Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%


horiz-long grey

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

If you don’t already understand that headline, you are missing the primary goal of neoliberal capitalism over the past nearly 40 years.

Stop assuming the 1% wants growth economies…please. Just stop.

The 1%’s interest is only in supporting the “keep all I got” model. Accept this as a rule and you are halfway to enlightenment, and you will pierce the technocratic lie that “economics is too hard to understand”.

Merkel: Still juggling Neoliberal recipes while the Titanic heads straight for the ice.

Yet the fundamental misconception that high finance actually wants a “high-growth” model - but just can't figure the darn thing out - is likely to persist. This is fostered by the mainstream media’s longtime deification of economic growth rates; but the recent twist is their newfound insistence that the 1.7% predicted 2017 Eurozone growth rate constitutes a turnaround, recovery, success story, blah blah blah. (1)

Talk to the man on the street and they don't know what recovery is being bandied about. Heck, Cuba does better than 1.7%, even with an international blockade!

This growth rate deification was never preordained - other alternatives were rejected: real unemployment rate (which includes underemployment), poverty rate, purchasing power index, etc.

Let's play their game: surely they have been able to win according to their fixed rules?

Obviously…no. Or as they like to say: “Not just yet.”

So when are France and the Eurozone going to experience serious, broad growth? As the world’s largest macro-economy their stagnation is, after all, slowing the economies of the entire (non-socialist planning) globe.

In a nutshell, I can guarantee you that the Eurozone’s current near-depression/recession will not relent until wages and working conditions are drastically reduced, as is the collective ability to demand the minor redistributions of wealth permitted under capitalism.

My two guarantees are, after all, essentially what Juncker, Merkel, Schauble, Macron, Draghi, Dijsselbloem (Who? Exactly.) and other Eurozone leaders have repeatedly admitted…people just don’t want to believe it (or re-broadcast it). Economics, you see, are not forced by economic imperatives, but by political and cultural choices.

I would like to return to a quote by former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis - I have used his 2016 book, “And The Poor Suffer What They Must?” as the jumping-off point for this 7-part series, which is now concluding. The first article of this series lambasted him for preferring to be a rock star instead of a true leftist. The second article replaced his fake-leftist analysis of the formation of the Eurozone with a truly leftist one. But, for the most part, the rest of the series has commended, re-broadcast and expanded upon his admirable whistleblowing regarding the appallingly corrupt and dangerously precarious nature of the Eurozone today.

Varoufakis related a discussion he had with an ECB & IMF interlocutor on the economically self-defeating nature of raising the value-added tax (sales tax) on a country like Greece. I place it here to show that the introduction of clearly counterproductive and ineffective economics - the policies of austerity - is by design. But what is the design?

“’Someone whose views matter here wants to demonstrate to Paris what is in store for France if they refuse to enact structural reforms.’”

To take a timely quote from the essential modern economist Michael Hudson - from his new, superb, comprehensive article on The Saker, “Socialism, Land and Banking: 2017 compared to 1917”:

"The word ‘reform’ as used by today’s neoliberal media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested interests.” (emphasis added)

This series was to be a call to arms in France, but the war is already over

This series was mostly written at the end of August, when the news is always slow.

It was expected that France would return from summer vacation and demonstrate like hell against the labor code “reforms” of the neoliberal concoction Emmanuel Macron. But it is early November and the fight is long over. “For now, he’s winning the game, no point in hiding it,” said Jean-Luc Mélenchon, France's most famous leftist politician, last weekend.

Macron signed his labor code rollback into law by decree in late September. Not only was it not approved by the legislative branch, it was not even debated there. But some in the French government media would not completely hold their tongue regarding the phony claim that unions and grassroots groups helped write the law: “…the ‘social partners’ had just two hours to read the final 159-page version of 36 changes to French labour law.”

Macron had moved extremely swiftly. It was quite intelligent…but not so intelligent that I wasn't asking everybody in August: “Why are the unions and leftist groups and Mélenchon waiting until late September to schedule their protests? It will obviously be too late!”

So either I'm a genius, or they are incompetent, or there is collusion, or the French have decided to be content with only ending the multi-decade reign of the Socialist and conservative parties, and only had the political energy to throw themselves on the mercy of Macron.

Bad idea….Despite constant polling showing significant majority opposition to the changes, Macron grinned in our face as he signed them into law even earlier than anticipated and on live TV.

So…anyway…back to part 7 - the true goal of “reforms”.

Varoufakis’ “structural reforms” have not been invented in France, of course. I think we all already have a very good idea about the pro-neoliberal capitalist/anti-socialist nature regarding the measures which have been implemented across the Eurozone in recent years despite massive democratic opposition.

So there's no point to get into explaining them - after six years of results in France we have a big enough data set to draw solid conclusions: These reforms and austerity measures are self-defeating in terms of creating growth, and even the future achieved growth will necessarily be limited: you cannot make firing people easier and not expect that to offset some of your planned job gains, no?

My two proposed conditions for ending austerity - the gutting of worker wages/conditions and the assured inability to renegotiate - combined with the inability to democratically discontinue this policy, make it inevitable that the Eurozone will soon achieve a “Lost Decade”. And then also a “Lost Score”, just as Japan did.

In both of these major economic regions, recession has been fabricated in order to wage a social war against the 99%. Return to Dr. Hudson's quotation above for a more in-depth explanation.

Why does the West believe that Japan is on another planet?

Another of our very few truly indispensable modern economists is Richard Werner. He is known for having developed the term Quantitative Easing, but his greatest contribution is in bridging the gap between Europe and Japan, two economic giants. His book “Princes of the Yen” is a first-hand account of Japan's sudden shift from economic powerhouse to economic sick man - they went from being poised to buy the entire world, to perpetual stagnation. The 2001 book is so good that it did the impossible: it was an economics book that went to #1 on the sales charts (in Japan).

Perhaps it is because I am Iranian and am used to hearing about to hearing about the glories of 500 BC, but I feel that even an era as long as 16 years ago may still have things to teach us today….

But Varoufakis does not mention Werner; does not appear to have an international view of capitalism, socialism or economics; even evinces a Eurocentric prejudice. In his book he mentions the Bank of Japan just twice:

“From the late 1990s onwards, Europe’s banks copied the practices of the Anglosphere’s all-singing, all-dancing financial sector without having the safety net of a Federal reserve, a Bank of England or even a Bank of Japan to catch them when the inevitable fall from grace occurred.”

That’s a fine quote, but what on earth is “even a Bank of Japan”? Since when is being the longtime 2nd-largest economy small potatoes? It’s no shame to get passed by China, and the BoJ is certainly far more powerful than the Bank of England. The only reason for this casual dismissal of Japan that I can think of is - Eurocentrism. And this casual dismissal is from an alleged Marxist…and an alleged economist!

But if all of us would study Japan’s recent economic choices it gives us no doubt about two key issues: The Eurozone is following in Japan’s foolish footsteps, and that bankers are the same everywhere. Yes, those 1917-era caricatures are still correct….

The rise, replacement & decline of the Japanese model

I must repeat: these “reforms” were not invented in Europe. Instead, Europe is enacting/ has enacted the same reforms with the same ideology, goals and tools as in “Lost Score” Japan - the only differences are in skin color, eye shape and per capita rice consumption.

Much like postwar Germany, Japan was tapped as the US’s choice for regional manufacturing powerhouse…even though both nations wreaked such immoral, imperialist havoc during decades of suffering and repression. But both were defeated and thus easy to manipulate; both countries still host the highest number of American forces in the world today, even more than an “occupied” nation like Afghanistan.

Until 1985 Japan’s industrial/banking system worked superbly, with well-known results. It was a stronger version of France’s “mixed economy” model, with even more government direction about where, to whom and how much money to lend in order to create broad growth.

What changed was the decline of the dollar’s dominance, the end of Bretton Woods and the US’s creation of neoliberal economics in order to maintain American domination.

With the Plaza Accord of 1985, Japan adopted the US-orchestrated neoliberal changes that were designed to suck the surpluses from Japan back into the United States. ((West) Germany, France, the US & the UK also signed, but Japan had accumulated the most to lose.) From a capitalist, 1% point of view it made perfect sense and worked perfectly well, which is why Japan’s 1% adopted it. But from a nationalist or 99% point of view it was economic suicide.

As Michael Hudson related in 2008, Japan was, “acting as the Thirteenth Federal Reserve District and Republican Re-Election Committee” by going along with a plan which was clearly against its own national interests and sovereignty. Such an assessment should inflame our Japanese readers, as well as the victims of American imperialism worldwide. But it is textbook communism that the 1% cares more for money than their hometown neighbors, whether the 1% is in Japan or elsewhere.

What was the biggest specific change (and mistake) Japan made? Making the Bank of Japan “independent” from the Ministry of Finance, i.e. from the government…i.e. from accountability, oversight, The People, law, justice, morality, the influence of democratic votes, etc.

Deride communism as ‘government domination’, but examine the opposite

The core foundation of neoliberal capitalism means one thing which we will all agree on: government stands in the way of money (its power, and the ability for individuals to make it).

Therefore, the surest system to aid big money is to have a government which is politicians and not bureaucrats/civil servants.

You may have heard a lot of bad things about government workers, but they often actually know their limited terrain better than any ivory tower technocrat or special interest lobbyist/researcher. And - crucially - at least they aren’t in it only for the money. Can anyone say that about the revolving door of “politics/lobby/business” of Western politics?

Nobody will honestly or justifiably claim that that ALL socialist civil servants are “corrupt”, of course. The mainstream narrative is that socialism produces endemic corruption, but especially at the highest level.

But (and I assume we all know this but just won’t discuss it) in Western capitalism it is only not called “corruption” because the vices of capitalism - unilateralism (personal initiative), greed, “creative” destruction, a mafia-inspired “family over society” which is the barest exception to untrammeled individualism, ignoring the weak and the old, and too many other sins to name - are hailed as virtues. All we gotta do is unleash those “animal energies” of the economy, right…?

The core foundation of finance capitalism which cannot be denied is: shareholders and bankers rule (central bankers, too).

That’s why getting rid of independent finance ministers is a real goal - the good ones are not working for profit, but for the People. Bankers can be certain of what motivates other bankers; they are not sure where people like Varoufakis are coming from (to his great credit).

So we all know that the decoupling of finance/lending banking in the US took a major step forward with the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, and that reduction of government oversight caused the subprime housing crisis in the US. 

But how many remember this “ancient history” a few years further back and across the Pacific? What happened when Japan divorced government oversight from banking following the Plaza Accord? Japanese bankers created the Asian Tiger Boom and the Asian Tiger Bust.

How? They flooded the area with easy credit, and then revoked it. Not being able to pay your bills is indeed a crisis….

And who organized the European Sovereign Debt crisis in the PIGS countries? Northern European bankers: by flooding the area with credit and then revoking it.

Many are saying the Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis is over, despite all the evidence to the contrary. (The previous six parts of the series have tried to marshal as much proof as possible for that thesis.)

So the multinational, regional parallels between the Southeast Asian and European crises are unmistakable.

But now we must add in the US: they have flooded their own market with housing debt, then car and appliance debt, and then credit card debt in order to cannibalize within its own rich borders.

So one would think that the lesson should be clear by now, because we clearly see the same results in all three regions which are the outgrowth of the same motivations - neoliberal capitalism.

In all three the government could have used its powers to end the crisis, but did/are not. The reason is encapsulated in my headline: Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%, or, enacting “reforms”.

Call the end goal whatever you like - modern debt peonage, new serfdom, the Modern Manor System - it is undeniable that Westerners live (suffer) at the apex of capitalism’s global dominance.

But the Eurozone is far, far worse off than Japan, and getting worse

This is because the European Central Bank, created amid the heyday of American neoliberalism and the death of the USSR, unfortunately has independence enshrined in its charter. LOL, given what I have related - you have to laugh to keep from crying!

The ECB cannot be constrained by any national parliament, nor can their offices be searched – they are totally above the law…so like the UN, minus the internationalist solidarity. The future of the Eurozone is so hopeless because the ECB is more purely controlled by bankers - and by foreign bankers - than Japan or the US ever was.

Thanks to Varoufakis’ whistle-blowing, praised in part 3 of this series, that horrendously undemocratic bankers’ cabal called the Eurogroup has been pushed into the light.

So we should now understand that those at the helm in Brussels/Eurogroup have always had the resources, the potential, and the will to be even more purposely destructive in a capitalist fashion as their colleagues in New York City and Tokyo.

And this is what they have done with that power:

(As the next section will illustrate further) Exactly like Japan, the Eurozone’s nearly decade-long failure of its austerity policies is now producing enough apathy, fear, desperation, and acquiescence to force through major “reforms” to Europe's hard-won postwar social safety net and societal/labor structure:

Workers’ and trades unions’ rights will not be increased while mass dismissals have been made easier; workers will not have confidence to demand their fair share of the profits produced when they can't even get a full week of work; when “full unemployment” (the mainstream never mentions “underemployment”) does return it will be without the stability of long-term contracts, the norm in places like France; the knowledge that refugees will be happy to leave their tent and take your job - when combined with anti-socialist racism - will be another divisive card for the bosses to play; and how can the standard of living “fall” when the 99% is all falling together? All of this will be the new “normal” and, of course, a success…for the 1%.

It does get even worse: Yet another crisis is coming for Europe - a political crisis. A multi-speed Europe has already been announced by the four major economies in a major betrayal of the 1991-era promises. The lender countries will simply take their money, go home, start sending monthly bills, and I recount this indisputable trajectory in part five of this series, “The Eurozone has likely entered its final calendar year, contraction coming”.

