‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket

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

by SHELDON RICHMAN

Donald Trump has embraced the popular “peace through strength” doctrine (PTSD) with his characteristic panache:

“I’m going to make our military so big, so powerful, so strong, that nobody — absolutely nobody — is gonna to mess with us,” Trump says. On other occasions he’s said similar things: “We want to defer, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military strength” (same link) and, a year ago, “Nobody is going to mess with us. Nobody. It will be one of the greatest military build-ups in American history.”

I will acknowledge that the PTSD has surface appeal. Why not show the world the United States is so awesomely powerful that no one in his right mind would even think to get on its wrong side? It seems to make sense in a practical sort of way.

Once people believe that, of course, they are softened up to accept unlimited military spending and the concomitant deficits and debt. As John T. Flynn used to say, military spending is a favorite of big-government types precisely because the conservatives won’t object. Conservatives rail against even small amounts of so-called foreign aid and welfare, but they drool over monstrous sums for the armed forces and spy agencies. (Thankfully, some conservatives don’t.) Progressives, by the way, are not immune to the allure of military spending. When a Pentagon budget cap was debated a few years ago, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, a leading progressive, and a Black Caucus leader, opposed it because he feared losing jobs in his district. Military spending thus has something for nearly everybody: strength for conservatives; economic stimulus for progressives. The conservative Keynesians like both justifications.

It takes only a few minutes to see that the PTSD is a racket intended (by some of its advocates at least) to gull the unsuspecting populace into supporting whatever the war party and the Pentagon want. It is handy for parrying the antimilitarist’ charge that its espousers are dangerously reckless, if not outright warmongers. “We’re not warmongers,” they can reply. “A military second to none will prevent war and promote peace. We’re the peaceniks. You doves are the promoters of war.” They are also likely to quote (without knowing the source) Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus’s De re militari, “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

Brilliant! — but the doctrine encases a racket just the same, much as “war is a racket,” as the highly decorated U.S. Marine Maj. Gen Smedley Butler put it. (Please follow that link.) I’d like to meet the grifter who thought it up.

At least one thick book could be written on the flaws in the doctrine. I can sum them up by invoking the law of unintended consequences and the law of perverse incentives, by which I mean the well-established public-choice problems regarding policymaking and voter interest. People may have the best intentions in supporting the PTSD, but they have absolutely no reason to believe the policy would be carried out as they envision. We must expect the worse, or as David Hume charmingly wrote, “Political writers have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, … every man ought to be supposed a knave.” Had we listened to Hume, many fewer things would have gone awry.

Trump’s deployment of the PTSD suggests that the U.S. military isn’t already powerful enough to deter an attack. But that is balderdash. The government now spends more on the military than the next 12 countries combined. The recent increase alone was bigger than Russia’s entire military budget.

But that is an understatement because the Pentagon budget is far from the total amount the U.S. government spends on “national security.” Robert Higgs wrote in 2007:

Hardly anyone appreciates that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense. Indeed, it is roughly almost twice as large….

Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons programs, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized.

Thus when George W. Bush formally proposed to spend $583 billion on the military in fiscal 2008, Higgs calculated the real tab at $934.9 billion. The story is the same today. We may reasonably ask: how can Trump know the military isn’t already powerful enough to deter any would-be attacker and how can he know that spending less would make Americans less safe? What we have here is a knowledge problem, which politicians and bureaucrats are likely to exploit in favor of more spending. By PTSD standards, no amount of spending is enough: “If I’m wrong,” the militarist will say, “we’ll blow a few bucks. If you’re wrong, we’ll be speaking Russian, Chinese, Arabic, or Farsi.”

The war party tries to bolster its case by claiming the U.S. military was hollowed out by Barack Obama; thus we must rebuild. Bullfeathers! As Nick Gillespie of Reason pointed out a year ago:

There’s little doubt that the military is exhausted. Since 2001, we’ve been waging endless wars, including in countries against whom we’ve never officially declared war. We’re still in Afghanistan and Iraq, of course, and all signs point to boots on the ground in Syria sooner or later. War footing isn’t simply expensive (even if we’re spending less on “overseas contingency operations” that we did in the mid-Aughts), it introduces incredible strain and stress throughout the military and society at home.

But depleted, underfunded, undersized, unready? Please. Defense spending ratcheted up during the Bush years in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. It hasn’t come close to coming back down. In a nation that has supposedly wound down two of its longest wars and where the principal threat to the homeland is a group of religious extremists who live thousands of miles away (and are, lest we forget, a byproduct of our own failed occupation of the Middle East), we always need more money for defense, right?

To be sure, Trump has doubled down on all the Bush-Obama wars, but those have nothing to do with the safety of Americans. Therefore the personnel could be brought home and the military budget cut.

To put things into perspective, when Dwight Eisenhower was president, at the start of the Cold War, his annual military budgets for seven out of his eight years were under $400 billion (in 2012 dollars) — less than Harry Truman bequeathed him. So why does Trump need $716 billion today (to use the official but incomplete figure) when the Soviet Union is long gone, Russia’s military gets only $47 billion, and China, which spends $192.5, is a major trading partner? (We’ll get to Iran and North Korea shortly.)

Another objection to the PTSD is the temptation the overgrown military establishment presents to policymakers. This was best articulated by Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who recounts in her memoir how — in the late 1990s, as Clinton was looking to intervene against Serbia — she asked Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Here was the supposed chief diplomat more or less saying, “We’ve got this big hammer, so why not see every problem as a nail.”

Government officials, hiding behind classified material, can easily inflate and even create so-called threats, and they have an obvious incentive to do so. Moreover, a big military is going to be a menacing military because it will conduct war games close to other countries; when governments respond, they can be accused of provocation and aggression. (In contrast, American moves are never provocative.) And yes, politicians and bureaucrats lie, especially in foreign policy. War is a lie, to appropriate David Swanson’s book title. Post-Vietnam, we should not have needed to be reminded of this danger, but we sure got a reminder with Iraq in 2002-03.

