Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Democrats’ New Fake Populism

By Shamus Cooke | Worker’s Action | May 30, 2014

It would have been hilarious were it not so nauseating. One could only watch the recent “New Populism” conference with pity-induced discomfort, as stale Democratic politicians did their awkward best to adjust themselves to the fad of “populism.”

A boring litany of Democratic politicians — or those closely associated — gave bland speeches that aroused little enthusiasm among a very friendly audience of Washington D.C. politicos. It felt like an amateur recital in front of family and friends, in the hopes that practicing populism with an audience would better prepare them for the real thing.

The organizers of the conference, The Campaign For America’s Future, ensured that real populism would be absent from the program. The group is a Democratic Party ally that essentially functions as a party think tank.

The two co-founders of Campaign for America’s Future are Robert Borosage — who works closely with the progressive caucus of the Democratic Party — and Robert Hickey, who works with Health Care for America Now, an organization that prioritized campaigning for Obamacare. On the Board of Directors is the notorious liberal Van Jones, no doubt carefully chosen for his non-threatening elitist politics.

The “new populism” seems to mistakenly believe that if Democrats merely advocate for a couple of “popular” ideas — as opposed to their usual unpopular policies that they actually implement — that they can suddenly transform themselves into “populists.”

The unofficial and uninspiring leader of this grouping, Senator Elizabeth Warren, summarized the “radical” populist platform of these reborn Democrat revolutionaries, doing her drab best to inject life into a zombie political party:

“We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

“We believe no one should work full-time and live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage — and we’re willing to fight for it.”

“We believe people should retire with dignity, and that means strengthening Social Security — and we’re willing to fight for it.”

“We believe that a kid should have a chance to go to college without getting crushed by debt — and we’re willing to fight for it.”

It’s true that 90 percent of Americans would agree with Warren, but the devil is in her lack of details. Warren’s popular platform falls incredibly flat because there are no concrete demands to inspire people, just generalizations. This important omission didn’t happen by mistake.

The Democrats simply do not want a new populist movement; rather, their opportunistic goal is to win elections by simply being more popular than the Republicans. Any of Warren’s above ideas — if they ever enter the halls of Congress as a bill — would be sufficiently watered down long before any elated response could be reached from the broader population.

How might Warren transform her ideas if she actually wanted a populist response? Some examples might be:

1) – Jail the bankers who crashed the economy. Tax Wall Street earnings at 90% and nationalize any bank that is “too big to fail” in order to bring them under control.

2) – Raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour.

3) – Expand Social Security by lowering the retirement age to 60, to be paid for by expanding payroll taxes to higher earners — who currently pay no Medicare and Social Security taxes on income over $110,000.

4) – Free university education — to be paid for by taxing the rich and corporations. Eliminate crushing student debt.

Such demands would be much more likely to inspire people than what the “populist” Democrats are offering, and inspiration is the missing populist ingredient that the Democrats are organically incapable of provoking.

What’s preventing the Democrats from becoming inspirational? They know all too well that by venturing too far to the left they could easily instigate a real mass movement. And such a movement is not easily controlled and would inevitably demand much more than the corporate-minded Democrats are willing to concede, which, at this point, is virtually nothing aside from musty rhetoric.

Unlike the Republican’s populist turn to the right that created the now-defunct Tea Party, a true left turn would mean have the potential to rejuvenate the millions’ strong labor movement, while engaging tens of millions more into active political life, driving people to participate in mass marches, rallies, labor strikes and other forms of mass action.

This was what happened during the “old populism” in U.S. history, which the Democrats are taking their trendy namesake from. The populist movement of the late 1800’s was a genuine mass movement of workers and farmers, which briefly aligned in an independent political party, the People’s Party, also known as the populists.

The populist movement that included strike waves and local rural rebellions had nothing to do with the lifeless politics of the Democratic Party, and threatened the very foundation of America corporate power. The Democrats are keenly aware of this type of real populist “threat,” and they are willing to do anything to stop it.

For example, the Occupy movement proved that the Democrats fear real left populism much more than they fear far-right populism. We now know that the Obama administration worked with numerous Democratic Party mayors and governors across the nation to undermine and destroy the Occupy movement through mass arrests, police violence and surveillance. And because Occupy succeeded in changing the national conversation about income inequality, the Democrats were forced to engage with the rhetoric of the movement they dismembered, and now use the plagiarized language as proof of their “populism.”

Aside from Elizabeth Warren, the other rock star of the “new populism” conference was the nominally-independent “socialist” Bernie Sanders, who essentially functions in Congress as a Democrat. Sanders’ politics fits in perfectly with the rest of the progressive caucus Democrats, which is why he was invited to the conference. Sanders can perhaps outdo Warren when it comes to anti-corporate-speak; but like Warren he keeps his solutions vague and his movement building aspirations negligible.