At some point Asia is going to re-decouple from the West

But not yet. I guess it's because socialist China is still not strong enough to offer a better partner? Japan should realize that with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Japan’s Shinzo Abe can be seen as a clear precursor to Macron: after 15 years of near-recession, a beaten, desperate and misled populace voted in Abenomics, which is based on quantitative easing and structural “reforms” of the type of the French had resisted for so long.

Abe has just been reelected as Prime Minister this week. QE has, just like in Europe today, been celebrated as a champion merely by achieving the pathetic goal of “avoiding recession”. He also benefited from the recent manufactured North Korea crisis to gain a typical election bump in highly nationalist Japan. He only won power in 2012 when the long-dominant “fake-leftist” party was finally punished for continuing the conservative, regressive and despised post-Plaza Accord economic choices.

The results of Abenomics are clear: dismal by capitalist standards, criminal by socialist standards.

Abe’s QE - putting aside the accompanying societal changes to the labor structure - is astronomical when compared with the ECB and Fed: as a percentage of the country's GDP it is three times larger than that of his Western counterparts, nearing 100%.

But if you were thinking that Japan is worse off than Europe you are mistaken - the reason is economic nationalism, perhaps the only defense left against globalization (assuming you foolishly reject Socialism, the solution):

The fact is that Japanese people own Japanese debt. 95% of government debt is owned by Japanese citizens; capital flight is thus not a risk; citizens are not going to dump their bonds; you cannot foreclose on both your grandmas because then you have nowhere to spend your holidays; Japan’s government thus has tremendous flexibility to print its way out of a problem (the problem is they are not printing for productive investments); Germany, the US or China cannot impose their will on Tokyo like they did with Athens.

Therefore, Japan's problem is not international capitalists, but national capitalists; if they could ever subdue their 1%, the world would be following their lead just as much as many are following Beijing’s.

Japan, it has often been written since they were “opened” to the West in the late 19th-century, apparently still has some sort of inferiority complex regarding the West: they have chosen to pathetically ape it for the benefit of their 1%, only. They should be reading Franz Fanon to understand the psychology of the colonized, which they are culturally even if not economically.

Back to the point of this series - the Eurozone’s near-future outlook: Japan provides a clear model of expectation:

Japan’s growth rate since 1990 is nearly the same as France’s since 2010 – always around 1%. That’s enough to avoid the bad-press headline of “recession” but not enough to produce genuine growth. It is enough for clueless politicians to say that good times are “just around the corner”, and enough for “ever busier putting food on the table” citizens to pray they are finally right.

Whether in Japanese or French, the capitalist media and official government responses are the same. The common thread is that they have all embraced 1980s style neoliberal capitalism, the worst form of capitalism implemented in the post-industrial era. This is also known as “the American way,” or globalization.

So has the European sovereign debt crisis been solved or postponed by Draghi?

This entire series is based around the idea that Draghi has to end QE sometime, and that when he does the bond markets will go back to the crisis of 2012 because nothing has fundamentally improved since 2012.

On October 25 the ECB’s Mario Draghi gave his long-awaited speech. So was it more “free money” to the 1%, or will they start looking for other ruthless, capitalist, speculative investments?

So….drumroll please…

Postponed!

Draghi refused to use the scary word “tapering”, but the ECB is doing just that by going from €60 billion to €30 billion in bond-buying per month, for nine months. This will bring the total holdings of the ECB to approximately €2.6 trillion. Draghi really had no choice as far as the length of nine months - QE must end because there are almost no more national bonds to buy under the current rules.

So this is just a postponement, and an admission that the Eurozone economy is still not prepared to stand alone without government banker bailouts, daily. But make no mistake - nothing has been delivered for the 99%.

When they run out of national bonds, maybe they will change the rules in order to buy more…? Unlikely, because die-hard capitalist (West) Germany is tired of postponing the obvious - an oh-so-profitable Troika-led gutting of more than just Greece.

Or, the ECB might move on to buying corporate bonds? Maybe that will appease the speculators temporarily, but it will not change the fact that the Eurozone’s national bond markets - totally uncoupled from each other despite living in a multinational project - will be back to where they were in 2012 by next September. Governments will still need to sell bonds….

So Draghi’s announcement did not rattle the bond markets because the status quo has not been changed - the can has been kicked down the road again.

But nothing changes the crucial fact that five years of QE has gone towards the 1%, the stock market, and assets like real estate, jewelry and artwork, instead of productive investment geared towards producing jobs, growth and prosperity for the 99%… or anything which would have improved the “real economy” and thus reduced the chances for another crisis.

Voila….That is where the Eurozone stands today - as the biggest link in the global economy, and still the weakest link.

Thanks for reading this series and let's postpone our rendezvous.

See you next September, Mario! You may be hoping for a miracle, but high finance will not grow a conscience by then. Buy Bitcoin while it’s still in 4 figures!

Sorry to add here that I have not even discussed how the three Western regions of the United States, the Eurozone and Japan have no viable plan to sell all of this massive QE debt to the private sector. They will flood the market at the same time, where enough demand cannot possibly exist, and thus will have real difficulties getting these debts off their books. Somebody is taking a haircut - under capitalism it is always the People. But…because the People have already bailed out the banks, the haircut is coming from your wages and stability.

So where does this “unloading QE haircut” come from, then? You tell me….

Planned mistakes aren’t ‘mistakes’ - thus socialist economic governance is needed

In the end, there is no way out: government spending is the only way. We will always collect taxes, after all.

But there is government spending in capitalist countries (where bankers decide where the money goes - their pockets), and then there is government spending in socialist countries (where elected/appointed/recallable/imprisonable bureaucrats decide where the money goes): you decide which is better.

Both Werner and Hudson (with his vital modern critique of the FIRE sector that is usuriously bleeding the West dry, just as they did it in 500 BC, 500 AD, 1500 AD and at all points in between) do not denounce quantitative easing per se - they denounce that it is being used to benefit only the 1%. That is simple economics and simple economic history….

Regarding political history and the pan-European project: It is common knowledge that Europe’s founding fathers hoped that a monetary union would lead to a political union, in order to support said monetary union. It is also clear they hoped that an economic crisis would provoke efforts towards a closer political union.

But this is not a democratic plan in the slightest! This is blackmail of the European People!

This is the undiscussed, undemocratic secret at the foundation of the pan-European project, akin to slavery in the US, imperialism in the French Republic, and perhaps foot binding in modern Imperial China. Only one of these regions has forced a modern peoples’ revolution to throw off this sinful system….

And you can call it hostage-taking, opportunism, and just plain sadistic cruelty, because Europe’s capitalist elite knew that when the next financial crisis inevitably came along in capitalism, great suffering would be produced worldwide by the ill-prepared monetary union.

Perhaps the one point of this series is to prove that nothing has changed in the Eurozone since 2012, and that Spain and Italy still remain on the edge of a punishing Troika bailout. Just as the Asian Tigers and Greece were busted out - the bankers’/Troika’s toll is terrible, so terrible that “reforms” are being accepted in places like France in a plea for preventative mercy.

Which is why there is resistance: Brexit has been followed by Catalonia, which will be followed by the departure of Central Europe when “multi-speed Europe” arrives, which will be followed by some other -exit for as long as this atrocious status quo exists in Europe.

Communism is, after all, an entire cultural system and not just an economic point of view. Because the current aim of this particular pan-European project is so ruthlessly capitalist and yet has been so imbibed unthinkingly, it will take many years of re-education to learn what is true, harmonious pan-European solidarity.

The jury is out as to which will come first: solidarity or breakup.

Conclusion: You either aspire to the imperialist 1% or dare the socialist dream

I recently interviewed a prominent investment fund, as a part of my work for Press TV. After our 15-minute interview, I left thinking that I disagreed with everything the investment banker said - not surprising given my adherence to communism. We chatted afterwards as he smoked, and he rattled off a clichéd national stereotype to explain the economy of every global region. We needed to film his office to get some extra footage for our report and, probably because he saw that I was reading his investment magazines to pass the time, he printed out a 10-page article he had recently written. I turned the last page to read his conclusion, and here is his third to last sentence:

“When taking into account the level of stock market valuations, we find that the momentum can be found to firmly install the fiscal reforms which will - finally - put in place the American system.”

And this guy is French….I don't think “the American system” is what de Gaulle expected, or what the French fought the Germans for and, most crucially, what the French people want? That last point, due to the dictates of national sovereignty, may be more important than the key fact that the American model does not even work for the average person.

I think the investment banker’s final sentence reveals the obvious, ongoing collusion between high finance and central banks:

“It seems necessary to have a greater clarity on the monetary politics of the two central banks (US Fed & ECB) not only in the direction in which it is leading, but on the timing and amplitude of the direction.”

Rest assured that nobody in the investment, banker, or central banker community is reading this series.

If they even caught a whiff of it they would drop it immediately, as it would produce immediate and painful cognitive dissonance due to their false assumptions and self-serving conclusions.

Because they cannot tolerate different ideas, they live in a little insulated bubble, and they don't want anything to touch them physically or even intellectually. They seem to hope to earn a lot of money quickly, in order to escape the daily grind, the sweating masses, the idea that all labor is equal.

I will end this 7-part series with a quote from Varoufakis because, despite my on-the-ground experience as a daily, hack journalist (where breadth and urgency confer real virtues, although certainly not the only ones), people will take his (fake-leftist) word over mine.

“To believe that Europe’s problem was debt. Not the architectural design of the Eurozone. Not its unenforceable rules. But debt. Debt was never Europe’s problem. It was a symptom of an awful institutional design.”

The tragedy of the European austerity I have reported on and am living through is that it ensures that the indebted will never be able to repay: Greece will never ever pay off what they owe – believing that is just proof that you have been misled by the media.

They are being told “no bailout, and no bankruptcy”…this can only end in revolution or a stay of execution by their monetary masters. The Third World knows that the governor never calls in time….

European imperialism has finally turned inward. The lessons must be learned. The People must demand new rules. These rules cannot be capitalist. Socialism remains our only option.

***********************************

This is the final article I have written in a 7-part series on today’s Eurozone which will combine some of Varoufakis’ ideas with my 8 years of covering the crisis first-hand from Paris.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Varoufakis book review: Rock star economist but fake-leftist politician

Why no Petroeuro? or France’s historic effort to create a permanently anti-austerity Eurozone

The hopelessly corrupt structure of the Eurozone & the Eurogroup

The Eurozone: still as primed for collapse as ever

The Eurozone has likely entered its final calendar year, contraction coming

The English-speaking world’s fear of calling communism, ‘communism’

Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%

About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

Editor’s Note

(1)  Constant growth in a finite earth is not only unnecessary but insane, due to its inherent logical contradiction. It also demonstrably criminal, since practicing constant growth on a planet very much already over-run by human agency is clearly a precipitating factor in the breakdown of life-sustaining ecosystems everywhere, a death sentence to countless creatures, human and non-human. Industrialism on a global scale, as pioneered by the capitalist world, means industrialism without any real ethical boundaries, an immoral framework whose results are these days irrefutable to any impartial observer.

Constant growth—the old chant of capitalist economics simbolising wellbeing for the majority—is also a theoretical scam, a fraud. At least in already fully industrialised nations, it cannot be justified.

Constant growth issues from many factors in the capitalist economy, including its executive sociology—a jungle crammed with vicious predators— where performance is measured in corporate expansion rates a any cost, these translating into bigger dividends for the investor/owning class and bigger paychecks, power, and compensation packages for the top CEOs.

Telegraphically put what is needed both from a social justice and ecological sanity standpoint is a steady state economy, a no-growth economy, one with a much better, truly democratic distribution of what the world economy is able to produce, along with an overhaul of all production methods to minimise their damaging footprint on the planet. Period. This overhaul would also cancel a multitude of products currently produced solely for the pleasure of the global plutocracy, a scandalously small segment of humanity. That, an a slowdown or cancellation of human population growth in all nations would also help. None of this can be seriously envisioned, let alone implemented,  as long as the capitalists and their rapacious neoliberal model control humanity.  —P. Greanville 

For a fuller discussion of these issues, please see:

• Understanding American Capitalism | Patrice Greanville

• Capitalism Myth 10: Growth is the Only Way | Dinyar Godrej, Patrice Greanville

 

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

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationExcerpt

black-horizontal



Is Communism really dead? The Saker & Jimmie Moglia tackle the subject

horiz-long grey

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

THE SAKER
First published on The Saker flagship site

This article was written for the Unz Review

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did mark the end of the longest experiment in Communism in recent history. Many saw this event as the proof that Communism (or Marxism-Leninism, I use these interchangeably here) was not a viable ideology. After all, in Russia Communism was formally ended in 1991, and the Chinese quietly shifted away from it too, replacing it with a uniquely Chinese brand of capitalism. Finally, none of the ex-Soviet “allies” chose to stick to the Communist ideology as soon as they recovered their freedom. Even Chavez’ brand of Communism resulted in a completely bankrupt Venezuela. So what’s there to argue about?

Actually, a great deal, beginning with every single word in the paragraph above.

Communism – the past:

For one thing, the Soviet Union never collapsed. It was dismantled from above by the CPSU party leaders who decided that the Soviet nomenklatura would split up the Soviet “pie” into 15 smaller slices. What happened after that was nothing more than the result of infighting between these factions. Since nobody ever empowered these gangs of Party apparatchiks to dissolve the USSR or, in fact, to reform it in any way, their actions can only be qualified as a totally illegal coup. All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Yeltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country. As for the people, they were only given the right to speak their opinion once, on March 17, 1991, when a whopping 77.85% voted to preserve the “the USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed” (see here for a good discussion of this now long-forgotten vote). There was no collapse. There was a coup or, even more accurately, a series of coups, all executed by traitors from the Party apparatus in total illegality and against the will of the people. Some will object to the fact the Communist Party was full of traitors. But unless one can explain and prove that Communism systematically and somehow uniquely breeds traitors this accusation has no merit (as if Christians did not betray Christianity, Democrats democracy or Fascists Fascism).