Who do the PSDT advocates think would attack the United States unless it has a bigger military? Who presents an existential threat? Some will say we no longer need to fear a conventional attack or invasion by a nation-state. What then? Terrorists? What is more ridiculous than the contention that a terrorist organization would be deterred by an even more powerful U.S. military? Osama bin Laden hoped the U.S. government would respond to 9/11 by invading the Muslim world and spending itself into bankruptcy. And does anyone seriously believe a domestic lone wolf, having been “radicalized” after looking at al-Qaeda websites or seeing news accounts of U.S. atrocities in the Middle East, would take the size of the U.S. military into account when plotting retaliation?

Perhaps before we dismiss the nation-state threat we ought to ask if Iran and North Korea are special cases. The leaders of Iran have been called “mad mullahs,” and Kim-Jong Un has been described as insane. But this poses a problem for the PTSD. If those rulers are indeed mad, how can we expect them to be rational enough to do calculate the costs and benefits of an attack? On the other hand, if they are not mad — and we have no reason to believe they are — we may reasonably assume they know they would gain nothing from an attack. A larger U.S. military would not change that; neither would a dramatically scaled-back military. But the large national-security apparatus the United States already has is a daily threat to Iran and North Korea. These so-called threats have been manufactured in Washington, D.C.

For the record, Trump’s military brain trust says the biggest national-security challenges come from Russia and China, not terrorism. “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security,” the new National Defense Strategy’s unclassified summary states.

Finally, military spending takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers, who, it’s safe to say, have personally important uses for that money. Instead of labor and resources flowing into industries that make consumers better off, they go to politicians, bureaucrats, and all the businesses that long to sell things to the government. This is the infamous military-industrial complex, which is far more pervasive than anything Eisenhower ever had nightmares about. The deep distortion of economic activity is part of the incalculable cost of the national-security state. We literally don’t know what we’re missing because of it.

The way to achieve peace is not to prepare for war but to reject militarism and empire, and embrace nonintervention. Prophecies of war are too easily self-fulfilling. Thus, as a pioneer of modern libertarianism, F. A. Harper, put it many years ago, “It is now urgent in the interest of liberty that many persons become ‘peace-mongers.’”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sheldon Richman, author of America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.

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.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

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

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";

Roads to Perdition, Paths of Righteousness, and the Gray Area In Between

MAKE SURE YOU CIRCULATE THESE MATERIALS! BREAKING THE EMPIRE'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE DEPENDS ON YOU.

Apparently there are seven things that piss off the Christian God more than anything else. And, not surprisingly, those seven things are all common traits in both those who worship Him and in those of us who doubt or deny His existence. Real or imaginary, you've gotta give the man upstairs credit for His sense of humor. Too funny...incorporate faults and flaws into our DNA, and then punish us for them. Even threats of Hellfire and damnation don't seem to carry much weight in deterring good Christians from lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, or pride. One would strongly suspect that a vast majority are CHRINOs (CHRistians In Name Only), smarter than they appear, and only in it for the sense of community, political correctness, and/or lucrative business contacts. Some combination of those seven deadly sins plays a part in most forms of human bad behavior. And in most instances, only extreme punishment (imminent death or lengthy incarceration) will deter any of us from being the nasty little lustful, gluttonous, greedy, slothful, wrathful, envious, and prideful monkeys we are.

L U S T

The fake news consortium is awash with sordid tales of lustful, mostly powerful old men, who use their wealth and stature to justify sexual trespasses against mostly the young and vulnerable. Lecherous, horny bastards from high levels of entertainment, politics, pro sports, and big business are taking the fall for letting the bad judgment of their genitalia guide their actions. Sacrificial lambs in the Circus of Empire. Charlie Rose was way overripe and due for replacement anyway. It was no accident that lust is first on the list of sins. It seems that there's just no means of control over the basest of human activities.

Although it ended abruptly about thirty years ago, I too fell victim to the advances of various sexual predators during my youth. Ah yes, back before smooth skin, six-pack abs, a white smile, and a bushy head of hair gave way to blotchiness, wrinkles, flab, yellow teeth, and ears full of hair...I fell prey to quite a number of randy women, and a few men. I simply rejected all the men, and even a few of the women. Near as I can tell, I was not psychologically injured by any of these advances. Being wanted and desired is complimentary. Of course, old people preying on youngsters is deplorable, but the dance of life must go on. Flirtations between adults should be expected and accepted by all. Nobody really knows whether advances will be unwanted or not until contact is initiated.

At the tender age of 22, I fell victim to one particularly insistent woman. She forced herself upon me with great vigor, but it is impossible to rape a willing body, so I never complained. In fact, she was 17 at the time, and in succumbing to her charms, I became the (statutory) rapist. I did six years for my crime, as her husband and father to our daughter. There's a lot of gray area when it comes to lust, and the fake news loves anything that even smells racy. Get over it! Unless there is a small child, a corpse, a household pet, and/or violence involved, there's nothing to get in a tizzy over. It happens a billion times a day. I'm ashamed to have wasted three paragraphs on the subject.

Botero

Back in the days when I was a young, careless glutton, I ate cows, pigs, fish, turkeys, and chickens with barely a thought to those billions of sentient creatures in brutal captivity. I consumed the milk of cows, even as their young were denied the nourishment, and were being slaughtered for veal. I deprived chickens of their progeny by devouring their eggs, while mixing their genetic material with flesh ripped from pigs, over a piping hot burner. At a gut level, I knew I was being a thoughtless, brutal asshole. But what's a poor human to do, when all the best information is telling us that we NEED the protein. We NEED the dead flesh of the designated sacrificial beings. After all, who in his right mind would consider giving up In and Out Hamburgers?

