A Snake Cannot Change Its Markings

Administration Reshuffle?

NORMAN POLLACK

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]r if you prefer (to be tactful), a leopard cannot change its spots–but either way, skipping to the chase, the Obama administration, signals coming out of possible staff changes, it wouldn’t matter, the nature of the beast being the narrowed bounds of counterrevolution, global hegemony, surveillance, a clogged stream of war, intervention, deregulation, assassination, within whose confines America is pushing the envelope of 20th century fascism dressed as 21st century liberal humanitarianism. Markings/spots don’t wash off. The beast, the Democratic party, has inscribed in its DNA from Truman through Obama a core of antiradicalism happily transmuted into fervid anticommunism then, not skipping a beat, because the same essential political-ideological formation holds, counterterrorism, and now exemplar of democracy conferring world leadership. With baseness of this character, who needs Republicans? The country’s Capitalist Soul can be fully entrusted to Democrats, even more so, because the level of sophistication creating deception and false consciousness is even greater. And radicalism? Where did that disappear to? Swept by the same stream into the river Styx.
ALWAYS CLICK ON IMAGES TO EXPAND THEM

Mark Landler’s New York Times article, “Obama Could Replace Aides Bruised by a Cascade of Crises,” (Oct. 30), conjures up dedicated officials worn out from fighting the good fight (never fully identified by either him or them, except as perhaps against a generalized, amorphous terrorism) on track, yet forced by world circumstances to address simultaneous multiple crises none of our own making. Landler puts well the sense of Innocence backed against the wall (no doubt the prevalent feeling—who us? did we do anything wrong?) possibly necessitating staff changes, not because of false policy decisions made having war-crimes implications, but simply, exhaustion in the service of the country. He writes: “At a time when the Obama administration is lurching from crisis to crisis—a looming Cold War in Europe, a brutal Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and a deadly epidemic in West Africa—it is not surprising that long-term strategy would take a back seat. But it raises inevitable questions about the ability of the president and his hard-pressed national security team to manage and somehow get ahead of the daily onslaught of events.”

I beg to differ. “Hard-pressed,” perhaps; meetings for planning drone assassination, covert operations, identifying and magnifying an Enemy (to justify the military implementation of US global management, financial-commercial penetration on an expanding basis, and assuring social docility at home through stoking an appetite for foreign conquest), can be exhaustive work. The Obama engine of Imperialism never shuts off. From the administration’s standpoint, the good thing, however, is that the supply of certifiable planners-ideologues never shuts off—as though a mold has been created, at Harvard, think tanks, or the swamplands of liberal/Centrist politicians never long out of public service. Credentials are easy to obtain: passing the f-scale (fascism) of the Adorno, et. al., Authoritarian Personality study, CIA-Pentagon experience, and proven hard-line attitudes and performance in previous administrations. The supply of those eager to prove their mettle by going up against Putin and Li is seemingly inexhaustible.

The Obama engine of Imperialism never shuts off.

But “lurching,” emphatically not; a consistency of aggressive design (our concern here is foreign policy, but the consistency in domestic policy interrelated with but distinct from the former should be noted), the rhetorical liberalization of imperialism, and ingrained convictions of inevitable Great-Powers conflict which places preemptive nuclear war tucked away on the near-margins of political discourse yet ready for use at all times, all signify the defining contours, indeed, the entrance gate and ticket of admission to Team Obama. Peaceniks are not wanted. Stay out. The reason this is not noticed is the unexceptional character of the foreign-policy paradigm. It’s been around a long time. Obama vibrates at one with the American people on the rawness, assumptions, and underlying edge favoring global hegemony (his low poll ratings partly a function of not sizing up the man properly, which is to say, his profoundly militaristic view of the world and comfort with the military and intelligence communities). What appears, then, as lurching can be attributed to the one factor a fascist-inclined mind-set (here, toss in the whole team, from Rice and Power to Brennan, Dempsey, right—and I mean right—down the line to agency heads, speechwriters, public intellectuals, etc.) never seems to reckon with: the consequences of policy, i.e., commonly known as blowback, but in addition, the temerity of those wronged and violated to want to fight back.

Obama’s record is not one of ineptitude, as some seem to think, but rock-bottom counterrevolution in order to keep the US on top of the power pyramid.

ALWAYS CLICK ON IMAGES TO EXPAND THEM
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Norman Pollack has written on Populism. His interests are social theory and the structural analysis of capitalism and fascism. He can be reached at pollackn@msu.edu.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.

‘PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTS’ IN HK

SPECIAL DISPATCH FROM HONG KONG
By ANDRE VLTCHEK
Text and photos by the author, unless otherwise noted. Please be sure to click on the images to appreciate the details.

Westerners mingle with local protesters. Many questions and much incomprehension, side by side.

