Kapitalisme is een zekere garantie op crises en op het niet of nauwelijks serieus nemen van klimaatverandering: de grootste crisis ooit

‘De vijf crises van het kapitalisme: de uitdaging waarmee links wordt geconfronteerd’ is de titel van het hieronder opgenomen CounterPunch artikel, geschreven door Ashley Smith. In dit artikel legt ze uit dat we in een tijdperk van crises zijn beland. Crises die hun wortels hebben in het kapitalisme en die alle ideologische, economische en sociale dynamiek over de wereld zullen bepalen. 

Deze crises hebben de legitimiteit van gevestigde partijen ondermijnd, hebben een golf van strijd over de wereld opgang gebracht waarin men een systematische verandering eist en die op haar beurt diepe politieke polarisatie heeft veroorzaakt, die aan extreem rechts en nieuw links mogelijkheden hebben geboden. Socialisten moeten de aard van dit tijdperk begrijpen, als ‘we’ een rol willen spelen in het opnieuw samenstellen van revolutionair links, de samenhang van een nieuwe militante minderheid, de hernieuwde bouw van een organisatie-infrastructuur tot afscheiding en verzet, plus het construeren van nieuwe socialistische partijen, aldus Smith. 

Er zijn in dit tijdperk meerdere crises die op elkaar inwerken en die worden veroorzaakt door een langdurige depressie. De bijbel heeft de vier ruiters van de apocalyps: de pest, oorlog, honger en de dood. Tegenwoordig hebben we er vijf: de eerste is de wereldwijde economische crisis. De grote recessie van 2008 (de banken- of kredietcrisis) heeft een eind gemaakt aan de neoliberale opkomst die begin 80er jaren begon…. Hier ben ik het niet mee eens: zie het grootste deel van de westerse landen die nog steeds neoliberaal worden geregeerd, ook al gebeurt dat zogenaamd onder verschillende politieke ideologieën, echter goed beschouwd voeren deze regeringen een neoliberaal beleid (zelfs de EU wordt in feite neoliberaal bestuurd, niet voor niets dat heel veel beleid ingaat tegen de belangen van het volk)

Smith vervolgt haar schrijven met te stellen dat de economische conjunctuur (het op en neergaan van de economische groei en de productie op korte termijn) wordt gevormd door een cyclus van scherpe recessies en zwak herstel door de achteruitgang van profijt (winst) voor het globale kapitalisme, wat volgens Smith komt doordat het systeem verstopt zit met steeds meer kapitaal (geld) waarvoor geen profijtelijke investering kan worden gevonden….. Ook hier een opmerking van mijn hand: men weet wel degelijk hoe kapitaal profijtelijk kan worden gemaakt, zie de privatisering van waterbedrijven ook in arme landen, de pogingen om zelfs groenten te patenteren en zie de enorme winsten die farmaceuten maken met bijvoorbeeld COVID medicatie, waarmee grootaandeelhouders, als oplichter Bill Gates, al honderden miljoenen winst moeten hebben gemaakt….. 

Zie wat dat betreft ook de oneindige oorlogsvoering door de VS, waaraan alweer de aandeelhouders kapitalen verdienen (niet voor niets ook dat die oorlogen oneindig lang moeten worden voortgezet), hetzelfde geldt voor de aandeelhouders in de fossiele maffia, de reden ook waarom klimaattoppen als COP26 niet mogen slagen in hun opzet…. Voorts kan je nog wijzen op investeringen in huurhuizen, daarmee hebben de kabinetten Rutte 2 en 3 zelfs lopen leuren in het buitenland, de (schunnige) reden ook dat huurders tegenwoordig meer betalen voor een dak boven het hoofd dan kopers, de omgekeerde wereld!! (dat is overigens in veel westerse landen het geval…..)

Met die winsten mengden de plutocraten zich in de media (de westerse reguliere media zijn bijna geheel in handen van spuugrijke figuren), waarbij een aantal van deze figuren een groot deel van het internet besturen…. Ze zijn nu zelfs ook doende om een satellietnetwerk te installeren, zodat hun idealen >> macht en geld vergaren, niet in gevaar komen…….

Volgens Smith wordt veel kapitaal gebruikt om: -aandelen op te kopen (door de bedrijven die ze op de markt brachten), -speculatieve investeringen te doen, plus -het bewerkstelligen van fusies en overnames. Daarbovenop zouden in de VS 20 procent van de bedrijven ‘zombies’ worden genoemd, zo weinig winstgevend en niet concurrerend dat ze leningen moeten afsluiten om alleen al de rente op de schulden te kunnen betalen…..   

De pogingen van de heersende klasse om profijt te behalen door het neoliberale bezuinigen op arbeid, het subsidiëren van bedrijven en het bijna leveren van goedkoop geld aan die bedrijven na de grote recessie, hebben er echter niet voor gezorgd dat we de lange depressie achter ons hebben gelaten. Ook hier valt nog wel het e.e.a. over te zeggen, al is het effect daarvan vooral goed te zien in de armere landen over de wereld, die de bankencrisis amper of niet te boven zijn gekomen….

Het neoliberale regime van toenames in privatiseringen, deregulatie (zoals men in ons land klaagt over regeldruk, terwijl die regels juist nodig zijn om bijvoorbeeld de klimaatverandering nog enigszins af te remmen), het afbreken van sociale zekerheid, het naar beneden brengen van lonen en globalisatie werken niet langer, aldus Smith…..

Op z’n best hebben deze maatregelen de laatste 10 jaar een trage groei hersteld, zo zegt Smith en ook hierbij zijn weer vragen te stellen, zeker als je de groei op de beurs ziet, al is dat wel een teken dat we te maken hebben met een bubbel die elk moment kan barsten, zo heeft de nieuwe variant van het Coronavirus de beurzen gisteren een fikse tik bezorgd. (wat dan wel weer past in het verhaal van Smith) Het Coronavirus zou de wereld wel in de diepste crisis van de moderne geschiedenis hebben gestort, waarbij Smith stelt dat voorafgaand aan de uitbraak van het Coronavirus de wereld al bezig was in een recessie weg te slippen….. Gigantische stimulatie pakketten voor bedrijven, bestaande uit honderden miljarden euro’s, ook als subsidie t.b.v. steun voor vaste lasten en lonen, hebben het grootste deel van de ontwikkelde kapitalistische wereld uit die recessie vanwege de Coronacrisis gesleept, tegelijkertijd hebben ze alleen gezorgd voor een zwak herstel met ‘stagflatieve kenmerken‘ die niet meer werden gezien sinds de 70er jaren (van de vorige eeuw), ook hier is nog wel het één en ander over op te merken, al moet je niet vergeten dat Smith schrijft over de situatie in de VS, die in een aantal opzichten niet is te vergelijken met die in de rest van het westen.

Terecht merkt Smith op dat interventie van de staat in de economie de klasse en sociale ongelijkheid alleen maar hebben versterkt, zo is het aantal miljonairs en miljardairs vorig jaar flink gestegen, terwijl een fiks deel van de onderklasse (vooral in de VS) werk verloor en in armoede werd gedompeld….. 1% van de wereld heeft tweemaal zoveel rijkdom als 6,9 miljard mensen…. Arbeidsomstandigheden die slecht zijn voor alle arbeiders, zijn nog slechter voor mensen met een kleur, migranten, vrouwen en andere onderdrukte groepen……

De Keynesiaanse ‘milk en toast’ infrastructuur wetten van VS president Joe Biden zullen weinig verbeteren aan deze ongelijkheden en zullen zeker geen krachtige economische groei laten zien…… Er is geen teken dat de lange depressie zal eindigen…….

De tweede grote crisis wordt veroorzaakt door de depressie en is een crisis in de imperialistische orde. Sinds het einde van de Koude oorlog heeft de VS een unipolaire wereld nagestreefd waarin zij de enige supermacht zou zijn, daarbij hoopte dit land alle wereldlanden te verenigen in haar neoliberale regime van een globale vrijhandel.