Selfishness may be the only reason most humans ever exhibit decent behavior. In my case, I only gave up animal protein in favor of a plant-based diet because I became convinced that the gluttonous consumption of dead animals is the major cause of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, Parkinson's, and many cancers. I did it for my own good. I did it out of selfishness. The decision had little to do with empathy or kindness. Like all humans, I'm still an asshole, but now I'm an asshole who can look into a cow's big brown eyes without guilt. I can forget the sins of my past, and the cows will never be the wiser.

Gluttony is second only to lust on Ye Shitlist o' The Lord, and looking around, it appears that humans have not only overpopulated the earth with their lustful antics, they've filled it to overflowing with gluttonous, flabby, morbidly obese, thoughtless, brutal assholes. Gotta blame much of this mess on God, Himself for telling His clueless minions that they should "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." One of the best examples of The Lord's dark sense of humor; with His blessings, the planet is overpopulated to bursting by gluttonous, fat-assed killers.

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. The other five deadly sins are the perfect ingredients for a country and its people, hooked on wars for profit. Wall Street, the politicians it owns, and the military/intelligence divisions it controls are infinitely greedy for the resources of other lands. Too slothful to find wealth by less violent means, their wrath is unleashed upon every country in possession of assets they envy. And being the Exceptional Nation, the U.S.A. has no problem with stirring up a noxious soup of national pride, waving flags, and public support for its endless procession of wars. Of thee I sing.

Fifty years ago, I had a choice: 1. Stay in college and keep the 2S Deferment, which would keep me out of The Vietnam Fiasco for a while. 2. Drop out of college and head for safety in Canada. 3. Drop out of college and take my chances with the draft board. or 4. Drop out of college and join the U.S. Navy, in order to avoid being drafted into the U.S. Army, and possibly becoming fertilizer for rice paddies in Vietnam. I hated college, so choice #1 was out. Number 4 was a possibility for a while, but the more I learned about military matters, the more I became convinced that I just wouldn't fit into any of their uniforms. So when it came down to a choice between possible prison time, and maybe never again seeing friends and family, I chose to stand my ground on U.S. soil. My number came up, and I refused induction into the freaking Army. Twice.

Of course I knew that war was wrong in every conceivable way. Even as a young child, I wondered what made the mass-murder of warfare okay, when murder on a personal basis was illegal. I'd sure like to be able to say that my anti-war stance was firmly rooted in empathy and compassion for all mankind, and to a great extent it was. But to an even greater extent, I did it out of selfishness. I did it to save my own ass from a kill or be killed scenario.

After doing time for my crime, I found out that in virtually every war waged by my country of birth, the blood of young men was shed for the benefit of the already wealthy profiteers at the top of the economic ladder. I learned that the U.S.A. grew out of the deaths of millions of Native Americans, and that the sweat of enslaved Africans greased the wheels of capitalism. I found out about Manifest Destiny, the theft of the northern half of Mexico, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, and a string of sordid wars across the globe, spanning two centuries. It was a surprise to discover that the U.S.A. was behind Hitler's rise to power, and largely responsible for 80 million deaths in World War II, and an even bigger surprise to find out about the Pentagon's post-war plan to drop 204 atomic bombs on 66 Russian cities, and "Wipe The Soviet Union off the map." What a disappointment it must have been for our fighting forces when the world's greatest fireworks show was not approved. Since it is military policy to avoid counting the dead bodies, it is impossible to know the extent of American mayhem since WWII. But according to James A. Lucas, my country is responsible for at least 20 million deaths in 37 countries since the end of the second war to end all wars.

Just as summer must succumb to autumn, and autumn to dead, cold winter, all things must pass. Cradles to graves, empires to dust. I've never even fired a gun, and know nothing about weapons systems. But fortunately The Saker does, and if he's right, the bloody dance of the American Empire may be coming to an end. It appears that while required reading at The Pentagon has been "The Power of Positive Thinking", the Russian Military has been absorbed in "The Art of War". And while bloviating American politicians have been blathering about their country's greatness, exceptionalism, and invulnerability, their Russian counterparts have been quietly building earth's most formidable military arsenal. Without going into detail (link to The Saker's article below), it now appears that The U.S. Empire is no longer militarily superior, nor invulnerable. If this is correct, the long-standing nuclear standoff has tilted in extreme favor of the Russkies, and the United States now finds itself wielding a knife at a gunfight.

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/11/12/debunking-two-american-myths/

Fortunately for those of us who live under the Stars and Stripes, who value and enjoy our allotted time to breathe, eat, procreate, and recreate, Vladimir Putin's Russia represents a threat to no other country. President Putin is apparently a wise man. He understands human nature. He knows that, as I stated above, selfishness may be the only reason most humans ever exhibit decent behavior. He knows that capitalism has inadvertently castrated the U.S. Military Machine, and that The Pentagon must be aware that it is now in possession of simply second rate hardware. Yes, America...the profits of Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon are, and have always been more important than the quality of their products. Russian jets, missiles, and bombs cost much less, but pack unparalleled punch. Thou art no longer exceptional, America. Thou art second rate when it comes to weaponry, and had better start considering standing down. Reconsider thy threatening stance, and understand that thy choice now involves simply life or death. Maintain thy stance, and prepare to meet thy Maker, or do what is right and take thy place righteously in the world community.

If there happens to be a just God or, much more likely, if we're just lucky, The U.S. Empire will follow my fine example from the Vietnam era, and decide strongly against participation in World War III. Whether righteous or selfish: A sound decision is a sound decision. Worst case scenario: He's watching from the clouds, pulling all the strings, waiting for the final fireworks show, and preparing for the biggest and best laugh He ever had.