Second, is Communism a viable ideology? Well, for one thing, there are two schools of thought on that topic inside Marxists ideology. One says that Communism can be achieved in one country, the other says that no, for Communism to become possible a world revolution is necessary. Let’s first set aside the first school of thought for a while and just look at the second one. This will be tricky anyway since all we have to judge its empirical correctness is a relatively short list of countries. I already hear the objection “what? Ain’t Soviet Russia, Maoist China, PolPot’s Kampuchea and, say, Kim Il-sung’s DPRK not enough?”. Actually, no. For one thing, according to the official Soviet ideology, Communism as such was never achieved in the USSR, only Socialism. This is why the country was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism was seen as a goal, Socialism as an unavoidable, intermediate, transitional phase. To say that Communism failed in the USSR is just about as logical as to say that a half-built building failed to provide a comfortable shelter. China, of course, has not “failed” to begin with, while Pol Pot’s Kampuchea is probably an (horrific) attempt at building a truly Communist society almost overnight, but that by itself contradicts the Historical/Dialectical Materialist Theory of Marxism which states the need for a transitional Socialist phase. As for the DPRK, its ideology is not [officially] Marxism or Communism, but Juche, nationalist self-sufficiency in accord with communist principles, at most a distant relative. So no, these few examples are hardly representative of anything, if only because they form a sample too small to be relevant and because none of them qualify as a true “test case”.

Now coming back to “Communism cannot be achieved in one country” argument, let’s look at it from a pure red-white-n-blue kind of 'Merican ideological position and remember that the proponents of US-style capitalism like to remind us that Reagan’s arms race is what bankrupted the Soviet Union which could not keep up with it. Other proud American patriots also like to say that, well, the USA brought down the price of oil, making it impossible for the Soviets to continue spending and that this fall in prices is what made the Soviet economy collapse. Personally, I find these arguments both stupid and ignorant, but let’s accept them as self-evidently true. Does that not show that the USSR collapsed due to external factors and not due to some inherent internal flaw?

Modern training (I don’t call it “education”) does not really emphasize logic, so I will rhetorically ask the following question: if we accept that Capitalism defeated Communism, prove that Communism was not viable or that Capitalism is superior? To the many (alas) who will answer “yes” I would suggest that if you lock a hyena and a human being in a cage and force them to fight for resources, the human is most unlikely to win. Does that prove that the human is not viable or the hyena “superior”?

Marxism-Leninism clearly states that Capitalism is built on the oppression of the weak and that imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism. We don’t have to agree with this argument (though I personally very much do), but neither can it be dismissed simply because we don’t like it. In fact, I would argue that disproving it should be a key element of any serious refutation of Communism. But to keep things short, all I will say is this: any person who has actually traveled in Asia, Africa or South America will attest that the Communists (USSR, China, Cuba) actually sent immense amounts of aid including raw materials, technologies, specialists, doctors, military advisors, agronomists, water-sanitation engineers, etc., to those lands. In contrast, ask anybody in these continents what Capitalism brings, and you will get the same answer: violence, exploitation and support for a local comprador ruling gang. To anybody arguing with this I could only recommend one thing: begin traveling the world.

[Sidebar: So yes, using the hyena as a symbol of Capitalism in my allegory above is fair. As for the ‘cage’ – it is simply our planet. What I do think is wrong is equating Communism with a human being. But that at this point of our conversation is my own private opinion and not an argument at all. I have been an anti-Communist my entire life, and I still remain one, but that is hardly a reason for me to accept logically flawed and counter-factual anti-Communist arguments].

At this point in the conversation my typical Capitalist interlocutor would bombard me with a full or short slogan like “dude, in every Communist society people vote with their feet, have you forgotten the Boat-People, the Marielitos or the folks jumping over the Berlin Wall?” or “every single country in Eastern Europe rejected Communism as soon as the Soviet tanks left – does that not tell you something about Communism?”. Usually the person delivering these slogans gets a special glee in the eye, a sense of inevitable triumph so it is especially rewarding to observe these before debunking all this nonsense.

Let’s begin with the feet-voting argument. It is utter nonsense. Yes, true, some people did run away from Communist societies. The vast majority did not. And please don’t give me the “their families were held hostage” or “the secret police was everywhere to prevent that”. The truth is much simpler:

On the “push side”: All the famous waves of people emigrating from Communist societies are linked to profound crises inside these countries, crises which have had many causes, including mostly external ones.

On the “pull side”: In each case, a powerful Western propaganda system was used to convince these people to emigrate promising them “milk and honey” if they ran.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] am sorry if I have to burst somebody’s naïve illusions, as somebody who has worked for several years as an interpreter-translator interviewing applicants for the status of political refugee I can attest that the vast majority of political refugees are nothing of the sort: they mostly are economic refugees and a few are social refugees, meaning that some personal circumstances made them decide that emigrating is better than staying. I have interviewed hundred of refugees from the Soviet Union and all their stories of political repression were laughable, especially to a person like me who knew how (the very real) political repression in the Soviet Union actually worked. To those who would claim that, well, Communism inevitably results in economic crises I would just refer to the discussion above about what, if anything, we can conclude from the few examples of Marxist societies in history.

[Sidebar: Unlike 99.99% of the folks reading these words, I actually spent many years of my life as an well-known anti-Soviet activist. I traveled to various ports where Soviet ships were anchored to distribute anti-Soviet literature, I made list of buildings where Soviet diplomats used to live to deliver anti-Soviet documents into their mailboxes, I helped send money to the families of Orthodox Christians jailed in Soviet prisons and labor camps, I arranged illegal contacts with Soviet citizens traveling abroad (truckers, artists, naval engineers, clergy, circuses – you name it). And there are things which I did which I still cannot publicly discuss. And while I never took part in any violent action, but I sure did everything I could in the domain of ideological warfare to bring down Communism in Russia. As a result, the (now-defunct) KGB had me listed as a dangerous provocateur and posted my photo in the offices of specific Soviet offices abroad (like the Sovhispan in Spain) to warn them about me. And let me tell you the truth – most of those Soviet citizens who disliked the Soviet system never even tried to emigrate. The issue here is not hostage families or the “almighty KGB’ but the fact that you love your country even when you hate the regime in power. Worse, most of those who did defect (and I personally helped quite a few of them) were mostly miserable once they came to the West, their illusions shattered in less than a year, and all they were left with was a ever-present nostalgia. For that reason, I personally always advised them not to emigrate. If they insisted, some did, I would help. But I always advised against it. Now, many years later, I still think that I did the right thing].

Finally, as to the Soviet “allies” in Eastern Europe their rejection of Communism is as logical and predictable as their embrace of Capitalism, NATO, the EU and the rest of it. For decades they were told that the West was living in peace and prosperity while they were living in oppression and misery, and that the evil Russians were the cause of all their unhappiness. The fact that, when given the chance, they then rushed to embrace the American Empire was as predictable as it was naïve. Remember, history is written by victors and only time will really tell us what legacy Communism and Capitalism will leave in Eastern Europe. What we do know is that even though the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan resulted in a horrible and vicious war [in reality engineered by the Americans and their allies of the moment for this nefarious enterprise—Eds.], and even though the [more reactionary segments of the] people of Afghanistan also appeared to fully embrace the “kind patronage” of the USA and its allies, things are now already beginning to change and the years of secular rule and even the Soviet occupation are now being re-visited by an increasing number of historians and Afghan commentators who now see it in a much more nuanced way than they would have in the past. Just a simple comparison of the daily life of Afghans before and after the Soviet invasion or a comparative list of what the Soviets and the Americans actually built in the country tells a very different story (even the Americans today are still using Soviet-built facilities, including the now infamous Bagram air base). Careful for the logically-challenged here: I am not making an apology for the Soviet invasion here, all I am saying is that the wisdom of “embracing the other side” cannot be judged in the immediate aftermath of a “switch” in allegiance – sometimes several decades or more are needed to make a balanced assessment of what really took place.

My point in all of the above is simple: the official imperial propaganda machine (aka “the media” and “the educational system”) has tried to present a simple narrative about Communism when, in reality, even a small dig a tad deeper than the superficial slogans immediately shows that things are much, much, more complicated than the crude and comprehensibly false narrative we are being presented with.

Communism – the future:

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]ere I will immediately lay down my cards on the table and state that I believe, and even hope, that Communism is not dead and that, in fact, I think that it still have a long and most interesting future. Here are a few reasons why.

First, the Communist ideology, as such, has never been comprehensibly defeated, if only because no other ideology comparable in scope and depth has emerged to challenge, nevermind refute or replace, capitalism. For one thing, Communism is a *huge* intellectual building and just destroying some of its “top floors” hardly bring the entire edifice down. Let’s take a simple example: the Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Marx did not really invent it, he just popularized it. Some sources say that the original author was August Becker in 1844, Louis Blanc in 1851 or Étienne-Gabriel Morelly 1775. Other say that it was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon but with slightly different version “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”. This was the version accepted in the USSR as being applicable to the socialist transitional phase on the path to the full realization of Communism. Then, of course, there is the famous New Testament quote by Saint Paul “if any would not work, neither should he eat” (Thess 3:10) and the words of Christ Himself about “to every man according to his ability” (Matt 25:15). This all gets very complex very fast, but yet this is hardly an excuse to ignore what is one of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. And there are many such key tenets because Communism cannot be understood, nevermind evaluated, outside a much broader discussion of Dialectical Materialism, itself an adaptation of Hegelian dialectics to historiography, all of which serve as a foundation for Historical Materialism which, in turn, offers a comprehensive critique of the nature of Capitalism. There is a reason why a good library on Marxism-Leninism could easily include a full floor dedicated solely to the teaching and criticism of Marxism-Leninism: this body of teaching is huge, and incorporates history, sociology, economics, philosophy and many other disciplines. Just Materialism itself includes a huge corpus of writings ranging from the Pre-Socratic philosophers to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” to, alas, Dawkins sophomoric writings. If we honestly look carefully inside Marxism-Leninism we will see that there are such philosophical pearls (or challenges, depending on how you look at them) on most levels of the Marxist-Leninist building. Before we can declare that “Communism is dead” we have to deal with every “floor” of the Marxist-Leninist building and bring down at the very least all the crucial ones lest we be (justly) accused of willful ignorance.

Second, the Communist ideology offers us the most comprehensive critique of the globalist-capitalist society we live in today. Considering that by now only the most deliberately blind person could still continue to deny that our society is undergoing a deep crisis, possibly leading to what is often referred to as “TEOTWAWKI” (The end of the world as we know it) I would question the wisdom of declaring Communism dead and forgetting about it. After all, informing ourselves about the Communist critique of Capitalism does not imply the adoption of the Communist solutions to the ills of Capitalism any more than paying attention to a doctor’s diagnosis implies a consent to one single course of treatment. And yet what our society has done is to completely reject the diagnosis on the basis that the treatment has failed in several cases. How stupid is that?

Third, the corpus of Communist and Marxist-Leninist teachings is not only immense, it is also very diverse. Leninism itself is, by the way, a further development of Marxist ideas. It would be simply illogical to only focus on the founding fathers of this ideology and ignore or, worse, dismiss their modern followers. Let’s take a simple example: religion.

It is a well-known fact that Marx declared that “religion is the opium of the people”. And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic amok run against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power. For decades rabid atheism was a cornerstone of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. And yet, if you look at the various Marxist regimes in Latin America (including Cuba and Venezuela) you rapidly see that they replaced that rabid atheism with an endorsement of a specific type of Christianity one could loosely describe as “Liberation Theology”. Now, for a hardcore Orthodox traditionalist like myself, Liberation Theology is not exactly my cup of tea (full disclosure: politically, I would describe myself as a “People’s Monarchist” (народный монархист) in the tradition of Lev Tikhomirov, Feodor Dostoevsky, Ivan Solonevich and Ivan Ilyin). But the point here are not the inherent qualities of the Liberation Theology (or lack thereof) but the fact that Latin American Marxists have clearly ditched atheism. And whether they did that out of a deep sense of spiritual rebirth and renewal or out of cynical power political considerations is irrelevant: even if they had to cave under pressure, they still did something which their predecessors would never have done under any circumstances. So now instead of denouncing religion as reactionary, we have leaders like Hugo Chavez declaring that “Jesus Christ was an authentic Communist, anti-imperialist and enemy of the oligarchy”. Sincere? Possibly. Important? Most definitely. I submit that if such a central, crucial, tenet as militant atheism could be dropped by modern Marxists they are probably willing to drop any other of its parts they would conclude are wrong (for whatever reason). To conflate 21st century Communists with their 19thcentury predecessors is unforgivably stupid and ignorant.

Ali Shariati

Fourth, modern Communism comes in many original and even surprising flavors. One of the most interesting one would be the in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, modern Iran is hardly a copy of the old German Democratic Republic. Ramin Mazaheri, the Paris correspondent for Press TV put it best when he wrote “Europe came to socialism through industrialization, theory and war, but Iran came to socialism through its religious and moral beliefs”. And make no mistake, when Mazaheri compliments Iran on its “socialist” achievements, he does not oppose the notion of socialism to the one of communism (Mazaheri is a proud and self-avowed Communist) nor does he refer to the “caviar Socialism” of the French Left. Instead he refers to “socialism” as a set of underlying values and principles common to the Marxist and Islamic worldviews. It is often forgotten that one of the main ideologues of the Iranian Revolution, Ali Shariati, was clearly influenced by Socialist and even Marxist ideas.