Drie zaken hebben een eind gemaakt aan die VS orde: -de nederlaag van de VS in Afghanistan en Irak, -de lange depressie en -de opkomst van nieuwe centrums van kapitaal vermeerdering, waar China als de belangrijkste moet worden gezien. Het resultaat daarvan is dat de VS heeft moeten inboeten wat betreft haar imperialistische macht. 

Het voorgaande wil niet zeggen dat Washington haar overwicht is kwijt geraakt, maar wel dat het geduchte tegenstanders heeft in China en Rusland, plus een aantal andere regionale machten die steeds assertiever zijn als het gaat om hun eigen belangen. Ofwel we zijn beland in een asymmetrische multipolaire wereld orde.

In deze nieuwe instabiele situatie, groeien conflicten tussen staten terwijl men probeert compromissen te sluiten over het coördineren van beleid over alles, van klimaatverandering tot de huidige ‘pandemie’. Deze conflicten, vooral tussen de VS en China, zullen in het centrum staan van globale en nationale politiek….. Ook hier ben ik het weer niet eens met Smith, immers de situatie waarin de VS dacht het machtigste land ter wereld te zijn vanaf de 90er jaren, was allesbehalve stabiel, niet voor niets ook dat de VS met haar schoothond de NAVO alleen deze eeuw al meer dan vijf miljoen mensen heeft vermoord en daarnaast opstanden en staatsgrepen heeft georganiseerd in meerdere landen, ook in democratisch geregeerde landen….. Daarnaast heeft de VS een groot aantal dictators gesteund, zoals die van Saoedi-Arabië en heeft daarbij op diverse manieren de genocide gesteund die dat land met haar terreurcoalitie uitvoert in Jemen (en steunt deze genocide op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen nog steeds, ondanks de valse beloften van Joe Biden!!)

De derde grote crisis is de klimaatcrisis. Zoals iedereen zou kunnen weten is deze crisis geworteld in de kapitalistische gedrevenheid voor winst en (economische) groei, ondanks wat dit betekent voor de gevolgen op sociaal en milieugebied (wat mij betreft te slap: immers er zijn al vele tienduizenden mensen omgekomen als gevolg van de klimaatverandering, waarbij de luchtvervuiling niet uit het oog mag worden verloren: meer dan 8 miljoen mensen overlijden jaarlijks aan de gevolgen van langdurige inademing van deze vervuiling, vergelijk dat eens met de Coronahysterie……. 

Tot nu toe zouden er meer dan 5 miljoen mensen zijn overleden aan het Coronavirus, waarbij men durft te stellen dat het er waarschijnlijk meer zijn, die om diverse redenen niet werden meegeteld, terwijl het al lang duidelijk is dat een groot deel van de doden die in 2020 zijn toegerekend aan het virus, niet werden getest op het virus >> ofwel overleed een persoon bijvoorbeeld een longontsteking of griepverschijnselen (beiden ook voorkomend bij het virus) werd deze automatisch meegerekend als Coronadode…. Terwijl er in 2020 meer dan 8 miljoen mensen zijn overleden aan de gevolgen van luchtvervuiling, een cijfer dat over een goede maand weer wordt overtroffen, ofwel dan spreek je wat betreft de bijna gehele Coronaperiode over bijna 16 miljoen doden aan luchtvervuiling…. Een zaak waaraan zo goed als niets wordt gedaan, de industrie moet haar productiemethoden maar verduurzamen en verder met elektrische auto’s komen…… (dat laatste is overigens de dood in de pot en leidt tot nog veel meer vuile delving van grondstoffen, veel te zware auto’s [waardoor de banden snel slijten en daarbij microplastics produceren] plus een enorme hoeveel grondstoffen die alleen al nodig zijn voor laadpalen en accu’s….)

Greta Thunberg en anderen zeiden in Glasgow volkomen terecht dat COP26 veel ‘blah blah’ is zonder dat er werkelijke stappen werden gezet….. Zoals gezegd de klimaatverandering eist nu al veel doden en deze verandering zal dan ook steeds meer mensen op de vlucht doen slaan, zelfs voor deze mensen doet het westen niets, terwijl men daar nu al op zou moeten participeren……. Hoorde vannacht op CBC Radio1 dat Trudeau de gebieden in Canada bezocht waar men zware overstromingen zag en ziet (vaak dezelfde waar bosbranden huis hebben gehouden) en stelde daarbij dat men zich moest voorbereiden op nog veel meer rampen als deze….. Daarbij zei deze enorme oplichter dat er snel en doeltreffende maatregelen moeten worden getroffen om e.e.a. in te perken….. Deze ploert geeft zelf vergunningen af voor het boren naar olie in een groot aantal gebieden en staat toe dat hele bossen worden verkocht voor het maken van wc papier en houtpellets voor biomassa, terwijl de verbranding van hout nog een fractie vuiler is dan die van steenkool……

Het is met Joe Biden niet veel beter, ook deze schoft stak mooie praatjes af in Glasgow, terwijl hij wist dat hij een week later vergunningen voor het boren naar ‘diepzee-olie’ in de Golf van Mexico zou afgegeven….. (en dat is nog maar één van de vele voorbeelden als het om deze oorlogsmisdadiger gaat, daarover gesproken >> ook oorlogsvoering en militaire oefeningen jagen de klimaatverandering aan, daarover heeft men niet eens gesproken in Glasgow…..)

Hoor terwijl ik dit schrijf op de BBC World Service een pleidooi van de één of andere ploert die stelt dat desinformatie van milieugroepen moet worden aangepakt….. Excuseer: GVD!!!

Ashley Smith noemt ook nog de laatste twee crises die de wereld teisteren of dat nog zullen doen, zoals emigratie (wat mij betreft: vluchten) vanwege de gevolgen van de klimaatverandering en oorlogsvoering. Zo zijn er nu al 281 miljoen mensen die hun moederland zijn ontvlucht…..

Als laatste noemt Smith de pandemie als een grote crisis en ook deze crisis wordt veroorzaakt door het (neoliberale) kapitalisme: de intensieve martelveehouderij is een volkomen zieke doodsindustrie die één op één wordt gedreven door kapitalistische drijfveren, zoveel mogelijk dieren zo snel mogelijk doen opgroeien en dan zo snel mogelijk vermoorden… Alleen in Nederland worden op jaarbasis 600 miljoen dieren in helse omstandigheden gehouden…… Niet alleen veroorzaakt deze doodsindustrie besmettelijke ziekten als de griep, maar is ook verantwoordelijk voor het feit dat er eigenlijk nog maar één laatste redmiddel is voor de mens als het gaat om antibiotica en ondanks dat wordt het sterkste antibioticum al massaal gegeven in de intensieve veehouderij…… Om nog maar te zwijgen over de gevaren door het eten van kadaver: nier- en hartfalen, maag- en darmkanker, het aantasten van de lever en daarmee de hersenen, plus het aantasten van ons grootste orgaan, de huid…… Het ergst is uiteraard het vreselijke leed dat dieren word aangedaan in deze inhumane schofterige veehouderij….. De intensieve veehouderij is dan ook een wel heel smerige uitwas van het barbaarse kapitalisme!!