If by chance Sanders chooses to run for president as an Independent — as many radicals are hoping — his fake populist politics and empty rhetoric are unlikely to drastically change, limiting any chance that a “movement” may emerge.

It’s doubtful that many people have been fooled by the “left turn” of the Democratic Party. But on a deeper level the politics of “lesser evilism” still haunts labor and community groups, and keeping these groups within the orbit of the Democratic Party is the ultimate purpose of this new, more radical speechifying. Until these groups organize themselves independently and create their own working class political party, the above politics of “populist” farce is guaranteed to continue.

 

May 31, 2014 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

EU vote: Freight train of opposition

By Brett Redmayne-Titley | Press TV | May 31, 2014

While EU leaders and their Washington sympathizers marginalize, rationalize, and excuse away Sunday’s historic European Union parliamentary election results, they deliberately avoid the greater point of concern. The people are coming.

French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, called the sudden increase in new opposition Members of the European Parliament ( MEP) an, “earthquake.” He, too, missed the correct metaphore. This staggering election result is a freight train. More passengers are climbing aboard daily. Destination: Capital City.

On Sunday, May 25, 2014, recently formed national opposition parties scared the status quo to the marrow. In Greece, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland pro-nationalist parties gave, for the first time, a viable, potentially foundation changing political presence to their disenfranchised countrymen. Many of these opposition parties have sharply divergent philosophies. In values these parties are not a coherent group. Some have established track records in their governments and some are fringe parties, even devoutly neo-fascist.

Regardless of their philosophy these parties share a similar agenda. As Pepe Escobar wrote in a piece for Russia Today:

“What matters to the average citizen is… How to deal with immigration; how to fight the eradication of the welfare state; the implications of the free trade agreement with the US (TTIP); the value of the euro – and what the ECB Mafia is actually doing to fight unemployment.”

Fed up with being ignored by their governments and with the daily unhealthy reminders of the “benefits” of EU austerity measures, the public well knows the decisions made in Brussels benefit only the top 1%. Established EU voting power in the parliament will now face an opposition that is making its presence shown as they already have in their homelands.

Shocking the EU old-guard, the damage to established politics in Brussels summed up as; UK Independence party- UKIP (27.5%/ 19 seats); Front National/ France (25%/ 24 seats); Syriza Party/Greece (26.5%/ 8 seats); Alternative fur Deutschland/ Germany (7%/6 seats); . Danish People’s Party/ Denmark (26.7%/seats ).

The big surprises were, the Sweden Democrats (9.7%/ 1 seat); the Congress of the New Right/Poland (7.1%/4 seats); the Golden Dawn Party/ Greece (9.4%/ 5 seats) and Spain’s Podemos that formed just this past March 2014(8%/ 5 seats).

Far worse for EU national leaders, UKIP, Danish People’s Party, Front National, and the specifically anti-austerity Syriza Party all came in first place in their nations’ EU ballot boxes.

David Cameron, showing his keen grasp of the obvious, looked pale while muttering his blasé synopsis of Sunday’s disaster:

“People are deeply disillusioned with the European Union. The EU needs to change; it can’t be business as usual.”

Indeed.

Writing in, Open Europe, Mats Perrson had a more accurate take on Sunday’s election.

“The temptations in Brussels will be to view this as the peak of anti-EU sentiment. This would be a huge gamble. These elections are a clear warning: offer voters a polarized choice between more Europe and no Europe and sooner or later they will choose the latter.”

The “latter” is likely to be shown in several upcoming national elections. The existing EU leaders have never shown a foundation in populist thought, therefore commanding austerity for all. Except themselves. The chance that the EU will voluntarily shift from pure US backed capitalist thought and return to a preferred socialist model is zero. The will of the people is bad for “business as usual.”

Cameron had good reason to look pale. Despite his Conservative Party losing six seats and the lapdog, supposedly opposition Labor Party losing ten of their eleven seats, the new populist freight train is now bearing down on him from two more directions — Scotland and UKIP.

The Scottish independence referendum is set for September 18, 2014, and thanks to their party’s affable, answer-for-everything leader, Alex Salmond, chances of victory are getting closer to 50-50 everyday. This scares Westminster to the core of their elitist souls. Sunday’s vote will only embolden UK fence-sitters who have, thanks to the persistent Salmond, a lot of good reasons to rid themselves of the sinking UK ship.