Iran, by the way, is not unique in the Muslim world. For example, the writings of Sayyid Qutb 1906-1966 contain plenty of ideas which one could describe as Marxist. I would even argue that Islam, Christianity and Confucianism all include strong elements of both universalism and collectivism which are typically associated with Marxist ideas, especially in contrast to the kind of bloated hyper-individualism underlying the Capitalist worldview (which I personally call “the worldview of me, myself and I”). Sure, the modern doxa wants to label all forms of Islam as retrograde, medieval and otherwise reactionary, but in truth it would be far more fair to describe Islam as revolutionary, social and progressive. But let’s not confuse the nonsense spewed by the Zionist propaganda machine at those poor folks still paying attention to it with reality, shall we? Surely we can agree that the worst possible way to try to learn anything about Islam would be to pay attention to the US Ziomedia!

Communism – the challenge:

Obama communist, a la Che: "Socialism or Death!" Complete rightwing ignorant lunacy or intentional bad faith—or both. There are literally thousands of idiotic images like these circulating on the web, and this is not a new phenomenon. The Birchers in the 1950s accused the Rockefellers of financing Lenin.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t is not really surprising that the Americans, who have not defeated anybody or anything in a very long time, might be strongly inclined to adopt the notion of having won the Cold War and/or having defeated Communism. In a country where adult and presumably educated people can declare with a serious face that Obama is a Socialist (or even a Communist) such nonsense will very rarely be challenged. This is a reflection of the poor state of education of a nation which fancies itself as “indispensable”, but which has no real interest in understanding the rest of the world, nevermind its history. We can now make fun of the putatively dumb Commies, their “scientific Communism” and their university chairs of Marxism and Leninism, but it remains undeniable that in order to understand the Communist propaganda you needed to have a minimal level of education and that this propaganda exposes you to topics which are now practically dead in western societies (such as philosophy or history). When I see the kind of nonsense nowadays which passes for political science or philosophy I can only conclude that the once proud western world now lacks the basic level of education needed to understand, nevermind refute, Marxist ideologues. And that is a crying shame because I also believe that Marxism and Communism are inherently both very attractive and very toxic ideologies which must be challenged and refuted.

[Sidebar: What I personally think about Marxism is not really the topic today, so I will limit myself to saying that like all utopian ideologies, Marxism promises a future which cannot ever happen. True, this is hardly a sin unique to Marxism. Amongst modern ideologues Hitler should be commended for his relative modesty – he “only” promised a 1000 year long Reich. In contrast Francis Fukuyama promised a communism-like “end of history”. This is all par for the course coming from atheists who are trying to simultaneously reject God while (unsuccessfully) imitating Him: a utopian society is what Satan offered to Christ during the temptation of Christ in the desert (Matt 4:1-11) and also the reason why some Jews rejected Him for offering them a spiritual kingdom rather than then worldly kingdom they were hoping for. Right there there is plenty enough, at least for me, to reject this and any other ideology promising some kind of “heaven on earth”. In my opinion all utopian ideologies are inherently and by definition Satanic].

Can the huge corpus of the Marxist/Communist ideological building be convincingly refuted? I think that it can and, assuming mankind does not destroy itself in the near future, that it eventually will. But that will require an effort of a completely different nature and magnitude then the collection of primitive slogans which are currently hurled at Marxism today. In fact, I also believe that Orthodox Christianity already has refuted Marxism by preemption, many centuries before the birth of Karl Marx, by denouncing all its underlying assumptions in the Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Lives of the Saints, its liturgical texts and icons, but in our post-Chrstian society that refutation is accessible only to the tiny minority of those who are exposed to it and who are educated enough to understand it (a good example of such a person would be Fedor Dostoevskii).

In a country where adult and presumably educated people can declare with a serious face that Obama is a Socialist (or even a Communist) such nonsense will very rarely be challenged. This is a reflection of the poor state of education of a nation which fancies itself as “indispensable”, but which has no real interest in understanding the rest of the world, nevermind its history.

For the foreseeable future Communism has a very bright and long future, especially with the ongoing collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire and the subsequent debate on the causes of this collapse. Living in the United States one might be forgiven for not seeing much of a future for Communism, but from Southeast Asia to the Indian subcontinent and from Africa to Latin America the ideals, values and arguments of Communism continue to have an immense appeal on millions of people. When Donald Trump, during his recent UN speech, presumed to have the authority to lecture the world on Socialism he really only showed that ignorance is no impediment to arrogance and that they really usually go hand in hand. If his intention was to speak to the domestic audience, then he probably made a few folks feel good about themselves and the political system they live in. If he truly was addressing a foreign audience, then the only thing he achieved was to reinforce the worst anti-American clichés.

For the time being, the "spectre" of Communism will continue to haunt much of our planet, especially in those parts where education and poverty are high. In the basically [politically] illiterate but wealthy world Communism will remain pretty much as it is today: universally ignored and therefore unknown. But when the grand edifice of Capitalism finally comes tumbling down and its victims rediscover the difference between propaganda and education – then a credible modern challenge to the Communist ideology will possibly arise. But for the time being and the foreseeable future Communism will remain not only alive, but also quite undefeated.

“Is Communism Really dead?” – an Answer

by Jimmie Moglia

After reading the Saker’s article, I had to walk back and forth for some time, partly to digest its content, and partly to determine why I found it so persuasive. My conclusion, however humble, is that the article is accurate because it tells us very clearly all we need to know on the subject, while leaving the reader to draw his/her conclusion. And I maintain that accurate inconclusiveness is vastly preferable to ideological certainty, especially when certainty is based on prejudice or, worse, speculation.

Of course the Saker brings to the subject his knowledge of the Russian language, which enabled him to see and measure better than others the fears, the motivations, the hopes or the disillusions of those who moved from the East to the West.

I contend that in these matters, the personal, experience-based perspective outweighs in interest, value and insight any theoretical, economic or academic treatment of the same issue. Especially considering the wildly conflicting assertions we hear today, in the US and Europe, about political systems, sociology and general philosophy of life. Assertions influenced and arising from the evolution, the convulsion, and almost the inversion of traditional meanings of what was once the socialist “Left” (theoretically friendly to socialism and communism) and what was once the conservative “Right.”

All major Communist leaders, including Mao, have been subjected to sustained vilification by the huge machinery of capitalist propaganda, in alliance with the churches and other anticommunist ideological props.

For the Left appears to have become an expression of the Cultural Marxism, promoted by the US intelligentsia at first, and by Hollywood later, a degenerate radical egalitarianism that has little if nothing to do with the Communism I observed in Europe, or Russia during my travels and my youth.

As we know, according to Cultural Marxism, third world migrants should we welcome by the millions, ignoring the effects on the host country and its citizens (especially the poor); blacks can never be racists; affirmative action is the only moral thing to do, Islam is a religion of peace, regardless of the crimes and the ghettoization they produce in the countries that host them, national borders are inherently racist, children should decide whether they are male or female, transgenderism and homosexuality are symbols of emancipation, a mother rearing her children at home is a failed woman (especially if she is white), and white men at large are the only social group that can justifiably be targeted as the oppressor.

The new Right, on the other hand, glibly brands all Leftists as Bolsheviks. And since Cultural Marxism was a mostly Jewish phenomenon of the 1960s, all Jews are Bolsheviks and all Bolsheviks were Jews. It is true that many original Bolsheviks were actually Jews, but, depending on the standards applied, the first Bolshevik was probably Peter the Great. After all, in his zeal for complete and dramatic reforms, he even had his son tortured and killed, following a failed rebellion.

It is hard to say if we are dealing with absurd perverseness by the new “Left” or witless dogmatism by the new “Right.” The phenomenon is akin to superstition, about which it is almost vain to conjecture, for what reason did not dictate, reason cannot explain.

And now to my views on whether “Communism is really dead,” filtered through the mesh of personal experience. Which is a way of claiming the discovery of warm water – namely it is our life to shape our view of the world, rather than the world shaping our view of our life.

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]y first recollection of communism was indirect, dramatic and bad. My family in Turin, Italy moved out of the city, during WW2, to a town in the country where my great uncle was town commissioner. When the mayor of the town sensed that the war was lost he defected and disappeared, which left my great uncle the de facto mayor. He had to keep a very delicate balance on an extremely thin line. On one side of which there was the German army stationed in town, and on the other the Communist partisans whom today I would call terrorists. To each terrorist attack the Germans responded by taking hostages. The family of the hostages then pleaded with my uncle to intercede with the Germans to save the hostages from execution.

At the end of the war, the Communists arrested my uncle and wanted to execute him as a “collaborator.”. It took the effort of many parties, including the families of the many saved hostages to prevent his murder. He was later fully reinstated with honors, but the experience gravely harmed his health and he died quite young.

At the first post-war Italian elections there was the real possibility of a Communist victory. The Church – and of course the Americans – were instrumental in securing a victory of the Christian Democrats. However, the real threat of Italy crossing over to the Communist camp convinced what today we call the deep state to loosen the purse. The enacted subsequent reforms benefited me and million others, by ensuring free education at the highest level, health care and several other positive social and labor initiatives.

We were Catholics, though my grandfather was a pacifist socialist, an agnostic whose generosity towards the poor suggested a character out of a Russian novel.

Though my family voted for the Christian Democracy, they had, as a whole, a friendly positive attitude towards the USSR, as embodied by Stalin. I vaguely recall discussions around the table where it was held that things may have been tough in the USSR, but what else could Stalin have done to keep together such an immense territory. When things would settle, after reconstruction, things would be better for all.

Furthermore, Stalin, in Italy familiarly called “baffone” (big moustache), projected an image of astute benevolence, which endeared him to many Italians. Later, when I studied his biography there are elements that support the view, irrespective of whatever other cruelties the system may have committed.

As a brief aside, in time, I formed the conviction that it was a good thing that the Stalinist idea of “Communism in one Nation” prevailed over the Trotskyite idea of globalized Communism. For in general it is the character of a nation that shapes the expression of a new ideology, and not a new ideology that shapes the character of a nation.

In the instance of Italy, the Communists, by and large, adapted themselves to the local mores and lived mostly peacefully and even amicably with their political or religious opponents. A witty anti-communist Italian writer said, “The Italian Communists know very well that in a Communist regime it’s like living in a convent or a prison. But if they were to take over in Italy, they would quickly convert the convent into a brothel and the prison into a discotheque.”

At the end of my teens I had an opportunity to travel to the USSR as a musician, (in Ukraine and the Black Sea), which means that I saw the USSR before the US. I knew little other than what I saw, but, even then, I was impressed by the friendliness of the people and by the lack of the glitter associated with the sea resorts of the West. Maybe because of my nature – and I say this because our nature more than facts influence our generalized conceptions, including Communism – I found myself at home in Russia, except of course, for my ignorance of the language. It seemed to me that Russians were not expected to “compete with the Joneses” – though I probably did not formulate the thought in those terms.

When I completed my studies I wished to see life in the country that set itself up as a beacon of prosperity and democracy. Until then propaganda and movies had shaped my ideas of America and of the “American dream.” The few large American cars, absurdly oversized for the narrow Italian roads, gave, however, the impression of a widespread American plenty, unreachable anywhere else.

Arrived in America, I did not find Hollywood in the cities and towns I visited or resided in. I found indeed many nice people, but little suggesting the ideas previously shaped by movies or TV. I was horrified by the foreign wars and the violence, and puzzled by a certain widespread sense of resentment based on a fear of not being sufficiently competitive, or adequate to compete.

But I could not decide whether the resentment and violence were due to unfulfilled expectations of the “American Dream” by those who felt they did not or could not reach it. Or was I projecting onto the environment around me fears that I did not admit to myself? Besides, at what point does established custom calls poverty the lack of superfluities? etc.

Still, closer to the topic at hand, I could not find a reason for the hatred of the USSR on the grounds of Communism.

As for the “American Dream,” it was only much later, when the web suddenly opened so many avenues of information that I learned more about it. I quote here from the American documentary, based on the book “An empire of their own – How the Jews invented Hollywood,” written by the Jewish author Neil Gabler.

Where the documentarist says, “They (the Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe) created their own America, an America which is not the real America. But ultimately, this shadow America becomes so popular, so wildly disseminated, that its images and its values come to devour the real America.” And so the grand irony of all is that Americans come to define themselves by the shadow of America created by Eastern European Jewish immigrants. Hollywood Jews became almost godlike in their power and set up a system to raise their prestige in the eyes of normal Americans. Where there are new Gods, there must be new idols. The studio heads set up a movie guild, called “The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences.” It was Meyer’s (originally Laszo Gelbfish) brilliant idea to create the Oscars where the movie moguls’ honor themselves by giving each other awards. In this way they went from being a group of immigrant Jews to award winning American producers.”

Like, I assume, the majority of Americans before the Internet, I was only vaguely aware of Jewish influence on American culture and, as I said, I could still not justify the actively promoted hatred towards the Soviet Union, which, after all, had completely adhered to the agreements of Potsdam and Yalta, at the end of WW2, on the respective areas of influence of East and West.

Was it really possible, as I read, that much of the media-inspired hatred reflected the lingering desire for revenge by the Jewish element in America? Revenge for the difficulty they had had in living together with the Russians in Russia during the last 200 years, as documented by many writers of worldwide fame? Nor could I explain why the good relations established by Nixon with Brezhnev soon turned into the distrust, animosity and contempt by Reagan towards the Soviet Union.

What satisfaction could there be in pushing so heavily the dismantling of the Soviet Union, followed by the actual rape of Russia, and then by so many wars where millions died?

What was Reagan’s ‘peace dividend’ other than a fraud? If Communism was so bad, why the same attitude towards the subsequent non-communist Russia? How can the American opinion-making machine claim American superiority and exceptionalism when 1% of the US population controls 45% of the wealth?

All these questions and more make it impossible for me to hazard a guess about the future of Communism. As I said, my initial perceptions of Communist Russia were positive but limited and scanty. Most of what I subsequently learned about it comes from books, and the books are dramatically contradictory in their content and assessments.

