Posts that I especially recommend today: Saturday, Aug. 22, 2020

• REVEALED: UK Officials Inflated COVID Hospital Numbers at Height of ‘Pandemic’ from 21st Century Wire.
  

• Are You Ready for the “No One Could Have Known” Routine? by Thomas Harrington from Off-Guardian. (My reaction: This is worse than even Harrington argues. The lies we've been told has been going on in this dramatic fashion since WWII.)
  

• As COVID-1984 Accelerates Bill Gates Blames ‘Freedom’ For Spread of the Virus by Avatar Dewey Fernfield from The Duran. This post features Spiro Skouras via YouTube elaborating and commenting on this effort for all citizens residing in the US/Anglo/Zionist Empire to submit to the capitalist ruling classes' vaccination program.

• Exclusive Interview: Ben Swann and Plandemic Creator Mikki Willis from ISE. (Note: Swann interviews Willis who is the producer, director, and writer of films, "Plandemic 2: Indoctornation" (censored by Facebook) as well as "Plandemic 1" (censored by YouTube). (Note: "Indoctornation" is a play on the word "indoctrination". Notice the entry of the latter film on Wikipedia. I think this qualifies for the "best posts" category.)

• Company Set to Manufacture COVID-19 Vaccine for US Intentionally Sold Faulty Biodefense Products by Whitney Webb from The Last American Vagabond.

• What is the WHO? – Questions For Corbett #066 featuring James Corbett essentially arguing via video that the WHO of the United Nations has been subverted into policies favoring Big Pharma. (My reaction: Who'd a thunk-it?)
  

• On Covid-19 And Authoritarian Abuses by Australian Caitlin Johnstone from her weblog. (Note: You may be also interested in this post.) My brief commentary follows:

In this post she is obviously frustrated by all the verbal abuse she has been getting via Twitter and other social media from people who have succumbed to the hysteria that media corporations have been filling the airways with. In her home country of Australia, the citizens have been experiencing probably the most draconian measures ever (and likely the worst in the world) from government authorities over this covid-19 pandemic.  

This is the result of many years of brainwashing via disinformation and censorship spewed by capitalist's control of media, education, and entertainment in which they have scrubbed out real history and substituted self-serving propaganda and entertaining distractions. I fear the worst.

• US Smears Those Questioning Latest Claims vs. China by Tony Cartalucci from his weblog Land Destroyer Report. (Note: If this was of interest to you, you may also may be interested in this post.)
  

• Cruelty with a Point: The Continuing US Immiseration of Syria by Stephen Gowans from What's Left.

• What the Belarusian opposition offers by Timoschuk from The Duran.
  

• U.S. Judge Urges Supreme Court to End U.S. Police State It Imposes by Eric Zuesse from Strategic Culture Foundation. My commentary follows:

The social-democratic Zuesse must have had a very difficult time in dealing with this subject. I note that he references Jim Crow laws only once. This is much before the FDR administration that he so idolizes as an ideal America. He writes: 

The U.S. Constitution is by now just a string of words. America’s Founders are dead, gone, and no longer really even an influence. That’s the reality. 

In its original form the Constitution when it was written by "America's Founders" (often reverentially referred to as "Founding Fathers") favored the rich property owners. Contrast the latter document with the Declaration of Independence also written by "America's Founders" when they wanted citizens to take up arms for their cause of independence from Britain. Quite a difference, indeed! You see, the British government put up obstacles for the "Founding Fathers" in the form of taxes and restrictions on enterprises that would compete with British manufacturers.  

The "Founding Fathers" were overwhelmingly property owners of slaves who needed the latter to provide the labor to make them rich, never intended to include the "Bill of Rights". This was only forced upon them by citizens of the 13 colonies. And indeed, they never expected their militias and police forces to abide by the Bill of Rights. Police forces are the last defense against the people who are feared by all ruling classes. After nearly 150 years, this ruling class used the capitalist system to accumulate ownership and control over nearly all of the USA and much of the world. The crimes committed here by our masters are multiplied by at least a factor of 10 throughout much of the world.

Thus, I recommend only reading the first two paragraphs of the essay. The rest is absolute social-democratic rubbish.

• OBAMA Says "Nobody Above the Law"! featuring Jimmy Dore commenting (via YouTube) on Barack Obama's speech at a recent Democratic convention. (My reaction: He only satirizes Obama for the lies he told at the convention and during his presidency. With all the lies people have been subject to since WWII, it is no wonder why so many people are questioning the current covid-19 information that ruling class media hysterically spreads!)
  

Posts that I especially recommend today: Tuesday, June 9, 2020

• Over the Rainbow: Paths of Resistance After George Floyd by Jim Kavanagh from CounterPunch. 

