HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Dateline: 11 May 2018

It's almost surreal that Western elites can plot groundless apocalyptic wars in broad daylight and no one stirs.

Trump’s “Broken Deal”, his irrational decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, or simply called Iran’s Nuclear Deal, has hardly any other motives than again launching a provocation for war. The decision goes against all reason. Let’s not forget, that deal took 9 years of diplomatic efforts, a negotiation called “5 + 1” for the UN Security Council Members, plus Germany – and, of course, Iran. It was finally signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015.

It's clear despite Iran's efforts to avoid a wider war with the anglozionist empire and its corrupt despotic accomplices in the Gulf, a greater conflagration in the Middle East now seems inevitable. (Image: Iranian missile).

A quick background: From the very beginning, way into Trump’s Presidential Campaign, he was against the deal. It was a bad deal, “the worst Obama could have made” - he always repeated himself, without ever saying what was bad about it, nor did he reveal who was the “bad-deal whisperer”, who for once didn’t get across to Obama with his unreasonable requests.

My guess is, Trump didn’t know, and he still doesn’t know, what was / is bad about the deal. Any deal that denuclearizes a country, is a deal for Peace ⁽¹⁾, therefore a good deal, lest you forget the profit motive for war. The reasons Trump recently gave, when announcing stepping out of the Nuclear Agreement – Iran could not be trusted, Iran was a terrorist nation supporting Al-Qaeda and other terror groups, Iran’s ballistic missile system – and-and-and… were ludicrous, they were lies, contradictory, and had nothing to do with the substance of the Deal – which frankly and sadly, Trump to this day probably doesn’t quite grasp in its full and long-range amplitude.

But what he does understand are his very close ties to Israel, or better to his buddy Bibi Netanyahu. And this not least, thanks to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has long-standing business connections to Israel and is also close to Netanyahu. Even the mainstream media are not blind to this fact. But this is merely an added weight in Trump’s bias towards Israel, as the deep dark state that calls the shots on US Foreign Policy, is composed by the likes of Netanyahu. Survival, political or otherwise, Trump knows, depends on how well you follow their orders.
---

But back to reality: First, the Atomic Commission in Vienna has confirmed up to the last minute that Iran has no intention to start a nuclear arms program. They have confirmed their attestation 8 times since the signing of the deal. Second, the European allies – read: vassals – have so far strongly expressed their disagreement with Trump’s decision, especially the three “M’s” – May, Merkel and Macron. Their less noble reasons for doing so may have to do with economic interests, as they have already signed billions worth of trade and technology-exchange contracts with Iran. Thirdly, even the more moderate and diplomatic Foreign Minister of the European Union, Ms. Federica Mogherini, said in no unclear tones – that there was no justification to abandon the Deal, and that the EU will stick to it. However, given past history, the EU has rather demonstrated having no backbone. – Have they now suddenly decided – for business reasons – that they will grow a backbone? – Would be nice, but so far, it’s merely a dream.

The West is witnessing not just a massive betrayal by its political class, but by the intelligentsia.

Of course, Russia and China, will stick to the Deal. After all, an international agreement is an international agreement. The only rogue country of this globe, and self-nominated exceptional nation, feels like doing otherwise. Literally, at every turn of a corner, if they so please. And like in this case, it doesn’t even make sense for the United States to withdraw. To the contrary. In theory, Iran could now immediately start their nuclear program and in a couple of years or sooner, they would be ready and equipped with nuclear arms.

But Iran is a smart and civilized nation. They have signed the Non-Proliferation pact and, at least for now, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, has already pledged to stick to it. That could of course change, depending on how the Europeans will behave in the future. Will they eventually cave in to US pressure, or will they finally claim back their sovereignty and become an independent autonomous European Unit, able and willing to enter business relations with whomever they want and with whomever they deem is right, irrespective of illegal US sanctions? That would mean, of course, Iran, and normalizing relations with Russia, their natural partner for hundreds of years before the ascent of the exceptional nation. – Time will tell, whether this is a mere pipe dream, or what.

What is it then that Trump and his handlers expect form this illegal decision of rescinding an international agreement? – A move towards “Regime Change”? – Hardly. They must know that with this undiplomatic decision, they are driving President Rouhani into the camp of the hardliners, this large faction of Iranians who from the very beginning were against this Deal in the first place.

This decision is also a blow to the Atlanticists or the “Fifth Column” which (as in Russia) is quite strong in Iran. They see themselves abandoned by the west, as it is clear now, that Iran will accelerate the course they have already started, a move towards the East, becoming a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and formalizing their special status vis-à-vis the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), by becoming a regular member. Both are headed by Russia and China.

And, not to forget either, how does this “Broken Deal” affect negotiations between President Trump and DPRK’s President Kim Jong-un on 11 June in Singapore? – Will anything that Trump negotiates and signs have any credibility?

Plus, not to forget, President Xi Jinping was crystal clear when he recently said that Iran will be a crucial and vital link within the New Silk Road, or the BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, a Chinese socio-economic and cultural enterprise that will likely dominate the next few hundred years with trillions of investments in transport, industrial manufacturing, education, research and cultural infrastructure, connecting Asia from the very east with western Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even South America. The BRI is also being included in the Chinese Constitution.