Ik ben het in veel zaken wel eens met Smith, echter gezien de gelatenheid in de maatschappij, ook van mensen die eerder wel bereid waren om in actie te komen, moeten we toch echt hopen dat jongeren als Greta Thunberg zich uiteindelijk niet in laten pakken, zoals eerder de hippies, punkers en alternatieven zich massaal hebben laten inpakken….. En daarbij is er geen tijd te verliezen >> een bijna wereldwijde revolutie is van meer belang dan ooit tevoren….. (als de mens als soort wil overleven)

(On
the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation
in the language of your choice, first choose ‘Engels’ [English] so
you can recognise your own language [the Google translation is first
in Dutch, a language most people don’t understand, while on the other
hand most people recognise there language translated in English]
)

(als
je het Engels niet machtig bent, kopieer dan de Engelse tekst en plak
die in
deze
vertaalapp
,
de app werkt snel en de vertaling is van een redelijk goede
kwaliteit
)

Five Crises of Capitalism: The Challenges Facing the Left Today

Photograph Source: Alphab.fr – CC BY 2.0

We have entered an epoch of crises. These crises are rooted in
capitalism and will shape all the ideological, economic, and social
dynamics throughout the world. They have undermined the legitimacy of
establishment parties, set off a wave of struggles around the globe
demanding systemic change, and caused deep political polarization,
opening opportunities for a new far right and a new Left. Socialists
must understand the nature of this epoch if we want to play a role in
the recomposition of the revolutionary Left, the cohering of a new
militant minority, the rebuilding of our organizational infrastructure
of dissent and resistance, and the construction of new socialist
parties.

The Long Depression

There are several interacting crises in this new epoch. The Bible had
only four horsemen of the apocalypse—Pestilence, War, Famine, and
Death. Today, we have five. The first is the global economic crisis. The
Great Recession of 2008 ended the long neoliberal boom, which began in
the early 1980s, triggering what David McNally calls a “global slump” and Michael Roberts calls a “long depression.”

This economic conjuncture is characterized by a cycle of sharp
recessions and weak recoveries rooted in the decline in profitability
throughout global capitalism. The system is clogged up with
over-accumulated capital that cannot find outlets for profitable
investment.

In place of that, capital engages in stock buybacks, speculative
investment, and mergers and acquisitions. On top of that, an estimated
20 percent of US companies are so-called zombies, so unprofitable and
uncompetitive that they must take out loans just to pay interest on
their debt.

The ruling class’s attempts to restore profitability through
neoliberal austerity for workers, and stimulus and cheap money for
corporations, after the Great Recession have failed to overcome the long
depression. The neoliberal regime of accumulation of privatization,
deregulation, cuts in welfare, wages, and benefits, and globalization is
no longer working.

These measures at best restored sluggish growth over the last decade,
only to see the world economy begin to slip into recession before the
pandemic sent it into the deepest crisis in modern history. While
massive stimulus packages have dragged much of the advanced capitalist
world out of this recession, they have only managed to produce a weak
recovery with stagflationary characteristics not seen since the 1970s.

In fact, state intervention into the economy has deepened class and social inequality throughout the world. Today, the richest 1 percent of the world has twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion people. In the United States, the three richest people have wealth equal to the bottom 160 million people. Conditions that are bad for all workers are even worse for people of color, migrants, women, and other oppressed groups.

President Joe Biden’s milk-toast Keynesian infrastructure bills will do very little to ameliorate these inequalities and will certainly not trigger a robust new expansion. The long depression shows no sign of ending.

Imperial Crisis and Rivalry

This depression has set off a crisis in the imperialist order,
the second great crisis we confront. Since the end of the Cold War, the
United States superintended a unipolar world as the sole super-power.
It hoped to incorporate all the world’s states into its neoliberal
regime of free trade globalization.

Three developments brought an end to that order—U.S. defeats in Iraq
and Afghanistan; the long depression; and the rise of new centers of
capital accumulation, most importantly China. As a result of these, the
United States has suffered relative imperial decline.

Of course, Washington remains the world’s hegemon, but it now faces a
great power rival in China, another one in Russia, and a host of
regional powers, all of which are increasingly assertive of their own
interests. We have thus entered a new asymmetric multipolar world order.

In this new and unstable situation, conflicts are growing between
states, compromising attempts at coordinating global policy over
everything from climate change to the pandemic. These conflicts, especially between the United States and China, will be at the center of global and national politics.

Poster from “Friday’s for Future” march in Milan, Italy, October 2021. Photo by Mænsard Vokser.

Climate Catastrophe

The third great crisis of our epoch is climate change.
As we all know, it is rooted in capitalism’s competitive drive for
profit and growth, regardless of their social and environmental impact.

All the world’s states’ commitment to ensuring capital’s rule and
expansion guarantees that they will do little to stop global heating.
And the conflicts between the great powers, especially the United States
and China, will block any meaningful international agreements and
especially their implementation.

So, at best we will get slick publicity stunts like COP(out)26, which
merely end with pledges to limit greenhouse gases by such and such date
in the distant future. Of course, these are quickly violated in both
policy and practice.

As Greta Thunberg declared at
a mass rally against the polluters’ summit in Glasgow, “This COP26 is
so far just like the previous COPs—and that has led us nowhere. Inside
COP, there are just politicians and people in power pretending to take
our future seriously. Change is not going to come from inside there,
that is not leadership. This is leadership, this is what leadership
looks like.”

While the leaders of these states, largely responsible for the crisis, engaged in what Thunberg rightly called “blah, blah, blah,”
the climate catastrophes multiply with increasing severity—killer
storms, melting polar caps, risings seas, desertification of whole
sections of countries, and the decimation of agricultural systems. These
will disrupt societies, especially those in the Global South, which
are the biggest victims of climate change while being the least responsible for causing it.

Mass Migration and the Border Regimes

Climate change will intensify the fourth great crisis of our epoch—migration.  Right now, there are more than 281 million migrants who
have left their home countries, the highest number in world history.
This migration is caused by the multiplying problems people
face—unemployment triggered by the long depression, wars between states,
civil wars, counter-revolutionary repression by authoritarian regimes,
scapegoating of racially oppressed groups, and climate catastrophe, to
name a few.

All the states of the world have reacted to this crisis by building
enormous border regimes. As Harsha Walia lays out in her book Border and Rule,
these regimes serve two functions. One, to regulate and partially block
migration. And, two, to criminalize those that evade the border regime
as cheap, often racialized, labor.

Even as these migrants have become central, and indeed “essential,”
especially to the advanced capitalist economies, ruling classes and
establishment parties have used them as scapegoats to deflect blame from
their system on to its victims. But these migrants, just as they have
in the past, will play a pivotal role in rebuilding the class and social
struggle, especially in the United States.

Global Capitalism, an Epoch of Pandemics

The final crisis is of course the pandemic. COVID is not an
accidental crisis triggered by nature outside of capitalism but is
entirely the result of its global encroachment on previously isolated ecosystems.

That has enabled viruses to jump from animals, especially bats, into
human beings—what epidemiologists call “zoonotic spillover.” And rather
than spreading slowly, as they might have in older forms of capitalism
and previous modes of production, epidemics now hitch a ride on the
planes, trains, trucks, and ships of the world’s just-in-time global
supply chains to rapidly infect the globe’s population.

Thus, global capitalism has created an epoch of pandemics. For at least a couple of decades, writers such as Mike Davis and Rob Wallace,
as well as mainstream epidemiologists, have warned us about this
imminent danger. It was prefigured with Avian Flu, Ebola, MERS, SARS,
and others. COVID is thus likely to be the first of many more pandemics
to come.

Rather than organizing a coordinated response to this health
emergency, the imperialist states and their corporations have
systematically impeded one, putting profits and the growth of their
national economy first, workers’ lives second, and the people of the
Global South last. On that whole section of the world, they have imposed
pandemic apartheid—hoarding vaccines, refusing to share the technology
so that states could inoculate their own populations, and thereby
leaving most of the world completely unprotected against COVID.
Capitalism is literally a threat to our global health and human life
itself.

Historic Wave of Struggle

The hope amid this epoch of horror and crisis is the massive waves of
struggle we have witnessed since the 2008 recession. We all know its
signal events from the Arab Spring to Occupy, Black Lives Matter,
strikes in Europe, climate strikes, women’s strikes, the Latin American
Spring, revolts throughout Asia, and Sudan today.