My reaction: The author explains how the ruling capitalist class is running out of options to contain the resistance of poverty-stricken people that is an integral part of capitalist rule. But, at this late date is social-democracy a realistic option that Kavanagh seems to favor? Is social-democracy, capitalism with a more human face, a bias of CounterPunch (because the core administrators of this website live off of the ownership of stocks, bonds, etc.)? My answers: "no!" to the first question, and "yes!" to the second. But, the more important question is: what will the ruling class do to contain the new resistance that has appeared following the George Floyd protests? Could they be desperate enough to use the armageddon option--a nuclear war? I have no answers to these questions.

• Manipulating the Message: Police Attacks on Free Press and the Fencing in of Humanity by Raul Diego from Mint Press News.

• Tucker: Black Lives Matter is now a political party featuring Tucker Carlson of Fox News (via YouTube) giving his commentary regarding the growing movement by the new resistance to defund police departments all across the USA. He omits any need felt by the new resistance to construct new police departments that serve the people. My commentary follows:

Carlson represents a more authoritarian faction of the ruling capitalist class, and he, of course, regards this as "insane". The existing militarized police agencies have a history of serving the defense of the capitalist class to contain any opposition from ordinary people and to carry out their racist policies that served to divide and conquer the working class. This is a redline issue for the ruling class, much like the right to own guns that must not be crossed. But this is also a fundamental issue for the new resistance to get the police out of all instiutions--particulary the schools. So, it will be very interesting to see what happens to this effort to abolish the existing police organizations across America. 

• Podcast: Pandemic Profiteering – How Billionaires Are Looting American Taxpayers by Mnar Muhawesh from Mint Press News (based in Minneapolis). (Note: Muhawesh interviews senior staff writer Alan Macleod regarding the subject in this nearly 42-minute interview.)  

• The Democratic Party Exists To Co-Opt And Kill Authentic Change Movements by Caitlin Johnstone from her weblog. 

• A Pipelineistan fable for our times by Pepe Escobar from Asia Times. 

Posts that I especially recommend today: Friday, May 29, 2020 (part 2 of 2)

•  Fabricated Shocks and Open Windows by Mark Taliano from Global Research.

• A Rendezvous with Destiny? by Nomi Prins from TomDispatch.

My commentary: This is an excellent illustration of a social democratic take on the latest capitalist crisis. Prins harkens, along with Engelhardt, us back to the Great Depression which they see as similar to the current crisis. Unfortunately for capitalism-loving social democrats, this time is different. I see the current crisis as brought about by the predictable reckless behavior of a ruling class that aspired to do too much: build a dominant capitalist empire while pursuing the accumulation and consolidation of all the wealth on the planet. 

I believe, even without further evidence, that this capitalist class engineered the current pandemic primarily as cover for bailing out their banks while providing a number of other benefiits such as increasing fuel for their piromaniacal attacks on China and to rid themselves of "useless eaters" of elderly retired folks and surplus workers. I believe this because I have witnessed their astonishing criminal record of the assassination of the Kennedys, the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and domestic others as well as all the foreign adventures to subvert or attack others who stood in their way of building a capitalist world empire. I believe that these criminals have been responsible for many false-flag attacks both domestic and foreign with 9/11 being their most brilliant achievement.

But this time it is different. This pandemic is a desperate gamble for them to hold onto power, and to me the outcomes look to be very different than the Great Depression. You see, I was born in the middle of the Great Depression, and I know first-hand what it was like for my parents.

Biowarfare has been seen as an unpredictable weapon, and for this reason it has been banned by most capitalist ruling classes. But to our ambitious masters who, like good fascists, saw that with sufficient research and development they could engineer it as a controlled type of weapon that could be useful in particular circumstances. The current situation with defeats abroad and economic crises domestically, in desperation, they gamblled that this was such a situation. The results are yet to be determined.

• U.S. Debt Crisis Comes into View as Fed’s Balance Sheet Explodes Past $7 Trillion by Pam Martens and Russ Martens from their weblog Wall Street on Parade.

• How Patriarchy and Capitalism Combine to Aggravate the Oppression of Women by Denise Comanne from CADTM (Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt).

(Note: I've run out of time and energy for today.) 

Posts that I especially recommend today: Friday, May 22, 2020 (part 2 of 2 parts)

(Note: I have posted today's articles in two parts because I was worried about YouTube censors taking down an article in part one before you could view the video contained in this article.)

• COVID-19 Has Replaced Osama bin Laden as the Fall Guy for Lost Liberties by Robert Bridge from Strategic Culture Foundation.

• COVID-19: What Does Being Positive Really Mean? What Are We Really Detecting? by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny from Vaxxter.

• Washington’s New Anti-China Strategy by Thierry Meyssan from his weblog VoltaireNet (France). 

• Podcast: Aaron Mate Debunks RussiaGate and Discusses How Liberals Came to Love Bush-Era Neocons, an interview conducted by Mnar Muhawesh, founder of Mint Press News.

•  A Doctor a Day Letter - Signed uploaded from Scribd by Fox News.

More than 600 doctors signed a letter urging President Trump to end the nationwide coronavirus shutdowns and referred to orders issued by states that keep businesses closed as a “mass casualty incident” with devastating consequences. (From Washington Examiner)

• Fever: class struggle under pandemic from Fever: Class struggle under pandemic. (This article, written by the founders, introduces a new website.)