There is a good reason why this gigantic Chinese Program is hardly mentioned in the western mainstream media. – The corporate oligarchs who control these media don’t want the world to know that the western fraudulent economy, built on debt and a pyramid monetary system (a large Ponzi scheme) is gradually declining, leaving all those that cling to it eventually abandoned and in misery.

Well, as in Chinese peaceful Tao tradition, President Xi is offering the world’s nations, to join this great socio-economic initiative – no pressure – just an offer. Many have already accepted, including Iran, India, Turkey, Greece … and pressure from business and politicians in Europe to become part of this tremendous project is mounting. The BRI is an unstoppable train.

What good will US-western sanctions do to an Iran detached from the west? And ever more detached from the western economy and monetary system? – None. As Mr. Rouhani said, Iran will hurt for a short while, but then “we will have recovered for good”. It’s only by hanging between east and west – a line that President Rouhani attempted to pursue, that western sanctions have any meaning. From that point of view, one can easily say, Trump shot himself in the foot.

Wars also make Wall Street live. War, like the housing market, is debt-financed. Except, war-funding is a national debt that will never be paid back – hence, the Ponzi scheme. New money, new debt, generated from hot air refinances old debt and will accumulated to debt never to be paid back. In 2008, what the General Accounting Office (GAO) calls “unmet obligations”, or “unfunded liabilities”, projected debt over the next five years, amounted to about US$ 48 trillion, or about 3.2 times GDP. In April 2018, GDP stood at about US$ 22 trillion as compared to unfunded liabilities of about US$ 140 trillion, nearly 6.5 times GDP. Ponzi would turn in his grave with a huge smile.

Since Washington’s foreign policy is written by Zionist think tanks, it follows logic that more wars are needed. A big candidate is Iran. But why? Iran does no harm to anybody, the same as Syria – no harm to anybody, nor did Iraq, or Libya for that matter. Yet, there is a distinct group of people who wants these countries destroyed. It’s the tiny little tail that wags the monster dog – for the resources and for greater Israel – as unofficial maps already indicate – stretching from Euphrates across the Red Sea all the way to the Nile and absorbing in between parts of Syria, Iraq, all of Palestine, of course, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

(source: globalsecurity.org)

Those who control the US think tanks make sure that this target is enshrined in the minds of US decision makers. It would count as a major achievement in the course of global hegemony by the Chosen People (not to confound with the ‘exceptional nation’). Although, Iran is not within this picture, Iran would be the most serious and formidable opponent – enemy – of such a scheme.

By breaking the Nuclear Deal, Trump and his masters, especially Netanyahu, may have assumed a harsh reaction, now or later, by Iran. Or in the absence of such a reaction, launch a false flag – say a rocket lands in Israel, they claim it comes from Iran – and bingo, the brainwashed western populace buys it, and there is a reason to go to direct confrontation between Israel and Iran – of course, backed by Washington. This would make for war number 8, since Obama took over in early 2009. And it could account for a lot of killing and destruction – and most probably would involve also Russia and China --- and – would that stay simply as a conventional war within the confines of the Middle East? - Or would it spread around the globe as a nuclear WWIII? – Would the commanding elite want to risk their own lives? You never know. Life in bunkers is not as nice as in luxury villas and on luxury boats. They know that.

That’s the dilemma most of those who stand behind the Trump decision probably haven’t quite thought through. Granted, it is difficult to think straight and especially think a bit ahead, when blinded by greed and instant profit – as the western neoliberal / neofascist doctrine dictates.

My hunch is, don’t hold me to it though, that this Trump decision, to “Break the Deal”, is the beginning of a disastrous and yet, ever accelerating decline of the western Global Hegemony Project.

About the Author
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. AVOIDANCE OF NUCLEAR WAR DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

As The Saker notes in this post, there have been hard to take developments on almost all fronts. Where did this tidal wave of manure, timidity, betrayals and indecency come from when until recently Russia and its allies were making steady progress against the anglozionist hegemon and its repugnant allies? Putin's election—with the backing of a huge majority of Russians—has curiously not delivered the expected results—the strengthening of the Eurasian integrationists opposing Western influence—but almost the opposite. Below, the images on a leading Israeli newspaper show an almost despondent Putin discharging his official duties with Netanyahu. The question is twofold: Why allow Netanyahu to come to Moscow precisely as Israel doubles down on its attacks on Syria and Iran, such new offensive based, as usual, on grotesque lies and false flags? (As predicted in these pages, typical of the neocon mentality.) Granting that such a face to face meeting was needed to avoid letting matters get out of hand, and probably quickly involving Russia and the world in an apocalyptic war, why allow him to put in appearances at Russia's most sacred public ceremony commemorating the Soviet victory over the Nazis, and later obviously gloat back at home, implying that Russia, too, is now under the aegis of Israel? The whole thing makes little sense. Bad or murky policy, obviously it could have been managed much better than this. —PG

By The Saker

There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and B. Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow, Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi Germany. How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria for a second time, while still in Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate to serve food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe? The man is clearly batshit crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said that it is not the Russian responsibility to “protect” Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own capital. That makes it even worse.

[Interestingly, while whining about “Nazi Iran” Netanyahu did say something truly profound and true. He said “an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has to push back against it before it is too late”.That is indeed exactly what most people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming “too late” and that the consequences for our collective cowardice – most of us are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords – will cost us all a terrible price.]