At the same time, we have seen the growth of both right-wing parties,
some of which have been elected to or seized state power, and
reactionary mass protests like those in Charlottesville, VA, and in
Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021. The new book World Protest: A of Key Protest Issues in the 21st Century summarizes this epoch of struggle:

There are times in history when large numbers of people
protest about the way things are, demanding change. It happened in
1830–1848, in 1917–1924, in the 1960s, and it is happening again today….
During the period 2006–2020, the world has experienced some of the
largest protests in its history…. The overwhelming majority of the large
protests relate to progressive issues/demands, such as: more and better
jobs, wages, and pensions; investments in health, education, and public
services; protection of farmers; action on climate change; racial
justice; women and civil rights; against austerity cuts, corruption, and
inequality. However, a number of protests are led by radical right
groups such as: QAnon protests in 2020 in the United States and
globally; opposition to Muslims, migrants, and refugees in Germany;
demonstrators in France protesting same-sex marriage in 2012; and the
large protests against President Dilma Rousseff, Lula, and the Workers
Party in Brazil in 2013 and 2015.

The revolts on our side face serious challenges, well documented in the new book Revolutionary Rehearsals in the Neoliberal Age. Neoliberalism has restructured the global and national economies and disrupted our class and social organizations.

Social democratic parties for the most part have adapted to or even
adopted neoliberalism. The revolutionary Left has gone into crisis. But
these new waves of struggle offer the hope to rebuild class and social
organization, the Left, and new parties.

Extreme Political Polarization

There is no guarantee that these revolts will flow to the Left. They
can just as easily flow to the right. Both can take advantage of the
establishment parties’ crisis of legitimacy amid the failure of their
neoliberal project.

We are thus witnessing massive political polarization throughout the world. Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Narendra Modi, and many others are
signs that a section of the establishment can galvanize the petit
bourgeoisie and sections of working classes around a program of
sado-populism, whipping up racism and targeting oppressed groups,
especially migrants. These regimes can become incubators of new fascist
movements and organizations throughout the world. The far-right is a
clear and present danger today.

At the same time, the crises, struggle, and polarization open a new
space for the Left. That can be filled by left reformism, as we see with
the Pink Tide in Latin America. But such projects will run into the
brick walls of containment within the capitalist state, the pressures of
global capitalism, and counter-revolution from their domestic ruling
classes, as well as regional and imperialist powers.

The challenge for the small revolutionary Left in the United
States—and globally—is to rebuild itself through the struggles and all
the ideological, strategic, and tactical debates they will produce. Our
task is straightforward but enormously difficult: establish a
revolutionary pole in the radicalization; help build struggles from
below; play a role in cohering a new militant minority; reconstruct our
infrastructures of resistance; build broader left formations; and cohere
revolutionary organization.

We need a new Left fit to help lead the revolts amidst this epoch of crisis to win reform on the road to socialist revolution.

This piece first appeared in The Tempest.

Ashley Smith is a socialist writer and
activist in Burlington, Vermont. He has written for various publications
including Harper’s, Truthout, Jacobin, and New Politics.

=================================== 

Voor meer berichten over de klimaatverandering, COP26,  G. Thunberg, intensieve martelveehouderij, kapitalisme, neoliberalisme, socialisme, oliemaatschappijen en/of Gates, klik op het desbetreffende label direct onder dit bericht.

Jeremy Corbyn weggezet als nazi in fake news ‘antisemitisme schandaal’ >> haatzaaien met een ‘groter doel’

De
voortdurende demonisering van Corbyn in de Britse reguliere media kent werkelijk geen
grenzen meer, dagelijks wordt Corbyn door de stront gesleurd en
afgezeken als antisemiet……. Niet dat daar ook maar één direct
bewijs voor geleverd kan worden, sterker nog: Corbyn onderhoudt aantoonbaar goede relaties met joodse mensen en niet de minste, neem de intussen
overleden van joodse komaf Nederlandse Hajo Meijer, een overlever van de nazi-dodenkampen, met wie hij een
goede relatie had……

In
het hieronder opgenomen artikel nog veel meer joodse mensen die het
opnemen voor Corbyn, de Labour leider die in zijn team zelfs drie mensen van joodse
komaf heeft, allen joden die allesbehalve
vinden dat Corbyn een antisemiet is…..

Men
is dan ook totaal niet bang dat met Corbyn de nazi’s over de Britse
straten zullen marcheren, maar dat Corbyn na zoveel decennia
neoliberaal wanbeleid gevoerd door opvolgende regeringen, ja zelfs
door zijn eigen Labour Partij, een sociaal regeringsbeleid zal
voeren……. Corbyn is te populair en dat dit zeker ook veel
jongeren aanspreekt, is velen in het verkeerde keelgat geschoten….. 

De schrijver van het artikel stelt terecht dat een deel van de Labour politici het beleid van Blair willen doorzetten, van Labour een tweede Tory partij maken* dit t.b.v. het inhumane, ijskoude neoliberalisme en de voortdurende Britse steun voor en deelname aan illegale oorlogen van de VS, waarmee deze Labour politici ook fungeren als lobbyisten van het militair-industrieel complex, een complex waar men vindt dat er niet lang en vaak genoeg oorlog gevoerd kan worden……. 

Het sterkste pleidooi in het volgende artikel is wel de vaststelling dat het misbruik van het woord ‘antisemitisme’ in feite een trap na is voor de slachtoffers van de holocaust (een te korte samenvatting, lees het artikel)

De
schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, dat eerder op MediaLens werd gepubliceerd (nam het over van Information Clearing House), neemt ook de opgestapte Labour leden
onder de loep en geeft daarbij aan dat deze figuren een allesbehalve
fris verleden hebben…….

Lees
het volgende uiterst verontrustende, maar prima artikel en geeft het door, ook de Nederlandse media
nemen de lulkoek van de Britse media over en stellen dat Labour een
probleem heeft met antisemitisme, terwijl een groot aantal Britse joden lid is van Corbyns Labour Partij……. Intussen heeft de eerste aanval op Corbyn, n.a.v. het haatzaaien in de Britse media al plaatsgevonden……

The
Fake News Nazi – Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal

By
Editor Media Lens

March
08, 2019 “Information
Clearing House
” –  One of us had a discussion
with an elderly relative:

‘He
can’t be allowed to become Prime Minister.’

‘Why
not?’

‘It’s
so awful…’

‘What
is?’

‘The
way he hates the Jews.’

The
last comment was spoken with real anguish, the result of continuous
exposure to just two main news sources: the Daily Mail and the BBC.


What
is astonishing is that, just four years ago, essentially no-one held
this view of Jeremy Corbyn.


Corbyn
first became an MP in 1983. He stood for the Labour leadership 32
years later, in May 2015. We searched the ProQuest database for UK
newspaper articles containing:

‘Jeremy
Corbyn’ and ‘anti-semitism’ before 1 May 2015 = 18 hits

‘Jeremy
Corbyn’ and ‘anti-semitism’ after 1 May 2015 = 11,251 hits

None
of the 18 hits accused Corbyn of anti-semitism. For his first 32
years as an MP, it just wasn’t a theme associated with him.


We
also searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles
containing:

‘Labour
Party’ and ‘anti-semitism’ before 1 May 2015 = 5,347 hits

‘Labour
Party’ and ‘anti-semitism’ after 1 May 2015 = 13,921 hits

The
archive begins in 1980, which means that more than twice as many
articles have included these terms in the last four years than in the
35 years from 1980 until May 2015 when Corbyn stood for the Labour
leadership. A standard response to these findings runs
along 
these lines:

‘Irrelevant
backbencher gets less Press attention than Leader of The Opposition
SHOCKER. What’s your next scoop, Water Wet, Sky Blue?’

