SIRATYST (Stuff I Read and Thought You Should Too)
“Either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture, and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetery; OR, the VICTORY OF SOCIALISM, that is, the conscious struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism.” Rosa Luxemburg
Even if one views these predictions as too ... cynical, the initial questions remains, but can be rephrased as an appeal for clarity among climate progressives:
Will the Sunrise Movement, Bill McKibben, and Eric Holthaus reject any policy that provides more net money and resources to ICE and Border patrol?
Will the Sunrise Movement, Bill McKibben and Eric Holthaus reject any policy that provides more net monies to the Pentagon?
I’d love to get an answer to these two questions — sincerely. The militarization of our climate response compels clarity on these issues before it’s too late.
[INCLUDES VIDEO: "Allegations of anti-Semitism, a damning report by the EHRC and ultimately suspension: how the British political establishment, mainstream media and Zionist lobby ran a targeted smear campaign against former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the leftist wing of the party."
“Since 1945, the U.S. has a history of imposing conflicts on other
places,” says renowned Indian historian and journalist Vijay Prashad. “I
don’t like terms like Vietnam War, Iraq War—these are very ideological
ways of understanding history. No, these are U.S.-imposed wars on the
Vietnamese and Iraqi people.”
For today’s show, Allen reflects on the history of post-WWII U.S. imperialism with Vijay Prashad and discusses his new book, Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations.
“One of the more far-reaching is that that
favorite question of American social scientists — whether race or class
‘variables’ better explain “American reality” — is a false one. Class
and race are concepts of a different order; they do not occupy the same
analytical space, and thus cannot constitute explanatory alternatives to
each other. At its core, class refers to a material circumstance: the
inequality of human beings from the standpoint of social power. Even the
rather diffuse definitions of applied social science — occupation,
income, status — reflect this circumstance, though dimly. The more
rigorous Marxian definition involving social relations of production
reflects it directly. Of course, the objective core of class is always
mediated by ideology, which is the refraction of objective reality in
human consciousness. No historical account of class is complete or
satisfying that omits the ideological mediations…. Race, on the other
hand, is a purely ideological notion. Once ideology is stripped away,
nothing remains except an abstraction which, while meaningful to a
statistician, could scarcely have inspired all the mischief that race
has caused during its malevolent historical career. The material
circumstance upon which the concept purports to rest — the biological
inequality of human beings — is spurious: there is only one human
species, and the most dramatic differences of appearance can be wiped
out in one act of miscegenation. The very diversity and arbitrariness of
the physical rules governing racial classification prove that the
physical emblems which symbolize race are not the foundation upon which
race arises as a category of social thought.”
Former US President Barack Obama has sparked an anti-war
backlash after saying in his new memoir he “took no joy” in ordering
deadly drone strikes, reasoning that his administration “couldn't afford
to look soft on terrorism.”
The ex-president’s new
book ‘A Promised Land’ sheds some light on the Obama administration’s
controversial expansion of the US drone program, which was launched
under his predecessor George W. Bush.
One of Obama’s original
campaign promises was for US withdrawal from middle-eastern conflicts.
However, that promise was not fulfilled during his eight years in
office, and the Democrat is now often accused of having further
escalated violence in the region through his policies in Libya, Syria,
and elsewhere.
In excerpts from the memoir published by Business Insider, Obama claims that his first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was “obsessed” with the administration’s infamous terrorist “kill list.” Rahm had “spent enough time in Washington to know that his new, liberal president couldn't afford to look soft on terrorism,” Obama writes.
Despite his willingness to ramp up the drone program, Obama confessed he “took no joy in any of this” and that it did not make him feel “powerful.” However, he adds that the work was “necessary” and that it was his responsibility “to make sure our operations were as effective as possible.”
However,
the liberal political icon’s anti-war critics don’t typically argue
that the drone program was ineffective, rather that it was more often
than not imprecise, killing many civilians in the process. The ‘Drone
Papers’ leak in 2015 revealed that, at least during one period, 90
percent of US drone strike victims were“not the intended targets.”
Obama infamously joked about the supposedly joyless drone strikes
during a well-remembered White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2010.