• Covid-19 Profiteers Are Making a Killing by Amber Colón Núñez from In These Times.

• Fed Chair Powell Promises “Transparency,” then Draws the Dark Curtain Tighter by Pam and Russ Martens from their weblog Wall Street on Parade.

• The Progressive International: The Center Left Attempts to Rescue Capitalism by Facundo Aguirre from Left Voice. (Note: This is about social-democrats trying to rescue capitalism.) 

• The Corona pandemic and the Struggle for our Peoples’ Resources and Food Sovereignty by Omar Aziki from TNI. 

• Potentially Fatal Combinations of Humidity and Heat Are Emerging Across the Globe by Kevin Krajick from State of the Planet. 

Posts that I especially recommend today: Friday, February 14, 2020

• A Short History of Humanity’s Future by Manuel García, Jr. from CounterPunch.

• January 2020 Temperature Anomaly from Arctic News. (Note: In the second graph I choose the red line as representing reality.)

• A Few Minutes to Save the World featuring Stuart Scott from UPFSI (United Planet Faith & Science Initiative). (Note: This conventionally religious guy has not given up on saving the "world", that is, life-forms on our Earth planet. One must have a lot of religious faith to ignore scientific facts.)

Stuart Scott quit his day job in 2008 to serve humanity and life on Earth full time as a climate change and eco-social strategist. Here is one of his first speeches at the UN climate talks, one of the 'intercessional' rounds of negotiations between the annual COPs, or Conferences Of Parties. Everything he said is as urgently relevant today as it was back then. But the climate talks have continued as a disingenuous ritual of 'kicking the can down the road', until now we are experiencing a climate emergency of huge proportions.

• Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia Merger: Global Empire of Dystopia? by Gilbert Mercier from News Junkie Post.

• Revolutionary Medicine by Alan Macleod posted on Titanic Lifeboat Academy. 

• Did World War III actually start on 26 July 1945? by Eric Zuesse from The Duran. 

(Note: Zuesse, as a social democrat, must distort certain details of history in order to salvage his view "That’s not what capitalism was supposed to be." Thus a ruling class becomes an aristocracy, government become a "regime", and he places too much emphasis on individuals to explain his social democratic view of 20th century history that turned capitalism (in his view) from a hopeful enterprise to a disaster.

However, as a stickler for truth, he presents a much more realistic view of history than do thoroughly capitalist-indoctrinated historians who largely rewrite history to manage social consent for the ongoing disastrous actions of the US ruling class. 

The latter saw opportunities in 1941 to construct an empire out of the rubble that WWII left behind. Like any good capitalist, early on the ruling class saw this exciting opportunity and launched their initial attempts to defeat all opposition whether domestic or abroad. Their domestic opponents posed a more serious threat in 1945, and the latter were to weak to resist. So, they began their attacks on labor unions with the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (also see this), and went on to weed out socialist-minded opponents in the film industry. This was only the beginning of an effort by the US capitalist ruling class to establish their own empire.

So, the simple answer to his question is a resounding "yes"! but not the individualist reasons he gives. The causes are systemic--capitalism.)

Posts that I especially recommend today: Monday, February 10, 2020

• Bernie Sanders' Commie Kill Swarm by CJ Hopkins, in my opinion the top US satirist, from his weblog Consent Factory, Inc. (Note: I thought it would be best to start off with a little satire to get you smiling before I hit you with the hammer of depressing news and analysis.)

• Thanks to clouds, new climate simulations predict more warming than predecessors by Simon Levey from Imperial College London. (Note: Scientists appear to have found another vicious feedback loop that is driving global temperatures higher.)

• A stark climate warning from the green swan by Kieran Cooke from Climate News Network.

• Australia's wildfires: Is this the 'new normal'? by Peter Sinclair from Yale Climate Connections. 

• Extreme Temperature Diary- Thursday February 6th, 2020/ Main Topic: Early February Record Scoreboard Update and Climatological Review by Guy Walton, meteorologist, from his weblog.

• Critique of Capitalism by Dru Oja Jay from Post-Capitalist Possibilities. 

• Trump outlines massive cuts in Medicaid and Medicare in 2021 budget plan by Kevin Reed from World Socialist Web Site. (Note: This will make the Deep State and US Treasury happy, but it will be sad news to the disappearing left--social democrats like Eric Zuesse, Chris Hedges, etc. in US politics.)

How the U.S. Created the Cold War (A re-post of an error ridden commentary on 12/22/2019)

(Note on this commentary: I feel it is necessary to re-post an important article and my commentary which I posted on 12/22/2019--since corrected--that included inappropriate links and a confusing explanation. On that date I inadvertently found a link to another version on his article posted on Washington's Blog (Sept. 9, 2019) that was also posted on Strategic Culture Foundation earlier in May. The latter article edited out some of his statements about capitalism which are included in this post.)