For decades Hong Kong has been a turbo-capitalist, extremely consumerist, and aggressive society. Its people are facing some of the most unrealistic prices on earth, particularly for housing…

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat is it? It is not orange or green, and definitely not red! It has an umbrella as its symbol. ‘That humble umbrella’, as many people in Hong Kong are often saying.

But is it really benign?

We are talking, of course, about the ‘democracy protests’ in Hong Kong, also known as ‘the Umbrella Movement’; the latest addition of the ‘popular uprisings’ promoted by the West!

At the North Point in Hong Kong, near Kowloon Ferry, a middle-aged man is waving a banner that reads “Support Our Police”. On the photo, the tents and umbrellas of the ‘pro-democracy’ ‘Occupy Central’ protest movement (also known as the ‘Umbrella Movement’) are depicted in sepia, a depressing color.

“Are you against the protesters?” I ask the man.

“I am not for or against them”, he replies. “But it is known that they have some 1 million supporters here. While all of Hong Kong has over 7 million inhabitants. We think that it is time to clear the roads and allow this city to resume its normal life.”

“On the 28. September”, I continue, “Police fired 87 canisters of tear gas at the protest site, and now this fact is being used in the West and here as some proof of police brutality and of Beijing’s undemocratic rule. Protesters even commemorated this event few days ago, as if that would turn them to martyrs…”

“They are spoiled”, a man smiled. “They mostly come from very rich families in one of the richest cities on earth. They don’t know much about the world. I can tell you that the students in Beijing know actually much more about the world… 87 canisters of tear gas are nothing, compared to what happened in Cairo or in Bangkok. And in New York, police was dragging and beating protesters, even female protesters, during the endgame of the Occupy Wall Street drama.”

Earlier I spoke to my friend, a top Western academic who is now teaching in Hong Kong. As always, he readily supplied me with his analyses, but this time, he asked me not to use his name. Not because of fear of what Beijing could do, but simply because it could complicate his position in Hong Kong. I asked him whether the ‘opposition movement’ is actually homegrown, or supported from abroad, and he replied:

“To answer the question as to foreign interference in Occupy Central, we would have to answer yes. As a global city par excellence Hong Kong is more than exposed to international currents and ideas and, historically, that has also been the case. Doubtless as well certain of the pan-Democrat camp have shaken hands with international ‘do-gooders’, a reference to various US or western-based ‘democracy endowments’ or foundations active across the globe. Taiwan may have a leg in. A British Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee seeks to wade in. But “foreign interference” is seen here as Beijing’s call echoed by C.Y. Leung and with the letter holding back from naming the culprits.”

The protesters have an alarmingly skewed view of “democracy”. Western propaganda has penetrated deeply. Spitefully, they regard Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador as “dictatorships.”

Protesters may have some legitimate grievances. They want direct elections of the chief executive, and there is, in theory, nothing wrong with such a demand. They want to tackle corruption, and to curb the role of local tycoons. That is fine, too.

The problem is, that the movement is degenerating into a Beijing bashing mission, happily supported by both Western and local (pro-business and pro-Western) mass media.

Several students that I spoke to, at Admiralty and Mong Kok sites, did not even bother to hide their hatred towards the Communist system, and towards the government in Beijing. All of them were denying crimes that are being committed by Western nations, all over the world, or they were simply not aware of them. ‘Democracy’ to them means clearly one and only thing – the system or call it regime, that is being defined, promoted and exported by the West.

“China is surely on the right side of the history”, I tried, at Admiralty, when I met protesters on the 31th October. “Together with Russia and Latin America it is standing against the brutal Western interventions worldwide and against Western propaganda.”

I was given looks of bewilderment, outrage and wrath.

I asked students what do they think about Venezuela, Bolivia, or Ecuador?

“Dictatorships”, they replied, readily and with spite.

I asked them about Bangkok and those ‘pro-democracy movements and demonstrations’ conducted against the democratically elected government; demonstrations that led to the coup performed by the elites and the army on behalf of the West.

I asked about ‘pro-democracy’ demonstrations against democratically elected President Morsi in Egypt, and about yet another military and pro-Western coup that brought army back to power. In Egypt, several thousand people died in the process. The West and Israel rejoiced, discreetly.

But the Hong Kong students ‘fighting’ for democracy knew absolutely nothing about Thailand or derailment of the Arab Spring.

They also could not make any coherent statements about Syria or Iraq.

I asked about Russia and Ukraine. With those topics they were familiar, perfectly. I immediately received quotes as if they were picked directly from the Western mass media: “Russia is antagonizing the world… It occupied Crimea and is sending troops to Ukraine, after shooting down Malaysian airliner…”

Back to Hong Kong and China, two girls, protesters, at Admiralty, clarified their point:

“We want true democracy; we want rights to nominate and to elect our leaders. Local leader now is a puppet. We hate communism. We don’t want dictatorship like in China.”

