GLW: Greece: SYRIZA's scores clear win amid high abstention, more austerity

Dick Nichols writes that Greece: SYRIZA's scores clear win amid high abstention, more austerity.

There are three basic reasons why. Firstly, the government's six-month-long struggle to win an acceptable deal was seen by many as the best that could have been achieved in the face of the blackmail of the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund (the “Troika”).

The argument that an alternative course was possible without sooner or later ending in “Grexit” seems not to have convinced many, if the vote won by PU and the KKE is an accurate indicator.

Secondly, the SYRIZA-led government at least started to implement some aspects of the “Salonika Program” on which it was elected.

These measures included free electricity for more than 200,000, food vouchers for 350,000, an accommodation program with rent subsidy for 30,000 families and cuts to various health care and hospital payments.

The government also provided tax and social security contribution relief for 750,000 individuals and small businesses, reopened public radio and television, and started to go after the big tax evaders.

According to Leo Panitch, co-editor of the Socialist Register and a close observer of Greece: “The humanitarian stuff they introduced immediately in February, right after they were elected, has not been pulled back, and it's had an enormous impact on the people who are suffering the most.”

Thirdly, the SYRIZA government is still regarded as the first honest administration in contemporary Greek history. Despite its defeat in the battle with “Brussels”, SYRIZA is still viewed as a break with traditionally corrupt Greek politics as represented by ND and PASOK.

Emphasis Mine

The failure of the Capitalist elite to destroy SYRIZA is amazing. They had hoped that by forcing SYRIZA to accept the utterly humiliating third memorandum, SYRIZA would have been so thoroughly discredited that SYRIZA would have been annihlated in any subsequent election.

As Nichols writes, SYRIZA survived by being honest, open, and committed to its programme.

Read more!

Tomgram: Greg Grandin, Henry of Arabia

Tomgram: Greg Grandin, Henry of Arabia.

Few serious scholars now believe that the Soviet Union would have proved any more durable had it not invaded Afghanistan. Nor did the allegiance of Afghanistan — whether it tilted toward Washington, Moscow, or Tehran — make any difference to the outcome of the Cold War, any more than did, say, that of Cuba, Iraq, Angola, or Vietnam.

For all of the celebration of him as a “grand strategist,” as someone who constantly advises presidents to think of the future, to base their actions today on where they want the country to be in five or 10 years’ time, Kissinger was absolutely blind to the fundamental feebleness and inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union. None of it was necessary; none of the lives Kissinger sacrificed in Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Mozambique, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, East Timor, and Bangladesh made one bit of difference in the outcome of the Cold War.

Similarly, each of Kissinger’s Middle East initiatives has been disastrous in the long run. Just think about them from the vantage point of 2015: banking on despots, inflating the Shah, providing massive amounts of aid to security forces that tortured and terrorized democrats, pumping up the U.S. defense industry with recycled petrodollars and so spurring a Middle East arms race financed by high gas prices, emboldening Pakistan’s intelligence service, nurturing Islamic fundamentalism, playing Iran and the Kurds off against Iraq, and then Iraq and Iran off against the Kurds, and committing Washington to defending Israel’s occupation of Arab lands.

Emphasis Mine

Grandin thinks that Kissinger's policies have been disasterous, but for whom? Certainly, for the poor, the world is a much more brutal place. But, for the millionaires and billionaires, the world is a much more wonderful place. Their wealth is unseen in the history of the world.

The USA is still number one. The only thing that can stop the USA is collapse from within. The cancers of racism, millitarism, fascism, sexism, and homophobia are eroding the strengths that the USA may have had if it truly lived up to its ideals.

But those ideals are fantasies in a Capitalist world in which money is everything. There is no place for honour, duty, or love in such a world. Yet, Capitalism is supposed to the final phase of human development.

It is now your choice: what type of world do you want?

Read more!

James Kwak: The Only Two Things That Matter: Why I'm Supporting Larry Lessig

James Kwak writes that The Only Two Things That Matter: Why I’m Supporting Larry Lessig.

One of the most common objections to Larry Lessig’s candidacy is that even if he does become president, he won’t be able to pass his electoral reform bills. But why won’t he? Because Republicans have a solid lock on the House of Representatives — and they have it because of systematic gerrymandering on the state level. Again, the problem is with a political system that allows the majority in the state legislature to use redistricting to entrench itself in power.