How the US Created the Cold War

Click here to access article by Eric Zuesse from Washington's Blog.

Unfortunately, the false history of WWII has been written by the ruling classes of the current US/Anglo/Zionist Empire through their well-paid propaganda agents throughout institutions of the Empire. In contrast, Zuesse offers a valuable source of the real truth, but his insights are limited by his social-democratic political orientation. 

This article (not the article posted in Strategic Culture Foundation) cleared up a number of questions I had about Eric Zuesse, the author. I have written several (at least) commentaries complaining about his use of the feudal term "aristocracy" instead of "ruling class" in his numerous articles. I saw this as reflecting his indoctrination in capitalist views mostly influenced by many years of education in US schools that he obviously had experienced. I was not wrong. In this article he clearly defines himself as a "progressive" by which he means his commitment to social democracy, a subset of capitalist ideologies, as illustrated by what has existed in the Scandinavian countries particularly after WWII when they had elaborate social welfare programs constructed on top of capitalist economies. Also, he is an admirer of FDR who saw the necessity of more elaborate welfare programs to preserve capitalism through the Great Depression. I gathered this from several paragraphs in the article such as:

Even other parts of that post-FDR system, such as the IMF, have served as siphons from publics around the world into the bank-accounts of the U.S. aristocracy and of its allied aristocracies. That’s not what capitalism was supposed to be. [Really?]

 And another quote:

Those weren’t “socialist” countries; they were dictatorial socialist (i.e., communist) countries, as opposed to democratic socialist (i.e., progressive) countries such as in Scandinavia — the proper term for what the Soviet alliance was is “communist,” not “socialist” — and there was a very big difference between the Scandinavian countries, versus the communist countries (though the U.S. regime wants to slur one by the other so as to sucker fools against democratic socialism — progressivism).

In other words, his "progressivism" is social democratic. He evidently believes that capitalism could be compatible with a sustainable Earth and that it could remain peaceful and just in spite of abundant contrary evidence throughout the relatively short history of capitalism.

Of further interest to me was a link in this article that brought me to an article in a publication that is followed by a section of the ruling class. This was published in Foreign Policy and entitled "The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did" that added a great deal of clarity regarding the use of atomic bombs on Japan as well as the budding Empire's intentions toward the Soviet Union.

Zuesse's contributions to the geopolitical realities of our world are essential, but what isn't essential is his left-liberal views (capitalism can be reformed, his use of "aristocracy" instead of "ruling class", etc.) about these realities.

The Yellow Vests, the Crisis of the Welfare State and Socialism [a must-read and understand]

Click here to access article by Michèle Brand posted on CounterPunch. 

This analysis of the welfare state ("social democracy") is brilliant, and a must-read and understood by you if there is any chance of survival of humans. The welfare state has been used as a weapon against workers in the advanced West to preserve the capitalist ruling classes and their system of  capitalism  that has delivered so much wealth and power to this tiny class. It has been used as a pacifier for workers of Western capitalist countries to prevent them from becoming too discontented with capitalist rule, but at the enormous expense and sacrifice to Third World workers. The only alternative which can save humanity from the twin threats to their survival--their habitat destroyed and a global nuclear war catastrophe--is a socialist system created by ordinary workers throughout the world.

The author concludes the analysis with this profound insight:

Socialism is what we should fight for. In abandoning the aspiration toward the welfare state model, we’re certainly not abandoning the struggle for workers’ rights, social services, and all the other advantages associated with the welfare state. We’re fighting for these with a clearer vision of the goal: socialism.

The yellow jacket movement’s weakness is the vagueness of its demands, calling for the return of the welfare state. But its force is its dynamism, its determination, its size, and its deep-set, justified feeling of anger at economic injustice and inequality. To win, we should stop looking backward, and start looking forward, toward the construction of socialism.

My commentary regarding yesterday's posts by Michael Hudson

by Ron Horn for this website. (Edited for clarity at 4:55 PM Seattle time.)

My dramatic reaction to these articles, but primarily the last post, was probably more of a personal nature. So I wasn't sure how much to share of my reaction with readers of this website. I will now attempt to share of a part of my personal reaction which might be relevant to a larger audience of people who are trying to make sense of the current times. 

My reaction stemmed from a sudden awareness that Hudson was a contemporary of mine. I had previously thought that, judging by appearances, that he was in his late 50s (age). But yesterday I realized that he was 79 and was nearly my age (approaching 81). This set me off in different directions parts of which I think is appropriate to share with my readers. I looked up his biography in Wikipedia, and found that Hudson's father was college educated and is described as a "Trotskyist" during the 1930s in Wikipedia. Then I thought about other scholars who had educated and sometimes radical parents such as Richard Wolff and Naomi Klein (red diaper granddaughter). 