Cameron’s nemesis is Nigel Farage and his brash take-no-prisoners UKIP party. The devastation of EU austerity policies is obvious in every corner of the UK except the power center of London. With a completely ethnocentric, UK first agenda UKIP has many reasons to be popular. Before the EU election UKIP was already surging in preparation for the upcoming national election.

“The most extraordinary political event in the past 100 years,” crowed Farage with that mocking grin that has so endeared him to his parliamentary adversaries. Well, maybe not. But UKIP was the first political party other than the Tories and Labor to win a national election in over one hundred years. With the UK national election of May 17, 2015 next in UKIP’s headlights, social conditions worsening, and privatization buying up the country, including the beloved Royal Mail, Sunday may be a timely precursor to a pending historic moment. For Mr. Salmond, the surging opposition support across the EU is very good press indeed.

Speaking in France, Francois Hollande looked to be in shock. Despite his approval ratings plummeting, austerity measures increasing, and growing unemployment, all thanks to a shrinking GDP, Hollande has strangely developed a penchant for multiple expensive wars in central Africa. Like his Washington war partners, his French public can be damned, but he always has more money for war.

All this from a socialist?

Hence, Marine Le Pen’s Front National scored a clear first place victory with almost 25% of the French vote. The Front National has a long history in France but has only come to prominence, by necessity, in recent years. Small wonder that Front National had rendered Hollande virtually speechless. The light bulb had suddenly gone on. He’s done.

Across Europe every one of these suddenly relevant political parties are the new subject of passionate conversation. The uninformed are asking, the informed are growing, and the accelerating freight train of opposition is stopping to add new cars for more passengers, more and more often. With the EU governments currently in denial, the repeatedly discredited press unable to spin this disaster into victory, and Ukraine reminding everyone daily of the horrors of EU democracy, conditions for these opposition leaders are very favorable.

Of course, across the pond Washington was also in denial. Writing for the “respected” Brookings Institute, Douglas J. Elliott, as a true American, was of course blind to the value of growing opposition via democracy. Offering of a synopsis he summed up, “Protest parties critical to the status quo did very well,… but not well enough to upset the fundamental balance of power in Brussels.” He added, “The French and UK governments were weakened a bit. Most other governments avoided serious new problems.”

Really? Likely Farage, Le Pen, and Salmond would enjoy a hearty laugh responding to Mr. Elliott. They will not have to. Their parties will in upcoming national elections.

Sweden is first up. With the Feminist Initiative and Sweden Democrats having taken their first ever European Parliament seats by offering very pro-Austria, nationalist opposition agendas, the National election of Sept, 14, 2014, will be a litmus test for the following May.

May 7, 2015, could see a truly historic change in UK politics. In the national election it will be UKIP versus those other two parties. Regardless of the outcome UKIP will pick up more Members of Parliament and at the very least be a very powerful force in the many coalitions the UK government functions as. Mr. Farage already has reason to grin from ear-to-ear. A year from now?

Greece has the potential to rock the world to the core on June 16, 2016. With Syriza serving notice on Sunday and even the vile agendas of Golden Dawn getting votes enough to be members of the European Parliament, two years hence they may take over power. Greece is the laboratory setting for exposing every possible horrifying social condition of EU austerity which continues to get worse. Both parties blame the EU and want to have Greece opt-out. In the summer of ’16 this is now a very distinct possibility. If Greece was to leave the EU it would set a disastrous precedent since already UKIP is calling for a national referendum on doing just that. If London leaves the EU the Euro is done.

The EU citizens are not so easily put down. Unlike the completely bought-and-paid-for US government and court system voter manipulation via money has not yet had the same controlling effect on voters and elections. As with America, it is the established political parties that are the bar to actual democracy. National opposition parties began to cure this on Sunday.

Democracy in the EU still has a chance. Sunday’s vote proves this. In America there is no viable third party for socially impoverished Americans to attach themselves to in order to get some, any, representation. The Golden Dawn party now sitting at the EU table, despite its similarities to the American tea party, would never be allowed a seat in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Elliott, like the rest of the established elite, miss the greater point of the EU vote. While the freight train of opposition loads more passengers in preparation for huffing and puffing into Brussels, it will pick up even more passengers before making one more stop. Washington DC.

Previously across a disadvantaged developing world democracy is pro-American, or it is terrorist and therefore brutalized.

The “Empire”, i.e., America and its Zionist puppet masters must have EU support to survive. Too far afield to effectively conquer the world by itself, so far EU leaders have been the support troops for the American conquest of Ukraine. Come the next national elections throwing ever more precious national coffers at America’s feet will be a subject of great campaign controversy. This will slow the “empire” at the very least.

