Obama’s Animal Farm: Bigger, Bloodier Wars Equal Peace and Justice

“The Deltas are psychos…You have to be a certified psychopath to join the Delta Force…”, a US Army colonel from Fort Bragg once told me back in the 1980’s. Now President Obama has elevated the most notorious of the psychopaths, General Stanley McChrystal, to head the US and NATO military command in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s rise to leadership is marked by his central role in directing special operations teams engaged in extrajudicial assassinations, systematic torture, bombing of civilian communities and search and destroy missions. He is the very embodiment of the brutality and gore that accompanies military-driven empire building. Between September 2003 and August 2008, McChrystal directed the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations (JSO) Command which operates special teams in overseas assassinations.

The point of the ‘Special Operations’ teams (SOT) is that they do not distinguish between civilian and military oppositions, between activists and their sympathizers and the armed resistance. The SOT specialize in establishing death squads and recruiting and training paramilitary forces to terrorize communities, neighborhoods and social movements opposing US client regimes. The SOT’s ‘counter-terrorism’ is terrorism in reverse, focusing on socio-political groups between US proxies and the armed resistance. McChrystal’s SOT targeted local and national insurgent leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan through commando raids and air strikes. During the last 5 years of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld period the SOT were deeply implicated in the torture of political prisoners and suspects. McChrystal was a special favorite of Rumsfeld and Cheney because he was in charge of the ‘direct action’ forces of the ‘Special Missions Units. ‘Direct Action’ operative are the death-squads and torturers and their only engagement with the local population is to terrorize, and not to propagandize. They engage in ‘propaganda of the dead’, assassinating local leaders to ‘teach’ the locals to obey and submit to the occupation. Obama’s appointment of McChrystal as head reflects a grave new military escalation of his Afghanistan war in the face of the advance of the resistance throughout the country.

The deteriorating position of the US is manifest in the tightening circle around all the roads leading in and out of Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul as well as the expansion of Taliban control and influence throughout the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Obama’s inability to recruit new NATO reinforcements means that the White House’s only chance to advance its military driven empire is to escalate the number of US troops and to increase the kill ratio among any and all suspected civilians in territories controlled by the Afghan armed resistance.

The White House and the Pentagon claim that the appointment of McChrystal was due to the ‘complexities’ of the situation on the ground and the need for a ‘change in strategy’. ‘Complexity’ is a euphemism for the increased mass opposition to the US, complicating traditional carpet ‘bombing and military sweep’ operations. The new strategy practiced by McChrystal involves large scale, long term ‘special operations’ to devastate and kill the local social networks and community leaders, which provide the support system for the armed resistance.

Obama’s decision to prevent the release of scores of photographs documenting the torture of prisoners by US troops and ‘interrogators’ (especially under command of the ‘Special Forces’), is directly related to his appointment of McChrystal whose ‘SOT’ forces were highly implicated in widespread torture in Iraq. Equally important, under McChrystal’s command the DELTA, SEAL and Special Operations Teams will have a bigger role in the new ‘counter-insurgency strategy’. Obama’s claim that the publication of these photographs will adversely affect the ‘troops’ has a particular meaning: The graphic exposure of McChrystal’s modus operendi for the past 5 years under President Bush will undermine his effectiveness in carrying out the same operations under Obama.

Obama’s decision to re-start the secret ‘military tribunals’ of foreign political prisoners, held at the Guantanamo prison camp, is not merely a replay of the Bush-Cheney policies, which Obama had condemned and vowed to eliminate during his presidential campaign, but part of his larger policy of militarization and coincides with his approval of the major secret police surveillance operations conducted against US citizens.

Putting McChrystal in charge of the expanded Afghanistan-Pakistan military operations means putting a notorious practitioner of military terrorism – the torture and assassination of opponents to US policy – at the center of US foreign policy. Obama’s quantitative and qualitative expansion of the US war in South Asia means massive numbers of refugees fleeing the destruction of their farms, homes and villages; tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and eradication of entire communities. All of this will be committed by the Obama Administraton in the quest to ‘empty the lake (displace entire populations) to catch the fish (armed insurgents and activists)’.

Obama’s restoration of all of the most notorious Bush Era policies and the appointment of Bush’s most brutal commander is based on his total embrace of the ideology of military-driven empire building. Once one believes (as Obama does) that US power and expansion are based on military conquests and counter-insurgency, all other ideological, diplomatic, moral and economic considerations will be subordinated to militarism. By focusing all resources on successful military conquest, scant attention is paid to the costs borne by the people targeted for conquest or to the US treasury and domestic American economy. This has been clear from the start: In the midst of a major recession/depression with millions of Americans losing their employment and homes, President Obama increased the military budget by 4% – taking it beyond $800 billion dollars.

Obama’s embrace of militarism is obvious from his decision to expand the Afghan war despite NATO’s refusal to commit any more combat troops. It is obvious in his appointment of the most hard-line and notorious Special Forces General from the Bush-Cheney era to head the military command in subduing Afghanistan and the frontier areas of Pakistan.

It is just as George Orwell described in Animal Farm: The Democratic Pigs are now pursuing the same brutal, military policies of their predecessors, the Republican Porkers, only now it is in the name of the people and peace. Orwell might paraphrase the policy of President Barack Obama, as ‘Bigger and bloodier wars equal peace and justice’.

54 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. rg the lg said on May 18th, 2009 at 10:30am #

    Let me quote someone worth reading.

    Joe Bageant … the original may be found at

    Yes, it is long … but it is very clear.

    Sadly, I have some more to say at the end.

    Question: You are an advocate, in your writing, of working class folks — right? I remember reading Jim Goad’s “The Redneck Manifesto.” No question there, I just remember reading it.

    Are you a defender of the working class? Do they need defending? Defining? Describing? Who are “they.” Would a real class war, let’s say with fists, no guns — would that be a good thing?

    Joe: Damned! That’s quite a string of issues Bub!

    Am I an advocate for working class folks? I suppose I am in a way. But I never thought of it like that. I’ve always thought of it as telling the truth about America’s class system through simple and compassionate reporting on the real lives of my people.

    As to being their defender, that would be hubris. No one can defend them but themselves. And in America my people, the rednecks, trailer trash, truck driver or technician, it doesn’t matter, they don’t seem very capable of doing that. It would take a revolution, a real one with the people willing to use force, and by force I don’t mean fists.

    Our new authoritarian corporate state, our declining empire, was built on using force against anything in its path, whether it be directly, as with the red Indians or by Israeli proxy against the Palestinians. There is simply no way to “work within the system” and do that. The system IS the problem.

    In addition, our civic religion of American exceptionalism and the capitalist commodification of our national consciousness through media has made revolution rather inconceivable, don’t you think? In any case, we are now seeing a dispensation of some absolute minimum of mercy upon the great toiling underclass of this country by Obama during this twilight of the American empire.

    Darkness in America cannot come quickly enough to suit much of the rest of the world, I can tell you from personal experience. But I don’t kid myself about the significance of these slight national improvements, in the big picture. The same elites still have all the guns and money around this ailing planet.

    To me, health care for the working poor, the rejection of torture as official policy, these are decent and good things that any civilized country has been practicing all the long. But in terms of ‘saving America,” it’s too little too late. I look elsewhere for the emergence of the next great civilization.

    Certainly not China, which is just a Mandarin version of U.S. materialistic folly, but without the human rights. But it might possibly be spawned in a united Europe, or even Latin America, now that our grip is lessening there. Something tells me it’s gonna be a long time coming, certainly not in my lifetime, but getting much closer, despite the ongoing ecocide and gangsterism of global financial, political and military elites.

    But the process sure as hell ain’t gonna be pretty.

    And now, my point:

    The American Empire is NOT a democracy. It never has been, and it never will be. The selection of a McChrystal is PRECISELY the sort of thing we should always anticipate … because, my dears, that IS what WE are all about. Just like our complicity in causing 9/11, McChrystal and his ilk are precisely what we demand in our corporate obsession with having more things … more stuff … more gadgets. The greening BS is nothing more, nor less, than a new way to screw the individual and to cause money to gravitate to the wealthy.

    Will WE ever learn? Well … have you?

    I really and truly doubt it.


    RG the LG

  2. bozh said on May 18th, 2009 at 10:54am #

    it may take as long as 50 yrs before pashtuns cry uncle. Meanwhile, we are seeing shift of guilt from US as a whole {which wld include constitution, judiciary, politicians, msm, and mns of amers} onto an odd individual.

    i evaluate demonization of one or several individuals as casuistry. And an individual may be even prosecuted in US for US’ crimes while some 200 mn amers say proudly: Yes, we were for the invasion and occupation but not for more killings than necesssary.

    and, most importantly, constitution, which permits crimes for which an individual may stand trial, remains unchanged.
    so, there existed a sacred writ called constitution but indigenes were reduced by 95%; US had waged some 180 wars/skirmishes; hironaga were a-bombed, blacks held captives, etcetc.

    since US is on a mission possible, it may yet use small n-bombs to subdue pashtuns.
    certainly, we can expect ‘better’ missiles, bombs, and soldiers to subdue pashtuns.

    this is why i say to palestinians, iraqis, and afghanis to give up armed struggle.
    and even if amers wld not serve in iraq or afgh’n , US can hire aliens to do the dirty work for it and at fraction of the cost.
    remember global warming? Which might render parts of planet uninhabitable; thus US obtains mns of recruits who just want to survive. tnx
    and judiciary consists solely of one-party adherents; interpreting anything, including constitution, for the benefit of one-party system.

  3. mary said on May 18th, 2009 at 12:55pm #

    Sasha Obama will be 8 next month.

    This little girl Razia is also 8.

    Before his inauguration, President Obama published an open letter to his daughters in Parade magazine, describing what he wants for them and every child in America: “to grow up in a world with no limits on your dreams and no achievements beyond your reach, and to grow into compassionate, committed women who will help build that world.”*

    Shame on him.

    (*Wikipedia The Obama Family)

  4. bozh said on May 18th, 2009 at 2:35pm #

    mary, right on,
    that was obama’s wishful thinking; not even close to reality. Another lofty speech that no child or adult cld understand; thus, a complete safety in saying it.
    usually constitutions and religious books are full of wishfull thinking and promises.
    but reality/nature does not speak, hear, listen, or see; it is deaf, dumn, and blind with a purpose.{to us, i mean}
    for if it listened and obeyed criminals, only greater maladies wld befall us.
    we have only survived because majority of us sooner or later are fed up with destruction and death by criminal minds.
    if we all were like them, we wld have vanished long time ago. Still, maybe we shld have evanecsed so as not to be intellectual slaves.
    well, mother nature may take care of that too! tnx

  5. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 18th, 2009 at 8:00pm #


    Right-wing rampage by Obama administration


    Balance sheet of a week of reaction
    By Patrick Martin

    18 May 2009

    The past week has provided a definitive demonstration of the subservience of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to the military-intelligence apparatus of American imperialism. Day by day, the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress delivered decisions along the lines demanded by the Pentagon and CIA, in many instances directly repudiating the campaign promises made to win popular support during the 2008 election.

    On Monday, the US military commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, was ousted after only 11 months and replaced by the military’s top specialist in “dirty war” tactics, General Stanley McChrystal, longtime head of the Joint Special Operations Command. The removal of McKiernan by Defense Secretary Robert Gates was part of the reorientation of US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan to escalated military conflict and far greater civilian and military casualties.

    On Tuesday, the White House spokesman indicated that the decision to release photos of torture and abuse of prisoners at US facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay was under review. Obama initially approved the release of the photos, ordered by a US Court of Appeals, but this action was strenuously opposed by the Pentagon and the US commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno.

    On Wednesday, Obama himself announced that he was reversing the decision on the torture photos. The administration will either appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, which could delay any order to release the photos until next year, or issue an executive order classifying them as “secret,” which would set up a new and more difficult legal hurdle for the human rights groups seeking release.

    On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted by 368 to 60, with only 51 Democrats in opposition, to approve a $97 billion supplemental funding package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The number of House Democrats opposed to funding the continued illegal occupation of both countries was barely a third of the opposition in 2007 and 2008, when the Democratic-controlled Congress gave similar approval to supplemental war spending bills proposed by the Bush administration.

    Finally, on Friday, Obama announced that the Pentagon would restart the military commissions established by the Bush administration and suspended for 120 days by Obama after he took office. There will be minor procedural changes, according to the brief statement issued by the White House, but the fundamental character of the tribunals remains: they are kangaroo courts, packed with military officers serving as judges, juries and defense attorneys, and operating under a travesty of legal procedure.