If I attempt to pull a thread out of a tangled web of conflicting ideas I would say this. The basic notions of egalitarianism are not dead. Perhaps egalitarianism will issue into an ideology that, for lack of a name still to be officially assigned, may be called Humanism.

On the other hand, I believe that any prediction on the future cannot disregard two problems for which no one sees or dares suggest a solution.

One is that the world population cannot continue to increase at the rate of 100 million humans per year.

The other is equally unanswerable. As we know, there is a small sect or tribe that exerts an unimaginable influence on the future of the world, via what we can call for quick simplification the Usrael Zionist ideology.

It seems to me and many others that this influence has dramatically increased, after the Zionist establishment concluded that America would not or could not compel Israel to give up the lands stolen in the Middle East, after the military aggression of 1967.

Since then the Zionist occupation of the power centers and cultural hubs of the host country (the US) has spread metastatically. I may be wrong, but a sect claiming, for at least 2000 years, to be chosen by God to rule over all others, is incompatible with an equitable administration of any nation and, today, of the world.

Still, let’s assume for a moment that the controversial idea of Communism may evolve into a commonly acceptable Humanistic ideology. I don’t see how Humanism can overcome the two seemingly insurmountable challenges of Zionism with its nefarious implications, and of the population explosion.

Hence, in the end, whatever knowledge or notions I may have acquired on Communism, Capitalism and the ways of the world, make me feel almost more ignorant than I would feel without them. Much as the man without legal training, who, when dealing with the law, feels no wiser than a daw.

NOTE: The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect in part or in toto the viewpoints of the editors of the Greanville Post.

 

About the Author
The Saker, a former military analyst, is the founding editor (and chief editor) of the Saker network of sites. Jimmie Moglia, a contributing editor to several leading progressive sites (including The Greanville Post and The Saker), maintains his own blog, Your Daily Shakespeare. 

THE SAKER—Modern Communism comes in many original and even surprising flavors. One of the most interesting one would be the in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, modern Iran is hardly a copy of the old German Democratic Republic.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

By subscribing you won’t miss the special editions.

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";



Spain & the EU’s ‘Oriental despotism’ is legitimizing Catalonia as a leftist cause


horiz-long grey

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

Catalonia's thirst for nationalist expression remains strong, but the strains of opposition to Madrid rule carry many contradictions, and the rightwing capitalist factions continue to play a leadership role.

 

The ultimate problem with Catalonia is that they aren't trying to secede from the European Union.

Now that would be something which the non-Spanish left could really rally around, during this ongoing age of Brussels-imposed poverty.

For so long this seemed like a fake crisis - a distraction - but the new reality is: a larger crisis could explode now, due to a massively authoritarian/capitalist response from Madrid which was also just as massively stupid. 

Jordi Sanchez—Catalonian separatist leader, accused of sedition and seized by the Spanish authorities.

Catalonian separatists still do not have the democratic support of Brexit or even Scottish independence (30% in a new poll from El País), so it’s still a hard sell, but perhaps not much longer, as 52% want snap elections and parliament to be dissolved.

In many ways we can blame France: It guides the European project philosophically and sets the cultural tone for Western Europe - any organization is at least somewhat influenced by its leader, no?

And France massively overreacted to a terrorist attack (Bataclan Theater) to install a massively authoritarian/capitalist state of emergency, which is on the cusp of being made permanently legal.

And a state of emergency is how Madrid is apparently planning to rule not just the restive region of Catalonia, but all of Spain. Like I said: there's a lot of massive stupidity going on in this part of the world right now….

So leftists (and I mean this, as I always do, in the historic 1920-1970s sense and not the pale, capitalist, actually-centrist version called “leftist” by the mainstream media) should ask themselves: what should our position be, given Madrid’s response? And also, how can we take advantage of this to promote democratic/socialist policies?

The ultimate problem with Catalonia is that they aren't trying to secede from the European Union. Now that would be something which the non-Spanish left could really rally around, during this ongoing age of Brussels-imposed poverty. For so long this seemed like a fake crisis - a distraction - but the new reality is: a larger crisis could explode now, due to a massively authoritarian/capitalist response from Madrid which was also just as massively stupid. 

This involvement would change a Catalonian narrative which many leftists, in Spain and beyond, have thus far found contrary to leftism.

True leftists have always supported the democratic aspects of Catalonian separatism because socialism must be anti-racist/multicultural: Catalonia’s voice must be able to be expressed in a vote, their culture must be preserved, their language must be used, their TV stations cannot be shut down, etc. However, the left has not supported their economic aspects, because the separatist movement is not openly promoting socialism and is indeed largely led by politicians who promote right-wing economics.

Waiting for a bloodbath to give support? 

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]sk yourself this: can any leftist, and even the centrists, tolerate an extended state of emergency for Spain? 

Like I wrote - people follow the leader: when the US started to use “terrorism” to justify everything, other nations opposed it at first, but then soon followed; that's the psychology of human hierarchy, which is a pattern that takes intelligence to break.

But does Spain think that because it worked in France it's going to work there? 

The difference between France and Spain is that - I am embarrassed to report - the French have massively supported the state emergency: popular support has been 85-70% over the past two years, and while that’s down the past few months it has never been below a majority (they assume that only Muslims are losing their rights - they are mistaken). 

This is not at all the situation in Spain, and Madrid's popular support will decrease with every drastic overreaction…right? That’s what we said of the “freedom-treasuring” French.

So Madrid is stupidly planning to impose a state of emergency; but increased militarism increases the chances for violence. Anyway, a bloodbath can never really be prevented if an authoritarian state wants it. That's a sad reality of life.

Will Madrid’s next massively stupid order be to kill some protesters? I doubt it will get that far, but I keep being proven wrong by Madrid….

But protester deaths would get the left (not fake left) on board, and that is a game-changer. It would certainly galvanize the left into action, as well as the silent majority and the undecideds.

I am not hoping for deaths to achieve political goals! What I am saying is: we cannot wait to extend our support - not due to our support of Catalonian independence, but due to our opposition to authoritarianism (in whose wake capitalism always follows).

Again, your possible shift in support for Catalonian separatism is caused by Madrid and the European Union’s failure to pursue both democracy and diplomacy, and not by the ideological correctness of Catalonian separatism.

Is ‘Turkish despotism’ actually European?

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s it did for about 500 or so years, Spain is resembling Turkey far more than France: mass firings of government workers has already been approved by the Spanish Senate, arrests of leaders, etc.

LOL, I have always maintained that Turkey is part of Europe, so my answer is “yes”.

(Europe’s failure to acknowledge Turkey and those whom history used to call the “Turks” of Europe (but who are now solely referred to by their religion - “Muslims” - instead of their ethnicity), is evidence of the non-socialist/racist structure of the European Union. There is a fitting second epitaph here somewhere….)

But despotism is caused by capitalism - “socialist despot” is a capitalist fabrication because socialism’s governance is based on democracy, feedback, discussion, the will & needs of the 99%, etc. So despotism is not “Turkish” or “oriental” or “Asian” or “a conspiracy by Whitey”.

Spain's PM Rajoy and separatist leaders. The repression is beginning to unfold. Does history repeat itself?

But the real question here for EU citizens (which will be ignored by the mainstream media) is: Will the pan-European project care that despotic, authoritarian domination is taking place within its own defined borders?

Well, the European Union undeniably has a horrible track record of respecting democracy. Their response to the Great Recession has virtually ended this discussion among intelligent people, and certainly among socialists/democrats. (May I refer you to a previous article of mine: “The horribly corrupt structure of the Eurozone & the Eurogroup”)

The European Commission’s chief already tweeted: “Spain remains our only interlocutor.” That means they won't even talk, or won't even try to intervene diplomatically on behalf of some EU citizens in Catalonia. This is an abnegation of their democratic responsibility. The EC is the only non-banker part of the “Troika” - it is the unelected, 28 member “cabinet” which is the bureaucratic arm of the EU (23,000 bureaucratic civil servants, assuming you think the EC contains enough democracy to grant them the honorable title of “civil servants”.)  

We also see that Brussels unambiguously supported the “nuclear option” of article 155, which (allegedly) gives Madrid the power to cancel historic Catalonian autonomy (nearly 40 years post-Franco).

And why should we think that Brussels won't also support the possible invocation of article 116, which would set up a state of emergency across all of Spain? They approved of the one in France, after all.

Brussels didn't condemn that from a democratic standpoint. From an economic standpoint, the only time Brussels “allowed” France to breach the holy 3% fiscal deficit rule was to add military spending for the state of emergency.

It’s funny to hear EC president Jean-Claude Juncker speak, as he wants out of his job. He approves of zero-diplomacy/democracy in Spain, of course: “We already have enough fissures and fractures," within the EU – a clear admission of a problem he perceives as possibly reaching a breaking point.

We have abundant proof of the already-militarist (capitalist) nature of Brussels which is totally at odds with the campaign promise of a” peace-inducing” pan-European project. Spain, like France, may soon be one step below martial law – not very peaceful.

So even if the Catalonian movement seemingly went into second gear thanks to upper-middle and upper class interests (let's not forget how quickly the leading, right-wing party of Puigdemont leadership backed away once it became clear that banks and corporations were going to leave an independent Catalonia)… that doesn't mean the left can't jump in and steal all their thunder.

The only question is: Should we?

Stop laughing at the West European Left’s ‘power’ to steal anything

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] get that - they have a bad reputation and they've earned it. There is a saying in France that, “One does not earn their reputation” I think that’s bull, mostly: If people say you are a no-good son of a gun, I'll give you a chance, but you probably are.

Let's keep in mind that in Spain there is no Iranian Basij or pro-Chavismo Socialism peoples’ militias - how can there be a group to defend the gains made by the government when we are talking about the EU?

There might be the emergence of something like the Collective of the 500 Brothers in French Guiana, which protects strikers and demonstrators from police brutality and thus encourages democratic expression by the People.

(FYI - Macron is backtracking on the 2 billion euro promise to France’s South American colony It was made less than a month prior to the 2017 presidential vote to avoid bad international media attention. That promise ended the longest general strike in the European Union that I can recall, so keep your eye on that. Few people are in the Anglophone sphere, but I wrote this article on it, and leftists need to remember good things can come in small/religious packages. As expected, Macron has just maintained the same racist discourse which Le Pen would have used.)

But, beyond the “far-leftism, but with five beers first” of French-style Antifa, we all understand why it's fair to doubt the West European left’s capability to “steal the thunder” of even a gassy baby.

But Catalonia is looking more and more as a place and point in time where history may say: “Things changed for the left in Europe”. Fidel Castro said: “Revolution is feeling the historicity of the moment”. That moment in Spain, due to the drastic overreaction of Madrid, has changed most unexpectedly.

In a country where austerity-provoked deprivation has been far worse than in France, I doubt the Spanish are as politically apathetic. 

I see why Catalonian separatists are in near-deliriums of happiness right now; “everyday, 1970s style” leftists may soon join them.

Even though Madrid has used and will use the fig leaf of “terrorism”, it simply will not suffice because the situation is clearly so different from France. Therefore, ruling by a state of emergency is going to be met with major resistance, I think. 

Firstly, any leftist implicitly realizes their duty to openly oppose “ruling by state of emergency” in every non-socialist wartime situation. Secondly, from a political angle, every further crackdown by Madrid can be taken advantage of to promote leftism.

I assumed this was all going to blow over. You should start to consider that it shouldn’t. Both of these ideas are increasingly irrelevant, because it’s looking likely that it won’t.

Leftists must often change to suit reality - otherwise, what are we, reactionaries?!

Catalonian separatism is far from ideal, but at least it is succeeding

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] return to my lede sentence: the problem is the regional nature of this movement. Catalonia lost its sovereignty long ago; it is situated in a multinational political project.

This makes Catalonian separatism appear like desertion, at least to many Europeans. How can leftists support desertion? But this appearance is wrong: the Catalonia movement can be co-opted - “joined” is another perfectly true and sincere word - to advance the needs of socialism/the 99%. 

And it should be - otherwise, this remains petty nationalist capitalism. And that cannot provide any advance at all.

The debate then turns to: is allowing the rebirth of Spanish fascism better in the short run, in order for more people to see the light about true leftism? Because neo-fascism - the combination of militarism, control of the judiciary, and zero-social safety net capitalism - is what currently rules in France and in the United States, and it will eventually provoke a sustained backlash. Mariano Rajoy is clearly bidding (or has been instructed) to join the other new “liberal strongman” peers in Trump and Macron, and Europe should try to remember that Turkey and Erdogan don't live in a hermetically-sealed bubble. 

Thankfully, Spain is not France: they have a “leftist” [a la Syriza, which is non-left left) party with some power in Podemos. The France Insoumise party has cultural power but little real political power.

Neither of these groups are far-leftists, despite the media’s lies, and I'm okay with that, personally. 

I'd like them further to the left, but I'm not going to alienate a genuinely leftist group of people. Contrarily, I have no problem alienating centrists/“fake leftists” who will only mobilize at the very end anyway, when the outcome is secure.

Podemos has thus far responded cautiously. The far-left can fairly criticize Podemos for thus far “tacitly backing” aspects of right-wing repression. 

Nobody ever said the “every day, 1970s leftist” were at the crest of the wave…but I would be quite foolish to think Podemos cannot be part of a leftist revolution and, indeed, I would say a leftist revolution (within our pan-European project) cannot succeed without them. Therefore, my criticism of them is muted.

But global criticism of Madrid is going to explode if they continue in this line - it is truly staggering, their stupidity. If Podemos remains reticent then…they will be exposed as centrists and not leftists.

Madrid is only going to boost Podemos, and that’s good – they are not US Democrats, French Socialists or British Labor. They support the snap elections, as they should; but they are not selfishly “rubbing their hands” at their chances to do well in the snap elections – the People are waking up and moving left.