I asked what do they really want? They kept repeating “democracy”.

“What about those hundreds of millions that China raised from misery? What about China’s determined stand against Western imperialism? What about its anti-corruption drive? What about BRICS? What about its attempt to rejuvenate socialism through free medical care, education, subsidized culture, transportation and mixed/planned economy?”

Is there anything good, anything at all, that China, the biggest and the most successful socialist country on earth, is doing?

Brian, a student at Mong Kok, explained:

“We want to express our views and elect our own leader. It is now dictatorship in China. They chose the committee to elect our leader. We want to have our own true democracy. Our model is Western democracy.”

I asked at both protest sites about brutality of British colonialism. I received no reply. Then I noticed quotes by Winston Churchill, a self-proclaimed racist and a man who never bothered to hide his spite for non-white, non-Western people. But here, Churchill was considered to be one of the champions of democracy; his quotes glued to countless walls.

Then I noticed ‘John Lennon Wall, with the cliché-quotes like’: “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one”.

The Hong Kong protest movement reeks of upper middle class bourgeois consciousness, including its cloying cheap sentimentality and unexamined worshipping of Western “heroes”, like Churchill.

What exactly were they dreaming about, I was not told. All I saw were only those omnipresent banalities about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’.

There were Union Jacks all over the place, too, and I even spotted two English bulldogs; extremely cute creatures, I have to admit, but explaining nothing about the aspirations of the protesters.

While hardly anyone speaks English here, anymore, all cultural, ideological and propaganda symbols at the demonstrations and the ‘occupy’ sites, were somehow related to the West.

And then, on the 29 September, in the evening, near Admiralty, I spotted a group of Westerners, shouting and getting ready for ‘something big’.

I approached one of them; his name was John and he came from Australia:

“I have lived in Hong Kong for quite some time. Tonight we organized a run from here to Aberdeen, Pok Fu Lam, and back here, to support the Umbrella Movement. Several foreigners that are participating in this have lived in HK for some time, too.”

I wondered whether this could illustrate the lack of freedom and Beijing heavy-handedness?

I tried to imagine what would happen under the same circumstances, in the client states of Washington, London and Paris, in the countries that are promoted by the West as ‘vibrant democracies’.

What would happen to me, if I would decide to organize or join a marathon in Nairobi, Kenya, protesting against Kenyan occupation of Somalia or against bullying of the Swahili/Muslim coast? What would they do to me, if, as a foreigner, I would trigger a run in the center of Jakarta, demanding more freedom for Papua!

Thinking that I am losing my marbles and with it, objectivity, I texted a diplomat based in Nairobi. “Wouldn’t they deport me?” I was asking. “Wouldn’t they see it as interference in the internal affairs of the country?”

“They would deport you” the answer arrived almost instantly. “But before that, you would rot for quite some time in a very unsavory detention [spot]”.

I thought so…

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. The result is his latest book: “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. ‘Pluto’ published his discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. His feature documentary, “Rwanda Gambit” is about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.

Election Boycott Advocates, rising

We did not vote ourselves into this mess and we cannot vote ourselves out of it.
-Adolph Reed, Jr.

Exploring the logic behind election boycotts, election boycott.weebly.com

PREAMBLE

Hard-faced shills for the corporate super-rich. Their expression tells it all. They know what they are doing, and it's not working for the 99%.

A great deal of the rejectionist mood sweeping the United States stems from the repeated betrayals of the Democratic party, and the huge expectations of progressive change aroused by the presidency of Barack Obama.

Since the 1950s Americans increasingly stopped voting. Even in the historic 2008 Obama election with a record number of African Americans and youth turning out, only 58 percent voted. In non-presidential Congressional elections, less than 40 percent vote. While voting advocates charge apathy and laziness, most nonvoters say they are fed up with a corrupt government and elections with no reasonable choice. In recent elections, non-voters have been the majority, and if they had been a political party, would have been by far the largest party in America.

The loss of faith in the government is not only reflected in low voter turnout; the most recent Gallop Poll found only 7 percent have a positive view of Congress.

Laws restricting third party participation, an elections system that favors money over votes, a two-party system that has no room for any other than the official liberal and conservative ideologies, a Supreme Court that protects the right of billionaires to buy elections and politicians. Why bother, the majority of Americans ask as they throw their hands up in exasperation with a system that just doesn’t work for them.

Isn’t it time to consider joining together with other non-voters to create a massive Election Boycott of US Elections?

Explore the website to learn more. To learn why so many are turning the current silent boycott into a militant act of electoral defiance, click here.

by Danny Haiphong –
Re-posted from Black Agenda Report | June 17 2014

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he left should not participate in, “and thus provide consent for, the rule of imperialism every four years.” Say “No” to the charade. “Barack Obama’s two-term presidency has been a lesson for the entire left that voting for a Wall Street politician within the imperialist state can only bring more misery and political confusion, not less.”