    The political trajectory of the Obama administration is so reactionary that it has evoked praise from its erstwhile right-wing critics, including congressional Republicans and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who hailed the reversals on release of the torture photos and use of military commissions as a vindication of the “war on terror” policies of the Bush administration.

    Senator Lindsey Graham, a top Republican spokesman on detainee policy, declared, “I agree with the president and our military commanders that now is the time to start over and strengthen our detention policies. I applaud the president’s actions today.” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called the decision an “encouraging development.”

    The Wall Street Journal published an editorial headlined “Obama’s Military Tribunals,” which gloated over the new administration’s embrace of the policies of its predecessor: “Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney.”

    The decision on the torture photos is perhaps the most politically significant of the week’s actions. It demonstrates the extraordinary sensitivity of the Obama White House to the concerns of the military and CIA, which are focused mainly on the danger that top commanders and CIA officials could face criminal liability for the torture and abuse of prisoners.

    As one commentator noted in the Washington Post, “By appealing the court order authorizing the photos’ release and thereby delaying publication of viscerally powerful evidence of detainee abuse, Obama may be attempting to reduce political pressure to investigate Bush administration officials who crafted arguably illegal policies on interrogation and detention. In choosing this tack, Obama makes clear how deeply potential prosecution is affecting every decision he faces about detention, interrogation and torture.”

    In the internal discussion on resumption of military commissions to try detainees held at Guantánamo, the final decision was made by “Obama eventually siding with the generals and other military officials who feared that bringing some detainees before regular courts would present enormous legal hurdles and could risk acquittals,” the Post reported.

    This was the context for the extraordinary exchange between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the CIA on Thursday and Friday. Pelosi held a press conference Thursday to charge that CIA officials lied to Congress at a classified briefing in September 2002 about whether prisoners were being waterboarded. CIA Director Leon Panetta—a former Democratic congressman from California—rebuffed Pelosi’s claim in an e-mail sent to all CIA employees on Friday and then made public. The White House declined to comment on the dispute, effectively siding with the CIA against Pelosi.

    While the focus of the past week’s events has been the White House reversal of policy on torture and military tribunals, the Obama administration has adopted right-wing policies all down the line, in domestic as well as foreign policy.

    Its economic policy seeks to safeguard the Wall Street bankers and financial speculators while proceeding with complete ruthlessness against not only the working class, but sections of small and middle-sized businesses, like the thousands of auto dealerships that will be eliminated under the administration’s plan for restructuring the auto industry.

    In its two major domestic policy initiatives, healthcare and energy policy, the Obama administration has made common cause with big corporate interests. The week began with lobbyists for the drug industry and other healthcare profiteers assembling at the White House to back plans for massive cost-cutting, and ended with the House Energy and Commerce Committee approving a “climate change” program applauded by the Edison Electric Institute, the chief lobbying group for utility polluters.

    On Friday, the White House budget director, Peter Orszag, published a column in the Wall Street Journal headlined “Health Costs Are the Real Deficit Threat. That’s why President Obama is making health-care reform a priority.” The column emphasized that cutting costs was the central drive of administration healthcare policy and made no mention of Obama’s election campaign promises to expand healthcare to cover the more than 50 million Americans currently uninsured.

    The right-wing course of the Obama administration cannot be explained from the standpoint of the personality of the new occupant of the White House—the “pragmatism” now being hailed by the media—any more than the policies of the Bush administration could be explained simply from the ignorance and backwardness of the previous “commander-in-chief.”

    The program of the Obama administration reveals the real social and class interests served by the American state. The United States is ruled by an alliance of Wall Street financiers with the military and intelligence apparatus in Washington. The bankers and generals are the real decision makers in America, not the American people who cast their votes in November 2008 seeking a much different domestic and foreign policy.

    Obama’s embrace of the foulest aspects of the Bush administration, repudiating his promises of “change” only a few months after taking office, demonstrates the hollow shell that American democracy has become. Elections mean nothing and decide nothing. The real decisions are made behind the scenes and implemented by the ruling elite’s political frontmen in the White House and the Capitol.

    The struggle against the war, social reaction and attacks on democratic rights must take as its starting point that the Obama administration is the enemy of working people in the United States and in the entire world, the instrument of the most rapacious and reactionary ruling class on the planet.

    The working class must reject the poisonous illusion that Obama represents some sort of “reform” alternative to the program of the ultra-right. The way forward is to break with the Democratic Party and build an independent mass political movement of working people, based on a socialist and internationalist program. This means building the Socialist Equality Party.

  6. Boyd Collins said on May 18th, 2009 at 8:19pm #

    “He is the very embodiment of the brutality and gore that accompanies military-driven empire building…‘Direct Action’ operatives are the death-squads and torturers and their only engagement with the local population is to terrorize, and not to propagandize.” Obama represents a shift in strategy from the Bush/Cheney cabal. The effort to win by persuasion has been abandoned. Now we have a bodyguard of lies behind which drones and Direct Action will target those internally and externally who threaten U.S. interests.

    We trust only in murder and torture – the “propaganda of the dead” perfected by McChrystal. Our only message to the Middle East is submit or be destroyed. In the words of Tiberius Caesar, “Let them hate me, so long as they fear me.”

    This is “change” indeed. Obama has picked the most brutal of Bush’s commander and elevated him to the supreme position.

  7. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 18th, 2009 at 9:13pm #



    Here are the remedial steps that we must implement if we are to unleash the free market and reclaim capitalism’s former glory:

    1. Eliminate the public education system. If you don’t have money, you remain ignorant.
    2. Immediately cut public funding to maintain roads and highways. A toll booth at every other intersection would be a small price to pay for the reinvigoration of free markets.
    3. Close all public libraries. If you want to read, buy your books.
    4. Shut down all forms of public transit. Walking is good exercise.
    5. Completely deregulate and privatize public utilities. If the market drives prices too high for you, you can buy candles, piss in buckets, sweat, shiver, and boil creek water.
    6. Abolish police and fire departments. Settle your own disputes, protect yourselves, and keep your buckets and garden hoses handy.
    7. Put the EPA out of our misery. It’s time to end the tyrannical reign of fear mongering environmentalists.
    8. Labor laws, EEOC and OSHA? These anachronistic impediments to profit need to go. Let the market dictate wages, hours and working conditions. People need to be thankful to have a job, regardless of how miserable, discriminatory, or dangerous it might be.
    9. Eradicate the FDA and USDA. If a food or drug starts killing large numbers of people, distributors and manufacturers will police themselves in order to sustain their profitability.
    10. Dismantle the FAA. Plane crashes are simply a cost of doing business. Let’s put a sense of adventure back into flying.
    11. Halt all Social Security and Medicare handouts. The programs are insolvent. Our elderly need to start fending for themselves. Wal-Mart needs greeters. And as for those who are too infirm or feeble to work, they’re fortunate to have lived as long as they have.
    12. Kudos to Clinton for creating TANF, but he didn’t go far enough. Medicaid and TANF must go. It’s time we introduced our spoiled and lazy rabble to the concept of the workhouse. It worked for the Victorians; it can work for us.

    Enacting these twelve reforms would go a long way toward restoring the supremacy of free market capitalism. However, our task would not be complete.

    Consider an even more critical challenge. To unfetter the free market, we must divorce ourselves from the idiocy of Christianity. Let’s face it. Christ was about compassion, love, generosity, and forgiveness. In the final analysis, Jesus was a loser who provided false hope for misfits, outcasts, incompetents, and weaklings. As free market capitalists driven by greed, selfishness, and hyper-competitiveness, we need to exorcise Christ’s moronic teachings from our society and culture.

    Now let’s get busy.

  8. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 18th, 2009 at 9:24pm #







  9. Deadbeat said on May 18th, 2009 at 9:44pm #

    T-C writes…

    This is the point that the voters made in the 2008 election and what some of the “I told you so but offer nothing ‘Left'” missed in their analysis of the election. They thought that by running McKinney and Nader that was doing something but what it demostrated is the very weakness of the Left. The Left is in such a sorry state that they SPLIT their ranks and could not even coalease behind a single candidate much less two.

    Also missing is the analysis of the election. Had it not been for Blacks and Latinos, Obama who

  10. Deadbeat said on May 18th, 2009 at 10:00pm #

    T-C writes…

    This is the point that the voters made in the 2008 election and what some of the “I told you so but offer nothing ‘Left'” missed in their analysis of the election. They thought that by running McKinney and Nader that was doing something but what it demostrated is the very weakness of the Left. The Left is in such a sorry state that they SPLIT their ranks and could not even coalease behind a single candidate much less two.

    Also missing is the analysis of the election. Had it not been for Blacks and Latinos, Obama would have lost the election and the U.S. would have real fascist running the country. Whites overwhemlingly voted for McCain. The only white demographic that Obama carried is whites under the age of 30. That may bode well for the future but for now, T-C is right, McCain would be now be President.

    Again this alludes to the issue raised by Left Luggage in his piece regarding the Left’s outreach failures. The Left refuses to form alliances with people of color who in 2008 prevented the U.S. from turning truly fascist and the left has failed to reach out to working class in general. Working class males are losing their jobs at a rate of 4 to 1.

    The “Left” had an opportunity to build a real alternative to the Democrats in 2004 but squandered that opportunity because of their denial of Zionism and allowed the anti-war to fizzle. Nader and the Greens could not build a united and coordinated effort and thus was in a much weaker position in 2008. McKinney, who herself voted for the war in Afghanistan, made an excellent choice selecting Rosa Clemente for VP. She clearly articulated the differences between her advocacy and that of the Nader campaign which illustrated the blindness the Left has for communities of color and why a Nader/McKinney ticket would have been more cogent an alternative than “more choices more voices”.

    Also just to show how luntic the “Left” was in 2008 some members endorced the Ron Paul campaign who as T-C rightfully warns would slash and burn all social programs and put Capitalism in overdrive. The ongoing economic crisis was endorced by Ron Paul with his long time support for “f[r]ee” markets and Reaganism.

    The Left’s failure has given us Obama, Zionism, and “f[r]ee” market Capitalism.

  11. Danny Ray said on May 19th, 2009 at 4:33am #


    Sorry T-C ron Paul and the Tea bagging Free Staters are here and they are here to stay, The center of this country is mad at both the right and the left, neither sidehas done any thing to really help the working people in this country, To the far left (as I have always said) the working center of this county don’t matter. he far left will spend all its capital on the people who will not help themselves.

    The center is mad as hell well armed and ready for a change back to the real America.

    As for your head lines, they really are getting a little old!!

  12. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 6:22am #

    Danny Ray: Obama and The Democrats are 10000000 times better than Ron Paul and Libertarian Party Ideology.

    Americans are not dumb, i don’t know why people say that US citizens are dumb, that’s not true. In fact statistics state that USA is one of the most literate countries of this world. If its true that USA is rich as a result of Imperialism, it is also developed as a result of having a very smart population.

    Americans knew that Ron Paul and the options we got were worse, and the only solution was Obama. Because without Obama we would have a Mad Max Fascist Scenario with Palin + Mccain.

  13. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 6:34am #

    deadbeat: I think one of the major reasons of why low-wage americans and poor americans don’t vote for socialist-parties is that in USA socialism ideology and socialist-parties don’t have enough funds to propagate and market their message to the masses, compared to other countries. Politics is just like any good and service out there, and if there is no advertising coming from the left, people won’t know what socialism is and what can socialism offer to workers.

  14. Danny Ray said on May 19th, 2009 at 8:15am #

    Americans are not dumb, i don’t know why people say that US citizens are dumb, that’s not true. In fact statistics state that USA is one of the most literate countries of this world. If its true that USA is rich as a result of Imperialism, it is also developed as a result of having a very smart population

    T-C here you are exactly correct, I could not agree with you more in any way, I’ve said all along that Americans are not dumb we could not be stupid and the where we are today. As I read the post here on this web site as well as the articles I am constantly amazed at the references to people in America being stupid, Led around by their noses, and the term sheeple is probably one of the more offensive things I have ever heard used.

    As I stated above the far left, socialism and communism, have no attraction for the great majority of middle class working people in this country. Why, well to see why let us look into who those people are. By working class people in America I am speaking about workers both men and women normally earning from twenty to eighty thousand dollars per year. Most of them, no, the vast majority have a high school diploma, a large percentage, maybe not a majority, have some college and many have a degree. Most did not go to an ivy league school but rather some cow college or state school. These are the people who get up every morning and go to work, these are the men and women who write your insurance policies, who run your warehouses, who deliver your goods either by a train or by a truck, they do that thousand and one jobs, some menial some clerical but the jobs that make the world, not just this country, but the world, run. A large percentage own their own homes and those who do not aspire to do so. These people are not all of one race they are red, white, black, yellow, and brown. And the thing that no one here on the dissident voice has ever address is the fact that each and every one of those people we’ve mentioned above want their children to be better off than they were. Most of these people are better off than their parents and grandparents. The true American dream is not a house in the burbs, two cars and a mortgage. But that your children and grandchildren can have more and do more and be more the you.