We should also remember that Spain has not been subject to Western meddling, unlike Ukraine and 100+ other countries - this means Catalonian independence has a genuine pedigree thanks to genuine and historic support from the People of the area.

Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with using that as a base to finally have a European movement which either forces true democracy/socialism, or starts a new project, or ends the project altogether. 

A lot hinges on the next few moves by Madrid. It is staggering how they have refused diplomacy, which would most likely have defused the situation.

After the initial surprise, leftism recognizes what's going on as part of the same old capitalist pattern, even if “neoliberalism” is a new concept to many, while many have not heard the new “liberal strongman”.  Madrid's stupidity means we should start preparing to co-opt/join/support the Catalonian Rights Movement in order to end European austerity and capitalism everywhere.

About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

RAMIN MAZAHERI—The ultimate problem with Catalonia is that they aren’t trying to secede from the European Union. Now that would be something which the non-Spanish left could really rally around, during this ongoing age of Brussels-imposed poverty.

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

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienation

black-horizontal



The English-speaking world’s fear of calling communism, ‘communism’


horiz-long grey

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

In many ways this fear is justified: communism is a dirty word in the English culture. I recall getting my copy of “International Socialist Review” mailed to me in the United States – it arrived with a brown paper wrapper, the same as pornography.

(Please note: American mailing practices for pornography have been gleaned solely from second-hand information, of course, so I may be mistaken on this point.)

But perhaps it was better that my mailman thought I was getting porn instead of knowing I was a communist, LOL? Because nobody gets thrown in jail, spied on, harassed, denied loans, demoted, fired, shunned, insulted or deported for porn in the United States, but they sure do for promoting communism in “the land of the free”.

France, Italy, the Latin countries of the West – they do not have this prejudice as strongly, which is a major reason I chose to live in Paris.

But because this Anglophone fear is (unfortunately) understandable, many well-meaning, intelligent and prominent Western leftists simply cannot or will not openly call for communism or socialism.

Varoufakis

 

This leads them to major cognitive dissonance, dissembling, tortuous word play, and, inevitably, at least partial renunciation of the communist-inspired economic controls which are vital to create and preserve human progress.

One such person who suffers under this phenomenon is the former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. I have been writing a series of articles based around his 2016 book, “And the Poor Suffer What They Must?” because it’s necessary to disprove fake-leftist economics.

Of course, the mainstream English-language media - rabidly anti-communist - would only promote a “leftist economist” if he or she were a fake one to begin with. Joseph Stiglitz, who shared my former hometown of Gary, Indiana, - an appallingly poor and violent steel town, and festering sore of modern capitalism - has also been debunked as a fake-leftist by me in this article here.

I find it staggering that these models are routinely ignored, especially Iran’s, and also that Anglophone idols like Varoufakis are unable or unwilling to call a spade a spade and simply say, “Communism still provides the key to economic stability in any modern, moral economy.”

While Varoufakis is extremely commendable for repeatedly blowing the whistle on the scandalously undemocratic nature of the Eurozone (that appreciative article of mine is here), I write this article to point out that Varoufakis’ proposed solution to the still-unremedied Eurozone crisis is, in fact: plain ole’ communism.

The indispensable phrase for Varoufakis: ‘political’ surplus recycling

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his phrase underpins the entire economic theory of his book. The lack of this is why the Eurozone has failed, per Varoufakis - implementing it would make it all better.

I cannot stress enough that this three-word phrase is all over his book from start to finish, and he would surely agree that I have correctly emphasized his view of its importance.

However, the quotation marks around “political” in the above subhed are mine and are necessary, because it puts the emphasis where it needs to be to truly get at the heart of what he is advocating. To paraphrase:

Because deficits and surpluses are inevitable between two nations which trade, there must be a multi-national mechanism/parliament/boss which redistributes wealth from surplus nations to deficit nations in order to ensure economic balance and social/regional harmony. In the absence of such a mechanism, a multi-national project like the Eurozone cannot function to create growth or equality for outnumbered members like Greece – they would be doomed to permanent debtor/deficit nation status, with all the loss of real political influence that entails inside said multi-national project.

The communist underpinnings of this view should be totally obvious to the politically initiated….

However, although Varoufakis wants to call it by a different name - “political” surplus recycling - the principle remains the same: Even on an international level, there must be some coordinated, planned (political) redistribution (recycling) of the profitable wealth produced by our labor (surplus).

But this is never phrased in that clear-if-unoriginal way by Varoufakis, who has clearly refused to champion the world-famous phrase: “redistribution of wealth”.

It’s probably because the Anglophone world he has lived in for nearly half his life mostly shuts off their brains upon hearing that revolutionary, humanitarian slogan. Or perhaps Varoufakis is merely trying to give his idea the veneer of originality? Regardless, I find it staggering the lengths Westerners - and not just Anglophones - will go to in order to deny that communists have found any sort of answers which are in any way still valid in 2017.

Yet this economic principle even remains true at the level of a local feudal landlord, or a local factory owner, or a local pizza restaurant, as well as for the international socioeconomic relations between the 19 Eurozone nations.

My quotation marks around “political” make his phrase clearer because Varoufakis implicitly realizes that only government intervention – a political agreement/decision – can create equality, growth, and equal growth across regions.

This means that we are – just as Marx proved – back to the question of necessary “political” control over the economy. We all know the “Invisible Hand” is a myth. While many may remain silent on this, due to social intimidation, most halfway-intelligent people will at least roll their eyes upon being forced to listen at length to an “Invisible Hand” evangelist.

So “political surplus recycling” implies not just “redistribution of wealth” but also “central planning”, which is also an indispensable part of any socialist nation. This planning has allowed the Cubas, Irans and Chinas of the world to maintain steady growth despite the Great Recession caused seemingly-entirely by Western capitalist nations.

I find it staggering that these models are routinely ignored, especially Iran’s, and also that Anglophone idols like Varoufakis are unable or unwilling to call a spade a spade and simply say, “Communism still provides the key to economic stability in any modern, moral economy.”

Because even if Varoufakis rejects other key Communist tenets – one-party system, bans on capitalism, bans on far-right hate speech & groups, bans on divisive media – his entire book is based around this three-word phrase which is a thinly-veiled euphemism for the more common terms of “redistribution from rich to poor” and “central planning”.

Just say it openly, man!

As a reader, in many ways I resent Varoufakis for wasting my damned time, and everyone else’s.

‘Fair weather surplus recycling’ sows the problems…this is also known as ‘capitalism’

Varoufakis states that the catalyst for Europe’s problems – the poor socioeconomic policy - is relying on “fair-weather” surplus recycling (again, my quotation marks for clarity). To paraphrase:

Surpluses which have been generated (by government, profit, slave labor – whatever) are sent by bankers – or perhaps political actors – into deficit countries…obviously in order to find the greatest return on investment and not just to benevolently help. This obviously makes already-deficit nations even more indebted. But, at an inopportune time for deficit nations – lenders turn off the surplus tap: the loans end. The debts are called in. Repayment is obviously even harder than before.

This is a very important concept because it reveals the immorality of the richer Northern European nations.

Varoufakis calls this “fair-weather” surplus recycling because when the weather turns foul (due to crisis, shock, panic, war, etc.) the lending stops at the worst possible time. Those who have been encouraged to take on debt (with full knowledge that they could not repay in a crisis, and with full knowledge that crises are guaranteed in capitalism) are suddenly denied funds and are totally beholden to their debtors.

Therefore, economic foul weather only serves to strengthen the creditors even more. Bad economic weather is therefore good…for the 1%. This hidden reality is the foundation of the final part of this series, “Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%”. 

This two-faced system of International banking is how control has been clinched over modern-day Greece, but also 19th century Egypt, Tunisia, the cultural continent of India and a cast of hundreds of other societies who could be explicitly named by post-industrial history.

But especially within the Eurozone:

“Fair-weather recycling, writ large, had taken over globally from the planned political recycling that was the essence of the Bretton Woods system. Though this was never going to end well, it had the capacity to put the global economy on a spending spree that lasted three decades before crashing in 2008”.

Only a fake Leftist, pro-Western (or perhaps just pro-Anglophone) economist like Varoufakis would espouse an allegedly benevolent aim for the “exorbitant privilege” of the US-imposed Bretton Woods system…but I  find it morally irresponsible that Varoufakis uses a benign phrase like “fair weather” to describe a process which boils down to: entrapment, juice them for years, cut them off unexpectedly, deny any culpability, bust them out but not totally because they must be juiced for years/decades/lifetimes/generations/as long as possible…while also denying the People democracy, and also hypocritically going on and on about how communism is the greatest killer…which I heard just today on RMC Radio in Paris.

(The Black taxi driver and I listening to the radio agreed: the French (the White French) are willfully blind, hypocritical, extremely clannish, their arrogance causes them to waste the talent of so many millions and billions, etc. and etc. White people are not privy to such conversations, I imagine, and that is a shame – but I can guarantee you they are routinely held among the Colored. White Communists probably have such conversations with the Colored, I would certainly expect….)

But this system dominating Western European system – the same Western Europe where communism was born (but never implemented, sadly) - is the same process of the mafia loan shark or the predatory payday loan companies, and you don’t need to be a Muslim – or Colored - to be scandalized by that.

Obfuscation towards economic concepts is inherent in the Anglophone world

Varoufakis conferring with Tsipras.

If Varoufakis had used Marxist language – if this self-declared “erratic Marxist” had even dared to reference Marx himself more than just two times in this book – we would not have been forced to spend so much time retreading the same old economic ground.

It is vital to acknowledge that - while the machines may change - in economics there is nothing new under the sun and Varoufakis should not peddle the illusion that there is: We have all been trying to come up with something new, and yet we have only been able to make improved critiques of the fundamental 18th and 19th century economists.

Unfortunately these essential points are totally lost on the West, where [capitalist-delimited] technocratism rules (and rules very poorly), where a desire for innovation reigns supreme, and the idea that having a PhD somehow implies that you cannot possibly be an immoral, soulless, greedy, bastard (Who more than Germany is in love with showing off academic titles? Who more than the French political class are in love with having published a book?)

Because our own unoriginality should humble us; because our championing of others’ worth is vital to social unity; it is the duty of the Varoufakis’ of the world to speak as honestly as possible on serious issues, just as it is my duty and yours as well.

Furthermore, in a very real Foucauldian sense, the problem with economics and the English language appears to be embedded in the depths of their cultural subconscious:

Bourgeois, proletariat, rentier - these are all foreign loanwords. I find this especially surprising, given that English has by far the greatest quantity of words in its language.

A case can be made that using these foreign terms internationalizes them, but I dispute that: the average Anglophone has no idea what a “rentier” is, even though he or she is sending them a check for monthly compound interest multiple times every month. “Proletariat” is outdated in a time when office cubicle drones are most definitely a part of the proletariat, even if most don’t believe it simply because they don't work on a factory floor.

This failure of Anglophones to culturally contextualize key modern economic terms in their own language – even the verbose Irish - indicates how little interest there is in communism in their countries, but also how much cultural suppression of communism they have been subjected to.

Of course, many countries use the same loanwords for these economic concepts, so…subtract one point for Foucault and another for psychology.

Regardless, all this lack of clarity has generated a tremendous misunderstanding regarding economics across the entire, expansive, imperialist Anglophone world, especially.

Anglophones must accept: They are already communist, they just don’t believe it

“Central planning” does exist in Western capitalist/Anglophone countries: in the United States their economy is guided by the Pentagon, the world’s largest employer; which hands out the fruits of their taxpayer-funded research to private companies; which enriches their native bourgeoisie with hugely corrupt contracts; which provides jobs terribly and ineffectively – as opposed to government investment in virtually in any other sector - but very effectively enriches the 1%.

The arrival of the globalist Emmanuel Macron is likely the death of France’s “mixed economy” concept, which was based around the idea of the government setting and taking steps to encourage (centrally plan), clear industrial/economic/agricultural goals for the nation’s economy. This concept had allowed France to succeed to the point where their poverty rate and their productivity rate are still both better than Germany’s, but now things will certainly change for the worse.

And but a moment’s reflection will cause you to agree that Japan’s postwar economy produced the most staggering global results, hands down - who would have predicted that they would emerge from losing World War II to having the number two global economy? It is because their economy was based even more than France’s on governmental guidance.

When Japan gave that up in the mid-1980s – when neoliberal capitalism became the American ideology to export and enforce – that’s when the groundwork was laid for Japan’s “Lost Decade” of the 1990s, which has since turned into the “Lost Score”. I discuss this obvious “Japanese precedent” for the Eurozone in the final part of this series.

As for the communism already present in the Anglophone world: Do I need to get into social security for the elderly, the 40-hour work week, the living wage, universal health care, rent caps, seniority pay, capital gains taxes, progressive taxes, universal childcare, mass education, free higher education  and on and on and on? It could not be more intellectually black and white: Every single one of these is a triumph —niggardly conceded by the defenders of capitalist privilege—of communist ideology, and every single one runs contrary to capitalist ideology, and they are all targeted for repeal by the modern neoliberal version of capitalism.

We hold these truths to be so very self-evident that I am not even going to elaborate any further.

The West’s obstinacy in refusing to call “communism” what it is – “communism” – is either ignorance or cowardice, but it certainly causes confusion, and confusion has its price.

Furthermore, at some point, and it wasn’t going to be 1992, people are going to realize that the fall of the Soviet Union did not at all force the abandonment of these specific, already-existing communist-inspired programs in the West and Anglophone world. It’s an obvious socio-cultural problem that communism cannot even be admired for its “legacy” despite be allegedly “dead”! (They are purely allegations, we all assure you….)

Another irony is that even though it is unthinkable for many in the West to renounce many of these programs - they even fight for pale facsimiles like Obamacare – Westerners and especially Anglophones also appear unable to realize their true communist paternity. And it is a single-parent household….