How Machiavellian can it get?
Below, a sampler of recent Israeli newspaper Haaretz headlines proclaiming the curiously strong position of Israel in Moscow—the reverse of what one might have logically assumed. Why is Russia engaging in these next-to-impossible to defend pirouettes that seem to bow to the pressures and threats of the anglozionist empire, all at the expense of solid and indispensable allies in the global strategic struggle? The damage to Russia could be irreparable.

Below, as headlined by Haaretz, a prominent Israeli newspaper.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday morning (May 9) highlighted the importance of "continued coordination" between the Israeli and Russian military against the backdrop of current events in Syria. (Haaretz)

Netanyahu: I Told Putin Israel Has Right to Defend Itself in Face of Iranian Aggression

In Moscow, Netanyahu says Israel-Russia military coordination must be ensured in light of Syria events ■ Netanyahu attended a parade and wreath-laying ceremony at the Red Square

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hen, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran’s full compliance and in spite of the fact that the USA does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement. But being the megalomaniac that he is, and not to mention the spineless lackey of the Israel Lobby, Trump ignored all that and thereby created further tensions between the USA and the rest of the world whom the US will now blackmail and bully to try to force it to support the USA in its rabid subservience to Israel. As for the Israelis, their “sophisticated” “strategy” is primitive to the extreme: first get Trump to create maximal tensions with Iran, then attack the Iranians in Syria as visibly and arrogantly as possible, bait the Iranians into a retaliation, then bellow “OI VEY!!!” with your loudest voice, mention the Holocaust once or twice, toss in a “6 million people” figure, and get the USA to attack Syria.

How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can’t think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?

Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States have now completely lost sovereignty and are now an Israeli protectorate. As for Russia, well, she is doing comparatively better, but the full re-sovereignization the Russian people have voted for when they gave their overwhelming support to Putin will not happen. A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: “Путин кинул народ – мы не за Медведева голосовали” or “Putin betrayed the people – we did not vote for Medvedev”. I am not sure that “betrayed the people” is fair, but the fact that he has disappointed a lot of people is, I think, simply undeniable.

It is still way too early to reach any conclusions at this point, and there are still way too many unknown variables, but I will admit that I am very worried and that for the first time in 4 years I am having major doubts about a fundamental policy decision by Putin. I sure hope that I am wrong. We will find out relatively soon. I just hope that this will not be in the form of a major war. [Not with Russia, but on Russian ally, Iran?—Eds]

In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case. There is one outright bizarre thing which I initially dismissed, but which really is becoming disturbing: the fact that the Brits are apparently holding Sergei and Iulia Skripal incommunicado. In other words, they have been kidnapped.

There was this one single telephone call between Iulia Skripal and her sister, Victoria, in which Iulia said that she was okay (she was clearly trying to reassure Victoria) but it was clear that she could not speak freely. Furthermore, when Victoria mentioned that she would want to visit Iulia, the latter reply ‘nobody will give you a visa’. After that – full silence. The Russian consulate has been making countless requests to have a visit, but all that the Brits have done since is have Scotland Yard post a letter which was evidently not written by Iulia and which said “I have access to friends and family, and I have been made aware of my specific contacts at the Russian Embassy who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can. At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services, but, if I change my mind I know how to contact them”. What friends?! What family?! Nonsense!

Her sister tried to contact her many times through various channels, including official ones, and then in total despair, she posted the following message on Facebook:

“My darling sister, Yulia! You are not communicating with us, and we don’t know anything about you and Sergey Victorivich. I know that I have no right to interfere in your affairs without asking your permission, but I worry too much. I worry about you and your dad. I also worry about Nuar. [Nuar is Yulia Skrial’s dog, whom she left to stay at a kennel center, while she was traveling to the UK.] He is now at the dog hotel, and they want to get paid. We have to decide something what to do with him. I am ready to take him and to take care of him until you come back home. Besides Nuar, I am concerned about your apartment and your car. Nothing has been decided about their safety and maintenance. We can help with all that, but I need your power of attorney in my or my sister Lena’s name. If you think that all of these is important, draw up a power of attorney form in a Russian consulate in any country. If you won’t do that, we will understand and won’t interfere in your affairs.
Vika“

No reply ever came.

I just entered the following query into Google: “Skripal”. April 10^th has an entry saying that she was released from the hospital. That is the most recent one I have found. I looked on Wikipedia, the same thing, there is nothing at all.

I have to admit that when I first heard the Russian complaints I figured that this was no big deal. I thought “the Brits told the Skripals that Putin tried to poison them, they are probably afraid, and possibly still sick from whatever it is which made them sick, but the Brits would never outright kidnap two foreign citizens, and most definitely not in such a public way”.

I am not so sure anymore.

First, let’s get the obvious one out of the way: the fear for the security of the Skripals. That is utter nonsense. The Brits can organize a meeting between а Russian diplomat in the UK at a highly protected UK facility, with tanks, SAS Teams on the standby, helicopters in the air, bombers, etc. That Russian diplomat could speak to them through bullet-proof glass and a phone. And, since the Russians are all so dangerous, he can be searched for weapons. All which the Skripals need to do is to tell him/her “thank you, your services are not needed”. Conversation over. But the Brits refuse even that.