In my own university education I ran across professors who sometimes expressed radical ideas. My family was from a rather poor, essentially working/farming class background. I looked up to college professors as sort of godlike figures who were engaged in truth-seeking. I have learned otherwise over the years since then. Many of those in institutions of higher learning are compromised politically by having to conform to capitalist ideas which inform every institution of Western society. People who refuse to do so, are screened out as they succeed (or not) to pass over the ideological hurdles they meet somewhere along the way in their schooling or careers. 

I've often wondered why some academic people use the word "Marxian" instead of "Marxist" with reference to themselves and types of literature. I just learned that this is a way for them to separate themselves as academics purely in pursuit of a study of a subject rather than being an advocate of Marxist ideas. Hence such people are accepted on this basis in academic institutions of higher learning. 

The point I wish to emphasize is that in capitalist societies, pro-capitalist ideas reign supreme while other ideas are merely tolerated if not banished. Education particularly in the United States is comprehensively influenced by capitalist ideas and values that are consistent with the current US-led Empire's ruling class's interests. That means both historical facts and contemporary ideas and values are promoted because capitalism is a culture as well as a political-economic system. Thus people who wish to advance their material interests must subscribe to the tenets of this culture, and it helps if they practice capitalist lifestyles by belonging to the appropriate associations, engage in activities such as golf, are good consumers, etc. People who spend a lot of time getting an advanced education in institutions of higher learning are subject to even longer years of capitalist indoctrination.

So, you may ask, what has this to do with Michael Hudson and his views? I think that Hudson is a perfect example of someone who was strongly influenced by his left-wing roots to hold anti-capitalist ideas, but during the course of his education he correctly decided that to pursue radical ideas was not a good career move. Thus he, and many others like him, gradually conformed by compromising his radical heritage into acceptable ideas of social democracy. You will never find Hudson using any words like "deep state" because he assumes that the official institutions really govern what happens in the US and that the election system and political parties are authentic means of expressing "democracy". Although he is critical of financial institutions and the ways they are distorting industrial capitalism, he does not take issue with the fundamental ideas of capitalism. What informs his many writings is that capitalism can be reformed to eliminate the corrupting influence of financial institutions. 

Thus Hudson points to the FDR administration which accepted many restrictions of banks and supported social welfare measures. What he leaves out is that FDR's administration was confronted by many truly militant organizations that threatened the capitalist system from the political left while on the right he was pulled in a fascist direction much like all the Western capitalist countries were. FDR saved the "democratic" facade that had served the ruling class so well for centuries. Hudson asks:

Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory roots of bygone days?

And he ends the essay with this statement which ties to his political roots:

As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the failure of the left to provide an alternative.

But Hudson's extolling of Bernie Sanders' politics and his identification of Michael Harrington as a "socialist" is a long way from his roots in his father's Trotskyist ideas of a revolutionary working class. I think his father is likely turning over in his grave.

What I do like about his essay is his opposition to identity politics over class politics. It's just that his class politics doesn't change the system at all, it would only soften it. I think Hudson does this to fool himself into believing that he uphold his father's radical views. You can't stop the logical dynamic of capitalist development into ever larger concentrations of profit and power, and even if you could, why work for such program? Capitalism has never served working people. It has only served the capitalist class and the 9% below the 1%, or the upper middle class which academics and other such radical poseurs are located. If one could suddenly eliminate this highly skilled, educated class stratum, capitalist rule would not last a week.

These are the people that true revolutionary activists need to be concerned about. They often take over activist movements and deflect them from truly revolutionary goals. Like I wrote in my commentary to the above linked-post regarding Eric London's article: 

This writer carves out an important strata in our capitalist structured society known as the upper middle class, a class consisting of about 9% of Americans who lie just below the 1% rich ruling class. These people are identified by sociologists as the upper middle class. London shows how this particular class plays such an important role for the ruling 1%. Malcolm X graphically described the role played by the middle class to a largely African-American audience with a metaphor drawn from an historical context of American slavery that is relevant here: the difference between a house Negro and a field Negro, or the difference between most workers and a special subset of workers who identify with the ruling capitalist class.

London zeros in on the critical role played by the upper middle class (business executives, academics, successful attorneys, professionals, trade union executives and trust fund beneficiaries) in supporting the ruling 1%, and specifically how they have used identity politics (aka "multiculturalism") to successfully divert attention and energies away from class-based political activism. Likewise this class have obscured their own role in perpetuating identity politics by pretending to be left oriented activists. His research shows that this upper-middle class loves and serves their capitalist masters so well and that they have been richly rewarded for their efforts--unlike those classes of workers below them. London concludes his analysis with this political lesson:

The working class comprises the vast majority of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants and produces all of the world’s wealth. It possesses immense potential power. But it can advance its own interests only if it is armed with an anticapitalist and socialist program based on the class struggle. In advancing the slogan for a party of the 99 percent, the pseudo-left is perpetrating a fraud aimed at preventing the development of such a struggle and preserving the capitalist system.

Big Brother Capitalism Strikes Back

Click here to access article by Paul Street from CounterPunch.

What the title refers to is how the capitalist ruled state fights government laws that serve worker interests while promoting and accomplishing support for the interests of capitalists. 

