself.  Net consumption of oil in the advanced industrialized nations has already dropped from 50 million barrels per day in 2005 to 45 million barrels in 2014. Further declines are in store as strict fuel efficiency standards for the production of new vehicles and other climate-related measures take effect, the price of solar and wind power continues to fall, and other alternative energy sources come on line. While the demand for oil does continue to rise in the developing world, even there it’s not climbing at rates previously taken for granted. With such countries also beginning to impose tougher constraints on carbon emissions, global consumption is expected to reach a peak and begin an inexorable decline. According to experts Thijs Van de Graaf and Aviel Verbruggen, overall world peak demand could be reached as early as 2020.

In such a world, high-cost oil producers will be driven out of the market and the advantage — such as it is — will lie with the lowest-cost ones. Countries that depend on petroleum exports for a large share of their revenues will come under increasing pressure to move away from excessive reliance on oil. This may have been another consideration in the Saudi decision at Doha. In the months leading up to the April meeting, senior Saudi officials dropped hints that they were beginning to plan for a post-petroleum era and that Deputy Crown Prince bin Salman would play a key role in overseeing the transition.

Emphasis Mine

Overall, this is relatively good news for the environment as less oil consumption means less carbon-dioxide emissions. However, the amount of carbon-dioxide is still far too high to stop the onrush of global warning.

On the geopolitical front, this drop in oil consumption is bad news for the Venezuelan Revolution as there is not enough money to pay for the needed social reforms. This will sharpen the class conflicts there as the wealthy can no longer be tolerated in a contracting economy. The wealthy are banking on the myth that they are better managers of the contracting economy in order to seize power back from the revolution.

In the USA, this oncoming peak in oil demand means the end of the shale oil goldrush and the decline in fracking. Both of these were extremely bad for the environment. Yet, the political establishment was wedded to the idea of energy independence. Ideology is going to collide with reality over this.

Read more!

Peter Dorman: The Lesson of Carrier: America Needs a Real Socialist Agenda

Peter Dorman writes that The Lesson of Carrier: America Needs a Real Socialist Agenda.

To put it in a nutshell, the actions of Carrier and the rest of corporate America reflect a system in which investors come first, and the primary goal of business is to maximize profits. We need a system in which investors are just one of many constituencies, and the financial goal is to maximize the probability of remaining profitable over an extended time horizon. Profit has to become a means, not an end.

The socialist agenda, as I understand it, is about the many reforms that move us closer to such a world. It includes worker participation in corporate governance, but also representation of other community interests. It can include measures to broaden ownership, including a role for public and social ownership vehicles along with private ones. Financial reform also has a large contribution to make, especially if it expands the role of public and cooperative banking. Consideration should also be given to measures that would alter the incentives to issue preferred rather than common stock or otherwise attenuate the connection between ownership and control—in other words, perform a Reverse Jensen.

And this is just the beginning: once you start thinking about it, you can see the agenda is enormous, especially because it’s been in mothballs for generations. I wish there were a socialist running for president right now.

Emphasis Mine

Dorman is not yet appreciating the political context (Marxism) in which his observations arise. It is almost like Marxism has faded into the background and yet informs all political and economic commentary. This would be a shock to the Ideological State Appartuses (ISA) who have been actively suppressing Marxism for over 150 years.

Dorman's observations need to extended with a class analysis to explain why these actions make sense to Capitalists, and why the proposed remedies make sense to workers.

Read more!

Chris Dillow: Hillsborough: the class context

Chris Dillow writes about Hillsborough: the class context.

In all these cases, the police were brutal enforcers of this class-based hatred — and unlawfully so. After the battle of Stonehenge in 1985 Wiltshire Police were found guilty of ABH, false imprisonment and wrongful arrest. And after Orgreave South Yorkshire Police — them again — paid £500,000 compensation for assault, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. As James Doran says:

The British state is not a neutral body which enforces the rule of law — it is a set of social relations which uphold the rule of the capital. Law is a matter of struggle — ordinary people are automatically subject to the discipline of the repressive apparatus of the state.