But let’s say that the Skripals are so totally terrified of the evil Russians, that they categorically refuse. Even by video-conference. It would be traumatic for them, right? Okay.

What about a press conference then?

Even more disturbing is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody in the western corporate media is asking for an interview with them. Snowden can safely speak from Russia and address even large conferences, but the Skripals can’t speak to anybody at all?

But here is the worst part of this: it has been two months already since the Skripals are held in total secrecy by the UK authorities. Two months, that is 60 days. Ask any specialist on interrogation or any psychologist what kind of effect 60 days of “specialized treatment” can do to a person.

I am not dismissing the Russian statements about “kidnapping” anymore. What I see is this: on substance, the Skripal false flag has crashed and burned, just like MH17 or the Douma chemical attack, but unlike MH17 or Douma, the Skripals are two witnesses whose testimony has the potential to result in a gigantic scandal, not just for the May government, but for all those spineless Europeans who showed “solidarity” with Britain. In other words, the Skripals will probably never be allowed to speak freely: they must either be killed or totally brainwashed or disappeared. Any other option would result in a scandal of planetary magnitude.

I can’t pretend like my heart goes out to Sergei Skripal: the man was an officer who gave an oath and who then betrayed his country to the British (he was a British agent, not a Russian one as the press writes). Those holding him today are his former bosses. But Iulia? She is completely innocent and as of April 5^th (when she called her sister Victoria), she was clearly in good health and with a clear mind. Now she has been disappeared and I don’t know which is worse, the fact that she might never reappear or that she might one day reappear following months of British “counseling”. As for her father, he paid for his betrayal and he too deserves a better fate than being poisoned, used and then disappeared.

In the big scheme of things (the Zionists war against our entire planet), two individuals like Sergei and Iulia Skripal might not matter. But I think that the least we can do is to remember them and their plight.

This also begs the question of what kind of society we live in. I am not shocked by the fact that the British state would resort to such methods (they have always used them). I am shocked that in a so-called western “democracy” with freedom, pluralism and “European values” (whatever that means) the Brits could get away with this.

How about some “solidarity” with the Skripals – you, Europeans?!

—The Saker

ABOUT THE SAKER

THE SAKER is the nom de guerre of a former Russian-born military and geopolitical analyst, working at one point for the West. He has described his former career as that of "the proverbial 'armchair strategist', with all the flaws which derive from that situation. Explaining his transformation, he states: "Before the war in Bosnia I had heard the phrase "truth is the first casualty of war" but I had never imagined that this could be quite so literally true. Frankly, this war changed my entire life and resulted in a process of soul-searching which ended up pretty much changing my politics 180 degrees. This is a long and very painful story which I do not want to discuss here, but I just want to say that this difference between what I was reading in the press and in the UNPROFOR reports ended up making a huge difference in my entire life. Again, NOT A SINGLE ASPECT OF THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE WAS TRUE, not one. You would get much closer to the truth if you basically did a 'negative' of the official narrative.” Like The Greanville Post, with which it is now allied in his war against official disinformation, the Saker's site, VINEYARD OF THE SAKER, is the hub of an international network of sites devoted to fighting the "billion-dollar deception machinery" supporting the empire's wars against Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and any other independent nation opposing or standing in the way of Washington's drive for global hegemony. The Saker is published in more than half a dozen languages. A Saker is a very large falcon, native to Europe and Asia.

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

by Bernard D'Mello | May 07, 2018 | MRonline.org

On the 200th birth anniversary of Karl Marx, Bernard D’Mello imagines a critical analysis of capital and capitalism as a global system. The short piece draws on ideas from the works of Paul M. Sweezy; Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy; Mao Zedong; V. I. Lenin; Samir Amin; Bertell Ollman; Immanuel Wallerstein; John Smith; István Mészáros; John Bellamy Foster; Robert W McChesney; R. Jamil Jonna; and Paul Burkett. An earlier version appeared as a “Comment” in the Mumbai-based Economic & Political Weekly in its issue of May 5, 2018.

“Ruthless criticism” was one of Karl Marx’s principal maxims. He practiced it with devastating effect in his critical analysis of capital and capitalism. For this, 200 years since his birth, he remains unsurpassed as one of the world’s most influential intellectual figures. Indeed, he applied the ruthless-criticism maxim to his own views too, constantly discerning what was genuine and what was false in what he had written. For example, having relied upon British colonialist source material, at first in 1853, he thought of British colonialism as the “unconscious tool of history” in initiating—what he hoped would be—the economic transformation of India. Later, with the relevant empirical evidence at hand, in a letter to Nikolai Danielson in St. Petersburg from London on February 19, 1881, he viewed “what the British take from” Indians “without any equivalent” as a “bleeding process, with a vengeance.” Marx always remained wide open to empirical evidence. Moreover, his concepts and definitions were open-ended and adaptable to new and changing historical situations.