An impoverished Europe knows that there is no money left for war and that the wars are not in their countries’ true national interests. As these many opposition parties continue to gain national and EU power their aversions for war will be part of their very vocal opposition.

Syriza leader, Alexis Tsipras, regarding Ukraine and Russia said, “Our message is: No New Cold War in Europe!”

Nigel Farage caused an uproar when he said that the EU had,”blood on its hands over its imperialist expansionist policies towards Ukraine.”

These kinds of statements will become a European mantra. This is very bad for the success of the empire. America is stone broke. Except for multiple financial crimes against humanity it would have no money for war. These financial war crimes are rampant across the EU and within the EU parliament. Replenishing the coffers and troop build-ups of NATO will not likely continue. This will leave America only its own people to pillage for a few shekels more for war.

Let’s now strip the veneer of political correctness regarding the EU vote and translate it for all to hear far and wide. The people are “mad as hell.” They are not going to take it anymore. No more austerity. No more war!

Mr. Cameron. Mr. Holland. Mr. Kerry. You had better be listening. That sound you ignore coming from Brussels…. Its a train! …

Brett Redmayne-Titley spent his formative years with his family in Queensland, Australia, Ghana, West Africa, and the Bahamas. Visiting over fifty counties over four decades he has seen the world slowly destroyed by greed, capitalism and empire.

May 31, 2014 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Did the Jews Lose Europe?

By Gilad Atzmon | May 30, 2014

Following the surge of right wing parties in Europe’s Parliamentary election, Forward, the once-progressive Jewish outlet asks, “Have the Jews Lost Europe?” The tone of this question implies that until just a few days ago, at least some Jews believed that Europe was, in part, a ‘Jewish property.’ Such views were not baseless; Jewish Lobbies have dominated British and French policies by means of aggressive  lobbying (CFI, LFI, CRIF etc’).

Following the European poll, Dave Rich, deputy director of the ultra Right Wing Jewish para-military Community Security Trust, is concerned. He detects a growing resentment of Jewish politics in Europe. His article in the Forward openly examines whether Jews have lost their grip on the European continent.  

Rich begins by quoting Israeli veteran concentration camp guard Jeffrey Goldberg. “At what point,” asks Goldberg, “do the Jews of America and the Jews of Israel tell the Jews of Europe that it might be time to get out?”Apparently, says Rich, “Goldberg is not the only one to have had this thought. In fact, according to a 2013 opinion poll … more than a quarter of Jews in the E.U. have considered emigrating at some point in the past five years, because in their own countries they do not feel safe as Jews.”

Rich is also upset by growing European opposition toward Jewish blood rituals such as shchita slaughter and Jewish orthodox circumcision, a horrid unhygienic religious ceremony in which a Rabbi sucks the blood from an infant’s wounded penis (Metzitzah B’Peh). Rich is worried that ‘neo Nazis’ within the European parliaments may scrutinize Jewish religious practices and culture.

Rich may be correct, this kind of barbaric tribal blood ritual should have been banned ages ago. For some reason, our ‘Left’ and ‘Humanists’ failed to examine these morbid practices while at the same time their enthusiasm for human rights led them to ban the veil.

Rich himself operates within a hard core right wing Jewish supremacist organisation that is committed to the security of one race that happens to be his own. One would expect racially driven Rich to bond with or at least respect European racists whom he dismisses as ‘neo Nazis.’ After all, Rich and his organisation advocate their own ethno centrism that is, at least categorically, no different than that of some of Europe’s most radical far right groups.

Rich quotes British commentator Paul Mason who contends that, “The Euro project was supposed to make sure the continent could never again go fascist. If European legislatures are now crawling with fascists, what was the point of that?” Leaving aside Mason’s apparent ignorance in matters to do with Fascism, Rich and Mason reveal that the political agenda involved in setting the ‘European project’ had aims beyond those expressed at its creation. In other words, those Europeans naïve enough to believe that the ‘Euro project’ was created to address their needs and wants can now learn from the Jewish press about the true agenda behind the creation of the EU.

However, Rich sees reason for optimism, “in several countries, the far right polled surprisingly poorly,” he states. “This is especially the case for those countries hit hardest by Europe’s economic problems of recent years; Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Cyprus.” But Rich fails to mention that in these few impoverished countries the Jewish population is tiny and Jewish political lobbying is marginal. If this explains the failure of the far right in those countries, it is possible that the rise of right wing parties in other parts of Europe is partially a reaction to aggressive Jewish lobbying and intervention. This is certainly the case in Britain, France, Hungary and Greece.