All this poses a question. Have things really changed? Of course, the police and Tories have much better PR than they did then. But is it really a coincidence that the police still turn up mob-handed to demos whilst giving a free ride to corporate crime and asset stripping? When the cameras are off and they are behind closed doors, do the police and Tories retain a vestige of their 1980s attitudes? When Alan Duncan spoke of those who aren’t rich as “low achievers”, was that a minority view, or a reminder that the Tories haven’t really abandoned their class hatred?  

Many younger lefties might have abandoned class in favour of the politics of micro-identities.  For those of us shaped by the 80s, however, class matters. And I suspect this is as true for the Tories as it is for me.

Emphasis Mine

Despite the efforts of the Ideological State Appartuses (such as Universities) to convince us that identity is important, I agree with Dillow that we should focus on class as the battleground for ideas in our struggle against Capitalism.

Even Clinton's campaign is part of this distraction away from class and concentrating on her identity as a woman. This is why the continuation of the Sanders' campaign is so important — it pushes class warfare to the forefront of politics.

Read more!

Tom Engelhardt: Has The American Age of Decline Begun?

Tom Engelhardt asks Has The American Age of Decline Begun?.

And yet in recent years it has become a commonplace of Republicans and Democrats alike. In other words, as the country has become politically shakier, the rhetoric about its greatness has only escalated in an American version of “the lady doth protest too much.” Such descriptors have become the political equivalent of litmus tests: you couldn’t be president or much of anything else without eternally testifying to your unwavering belief in American greatness.

This, of course, is the line that Trump crossed in a curiously unnoticed fashion in this election campaign. He did so by initially upping the rhetorical ante, adding that exclamation point (which even Reagan avoided). Yet in the process of being more patriotically correct than thou, he somehow also waded straight into American decline so bluntly that his own audience could hardly miss it (even if his critics did).

Think of it as an irony, if you wish, but the ultimate American narcissist, in promoting his own rise, has also openly promoted a version of decline and fall to striking numbers of Americans. For his followers, a major political figure has quit with the defensive BS and started saying it the way it is.

Of course, don’t furl the flag or shut down those offshore accounts or start writing the complete history of American decline quite yet. After all, the United States still looms “lone” on an ever more chaotic planet. Its wealth remains stunning, its economic clout something to behold, its tycoons the envy of the Earth, and its military beyond compare when it comes to how much and how destructively, even if not how successfully. Still, make no mistake about it, Donald Trump is a harbinger, however bizarre, of a new American century in which this country will indeed no longer be (with a bow to Muhammad Ali) "the Greatest" or, for all but a shrinking crew, exceptional.

So mark your calendars: 2016 is the official year the U.S. first went public as a declinist power and for that you can thank Donald — or rather Donald! — Trump.

Emphasis Mine

A great power in decline is dangerous. This has been evident for the past fifteen (15) years. Irrational wars have been commonplace. Disregard for international law is rampant.

The more the USA flails around, the quicker it sinks. The faster it sinks, the more urgent the need to demonstrate power.

Whomever is elected president will face the same pressures to demonstrate US power and relevance to the world. The danger lies not in who is elected, but in the failure of the US political and economic system.

Read more!

Sanders' Presidemcy Would be a Disaster

I think that a Sanders' presidency would be a disaster for the Left.

The primary reason for this opinion is that the American civil service is politicized in that the top positions are vacated on the election of a new president and filled by appointment and confirmation by the Senate.

Unfortunately for the American, there is a severe lack of suitable candidates to fill this positions with sufficient competency.

Were Sanders to become US President, filling this patronage positions would be very problematic and fraught with ideological intrigue. Trump would have the same, but not to the same extent as there are far Capitalists than Socialists among the upper echelons of the technocracy. Clinton would have the easiest task of filling this positions because of her deep and wide connections throughout the establishment.

Even if Sanders were to find sufficient competent people to fill this positions, he would suffer the same fate as SYRIZA when it tried to implement a Socialist agenda in a Capitalist society.

Power in a Capitalist society does not reside in the State. This is the mistake that killed Allende back in 1973 in Chile.