    The average American working class person both men and women look at the left and they don’t see any betterment for themselves. And most importantly they don’t see any betterment for their children. They do see the far left telling him they are gonna have to make do with less, that they have two high a standard of living and it must come down They don’t see anybody looking out for them, all they see is people telling them that they have to give more that they have to help the poor, the less fortunate than themselves, and true or not they see these people as having the same abilities they have and they cannot understand why these poor people are as well off as they are. They know they get up and go to work ever morning to a job many of them hate, but they still get up and go to work.

    And this is where the tea parties come in. a movement for middle class working Americans to say no, quit wasting my money on things I care nothing about. Go back to the original constitution. Tell the dam judges to quit interpreting it any way they feel. Go back to states rights if you have to go back to the articles of confederation but we’ve gone too far away from the original America and Joe average in this country wants it back. The attraction of Ron Paul is that he says we’re not gonna give Hammas a billion dollars for any one else for that matter. We’re gonna bring our troops home. And if it doesn’t specifically give the Federal government the power to do something in the constitution we will not do it. That my friends is a powerful attractant to Joe and Jane Average.

    And now while I’m venting, let me touch on another sore subject does anyone out there understand why my friends Joe and Jane average likes Governor Palin so much? Because she’s one of us, she’s not constitutional scholar with a Harvard law degree. She’s not from a big political family, she dresses are kids for school balances the budget it home hell yes she shoots a moose every now an then. her husband drinks some beer with the boys and races snowmobiles. They don’t vacation at Nantucket or Nassau, Hawaii. They are just average people.

    If the far left wants to dominate the United States you will have to attract these people. And until you do attract these folks you really have nothing. You have the rich liberal elites at the top and you have the perpetual do nothing’s or is one conservative talk show host refers to them “ the roof squatters” on the bottom. But you do not have the real America and until you can offer Joe and Jane average something better than they have you will never have them.

  15. bozh said on May 19th, 2009 at 8:41am #

    danny ray, right
    amers, 97% of them, are just trying to adapt toa fictitious reality and no one can adapt to a fiction.
    and our rulers {probably 5% of the pop in many countries} knowingly disinform and miseducate the 90%+, because it had worked for them for at least 8K yrs.

    we are now trying to bring this mesage to the youg people. If it becomes effective, internet might be taken over by the deceivers. tnx

  16. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 10:41am #

    Danny Ray: If it’s true that US citizens have literacy skills and basic education knowledge, they don’t have a lot of political ideological knowledge, by that, and having said that, what i mean is that if most average joes and janes knew that state-socialism would mean that the wealth of this country would literally be owned by themselves (Avare joes and janes) instead of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Bilderber Group thru nationalization under workers-control. Which is what the left preaches. Unlike Ron Paul and libertarians which would not touch the wealth of Rockefellers, Rothschilds and upper millionare class.

    And lack of knowledge of what a socialist planned economy would do to american workers, and more knowledge of what Ron Paul and the libertarian movement is, is one of the reasons of why they prefer libertarian movements and Ron Paul, instead of socialist-parties.

    That’s analogus of being an american citizen being hungry in India, and having the option between eating in an unknown Indian restaurant or in Mcdonalds. The american citizen would eat in the Mcdonalds.

    And politics is the same, people love what they know, and hate what they don’t know.

    So the task of the socialists in USA should be to ally themselves with the american nationalist bourgeoise class in order to get funds, as a way to buy TV stations, newspapers and spread a nationalist and socialist ecomomic program to the american people.

    Because the world out there is like Tony Montana from Scarface said: “First you gotta get the money, after the money comes the power, and after the power comes the girl.”

    Without money the left is dead. There is literally no way to beat the right without a lot of funds to market and propagate socialist knowledge to the masses.



  17. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 10:54am #

    if most average joes and janes knew that state-socialism would mean that the wealth of this country would literally be owned by themselves (Avare joes and janes) instead of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Bilderber Group thru nationalization under workers-control they would right away vote for socialist parties

  18. Danny Ray said on May 19th, 2009 at 11:54am #

    T. C. it seems like you’ve missed the whole point, and perhaps that’s analogous of the hole left, the average working class American does not want to be an average working class American and they certainly do not want their children become an average working class Americans. Every American, and I know this is gonna light you up, feels that they are certain their children could be a Carnegie, or Rothschild, or could be president of the united states or president of GM. To socialize and collectivize the United States would make everyone in equal and that’s not what the average American wants to be. The average American wants somebody to look down on. Americans firmly hold to the belief that they are an exceptional people living in an exceptional country and just as firmly hold the belief that with hard work sacrifices and determination they or their children can do anything they choose. The problem with socialism to an Americans eyes is there is no room for exceptional as every one is the same there’s no way to rise and Americans hate that very notion. Americans do not work do not strive and do not sacrifice for others Americans sacrifice for themselves and their children.

    The only thing the left offers, the far left that is, offers the average American is the tyranny of sameness.

  19. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 12:48pm #

    Danny: I know what you mean, however i think you are the one who didn’t really read what i posted about people hating what is unknown and loving the known and familiar things. What you said is that americans hate the socialist propaganda preached to them by The Discovery Channel, History Channel, Americans school system and US propaganda as a whole. That’s the version of socialism they know. They think that socialism is about being clones and sameness.

    In fact, i really think that it is the corporate-capitalist systemwhich is really turning people into conformist-drones (Listen to the rock song Subdivisions by Rush which describes extreme sameness, and lack of social-mobility in corporate neoliberal societies like USA, Mexico and Canada.

    You also missed what i said about the left and far left not having enough money to market their information and program to the american joes and janes.

    Like you said, the american joes and janes hate the socialism of sameness and clones, because that’s what they think socialism is.

    But if they learn what 21st Century socialism is as being applied in Venezuela, where people the joes and janes of Venezuela are becoming richer, and have more freedom than the american low-wage workers, they would support the democratic-socialism as being applied in Venezuela.

    But if the US left is unable to get enough money in order to share what socialism really is, the average joes and janes will keep buying “The american dream” lie, which is really a lie. Because the american dream is really an american nightmare of 600,000 people becoming job-less every month, people sleeping in tent cities, and many americans choosing to die since dying is the only option to many people in America who can’t even think about paying to go to a doctor or to pay monthly medical insurance.

    Another thing you are missing is that USA is not at a revolutionary situation yet, because USA like you said can still provide stability and bread for those american joes, as a result of US Central Bank (Federal Reserve) pumping the US economy with inorganic dollars, backed by IMF loans, bailout bill loans, China and other foreing nations buying US bonds. But sooner or later the US economy cannot maintain this illusion. Sooner or later the US military empire will have to retreat from the Middle East because the Russian Bear and the China Tiger will replace the power of US military hegemony in Antartica and Middle East.

    As soon as US Empire will stop its wars, the US economy will go down, since USA is a military-keyensianism economy, when that time arrives, we will see an Objective Revolutionary Situation in America:

    Here are the 3 main traits of a Leninist Revolutionary Situation in the USA:

    # 1 – When it is impossible for the rich people of this country (like Bill Gates, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Cruise, Donald Trump, Al Gore, Ross Perot, Dick Cheney, etc.) to maintain their wealth without any change; when there is an economic crisis, in one form or another, among the rich people, a crisis in the policy of the rich ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of middle and lower classes of America burst forth. For a socialist-revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for the middle and lower classes not to want to live in their old comfortable and stable way; it is also necessary that the rich upper millionaire class should be unable to live in their old comfortable way.

    # 2 – When the suffering and the needs of the middle and lower working classes of this country have grown more acute than usual

    # 3 – When, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the middle and working classes, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in peace time, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis *and by the upper classes themselves* into independent historical action.


    What USA needs is a United Socialist Front to win elections in 2012. After the United Socialist Front seizes US power, what it needs to do is to turn the US capitalist-state, into a socialist-state thru a gradual change toward a participative-democratic socialist system of the XXI Century, with the help of a Constitutional Reform by a Constitutional Assembly like the ones of Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia in order to change this country from a corporate-kleptocratic plutocracy of the few into a participative-democratic social economic democracy for all americans, not for the few millionaires and billionaires.

    A Political Reform would not be complete without a democratic economic reform, so that USA could move from a corporate-capitalist country toward a real democratic workers socialist economy by the workers in favor of workers who are the creators of wealth like Karl Marx said.

    The wealth of this great land belongs to all US citizens and specially *workers* who are the creators of wealth, but they won’t be able to claim that wealth without a nationalization program under state and workers-control of the key elements of US industries like oil, water, communication, electricity, gold, mines, etc.

    Americans also need access to subsidized or free Universities and Colleges, this country needs more public socialist education instead of private education. It would also be a great idea for US government to regulate right-wing stations like CNN and FOX and also to create a state-owned progressive TV station with progressive media people like Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, in order to spread the ideology of the US founding fathers, to teach americans democratic egalitarian values, so that thru a good education programs americans truely be free individuals and architects of of our own destiny and wealth. On the international level it is worth studying the closing of most US military bases, the incorporation of USA in the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas), and it would be a great idea to consider Jimmy Carter as peace missioner on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.


  20. bozh said on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm #

    danny ray,
    let’s forget about the left or far left as these are mere labels and as such have an endless meanings or definitions. And defining anything never ends.
    and that is why priestly, educational classes use almost always isms [ideas] knowing that they cannot be defined to the satisfaction of everyone; in addition to never ending; so that one is stuck in defining in perpetuum instead of experimenting or doing anything.

    how about stopping defining healthcare or drug wars and actually make available healthcare to everybody? If it works poorly or not at all; well, we do a new experiment; for knowledge only comes from doing things and not from talking about them.
    precisely the reason why ruling class allows free speech but not experiments.
    thus speaks the constitution: talk all you want; just don’t change anything.
    science uses the correct method of evaluating: one sees s’mthing; one theorises; and then one applies the theory. It doesn’t work? Fine! After all, i’m told, edison tried hundreds of solutions’ for a burning bulb. More cld be said. tnx

  21. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 1:19pm #

    Danny: But i agree with you on the political-apathetic behaviour of the average joes and janes. For example i printed an article from http://www.smirkingchimp.com to my sister today called “John Mccain: Door to fascism” which literally said that a rejection of Obama and The Democratic Party would mean USA falling into a barbaric Mad Max fascist Nazi scenario with Palin and Mccain. And she rejected it, she said that she hates politics and she doesn’t care about politics anymore. This is another thing you have to take into consideration. I mean the downright hatred of most american joes and janes against Politics, like Dracula the Impaler hatred for the cross.

    So you are right in that it will be real hard, almost impossible for the US left to break the ice in order for american joes and janes to welcome the socialist ideology into their heart and souls.

    In fact, she even said that she is more into The Bible and Bible related prophecies, because she said that Bible and Bible prophecies are more relevant today than politics, because The Bible and churches can offer a way out of this mess a lot better than politics, because according to her we are living in the End of Times, and a Republican Party Jesus Christ will come to rescue his Republican loyal children.

    So my friend, you are right indeed, in that American joes and janes are totally traumatized, their minds have been tampered with, and there is literally no way for the joe sixpacks and janes to welcome socialism into their lives.



  22. Deadbeat said on May 19th, 2009 at 4:30pm #

    I agree with Danny’s analysis that Americans do not welcome equality. This means for a certain sector of the working class giving up their illusory privileges. I think Danny’s perspective is in line with Richard Wolff whose analysis of the currently crisis you can find under the title “Capitalism Hits The Fan”.

    There he explains how for working class American they’ve enjoyed unparallelled wage increases for nearly 150 years until the 1970’s. The expectation of raising living standards was expected and became part of the American culture. Part of that culture is the very “exceptionalism” that Danny mentions. Unfortunately those expectations was based on Capitalist competition and the “work ethic”. That coupled with the Cold War helped to solidify the ideology of Capitalism as well. This is why older Americans and American who are doing quite well are the most adament against Socialism. This is also why they would tilt for a McCain over an Obama.

    Thus I agree with Danny critique of “leftists” who disparge voters intelligence. In many ways they *ARE* voting for their “perceived” interests in “maintaining” the “American Dream”. Again since mostly communities of color were EXCLUDED from the American Dream they are more AWAKE than the white working class. The problem however is that the Left has failed in its outreach to build the kind of solidary necessary so it can increase people’s awareness of Socialism.