If we don’t fix the system — then, well, nothing else really matters. Forget about doing anything about climate change.

At a minimum, Larry Lessig’s campaign will bring attention to the importance of electoral reform and political equality. And if he does win the Democratic nomination? Well, I’d like to see the election that will follow. We know that a large majority of Americans have lost faith in the political system. What will happen when one candidate campaigns solely on a platform of leveling the playing field?

(And, let’s face it, it’s not like we have such great candidates this time. Bernie Sanders is a self-professed socialist, Hillary Clinton is one of the most disliked people in American politics, and … Joe Biden?)

Emphasis Mine

Kwak is a Capitalist apologist who believes that the wrong people are running the system. I am a Communist apologist who believes we have the wrong system.

Both of us believe that the majority of people are alienated from the political system. Kwak does not understand that this is by design in a Capitalist system.

The politcal system must serve and protect the economic interests of the ruling class.

In a Capitalist system, the ruling class consists of the owners of capital. Their primary objective is to preserve and grow their capital. The political process must serve that objective.

Thus, any measures to dimmish their capital through redistribution of wealth, prohibition of profitable industries (such as coal mining, car production, etc.) is to be fiercely contested.

This fierce defence sometimes leads to Fascism wherein the petite bourgeiosie seizes power to defend their little capital against all-comers (banks, multi-nationals, unions, foreigners, etc.).

In a Communist or Socialist system. the ruling class consists of workers whose objective is protect their livelihood. Thus a Communist political system must protect a worker's right to sustenance and well-being.

Having the right people run a wrong system can only mollify the horrors of that system.

Read more!

Paradoxes of control

Chris Dillow discusses three (3) Paradoxes of control.

Which brings me to a second paradox. Although voters want the government to expand its sphere of control, they don't want to expand their own control. There is pitifully little demand at the political level for greater worker control of firms.

I say this is a paradox because of a simple principle: control should be exercised by those who know the most and who have the most skin in the game. Many workers — those with job-specific human capital — have a lot to lose if their firm is badly managed and have the dispersed fragmentary knowledge to improve management. But the same isn't true for politicians: for example, George Osborne doesn't know better than the market or Low Pay Commission what is the right level for the minimum wage, and it's no great loss to him if he gets it wrong. We'd therefore expect to see more political demand for worker control than state control. But we don't. Which brings me to…

Paradox three. Although there's no political demand for worker control, many people vote for it with their own feet. Since current records began in 1984 the numbers of self-employed have risen by 67.5% to over 4.5m — an increase from 11.1% to 14.5% of all those in work.

Emphasis Mine

Politically, worker control is seen as Communism. And Communism is seen as evil in a Capitalist society. Thus, there is no political impetus.

Economically, worker control is seen as petite bourgeoisie which is acceptable in a Capitalist society. It is something that workers aspire to — being their own boss.

Therefore, we have a conflict between political and economic aspects of worker control. Politically, movement towards worker control is progression towards the removal of the Capitalists. Economically, acceptance of worker control is acceptance of the Capitalist mode of production with the owners merging into the Capitalist class.

Workers need to have a political sense of what is happening in order to preserve their identity as workers, and work towards of society without Capitalists.

Read more!

Top Signs Pope Francis is an Honest Conservative

Juan Cole describes the Top Signs Pope Francis is an Honest Conservative.

Pope Francis has many virtues and strength of character, but he is not a progressive on most issues, and even where he leans progressive he is only willing to consider the individual as a charitable agent, eschewing most specific government-led reform.

Some American conservatives are angry at the Pope for not being far enough right on some issues, or for simply being humane, or for not joining in their delusions. Those aren’t conservative objections to the Pope, they are fascist ones. Italy’s Benito Mussolini, for instance, put in tax and other economic policy that gouged the poor above all. The rejection of science in favor of groupthink is also a far rightwing tradition. Mussolini denounced the barrenness of mere science and reason, and fascists rejected anthropological and biological findings about human universals. Being against the science of human-caused climate change (which is now indisputable) isn’t conservatism. It is something much darker.