But
in fact, Corbyn was not an irrelevant backbencher. We found 3,662
hits for articles mentioning Corbyn before May 2015. Many of these
are mentions in passing, but he had also long been a high-profile
anti-war MP at a time of numerous wars. And he was frequently
smeared, only not about his supposed anti-semitism.
Consider, for example, an article that appeared in The Sun in 1999,
under a typically cruel title:

‘Why
did it take you so long to dump him, Mrs Corbyn?’ (Ally Ross, The
Sun, 13 May 1999)

The
story:

‘EXTREME
Left MP Jeremy Corbyn has been dumped by his missus after an amazing
bust-up over their son’s education.’

The
key issue, according to The Sun:

‘Now
the question on everyone’s lips is: Why did it take her so long to
leave the loathsome Lefty, and more importantly, why is she only
moaning about his choice of schools?’

Because
there was, apparently, plenty to moan about. The Sun described Corbyn
as ‘class crusader Jeremy – a rabid IRA sympathiser’ who ‘not only
looks and dresses like a third-rate Open University lecturer, he
thinks like one too. In 1984 the Provo stooge invited twice-convicted
terrorist and bomber Linda Quigley to the House of Commons just 13
days after the IRA’s murderous attack on Tories staying at the Grand
Hotel in Brighton’.


This
was pretty brutal stuff. The Sun added of Corbyn’s ex-wife:

‘Claudia’s
saviour of the masses also suffers incredible delusions of grandeur.
Communist states may be falling like dominoes, but raving Red Jeremy
still believes his outdated views are relevant to modern-day
Britain.’

And:

‘Not
only is Jeremy a political coward who backs terrorists, he is also a
self-confessed big girl’s blouse.’

And:

‘Jeremy’s
mis-shapen suits, lumpy jumpers and nylon shirts are not exactly what
the well-dressed radical is wearing in 1999… Claudia should be
aware her ex is irredeemably, unforgivably, annoyingly stupid.’

Given
the no-holds-barred nature of the smear, it is amazing that The Sun
made no mention at all of Corbyn’s vile anti-semitism,
viewed as his most obvious and dangerous defect now.

The
reason is that, as this shows, not even his worst enemies viewed
him as an anti-semite. The extreme Tory press aside, the accepted
view of Corbyn pre-2015 is indicated by a long, admiring 
piece in
which Jewish journalist Deborah Ross, whose family members
were 
murdered in
Polish pogroms even before the Nazi Holocaust was unleashed,
interviewed him for the Independent in 2005. Ross commented:

‘He
is also, it is generally agreed, an exemplary constituency MP. Even
my friend Rebecca, who recently sought his help on a local issue, and
never usually has a nice word to say about anybody, which is why I
like her, describes him as a “totally genuine mensch”.’

Ross
added:

‘As
The Sun would have it, Mr Corbyn is a “beardy Bolshevik”
and “loathsome lefty” but he does not come across as
either. He has strong opinions but does not demand you listen to
them, if you don’t want to.

‘He
is scandal free, unless you count the hoo-ha a few years back when it
was revealed that Jeremy’s oldest son would be attending a grammar
school outside the borough.’

Joseph
Finlay is a former Deputy Editor of the Jewish Quarterly, who
co-founded a range of grassroots Jewish organisations such as Moishe
House London, Wandering Jews, Jewdas and The Open Talmud Project. On
2 March 2018, Finlay wrote in his 
blog under
the title, ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-racist, not an anti-Semite’:

‘Firstly
we need to restore some perspective. The Labour party has thousands
of Jewish members, many Jewish councillors, a number of prominent
Jewish MPs and several Jewish members of its ruling council. Many
people at the heart of the Corbyn team, such as Jon Lansman, James
Schneider and Rhea Wolfson are also Jewish. Ed Miliband, the previous
party leader, was Jewish (and suffered antisemitism at the hands of
the press and the Conservatives). I have been a member for five years
and, as a Jew, have had only positive experiences.’

Finlay
added:

‘Jeremy
Corbyn has been MP for Islington North since 1983 – a constituency
with a significant Jewish population. Given that he has regularly
polled over 60% of the vote (73% in 2017) it seems likely that a
sizeable number of Jewish constituents voted for him. As a
constituency MP he regularly visited synagogues and has appeared at
many Jewish religious and cultural events. He is close friends with
the leaders of the Jewish Socialist Group, from whom he has gained a
rich knowledge of the history of the Jewish Labour Bund, and he has
named the defeat of Mosley’s Fascists at the Battle of Cable as a key
historical moment for him. His 2017 Holocaust Memorial Day statement
talked about Shmuel Zygielboym, the Polish Bund leader exiled to
London who committed suicide in an attempt to awaken the world to the
Nazi genocide. How many British politicians have that level of
knowledge of modern Jewish history?’

Israel-based
journalist Jonathan Cook 
notes that
a recent Labour Party 
report ‘decisively
undercut’ the claims of Corbyn’s critics ‘not only of endemic
anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all’. Cook
summarised:

‘Over
the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour
members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online
comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been
produced.

‘The
453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong
Labour membership. Hardly “endemic” or “institutional”,
it seems.’

He
added:

‘That
echoed an earlier 
report by
the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was “no
reliable, empirical evidence” that Labour had more of an
anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.’

In
‘Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A 
study of
attitudes towards Jews and Israel’ by the Jewish Institute for Policy
Research, L. Daniel Staetsky found:

‘Levels
of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political
spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those
found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left
of the political spectrum – including the “slightly
left-of-centre,” the “fairly left-wing” and the “very
left-wing” – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than
average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum
consists of those who identify as very right-wing: the presence of
antisemitic attitudes in this group is 2 to 4 times higher compared
to the general population.’

The
report notes that ‘the prevalence of antisemitism on the far right is
considerably higher than on the left and in the political centre’.


Noam
Chomsky has commented:

‘The
charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are without merit, an
underhanded contribution to the disgraceful efforts to fend off the
threat that a political party might emerge that is led by an
admirable and decent human being, a party that is actually committed
to the interests and just demands of its popular constituency and the
great majority of the population generally, while also authentically
concerned with the rights of suffering and oppressed people
throughout the world. Plainly an intolerable threat to order.’ (Noam
Chomsky, email to Media Lens, 9 September 2018)

Suspending
Chris Williamson

On
February 27, a propaganda blitz was launched against anti-war Labour
MP Chris Williamson who had been 
filmed saying
that Labour Party responses to claims of anti-semitism had
exacerbated the crisis:

‘I’ve
got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly
responsible… Because, in my opinion, we’ve backed off far too much,
we’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic.’

Williamson
added:

‘We’ve
done more to address the scourge of anti-semitism than any political
party.’

It
is clear that Williamson was strongly endorsing the fight against
anti-semitism and was proud of the Labour Party’s record. Actual
anti-semites talk of ‘the scourge of Judaism’, Williamson talked of
‘the scourge of anti-semitism’. He was suggesting that the party had
been too apologetic in responding to a cynical smear campaign
attempting to destroy Corbyn by exploiting the issue of
anti-semitism.


Others
chose to see it differently. Guardian columnist Owen
Jones 
responded to
Williamson’s comments:

‘This
is utterly out of order. When does the left ever say we’ve been “too
apologetic” about fighting racism or bigotry? Why is he, a
non-Jew, right and Jon Lansman – a Jewish socialist who founded
Momentum and ran Corbyn’s second leadership campaign – wrong about
anti-Semitism?’

We replied:

‘”When
does the left ever say we’ve been “too apologetic” about
fighting racism or bigotry?'”

‘He’s
*endorsing* the fight against racism and bigotry. He’s saying Labour
has been too apologetic in responding to a cynical smear campaign to
destroy Corbyn in the name of anti-racism.’