    Communities of color has greater URGENCY and thus are caught between today and an unpredictable future. They vote for the Democrats because they are ALWAYS on the receiving end of right-wing racism and xenophobia. The “Left” has less urgency and can take more time with contemplating. While male workers for the most part was bought off by the spoils of imperialism and thus are the ones who now face REAL trauma of the Capitalist crisis. Had the Left not abandon the working class ideology(Marxism) as well as confronted racism (white supremacy and Zionnism) then the Left would be in a much stronger position to promote Socialism.

    I disagree with T-C implying that the Left didn’t have the “budget” to spread the word. The problem is that the Left squandered their opportunity especially the opportunities of 1999 and 2003. The “Left” receded after 9-11 and was able to come back in 2003 during the anti-war effort but then deliberately sabotaged that effort in order to obsure the influence that Zionism has on U.S. policy.

    For decades the Left allowed such “oracles” like Noam Chomsky set the tone and tenor of the “Left”. His tenor was decidedly ANTI-MARXIST whose goal was to distract activist away from class issues and onto “U.S. Imperialism” which he skillfully used to obscure Zionism. Or you have the “single-issue Left” who brand of identity politics obscured class.

    The “single-issue” Left rather than build solidary used there platform to play one-upped victimization. Under this scheme now for example “white women” are more oppressed than black males. Now for example Feminists are fighting for pay parity with no mention or regard to a family STIPEND. Why should women or anyone else for that matter be FORCED or COERSED to participate in the labor MARKET.

    Another example is “health care”. The whole health care issue is concealing MIDDLE CLASS angst under the guise of a social issue. What the fuck will health care bring to someone who is homeless? Why aren’t these voices DEMAND a full and complete SOCIAL WAGE!!! UNIVERSAL WELFARE!!! Or does the word “welfare” mean NIGGERS to middle class sensibilities.

    Who gives a shit that Kevin Zeese was arrested during the Senate Finance committee hearing. Why should anyone who just lost their job and their home and have mountian of debt care about health care. I guess they’ll be able to go to a shrink for free and get a free persciption of Prozac but it STILL WON’T SOLVE THERE PROBLEM. The whole project is extemely REACTIONARY.

    Do something radical. If you want FREEDOM then dammit be a DEADBEAT!

    This is why I give props to Left Luggage. He has identified the problem and the problem is not the Right but the LEFT.

  23. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 4:59pm #

    Deadbeat: hi, I agree with you that the US left is too sectarian. What we need is a United Left. However you have to take into consideration the economic problem of the US left. Politics like i said is just like any thing in this world, and without lots of money the US left is dead, because it won’t be able to propagate the socialist alternative to the low-wage poor americans. Without millions of dollars, any political party in this world is dead. Even though in the tradition of Marx, Lenin and Trotksy it is the workers who are the agents of change, i think that the US workers union’s leaders of this country must share socialist ideology with their members, even if they are scared of talking about Marx and socialism in their work places. But since we live in an electoral world where the left is seizing the state thru elections, without lots of millions of dollars the US left won’t get to power. I think that the US left could learn from the social-democrat nationalist-bourgeoise revolutions in Latin America and study their cases how they spread socialism ideology to the poor citizesn of Latin America and at the same time, how did people like Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Lula Dasilva get their funds for their political-campaign and advertising prior to becoming presidents.

    Another factor that we have to take into consideration is that like i said USA is not at an objective revolutionary situation yet. Obama and Bush both pumped the USA with lots of millions of dollars (1.5 trillions in bailouts, war-billions, and more billions)

    However sooner or later the USA economy will reach its loaning capability, it will default, and go bankrupt, when this happens, the US dollar will get davaluated and we will see a hyperinflationary situation, like the Weimar Republic in Germany.

    However, this is a dangerous situation, because like i said, there is a strong option in this country which is a dangerous movement rising very fast since 9/11 which is the far-right wing, white-nationalist, libertarian conspiracy theory movement, with folks like Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Chuck Norris, Jeff Rense, these people fall into the far-right category. They are not left-wingers nor right-wingers, but far-right, and preach that The Illuminati Order and Global-Elites control both the socialist parties and capitalist parties. They are right in some of what they say, however where they commit suicide is in their political ideology which is far-right wing, free-market, white-nationalism. They don’t even are very appealing to the oppressed gays, oppressed blacks, latinos, poor jobless whites and other alienated sectors of this country. But to the average joesixpacks who have a conspiratorial world view, not a class-conscious world view, they have a lot of demand.

    And that’s what i fear if Obama and The Democratic Party fail in these 4 years, that is the rising of Nazism and a Mad Max Feudalist Worst Case Scenario with these lunatic Tea Party and Conspiracy Theory movement, instead of a rise of a socialist option for America.


  24. Jeff said on May 19th, 2009 at 7:00pm #

    Beat this all you want. None of you will ever be in the position of power you THINK can be achieved. The POWER you speak of comes from places your cock cannot penetrate. Dream on. We will always be the lower. Only your death will set you free.

  25. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 19th, 2009 at 7:58pm #

    Jeff: are you crazy or something? That sounds like a fundamentalist evangelical.

  26. Mitchell said on May 19th, 2009 at 9:25pm #

    To Deadbeat:

    I read your comment about the “left.”

    You say that the “left” allowed the anti-war to fizzle. Exactly who is at fault? If you are on the “left,” is it your fault? It sounds like you’re blaming somebody else. YOU too can take part in all of this, by not falling for the D and R rut, and start voting for true, real progressives such as Nader and McKinney. I don’t know why you think you can just blame this thing called the “left.” The progressive “community” does not fall behind a single “leader” in lockstep as the rabid right wing trash do. That has only happened once in the 1960s.

    But I still don’t understand why YOU let the anti-war movement down and let it fizzle out, assuming you part of the “left.”

    Then you wrote: “Obama would have lost the election and the U.S. would have real fascist running the country.”

    Are you talking about wiretapping, military tribunals, giving the wealth to the bankers, keeping Bush’s USA Patriot Act which shreds the US Constitution, continuing 2 illegal occupations and starting a new war in Pakistan? Letting the Bush Crime Family go free for torture and other war crimes? Continuing rendition. Allowing off shore oil drilling off both East and West coasts? Allowing the continuation of Bush appointees in the inJustice Department. Continuing to support “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Continuing the prejudice against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people not being able to have the same rights as everyone else? Continuing to support the Military Industrial Complex by bloating the Pentagon….Man, I’d sure hate to see how it could be worse or more fascist if McCain had got in since messiah Obushma consulted McCain for his appointments! And Obushma is continuing the fascist Bush agenda.

    Obama Reaches Out for McCain’s Counsel

    It looks to me like D = R. How much longer will it take before some on here come to that realization? How much more do you need to see to understand that?

    One thing that Deadleft completely over loooked, is D and R part-line indoctrination in most people. It just needs to end. It’s the same indoctrination as the Floating Cloud Being programming in most people. You know, that “loving, merciful, compassionate, all-powerful, omnipotent (that’s po-tent with an om-ni in front) god that the sheep believe in. From an early age most people are programmed with either D or R party-line politics and I’ve heard many people say, “I will go to my grave being a D (or R).” In other words, many if not most people put party-line above the US Constitution. Well, with that mentality, we will never get “change we can believe in.” Period.

  27. Deadbeat said on May 20th, 2009 at 1:41am #

    Mitchell writes …

    You say that the “left” allowed the anti-war to fizzle. Exactly who is at fault? If you are on the “left,” is it your fault? It sounds like you’re blaming somebody else.

    Yes Mitchell it is my fault for falling for Chomsky bullshit for years. It is my fault for not calling out the left’s bullshit years earlier. Yes Mitchell it is my fault for failing to learn about Marxism sooner.

    The point is Mitchell you and other Leftist use criticizing Obama and “imperialism” as a TOOL to obscure the real problems about the Left and that has been not only its sectarianism but also its years of moving away from Marxism and misdirecting, misleading and bullshitting activists. The anti-war movement was deliberately sabotage by the Left because the movement was beginning to address Zionism — not only in Israel but in the U.S. I know this first hand.

    Also Mitchell, I was a member of the Green Party and supported Nader’s run in 2004 however I also saw first hand how the Greens and other so-called “Leftists” sabotaged it and place the Left in a much WEAKER position for 2008.

    For you and others to “blame” the voters for voting for Obama or to disparage voters as being “programmed” demonstrates your unwillingness to be honest about the Left and to do the necessary ANALYSIS of the LEFT itself.

    Nader and McKinney SPLIT the Left’s ranks by not running as a unit. In addition if you listen to Rosa Clemente, McKinney’s VP pick, she clearly articulated the REAL differences between Nader/Gonzales and McKinney/Clemente. The point is that has Nader and McKinney ran together that would have BUILT the kind of solidarity needed rather than leave the Left divided and weak.

    Now do you really believe that people of color who are ALWAYS at the receiving end of the Republicans fascist bullshit are going to throw their votes away on a divided and unorganized Left. HELL NO!!!

    This goes to show you Mitchell how out of touch YOU ARE with REAL PEOPLE and your arrogance will not win over the very people needed to build a force that can challenge the Democrats or anything else.


  28. Deadbeat said on May 20th, 2009 at 2:06am #

    T-C writes …

    [S]ooner or later the USA economy will reach its loaning capability, it will default, and go bankrupt, when this happens, the US dollar will get davaluated and we will see a hyperinflationary situation, like the Weimar Republic in Germany. However, this is a dangerous situation […] there is a strong option in this country which is a dangerous movement [of] the far-right wing, white-nationalist, libertarian conspiracy theory movement

    The scary thing is that the U.S. having arms will still use those arms to project its power even with hyperinflation as wealth continues to be transferred to the rich and the standard of living of ordinary people continues to recede. But while this reactionary strain does exist, the demographic shift as demonstrated by the Obama election could be a lesson to the Left. 95% of Black voters and 80% of Latino voters and white voters under 30 supported Obama. This demographic should be the basis for the Left’s outreach. But if you listen to the Left they ATTACK and disparage this group for voting for Obama when the Left itself offered no real alternative and STILL don’t because the Left is not trying to cohere this group. In fact many on the Left are “outraged” that they voted for Obama and only offer “I told you so’s”.

    The Right, T-C, is only filling a void that the Left refuses to fill because it is so disorganize and has abandoned Marxism. How many people have you heard right here on DV talk against “ideology” as if ideas are inherently awful.

    The Right has much more coherence that the Left and that is what makes them a real threat. The Left can win only until they rebuild solidarity around an IDEOLOGY. And the abandonment of Marxism is where the Left has truly failed. Why do you think the U.S. Government destroyed the Black Panthers because they were a Marxist organization. Now the crisis is providing an excellent space for the resurgence of Marxism. This can be the Left shining moment or yet another opportunity squandered.

    It there should be any complaints about “voters” it should be targeted against those “Leftist” who supported the Ron Paul campaign. Right now during this crisis he is the best apologist for F[r]ee Market Capitalism. The Left has really PISSED me off.

  29. Mitchell said on May 20th, 2009 at 4:06am #


    Well again, what are YOU personally doing about all of these problems that you have with the “left?”

    You write: “The Left has really PISSED me off.”
    Well something has! That’s a given. I don’t know if it’s the “left” or not, or if the “left” is just being used as a scapegoat by you. But again, what are YOU doing about it?

    But the “right” is not pissing you off at all? You have no problems with the “right?” Hmmmmmmmmm.

  30. Danny Ray said on May 20th, 2009 at 5:14am #

    Deadbeat, please forgive me for answering for you but I have to respond to mitchell,

    If I am bitten by a wolf I will be unhappy but in the long run I know that is what wolves do.
    If I am bitten by my pet dog I am goning to be really pissed of because I thought he was my friend.

  31. Danny Ray said on May 20th, 2009 at 5:47am #


    The progressive “community” does not fall behind a single “leader” in lockstep as the rabid right wing trash do. That has only happened once in the 1960s.

    This is the hate for the right, the working class, you know , the people you despreatly need to win over, That I have been talking about. Not to mention your obvious hatred of other peoples Gods.