The then-president jokingly threatened boyband the Jonas Brothers with
assassination should they make a move on one of his daughters. “Boys, don't get any ideas,” he said, “I have two words for you: predator drones.”
It did not take long for Obama’s critics to express their outrage over the new book excerpt. He was accused of being “Machiavellian” for signing off on drone strikes “for optics.” Others were appalled by the idea that he would kill “to look tough.”
“I'm sure [his comments] makes the families of innocent civilian casualties feel better,” another person wrote.
One person quipped that he had only “pretended to be into drone assassinations” so he would “have something to talk about with the generals.”
"Fascism seems to have risen up zombie-like from the past, but
philosopher and political theorist Gabriel Rockhill argues that it's
been with us all along.
Today on the show, Allen traces a
counter-history of fascism—including its relationships to liberalism,
capitalism, and colonialism and how we understand/misunderstand its role
in the U.S.—with Gabriel Rockhill.
Gabriel Rockhill is a
professor of philosophy at Villanova University and the founding
director of the Critical Theory Workshop (Atelier de Théorie Critique).
He is the author or editor of nine books, including Radical History and
the Politics of Art (Columbia University Press, 2014), Interventions in
Contemporary Thought: History, Politics, Aesthetics (Edinburgh
University Press, 2016), Counter-History of the Present: Untimely
Interrogations into Globalization, Technology, Democracy (Duke
University Press, 2017). He recently published a series of articles
about fascism in Counterpunch and Black Agenda Report."
Excerpt (as an independent Marxist, I found this essay very inspiring):
Dixi et salvavi animam meam. With these Latin words Karl Marx concludes his Critique of the Gotha Program (1875) – “I have spoken and saved my soul.” One is unaccustomed to religious expression from the great communist, unless it be sarcastic, yet here he uses it to conclude a devastating analysis of the program of German workers party. What is Marx’s soul? How did he save it? And what about ours?
"If Biden has, in fact, received so
many more votes, why is the CNN-led media flock in such a hurry to
declare him the winner? Is it the media’s job to decide the winner in a
democracy? How will Trump and his sympathisers, about half of the people, react to what they must see as a provocation?
Why is Biden also offering no hope for the US itself and the world? How to explain this utterly strange happening and where will the US be in January 2021?
Robert Fisk was best known for his coverage of the Middle East, where he began reporting from in the 1970s
Veteran foreign correspondent Robert Fisk has died of a suspected stroke at the age of 74.
He
had been admitted to St Vincent's Hospital in Dublin after falling ill
at his home on Friday, and died shortly afterwards, the Irish Times
reported.
Fisk won numerous awards for his reporting on the Middle East, starting from the 1970s.
But he also drew controversy for his sharp criticism of the US and Israel, and of Western foreign policy.
Covering wars in the Balkans, Middle East and North Africa for UK newspapers over five decades, Fisk was described by the New York Times, in 2005, as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain".
Born in Maidstone, Kent in 1946, he later took Irish citizenship and had a home in Dalkey outside the capital Dublin.
Irish President Michael D Higgins has expressed his "great sadness" about Fisk's death on Sunday.
"With his passing the world of journalism and informed commentary on the Middle East has lost one of its finest commentators," he said in a statement.
After
starting his career at the Sunday Express, Fisk moved to Belfast in
1972 to cover the Troubles as Northern Ireland correspondent for the
Times. He became the paper's Middle East correspondent in 1976.
Based
in Beirut, he reported on the civil war in Lebanon, as well as the
Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the
Iran-Iraq War.
He
resigned from the Times in 1989 after a dispute with the owner Rupert
Murdoch and moved to the Independent, where he worked for the remainder
of his career.
In
the 1990s he interviewed Osama Bin Laden three times for the paper. He
described him as a "shy man" and looking "every inch the mountain
warrior of mujahedin legend" in their first interview in 1993.
'Gutsy and admired'
Robert
Fisk was brave and controversial. He was a brilliant writer, who did
his best work in wars, transporting readers to his side in some burning
village. He relished making enemies, especially if they defended US or
Israeli activities in the Middle East.
Fisk
could be obsessive. He collected bits of shrapnel, often American made
and fired by Israel, so he could use serial numbers to trace their
origins.