It will take the sacrifice of a generation – specifically, my generation – but the younger generation will pick up the communist banner again. That is certain, because all roads lead to (imperial) Rome.

Perhaps it is because I am Iranian and 500 BC is a common cultural/psychological presence, but the West’s constant obsession with rejecting/denying “ancient” history simply does not apply to fundamental economic philosophy…this innovation obsession is but a chimera when it comes to economics. Again I say, “habeas corpus, intellectually” – you cannot seriously posit that neoliberal capitalism is moral/cultural progress over economic socialism (you cannot even prove it is economic progress, LOL), and you cannot name a morally-superior economic philosophy which has been devised.

Regardless, the Great Recession will eventually remind the West that humans can fly with socialism, or be burdened by capitalism, and that there are no other choices.

Politics is moral, cultural & economic: Failure in one forces failure in the other

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]ot everyone likes to be a “proud leftist” – discussing politics or religion is verboten in Irish and Scots-Irish culture, for example. That’s a huge deal in the entire Anglophone world, with the sole exception of England. Modern analysts of America have agreed that Scots-Irish culture is essentially the dominant culture in the United States, where it is so embedded that being “American” is actually being “Scots-Irish” time and time again. 

The major problem here is that the Scots-Irish were imperialists and colonists, after all, in (still-divided) Ireland!

Everyone knows that the “real” Irish are Catholics; a Protestant Irishman was most likely an invading colonizer 13 generations ago, and only rarely a convert. But how many Scots-Irish in America even understand their own history…?

People in Anglophone culture think this “ancient history” has no cultural affect in 2017 - they are not just blind and mistaken, but easily disproven: the UK’s Theresa May was able to form a coalition only because she allied with the Ulster far-rightists to retain control of the UK government and thus keep imposing neoliberal economics. This is undeniable proof that the imperialist division of Ireland is still a tool used by the 1% to oppress the 99% in 2017 within the Anglophone world itself. It is not at all “ancient history” but… whatever, keep being in denial, and keep stealing St. Patrick’s Day too….

All of these mistakes - the false claim to be Irish, the denial that a divided Ireland is no longer relevant, the denial of what are clearly communist programs - show that there is some sort of tremendous dysfunction in the Anglosphere which prohibits them from discussing socially-important subjects like economics and imperialism, subjects whose ultimate base is morality. As we all know – the Scots-Irish famously “do not discuss religion or politics”.

I imagine it is the same in all of the Anglophone countries: even though none of them have been victimized by imperialism (the Irish speak Gaelic, or used to), and even though none of them currently have had puppets imposed who prevent democratic politics. Yet they staggeringly cannot discuss economic/political issues (which are moral issues always and religious issues for many) without becoming overheated, and thus their 99% actually impose an informal social ban on such topics of implementing economic morality.

Iranians are the opposite way, and it is encapsulated in a joke: “One Iranian plays alone. Two Iranians play with each other. Three Iranians talk politics!”

I’m not trying to claim cultural superiority: I am simply noting that this real, current, tangible generation or two of adult Iranians have been able to democratically wrest what precisely they all got together, talked it over, and decided communally.

The same goes for China: How did they get to the point where their citizens report that their democracy became so vastly superior to the West’s version? Simple, it was driven by innumerable surveys, data and discussion which produced consensus; all of this feedback/will of the 99% is the heart of socialism; the true totalitarianism is for capitalism.

Taken from the link below:

“Financially, ninety-five percent of poor Chinese own their homes and land and the Chinese own, in common, the commanding heights of their economy– banks, insurers and utilities.”

You don’t get poor Chinese Trash to own their own trailer, nor poor Iranian trash to nationalize nearly all heavy industry as well as a huge amount of banks, insurance companies and farmland, without a LOT of prior discussion and a LOT of discussion afterwards on what constitutes equitable division.

I don’t think that Iranian joke goes all the way back to the era of Cyrus the Great, which proves that cultures change, a concept I find encouraging (but many White French absolutely do not, today’s taxi driver would agree). But undoubtedly, Iran had many decades of backwards monarchy while some nations were more modern and threw them off a century earlier or less (but not much earlier than a century).

The Anglophone/Scots-Irish model is a fine model in some ways but terribly unmodern in others (making it similar to all cultures): Talking honestly and openly about socioeconomic issues – about religion, politics and economics -is the only way lasting social change can possibly happen.

I hope this article put this simple but vital truth a bit more in the forefront of the minds of our readers, because that is why socialism keeps growing today.

Or, you can agree with Varoufakis and believe that he’s re-invented the wheel with “political surplus recycling”, that Marxist ideas are dead and buried, and that human history not only doesn’t matter but that it never repeats itself.

If so, please bookmark this page for when your next crisis occurs.

This small but necessary detour precedes the final part of this 7-part series, “Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%”. That article also tries to show the immutability and the international applicability of modern economic concepts, as well as the immutability of the antisocial tactics used by the 1% to deny democracy, economic equality and your personal empowerment.

***********************************

This is the sixth article I have written in a 7-part series on today’s Eurozone which will combine some of Varoufakis’ ideas with my 8 years of covering the crisis first-hand from Paris.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Varoufakis book review: Rock star economist but fake-leftist politician

Why no Petroeuro? or France’s historic effort to create a permanently anti-austerity Eurozone

The hopelessly corrupt structure of the Eurozone & the Eurogroup

The Eurozone: still as primed for collapse as ever

The Eurozone has likely entered its final calendar year, contraction coming

The English-speaking world’s fear of calling communism, ‘communism’

Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99% . 

 

About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

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

black-horizontal



The Eurozone has likely entered its final calendar year, contraction coming


horiz-long grey

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

The historical trend of the euro and its previous incarnations has followed this historical pattern, when we take a leftist view:

And Germany wants a smaller Eurozone, so…why doubt that a contraction is on the way?

I have already written how the Eurozone has a hopelessly corrupt and undemocratic structure, and I have also written about how it is primed for collapse because the recent years of Quantitative Easing did not strengthen the real economy but instead was diverted into investments in high finance/stock markets which have almost no societal benefit.

So what happens when the QE tap is finally turned off after all these years?

The Eurozone is expected to decide this week to stop Mario Draghi’s QE, tapering it off until its termination.

Mario Draghi

Well, this 7-part series was largely written two months ago: It now seems extremely likely that the European Central Bank will not announce the end of QE on October 25, after all.

I doubt that is due to my rather dire prediction of what will happen when QE stops, because the danger posed by the end of QE is obvious to any journalist following Europe.

That's why Reuters titled this just-published article, “High noon for the ECB, Draghi at the QE Corral”. Draghi represents the strong, silent type/peoples’ representative Gary Cooper, while high finance is the Miller Gang who is ready to lay waste to the entire village for their benefit. The real question is: what is Grace Kelly doing in such a hick village, but if I answer that I'll have to add a “Gunfight at the OK Corral” metaphor, and trying to explain Reuter’s convoluted headline has gone on long enough.

The latest general prediction is that monthly bond buying will be cut by just 33% - 60 to 40 billion euros - and that it will be extended into next year. These amounts are peanuts in the multi-trillion grand scheme of the Eurozone’s bailouts. However, we still don't know if the scary end date will be finally announced or not.

This “flexibility” is the main thing to take away from Draghi’s upcoming announcement: (from Reuters) “…the bank would maintain the flexibility and even signal a willingness to increase asset buys if the outlook sours.” Translation: the ability for taxpayers to bail out private banks remains in place, along with the direct-free money of QE, as well as the negligible interest rates which provide nearly-free money to those not well-placed enough to benefit from the direct-free money.

The likely postponement shouldn't be too surprising: The ECB has already postponed tapering off QE before. The same two reasons provide the motivation: Firstly, this program geared for the 1% is quite lucrative for them, and secondly, they know that there is going to be hell to pay when they do.

But my key question - which is the basis of this series, and is a Communist-inspired accusation of capitalism - remains: when the era of “free money” ends, and knowing that the 1% can never be satiated, how long do the devilish speculators wait to strike the Eurozone, as they did in the summer of 2012, which provoked QE?

My second key question - inspired by a complete lack of faith in the Eurozone project, as a result of its structure and its results - also remains: how can an era of “free money” for the 99% ever start when the solidarity required for a pan-continental project does not exist?

The book “And The Weak Suffer What They Must?” by former Greek finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, a fake leftist but admirable whistleblower, has provided the jumping-off point of this series and I have quoted his findings often to prove the structural and cultural absence of Eurozone solidarity (mainly) on the part of Northern Europe.

“…the Bundesbank was, and remains, prepared to do ‘whatever it takes’ to stop Mario Draghi in his tracks. The fact that Herr Weidmann (Bundesbank President) has so far failed is testimony to Chancellor Merkel’s determination not to have the euro crumble on her watch. But, as Draghi knows too well, neither he nor Berlin can afford to ignore either the Bundesbank’s wrath or its preference for a smaller euro area.”

And because QE must end sooner rather than later (they are literally running out of bonds to buy),  regardless of the probable inability of the ECB to say this clearly on Thursday, the plan for a multi-speed Europe is already in place: Once the era of free money ends, that new era is certain to begin.

To briefly restate what I have predicted for the Eurozone: we will simply go back to 2012 - Greece will leave or not, and high finance will go back to “testing” foreign bank debt-burdened countries like Portugal, Italy and Spain in the hopes of forcing a Troika-led “bailout”.

So you see the depth and the scope of the problem, and why the question is not “if” but “when”?

Could be on Thursday…doubt it will take until 2019

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]ow do you feel Europe? Ready for some historic changes?

Things are lining up very well for the 1% in Western Europe since Brexit: Macron won, Merkel was re-elected and with an even more pro-capitalist coalition to boot, Madrid is reclaiming control over Catalonia (rather up in the air there right now, I’ll grant), anti-austerity protests in France have fizzled as Macron is waging a blitzkrieg against the French social model. Things are going very differently in Central Europe, however, which I will address shortly.

Allow me to examine here the possible reasons why the 1% will refrain from blowing up the system for their own profit this Thursday.

As the predictable, repeated backtracking of the ECB shows - they are still getting free money, and people also realize that the Eurozone’s economic state is too perilous to make a major change right now. But there are some other credible reasons that high finance could hold off until 2019:

European MPs are up for re-election then…but it’s not as if they have more power than high finance, LOL! And it's not as if Europe's 500 million citizens have historically had a say in the structure of Europe, anyway.

European Commission (1/3rd of the Troika) President Jean-Claude Junker is also up for re-election, but he said he won’t run for a 2nd term. LOL, he knows it’s a sinking ship, but he may not want it to sink on his watch. But again, it’s not as if he has more power than high finance either. And it’s not like there’s a risk of a non-Junckerian communist being put in charge of the EC….

The most plausible reason for a high finance-forced delay is that the EU wants Britain to pay as much as possible for Brexit, and that occurs in June 2019. The EU needs to have a united front to get maximum value, which Brussels has said could be €60 billion, maybe more. However, €60 billion obviously pales in comparison with the money in play in the Eurozone; with the money the 1% can make by forcing Spain, Italy, etc. into accepting horrible, Greek-style, Troika-led bailouts before a possible Eurozone expulsion. There is another important faction which wants the Greeces to stay, so for them the larger issue is to scare other nations from pulling a -exit.

To me, these last reasons are the only plausible ones which would cause contraction to be held off for 1 or 1.5 years. As I said, QE could be extended until then, and they could even prolong it by expanding their bond purchases of European corporations, which is at least better than giving free money to banks.

But the QE tap will be turned off, and then no mo' Zone Euro

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ike I said: huge crisis, Troika bailouts, more austerity, chaos for the average person, even more inequality…and then finally changes to the Eurozone! At long last!

But if you are expecting a major collapse - a major tarnishing of the European brand - you aren’t thinking like a capitalist. 

It will be a velvet coup. I have already described the plan, which is in place and agreed-upon: There will be a two-speed Europe; this has already been approved by the four major economies - Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

The rich economies will pursue deeper integration, and poor nations will be tossed aside, along with the long-time, false, fig leaf of effort at “economic convergence”, a capitalist euphemism for the communist “redistribution of wealth” between rich and poor European nations.

The key propaganda line they will use is, “No new rules are needed, as the existing rules are already in place.” EU rules already do allow groups of at least 9 member states to pursue “enhanced cooperation”.

Therefore, no referendum is needed; there will be no vote; they will say that “the rules for a multi-speed Europe have already been democratically approved in previous votes” (except the 8 times they were democratically rejected (these rejections were obviously ignored)).

So this is the key to remember, Eurozone members:

There will be no changes to the current horrible situation; no changes to the atrociously undemocratic nature of the Eurogroup (which controls the all-important Eurozone, the world’s largest macro-economy); no minutes of the Eurogroup’s monthly meetings; no democracy within the group; no parliamentary oversight; the total rejection of democratic votes which aim to influence Eurozone policy (as in Greece); no changes to the status quo, which works just fine for the 1%.

And remember that before the crisis gets too big where the 2-speed Eurozone becomes official: Usurious bloodletting continues, as does forcing labor code roll backs all the while. This helps explain Macron’s feverish assaults on the longtime “bad example” of France: it's clear the end is near, and so he has been told to put as many pro capitalist/pro-globalization rules in the French law books as possible. A French public, exhausted from years of protesting and filled with apathy, is proving to be unable to stop the slide.

And when that day finally comes when the “new” Eurozone debuts and the Greeces are freed: The rich members will simply take their money and go home. You can expect a bill from them every month thanks to the waves of privatization - ports, airports, water departments, laws favoring their own industries against local industries - over the past 30 years.

So what is the 2-speed system?

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n short, it will be the nations of the Eurozone versus the nations of the European Union who have not accepted the euro.