  32. bozh said on May 20th, 2009 at 6:37am #

    it seems to me that amers, among many other peoples, vote according to how they feel; possibly influenced very little by what politicians say.
    probably from chidlhood they felt there is an ideal system of governance: an ideal two-party system with a constitution that cld not be improved, having been written by the wisest/noblest people on the planet.
    if this is true, then to change their feelings, children cld/shld be taught that the constitution is to quite a degree corrupt or meaningless.

    it wld be easy to persuade children to see that in US there is just one party. There are ample number od facts at hand that they cld be told that not only show but prove that there is in US a dictatorship of the rich people.

    once this knowledge sinks to the feelings level, we’ve got lifetime adherents. For most and ?all people, knowledge comes from experience and to a degree also fromwords words.

    ruling class, i deduce, knows this. That is why it may never ever let the docile believers in sanctity of americanism have the healthcare!
    once people experience it, the demand for other inheritances wld rise.

  33. Jeff said on May 20th, 2009 at 6:45am #

    Well T-C, crazy as a fox. Sometimes when reality bites one in the ass it is difficult to sit down. Of course you missed my point but life goes on. Once again, should YOU think you can effect change at the CONTROL level, you must be in the favor of those which control. Go on with psycho babble but the truth is:

    Yell and scream and scratch and kick all you desire for at the end of your day you will be exhausted from physical drain while those whom facilitated your tantrum will be once again glowing in the after light of laughter and glee.

    Whom the hell do you really think you really are railing against, HUH?

    Finding that answer is your own journey.

  34. bozh said on May 20th, 2009 at 6:55am #

    i forgot to posit the fact that 97% USans have just voted for ‘zionism’.
    it seems only 3% voted against it. So, whether these threepercenters; united or splintered into center left, ultra left, right left is still only about 1mn people against about ?180 mn people.
    so, i’m not sure that we had even 3%; maybe it was just one half percent?
    important thing to me is that s’mthing is happening in US that was not happening in ’80s or even in ’90s. This represent a tiny step forward and people who either take or actually deserve credit for the movements or parties, shld be lauded and not blamed for perceived failures.
    and, folks, these people will fail again and again but the roots will grow deeper.
    so, i suggest, we suggest what can be done for us to grow and avoid blaming or even criticising the socalled Left or even the Right.
    we need also RightLeft unity to obtain our rightful inheritance.
    so, please, let’s avoid promotion of division among people.
    let’s entirely forget about trotsky, lenin, marx, the Right, the Left, etc.

  35. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 8:00am #

    Jeff: You have a passive-nihilist stance against reality. That’s one of the major problems of US citizens and other people around the world, the excess of negativity which is part of the slave-mentality. We as humans can do any thing we want in this world, but the capitalist education system has trained people to be scared, weak and negative. What you need is to transcend your fears, thru a Nietzschean tragic view of this world. By the way another problem with you is that you are thinking individually. Of course individually we can’t do much. But United in a movement we are real powerful.

    Simon Bolivar said that divided people are nobody, but united people are powerful. So what we need is a United Socialist Large Front of millions of americans. The problem is that the US left is poor, and in this world every political project requires millions of dollars. My tip for the US Left is to align itself with the nationalist-bourgeoise class, in order to get economical support, which would help the US left get funds to start an educational campaing in America of what the socialist-alternative can do to save USA from sinking like the Titanic.

  36. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 8:03am #

    deadbeat: By the way, don’t blame the left. The US left has done all that it can do possibly in USA which is a hadcore ultra-right wing nation with an ultra-right wing government. Blame the US right-wing media, the majority of US citizens which are right-wingers and the US government which is a right-wing government

  37. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 8:06am #

    bozh: and you are correct in stating that about 95% of US citizens vote for capitalism, imperialism wars and zionism. And only about 5% vote for socialist-parties (We are doomed)


  38. bozh said on May 20th, 2009 at 9:56am #

    thanks for your reply. I am hoping for an scientific inquiry about this phenomenon; whicg wld not be directed or controled by the ruling class.
    people tend to trust science. tnx

  39. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 11:01am #


    There is a dangerous movement in USA rising fast, and that is: the libertarian, white-nationalist, far-right, free-market lunatics, along with defranchised republicans. And the sum of: far-right ideology, white-nationalism, free-market libertarianism and conservative ideology is fascism


  40. Jeff said on May 20th, 2009 at 1:30pm #

    What the world needs is a correction. Anyone willing to volunteer? Oh, and by the way T-C, we are trying to help. Everyone else keeps getting in the way. That is POSITIVE energy!

  41. Mitchell said on May 20th, 2009 at 3:52pm #

    I wrote and stand by my previous statement which was:

    The progressive “community” does not fall behind a single “leader” in lockstep as the rabid right wing trash do. That has only happened once in the 1960s.

    Danny Ray wrote:

    This is the hate for the right, the working class, you know , the people you despreatly need to win over, That I have been talking about. Not to mention your obvious hatred of other peoples Gods.

    It is my opinion. I don’t go through life concerning myself about what provides “hate for the right.” Nobody has that much time! Fuk them. They will hate what they want to hate regardless, which is pretty much everything except people who think and look exactly as they do. I have absolutely zero interest in “winning over” the rabid right wing trash nor is that even possible. I have tried to talk with them for years using all approaches and got no where. They are like talking to a brick wall. So I don’t even bother with them now. I have NOTHING in common with them. So I have no interest in “winning them over.” And let me correct you: I don’t “hate” other people’s gods and I never said that. You dreamed that up. I was merely pointing out that religion is INDOCTRINATED into people (just like D and R party line). When a baby is born, the baby knows nothing about religion. That stuff has to be indoctrinated in/taught to the baby. (This is getting pretty remedial here. I suspect most people already know all of this). If someone wants to believe in the Floating Cloud Being, fine. Keep it to yourself. But that’s often the problem. The religious nuts (right wing trash) don’t keep it to themselves. They use it for determining regressive political policy. And messiah Obushma is doing that.


    To Tennessee-Chavizta:

    You’re absolutely correct about the right-wing “news” state media in this nation. Hillary and messiah Obushma were selected as the presidential candidates by the right-wing media regardless of what the “left” did. The “left” was ignored as per usual. It took $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ also, which Nader and McKinney didn’t have. Neither Nader or McKinney or Kucinich got corporate media exposure. They were all ignored. Kucinich (the only real Democrat in congress) could be sitting in the White House today but he was not chosen by the corporate media and their “news” divisions. And since messiah Obushma is NOT on the “left,” he sees nothing wrong with the way the media run things and will keep the status quo. Obushma is NOT on the “left,” so the decisions he is making have NOTHING to do with the “left.” He is continuing the Bush agenda, which is NOT “left.” His advisors are from the “right.”

  42. Garrett said on May 20th, 2009 at 4:11pm #

    Preaching/promoting Marxism won’t get us anywhere. Promoting some “socialist” ideas is certainly reasonable. But labels divide and conquer…they don’t lead to solidarity.

    When it comes to imperialism (i.e., U.S. foreign policy) and domestic policy, it’s not an either-or situation. Both are hugely important, and they’re closely linked.

  43. Mitchell said on May 20th, 2009 at 4:45pm #


    Well realistically speaking, “we” are not likely to get anywhere to begin with no matter what anyone says on here or anywhere else because the people in power (from messiah Obushma to the D and R parasite war criminals in congress) don’t give a damn what any of us think. Period. That should be abundantly clear to anyone who has been paying close attention since 2000. Despite all the efforts that people have made since 2000, you see where we are, don’t you? The scum in power listen to their corporate owners, who are NOT any of us. And when elections do come around, the sheep vote the D or R rut as they have been programmed to do, and then they wonder why nothing changes. Many of the so-called “left” vote for D politicians who are really Rs, but it’s that D behind the name that causes the person who claims to be on the “left” or claims to be “liberal” to vote for the politician with the D behind the name, often using the “lesser of two evils” rut slogan. Which has gotten us to where we are today.

    Speaking for myself, I’m here expressing my opinion. I have no delusions or illusions about changing anybody’s mind, especially the pro-war corporate scum in congress and in the White House.

  44. Danny Ray said on May 20th, 2009 at 6:45pm #

    OK Mitchell so you just plan on being a voice in the wilderness, screaming and crying yet doing nothing. you don’t wish to convert anyone else to your point of view, no one else is worthy of eing in your club.
    you put new meaning to the words of the bard.


    and in the end when you are gone all you will have left is the memory of your hatred and anger.

  45. Mitchell said on May 20th, 2009 at 7:29pm #

    OK Danny Ray,

    Do you own any mirrors? Because frankly, YOU and Deadbeat are the ones who sound very, very angry, and are the ones who are “screaming and crying” at me, for example. Little temper tantrums.

    In fact, Deadbeat says he’s pissed with the “left,” and then when I asked him what he’s doing about it, he became patronizing and arrogant. Then I asked again what he’s doing about his problems with the “left.” I get silence.

    Clearly, you both have deep, deep issues waaaaay beyond any of this stuff.

    Then you wrote this:

    “and in the end when you are gone all you will have left is the memory of your hatred and anger.”

    Well, when I’m gone, I won’t have any memory and neither will you. You make all kinds of loony assumptions about people. You know absolutely NOTHING about any of us on here other than what we write in our comments. You know NOTHING about our personal lives and what people are doing socially and politically, yet you claim to know so much about us, when in reality you don’t. And even with our comments on here, you make stuff up about people (such as your erroneous claim that I “hate” all gods, when I never did say that).

  46. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 7:35pm #



    Internationalism and the struggle for socialism
    By Nick Beams
    20 May 2009

    The following is the text of a report given by Nick Beams, national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party (Australia), to the WSWS/SEP/ISSE regional conferences, “The world economic crisis, the failure of capitalism, and the case for socialism.” The report is available for download in PDF.

    On behalf of the International Committee of the Fourth International and all the members of the Socialist Equality Party in Australia, I would like to bring the warmest revolutionary greetings to this conference.

    It is of great importance for the working class and oppressed masses all over the world that, at the very centre of world capitalism, in the belly of the beast, so to speak, the SEP has convened conferences in three cities across the United States to get to grips with this historic crisis of world capitalism, and to advance a socialist perspective for the working class.

    Let me begin by emphasising the significance of the fact that we work as members of a world party. The ICFI is the only party that functions on a daily basis, in all aspects of its work, as an international tendency. It is the only party which, to use a phrase of Trotsky’s, seeks to draw together workers of all countries into “a single international proletarian organisation of revolutionary action having one world centre and one world political orientation.”

    Nick Beams

    And precisely because of this, the ICFI is the only party now striving to advance a socialist perspective to meet the breakdown of world capitalism, based on the development of the class struggle.

    This serves to underscore the historical significance of the struggle waged by Trotsky for the program of socialist internationalism, and the struggle conducted by the ICFI, for nearly six decades, for an internationalist perspective as the only viable basis for the struggles of the working class in every country.

    What has happened to all the vast national-based bureaucratic organisations—parties and trade unions—that have dominated the workers’ movement in the major capitalist countries? Not only do they have no policies or program to meet this crisis, they work hand-in-glove with the ruling elites and governments in every country to impose it onto the back of the working class.

    The evolution of the United Auto Workers (UAW), which has now become integrated into the ownership structure of General Motors and Chrysler, is only the most glaring expression of what is a universal process. The national-based unions and labour organisations function as the policemen of capital. They have separated themselves from any connection with the interests of the working class.

    The emphasis our movement places on the necessity for internationalism does not arise from subjective considerations. Rather, it is a reflection of the most profound objective tendencies in the world capitalist economy itself. Any scientific examination of this crisis—this capitalist breakdown—establishes that there is no national solution to the myriad problems now confronting the working class and the masses as a whole—whether in the US, Australia, Britain, or in China, India and elsewhere.

    Such a solution is ruled out by the totally integrated character of the world economy—a characteristic that has been highlighted by the very manner in which the crisis itself has unfolded.

    In 2007 the learned, and not-so-learned, bourgeois economists and media pundits in the US maintained that the so-called sub-prime crisis was a limited financial disturbance that would soon pass. Their equally short-sighted counterparts internationally held that it was simply a US problem, which would not impact on their own much better-regulated financial systems. Whatever problems the American economy encountered, the rest of the world would not be too adversely affected, because it would be able to “decouple” from the US.

    Those illusions have been well and truly shattered. Recently the well-known economists Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O’Rourke published some very revealing graphs on the extent of the global slump. They show that the decline in industrial production, world trade and stock market values is proceeding at a faster rate on a global scale than in the period following the Great Crash of 1929.

    What explanation, then, of this crisis is offered by the bourgeois economists and commentators? Let us take one of the more perceptive representatives of this group, Martin Wolf, the economics commentator of the Financial Times. He points to the collapse of the entire framework of the “free market” neo-liberal ideology that accompanied the coming to power of Reagan and Thatcher.

    In a column published on March 9 entitled “Seeds of its own destruction” he begins as follows: “Another ideological god has failed. The assumptions that ruled policy over three decades suddenly look as outdated as revolutionary socialism.”