When
I visited Beirut from Jerusalem in the 1990s he served me gin and
tonics on his balcony overlooking the Mediterranean in a Yasser Arafat
souvenir glass. Robert was old school. He poked fun at the flak jacket I
brought to Lebanon from the former Yugoslavia, sniffing it to check for
slivovitza plum brandy.
Journalism
can be a dog-eat-dog trade. Fisk's colleagues were not always kind
about his work. I was an admirer, eating up his vivid reportage from
Beirut when I was at school, and was awestruck when first I met him.
I'll miss Robert, his guts and his appetite for the fight, even though
usually he followed a warm hello with some crack about the evils of
television news or the BBC.
After
the 11 September attacks plotted by Bin Laden, Fisk, an Arabic speaker,
spent the next two decades covering conflicts throughout the Middle
East, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
He
was highly regarded for his knowledge of, and deep experience in, the
region, and often dismissed journalists who sat behind desks instead of
venturing out into the field.
But
he also drew criticism for his attacks on Western policy in the Middle
East and was accused of being lenient towards the Syrian government in
his reporting of the country's long and brutal civil war.
Articles
by Fisk about the US and Israel were often considered highly
controversial. He said the Trump administration's acceptance in 2019 of
Israel's annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights showed Israel had effectively annexed the US, and repeatedly accused Israel of committing war crimes against the Palestinians.
In 2011 Fisk was forced to apologise
after the Independent was successfully sued by the then-Saudi interior
minister over a report that alleged the minister had ordered police to
shoot and kill unarmed protesters, based on a document which turned out
to be fake.
Fisk married US journalist Lara Marlowe in 1994 but the pair divorced in 2006. He had no children.
The good news is that this can be done while at the same time
accomplishing our goals of ending poverty and improving human
well-being. Indeed, this is the core principle of degrowth. Recent
research has found that we can ensure good lives for all – for a global
population of 10 billion people by 2050 – with 60 per cent less energy than we presently use. Another study found that high-income nations could cut their material use by up to 80 per cent, while still providing for everyone’s needs at a high standard.
How do we get there? Scale down ecologically destructive and socially
less necessary production (SUVs, McMansions, industrial beef, food
waste, planned obsolescence, advertising, etc); shorten the working week
and introduce a public job guarantee, with a living wage, to maintain
full employment and mobilize labour for the transition; decommodify
public goods, disaccumulate capital, and distribute income more fairly.
All of these policies have significant public support. I describe
feasible pathways toward this end in Chapter 5 of Less is More (or see here for
a post-Keynesian approach). Doing this would enable us to accomplish a
rapid transition to renewables, in a matter of years, not decades.
In other words, we cannot reverse ecological breakdown while at the same time pursuing growth; but we can reverse
ecological breakdown while at the same time ensuring flourishing lives
for all. That’s the story we need to be telling. That is where hope
lies.
This week, people are planning protests across the nation beginning
the day after the election. Some, like Democratic Party-aligned groups
and unions, will only demonstrate if President Trump loses and refuses
to leave office. Trump will fail if he tries because the ruling class
has clearly shifted its support to Biden. Professor Adrienne Pine explains this in her analysis of the opposition to Trump. Others such as issues-based groups, coalitions and community groups are planning to take the streets no matter what the outcome of the election is.
This is good news because a mass mobilization of left and progressive
groups is needed to change the rightward direction in which the United
States is headed. Michael J. Smith’s explanation
of the “ratchet effect” describes the roles both Republicans and
Democrats have played in moving our politics in that direction since
1968. In a nutshell, each time the Republicans moved to the right, the
Democrats followed with the excuse that it’s necessary to win votes.
This locks in the rightward motion, opening space for Republicans to
move to the rightward again.
But Smith also writes, “the Democratic Party has assumed the
role of ensuring that the countervailing pressure from the Left doesn’t
happen. The party contains and neutralizes the Left, or what there is of
it. Left voters are supposed to support the Democrat, come what may.”
This is one of the reasons why the expression “the Democratic Party is
the graveyard of social movements” exists. How do we counteract that?