“The two-party US political system more clearly than ever works exclusively in the interests of the imperialist ruling class.”

There are many dangerous trends emerging from progressive and revolutionary forces in the US. One of the most concerning is a growing focus on electoral campaigns as a tactic to achieve grassroots objectives. The electoral victories of Kshama Sawant, Chokwe Lumumba (Rest in Power), and Ras Baracka are a clear indication of popular discontent with austerity, gentrification, and privatization in US cities under capitalist siege. However, whatever encouragement these victories provide cannot resolve the contradictions of US capitalism. The primary purpose of US capitalism’s state machinery is to manage the affairs of the ruling class. This poses the important question of whether electing representatives into political office is a worthy tactic for the left or whether it should be abandoned all together.

Historical Context of Capitalist State-Reform and the US left

The English colonizers, after defeating the British Crown in the American (counter) Revolution, made it clear that African slaves, property-less Whites, women, and indigenous people would have zero decision-making power in who would represent them in the newly formed US nation-state. As US capitalism industrialized, property restrictions were lessened to further privilege White Americans into “citizenship” at the expense of Black and indigenous people. From the very beginning, electoral politics were a stage where capitalists performed for the state power needed to manage the profits obtained from racism and labor exploitation.

US government hostility to the interests of the working class and oppressed understandably deterred the left from pushing revolutionary goals through electoral politics. Prominent socialists like Eugene Debs ran for President a handful of times with little success. For the most part, leftists understood that running candidates for political office was a drain on resources and political morale. So, rather than run candidates, the left organized people to win concrete victories from the capitalist state in specific historical moments. Progressive labor and civil rights legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act and the National Labor Relations Act, were won because the collective organization of workers and victims of white supremacy presented a direct threat to the interests of capitalism. What made such gains so important was how they expanded popular vision of what was possible and at the same time failed to fully transform the inherent antagonisms of the US capitalist social order. Poor Black and colonized peoples in the US, largely excluded from state-reforms, saw no other option but to demand complete self-determination and liberation from capitalist domination.

“George Jackson warned that imperialism ensured that the US government could no longer reform itself in the last stage of capitalism.”

Most whites have negative, racist and above all ignorant views of George Jackson, but he remains one of the most important revolutionary thinkers in modern America.

George Jackson was a leader of the Black liberation movement that was partly inspired by inadequate state-reforms. Jackson wrote extensively in his book Blood in my Eye (1971) on the changing nature of capitalist state-reform. He learned quickly from his experiences organizing for the Black liberation movement from behind the walls that there was nothing left that Black America could wrestle from the US capitalist state. The conditions of the working class were on the decline. Prior reforms had improved the economic conditions of White America while doing virtually nothing for the economic needs of poor Black and indigenous nations. Jackson concluded that these developments were evidence of US capitalism’s last stage: imperialism.

Jackson warned that imperialism ensured that the US government could no longer reform itself in the last stage of capitalism to appease certain sectors of its exploited subjects. And he was, and still is, correct. The ruling class went on an offensive that has yet to end, brutally repressing revolutionary upheaval in the US while making calculated and necessary changes to ensure the survival of capitalism on the global stage. Some of these changes included ending of the Vietnam War, monopolizing corporate power into the realm of finance, and most importantly for the purposes of this article, opening up avenues to Black candidacy in corporate and political office. These “reforms” isolated revolutionary organizations like the Black Panther Party and re-directed popular energy toward what the imperialist ruling class deemed acceptable forms of political participation.

Boycott the Vote!

George Jackson’s analysis points to the need to direct political energy away from participation in the imperialist state. Popular mistrust in the US government is at a high point, as shown by low voter-turnouts and percentages of Presidential and Congressional approval. However, the political vacuum created by imperialism has strengthened the illusion of legitimacy around running candidates for political office. This contradiction exists despite the fact that the two-party US political system more clearly than ever works exclusively in the interests of the imperialist ruling class.

The political party for bankrupt liberal leftists, the Democratic Party, has jointly expanded the prison state, austerity, surveillance, war, poverty, and by extension, corporate rule with its Republican counterparts. Still, both Democrats and Republicans rhetorically perform a show of opposition for the corporate media. And in no other historical period has any President provided a more effective assault on oppressed people for the imperialist ruling class. Barack Obama’s two-term presidency has been a lesson for the entire left that voting for a Wall Street politician within the imperialist state can only bring more misery and political confusion, not less.

“Occupy Chicago activists burned their voter registration cards outside of Obama’s campaign office.”