Power in a Capitalist revolves around control of the means of production. This is where the Venezuelan Revolution is stalled. The State is supposed to serve the Capitalists, not the other way around.

An electoral victory for Sanders would lead to disillusionment among his supporters as happened in Greece and in Venezuela. It is this despair that drains the life out of the Left.

Read more!

Seth Godin: The tidal wave is overrated

Seth Godin writes that The tidal wave is overrated .

We can definitely spend time worrying about/building the tsunami, but it's the drip, drip, drip that will change everything in the long run.

Emphasis Mine

We have had several potential tsunamis in recent years:

1. Anti-globalization protests from 1999-2001
2. Largest anti-war protest in history in 2003
3. The Occupy Movement from 2011-2012

But Godin is correct in saying that the steady building up of movements and training of cadre is far important than hoping for the next political and social tsunami to occur. Waiting for the general strike is the primary weakness of the Anarchist position.

As Mickey Z once said, "Building a social revolution is marathon rather than a sprint". We should pace ourselves accordingly.

Read more!

Nina Leger: France: With Nuit debout, a new mass movement rises

Nina Leger reviews recent events in France: With Nuit debout, a new mass movement rises.

How do we create a democratic space that would involve as many people as possible?

It is important to highlight that things have never been that easy on the technical front. Citizens who are competent in the field are currently trying to create digital tools in order to extend the debate online. A few have already been set up.

In the square, people are talking about how to bring these discussion spaces together. We can also be certain that Nuit debout has a lot to teach us on this subject.

How do we create a democratic space that would involve as many people as possible in its tangible construction as well as its actions and decisions? This is the question that needs to be answered.

Admittedly, not being able to see past structural issues can seem like an obstacle. But beside the fact that this issue is not unusual for a mobilisation that has lasted only two weeks, this question can actually be seen as preliminary to all others that follow. The content of discussions will depend on the importance given to each and every one of us, and creating a framework together is the only way to ensure the greatest possible involvement.

This new, horizontal way of debating and taking action and the coming together of thousands of people to think collectively is something worth learning from as much as it is worth participating in.

Because this is where we belong; because these goals are the reasons why we decided to become involved politically; because we are fighting precisely in order to give a voice and power back to the people — and, lest we forget, we too are the people.

That is the reason why we can say “us” when we talk about the citizens gathered on the square, and we will not be able to reinvent the world without this plural “we”, which encompasses a large group of diverse and creative individuals.

Emphasis Mine

Nuit Debout is a worthy successor to the Occupy Movement. It has taken some important lessons from the latter:

• Horizontal decision-making — still a work-in-progress
• General assembly
• Occupation of public places — although more as a guerrilla tactic

Leger also makes a very important point that activists should involve themselves in such movements in order to learn over that of preaching. Lenin was continually interested in knowing the mind of the people as accurately as possible in a timely manner. Without this, the 1917 Revolution would have failed.

Read more!

Dan Little: Large structures and social change

Dan Little examines the relationship between Large structures and social change.

The core they identify has to do with the "ways in which multiple relations of domination, subordination and exploitation intersect with and reproduce each other".

From this perspective we argue that capitalism is best understood as a set of configurations, assemblages, or bundles of social relations and processes oriented around the systematic reproduction of the capital relation. (8-9)

Robert Brenner's treatment of the emergence of English capitalism is particularly instructive (link). (Anievas and Nişancıoğlu offer considerable criticism of Brenner's approach.) In two important articles in the 1970s and 1980s Brenner cast doubt on the classic Marxian derivation of capitalism from feudalism; he argued that it was precisely differences in feudal regimes that accounted for the different trajectories taken by English and French capitalism. Ironically, the social power held by French peasants impeded the emergence of managerial farming, which was itself an important step on the way to industrial revolution. As a consequence the proletarianization of English peasants proceeded much more rapidly than French society.