Social democracy, a euphemism formulated by capitalist intellectuals, was heavily promoted by US-led Empire capitalists in Europe following WWII as an antidote to popular interest in communist and worker-oriented ideas, and their organizations that threatened the rule of capitalists. Meanwhile Operation Gladio, under the direction of the CIA, was setup to counter this threat by force whenever necessary. The social democratic strategy permitted European governments to enact policies that provided workers with generous benefits. Thus, affected workers in these countries were lavished with long vacations, medical coverage, retirement benefits, representation on corporate boards of directors, etc.  These carrot and stick strategies worked very successfully to prevent socialist movements from taking control of governments that were under the military control of the Empire. Nowadays these benefits enjoyed by European workers are increasingly under attack.

Frequently ordinary Americans have been confused about the meaning of the term "social democracy". They often confuse this with socialism. We saw how Bernie Sanders added to this confusion by identifying himself as a socialist in the recent election campaign. This is a deliberate policy by the ruling class to distract ordinary people away from any thoughts of another social-economic system. And the gains of benefits by European workers under social democratic policies were always kept quiet in US media for fear that American workers would demand similar benefits.

Street in this article reviews the dedicated efforts by US capitalists to suppress benefits for American workers and implement policies that serve capitalist interests.

U.S. Big Business has long opposed social democratic governance in no small part because it knows that such state policy would enhance the workplace, marketplace, and political power of the working-class majority.  Naturally enough, it has waged a long war against government rules that used to support workers right to organize unions and bargain collectively. Darkly enough, workers unifying to enhance their collective marketplace bargaining power does not qualify as legitimate “free market” behavior as far as capital is concerned.

Beneath all its “free market” talk, capital isn’t opposed to “big government” as such.  It’s opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called “the left hand of the state” – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority.

A Short History of Liberal Myths and Anti-Labor Politics

Click here to access article by Sam Mitrani and Chad Pearson from CounterPunch.

Although I agree with much of this article, I also have serious criticisms. The article provides rich material for political consciousness raising--and to be sure, Americans need their consciousness raised from the low level where it presently resides. This latter observation is not a criticism of ordinary Americans so much as it is evidence of the ruling class's deliberate attempt to dumb down Americans and fill their heads with false dreams and a fake history that censors most of the realities of the history of class war.

For the positive parts of the article I like much of the real history that the authors present: the necessity of worker organizing to form a strong opposition to the ruling capitalist class. I also like the authors' exposé of the insidious role of liberals and social democrats to manage this opposition on behalf of capitalist interests.

This last category is extremely important to raise the political consciousness of ordinary Americans who have been fooled and manipulated countless times by liberals and social democrats who really serve the interests of capital. This is precisely the people whom Eric London wrote about in his article entitled "Wealth distribution in the United States and the politics of the pseudo-left". (See this post and my commentary because I'm not going to repeat myself.) 

This phenomenon of co-optation is a major weapon that the ruling capitalist class has used so effectively throughout history to manage opposition by workers. That is precisely why worker organizations must develop bottom-up authority structures in their organizations to counter this weapon. But workers must have a certain level of political consciousness, an understanding of their interests, and real understanding of labor history to function effectively in a bottom-up authority system. This presents a chicken-egg type of dilemma to which I don't have a good answer. Most ordinary Americans have been thoroughly indoctrinated to follow authority figures and conditioned to distrust each other; and likewise to look to powerful leaders, people who pretend to be in-the-know, or saviors for their salvation.

Now for my negative criticisms. The authors brief outline of history was faulty in the immediate post WWII period by labeling it as a labor "golden age". They didn't mention the backlash against labor unions that occurred during that period: the Taft-Hartley Act and the purging of radical labor leaders from unions during the McCarthy period. (For a good worker history of this period, see this.) To be sure workers enjoyed increases in wages and other gains, but this was solely due to the fact that US industry was completely intact whereas most industry in other advanced economies were destroyed because of the war. (The authors vaguely alluded to this reality.)

But the most damning criticism I've saved for last. The article was laced throughout by the theme of a "balance of forces" or "balance of power". This really represented their political view of labor and goal of organized labor in relation to the ruling capitalist class. Their unstated thesis is that labor should only strive to gain a powerful position and have their own political party to counter capitalist power so that they can insure that workers' interests are served. In their own words:

That is why the working-class needs its own political organization, one that puts its interests first. We need a political party that is not limited to elections, but recognizes that the mobilization of the working-class is the only thing that can change the balance of forces in our favor. Such a party would demand, at minimum, that no company making a profit should be allowed to lay off employees, and that if there is not enough work, any remaining work must be divided with no loss in pay. It would demand that corporate subsidies and tax breaks be banned, and that the wealthy and the corporations be taxed to pay for schools and services. We realize this is far from an original proposal, but the working-class has not had a political party representing its interests since Eugene Debs’s day.