So while some organizations like Socialist Alternative are seeking city council victories to achieve goals such as a $15 per/hour minimum wage, others are organizing to boycott US electoral politics all together. In 2012, a group of organizers campaigned for an election boycott of the Presidential election. The campaign emphasized a shift in consciousness around the act of voting. Instead of voting for the Democratic or Republican Parties of imperialism and legitimizing their rule, the campaign called on people to actively withhold their vote. This meant not only being absent from the polls as individuals, but also collectively organizing others to withhold their vote in opposition to the electoral charade of the capitalist class.

Although Obama was re-elected President, the efforts of boycott organizers were not in vein. Numerous tactics were employed to make the stand against US imperialism’s elections visible. Occupy Chicago activists burned their voter registration cards outside of Obama’s campaign office. Organizer Terri Lee and others presented the idea of an election boycott to as many media sources and events as possible, which included venues such as the Left Forum. As a collective, the boycott organizers were most concerned with positioning themselves as a left movement that refused to vote in, and thus provide consent for, the rule of imperialism every four years. This is an important position that deserves serious ideological and practical consideration from leftist formations in the US imperial center.

Conclusion

US governmental elections are advertised as a staple of Western “democracy” by the imperialist ruling class. However, the fact remains that elections under this racist, capitalist, neo-colonial system only legitimize the rule of the capitalist class over its exploited subjects. Electoral politics are movement killers, not movement builders. In the 1970’s, the Oakland chapter of the Black Panther Party split with the more militant chapters around the country and began focusing on mayoral and city council campaigns. Each campaign drained the resources of the Party and diluted the revolutionary ideological foundation that had once inspired young, working class Black Americans.

“Sawant’s election has helped begin the process of removing the “Fight for $15” out of the streets and into the seats of bourgeois government.”

Kshama Sawant’s city council victory in Seattle will inevitably run into similar issues in the fight for a $15/hr minimum wage. It already appears her election has helped begin the process of removing the “Fight for $15” out of the streets and into the seats of bourgeois government. Additionally, Sawant’s recent appearances on Democracy Now! alarmingly argued for mass movement forces to run “third party” candidates for political office and emulate her victory around the country. If history is our guide, than Sawant’s strategy needs reconsideration. Malcolm X, in his speech The Ballot or the Bullet, cautioned Black left political forces on the limitations of merely exercising the right to vote with a vow of non-violence despite the white racist terror that awaited them at the polls. In this period, the right to vote has been rolled back by the same imperialist state the vote legitimizes. The US imperialist system only guarantees incorporation of revolutionary and progressive objectives into the imperialist state machinery. This spells defeat of, not victory for, working class power in contrary to what Sawant claims.

An organized election boycott has the potential of channeling the mistrust that most left-leaning folks have with the US imperial state into concrete political action. Instead of electing city council members, let’s confront our municipal officials that are hell-bent on selling neighborhoods and assets to the corporate ruling class. Let’s confront our elected officials in Washington for their service of empire and corporate power. The left’s most important task in this period is to take principled positions against US imperialism. Electing “third party” candidates into this machinery won’t do this, but campaigns such as an election boycott give us a chance to fight for transformation of the imperialist system we so desperately need.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Danny Haiphong is an activist and case manager in the Greater Boston area. You can contact Danny at: wakeupriseup1990@gmail.com.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.

1918

Michael Parenti
As seen on dandelionsalad

Italian soldiers visited by Rudyard Kipling in WW1.

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ooking back at the years of fury and carnage, Colonel Angelo Gatti, staff officer of the Italian Army (Austrian front), wrote in his diary: “This whole war has been a pile of lies. We came into war because a few men in authority, the dreamers, flung us into it.”

No, Gatti, caro mio, those few men are not dreamers; they are schemers. They perch above us. See how their armament contracts are turned into private fortunes—while the young men are turned into dust: more blood, more money; good for business this war.

It is the rich old men, i pauci, “the few,” as Cicero called the Senate oligarchs whom he faithfully served in ancient Rome. It is the few, who together constitute a bloc of industrialists and landlords, who think war will bring bigger markets abroad and civic discipline at home. One of i pauci in 1914 saw war as a way of promoting compliance and obedience on the labor front and—as he himself said—war “would permit the hierarchal reorganization of class relations.”

Just awhile ago the heresies of Karl Marx were spreading among Europe’s lower ranks. The proletariats of each country, growing in numbers and strength, are made to wage war against each other. What better way to confine and misdirect them than with the swirl of mutual destruction. Meanwhile, the nations blame each other for the war.

Italian trench with men wearing gas masks. (WW1—”La Grande Guerra”)

Then there are the generals and other militarists who started plotting this war as early as 1906, eight years before the first shots were fired. War for them means glory, medals, promotions, financial rewards, inside favors, and dining with ministers, bankers, and diplomats: the whole prosperity of death. When the war finally comes, it is greeted with quiet satisfaction by the generals.

But the young men are ripped by waves of machine-gun bullets or blown apart by exploding shells. War comes with gas attacks and sniper fire, grenades and artillery barrages, the roar of a great inferno and the sickening smell of rotting corpses. Torn bodies hang sadly on the barbed wire, and trench rats try to eat away at us, even while we are still alive.