There is an important historiographical issue here that is illustrated in these works by Dobb, Anievas and Nişancıoğlu, and Brenner: to what extent is it feasible to look for large macro-processes and transitions in history? Should we expect large social and economic factors writing out social change? Or is history more contingent and more multi-pathed than that? My own view is that the latter approach is correct (link). Neither technology (link) nor population (link) nor class conflict (link) suffices to explain large historical change. Rather, large structures and small innovations add up to contingent and variable pathways of historical development. We've gotten past the "agent-structure" debate; but perhaps we still have the "large factor, small factor" debate standing in front of us (link). And the solution may be the same: both large structures and contingent local arrangements are involved in the development of new social systems.

Emphasis Mine

I am somewhat confused by Little's argument. It is quite possibly my ignorance that is standing in the way of enlightenment.

My understanding is that classes are indeed large-scale structures. Class is an abstraction that encapsulates how people view the world in similar ways. The existence of a Capitalist class does not mean that every Capitalist is identical. There is sufficient similarity of world-views among Capitalists for such an abstraction to be useful.

This similarity of world-views forms the Capitalist class consciousness. That is, when Capitalists talk to each other, they can rely on shared assumptions about the world, and on shared interests in the world.

This does not mean that they are all united in action. There are serious differences about what actions to take in order to defend their shared class interests.

These differences arise out of the historical trajectory of a particular subgroup of Capitalists. Capitalists in Sweden are more open to higher taxation than those in the USA or UK. The primary reason is to do with historical experiences and the lessons learnt from those experiences.

I think Little misrepresents Marxism as being formulaic. It is not difficult to understand that there are many Socialist and Communist parties that think in that way.

Marxism is about placing the class struggle at the centre of history. In doing so, one must look for classes and understand why there is a struggle between them. This struggle is informed by history and creates history. And the struggle in centred around the mode of production and where the classes fit into the mode of production.

Read more!

Chris Dillow: Why not full employment?

Chris Dillow asks Why not full employment?.

And, they say — channeling Kalecki:

Guaranteed employment does not conform to the dominant ideology of capitalist societies which is generally internalized by practically everyone in the society, including workers.

This ideology, they say, manifests itself in several ways hostile to full employment policies. For example, the unemployed are blamed for their plight; governments are deemed to incompetent to implement proper macro policies or a jobs guarantee; and there’s a fear that union militancy will price workers out of jobs. In this sense, the lack of demand for full employment policies is another manifestation of the political dominance of the 1%. As Steven Lukes wrote:

Is it not the supreme and most insidious use of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable? (Power: a radical view)

All this raises a thought. Could it be that the main obstacle to full employment policies is not so much one of technical economics so much as ideology and politics?

Emphasis Mine

I agree that the consciousness of the working class is utterly dominated by the Capitalists. This has impeded the development of SYRIZA, the Occupy Movement, and unions as they try to reform the system. There comes a point when their demands threaten the system. At that point, most people want to preserve the system rather than overthrow because they reasonably see chaos in the collapse. They have no faith in any alternatives.

The examination and publicity of alternatives, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Rojava (Kurdistan), are important. When people see alternatives existing and surviving against enormous odds, they can see options for themselves.

Read more!

Ruken Isik: Women struggle for a new society in Rojava

Ruken Isik writes about Women struggle for a new society in Rojava.

The idea of democratic autonomy is directly opposed to the ideology of the nation-state, which in the Middle East is tightly bound to ideas of cultural and ethnic homogeneity. The new system in Rojava is more of a multicultural, multilingual, and multireligious system that is designed to “allow the legal participation of individuals who will be able to mobilise and organise along the lines of ethnicity, religion, gender, class.”

It is a system of self-governance that rejects the model of centralised administration. This is also the model of self-rule advocated by the Kurdish movement across the border in Turkey. Women in Rojava believe that this system can and does enable them to organise, and to participate in all decision-making processes.

…

The West always presents itself as deeply invested in bringing change and democracy to the Middle East. Yet the Kurds, together with the other ethnic groups now administering themselves for a better future, have been historically and continue to be ignored by the international community, which has turned a blind eye to the Kurds in general and to Kurdish women in particular.

As they work to build a society grounded in a systemic commitment to gender equity, the women in Rojava want to be in dialogue with international women's organisations and share their experiences.

Emphasis Mine

It is in the obscure parts of the world that the real social revolution is occurring.

Read more!