    In other words, the crisis is the result of a failed ideology, not the result of the working out of objective contradictions lodged within the capitalist system itself. Consequently, if the correct policies are now introduced and the mistakes of the past overcome, then capitalism can resume its advance.

    But Wolf has the sense that he is on shaky ground, and so feels it necessary to throw in the remark about revolutionary socialism. This is truly whistling past the graveyard, because revolutionary socialism has never looked so applicable.

    Like all defenders of capitalism, Wolf bases his comment on an identification of revolutionary socialism with the Stalinist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe that collapsed in the period 1989-91. Here it is instructive to recall what the revolutionary socialists said at the time. I will make only one of many possible citations.

    The perspectives resolution of the Workers League (forerunner of the US SEP), adopted in February 1990, barely three months after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, stated: “The disintegration of the Eastern European regimes cannot be explained apart from the development of the world economy as a whole. The social upheavals in Eastern Europe reveal not only the crisis of Stalinism; they are the most advanced political expression of the general crisis of world imperialism.”

    The Workers League developed this analysis, which has been totally vindicated, in direct opposition to the outpourings of the bourgeois academics and commentators at the time about the “end of history” and the final triumph of the free market and capitalism. Now these spokesmen of capital have been forced to change tack somewhat and, like Wolf, speak of the failure of free market ideology. But they are no closer to providing an analysis of this crisis, than they were to understanding the real significance of the demise of the Stalinist regimes twenty years ago.

    While they can produce useful facts, figures and statistics, and even point to important processes, none of the bourgeois economists and commentators is able to provide a scientific explanation of the crisis.

    This is because their ideological outlook, and their class position, is grounded on the permanence of the capitalist system. Hence, according to them, the source of the crisis is not to be found in the fundamental laws and contradictions of the capitalist economy, but is to be located externally. What is underway is not a breakdown of the capitalist mode of production itself, but the failure of a certain “model” of capitalism, the collapse of an ideological framework, an oversight and failure of those who should have been regulating the economy.

    An editorial in the Financial Times of March 10 entitled “The consequence of bad economics” puts it down to the intellectual failures of political leaders and regulators.

    “Those who sound the death knell of market capitalism,” the editorial concludes, “are therefore mistaken. This was not a failure of markets; it was a failure to create proper markets. What is to blame is a certain mindset, embodied not least by Mr Greenspan. It ignored a capitalist economy’s inherent instabilities—and therefore relieved policymakers who could manage those instabilities of their responsibility to do so. This is not the bankruptcy of a social system, but the intellectual and moral failure of those who were in charge of it: a failure for which there is no excuse.”

    The FT adopts the tone of the stern English schoolmaster, giving his pupils a rap over the knuckles, in order to block any attempt to probe deeper, to discover the underlying causes of the crisis, offering the assurance that order can be restored once a new “mindset” is adopted.

    In a comment published on April 8, in the wake of the G20 meeting, Martin Wolf, perhaps sensing that “failed ideology” was not an adequate explanation, pointed to the massive imbalances in the world economy—principally the US balance of payments deficit and the Chinese trade surplus with the US—as a cause of the crisis.

    “It is easier for most to believe that the explanation for the crisis is solely the deregulation and misregulation of the financial systems of the US, UK and a few other countries. Yet, given the scale of the world’s macroeconomic imbalances, it is far from obvious that higher regulatory standards alone would have saved the world.”

    But this only pushes the problem one step further back, because the question immediately arises: what was the cause of these imbalances in the first place? Out of what processes did they arise? And why have they had such a destructive impact on the US and world financial system?

    Many commentators argue that a cause of the crisis is the growth of debt to truly gargantuan proportions. But here again the question arises: why did this occur?

    Others hope that the crisis will take the form of a recession, a very severe one, but a recession nonetheless. That illusion is dispelled, however, as soon as one considers some basic issues. The capitalist economy emerges from a normal recession as it entered into it, except that the less profitable sectors have now been eliminated. But the outcome of this crisis cannot be a return to what existed before. The whole regime of profit accumulation, based on complicated financial manipulations, has collapsed. This is not simply a recession, but a breakdown.

    A characteristic feature of all the attempted explanations of the bourgeoisie and their representatives is their ahistorical character. They make no attempt to place the present developments within the context of the historical evolution of capitalism. And for good reason, because once this is done, it becomes clear that the breakdown arises not from external factors, but from the innermost workings of the capitalist economy.

    Thus, to understand the present situation, we must analyse the historical development of the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production that have given rise to it. These contradictions assume two basic forms. Firstly, between the development of the world economy, now manifested in the globalisation of production and the international integration of economic activity on an unprecedented scale, and the division of the world into rival and conflicting nation-states. Secondly, between the development of the productivity of labour, made possible by enormous advances in science and technology, and the system of private ownership of the means of production—a contradiction that manifests in the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

    In discussions on the present crisis you will find frequent references to, and comparisons with, the Great Depression. It is necessary, however, to go further back. The Great Depression was itself a product of the first breakdown in the capitalist mode of production, which took place in 1914 with the eruption of World War I.

    Like the present collapse, the first was preceded by a period of bourgeois optimism. At the beginning of the twentieth century it seemed, at least to those who chose not to probe too deeply, that the problems that had accompanied capitalism in its birth and early development had been overcome, and, under the aegis of the bourgeoisie, a new era in the advance of humanity had opened up. The ideological pressures generated by this process found their reflection in the socialist movement. Within the German social democratic party, Bernstein claimed that Marx’s breakdown theory had been refuted; that revolution was not viable or even necessary because socialism could be achieved through the continuous reform of capitalism.

    In 1914 the breakdown of capitalism announced itself in the form of war—a war of hitherto unprecedented savagery and destruction, truly a descent into barbarism. World War I established that world socialism was not simply a more advantageous form of economic and social development, but an historic necessity. In the Russian Revolution of 1917, the working class took the first step in the struggle to realise this objective. But the revolution remained isolated, due to the betrayals of the social democratic leadership of the working class. This isolation created the conditions for the emergence of a nationalist bureaucratic regime, headed by Stalin, which became a chief prop for the world capitalist order, carrying out the physical destruction of the Marxist culture on which the revolution had been based.

    Eventually, after two world wars, mass unemployment, the horrors of fascism, and the destruction of tens of millions of lives, US capitalism was able, with the assistance of the social democratic and Stalinist parties, to restabilise world capitalism. Through the new monetary system set up at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 and the Marshall Plan of 1947, a new period of economic expansion developed after the late 1940s.

    But the economic expansion of the post-war boom did not overcome the basic contradictions of the capitalist economy. On the contrary, the economic boom led to their re-emergence at a higher level.

    The growth of international trade in the 1950s and 1960s began to undermine the viability of the Bretton Woods monetary system. Under the system, the major world currencies exchanged in fixed relationships to each other and to the US dollar, which was backed, in turn, by gold, at the rate of $35 per ounce. As trade, investment and military spending expanded, however, the mass of dollars circulating outside the US, which provided the necessary liquidity for the international economy, began to vastly outweigh the gold held in the US that backed them.

    For the Bretton Woods agreement to be maintained meant an exodus of gold from the US that could only have been prevented through the imposition of deflationary policies and a virtual permanent recession. That was not possible, given the upsurge of the American working class at that time. Nor was the US willing to cut back on the outflow of investment capital and military spending. Nixon cut the Gordian knot on August 15, 1971, when he appeared on television to announce that henceforth, US dollars would no longer be redeemable for gold—an event that Chinese financial authorities today no doubt have in their minds, as they ponder the security of their vast financial investments in the US. Will another US president appear on television one evening and tell them that they cannot withdraw these assets?

    The collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed currency relationships had far-reaching consequences. Under conditions where every national economy was increasingly dependent on the world economy, in a complex network of relationships, it meant that new financial mechanisms had to be developed that would provide a measure of stability to international transactions.

    Financial derivatives were one of those mechanisms. They were initially developed to provide insurance against fluctuations in currency markets, which could significantly impact on the profitability of import and export contracts. Contracts to buy and sell currencies were made. But these contracts could themselves be traded—leading to the creation of new financial markets. Furthermore, with the erosion of national currency and capital regulations, money could be borrowed in one market to be used in another. This gave rise to the need for derivative contracts, which took account not only of currency movements, but movements in interest rates. And such contracts could also be bought and sold, leading to a further expansion of financial markets.

    In addition to the demise of Bretton Woods, another change in the world economy was to have no less far-reaching consequences—a fall in the rate of profit across all the major capitalist economies from around the mid-1960s. This fall set off an intense struggle for markets that led to fundamental changes in the very structure of the world capitalist economy.

    Developments in the class struggle were also to have a decisive impact. The period from 1968, starting with the May-June events in France and ending with the political restabilisation in Portugal, saw an upsurge by the working class and potentially revolutionary situations. The bourgeoisie only remained in the saddle because of the betrayals of the trade union bureaucracies and the Stalinist and social democratic parties. However, the underlying economic problems remained and deepened. These were compounded by the existence of large concentrations of industrial workers, which had developed during the post-war boom.

    At the end of the 1970s, the bourgeoisie began an offensive against the working class. It was marked politically by the coming to power of the Reagan and Thatcher governments and was waged under the banner of the “free market”. It involved the destruction of vast areas of industry in many of the advanced capitalist countries, principally the US and Britain. The same process was initiated in Australia from 1983 onwards, under the Hawke Labor government.

    The destruction of whole sections of industry was accompanied by a turn to financialisation as a means of profit and capital accumulation. Financialisation involved a process in which profits were accumulated, not through the development of industry and the employment of workers in the creation of new value, but in the development of financial means for appropriating profits that were produced elsewhere.

    Throughout the 1980s, however, this new mode of capital accumulation was still only just beginning. It was to surge ahead in leaps and bounds after the Tiananmen Square massacre in China in June 1989, followed by the Chinese Stalinist leadership’s decision in 1992, immediately following the liquidation of the USSR, to open the door to foreign investment and clear the way for the integration of the multi-millioned Chinese working class into the global circuits of capital. The massacre was a message to the ruling classes of America and the other major capitalist countries: your capital will be safe here, protected by the Chinese police state. The message was received and understood. The international bourgeoisie’s response was typified by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Shedding tears on television over the bloody repression of the students, he went on, after his retirement, to make tens of millions in his capacity as the head of a company advising on, and arranging, investment deals in China.

    The turn to China and other low-cost countries had two interconnected motivations. It boosted profits and it could be used as a continuous pressure on the working class in the advanced capitalist countries.

    It is not possible to obtain a completely accurate picture of the boost to surplus value provided by the transfer of manufacturing to low-cost countries. But with estimates that the initial impact of so-called off-shoring amounts to a 40 percent reduction in costs, it is hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Even more significant than these savings are the changes that have resulted in the very mode of capital accumulation.

    Consider the example of the iPod. It is estimated that an iPod selling for, say, $200, costs just $4 to manufacture in China. The manufacturing firm, however, receives only a very small portion of the surplus value that is extracted from the workers in the production process. Part of the difference between the manufacturing cost and the sales price is accounted for by the outlay on computer programmers and others, whose labour has gone into the iPod’s manufacture. But in terms of the cost of each individual appliance, this is a very small amount. While the outlay on programmers etc., may be a very large amount, it is spread across an enormous number of units. And once a program is written, it can be copied endlessly at no additional cost. Let us say the programming cost per iPod is $6. This still leaves $190. This is distributed among different property owners, in the form of rent to the owner of the mall where the iPod is sold, interest to the bank which has provided finance, payments to the advertising company, payment to the legal firm that has fought the law suits over copyright, and so on.

    What is involved here is a qualitative change. No longer do we have the direct extraction of surplus value, but the appropriation of surplus value, produced elsewhere, by financial and other means. We have a quantitative measure of how important this process has become in the functioning of the US, and, therefore, of the world economy. In 1980 financial profits were around 6 percent of all corporate profits. They had risen to more than 40 percent by 2006.

    One of the main factors fuelling this process has been the provision of cheap credit. Credit has been cheap because Chinese financial authorities, along with their counterparts in Japan and other so-called surplus countries, have recycled their dollar holdings back into the US financial system. This, in turn, created the conditions for an expansion of debt in the US, which itself ensured the growth of the US market, providing the outlet for goods manufactured in China and other low-cost countries.

    The profits appropriated by finance capital are, in the final analysis, dependent on the surplus value extracted from the international working class. But the processes of financialisation develop a life of their own. As long as cheap credit keeps flowing in, and asset values keep on rising as a result, it seems that the wildest dreams of capital can be fulfilled: money can be turned into more money without any reference to the processes of production. Money begets more money, simply as a result of its inherent nature.