About the Author

JOHN R. HALL, Senior Contributing Editor John R. Hall is a street-trained agnotologist with an advanced degree in American Ignorance. Other hats include: photojournalist, novelist, restaurateur, mountaineer, grocer, nurseryman, and janitor. He’s written three novels which have been read by almost nobody: ‘Embracing Darwin’, ‘Last Dance in Lubberland’, and ‘Atlas fumbled’. An untrained writer and college drop-out, he began his short career in journalism writing the ‘Excursion’ column for The Jackson Hole News & Guide. More recently he penned the ‘Left Column’ for The Molokai Island Times; appropriately on the island once known as a leper colony. John currently resides, writes, and protests injustice in the shadow of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and walks among the spirits of those who once occupied the 79 Disappeared Pueblos.

JOHN R HALL—If there happens to be a just God or, much more likely, if we’re just lucky, The U.S. Empire will follow my fine example from the Vietnam era, and decide strongly against participation in World War III. Whether righteous or selfish: A sound decision is a sound decision. Worst case scenario: He’s watching from the clouds, pulling all the strings, waiting for the final fireworks show, and preparing for the biggest and best laugh He ever had.

If there happens to be a just God or, much more likely, if we’re just lucky, The U.S. Empire will follow my fine example from the Vietnam era, and decide strongly against participation in World W

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

On the Ninetieth Anniversary of the Russian Revolution: Why Socialism Did Not Fail

NOTE: First published on Oct 29, 2007
By Sharat G. Lin

Monthly Review Online

When the Russian Revolution of October 1917 took place, it raised the hopes of the working class worldwide that a socialist state was possible. The civil war that followed plus the intervention of foreign powers devastated the economy, necessitating a postponement in the transition to socialist relations of production. The New Economic Policy was a stop-gap measure to sustain agricultural and industrial production in the face of war and potential famine. It was not until the 1930s that collectivization of farms and factories, and state ownership of the means of production, could be completed. The violence before and after October 1917 was taken as an indication that a peaceful transition to socialism was not possible because the propertied classes would not willingly give up their privileges.

Lenin addressing the multitudes (painting).

On the contrary, when Boris Yeltsin effectively dissolved the Soviet Union in December 1991, allowing the republics to go their own ways, and vowed to transform Russia into a capitalist market economy, it surprised many that the counter-revolution could have happened with so little effort and largely without violent upheaval. Many on the left lamented the apparent collapse of socialism in Russia and withering away of socialist relations of production in the republics.

The 1917 capture of state power by the Bolsheviks was accompanied by workers winning control of factories and establishing workers’ soviets. However, a careful examination of Soviet history suggests that the period from the end of the New Economic Policy (1929) to the beginning of the Great Patriotic War (1941) witnessed two seemingly contradictory trends. First, the consolidation of collective and state ownership of the means of production throughout the economy prompted Joseph Stalin to declare that socialism had been achieved and that classes had been abolished. Second, Stalin’s purges of the Bolshevik Party and dismantling of the soviets effectively overthrew workers’ power and established the rule of the bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy’s continued ideological adherence to the state playing a central role in the egalitarian redistribution of wealth provided a veil of “socialism” that led many on the left to consider the Soviet Union to be some sort of “socialist,” “revisionist,” or “deformed workers’ state.” The prevalent failure to recognize the bureaucracy as a ruling class derives, in part, from the bureaucracy being divorced from a polar position in the relations of production, e.g., it neither owns capital per se nor necessarily appropriates surplus for its own benefit. Nevertheless, state enterprises are under the direct control of managerial elites who appropriate surplus for reinvestment or for the state. They are the apex class in a “decapitated” relation of production that excludes an owner class, but includes a class ladder of managers, intellectuals (sellers of knowledge power), and workers (sellers of labor power). If enterprise bureaucrats clearly represent a class because of their position in a relation of production, so are state bureaucrats, by extension, members of that bureaucratic class owing to their authority over enterprise bureaucrats and power to appropriate enterprise surpluses to operate the state apparatus.

Thus, workers and intellectuals alike were alienated from state capital and its appropriation. By the 1960s, this was clearly evidenced by widespread attempts to circumvent the system, including the black market and the underground economy. Without specifying which class truly held state power, the national slogan of the day was “Служите государство!” (“Serve the State!”) It certainly was not of the working class.

As the first president of post-Soviet Russia, Boris Yeltsin unleashed a wave of privatizations that sold gigantic state enterprises for a song, catapulting a handful of well-connected buyers into becoming the new capitalist oligarchs. Though once a top CPSU leader, Yeltsin, the bureaucrat, had no inherent class interest in capitalist versus state capitalist versus statist versus socialist relations of production. For Yeltsin, selling off state enterprises was a means of dissolving the power base of his opponents in the bureaucracy and consolidating his own power within that bureaucracy.

By the same token, Vladimir Putin has no inherent class interest in preserving private enterprises. His efforts in recent years to re-establish state control over key sectors of the economy — oil (Rosneft), natural gas (Gazprom), oil and petrochemical transport (Transneft and Transnefteprodukt), automobiles (Autovaz), metals (VSMPO-Avisma), aviation (United Aircraft Corporation), and shipbuilding — served to dissolve the power base of free-market oligarchs who were challenging the power of the bureaucracy.

The zig-zags between market capitalism, state capitalism, and statism are not a consequence of one class overthrowing another each time, but rather of the bureaucracy itself vacillating on the relations of production. Yeltsin’s privatizations and Putin’s reassertion of state ownership of key means of production are neither counter-revolution nor revolution, but manifestations of the bureaucracy vacillating in its game of consolidating political power and neutralizing opposition.