Farewell, my loving hearts at home, those who send us their precious tears wrapped in crumpled letters. And farewell my comrades. When the people’s wisdom fails, moguls and monarchs prevail and there seems to be no way out.

Fools dance and the pit sinks deeper as if bottomless. No one can see the sky, or hear the music, or deflect the swarms of lies that cloud our minds like the countless lice that torture our flesh. Crusted with blood and filth, regiments of lost souls drag themselves to the devil’s pit. “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’entrate.” (Abandon all hope, ye who enter.)

Meanwhile from above the Vatican wall, the pope himself begs the world leaders to put an end to hostilities “lest there be no young men left alive in Europe.” But the war industry pays him no heed.

Finally the casualties are more than we can bear. There are mutinies in the French trenches! Agitators in the Czar’s army cry out for “Peace, Land, and Bread”! At home, our families grow bitter. There comes a breaking point as the oligarchs seem to be losing their grip.

At last the guns are mute in the morning air. A strange almost pious silence takes over. The fog and rain seem to wash our wounds and cool our fever. “Still alive,” the sergeant grins, “still alive.” He cups a cigarette in his hand. “Stack those rifles, you lazy bastards.” He grins again, two teeth missing. Never did his ugly face look so good as on this day in November 1918. Armistice comes like a quiet rapture.

A big piece of the encrusted aristocratic world breaks off. The Romanovs, Czar and family, are all executed in 1918 in Revolutionary Russia. That same year, the House of Hohenzollern collapses as Kaiser Wilhelm II flees Germany. Also in 1918, the Ottoman empire is shattered. And on Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, at 11:00 a.m.—the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month—we mark the end of the war and with it the dissolution of the Habsburg dynasty.

Four indestructible monarchies: Russian, German, Turkish, and Austro-Hungarian, four great empires, each with millions of bayonets and cannon at the ready, now twisting in the dim shadows of history.

Will our children ever forgive us for our dismal confusion? Will they ever understand what we went through? Will we? By 1918, four aristocratic autocracies fade away, leaving so many victims mangled in their wake, and so many bereaved crying through the night.

Back in the trenches, the agitators among us prove right. The mutinous Reds standing before the firing squad last year were right. Their truths must not be buried with them. Why are impoverished workers and peasants killing other impoverished workers and peasants? Now we know that our real foe is not in the weave of trenches; not at Ypres, nor at the Somme, or Verdun or Caporetto. Closer to home, closer to the deceptive peace that follows a deceptive war.

Now comes a different conflict. We have enemies at home: the schemers who trade our blood for sacks of gold, who make the world safe for hypocrisy, safe for themselves, readying themselves for the next “humanitarian war.” See how sleek and self-satisfied they look, riding our backs, distracting our minds, filling us with fright about wicked foes. Important things keep happening, but not enough to finish them off. Not yet enough.

Waiting for Yesterday: Pages from a Street Kid’s Life (an ethnic memoir about his early life in Italian Harlem; 2013); and Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies (forthcoming early 2015). For further information about his work, visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.

THE HEAD OF PUTIN

russiaDesklogo1

Who will remove the head of the Russian President and offer it on a platter to the USA?

President Putin (AP) | (click to expand)

The Plot of Russian Liberals Against Putin

By Vasily Koltashov and Boris Kagarlitsky[1]
Translated from the Russian by Gaither Stewart

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t seems that Russian authorities have found a way towards accommodation with the West. Liberals have become more powerful and are leading the talks.[2] They are ready to make concessions and see no problem in the sacrifice of Novorossiya, and, if necessary, even Russia’s own interests. There’s just one remaining question: who will remove the Russian President’s head and present it on a platter to the USA?

Negotiations between Russia and the West about ending the “sanctions war” and resolving the crisis in Ukraine are moving full speed ahead. This was spoken of in October at the G20 finance ministers’ talks in the USA. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the subject with Secretary of State John Kerry. The Ukrainian question will be a major subject for many participants at the G20 summit in Australia. Although Russian authorities deny they will ask for revocation of the sanctions, talks are underway about this issue. It was precisely for this that Moscow began the dialogue with the West, reduced its criticism of the Kiev regime, allowed the latter’s military forces time to regroup by agreeing to the Minsk ceasefire, and blocked delivery of ammunition to Novorossiya. And also obliged dependent Donetsk political leaders to accept compromising decisions smacking of one-sided capitulation. Field commanders and the people of the Donbass will never accept these conditions, but the Russian elite is not yet aware of this since it has a poor understanding of what “the people” really amounts to.