    This process has now brought about a situation where the claims of financial assets, both to current and future income, vastly outweigh the actual mass of income—derived from the surplus value extracted from the working class—on which they actually rest. Again, it is not possible to provide a single statistic that measures this over-accumulation of financial assets. But we can get an idea of its dimensions from the fact that in 1980 financial assets were roughly equal in size to world GDP. Some 25 years later they were 300 to 400 percent of world GDP.

    Of course, it is possible for financial assets to rise faster than GDP without there being an over-accumulation, provided that the share of profits in GDP also increases. And this has been the case on a global scale since the beginning of the 1980s, as the labour share of GDP has been pushed down. The real wages of American workers during this period have not increased. In other words, all of the expansion in wealth, due to productivity increases over the past quarter century, has become available for appropriation by capital. Not even this, however, can account for the three- to four-fold increase in the ratio of financial assets to GDP.

    Here we come to the historical significance of the breakdown now underway. The over-accumulation of capital in relation to real wealth, built up over the past three decades, means that vast sections of capital must now be destroyed. The previous structure of capital accumulation has collapsed and a new structure is being established.

    Explaining the logic of this process, Marx noted that capital as a whole will suffer a loss. But that is by no means the end of the matter. How much “each individual member has to bear, the extent to which he has to participate in it, now becomes a question of strength and cunning” in which each section of capital seeks to restrict its share of the loss and pass it on to someone else.

    Marx witnessed only the beginning of this process. Finance capital has now grown to gigantic proportions. It dominates the government, the press, public opinion and has rewritten the statute book to do away with restrictions on its activities. It now controls the levers of political power and uses those levers to plunder the wealth of society as a whole, so that it can be sustained. Thus Lehman Brothers goes under, whereas AIG receives hundreds of billions of dollars in government money. What is the difference? AIG has close financial connections to Goldman Sachs, which, in turn, has the closest connections to the US Treasury.

    In the last weeks, we have seen another example of the control exercised by the banking and financial elites. A report in the Wall Street Journal of May 9 makes clear that the outcome of the so-called “stress tests” conducted by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve to determine the position of the major banks was influenced by the banks themselves.

    The article began: “The Federal Reserve significantly scaled back the capital hole facing some of the nation’s biggest banks shortly before concluding its stress tests, following two weeks of intense bargaining.”

    Bank of America and Wells Fargo were said to be “furious” when shown the preliminary results, and demanded a revision. This was not some academic dispute —billions of dollars were involved, affecting the profitability of the banks and, not unimportantly, the bonuses and remuneration of their executives.

    One of the biggest downward revisions was for Citigroup. According to the WSJ : “Citigroup’s capital shortfall was initially pegged at roughly $35 billion … The ultimate number was $5.5 billion. Executives persuaded the Fed to include the future capital-boosting impact of pending transactions.”

    Note carefully the last sentence. It signifies that we are back in the world of Enron accounting, where financial accounts do not reflect the actual situation, but entirely fictitious outcomes devised by executives. In this case, “creative accounting” is not being applied to one company, but across the banking and financial system.

    In the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, the former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, in an article entitled “The Quiet Coup” points out that political power has effectively been captured by financial interests. This prompted the FT columnist Martin Wolf to pose the question: Is America the new Russia, where the political system is dominated by a semi-criminal oligarchy of the extremely wealthy? Wolf replied in the negative, but his answer pointed to the fact that the situation in the US is, in fact, worse.

    “In many emerging economies corruption is egregious and overt. In the US, influence comes as much from a system of beliefs as from lobbying (although the latter was not absent). What was good for Wall Street was deemed good for the world. The result was a bipartisan program of ill-designed regulation for the US and, given its influence, the world.”

    In other words, while the domination of the wealthy and criminal elements is overt in Russia, in America it is built into the very structure of the political system.

    But how did this occur? The rise and rise of finance capital, the growth of parasitism on a gigantic scale, was not simply the “bad” side of an otherwise healthy system. It was the outcome of the very processes by which capital resolved the economic and political problems that arose in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It did not develop in some way external to the expansion of the world economy over the past two decades, but was central to it.

    Now these economic processes have led to the breakdown of world capitalism, posing the task of reconstructing society from top to bottom. As we have emphasised, this can take place in only one of two ways: either through a program implemented by the bourgeoisie or one initiated by the working class.

    The capitalist program of restructuring involves nothing less than the devastation of the social position of the working class, the destruction of vast sections of the productive forces, an ever-intensifying global struggle for markets, profits, and resources and, arising from this, increasing global conflict and the danger of war.

    How must the working class approach this period? First of all, by examining its own historical experiences, in particular, during the past four decades.

    An immense international upsurge of the working class developed in the period 1968-75, which had revolutionary potential. But the problem was, it remained there … at potential. The movement did not result in the actual taking of political power. Due to the betrayals of the leaderships of the working class, the bourgeoisie remained in the saddle and, when the political situation had been restabilised, carried out a massive re-organisation of economic and class relations, to defend its interests.

    The working class resisted this program in a series of struggles throughout the 1980s. But the processes of economic globalisation meant that the perspective of national reforms, to which the working class remained tied, had lost any viability. In the final analysis, that was the reason these struggles were defeated. Furthermore, the national-based trade unions and social democratic and labour parties, through which the working class had sought to advance its interests, now became the chief enforcers of the bourgeoisie’s program.

    Faced with the complete integration of its old organisations into the very structure of capitalist rule, and the collapse of the old program of national reformism, large sections of the working class sought to defend their social and economic interests by means of individual initiatives, or by what have been called “coping” mechanisms—working more overtime and longer hours, holding down more than one job, increasing the number of family members in the workforce and, above all, taking on more debt. For other sections, however, not even these methods were available. They were plunged into a downward spiral of impoverishment, now extending over two generations.

    The breakdown of the capitalist economy means that all the “coping” mechanisms of the past two decades have disintegrated. The bourgeoisie intends to return workers and their families to the type of poverty already being experienced by many. The working class must re-enter the social and political struggle. And it must do so armed with a new political perspective, based on an understanding of the tasks posed by the breakdown of the capitalist system. That is, it must advance its own independent initiative for the reconstruction of the world social and economic order. Nothing less will do.

    This is the meaning of the capitalist breakdown. It signifies that the productive forces of mankind can no longer grow and develop within the old set of social relations based on private profit and the nation-state system. Society faces a disaster if social and economic relations continue to be subordinated to the blind laws of capitalist accumulation. The profit system and the criminal subjugation of the wealth of society to the interests of a tiny minority must be overturned so that social relations can be reorganised on the basis of reason. In short, the socialist transformation of society has become an historic necessary if mankind is to go forward.

    However, we are informed by Ms Barbara Ehrenreich writing in the Nation on March 4, that the vast changes wrought by finance capital make socialism impossible: “It was … supposed to be a simple matter for the masses to take over or ‘seize’ the physical infrastructure of industrial capitalism—the ‘means of production’—and start putting it to work for the common good. But much of the means of production has fled overseas—to China, for example, that bastion of authoritarian capitalism. When we look around at our increasingly shuttered landscape and survey the ruins of finance capitalism, we see bank upon bank, realty and mortgage companies, title companies, insurance companies, credit-rating agencies and call centers, but not enough enterprises making anything we could actually use, like food or pharmaceuticals.”

    In another country the political equivalents of Ms Ehrenreich, disillusioned radicals and ex-radicals, will add their own variations to this tune, in accordance with their particular national situation. Socialism is not possible here, they will declare, because while we have manufacturing industry, we do not have the whole of the value chain—only part of it. Its origins lie outside the country and its end is elsewhere. So it is not possible to establish socialism here either.

    What does all this add up to? Not that socialism is impossible, but that a socialist society cannot be constructed on a national basis. But that is precisely the issue on which genuine socialism has always been differentiated from various forms of national reformism. This issue was at the very centre of the struggle between Trotsky and the Left Opposition, and the rising Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. The conflict took place over socialism in one country versus the necessity for world socialist revolution.

    Ehrenreich maintains that socialism is impossible because of the international division of labour brought about by capitalism. The exact opposite is the case. It is precisely the international division of labour, and the consequent integration of the labour of the working class from all over the world, that renders the national-state system created by capitalism an obstacle to the further development of mankind and poses the historic necessity for socialism.

    Of course, the seizure of political power by the international working class will not occur as a single, simultaneous act. Developments in the political superstructure, of which the socialist revolution is one of the most profound, have their own laws. But they are determined, in the final analysis, by changes in the economic base of society. The global integration of production and the domination of the international working class by global finance capital mean that the political struggles of the working class will increasingly develop on an international scale. And this requires the building of a world party.

    We can be sure that once the socialist revolution begins, it will rapidly spread. And a decisive role will be played by the American working class.

    The American journalist and revolutionary John Reed titled his account of the Russian Revolution Ten Days that Shook the World. The emergence of a socialist movement of the working class in the United States—a movement that clearly defines its tasks and objectives as the conquest of political power as part of the struggle for world socialism—will have a truly electrifying effect. It will not only shake the world, but fundamentally transform it.

  47. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 7:41pm #

    I was wrong about Obama. I think Obama is worse than Bush:




    By Michael Scheuer

    May 20, 2009 “Antiwar” — In just over 100 days, President Obama is on the verge of ensuring that militant Islam’s war on America will be waged for decades to come and its forces will never suffer manpower or money shortages. How did he accomplish so much in some little time? He simply behaved as all U.S. political leaders behave; that is, as an ignorant and arrogant interventionist.
    Let us take the ignorant part first. Since Jan. 20, Obama and his band of Israel-Firsters have shown the Muslim world – moderate, conservative, radical, and fanatic – that George W. Bush was no one-off fluke, that Democrats intend to wage war on Islam just like the Republicans. How so? Well, look at Obama’s decisions and actions. They can only be explained by accepting that the new president is ignorant of our Islamist foes, either by choice or because the ability to read is not required to graduate at Harvard.

    For 13 years, Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, their allies, and numerous anti-Islamist commentators across the Middle East have patiently, repeatedly, and explicitly explained to the bipartisan U.S. governing elite and its media and academic acolytes that the Islamists attacking America do not give a tinker’s damn about its lifestyle, liberties, freedoms, or elections. Orally and in print, U.S. leaders have been told what motivates the Islamists’ war on America is the U.S. government’s foreign policies in the Muslim world…

    And what have Obama and his advisers done with this excellent intelligence about enemy motivation, which, by the way, comes straight from the horse’s mouth? Well, they clearly ignored it, and by deciding to operate in an intelligence-free environment Obama has acted in a way that will intensify and prolong the Islamists’ war against the United States. …

  48. Tennessee-Chavizta said on May 20th, 2009 at 7:55pm #


    Psychopaths, Secret Societies and the New World Order


    By Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley.

    Revision level: 1.0, 3/25/2003

    Psychopaths and the science of personality: For many years, psychologists have studied the frightening reality of psychopathic or sociopathic personalities — the serial killers, the child abusers, the pathologically consistent liars and incorrigible thieves. The scientific study of these individuals was systemically organized by Hervey Cleckley and his 1941 classic “The Mask of Sanity”, and today the specialist Robert Hare is one of the foremost authorities in the field. According to Hare, the key emotional and interpersonal traits defining the psychopathic personality syndrome are: a smooth, glib capability to lie, manipulate and dissemble; a completely callous lack of empathy or concern for others; shallow emotional affect and lack of remorse; and egocentric grandiosity.

    While most psychological studies of psychopathy have been based on prison populations, there’s an emerging (and controversial) recognition that many individuals with this cluster of personality characteristics, are not in prison. The traits of these individuals are so distinctive that they may even represent a distinct taxon, a true sub-species of mankind — consisting of otherwise normal human beings who are completely lacking in normal human responses to social interactions with others.

    In his book, “Without Conscience”, Hare writes:

    “To give you some idea of the enormity of the problem that faces us, consider that there are at least 2 million psychopaths in North America; the citizens of New York City have as many as 100,000 psychopaths among them. And these are conservative estimates. Far from being an esoteric, isolated problem that affects only a few people, psychopathy touches virtually every one of us.

    Consider that the prevalence of psychopathy in our society is about the same as that of schizophrenia, a devastating mental disorder that brings heart-wrenching distress to patient and family alike. However, the scope of the personal pain and distress associated with schizophrenia is small compared to the extensive personal, social and economic carnage wrought by psychopaths. They cast a wide net, and nearly everyone is caught in it one way or another.