Despite its defects and contradictions, the Soviet state for 45 years provided an effective counterbalance to global imperialist hegemony, preventing the outbreak of major wars of unprovoked aggression by the U.S. government. But with the Soviet Union already weary of the war in Afghanistan and facing political turmoil at home, it was in no position to deter the first U.S. invasion of Iraq in January 1991. Since then, Russia has acceded to U.S. superpower hegemony, yet has continued to oppose U.S. aggression, extraterritoriality, exceptionalism, and blatant violations of international law. As a bureaucratic state (as opposed to the U.S. capitalist state), Russia’s worldview will continue to differ from that of the U.S. and the European Union in seeking accommodation rather than confrontation with developing countries and anti-imperialist movements.

For the left, the problem is not one of a “failure of socialism,” but rather of a failure in the first place to continue the revolution to consolidate the socialist state and socialist democracy in the former Soviet Union. One lesson of the Russian Revolution for the project for twenty-first century socialism is that both state power and the relations of production must come fully under workers’ democratic control. While the Russian experiment in socialism may have floundered in the twentieth century, socialism itself did not fail. The movement for twenty-first century socialism has an historic opportunity and mandate to correct these mistakes and make true socialism possible.

About the author

writes on global political economy, the Middle East, India, labor migration, public health, and the environment. This essay is a summary of a talk presented at a public forum marking the 90th anniversary of the Russian Revolution held in the Humanist Hall, Oakland, California on October 13, 2007. The date generally accepted as marking the Bolshevik Revolution is November 7, 1917 (Gregorian calendar), even though it is frequently referred to as the “October Revolution” of October 25, 1917 (Julian calendar).

SHARAT G LIN—The zig-zags between market capitalism, state capitalism, and statism are not a consequence of one class overthrowing another each time, but rather of the bureaucracy itself vacillating on the relations of production. Yeltsin’s privatizations and Putin’s reassertion of state ownership of key means of production are neither counter-revolution nor revolution, but manifestations of the bureaucracy vacillating in its game of consolidating political power and neutralizing opposition.

Stalin on the Allies’ idea of dividing Germany

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

by Scott Humor } from my History Files | The Saker

Particular attention should to be paid to the fact that it was the Anglo-Saxons that in 1943 set up several temporary occupation zones in Germany. It was them, also, who were making plans of fragmentation of Germany into a number of mini states. In fact, their idea of the post-war Germany was to repeat the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, that for over three hundred years eliminated Germany as a single nation from the European history.

The principled position of the Soviet Union in relation to unified Germany, Joseph Stalin made on February 23rd 1942 in the ORDER of the PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR OF DEFENSE OF THE USSR #55 Moscow

“The foreign press says sometimes that the Red Army aims to exterminate the German nation and destroy the German state. This, of course, is a silly nonsense and stupid slander against the Red Army. The Red Army can have no such idiotic purposes.

The Red Army aims to expel the German occupiers from our country and to liberate the Soviet lands from the German fascist invaders. It is very likely that the war for the liberation of Soviet lands will lead to the expulsion and destruction of Hitler’s clique. We would welcome such outcome. But it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler’s clique with the German people, with German country. The knowledge of history shows that the “hitlers” come and go, but the German people and the German state remains.”

The second most important public statement showing that the Soviet Union position was a preservation of Germany was made by Joseph Stalin on May 9, 1945, in his radio address to the Soviet people on the Victory Day over Germany. The text was published by newspaper Pravda on May 10th, 1945. It’s known as the Speech of the Supreme Commander J. V. Stalin on May 9, 1945

“Three years ago Hitler publicly declared his goals including a dismemberment of the Soviet Union and separation from it the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and other regions. He stated bluntly: “We will destroy Russia, so that she will never be able to raise up, ever again”.

It was three years ago. But the mad ideas of Hitler were not destined to come true, the course of the war scattered them to the winds. In fact, something completely opposite took place to what the Germans raved. Germany is defeated. The German troops surrender. The Soviet Union is celebrating victory, although it does not intend to dismember or destroy Germany.”

Quoted by the edition of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, The Complete Collection of works, Volume 15

The Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, USA and Great Britain from 19 to 30 October, 1943.

On October 25th, 1943, during the discussion of the Allies’ plan presented by Cordell Hull “Basic Principles Regarding German Surrender.”

My translation of the official transcript of conversation between Anthony Eden and Molotov

“Eden: In relation to the permanent status of Germany. We would like to have a division of Germany into separate states. Particularly, we would like to separate Prussia from the rest of Germany. We would therefore encourage… the separatists movement in Germany… It would be interesting to know an opinion of the Soviet government on this issue.”

“Molotov: I say to Mr. Eden and Mr. Hull: In all measures of the allies aimed at maximizing the neutralization of Germany as an aggressive state, the Soviet government supports the UK and the United States of America. Is this enough or not enough?”

“Eden. I would like to know what You, Mr. Molotov, think about this question that we are discussing. In London… we came to the conclusion that it would be exclusive to know Your opinion and an opinion of Marshal Stalin concerning dismemberment of Germany… the challenge presented here is whether we should try to use force…”

“Molotov: “The Soviet government is most likely behind in studying of this issue… Our leaders are now busy with military problems”.

Who divided Germany in 1945: What should Germans and Russians remember, by Sergey Brezkun, a Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences.

The Tehran Conference between Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, 28 November to 1 December 1943

On December 1, Roosevelt, during the conversation with Stalin face to face during the breakfast said, “Shall we discuss the partition of Germany?”

Stalin replied: “I don’t mind”. [He meant that he didn’t mind to discuss the question. S.H.]

When the official discussion started, Roosevelt immediately declared that he would like to discuss the questions of Poland and Germany.

Stalin asked, if there were some other topics for a discussion.

Roosevelt immediately responded: “the Dismemberment of Germany.”

According to the stenographic record:

“Churchill: I am for the dismemberment of Germany. But I would like to consider the question of the dismemberment of Prussia, also. I’m for the separation of Bavaria and other provinces from Germany.”

“Roosevelt: I would like to state that I compiled by myself two months ago a plan for the dismemberment of Germany into five states.”