In a recent episode of Eleanor Goldfield’s series, Deception 2020, she and Eugene Puryear discuss
why the trope of “this is the most important election ever” is recycled
in every presidential election. It serves as a great distractor that
puts the focus on personalities rather than the broader social context
of where we are. It pits Republican and Democratic voters against each
other while the ruling class plays both sides, putting the most money on
the one that has the best chance of winning. The people hold their
noses and vote for whomever they consider to be the lesser evil while
the wealthy class knows their interests will be served no matter who
wins.
The year 2020 has brought into clear focus that we are living in a
failed state and can’t afford to be drawn into this distraction. The
number of new COVID-19 cases surpassed 100,000 in one day. The recession
is likely to deepen into a prolonged depression due to Congress’
failure to provide supports for families and their businesses and farms.
The climate crisis is raging. And structural racist violence goes on in
all of its forms while the Pentagon continues its insatiable
consumption of the federal budget leaving austerity for the rest of us
Instead of being caught up in this “political ping pong”, as Kevin
Zeese would call it, we need to focus on these grave issues before us. I
learned some lessons to avoid this ping pong during my involvement with
the health reform process in 2009-10 when we were advocating for
national improved Medicare for all while the Democrats were pushing
their version of a healthcare bill that protected the profits of the
health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and big businesses.
The lesson is best summarized using the acronym “ICU.” Think of it as
what is needed, especially in a time of crisis. The “I” stands for
independent. It is important not to tie our issue to the agenda of a
political party but to maintain independence from them while we press
for what we need, lest our struggle be co-opted. The “C” stands for
clarity, meaning we must be clear about what we are demanding. Members
of the corporate duopoly will always try to water our demands down with
proposals that may sound positive but are less than what we need. Look
at the Democrat’s Green New Deal as a current example that protects the
dirty energy industries and is too little, too late. And the “U” stands
for uncompromising. The ruling class will always tell us we are asking
for too much but we can’t compromise on fundamentals such as health
care, housing, education, financial security and an end to violence
against us. These are universal basic needs that nobody should be
denied.
With this 2020 vision, we can mobilize a broad movement that puts
forth a bold agenda of what we need and fights for it, no matter who is
elected. This is how we reverse the ratchet effect. We can look to Chile
as a recent example of a people succeeding in their struggle to reverse
the ravages of neoliberalism. Patricio Zamorano describes
how a similar situation to what we face, great inequality and
injustice, drove people to mobilize despite severe repression and win
the right to remake their Constitution.
Jeff Bachner/New York Daily News.
Violence on the rise
One reality we must prepare for is the continued rise in right wing
violence no matter who wins the election. If Trump wins and people
continue to struggle to end the injustices we face, right wing
extremists will be emboldened by a president who encourages them. If
Biden wins, they will be angered at what they view as a threat to the
gains they have made and may lash out.
In light of this, communities need to organize to be vigilant to what
is happening around them and to be proactive in creating structures
that provide safety and mutual aid, particularly for those who are most
vulnerable.
We live in an era of great polarization.
This is expected because it goes hand in hand with great inequality and
it often precedes moments of social transformation. Think of it as
heightening the contradictions and forcing a choice. Who are we and how
do we want our society to be?
George Lakey puts the polarization
into historical context. Almost one hundred years ago, when extreme
polarization existed in Europe, some countries moved to fascist
dictatorships while others moved to socialized democracies. The
difference was how the people organized and mobilized. Lakey suggests a
road map.
If people who consider themselves left or progressive fail to
organize and mobilize, we may go the way of a fascist dictatorship no
matter who wins this presidential election. If Trump wins, he may do
what others have done by trying to further consolidate his power into an
authoritarian state. If Biden wins, and he continues the neoliberal and
repressive policies that have marked his 47 years in elected office,
then the conditions will be created in 2024 or beyond for another
Democratic Party loss and an opening for a right wing leader who is more
effective than Trump at consolidating power.
Either way we must mobilize and protect our rights. While most of our
organizing will take place outside the electoral system because that is
where we have power, it will also be necessary to focus on preserving
whatever democratic rights exist and strengthening them.
Common Cause NY.