Yes, indeed, it is "far from an original proposal"! The only new idea they advanced is that the Democratic Party does not serve workers' interests. But that's new?! This article is so typical of articles posted in CounterPunch. They pretend to be left-wing, but in fact they are thoroughly pro-capitalist in a mild sort of way...much like liberals and social democrats.

The 21st Century Doesn't Need a New Deal -- It Needs a New Economic Model

Click here to access article by C.J. Polychroniou from TruthOut.

For those of us who decided long ago the question of whether reform of the capitalism or the construction of a new system was needed to solve the many crises of capitalism, this article may seem sophomoric. Still, that is where many on the left in the US are today in their political thinking. The author in this article attempts to move these people from a reformist position to a radical position.

Why “Twenty-First-Century Socialism” Failed

Click here to access article by Eva María from Jacobin. 

This article is overly long and I think you can skip most of the first part. Why the author provides extensive quotes from capitalist media about the economic crises affecting these countries is a mystery to me. 

To access some of answers to the question posed by the headline, I suggest that you skip down to the section entitled "Stuck in Capitalism". However, even here you will not find the unequivocal statement that socialism cannot be constructed in a state where the economy is primarily privately owned. The latter is what divides any society into two basic classes: capitalists and workers, and the latter typically divides into working class and middle class which is paid more and tends to identify with the ruling capitalist class (much like Malcolm X's description of "field niggers" and "house niggers". Native capitalists, especially when backed by the US-led Empire, will always find a way to scuttle such social democratic experiments. 

Roots to Social Democracy/Capitalism, Socialism: The Failure of Social Democracy (Part 2 of 7) [A must read post]

Click here to access article by Ron Ridenour from Dissident Voice. (I am not posting Part 1 because I think it is largely subsumed in this post.)

This article offers the best, most accurate, most concise history of class conflict under capitalism in the 20th century that I have ever seen. Not that it's perfect because it leaves a lot of important details out such as Operation Gladio under the direction of the CIA which used terrorist methods against militant workers in Europe following WWII to insure that only capitalist parties would triumph. 

The fact that this sort of accurate history is so unusual is simply due to the triumph of capitalist classes, especially the dominant capitalist class in the US, following WWII. The emerging US capitalist class has tried, and largely succeeded, in re-writing the history of this post-WWII era and re-defining important political-economic concepts (socialism equals social democracy) to obscure the basic class conflict between ruling capitalist classes and workers to insure that capitalist interests prevailed. As a result we see the dominance of the US Empire in world affairs today and all the chaos, social problems, never-ending wars, and deterioration of the lives of ordinary people throughout the world.

It is clear to me and this history that social democracy has always been a temporary strategy by ruling capitalist classes to stave off working class interests in public ownership and control of economies.

...World War II was an economic boom for the USA [mostly for the capitalists]. Its weapons, oil, steel, auto, and construction industries grew manifold. Their surplus financed the Marshall Plan to rebuild the capitalist economies of Western Europe and prevent socialist-communist electoral victories. This policy succeeded, especially in Greece and Italy where a majority of workers were leftist.

Europe’s two largest political parties, the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, adopted and even extended welfare benefits enabled by the Marshall Plan. The “free market” has since largely replaced the state as the politically determining force, and the welfare model is no longer viewed as necessary.

Venezuela - a last warning

Click here to access article by Jorge Martín from In Defense of Marxism. 

Martin's analysis of current conditions in Venezuela impress me as being the best that I have seen. The discussion of the rightward move of major countries of South America is strangely mostly absent from leftist observers and intellectuals who follow events in that continent. This article is a major exception, and I think it is exceptional in its clarity of observations and reasoning.

What his analysis demonstrates is that there are no half-way measures in seeking a just society. One either supports an egalitarian social order or one supports a class dominated order. There are no half measures like social democracy (Venezuela) or reformist capitalism as we've seen in Brazil and Argentina that can last over the long run.

What has failed in Venezuela is not “socialism” as the capitalist media likes to highlight in their propaganda campaign. It is precisely the opposite. What has clearly failed is the attempt to introduce regulations in order to make capitalism work, even if only partially, in the interest of working people. The conclusion is clear: capitalism cannot be regulated. The attempt has led to economic dislocation on a massive scale.

The deteriorating situation is leaving revolutionary Venezuelans with the ultimate choice that oppressed people have faced throughout the history of class war expressed in slogans such as "Revolution or death!", "Patria o muerte" (Cuba), and "The people united can never be defeated" (Spain, Nicaragua, and other Spanish speaking countries). Other Venezuelans must decide either to join revolutionaries or else experience the gross exploitation and social injustice they've gone through in earlier periods.

An Austere Place of Refuge

Click here to access article by Joseph Grim Feinberg from LeftEast (based in Romania)

From the "About" section:

This is not an academic platform. Neither is it simply a news agency for the lefties about the region. It seeks to offer a mixture of theoretically – and analytically – informed contributions about current matters, local but not parochial, seeking to engage audiences beyond the national publics and beyond the academic circles. It aims to inform, illuminate and mobilize.