“Churchill: The root of evil in Germany is Prussia.”

“Roosevelt: Prussia must be weakened and reduced in size…… the second part… must be enabled in Hanover and North-Western regions of Germany. The third part of Saxony and a district of Leipzig. The fourth part is the Hessian province, Darmstadt, Kassel and the areas located to the South of the Rhine and the old town of Westphalia. A fifth of Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg. Each of these five parts will represent an independent state. In addition, the part of Germany should be allocated to the areas of the Kiel canal and Hamburg…”

“Churchill: What You have stated is just a mouthful… I believe that there are two issues: one destructive and the other constructive. I have two thoughts. First is the isolation of Prussia…; the second is the separation of the southern provinces of Germany — Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, Palatinate, from the Saar to Saxony inclusive… I think that the southern province is easy to tear from Prussia and to include into the Danube Confederation…”

Stalin remained silent during this exchange.

“Stalin: I don’t like the plan for new associations (Stalin had in mind, of course, a collection of small artificial states. S.H. ). No matter how we approached the question of the dismemberment of Germany, it is not necessary to create a stillborn Association of the Danube countries. Hungary and Austria must exist separately from each other…”

“Roosevelt: I agree with Marshal Stalin…”

“Churchill: I don’t want to be interpreted as if I am not for dismemberment of Germany. But I wanted to say that if you divide Germany into several parts, then, as Marshal Stalin said that the time will come when the Germans will unite.”

“Stalin. There are no measures that would eliminate the possibility of the unification of Germany.”

“Churchill. Marshal Stalin prefers a divided Europe?”

“Stalin. What does Europe have to do with all this? I don’t know whether to create four, five or six independent German States. This issue needs to be discussed. But it is clear to me that it is not necessary to create new unions of states.”

Sergey Kremlev, The Myths about 1945, Moscow. Publishing House Eksmo, 2010.

Кремлёв Сергей. Название: Мифы о 1945 годе. … Издательский дом: Яуза : Эксмо. Год издания: 2010

The Potsdam Conference

From The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. Georgiĭ Konstantinovich Zhukov.

“A serious discussion we had of the question that was brought up, yet again, by the delegations of the United States and England, on the dismemberment of Germany into three States: 1) Southern Germany; 2) Northern Germany; and 3) the Western Germany.

The first time this question was raised by them at the Crimean Conference, which was rejected by the Soviet delegation.

In Potsdam, the head of the Soviet government again dismissed the question of the dismemberment of Germany.

J. V. Stalin used to say: “We should not allow in relation to the German people this historical injustice. The German people would never agree with artificial dismemberment of their homeland. This proposition we reject, it is unnatural. What we have to accomplish is not to dismember Germany, but to make it democratic and peace-loving state.”

The Soviet delegation at the Potsdam Conference insisted on an inclusion of a provision into the Potsdam conference final document a provision on the establishment of Central German administrative departments.

However, because of the opposition of the representatives of the Western powers, this decision was latter breached and discarded. The central government departments have not been established, and the unification of Germany on a peaceful and democratic basis, as envisaged in Potsdam, was not achieved.

It was Stalin who insisted during the Potsdam Conference that the Resolution of the Potsdam Conference included the following statement:

“The allies are not going to destroy or cast into slavery the German people. The allies intend to give to the German people the opportunity to prepare to continue to implement the reconstruction of their life on a democratic and peaceful basis.”

“THE POTSDAM CONFERENCE: 17 July to 2 August 1945.

THE MESSAGE OF THE BERLIN CONFERENCE OF THE THREE POWERS

Tehran – Yalta – Potsdam, Collection of documents, compiled by: W. P. Sanakoev, B. L. Cybulski. 2nd edition. Moscow.: Publishing house “International relations”, 1970. – 416 p.

On the last day of the Potsdam Conference Stalin twice spoke directly about a need for “a central administrative apparatus for Germany”, without which “the general policy against Germany is difficult to conduct”. [From Stalin’s point of view, the central administration for Germany could prevent the Allies from dividing the country, as they insisted. S.H.]

On the same day, talking about the preservation of the Ruhr industrial area in Germany, Stalin proposed in the final document of the Conference to make a record that the Ruhr area was to remain a part of Germany.

When the British foreign Minister Ernest Bevin asked, why Stalin even mentioned this question, Stalin said that “the idea of a separate Ruhr area has emerged initially from the thesis of the dismemberment of Germany,” and further said:

“After that there has been a change of views on this issue. Germany will remain a united country. The Soviet delegation asks this question: do you agree that the Ruhr area was left in Germany? That’s why this issue is brought up here.”

Truman agreed. Bevin whose government wanted to get their control over Ruhr, said that he needed to consult his government. He also said: “We offer not to create any central German government for some time.’

The History Of Germany . Volume 2. From the creation of the German Empire until the beginning of the XXI century

History of Germany : textbook : in 3 volumes / ed. by Y. V. Galaktionov. — Moscow: KDU, 2008.

On the first day of the Yalta conference, 4 February 1945

In response to Churchill’s offer to discuss “namely, on the future of Germany and if it even will have any future,” Stalin briefly and sternly answered: “Germany will have a future.”

When the discussion started in Yalta, Stalin said that “if the allies intend to dismember Germany, so it is necessary to say so.”

On February 5, 1945 Roosevelt stated that “under current conditions” he “doesn’t see any other ways out for Germany, but dismemberment”.

Stalin with his usual dark humor asked: “How many parts? Six to seven or less?”

This principle position to be against the dismemberment of Germany Stalin maintained until the end of the war. And this became the official position of the USSR.

THE POSITION OF THE USSR was against THE MORGENTHAU PLAN

Although, the Soviet Union suffered more than anyone else at the hands of German fascism, it, however, took a humane position.