Already in August the EU ambassador in Moscow remarked that the sanctions could be revoked. The Minsk talks showed that Russian authorities had begun bargaining with their Western partners and were ready for concessions. Moscow’s goodwill was expressed in its reductions of supplies of weapons to Novorossiya, a purging within its political leadership and a distancing from its military leaders. Moscow is playing no small part in the weakening of the defensive capabilities of the territories in revolt. If talks with the West proceed successfully, then the Russian leadership will “concede”: it will permit troops of the Kiev government to begin a new attack, leaving the struggling Novorossiya without support.

The presidential administration and the government are working in agreement, without obvious contradictions. Everything points to a new strengthening of the Liberal camp within the regime, and to the acceptance by Vladmir Putin of the liberals’ overall plan. And the blame lies with the economic situation, the markets, financial problems and the fears of the elites.

In the autumn world oil prices sank unexpectedly sharply. In mid-October the price of a barrel of “black gold” fell to US $85. Russia’s economic situation worsened swiftly, but no one in the government intends changing course. Although, in effect, precisely that course – long before the economic sanctions pushed Russia to its own economic sanctions – is the fundamental reason for the current difficulties. The governing circles count on the world market and refuse to develop the internal market, which would mean the search for a social compromise (concessions to workers). The reduction of imports in favor of domestic production and a radical change of personnel remain simply topics for conversation. The real work of the government is directed toward conciliation with the West in order to maintain the neoliberal course.

Sanctions imposed by the USA, EU and other governments have proven to be effective. But it was not this that undermined our economy, but because they scared our elites. They showed Russia’s governing class its financial vulnerability. Still, precisely the fall in raw material prices on the global market was the signal for the elite that further exchange of sanctions was dangerous. The restriction of deliveries of Russian goods to the European market will contradict WTO regulations. But the introduction of such sanctions is very possible in conditions of a fall in demand and the growth of competition. The USA permitted Iranian hydrocarbons to [be shipped to] Europe, and Moscow lowered its tone—it is surrendering its positions and intends bargaining for stability instead. But if the state builds its economic policy on the export of raw materials, it will never be either independent or a really powerful player in international politics.

However much we are told of “Russian imperialism”, contemporary Russia is above all a dependent, peripheral country, whose ruling class does not wish to carry out a transformation which would permit genuine independence and influence in the world – because these transformations would inevitably hurt the interests of the contemporary elite. At least, the interests of an important part of it.

Aleksandr Zakharchenko, Donetsk’s Republic PM. Maybe he has something to say about all these deals behind Novorossiya’s back. (Click to expand)

The Russian authorities have already made clear to the USA and the EU that they reject any possibility of the uprising being victorious throughout the whole of Ukraine. They have blockaded it on the territories occupied by the militias. Throughout the summer the Kremlin’s chief political advisor, Vladislav Surkov, worked on defusing the rebellious Donbass. But aid to the Kiev regime and subsequent agreement with the West did not succeed. The other side did not accept the counter-plan. In Moscow they decided that they faced two problems: the excessively principled “Colorados” [Ukrainian slang for the Donbass fighters] and the USA. Within the government, the supporters of the struggle gradually grew weaker. Putin designed an internal compromise, whose essence is: negotiations and concessions in order to normalize relations with the West.

Sacrificing Novorossiya, relying on European ruling circles and appeasing the USA—such is the current plan of the domestic elites in order to end the conflict. They understand this very well in Brussels and Washington and enter step by step into the negotiation game with Moscow. But while the Russian ruling class strives only to defend its positions and assets in the West, North American and European capital needs to make gains at Russia’s expense. This includes not only the full occupation of Ukraine, whilst allowing the formal retention of the Crimea by Moscow, but accessibility to the Russian market, its assets and raw material resources.

The USA and the EU know that strong governments in Russia are the product of the growth of powerful business and its organization. The presence of a strong guardian and government in the figure of the present state permitted the corporations to more effectively compete and develop. Thus sanctions are intended to divide Russian capital, while talks and concessions weaken the state apparatus that obstructs the ability of the West to agitate among the population for regime change. A long process of bargaining between Moscow and its partners should strengthen even more the positions of the bureaucrats-Liberals. They are likely to achieve greater importance in the eyes of big business. Then the West will pose the question of removing the arbiter of Russian politics, Vladimir Putin, discredited in the eyes of the “civilized world”.

Sacrificing Novorossiya, relying on European ruling circles and appeasing the USA—such is the current plan of the domestic elites in order to end the conflict.

The West demands Putin’s head without fail. It is not only a question of the reputation of Western politicians who have already branded the Russian President, and now need to complete the plot of the latest victory over the latest dictator, as has happened earlier. The question of power in Russia also has a practical significance. That is not exactly the way the liberal press describes it. In no way does Putin resemble a lone ruler, taking wild decisions. On the contrary, his power is based on compromise, the balance of forces and the building of collective government of the country—for an oligarchic regime by its very nature is incompatible with personal power.