    The most obvious expressions of psychopathy — but by no means the only ones — involve fragrant criminal violations of society’s rules. Not surprisingly, many psychopaths are criminals, but many others remain out of prison, using their charm and chameleonlike abilities to cut a wide swath through society and leaving a wake of ruined lives behind them.

    Together, these pieces of the puzzle form an image of a self-centered, callous and remorseless person profoundly lacking in empathy and the ability to form warm emotional relationships with others, a person who functions without the restraints of conscience. If you think about it, you will realize that what is missing in this picture are the very qualities that allow human beings to live in social harmony.

    It is not a pretty picture, and some express doubt that such people exist. To dispel this doubt you need only consider the more dramatic examples of psychopathy that have been increasing in our society in recent years. Dozens of books, movies, and television programs, and hundreds of newspaper articles and headlines, tell the story: Psychopaths make up a significant portion of the people the media describe — serial killers, rapists, thieves, con men, wife beaters, white-collar criminals, hype-prone stock promoters and “boiler-room” operators, child abusers, gang members, disbarred lawyers, drug barons, professional gamblers, members of organized crime, doctors who’ve lost their licenses, terrorists, cult leaders, mercenaries, and unscrupulous businesspeople.

    What about politicians? Well, here we have to be careful, because in any individual case it can be very difficult to get the data that’s needed for a complete scientific diagnosis. However, in some cases there is enough information available to make a persuasive case. For example, Chris Barr in his essay Towards a unified theory of Clinton notes the psychopathic aspects of Clinton’s obsessive-compulsive work habits and decision-making processes, his multiple sexual escapades and denials, and his slimy yet inescapable “Sun King” charisma. Unfortunately, Barr’s article is less attentive to Clinton’s murderous attack on Yugoslavia, his coverup of the Vince Foster scandal, and his cynical manipulation of the financial markets to produce a massive and artificial boom-bust cycle, all of which would prove much more devastatingly that Clinton was a cold-blooded killer and pokerfaced liar.

    Regarding our current President, George W. Bush, how much clearer could it be that we are dealing with a psychopathic, insane individual? Elsewhere on this website, we argue that the events of 9/11 were a cynical hoax, intended to provoke America into fighting aggressive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocents, in a quest for Imperial power. If this is agreed, then it really should not be necessary to offer any further evidence of the psychopathy of George W. Bush. But there is much more: in this essay by Bev Conover of Online Journal, Bush isn’t a moron, he’s a cunning sociopath, we learn that in his youth, George W. “enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up.” Reporter Richard Gooding of the tabloid STAR stated, in a well-referenced article, that Bush was the president of Yale’s Delta Epsilon Kappa fraternity — which “barbarically branded its new members on their backsides with a red-hot metal rod as part of a sadistic hazing practice.” Reportedly, “the branding resulted in a second-degree burn that left a half-inch scab in the shape of the Greek letter Delta.”

    While he was not busy slumming at Delta Epsilon Kappa, Bush also joined the highly elite Skull and Bones fraternity at Yale. Some boys just can’t get enough of that “Greek” party lifestyle.

    There’s a lot of controversy over whether psychopathy should be viewed as a disease caused by some sort of organic birth defect or brain damage. Injuries to the frontal lobes can cause a syndrome that’s similar in some respects, but Hare has done a series of studies showing that they’re not identical, and that “true” psychopaths basically have highly intact cognitive skills, unlike victims of brain injuries.

    Whether it’s a “defect” or not, our speculation is that the psychopathic personality is an inherited trait (although this would certainly be controversial among psychologists, many of whom would argue that it can be a result of traumatic childhood experiences or brain injuries.) From our perspective on the literature, it seems reasonable to speculate that it may be only a matter of time before scientists isolate the particular genes that are involved in creating a pre-disposition towards the psychopathic syndrome.

    A paper by Harris, Rice & Quinsey (1994) argues that psychopathy is a “taxon” — that is, a discrete subclass, more or less as distinctive as male vs. female, or cat vs. dog. This is based on a statistical analysis of a population of subjects with their scores for psychopathy. The distribution of scores is strongly bimodal, indicating a lack of “shades of gray” for the psychopathic personality syndrome. This is a strikingly unusual result in personality research, which usually finds a continuous range of variability in personality traits. While a five-factor personality model (introversion/extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness) is often considered sufficient to describe the normal range of personality, the psychopathic personality is very difficult to represent within this space (see Miller et al., 2001), exhibiting highly differentiated sub-traits within the major personality dimensions (where we would normally expect to find correlated sub-traits.) The unusual pattern of sub-traits is, in our view, another basis for believing that psychopathy represents a distinct genetic syndrome.

    A review article “the sociobiology of sociopathy an integrated evolutionary model”(Mealey, 1995) treats “primary sociopathy” more or less as a synonym for Cleckley/Hare psychopathy, and argues that it’s an evolutionary adaptation — that enables a percentage of the population to fill the ecological niche for cheaters and scam artists.

    Along these lines, Kent Bailey(1995) argues that psychopaths should be called “warrior hawks”, and that a healthy contingent of them would be necessary for the survival of any primitive band, faced with the need to survive in violent competition with neighboring tribes. “Warrior Hawks” is perhaps a kinder, less judgmental euphemism for the phenomenon. But on the other hand, it might be unfair to those who might favor warfare in some specific set of external circumstances. “All warrior hawks are psychopaths”? Dramatic, but probably not strictly accurate. (Some warrior hawks might only appear to be psychopaths.)

    A related issue is the extent to which “normal” individuals can adopt the behavior patterns of psychopaths. The ideals of empathy, social cooperation and altruism have been supported by a wide variety of philosophical, ethical and spiritual arguments over the years. More importantly, they may also be backed by millions of years of evolution, as many species have adopted cooperative modes of behavior for survival. A revulsion for excessive wanton cruelty may be literally instinctive for most human beings. Nevertheless, any evolutionary tendency towards kindness, empathy and cooperation can apparently be overcome in certain circumstances — for example, when the government issues a call to war, and tells the people that the enemy must be killed as a matter of the society’s own survival.

    The psychopaths have developed an extraordinarily powerful camouflage mechanism. When it fits their purposes, they are glib, friendly and easy-going, devoid of the petty anxieties that trouble most of us and cast a pall over day-to-day interactions. They are the very embodiment of charisma and chutzpah. In this way, they stay hidden and undetected by their victims until a trap is sprung. Precisely because most human beings have an instinctive internalized sense of fair play and altruism, they are incapable of seeing when another human being does not share these attributes. We simply do not believe that such evil could exist — and when we do undeniably encounter it, we may be tempted to ascribe it to supernatural causes, invoking the Devil himself. It is particularly stunning and incredible to contemplate that a powerful and reputable person, a company president or a Senator, or the Ruler of our Country, could possibly be a true psychopath, a man devoid of conscience.

    Yet we maintain that this is quite frequently the case, from the beginning of history down to the present day.


    Bailey, K.G. The sociopath: cheater or warrior hawk? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 18, 542-543.

    Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. & Quinsey, V. Psychopathy as a Taxon: Evidence that Psychopaths are a Discrete Class. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 387-397.

    Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy an integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 18, 523-599.

    Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., Widiger, T., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253-276.

  49. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2009 at 2:04am #

    Mitchell writes …

    In fact, Deadbeat says he’s pissed with the “left,” and then when I asked him what he’s doing about it, he became patronizing and arrogant. Then I asked again what he’s doing about his problems with the “left.” I get silence.

    No you didn’t get silence YOU GOT A RESPONSE but it isn’t the response you wanted because it reveals your silliness and LACK OF ANALYSIS. In fact my response calls our your own arrogance against the ordinary voter who YOU arrogantly disparage. You fail to analyze how the Left created its own weakness then you ask rhetorically the following …

    But the “right” is not pissing you off at all? You have no problems with the “right?” Hmmmmmmmmm.

    What bullshit!!! That the best you can do to distort my response rather than reflect. It is you Mitchell who needs a mirror. You are engage in the same lame bullshit that turns people off from the left — arrogance and blaming the victim. You must feel real high and mighty over all the proles who vote for the Democrats. You’d rather fault then rather than engage them. This rhetorical approach misses that fact that these are the very people you need to ENGAGE in order to build solidarity.

    So what are YOU doing Mitchell other than being as ASSHOLE about the very people YOU NEED TO ENGAGE to confront the Democrats. Your elitism will not bring them over to your side but only CEMENT them into the arms of the Democrats. Just like the Left did in 1999 and 2003 by their disengagement and BETRAYALS.

    It is the betrayal by the Left; the misdirections; the bullshit that has strengthen the RIGHT. Politics abhors a vacuum and that “sucking sound” unfortunately has been coming from the Left for decades.

    The first step is becoming of AWARE of the Left betrayals and pointing them out. You cannot build solidarity with trust and betrayal doesn’t yield solidarity. These very “rubes” who you arrogantly believe you can disparage are MUCH MUCH smarter than YOU.

  50. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2009 at 2:14am #

    T-C writes …

    I was wrong about Obama. I think Obama is worse than Bush:

    I disagree. Obama is no better than Bush. Both kowtow to Zionism and Capitalism. Obama is a better “statesman” … er … marketeer than Bush. The problem is that the Left has been apologizing for ZIONISM for decades. Therefore T-C the LEFT is very much RESPONSIBLE for Obama. The Left for decades running behind such oracles like Noam Chomsky has not only abandon Marxism but also has giving up the struggle against racism under the guise of fighting “U.S. Imperialism” when in the the Left has been misdirecting which issues are the most important. The Left by obscuring race and class issues has helped to exacerbate these problems.

    No T-C this is not about Obama or Bush it is about the fact that there is NO coherent solidarity and no trust in order to confront these challenges.

    Oh yes there may be a mere little victory here and there but in the end there is no solidarity, no coherence and no ideology only confusion, obfuscation, misdirection, propaganda, and disruption.

  51. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2009 at 2:26am #

    Correcting in my response to Mitchell…

    The first step is becoming of AWARE of the Left betrayals and pointing them out. You cannot build solidarity without trust and betrayal doesn’t yield solidarity. These very “rubes” who you arrogantly believe you can disparage are MUCH MUCH smarter than YOU.

  52. Mitchell said on May 21st, 2009 at 2:30am #

    Tennessee-Chavizta wrote:

    “I was wrong about Obama. I think Obama is worse than Bush”


    Well, that’s what some people had suspected during the campaign, although the thick Obamabots were/are in such Denial that they weren’t/aren’t about to grasp that either. Although a few of them are slowly coming out of their stupor and they are expressing “buyer’s remorse.” Well, tough luck suckers. Some of us tried to tell you. We even presented Obushma’s Bush-accomplice voting record to you and you didn’t want to hear it. You only wanted to hear “hope” and “change we can believe in” pabulum. We could have Nader or McKinney in the White House today and none of this stuff would be going on if most people had had the intelligence and foresight to vote for them, but since neither got any coverage from the corporate media, had little money (compared to Queen Hillary and messiah Obushma) Nader and McKinney weren’t on the ballots in many states (and people didn’t think to simply write in Nader or McKinney on the ballot), and the “Dems” in congress doing their best to suppress “third party” candidates, we have messiah Obushma.

    I saw a bumper sticker of a Dem kool-aid drinker on my bike ride the other day: “McCain = Third Bush Term. Elect all Democrats.”

    Yeah right. Elect all Democrats which most of whom are really Repugs just charading as Dems. The reality: Obushma = Third Bush Term.

    Some people are still referring to the “Dem” controlled congress as “spineless.” When will people understand that they are not “spineless?” The “Dems” in congress (most of them) have had a spine of steel for helping Bush/Cheney accomplish their goals and they are continuing the agenda under messiah Obushma. The sooner that people realize who and what the “Dems” really are (Repugs), the sooner they will stop referring to them as “spineless.” The “Dems” are no longer who and what most people expect them to be or want them to be. Most of them are Repugs. The sooner most people understand this, they will stop this silliness of referring to them as “spineless.”

  53. Deadbeat said on May 21st, 2009 at 2:40am #

    Yeah right. Elect all Democrats which most of whom are really Repugs just charading as Dems. The reality: Obushma = Third Bush Term.

    The reality is that the LEFT offered NO ALTERNATIVES to the Democrats.

  54. Obstreperous said on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:17pm #

    Politics = Hate
    Politicians are motivated by dissatisfaction and the destruction of existing systems. Individuals who intend to be “other centered” and productive pursue their own ventures. Politicians are envious of productive individuals and seek to destroy them. Only Liberty and the Law stand in their way. Allowing any one party the power to change the Law converts this Republic into the rule of the mob and destroys Liberty regardless of your beliefs.