Starting off as a romantic idealist, Marx critiqued G W F Hegel’s philosophical idealism, but discerned “great merit” in the dialectical kernel of his thought. He also acknowledged his intellectual debt to the materialist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, but critiqued his thought as passive, for it failed to grasp the significance of “practical-critical” and “revolutionary” activity. Of course, Marx was particularly struck by the prevailing harsh material conditions of life of the working class, and this too shaped the development of his own version of materialist dialectics and historical materialism. From then on there was no sharp break in his mode of thought. Indeed, one discerns an organic bond between the “early Marx” and the “late Marx.” The key influences were German philosophy, French socialism, British political economy, and, much later, Russian populism.

In Capital, Marx employed the abstract-deductive method, and what later came to be known as the procedure of “successive approximations,” wherein the analysis moves, step by step, from the more abstract to the more concrete as simplifying assumptions are dropped at successive analytical stages. In each successive analytical stage, the theory thereby takes account of—and is able to explain—a wider range of actual phenomena. The method of abstraction helps isolate key aspects of the real world for an intensive investigation, for example, the nature of the capital-labor relation, in Capital, Volume I. On a lower level of abstraction, more aspects of the reality are taken into account, which may modify the tendencies discerned at a higher level of abstraction. Importantly, Marx’s method was and is in its essence, historical. The process of change, inherent in a specified set of social relations, is the product of human action; society is both changing and, within limits, “under circumstances directly found, given, and transmitted from the past,” can be changed. There is no capitalism that is not historicalcapitalism. And so, at the core of his analysis of capitalism in Western Europe, is how it came into being, how it has been working, and where it is likely to lead.

There is always an uneasy tension between historic forces promoting change and systemic forces bent on maintaining equilibrium. The struggle leads to a pulling apart of what is functionally united, and thereby brings about significant change. So even as Marx’s critique of capital and capitalism of the 1860s remains the most radical, inevitably, the economy and society have changed very significantly since then. What is necessary is a continuation of the research work that Marx began alongside a constant refining of his method. His theory was open-ended, and he would surely have expected us to critique it, especially from a Marxist point of view, in order to enrich it.

With the passage of 150 years since Capital, Volume I was first published, there is a significant additional empirical reality that calls for substantial modifications in the theoretical abstractions Marx undertook. Capitalism now functions on a truly global scale. The global capitalist system’s periphery and semi-periphery is economically, politically, and militarily subordinate to its centre. A much higher rate of exploitation in the periphery and semi-periphery, and an unequal sharing of the system’s surplus, with the ruling classes and professional elites of the centre getting the hindmost, forms the core of the system’s exploitative institutional structure. With stagnation (slow economic growth, high unemployment/underemployment and excess capacity) at the centre, a worldwide proliferation of oligopolistic multinational corporations, and “financialization of the capital accumulation process,” a large, relatively independent financial superstructure towers over the “real” part of the world economy and most of its national units. This financial superstructure has, in turn, influenced the structure and functioning of the world’s major “real” economies and the corporations therein, obliging their managements to also engage in financial speculation. With retained earnings not finding profitable outlets in real capital formation, they are diverted into speculative financial channels.

Meanwhile, in the “real” global economy, with severe restrictions on labor to migrate from the periphery/semi-periphery to the centre, multinational capital, mostly in highly unequal but complementary relations with business enterprises in the periphery/semi-periphery, and taking advantage of the higher rate of exploitation there, has captured much of the value generated by the workers in these enterprises. Such multinational corporate buyer-driven global commodity chains also extend down to peasants. Bereft of market power, the latter are super-exploited as price takers who are obliged to cede to “capital” not only the profits of their enterprise, the rent on the land they cultivate, and the interest on their accumulated debts, but also a part of their “wages.”

Surely a contemporary version of Capital, a critical analysis of capital and capitalism on a global scale, whether of Volume I, II, or III, will be quite different from the original. Given the space constraint, one can only list what this will entail: Class analysis at the world level; the value of labor power and its vastly different prices at the centre, the periphery, and the semi-periphery; value theory as a theory of super-exploitation and unequal exchange; value theory as a theory of surplus-value distribution in oligopolistic market structures; poor peasants and other petty-commodity producers exploited by capital; unpaid domestic work that reproduces the commodity labor-power; the global reserve army of labor; proletarianization as the degradation of the majority to a condition of utter powerlessness; natural resource grabbing and monopolistic rents; the unsustainable appropriation of use values from “nature” and the unsustainable dumping of the resulting “waste” of production and consumption on to “nature”; ecological imperialism; instability, crises, and the problem of effective demand; financialization, the financial superstructure, and its relation with and impact on the “real” economy; monopoly-finance capital; an accumulation theory that takes account of both, adding to the stock of existing capital goods and to the stock of financial assets, and the interaction of these two aspects; the state as capital’s political command structure; the sales effort; civilian government; militarism and imperialism; the main contradictions and the principal contradiction; and socialist social revolution.

Two hundred years after Marx’s birth, the challenge is to reinterpret the world using his mode of thought and his method—historical materialism and materialist dialectics—and in the process, critique the old interpretations which we have inherited. In particular, it is high time one discarded the mechanistic view of Marxism as an economic determinism that supposedly yields a theory of history called historical materialism, which is claimed to be valid for the entire lifespan of the human species!