But it is precisely Putin’s moderation and his ability to maintain a balance within the elites, to satisfy and tranquillize each, to listen to all and try to respect all interests supporting his leading role, the basis of his “stability”, has become his major weakness.

Dmitry Medvedev: the oligarchs point man and willing appeaser.

For the US and the EU it is not only important to stop the process of post-Soviet integration that Moscow has initiated, or to block Russia’s territorial, commercial and industrial rebirth. Also vital to the West is to destroy the system of compromises among the major business groups linked to Putin. According to the US and EU, partisans of the “Russian world” and import replacement should not be heeded any longer. Power’s rhetoric must be purged of such dangerous subjects. The regime in Russia must become more liberal and openly pro-western, and its economics—firmly peripheral.

Such is the plan of the [Russian-style] liberal revolution. Putin does not have any “cunning plan” with which to counterbalance it and offset the moves by the West. Nor is there planned any “radical change of personnel by the President”. A radical change of personnel cannot be executed while leaving all the key figures in their places and strengthening the positions of those players who are obviously opposed to the official line.

An old Russian fairy tale about evil boyars[3] surrounding a good Tsar makes more sense today than during the times of the feudal monarchy. For in fact the Tsar could not nominate his boyars, who inherited their posts. But in a republic, even in such a strange country resembling Tsardom as in our country, the President nominates and confirms the functionaries. That however does not mean that “the republican Tsar” does not have problems with his boyars. It is an enormous problem. For Putin it is simply impossible to gather a cohesive, loyal and capable team – which confirms that his power is far from being that of a Tsar.

For all that, there is a liberal plot against Putin and the system of power formed around him. And the great misfortune is that apparently Putin himself is a participant in it. By refusing to correct the economic policy of 2012-2014 he created the conditions for the development of the “second wave” of the crisis in Russia. The Cabinet of Dmitry Medvedev and the Central Bank headed by Elvira Nabiulina opened the door to the economic slump long before the fall of world petroleum prices. They consolidated still more the peripheral, raw material character of the domestic economy, making it vulnerable to the sanctions by the USA and its partners, and then began making concessions.

The West intends to play a power game in the long negotiations with Moscow. It can apply zeal and rigidity and therefore events will not go exactly as planned. The same happened in Ukraine. However, the USA and the EU understand that Russian liberals are now stronger and will stubbornly search for compromise. Dmitry Medvedev has already declared that a “rebooting of relations” demands a return to “default positions”, that is, to normal trade without sanctions. For the sake of that the ruling class will go for anything, especially if the situation is complicated by economic factors. If a resolution of the issue with Western Europe and the USA requires the presenting of Putin’s head, that is how the issue will be resolved.

But Russia is not a banana republic or a small East European country, where one can simply organize a color revolution, gathering several thousand activists of “civil society” on one of the central squares. Only Putin himself can remove Putin’s head for the USA – and by no means only through carelessness.

Russian “patriots” dream stubbornly of convincing today’s President to imitate Stalin or Ivan The Terrible. The liberal intelligentsias frighten each other and the credulous western public with this idea. And meanwhile our government each day comes to resemble an entirely different predecessor, Mikhail Gorbachev. Also, by the way, a politician who put his stake on compromise.

The maturing prospect of a liberal State Emergency Committee[4] becomes each day more evident. Meanwhile, before the final act the matter is not yet decided, but the drama has already begun. Liberals are carrying out the ritual sacrifice of the victims. They sacrifice the ruble exchange rate and social policies. They sacrifice Novorossiya. They sacrifice the dignity of the country. They sacrifice the possibilities for the development of Russian society. They are even ready to sacrifice that which has protected the system for many years. Still, all that will bear no fruit because only a different course can save Russia from an economic catastrophe.

And let no one be fooled: if the liberal revolution becomes a reality, its authors will quickly learn how correct the thesis “Ukraine is not Russia” really is. Unlike the neighboring country, Russia, with the exception of its capital, will be transformed into one entire Donbass.

Originally published: October 10, 2014

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

[1] Vasily Koltashov is Head of the Centre for Economic Research at the Moscow-based Institute of Globalisation and Social Movements (IGSO). Boris Kagarlitsky is the Director of IGSO.

[2] “Liberals” in the Russian context should be understood as sharing the views of right-wing neo-liberals in the West. Traditionally, the heroes of Russian liberals have included Thatcher, Reagan and improbably, Pinochet. A tiny, isolated current in Russian society generally, liberals have influence in big-business circles and represent an important contending faction within the Putin administration.

[3] The boyars were powerful noblemen who contended for power with medieval Russian tsars. Their influence was finally crushed by Tsar Peter II early in the eighteenth century.

[4] The reference is to the State Committee on the State of Emergency, which was formed by hard-line Communist Party leaders and state officials and which vied briefly for power during the failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in August 1991.

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.