Prior to May 9th, the US and Allies undertook numerous attempts to push the USSR cooperation on the division of Germany.

First Stalin was presented with the Hans Morgenthau plan of division of Germany, which was approved by Churchill and Roosevelt. Stalin rejected this plan.

The Morgenthau plan included the dismemberment of Germany, the transition of important industrial areas under international control, elimination of heavy industries, demilitarization and transformation of Germany into an agrarian country.

This second Morgenthau plan was proposed on September 1944 at the 2nd Quebec conference, which was attended by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. Stalin didn’t attend this conference. At the conference a Memorandum was signed, according to which Germany was supposed to become a predominantly agrarian country.

Latter, due to the opposition of the USSR the plan in its original form was rejected, however, in post-war Germany, the American administration has taken a number of measures to limit economic development (in particular, Directive JCS 1067).

On March 26, 1945, when, in accordance with the decisions made at the Yalta Conference, the commission on the dismemberment of Germany began its work in London, the Soviet representative at the Commission, F. T. Gusev, on behalf of the Soviet government sent to the Chairman of European Advisory Commission Anthony Eden a letter with the following statement:

“The Soviet government sees the decision of the Crimean Conference on the dismemberment of Germany as not a mandatory plan for the dismemberment of Germany, but as a possible perspective for the pressure on Germany to protect the USSR in case other means should prove insufficient”.

From this statement on any actual discussions of the dismemberment of Germany with the participation of the Soviet Union had stopped.

After WWII

from the Interview of I.V. Stalin to the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times Mr. Alexander Werth, from September 17, 1946.

Source: Stalin I. V. Works. – Vol. 16. – Moscow.: Publishing house “Pisatel”, 1997. P. 37-39.

“In short, the policy of the Soviet Union in terms of the German question comes down to the demilitarization and democratization of Germany…. The demilitarization and democratization of Germany are one of the most important guarantees of lasting and sustainable peace.”

About the Author

—Scott Humor
Director of Research and Development
author of The enemy of the State

Follow me on twitter

In case you have forgotten what happened in Ukraine, this book should refresh your memory with the incredibly precise and humorous chronicles: ANTHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HUMOR: FROM MAIDAN TO TRUMP

SCOTT HUMOR—SAKER—“In short, the policy of the Soviet Union in terms of the German question comes down to the demilitarization and democratization of Germany…. The demilitarization and democratization of Germany are one of the most important guarantees of lasting and sustainable peace.”

Malorossiya: Between Virtual Strategy and Political Future – Part 3

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

Prepared and translated by J. Arnoldski

Dateline: July 28, 2017 - Fort Russ - a fraternal site

Continued from Part 2

Malorossiya vs. Ukraine: Democracy vs. Dictatorship?

The observations presented in the last two installments are of principal importance and, indeed, raise the question of whether it is necessary to correct the state course of the Donetsk People’s Republic in the direction of being more consistent with the principles of democracy and its popular mandate.

Having been engaged in research on public opinion in Donbass (in the DPR and LPR) since May-June 2014, including by means of personally and constantly conducting public opinion polls and expert surveys, I can confidently assert that the people of Donbass will never agree to go back to being part of Ukraine, no matter under what name or government. The overwhelming majority of DPR and LPR residents (and the majority of inhabitants of Ukrainian-occupied Donbass) dream of their region being annexed by Russia. Second place in popularity (by a wide margin) is the conviction that the DPR and LPR must preserve independence, and in third place is the establishment of a federal state of Novorossiya (the historical lands with a predominantly Russian, i.e., Great Russian, population wrested from the Turks by the Russian Empire and subsequently transferred by Lenin to the Ukrainian SSR). Those who support returning to Ukraine, according to the surveys conducted by the author among the population in the DPR and LPR, make up only 2-3%. In accordance with the political moods of the inhabitants of the DPR and LPR, which are undoubtedly inclined towards a maximum distancing from Ukraine and joining Russia, the authorities of the republics do not have the right to ignore these stable aspirations.

"Having been engaged in research on public opinion in Donbass (in the DPR and LPR) since May-June 2014, including by means of personally and constantly conducting public opinion polls and expert surveys, I can confidently assert that the people of Donbass will never agree to go back to being part of Ukraine, no matter under what name or government."—E. Popov

The republics are also faced with a second restrictive factor, namely, the Kiev government’s stubborn refusal to fulfill the Minsk Agreements. A new “big war” with Ukraine is only a matter of time, as war is inevitable insofar as the Ukrainian state in its present form is maintained. That being said, the republics of Donbass can protect themselves in two possible ways: either by joining Russia (which would in fact raise the chances of a war between Ukraine and Russia) or by eliminating the Ukrainian state in its current format.

For obvious reasons, Russia is not willing to absorb the DPR and LPR (although this position could change relatively quickly if Russo-American and Russo-Western relations deteriorate). Thus, the DPR and LPR are left with no other variants than working to “abolish” Ukraine in its current form. It is probably by virtue of this reality that Alexander Zakharchenko opted for “violating” the basic democratic principle of the republic and violating the outcome of the referendum of May 11th, 2014 when he declared that the DPR would become part of future Malorossiya. Nevertheless, this does not eliminate the above-mentioned contradictions between the democratic character of the DPR state and the principle of security.

In our opinion, resolving this moral and legal contradiction is possible by means of organizing a congress of representatives of Ukraine’s regions and a subsequent all-Ukrainian plebiscite on the state’s future. This would in turn, however, be possible only after Nazi-oligarchic Ukraine’s military defeat. Let us provide some background to further elaborate this point.