The challenge of reinterpreting the world and changing it through a socialist social ±+revolution has become urgent, for humanity may not have another 200 years if capital and capitalism has its way.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Bernard D'Mello is editorial consultant, Economic & Political Weekly

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

by JOHN FEFFER

Donald Trump is a stern and wrathful leader. He thinks nothing of raining down fire and fury upon the enemies of his “chosen people.” Indeed, he even flirts with ending the world if he doesn’t receive due respect and the requisite number of burnt offerings. But he can also reward his followers, and those who curry his favor, with positions of power and untold riches.

This month, Trump will appear as both of these avatars. By meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump promises to wave his hand and create peace where before there was nothing but strife and dissension. At the same time, Trump the Destroyer has pledged to take the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal and bring the world that much closer to apocalypse.

It’s a peculiarly hypocritical position to take, but strangely consistent for a two-faced leader.

The deal with Iran closed off all possibility of the country going nuclear for a decade or more. A rich country, Iran could create quite a nuclear arsenal if it so wanted. Iran has abided by the terms of the current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and yet Trump has called the deal “horrible.” Indeed, the president believes that he can “fix” the JCPOA. That’s quite a delusion.

Meanwhile, nuclear North Korea has indicated that it would get rid of its weapons only in exchange for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War and a pledge from the United States not to attack.

A pledge from the United States? From the Trump administration?

In light of Trump’s attitude toward previous U.S. pledges to Iran and the presence of John Bolton as the new national security advisor, any promises from Washington are worth less than the 140 characters they’re tweeted in. It’s hard to imagine North Korea falling for such a canard.

So, to recap, Donald Trump will attempt this month to persuade a country to give up the nuclear weapons that serve as the deterrence of last resort while giving a green light to a non-nuclear country to restart its program. Trump believes that he can simultaneously capture a Nobel Peace Prize for his approach to North Korea and take a giant leap toward war with Iran by deep-sixing the nuclear agreement. That’s about as plausible as a duplicitous, managerially inept, barnyard bully of a sexual harasser becoming president of the United… Oh, never mind.

Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” I used to believe that was true. And then along came Trump and his two-faced approach to Iran and North Korea.

War and Peace

The Roman god Janus had two faces. One looked to the past, while the other gazed upon the future. Janus was the deity of transitions, which also meant that he was responsible for war and peace. Plutarch writes that Janus

has a temple at Rome with double doors, which they call the gates of war; for the temple always stands open in time of war, but is closed when peace has come. The latter was a difficult matter, and it rarely happened, since the realm was always engaged in some war, as its increasing size brought it into collision with the barbarous nations which encompassed it round about.

Peace is indeed a difficult matter, particularly when it comes to the United States. As former president Jimmy Carter recently told The New York Times: “I don’t think that we adhere to a just approach to war, where we are supposed to make armed conflict a last resort and limit our damage to other people to a minimum. I think our country is known around the world as perhaps the most warlike major country there is.” The temple doors in the imperial capital — also known as the Pentagon — are, alas, always open.

Donald Trump was certainly Janus-faced during the 2016 presidential campaign, denouncing the wars of the past while, at the same time, hurling rhetorical lightening bolts at a variety of enemies: the Islamic State, Iran, North Korea, China, Mexico. His occasional sallies against U.S. adventurism overseas won him plaudits from a few befuddled anti-imperialists and criticism from some disappointed neo-cons. As president, however, Trump has hewed to a more traditional security policy of large military budgets, stepped-up drone warfare, and full-spectrum dominance.

North Korea is the curious exception to Trump’s general rule of belligerence. It’s not that he didn’t initially subscribe to the same approach as his predecessors when he took office. He upped sanctions against Pyongyang, tried to persuade China to twist the arm of its erstwhile ally, and used intemperate language to describe North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Then, like the rooster who believes that his crowing has caused the sun to rise, Trump took full credit for North Korea’s turnabout at the beginning of 2018. In fact, when he offered to participate in the 2018 Winter Olympics, Kim Jong Un was responding not to U.S. actions so much as his own domestic situation (progress in his nuclear program, political consolidation of power) and the overtures coming from South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who’d taken office in 2017.

I’m not sure which is more depressing: Trump’s self-delusion or the delusion of those who believe that they can influence Trump. Take, for instance, the anti-interventionist Rand Paul (R-KY), who agreed to support Mike Pompeo as secretary of state after Trump made some vague noises about ending the war in Afghanistan. (Actually, Trump has delegated tremendous powers to the Pentagon to prosecute the war in Afghanistan).

Paul is just the latest in a series of “Trump whisperers” who believe that they can make the president roll over and play dead. That includes all those who believe that Trump should win a Nobel Prize for his efforts — which so far have consisted of a single, impulsive decision to meet Kim Jong Un — in the misguided belief that such a prize will buy Trump’s everlasting support for Korean reunification.

The only thing that Trump supports without qualification is Trump. Those who believe in appeasing the false god occupying the Oval Office in this way should pay more attention to what’s going on with Iran.

Listening to Unreason

The list of those who have tried to persuade Donald Trump of the value of the deal to close off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon is a long one. At the top of the list was Rex Tillerson, the now dearly departed secretary of state. Then there was the letter from 52 leading national security professionals, including former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden and former Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar.