Emphasis Mine

Conservatism, in Australia and the USA, is splitting into Fascist and non-Fascist camps. The election of Malcolm Turnbull as PM ruptured the fagile conservative alliance in Australian politics.

The strains of the failure of Capitalism to rebound after the GFC of 2008 are forcing conservatives to seek more radical anti-worker policies and measures. The current Royal Commission into Trade Unions is a manifestation of this. However, the failure of the last two (2) federal budgets shows the limits of this offensive. Even rabid billionaires, like Clive Palmer, are opposed to these measures.

When you have Capitalists publicly denouncing the policies of an extreme conservative government, you see the divisions within the ruling class. One faction is frightened of revolution overthrowing the system, while another wants to keep the system running at full-speed ahead.

The crisis in Capitalism is brought about by its very success, as Marx predicted.

Workers cannot stand idly by. We need to take control in order to protect our industrialised society. Otherwise, a world of hurt awaits as society collapses into primitive villages amid mass death all around.

Read more!

Show of Hands

Help fund Ted Rall's legal challenge to his firing from the LA Times through Ted Rall's Assistance Fund.

Rall asks for a Show of Hands:

Bottom line is, this will cost thousands of dollars. Which I don’t have, especially now that I’ve lost the income from the LA Times.

So here’s my request for a show of hands. If you would contribute toward this expense, please say so, along with how much, in the comments section to this post. This will help me determine whether I can continue my fight against the Times’ defamation and its collusion with the LAPD.

Emphasis Mine

Read more!

What can leaders do?

Chris Dillow asks What can leaders do?.

Jeremy Corbyn's victory has prompted Corbynmania from his fans and talk of the collapse of the party from his critics. Both reactions beg an important question: how much difference do leaders make?

There's a famous quote from Warren Buffett:

When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.

What he's getting at is that companies have organizational capital — cultures and ways of doing things — which are very difficult to change. The same might be true of political parties. It is rare for big established ones to collapse, Pasok and the Canadian Liberal party being notable exceptions: the thing about the Strange Death of Liberal England is that it was strange. And it is rare for them to be utterly changed: as Archie Brown points out in The Myth of the Strong Leader, transformative leaders are rare, and require especial circumstances. Those who complain about Blair moving to the right understate his orthodox social democratic achievements in, for example, reducing pensioner poverty and NHS waiting times.

In fact, Buffett is echoing something Marxists have long pointed out, that Labour is fundamentally a social democratic party which has only limited ability to change capitalism: Mr McDonnell's aspiration to transform it might be over-optimistic. One thing Miliband and Poulantzas agreed upon in their famous debate was that there are big constraints upon what parliamentary parties can do. As Miliband wrote:

Social-democrats have tended to be blind to the severity of the struggle which major advances in the transformation of the social order in progressive directions must entail. (Socialism for a Sceptical Age, p163-4)

Emphasis Mine

This is why a political party outside of the mainstream is needed to wage revolutionary struggle. This party has to be grounded in the realities of workers' lives, but develop their revolutionary consciousness.

Read more!

Conspiracy Theories as Comfort Food

I think that conspiracy theories are a way for people to comfort themselves with the competence of our evil overlords.

As I read about conspiracy theories and listen to their believers, I notice that there is an unshakeable belief in the efficiency and competence of the conspirators. People ardently believe that the conspirators are capable of maintaining the conspiracy over decades and changes in personnel.

Any objection to the veracity of the conspiracy is immediately countered by a fantastical suggestion. The believers have no doubt that the conspiracy is real. No argument can dislodge that belief.

One thing that the believers cannot abide is incompetence. These conspiracies have been carried out and maintained flawlessly.

It is this fervent faith in competence that gives hope to the believers. Even though the overlords (The British Royal Family, the Bilderburgers, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Catholic Church, the International Communist Conspiracy, the Lizard People, etc) have evil intent, they are supremely competent in implementing their plans. There is a plan, no matter how evil.

This gives comfort to people in that we are being ruled by a competent, disciplined group of people who have a long term plan.

The reality of a mob of squabbling, rich brats who are fighting over short term gains, is too horrible to comtemplate.

It into this squabble among the ruling class that the workers must insert themselves in order to get rationality over the future of humanity. The Capitalists do not know what is best for us; only we do.

Read more!