We must remember the very clear geographical and cultural division here: The Eurozone is composed of Western Europe, a few islands and tiny principalities, the three rabidly anti-Communist Baltic states and the former Czechoslovakia. Only the latter is the real exception here, and I will soon discuss how unhappy even they are.

So we see how prepared for an easy division Europe already is.

I think we can all agree - given the perilous state of the Eurozone and the atrocious mistreatment of its weaker nations - no Central European nation is crazy enough to want to join the euro, not even fanatically pro-Europe Poland: a poll this spring showed only 22% of the population still wants to adopt the euro.

So we also see how hardened this division already is.

We should also understand that this division is coming very soon, the discussions are ongoing and public, and that it does not need to be preceded by the Eurozone economic crisis which I have described…although that would inevitably speed up the process.

Add this all together and it's clear that we will see the true splitting up of Europe. The 1st-speed group will include the Eurozone members working t…or at least the ones who have not required a bailout and have been approved to join the new club. If they stiffen up entry requirements, the Eurozone could very easily contract out multiple nations, leaving only North and West Europe.

And that is what Germany has always wanted.

Even though Germany (along with France) broke the EU’s fiscal rules in 2003 before anyone else; even though countries like Greece and Portugal had “morally correct” fiscal balance prior to being loaded with foreign banker debt; Germany has made no secret of its unjustified contempt for the weaker Latin nations.

When history is written it will show that Germany (along with the 1% in other Western nations) orchestrated the economic gutting and domination of all Europe, which set them up for part two: the inevitable domination of the lower-speed Europe by the strictly-rich Eurozone.

And why would the less-rich nations accept this? Well…they won’t.

Central Europe may not stick around to find out

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]gain, do you think they will join the euro now?

The most capitalistic aspect of the euro is probably its precondition that any nation wishing to join has to suspend any controls over the movement of money in or out of the country for two entire years.

That should be the sound of your jaw dropping.

So any nation which wants to completely sell off their national heritage to the rich capitalists of Western Europe and America (but also Japan, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar - anyone with money), and also wants their native 1% to engage in massive capital flight…well, it's your funeral. Such a rule is clearly meant to advance the national interest of richer countries rather than the interests of their alleged partners in the pan-European project.

The Visegrad Group – Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia – has already said they would leave a multi-speed EU, because why on earth would they bind themselves to the 2nd-tier, where they have no hope of attaining parity? The Eurozone is pure capitalism with unequal regulation and no solidarity: that means the largest corporation wins, and the 2nd tier can’t possibly compete.

Of course, Western Europe does not give a fig for these protests against a multi-speed plan which violates the 1991-era spirit of the pan-European project in every way. Tone-deaf, “democratic strongmen” like Macron will continue to push for it in the hopes that Central Europeans will continue to be duped by false promises of equality.

Central Europe is waking up: they will always be second-class citizens in Europe

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he reality is that in recent years reporters in Central Europe have noted that the European Union/Eurozone has been able to achieve something that Communist-era governments constantly tried to do, but were never able to: tarnish the image of the Western model.

The pan-European project has definitively proven to Central Europe that they are not viewed as equals by Western Europe, and that they were included only to provide nearly the same quality of work for one-third the wages.

Heck, the Visegrad countries even had to protest the inequality of ingredients in the exact same food products if they are headed for Central Europe and not Western Europe. This type of stuff does not go unnoticed and is not easily forgotten: Western Europe has no conception of this humiliation shared by the victims of imperialism.

Let’s remember that the horrific dismantling of Central Europe's socialist economy in the 1990s was underpinned by a promise that they would be accepted and treated as equals by Western Europe…that has not happened. The currently 40- and 50-year-olds believed the promise of capitalist politicians, disbelieved the warnings from their parents that life under socialism was not so bad, and completely ignored the moral arguments of their grandparents in favor of socialism and against capitalism/corporate fascism.

Abundant statistics bear this out: in Slovakia real incomes rose by nearly 50% between 1970 and 1985, but dropped during the 1990s; GDP only regained its 1989 level in 2007, and has remained stagnant ever since – undeniable failure.

A few decades is long enough for Central Europe to get the picture…so let’s accept that we have a new historical, cultural reality here: the old analyses will not apply as effectively.

This nearing middle-age generation is waking up, and they are justifiably unhappy. Thus we have the Czech Republic - probably the most culturally-Western nation in Central Europe -just electing a billionaire to be prime minister, but one who is paradoxically Eurosceptic. Something does not add up here, but as I said these are totally unique, distorted times in Central Europe.

Central Europeans have concluded that the pan-European project - the European Union - has essentially brought only two positive developments: better transportation (which benefits Western capitalists via better ease of business) and open borders (encouraging brain drain & cheap labor, and thus benefiting Western capitalists). Before you fly off the handle, nativists: open borders are a human right, but they must be accompanied by socialist regulations on capitalists to protect local wages.

Please notice that I didn't add “protect local culture”: The idea that immigrants, the Roma, or Muslims are the cause of Europe's degradation is hilarious, and you look like a fool if you make such a claim. European imperialism has turned on itself, and national socialism is not the solution. However, international socialism is.

The result of Central Europe’s rejection of modern socialism and choosing intra-European imperialism is obvious to all: Germany has colonized Central Europe, taking advantage of their historical, cultural and geographical ties, and used the profits to dominate Western Europe as well.

The immediate reality is that from Visegrad to Romania, a two-speed or multi-speed EU will not fly - after 30 years they no longer “look up” to Western Europe. A more powerful reality is that Western Europe will simply push out Central Europe, and it doesn't even need another Eurozone crisis to do so: contraction is coming soon, regardless.

The rejection of socialism in favor of undelivered pan-European promises has left Central Europe currently looking like a used-up, indebted, aging, mistreated woman who is bitterly looking for an easy scapegoat… but that's just what capitalism does to everybody. Certainly, socialism is the only societal solution to all that.

My prediction for how it all WON’T change

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s we now see that the multi-speed Europe is inevitable, and that Central Europe will be pushed out, we are still left with a problem many nations face: being a Eurozone member.

The fastest route to real change is if one country takes on the role of the noble martyr and leaves the euro, taking all the pain, head-on. In the short-term, as Varoufakis estimates: plan for 1 year of total financial chaos.

But is any Eurozone nation ready or willing to do that? You would need major revolutionary fervor - nationwide, mind you - to sustain everyone through the year of short-term pain.

But long-term it’s even more demanding on the People: it would take an Iranian-style revolution – with no WTO membership, with a war of banking sanctions, with constant media character assassinations, with constant encouragement of subversive elements by foreign powers, with shortages orchestrated by the 1% percent as in Morsi’s Egypt – to get back all the assets which have already been sold off, and also to renounce all the unjust economic contracts they have already signed. 

Because why just “leave” the Eurozone if you want to remain in the capitalist system; if you want Germans to keep control of your water department, the French your port, and the Dutch your dairy industry?

It doesn’t make sense, does it?

But that IS the only long-term battle plan. If it sounds like you don’t have the stomach for that…then you aren’t considering a lifetime of penury and subjugation, which is the only other choice.

That’s the reality check.

‘I will not stay and I will not go’ - the undiscussed option

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]obody in Europe ever seems to think about the option of using paralysis to your advantage…the sit-in, the long-term strike, the repeated spanner in the works. Of course the mainstream media forbids such discussions, but still….

There’s a much better alternative than waiting for that rogue financer to force the issue and call the bluff on Europe's “Ponzi austerity”, and it is not promoted by Varoufakis: At some point some nation is going to refuse to play by the Eurozone’s rules and also refuse to leave the euro. Nobody has really discussed this type of “outside of the box” possibility.

Such a threat means to stay in the euro…while kicking and screaming about making the necessary rule changes to finally introduce democracy in the Eurozone.

Obviously, this requires a call to implement anti-austerity economics which Western Europeans are simply too scared to call by name: communism. (This fear is examined in the next part of this series.)

Somebody with some power – not some bozo like me or just a Finance Minister – will pull the veil off, show the ugliness underneath, and yet will insist to keep parading her around at the dance for all to see. “She may be ugly but she's mine!” The first step to acceptance is establishing existence.

At the same time, this nation will refuse to play nice in European institutions - where absolute unanimity is required very often - and bring them to a halt. And other Eurozone countries will, I believe, listen.

What I can try to predict is: Who will be this rogue country?

There has been no real hero in the Euro crisis so far. Hollande – the ultimate patsy or “the meekest of leaders”, as Varoufakis wrote; Le Pen – an intellectually uncommitted clown; Mario Monti – no revolutionary but at least something of a nationalist for standing up for Italy and for a European banking union in 2012; Syriza – betrayers; Podemos – committed to working within the system and preoccupied with preventing the Balkanization of Spain.

And yet, I contend that the “hero”, or even the “villain”, should be Spain.

But before getting to that: it sadly appears that Central Europe is not going to be the hero, although they are capable of bringing the European Union to a halt, and even though they should do exactly that after decades of capitalist rape. But private control of the media means that socialism is never discussed, and that the scapegoat is not the unrighteous 1% but foreigners. Show me the Central European nation where the current narrative isn’t a continuation of “reactionary, capitalist nationalists continue to consolidate power after the era of international socialism”; show me the leftist leader on the rise over there; show me the country where a political revolution/genuine restructuring of society is occurring like in 1979 Iran or in 2017 Syrian Rojava?

Spain is, crucially, where high finance is watching most closely – today as in 2012.

They are the biggest major economy on the edge, and their People have suffered real privation. Something or someone should come from there to determine the balance.

Whatever they do will…work! If Spain wants to work within the euro and save it; the euro will be saved. If Spain wants to break off into Catalonia and other regions and abandon the euro; other nations will be happy to join them. Dissatisfaction is so high in the Eurozone that SOMETHING has to happen. 

But because Spain would not be a surprise, and because revolutions are always a surprise (this is a rather tired trope, I’ll agree), I predict France will make the change.

No, I'm not biased, just speculating

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]diots in the US talk about impeaching Trump for tweeting, but I really cannot understand how the French will tolerate the smug, young, capitalist strongman Emmanuel Macron for 4.5 more years? Macron, far more than Trump or any other Western leader, has already overplayed his hand and alienated the public to incredible degree. His approval rating is lower than Trump’s. France also has a history of serious protest.

This prediction is in line with the historical analysis, after all: As I have proven, the EU was originally conceived by France as a Franco-German alliance against American imperialism, and France tried for decades to get Germany to give up austerity and to help fund (along with France) pro-growth policies.

And if we pull back to this historical view, what I am saying is that history can plausibly be read like this: France’s decades-long proposed alliance fails…so they take a different tactic - total rebellion - to save themselves. Makes sense, no? France has the power and clout to do it – and others would certainly join them and abandon Germany.

It is possible that the looming Eurozone economic crisis will force the young, somewhat unknown Macron to have a “coming out” party, where he does a 180 and proves to be the type of leader the times demand: an independent one.

But that’s far less likely than this scenario: The huge protests which are currently too tame become even worse than 1968-levels after the French public catches their breath and when the Eurozone crisis does hit, forcing Macron to step down. 20% of France voted in May’s election for a candidate whose main plank was to end the Fifth Republic - the economic crisis makes this a majority. A new leftist wave takes power and demands real changes. They don’t get them, of course, so they form that 2nd Euro bloc I mentioned, abandoning Germany and austerity and picking up Spain, Greece, Italy, etc.

That means we could have a truly divided 3-speed Europe: Germany and their minions like the Netherlands, Luxembourg and others, France leading a pro-growth Latin bloc, and Central Europe charting a sorely-needed new course for themselves. 

Yes, the idea that Germany and France remain together to install Cold War 2.0 – Western (Eurozone) Europe versus Eastern (non-Eurozone) Europe – is a more likely scenario. This would play into the hands of Eurasia, as the Chinese One Belt, One Road system would have to be welcomed all the way to the Hungarian Plain, unlike in the year 1241.

Regardless, this is a multipolar world now, and the idea of 3 truly separate centers of power within Europe with truly different ideologies is fun to contemplate, no?  And, beyond fun, it clearly would represent progress when compared with the current undemocratic, capitalist status quo in Europe.

But let's not let this speculation detract from the real point of this article: economic mismanagement has pushed us to the certainty of implementing a multi-speed Europe.

Some say it will contain two speeds, some say it will have three speeds, and there's a real possibility of an economic collapse into zero speeds. But it is coming, and soon. This process - which is so slow and so planned and so open that it cannot be called a “crisis” - is due to the lack of democracy and socialism in the pan-European project, and which has forced this coming, certain failure in the pan-European project.

Separately, when the ECB turns off the tap, as they eventually will, then you will have a real crisis for which there are no simple solutions. But creating crises – “Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%” – is the final article in this project.

However, “The English-speaking world’s fear of calling communism, ‘communism’”, is the next and penultimate article. That is because this fear - this inability to discuss politics, economics and morality openly and honestly - is the root evil and root cause of the current European social disorder.

***********************************

This is the fifth article I have written in a 7-part series on today’s Eurozone which will combine some of Varoufakis’ ideas with my 8 years of covering the crisis first-hand from Paris.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Varoufakis book review: Rock star economist but fake-leftist politician

Why no Petroeuro? or France’s historic effort to create a permanently anti-austerity Eurozone

The hopelessly corrupt structure of the Eurozone & the Eurogroup

The Eurozone: still as primed for collapse as ever

The Eurozone has likely entered its final calendar year, contraction coming

The English-speaking world’s fear of calling communism, ‘communism’

Forced recession as a tool of social war against the 99%

About the author
 

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

RAMIN MAZAHERI—But my key question – which is the basis of this series, and is a Communist-inspired accusation of capitalism – remains: when the era of “free money” ends, and knowing that the 1% can never be satiated, how long do the devilish speculators wait to strike the Eurozone, as they did in the summer of 2012, which provoked QE?

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

black-horizontal