The aim is to constitute an alternative to the way we see the region....

The author attempts, and I believe he succeeds to a great extent, in shedding light on the recent changes in European politics and attitudes, particularly with regard to the immigration issue. This somewhat lengthy article is not something you can read quickly and superficially like so much other content on the World Wide Web.

The Causes and Consequences of Venezuelan Election Results

Click here to access article by Tamara Pearson from Telesur.

Bad news for all progressive people in South America and the world who have been fans of the "Bolivarian Revolution". This setback on top of the right-wing victory in Argentina in October, which I totally missed, is rather foreboding. Of course the Kirchner governments never pretended to be revolutionary, their policies only represented social-democratic efforts to salvage capitalism after the economic disaster of 1998-2002. 

I, too, was initially attracted to the "Bolivarian Revolution" and traveled to that country in late 2005 to find out more about it (see this, this, and this). I was rather disappointed or, at least, not terribly impressed as I was with the Nicaraguan Revolution of the Sandinistas during a similar trip in 1983. Perhaps that was why the US made such aggressive efforts to destabilize it by illegally hiring and training the mercenary army of the Contras who carried out terrorist operations against Nicaraguan clinics, schools, and other social projects.

The author tries to put a positive spin on the results in these two elections:

The consequences are serious, but do not necessarily mark the end. Despite its financial resources and support from international powers and elites, the opposition has not been strategic or intelligent and won't be strategic with this new power. .... Nevertheless, two such losses will no doubt cause some regional demotivation among progressives and have a significant impact on Latin American integration bodies.

Development From Below

Click here to access an interview by Jacobin a publisher with Vivek Chibber.

In early October, Jacobin publisher Bhaskar Sunkara spoke to Vivek Chibber, a professor of sociology at New York University, about the lessons of past periods of state-led development and what kind of movements could extract real concessions from capital today.

From a working class perspective Chibber offers some very insightful views about economic development experiences of poorer countries in both the nationalistic form of capitalism that was popular in the 20th century and the neoliberalism of the 21st century. Unfortunately he concludes with views about what he sees as the only realistic possibility today: a kind of social democracy. But what else can one expect from a person situated within the comfortable middle class of North American academia?

A "Schultz faction" undermines negotiations with Greece

Click here to access article from the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens.

It appears to me that this is a translation of an article published in the Greek language. 

For Americans to understand this article, we need to understand the use of language among Europeans. Those on the left of capitalist ideologues have historically tried to co-opt anti-capitalists by using the world "socialist" in the names of their parties. (Remember how even the capitalist funded Nazi party was actually named "National Socialist German Workers' Party"?) Many of these phoney anti-capitalist parties are known as "social democrats" among political scientists. The headline refers to Martin Schultz, a German politician who is a prominent social democrat and has a history of belonging to these phoney "socialist" parties. Such people are being used by European capitalists to bring the Greek debt crisis back under the control of European capitalists.

A potential success of the Leftist government under Alexis Tsipras is considered a threat against the power of the Social democrats in Europe, therefore a threat against the current political status [of capitalist rule].

Ballots or Bullets: Democracy and World Power

Click here to access article by James Petras from his website.

Petras provides this introduction to his essay in a PDF format.

The principal reason why Washington engages in military wars, sanctions and clandestine operations to secure power abroad is because its chosen clients cannot and do not win free and open elections.

A brief survey of recent election outcomes testify to the electoral unattractiveness of Washington backed clients. The majority of democratic electorates rejects candidates and parties which back the US global agenda: neo-liberal economic policies; a highly militarized foreign policy; Israeli colonization and annexation of Palestine; the concentration of wealth in the financial sector; the military escalation against China and Russia. While the US policy attempts to re-impose the pillage and dominance of the 1990’s via recycled client regimes the democratic electorates want to move on toward less bellicose, more inclusive governments, which restore labor and welfare rights.

The core reality which I think escapes the professor is that this compulsion to world dominance is an inherent characteristic of advanced capitalist societies. The earlier stages of capitalist development required elements of social democracy and democratic forms in order to preserve their legitimacy; however in this advanced stage which all capitalist countries strive to achieve, they find such liberal features to be a hindrance to their quest for control on a global scale of all resources and labor which their system of exploitation ultimately requires. Social democracy and elements of democracy such as elections and representative governments have always been only a temporary expedient to capitalist rulers.

In the drive for world power, no crime is left undone; no democracy that opposes it is
 tolerated. Countries as small and marginal as Honduran or Somalia or as great and powerful as Russia and China cannot escape the wrath and covert destabilization efforts of the White House.

The quest for world domination is driven by the subjective belief in the “triumph of the
 will”.

This last sentence gives his position away. By reference to Nazi Germany and their propaganda about the “triumph of the will”, he is suggesting that the current Fourth Reich's quest for dominance is merely another historical aberration. I don't think that Petras realizes that the capitalist drive for world domination is its ultimate destiny.