Ash
Sharkar of Novara Media 
tweeted:

‘Chris
Williamson has been had the Labour whip suspended pending
investigation, which I think is the right decision. But much more
work must be done to proactively confront and dismantle
conspiratorial and antisemitic thinking on the left, and it goes much
further than expulsions.’

Aaron
Bastani, also of Novara Media, 
wrote:

‘I
think media coverage of the “Labour anti-semitism crisis”
is completely disproportionate – primarily because it underplays
problem more broadly across society.

‘Equally,
hearing & reading the things I have in recent days I wouldn’t
feel welcome in the party as a Jewish person.’

In
our latest book, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, we noted a key factor driving
home these smear blitzes:

‘while
a demonising propaganda blitz may arise from rightist politics and
media, the propaganda coup de grace ending public doubt
often comes from the “left-liberal” journalists at the
Guardian, the Independent, the BBC and Channel 4; and also from
non-corporate journalists who crave acceptance by these media. Again,
the logic is clear: if even celebrity progressive
journalists – people famous for their principled stands, and
colourful socks and ties – join the denunciations, then
there must be something to the claims. At this point, it
actually becomes difficult to doubt it’. (David Edwards and David
Cromwell, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, Pluto Press, 2018, pp.8-9)

Foreign
Wars – Racism Versus Speciesism

The
truth of the corporate media’s ‘ethical concern’ becomes clearer when
we consider Corbyn’s record on foreign wars. While the UK affects to
care deeply about racism, Chomsky has noted that the West’s endless
‘interventions’ – all reflexively supported by the same media damning
Corbyn now – are manifestations of a prejudice, beyond even racism,
that is a kind of speciesism:

‘Namely,
knowing that you are massacring them but not doing so intentionally
because you don’t regard them as worthy of concern. That is, you
don’t even care enough about them to intend to kill them. Thus when I
walk down the street, if I stop to think about it I know I’ll
probably kill lots of ants, but I don’t intend to kill them, because
in my mind they do not even rise to the level where it matters. There
are many such examples. To take one of the very minor ones, when
Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, he and
the other perpetrators surely knew that the bombing would kill
civilians (tens of thousands, apparently). But Clinton and associates
did not intend to kill them, because by the standards of Western
liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more significant than ants.
Same in the case of tens of millions of others.’ (Chomsky ZNet blog,
‘Samantha Power, Bush & Terrorism,’ 31 July 2007)

Even
if Corbyn was an anti-semite, a racist, he would still be a far safer
ethical choice than Tory and Blairite speciesists who value human
beings on the level of ants. After all, we 
find that
Jeremy Corbyn:

‘Consistently
voted against use of UK military forces in combat operations
overseas.’

‘Consistently
voted against the Iraq war.’

‘…
voted to say that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been
established’.

‘…
voted against a motion stating the Government should use all means
necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction. Support for the motion by the majority of MPs led to the
UK joining the US invasion of Iraq two days later’.

‘Generally
voted for investigations into the Iraq war.’

‘…
acted as teller for a vote on UK Air Strikes Against ISIL in Iraq’.

‘…
voted against the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya’.

‘…
voted against the continued deployment of UK armed forces in
Afghanistan’.

‘…
voted to decline to authorise UK military action in Syria’.

‘…
voted against UK airstrikes against ISIL in Syria’.

‘Generally
voted against replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system.’

Consider,
by contrast, the record of the Labour MPs who have left the Labour
Party, supposedly in protest at the rise of anti-semitism, to form
The Independent Group:


Chuka
Umunna ‘Almost always 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’


Angela
Smith ‘Almost always 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’


Mike
Gapes ‘Generally 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’


Chris
Leslie ‘Almost always 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’


Luciana
Berger ‘Generally 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’


Joan
Ryan: ‘Consistently 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas’, ‘Consistently voted for the Iraq war’, ‘Consistently voted against
investigations into the Iraq war.’


Ann
Coffey ‘Almost always 
voted for
use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’


Gavin
Shuker ‘
Voted a
mixture of for and against use of UK military forces in combat
operations overseas.’


Not
even his most extreme critics are suggesting that Corbyn is offering
the kind of threat to Jewish people consistently offered by Tory and
Blairite MPs to millions of people in countries like Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Venezuela, Iran and Yemen. Even if Corbyn had erred
in failing to perceive the ugliness of a 
mural declared
antisemitic by the press; even if had been lax in taking action
against party racists, and so on, how do these failings compare to
the destruction of whole countries in lie-based wars of aggression?


Why
do corporate media never make this moral comparison? Because they
are incapable of perceiving US-UK crimes against humanity as crimes;
a wilful moral blindness that renders them completely unfit to pass
judgement on Corbyn. Especially as they are themselves, of course,
complicit in these same war crimes. 

Conclusion

The
claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite presiding over a surge in Labour
Party anti-semitism is fake news; it is a scam of the utmost cynicism
and brutality. It should be viewed as the latest in 
a
long line of attempts 
to
destroy Corbyn by all necessary means. He has been smeared for not
bowing low enough, for not singing loudly enough, for hating women,
for disrespecting gay people, for consorting with terrorists, for
refusing to unleash a nuclear holocaust, for being a shambolic
leader, for being a shambolic dresser, for leading Labour towards
certain electoral disaster, for being a Putinite stooge, for aping
Trump, and so on. Now, finally, someone widely admired for thirty
years as a decent, socialist MP, has been transformed into an
anti-semite; or as game show assistant and political commentator
Rachel Riley 
implies,
a ‘Nazi’.


Anti-semitism
does exist in the Labour Party, as it exists throughout UK society,
and of course these delusions should be resisted and exposed. But the
smear campaign against Corbyn is not rooted in concern for the
welfare of Jewish people; it is not even about blocking a political
leader who cares about Palestinian rights. It is about preventing
Corbyn from undoing Tony Blair’s great achievement of transforming
the Labour Party into a second Tory Party, thus ensuring voters have
no option challenging corporate domination, including the
‘humanitarian interventions’ for oil and other resources. The goal is
to stop Corbyn letting democracy out of its box.


Stephen
Law of Heythrop College, University of London, 
warns that
cavalier accusations made ‘on the basis of obviously flimsy or
nonexistent evidence’ are ‘disrespecting the memory of the millions
who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust’. But
in fact, it is worse than that. State propagandists and their
corporate media allies are exploiting the suffering of
these millions as part of an attack on British democracy. This is
obscene. But it is not particularly shocking after the campaigns of
deceit which, as discussed, knowingly risked and then shattered the
lives of millions of innocent human beings in US-UK wars of
aggression.


One
thing is certain, if Corbyn and his style of socialism can be made to
disappear, we’ll hear no more about anti-semitism in the Labour
Party, just as we heard no more about Iraqi democracy after Saddam
Hussein, or human rights in Libya after Gaddafi; just as we will hear
no more about press freedom in Venezuela, if Maduro is overthrown.


As
this alert was being written, news 
emerged that
Corbyn had been subjected to a physical assault in London, to muted
concern from almost all corporate media and journalists (compare
‘mainstream’ 
reaction to
news that Conservative MP Anna Soubry had been called a ‘Nazi’).
Journalists claimed Corbyn had merely had an egg thrown at him.
Labour MP Diane Abbott 
tweeted:

‘I
was there. He punched Jeremy very hard. He happened to have an egg in
his palm. But it could have been a knife. Horrible’

Perhaps
journalists couldn’t bear to express concern for a person they have
so completely reviled for almost four years. Or perhaps they knew
their smears of a thoroughly decent, well-intentioned man would be
thrown back at them. More likely, they just didn’t care. And that,
finally, is the truth of their ‘ethical concern’ – they don’t care.