More recently, French President Emmanuel Macron came to Washington to see whether his legendary charisma could have an effect on Trump. It was part of an ill-advised European appeasement strategy to coax Trump into “fixing” the deal in a way that Russia, China, and Iran might find palatable. Earlier, Tillerson had pressured France, Germany, and the UK to set up “working groups” to identify “concerns” in the existing treaty and how Iran might address them. Macron, on his visit to Washington, broached the possibility of a “new treaty,” a departure from the European script that left some of his colleagues back home scratching their heads.

But then, two days ago, the UK released a statement that Prime Minister Teresa May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Macron are committed to “working closely” with the U.S. on “those issues that a new deal might cover.”

Dream on, Europeans. Haven’t you learned anything from Munich, 1938?

Much more congenial to Trump’s way of non-thinking is Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pounding the drums for war with Iran for the better part of his political tenure as Israeli prime minister. This week, Netanyahu took to the airwaves to unveil the revelation that Iran indeed tried to build a nuclear weapons program. Well, that’s headline news…circa 2007. Maybe Netanyahu will host a follow-up program with all the evidence of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. He can call his program “Last Decade Tonight with Benjamin Netanyahu.”

The timing of Netanyahu’s “revelations” was critical, however. The French and Germans had their turn, and now Israel was following up with the knockout punch that Trump wants to use to get rid of the nuclear deal once and for all.

When will people realize that appeasing Trump is a very bad idea? Jeez, just look at all the administration officials who have been burned to a crisp flying so close to the sun. At the very least, such a flight pattern does bizarre things to one’s moral compass.

The Coming Confrontation

The best outcome from the Korea discussions is Trump deciding to let the Koreans work out their problems by themselves. North Korea is far away, and it’s hard to find anyone in the Pentagon who likes the odds of a regime-change military strategy. Maybe the vengeful Trump, after a modestly successful meeting with Kim Jong Un, will forget about North Korea when it’s no longer in his field of vision.

The same can’t be said about Iran. Netanyahu is chafing at the bit to escalate Israeli attacks on Iran, which so far have been confined to Iranian forces in Syria. Pompeo and the new National Security Advisor John Bolton are big fans of regime change in Iran. Trump seems to believe that the only way of fixing the Iran nuclear deal is by “fixing” Iran itself.

“I’m really good at war,” Trump the Destroyer said in 2015. “I love war in a certain way. But only when we win.”

In fact, a war with Iran would be catastrophic. And it probably wouldn’t be confined to Iran itself. Russia and China could come to their ally’s aid. Saudi Arabia would side with Israel and the United States. At minimum, the conflict would set the Middle East ablaze. But it could easily spread from there.

Frankly, compared to the prospect of world war, a much better outcome of the collapse of the Iran nuclear deal would be if Iran quickly acquired nuclear weapons. Then it could deter an Israeli and U.S. attack. And then, as with North Korea, Donald Trump might realize the importance of striking a denuclearization treaty with a nuclear Iran.

Does that sound absurd? Of course it’s absurd.

Welcome to the impossible world of America’s two-faced president.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article originally appeared.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

1977 victim Samantha Geimer: It’s “an ugly and cruel action”

By David Walsh, wsws.org

Polanski

The decision May 1 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), the industry body that hands out the Oscars, to expel French-Polish filmmaker Roman Polanski is hypocritical and cowardly. This is the latest atrocity attributable to the sexual witch hunt launched last October.

In 1977, Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Geimer). He spent 42 days in prison undergoing psychiatric examination. Under the terms of the plea agreement, it was expected by both defense and prosecution that the director would receive probation. He fled the US when a vindictive judge, guilty of gross misconduct in the case, threatened to renege on the agreement and sentence Polanski to a lengthy jail term.

The Academy announced that it was expelling Polanski, along with actor and comic Bill Cosby, “in accordance with the organization’s Standards of Conduct… The Board continues to encourage ethical standards that require members to uphold the Academy’s values of respect for human dignity.”

What a filthy business. The august, pretentiously named “Academy” was founded by producer Louis B. Mayer in 1927 as nothing more than a “company union,” in the words of various historians, aimed at crushing support for genuine labor organizing and defusing political radicalism in Hollywood.

Later, it played a decisive role in spearheading the anticommunist witch hunt and purges of the 1940s and 1950s. Among other actions, the Academy passed a special bylaw making it impossible for those refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) to receive an Oscar, only rescinding the disgraceful measure in the late 1950s.

In a notoriously ruthless and dishonest industry, the Academy has never censured or expelled anyone for stealing or corruption, much less exploiting the labor force. It has not once kicked out a member for cooperating with government witch-hunters, the US military or the CIA. However, the moral guardians of AMPAS have drawn the line with Polanski, one of the better filmmakers of his generation, in accordance with “the Academy’s values of respect for human dignity.” This is a little like spying a placard on the wall of a brothel, “Hygiene is our only concern.”

Harland Braun, Polanski’s lawyer, announced the director would appeal the decision. According to Vanity Fair, “We want due process,” Braun said. “That’s not asking too much of the Academy, is it? … Mr. Polanski was supposed to be given notice, and have 10 days to present his side… It was a complete debacle in the sense that they didn’t follow their own rules.” The magazine continued, “Braun said he had heard the Academy was planning to take up the issue of Polanski’s membership, and he was prepared to make a presentation to the board, which would include statements from the victim in his 1977 case, Samantha Geimer.” The AMPAS board obviously preferred not to hear reasoned arguments against its precipitous and unfair action.