Protecting and improving the election process
As flawed as the electoral process in the United States is, it is the
system we currently have. Fair election and third party activists have
been working to change it for decades. Now, as it is on so many issues,
the major problems with that system – voter suppression, lack of
transparency and the process for choosing a president – are more
evident.
While the United States has never been a democracy, in fact a look at
the founding of the country shows the ruling class who wrote the
Constitution were afraid of it, the people believe in democracy.
Focusing on democratic rights in this election will bring people
together and build momentum to change the system.
Focusing on what President Trump says is a distraction. Recall that Trump was also saying that
he would not commit to accepting the outcome in the lead up to the 2016
election. The Democrats and the groups aligned with them are amplifying
fears to drive voter turn out, and it seems to be working. The latest Gallup Poll finds
almost 70% of registered voters are enthusiastic about the election,
which is an increase from the 50% who were enthusiastic in 2016 and
similar to 2008 levels. This is highest among registered Democrats.
Five Thirty Eight predicts
that due to the electoral process in a few states, for example
Pennsylvania is not allowed to start counting mail-in ballots until
Tuesday, and the way the states are looking right now, neither of the
major party candidates could reach the required 270 electoral votes on
election night. It could take a few days.
This is not cause for panic. Instead, let’s take a collective deep
breath and watch for problems with the process in our states.
Documenting these can be used to challenge and improve the process for
the next round. Already, people have been challenging the election process with more than 300 lawsuits filed in 44 states.
There is a small chance that President Trump will be re-elected. If
that happens, it will be critical to respect that result. To reject an
outcome of the election process we have opens the door to a breakdown of
that system and a vacuum that could threaten the hope of building more
democratic structures.
Remember, no matter what happens on November 3, our struggle goes on.
It is a long term struggle against deeply entrenched structures of
racism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism that will have successes
and failures. Our best chance for a better future is to keep our eye on
the world we hope to create and keep working toward that goal.
PressTV’s
motto is to give “voice to the voiceless” and so we have given priority
to non-mainstream political groups during our coverage of the US
presidential election. We have spoken with socialists, Greens,
Libertarians and more, but the Democratic Socialists of America -
perhaps best exemplified by failed presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
- has openly blacklisted Iranian media.
After repeated requests, the Chicago chapter of DSA wrote to Press TV
that, “The officers of our organization have decided that it would not
serve our interests to do an interview.”
This caused PressTV management to contact DSA’s headquarters in New
York City to confirm if this allegedly-leftist political group was
really enforcing a blacklist on the entire media of an
internationally-recognized nation. As expected, no response was given,
so - crucially - no denial either.
It is a disheartening policy for a group which openly promises that -
if elected in greater numbers - their members will push the Democratic
Party and thus the entire nation to an unprecedentedly progressive left.
Take, for example, their most prominent member, Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She said as recently as September, "I think,
overall, we can likely push Vice-President Biden in a more progressive
direction across policy issues. I think foreign policy is an enormous
area where we can improve; immigration is another one.”
That begs obvious questions: How can DSA officials from the national
down to the local level make US foreign policy more progressive if they
refuse to talk to foreigners and their representatives? Should DSA
members get elected or be appointed to public office, their members are
willfully ignorant of foreign viewpoints.
Just as worrying regarding the quality of the public service they
will provide, DSA cadres are being trained to use a unilateral approach
when dealing with non-Americans. Lastly, how authentic and patriotic is
DSA if they are not reflecting the values which the average American
seems to champion, such as the freedom of the press?
While Americans are days away from voting in their election, Iran’s next presidential election is in June.
It appears critical for Iranian voters to consider that if DSA - the
allegedly-leftist wing of the Democratic Party - refuses to engage in
normal cooperation with friendly Iranian media, then what is the
likelihood that such people are going to truly push Washington’s Iran
policy in a more open and progressive direction?
So even if Democrats win next week, DSA’s blacklist raises the
question: How could a Joe Biden presidency drastically alleviate the
US-led sanction war on Iran?
The Democratic Socialists of America should immediately reform their
wrongly-guided decision to blacklist Iranian media. Refusal to do so
would be an extremely belligerent policy which only helps to lay the
groundwork for ignorance, murderous sanctions, war and
anti-internationalism, and by a group which claims to be "Democratic"
and “Socialist.”
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