This
article was originally published by “
Media
Lens

–  

================================================

* Ook onder de Labour regeringen in het begin van deze eeuw, de regeringen van opperploert Blair en oplichter Brown, gingen miljoenen kinderen met honger naar school……..

Zie ook:

Corbyn als schietschijf voor het Britse leger, reactie Tories: Corbyn is een groot gevaar voor Brittannië……

Antisemitische heksenjacht in GB bedoeld om pro-Palestijnse Labour politici de mond te snoeren

Esther Voet (Nieuw Israëlitisch Weekblad) ‘maakt grap’: ze vertrekt naar Israël vanwege groeiend antisemitisme……

The Guardian weigert brief van meer dan 200 Joodse vrouwen, waar dit medium loog en blijft liegen over ‘antisemitisme’ Corbyn

Anti-Corbyn boek valt door de mand als valse aanklacht >> schrijver duikt onder……

Esther Voet (hoofdredacteur Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad) over ‘antisemitisme’

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour en oppositie leider GB) veegt de vloer aan met vertrekkende ‘centrum’ Labour fractieleden

BBC presentator maakt per ongeluk promotie voor het socialisme

The Mail on Sunday en Sky News schieten levensgrote antisemitische bok bij het belasteren van Corbyn

BBC wijst meer en meer naar Corbyn als medeschuldige voor de Brexit

Simon Wiesenthal Center: antisemitische top tien 2018 >> o.a. moorden toegestaan voor Joden

BBC Media Action: een smerige propaganda organisatie, mede door Nederland betaald

Britse justitie gaat ‘hate crimes’ van Labour onderzoeken

Jeremy Corbyn wordt gedemoniseerd als antisemiet…….

Jeremy Corbyn krijgt echt belangrijke vredesprijs >> aandacht van de reguliere media: nul komma nada…

Daar Corbyn vooral voor antisemiet wordt uitgemaakt, nog wat links naar dat onderwerp:

Kritiek op Israël wordt door een leger van Israëlische trollen bevochten

Israël misbruikt de aanslag op de synagoge in Pittsburgh voor demonisering van steun aan de Palestijnen…….

Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart

De film over de pro-Israëlische lobby in de VS, die Israël verboden wil zien………

Israël zet snelle reactiemacht op poten tegen anti-Israëlische kritiek

Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen

Chomsky: socialisme voor het kapitaal van de rijken en kapitalistisch afknijpen voor de armen

Las gisteren een verslag van een interview met Noam Chomsky op het blog van Stan van Houcke, hij plaatste het onder de titel ‘Noam Chomsky: Socialism for the Rich’ (origineel komt van Truthout).

Chomsky geeft een analyse van het hedendaagse kapitalisme en concludeert terecht, dat wat betreft de welgestelden in tijden van crises plotsklaps socialistische regels van stal worden gehaald, om hun kapitaal te beschermen.

Een en ander zagen we nadat de huidige crisis in 2008 begon, de grote banken, die de crisis NB veroorzaakten, werden met honderden miljarden aan belastinggeld op de been gehouden, daar ze ‘te groot waren om failliet te laten gaan’ (too big to fail)…… Terwijl onder kapitalistische regels deze banken failliet waren gegaan en daarmee de welgestelden hadden meegetrokken in hun val (althans wat betreft risicovolle investeringen, uiteraard niet voor het geld dat ze in belastingparadijzen hadden ondergebracht >> wat mij betreft een zware misdaad!!)…….

Deze manier van doen, zou hooguit passen in een socialistisch systeem, dat ten gunste stond van de armsten……. Wat betreft die armsten, voor hen geldt, zeker in de VS (maar ook hier), dat zij afgeknepen worden met kapitalistische wet- en regelgeving. Na de crisis in 2008 zijn de armen in Nederland er met 20 miljard op achteruit gegaan, de middengroepen met 30 miljard (maar die hebben nog wat vet op de botten, ook al doen ze nu net of ze arm zijn), terwijl de welgestelden in ons land, houdt u vast, er met 50 miljard euro op vooruit zijn gegaan…!!!

In feite zou je dat laatste, die 50 miljard erbij voor de rijken, ook een vorm van socialisme voor de rijken kunnen noemen………. Een schande, die een revolutie waard zou zijn!!!

Hier het interview met Chomsky:

SOCIALISM
FOR THE RICH, CAPITALISM FOR THE POOR: AN INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY


Sunday,
11 December 2016 00:00 
By C.J.
Polychroniou
,
Truthout | Interview

How
did we reach a historically unprecedented level of inequality in the
United States? A new documentary,
 Requiem
for The American Dream
,
turns to the ever-insightful Noam Chomsky for a detailed explanation
of how so much wealth and power came to be concentrated in so few
hands. Click here to order this DVD by making a donation to Truthout
today! 

The
United States is rapidly declining on numerous fronts — collapsing
infrastructure, a huge gap between haves and have-nots, stagnant
wages, high infant mortality rates, the highest incarceration rate in
the world — and it continues to be the only country in the advanced
world without a universal health care system. Thus, questions about
the nature of the US’s economy and its dysfunctional political system
are more critical than ever, including questions about the status of
the so-called American Dream, which has long served as an inspiration
point for Americans and prospective immigrants alike. Indeed, in a
recent documentary, Noam Chomsky, long considered one of America’s
voices of conscience and one of the world’s leading public
intellectuals, spoke of the end of the American Dream. In this
exclusive interview for Truthout, Chomsky discusses some of the
problems facing the United States today, and whether the American
Dream is “dead” — if it ever existed in the first place.

C.J.
Polychroniou: Noam, in several of your writings you question the
usual view of the United States as an archetypical capitalist
economy. Please explain.

Noam
Chomsky:
 Consider
this: Every time there is a crisis, the taxpayer is called on to bail
out the banks and the major financial institutions. If you had a real
capitalist economy in place, that would not be happening. Capitalists
who made risky investments and failed would be wiped out. But the
rich and powerful do not want a capitalist system. They want to be
able to run the nanny state so when they are in trouble the taxpayer
will bail them out. The conventional phrase is “too big to
fail.”

The
IMF did an interesting study a few years ago on profits of the big US
banks. It attributed most of them to the many advantages that come
from the implicit government insurance policy — not just the
featured bailouts, but access to cheap credit and much else —
including things the IMF researchers didn’t consider, like the
incentive to undertake risky transactions, hence highly profitable in
the short term, and if anything goes wrong, there’s always the
taxpayer. Bloomberg Businessweek estimated the implicit taxpayer
subsidy at over $80 billion per year.

Much
has been said and written about economic inequality. Is economic
inequality in the contemporary capitalist era very different from
what it was in other post-slavery periods of American history?

The
inequality in the contemporary period is almost unprecedented. If you
look at total inequality, it ranks amongst the worse periods of
American history. However, if you look at inequality more closely,
you see that it comes from wealth that is in the hands of a tiny
sector of the population. There were periods of American history,
such as during the Gilded Age in the 1920s and the roaring 1990s,
when something similar was going on. But the current period is
extreme because inequality comes from super wealth. Literally, the
top one-tenth of a percent are just super wealthy. This is not only
extremely unjust in itself, but represents a development that has
corrosive effects on democracy and on the vision of a decent society.

What
does all this mean in terms of the American Dream? Is it dead?

The
“American Dream” was all about class mobility. You were
born poor, but could get out of poverty through hard work and provide
a better future for your children. It was possible for [some workers]
to find a decent-paying job, buy a home, a car and pay for a kid’s
education. It’s all collapsed — and we shouldn’t have too many
illusions about when it was partially real. Today social mobility in
the US is below other rich societies.

Is
the US then a democracy in name only?