The ruling regime in post-Maidan Ukraine came to power as the result of an armed coup and the overthrow of the legitimate government. Already with its very first steps, the new regime set out to violate the basic principle on which the state of Ukraine rested, namely, the ensuring of a bare minimum of ethno-cultural and civil rights to the Russian-cultured half of the country in exchange for recognition of the state in its existing borders (including the Russian lands of Novorossiya) by this population. The second step which nullified the state’s legitimacy was the genocide it launched against the population of Donbass in the form of punitive military actions and social and economic blockade. We can also recall another "forgotten" facet of the new Ukrainian government, i.e, the new Kiev authorities' refusal to recognize the old debts of the Ukrainian state as if their revolution had given birth to a new state free of the debt of the old. In so doing, Kiev essentially spurred a legal collision: the state of Ukraine no longer existed.

All of this - even before the Ukrainian punitive army’s shelling and bombardment of Donbass - gave grounds to speak of a “former Ukraine.” Hence why I have used this term in my publications since literally the first days of March 2014 following the Maidan coup.

Thus, the current Kiev regime is: (1) illegitimate, having arisen as a result of the overthrow of a legitimate government and holding presidential and parliamentary elections only with gross procedural violations; (2) criminal, having committed treason in the form of a coup in collusion with a number of foreign states; and (3) genocidal, pursuing the extermination of the Russian population by means of military, financial and economic, and ecological means as well as through forcing them to migrate. This regime violates basic human rights and must be destroyed just like the Third Reich.

In late March 2014, on the website of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS), the author of these lines elaborated his view of the future of Ukraine’s system following the overthrow of the government by Ukrainian Nazis in the following terms: “Ukraine’s future destiny will be decided not in Kiev, but in Donetsk…Ukraine’s future fate is the fate of the regions out of whose bosom this state was given a lease on life. The future of democracy in Ukraine will therefore not depend on the opportunities for its citizens to freely express their will in nationwide elections for the head of state or parliament. Rather, democracy will be realized on the territory of Ukraine only if collective territorial and regional communities will be given the right to decide their own destinies…Either there will be a new social contract providing for the widest possible authority delegated to the regions in the cultural, political, and socio-economic spheres (the model of a subsidiary state system), or the regions will realize their free self-determination outside of the old or new Ukrainian statehood. In both cases, it is the people of specific regions that will decide. Let the population of the regions decide their own fate for themselves - whether to traverse down the path of civilizational divorce with the old Ukraine or, on the contrary, proceed towards concluding a new social contract to form a new Ukraine.”

In the three years that have passed since the latter article and others were published, only one thing changed: Ukraine began armed aggression against Donbass, a war which drew in hundreds of thousands of citizens from other regions of Ukraine and which has been passively or actively supported by millions of Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the basic principle proscribed in the above-cited article remains unchanged: Ukraine has to define itself. Yet there is no question as to whether it will do so with the existing Nazi ideology, just as there was no question of preserving the Nazi regime and Nazi ideology in defeated Nazi Germany.

The form of government and principles for creating a future Ukrainian state deserve discussion. The congress in Donetsk on July 18th, 2017 was an attempt at responding to this challenge, but we believe this attempt to be hardly successful and insufficient in meeting the complex problems facing the former Ukraine. This congress would have been quite adequate if it had happened back in March-April 2014 before the territory and population of Donbass began to be subjected to mass-scale genocide by the Ukrainians. In the present-day situation, however, including the Donbass republics in the composition of a Malorossiyan state is politically and psychologically unacceptable.

A billboard from the run-up to the May 11th, 2014 referendum: "Make your choice!"

Thus, I propose the following correction for the Malorossiya project. The republics of Donbass should aid the former Ukraine’s regions overthrow the illegitimate and criminal regime in Kiev, which is already constantly undermined by its own internal weakness and is already threatened with overthrow from within. Even while not considering itself to be part of Ukraine/Malorossiya, Donbass is nonetheless still compelled to have a stake in Ukrainian affairs given the constant threat posed by Ukraine. Donbass should therefore provide aid not only in the military sphere, but in the political realm as well, including by organizing an all-Ukrainian congress involving representatives from all regions, the anti-fascist forces of the underground, and the political emigration, and proceed to widely promote the resolutions of such a congress to the people of the territories controlled by the Kiev regime (something which was not done with the recent Donetsk congress). Such a congress should prepare and review questions as to the structural and organizational issues of a future referendum on the system of a future Malorossiya. Each and every region should be allowed to freely decide whether it will join Malorossiya directly, form some kind of geo-cultural federation, or seek self-determination from Ukrainian/Malorossiyan statehood altogether. Only through such a democratic method can the people of Donbass protect their main feats - the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics - and prevent the reincarnation of a Nazi regime on the territory of the former Ukraine.

I believe that Ukraine in its current borders, with its current political regime and ideology, is doomed. Already today, the future of this territory in the heart of Eastern Europe with a population of 32-34 million people, five nuclear power plants, enormous weapons stockpiles, and hundreds of thousands of people who have passed through the war against the people of Donbass, is in question. The Malorossiya project voiced in Donetsk on July 18th is, in terms of its intellectual quality and organizational structure, a first and rather incomplete attempt at constructing a future Ukrainian state. We hope that our treatise has shed adequate light on some of this project’s pitfalls and disadvantages, as well as its background and, most importantly, possible paths and solutions for the future.

• READ THE WHOLE SERIES
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

About the Author

Eduard Popov, born in 1973 in Konstantinovka, Donetsk region, is a Rostov State University graduate with a PhD in history and philosophy. In 2008, he founded the Center for Ukrainian Studies of the Southern Federal University of Russia in Rostov-on-Don. From 2009-2013, he was the founding head of the Black Sea-Caspian Center of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, an analytical institute of the Presidential Administration of Russia. In June 2014, Popov headed the establishment of the Representative Office of the Donetsk People's Republic in Rostov-on-Don. He has actively participated in humanitarian aid efforts in Donbass and has been a guest contributor to various Donbass media, such as the Lugansk-based Cossack Media Group. Popov has been Fort Russ' guest analyst since June, 2016.