In fact, the 55-year-old Geimer had the best response to the Academy decision, calling it “an ugly and cruel action which serves only appearance… It does nothing to change the sexist culture in Hollywood today and simply proves that they will eat their own to survive. I say to Roman, good riddance to bad rubbish, the Academy has no true honor, it’s all just P.R.” Geimer then referred succinctly to the Academy as “a bunch of douchebags.”

Polanski, 84 years old, has made a number of important films during his career, including Knife in the Water, Cul-de-Sac, Rosemary’s Baby, Macbeth, Chinatown, The Tenant, Tess and The Pianist. He is one of the more honest chroniclers of the traumas of the mid-twentieth century, and he comes by that ability through bitter experience.

As a child in 1942-43, Polanski witnessed the deportation of Krakow’s Jewish population to concentration camps and barely escaped that fate himself. His father survived a camp, his mother died in Auschwitz. Many years later, Polanski’s pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, was murdered in August 1969 at the couple’s home in Los Angeles by members of the Manson Family (the director was in Europe at the time).

Polanski or his films have won every major industry and festival award, including the Berlin Film Festival Silver Bear, an Academy Award, a Golden Globe, numerous BAFTA [British Academy of Film and Television Arts] and César [bestowed by France’s Academy of Cinema Arts and Techniques] awards, the Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or and many more.

The renewed campaign against Polanski by US and Los Angeles authorities, initiated in 2009 when he was arrested in Switzerland and threatened with deportation to the US, has always had a vindictive, politically malicious character.

As the WSWS noted at the time: “The effort to vilify film director Roman Polanski, now imprisoned in Switzerland, and have him extradited to the United States has become the rallying point for a broader campaign against ‘Hollywood liberals,’ intellectuals, artists, and non-conformists of all sorts. Behind the demands that ‘justice must be done’ and ‘no one is above the law’ lies a reactionary social and ideological agenda… A coalition of right-wingers and ‘feminist liberals’ has formed, capable of the wildest demagogy and accusations.” This alliance, only in its budding stage in 2009, has fully flowered in the course of the #MeToo campaign.

The decision by the AMPAS Board of Governors to expel Polanski, who has remained a member for the forty years since his 1977 guilty plea, is a capitulation to the #MeToo movement, the aggressive drive by a layer of affluent women in Hollywood for more privileges and power.

Polanski received an Academy Award fifteen years ago for The Pianist, in which regard the Associated Press noted, “the audience at the 2003 Oscars gave an absent Polanski a hearty standing ovation upon his win, [Harvey] Weinstein, Martin Scorsese and Meryl Streep among them. Nine years ago, when Polanski was arrested in Zurich and U.S. authorities attempted to extradite him, over 100 celebrities signed a petition for his release, including Woody Allen, Weinstein, Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, Darren Aronofsky, Natalie Portman, David Lynch, Penelope Cruz and Tilda Swinton.”

Nothing has changed. The persecution of Polanski remains politically motivated. But Hollywood liberalism has lurched further to the right, abandoning in large measure even a nominal commitment to democratic rights.

The Academy did not announce the results of the May 1 vote on Polanski’s expulsion. The 55-member Board of Governors, among them three members from each of the 17 branches, includes actors Laura Dern (a #MeToo fanatic), Whoopi Goldberg and Tom Hanks, directors Michael Mann, Kimberly Peirce and Steven Spielberg, and producer Kathleen Kennedy, the president of LucasFilm. Kennedy proposed last October the establishment of a “commission” to investigate and take action against sexual harassment, a type of House Un-American Sexual Activities Committee.

Samantha Geimer, as noted above, reflects the general, healthy opinion of that portion of the American population not obsessed with race and gender, i.e., its vast majority.

The cries for Polanski’s blood continue to be forthcoming, however, from a certain deplorable social type, the upper middle class moralists of the New York Times and Guardian variety. This is the crowd that has no difficulty with mass killings and devastation in Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, as long as it is done in the name of “human rights” or “women’s rights,” but sees red at the thought of Polanski escaping years behind bars.

Thus, we hear from columnist Barbara Ellen in the Guardian (“Those who deplored the persecution of Roman Polanski enabled the likes of Weinstein”) in a McCarthyite piece, aimed at intimidating opposition to the sexual harassment campaign. Ellen writes, “Indeed, the straight line from what Polanski was allowed to get away with and, years later, what the likes of Weinstein thought they were allowed to do cannot be ignored. Those who gave Polanski any sympathy or support over his ‘persecution’ should probably also congratulate themselves on helping to embolden predatory entitled characters such as Weinstein. So, bravo to the Academy for belatedly crying ‘cut’ on Polanski.”

What Geimer pungently called the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Board of Governors goes for the Guardian columnist as well.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The author is the senior art & film critic with wsws.org, a Marxian publication.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Iran – Trump’s Broken Deal – Maneuver to War?

The Skripals will most likely never be allowed to talk

Netanyahu: I Told Putin Israel Has Right to Defend Itself in Face of Iranian Aggression

Karl Marx: ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’

Two-Faced Trump: Peace in Korea, World War in the Middle East

The hypocritical, cowardly expulsion of Roman Polanski from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

1977 victim Samantha Geimer: It’s “an ugly and cruel action”