The
US professes to be a democracy, but it has clearly become something
of a plutocracy, although it is still an open and free society by
comparative standards. But let’s be clear about what democracy means.
In a democracy, the public influences policy and then the government
carries out actions determined by the public. For the most part, the
US government carries out actions that benefit corporate and
financial interests. It is also important to understand that
privileged and powerful sectors in society have never liked
democracy, for good reasons. Democracy places power in the hands of
the population and takes it away from them. In fact, the privileged
and powerful classes of this country have always sought to find ways
to limit power from being placed in the hands of the general
population — and they are breaking no new ground in this regard.

Noam Chomsky at a SISSA event on September 17, 2012. In a democracy, the public influences policy but the US state largely works to benefit the privileged and powerful.

Noam
Chomsky at a SISSA event on September 17, 2012. In a democracy, the
public influences policy but the US state largely works to benefit
the privileged and powerful. (Photo: 
Dimitri
Grigoriou / SISSA
;
Edited: JR / TO)

Concentration
of wealth yields to concentration of power. I think this is an
undeniable fact. And since capitalism always leads in the end to
concentration of wealth, doesn’t it follow that capitalism is
antithetical to democracy?

Concentration
of wealth leads naturally to concentration of power, which in turn
translates to legislation favoring the interests of the rich and
powerful and thereby increasing even further the concentration of
power and wealth. Various political measures, such as fiscal policy,
deregulation, and rules for corporate governance are designed to
increase the concentration of wealth and power. And that’s what we’ve
been seeing during the neoliberal era. It is a vicious cycle in
constant progress. The state is there to provide security and support
to the interests of the privileged and powerful sectors in society
while the rest of the population is left to experience the brutal
reality of capitalism. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the
poor.

So,
yes, in that sense capitalism actually works to undermine democracy.
But what has just been described — that is, the vicious cycle of
concentration of power and wealth — is so traditional that it is
even described by Adam Smith in 1776. He says in his famous 
Wealth
of Nations
 that,
in England, the people who own society, in his days the merchants and
the manufacturers, are “the principal architects of policy.”
And they make sure that their interests are very well cared for,
however grievous the impact of the policies they advocate and
implement through government is on the people of England or others.

Now,
it’s not merchants and manufacturers who own society and dictate
policy. It is financial institutions and multinational corporations.
Today they are the groups that Adam Smith called 
the
masters of mankind
.
And they are following the same vile maxim that he formulated: 
All
for ourselves and nothing for anyone else
.
They will pursue policies that benefit them and harm everyone else
because capitalist interests dictate that they do so. It’s in the
nature of the system. And in the absence of a general, popular
reaction, that’s pretty much all you will get.

Let’s
return to the idea of the American Dream and talk about the origins
of the American political system. I mean, it was never intended to be
a democracy (actually the term always used to describe the
architecture of the American political system was “republic,”
which is very different from a democracy, as the ancient Romans well
understood), and there had always been a struggle for freedom and
democracy from below, which continues to this day. In this context,
wasn’t the American Dream built at least partly on a myth?

Sure.
Right through American history, there’s been an ongoing clash between
pressure for more freedom and democracy coming from below and efforts
at elite control and domination from above. It goes back to the
founding of the country, as you pointed out. The “founding
fathers,” even James Madison, the main framer, who was as much a
believer in democracy as any other leading political figure in those
days, felt that the United States political system should be in the
hands of the wealthy because the wealthy are the “more
responsible set of men.” And, thus, the structure of the formal
constitutional system placed more power in the hands of the Senate,
which was not elected in those days. It was selected from the wealthy
men who, as Madison put it, had sympathy for the owners of wealth and
private property.

This
is clear when you read the debates of the Constitutional Convention.
As Madison said, a major concern of the political order has to be “to
protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” And
he had arguments. If everyone had a vote freely, he said, the
majority of the poor would get together and they would organize to
take away the property of the rich. That, he added, would be
obviously unjust, so the constitutional system had to be set up to
prevent democracy.

Recall
that Aristotle had said something similar in his 
Politics.
Of all political systems, he felt that democracy was the best. But he
saw the same problem that Madison saw in a true democracy, which is
that the poor might organize to take away the property of the rich.
The solution that he proposed, however, was something like a welfare
state with the aim of reducing economic inequality. The other
alternative, pursued by the “founding fathers,” is to
reduce democracy.

Now,
the so-called American Dream was always based partly in myth and
partly in reality. From the early 19th century onward and up until
fairly recently, working-class people, including immigrants, had
expectations that their lives would improve in American society
through hard work. And that was partly true, although it did not
apply for the most part to African Americans and women until much
later. This no longer seems to be the case. Stagnating incomes,
declining living standards, outrageous student debt levels, and
hard-to-come-by decent-paying jobs have created a sense of
hopelessness among many Americans, who are beginning to look with
certain nostalgia toward the past. This explains, to a great extent,
the rise of the likes of Donald Trump and the appeal among the youth
of the political message of someone like Bernie Sanders.

After
World War II, and pretty much up until the mid-1970s, there was a
movement in the US in the direction of a more egalitarian society and
toward greater freedom, in spite of great resistance and oppression
from the elite and various government agencies. What happened
afterward that rolled back the economic progress of the post-war era,
creating in the process a new socio-economic order that has come to
be identified as that of neoliberalism?

Beginning
in the 1970s, partly because of the economic crisis that erupted in
the early years of that decade and the decline in the rate of profit,
but also partly because of the view that democracy had become too
widespread, an enormous, concentrated, coordinated business offensive
was begun to try to beat back the egalitarian efforts of the post-war
era, which only intensified as time went on. The economy itself
shifted to financialization. Financial institutions expanded
enormously. By 2007, right before the crash for which they had
considerable responsibility, financial institutions accounted for a
stunning 40 percent of corporate profit. A vicious cycle between
concentrated capital and politics accelerated, while increasingly,
wealth concentrated in the financial sector. Politicians, faced with
the rising cost of campaigns, were driven ever deeper into the
pockets of wealthy backers. And politicians rewarded them by pushing
policies favorable to Wall Street and other powerful business
interests. Throughout this period, we have a renewed form of class
warfare directed by the business class against the working people and
the poor, along with a conscious attempt to roll back the gains of
the previous decades.

Now
that Trump is the president-elect, is the Bernie Sanders political
revolution over?

That’s
up to us and others to determine. The Sanders “political
revolution” was quite a remarkable phenomenon. I was certainly
surprised, and pleased. But we should remember that the term
“revolution” is somewhat misleading. Sanders is an honest
and committed New Dealer. His policies would not have surprised
Eisenhower very much. The fact that he’s considered “radical”
tells us how far the elite political spectrum has shifted to the
right during the neoliberal period. There have been some promising
offshoots of the Sanders mobilization, like the Brand New Congress
movement and several others.

There
could, and should, also be efforts to develop a genuine independent
left party, one that doesn’t just show up every four years but is
working constantly at the grassroots, both at the electoral level
(everything from school boards to town meetings to state legislatures
and on up) and in all the other ways that can be pursued. There are
plenty of opportunities — and the stakes are substantial,
particularly when we turn attention to the two enormous shadows that
hover over everything: nuclear war and environmental catastrophe,
both ominous, demanding urgent action.

Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without 
permission.

C.J.
POLYCHRONIOU

C.J.
Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and
the United States. His main research interests are in European
economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the
United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s
politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as
well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has
published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety
of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of
his publications have been translated into several foreign languages,
including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
Turkish.

RELATED
STORIES

Plutonomy
and the Precariat: On the History of the US Economy in Decline 

By
Noam Chomsky, 
TomDispatch |
News Analysis

Plutocracy
the First Time Around: Revisiting the Great Upheaval and the First
Gilded Age

By
Steve Fraser, 
TomDispatch |
News Analysis

Capitalism
Killing You? Income Sharing Could Save Our Lives

By
Matt Stannard, 
Occupy.com |
Op-Ed

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38682-socialism-for-the-rich-capitalism-for-the-poor-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Chomsky, Madison en A. Smith.