In a desperate attempt to divert attention away from Jewish politics, Rich argues that “West European far-right parties… do want to cut immigration (or stop it altogether) and roll back the cultural and religious diversity that has become part of the E.U.’s guiding philosophy.” Rich fails to mention that it was Jewish progressive groups and institutions that for decades have been at the forefront of the pro immigration campaign and the call for diversity. Rich also forgets to explain that this kind of Jewish support wasn’t driven by humanist or universal concerns. The Jewish Left obviously believed that immigration and diversity were very good for the Jews.


Rich concludes by arguing that European Right Wing politics “are not driven primarily by anti-Jewish sentiment … And Europe’s Jews do not need our American friends to remind us where that can lead.” Rich is correct here, the surge in political awareness of the European underclass and impoverished middle class is not driven ‘primarily’ by anti Jewish feelings, however, increasingly, political commentators identify European malaise with Jewish and Zionist politics. The European new Left was badly beaten in polls last week due, in large part, to its Jerusalemite nature and affiliation. The new left in Europe is driven by kosher ideology, it is dominated by Jewish lobbies such as LFI (Britain) and CRIF (France) and if this is not enough, the entire progressive dissent discourse is closely identified with Jewish interests and is largely funded, directly and indirectly, by liberal Zionists such as George Soros and his Open Society Institutes.

Bearing all that in mind, the political shift in Europe carries a clear message to Jewish institutions. Now’s the time for  immediate and deep reflection.

May 31, 2014 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Rise of the European Right: Reaction to the Neoliberal Right

By James Petras | May 30, 2014

The European parliamentary elections witnessed a major breakthrough for the right-wing parties throughout the region. The rise of the Right runs from the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, the Baltic and Low countries, France, Central and Eastern Europe to the Mediterranean.

Most, if not all, of these emerging right-wing parties mark a sharp break with the ruling neo-liberal, Christian and Social Democratic parties who have presided over a decade of crisis.

The ‘new Right’ cannot be understood simply by attaching negative labels (‘fascist’, ‘racist’ and ‘anti-Semitic’). The rise of the Right has to be placed in the context of the decay of political, social and economic institutions, the general and persistent decline of living standards and the disintegration of community bonds and class solidarity. The entire existing political edifice constructed by the neo-liberal parties bears deep responsibility for the systemic crisis and decay of everyday life. Moreover, this is how it is understood by a growing mass of working people who vote for the Right.

The so-called ‘radical Left’, usually defined as the political parties to the left of the governing Social Democratic parties, with the exception of SYRIZA in Greece, have failed to capitalize on the decline of the neo-liberal parties. There are several reasons that account for the lack of a right-left polarization. Most of the ‘radical Left’, in the final account, gave ‘critical support’ to one or another of the Labor or Social Democratic parties and reduced their ‘distance’ from the political-economic disasters that have followed. Secondly, the ‘radical Left’s’ positions on some issues were irrelevant or offensive to many workers: namely, gay marriage and identity politics. Thirdly, the radical Left recruited prominent personalities from the discredited Labor and Social Democratic parties and thus raised suspicion that they are a ‘new version’ of past deceptions. Fourthly, the radical Left is strong on public demonstrations demanding ‘structural changes’ but lacks the ‘grass roots’ clientelistic organizations of the Right, which provide ‘services’, such as soup kitchens and clinics dealing with day-to-day problems.

While the Right pretends to be ‘outside’ the neo-liberal establishment challenging the assumption of broad powers by the Brussels elite, the Left is ambiguous: Its support for a ‘social Europe’ implies a commitment to reform a discredited and moribund structure. The Right proposes ‘national capitalism’ outside of Brussels; the Left proposes ‘socialism within the European Union’. The Left parties, the older Communist parties and more recent groupings, like Syriza in Greece, have had mixed results. The former have generally stagnated or lost support despite the systemic crisis. The latter, like Syriza, have made impressive gains but failed to break the 30% barrier. Both lack electoral allies. As a result, the immediate challenge to the neo-liberal status quo comes from the electoral new Right parties and on the left from the extra-parliamentary social movements and trade unions. In the immediate period, the crisis of the European Union is being played out between the neo-liberal establishment and the ‘new Right’.

The Nature of the New Right

The ‘new Right’ has gained support largely because it has denounced the four pillars of the neo-liberal establishment: globalization, foreign financial control, executive rule by fiat (the Brussels troika) and the unregulated influx of cheap immigrant labor.

Nationalism, as embraced by the new Right, is tied to national capitalism: Local producers, retailers and farmers are counterpoised to free traders, mergers and acquisitions by international bankers and the giant multinationals. The ‘new Right’ has its audience among the provincial and small town business elite as well as workers devastated by plant closures and relocations.

The ‘new Right’s’ nationalism is ‘protectionist’ – seeking tariff barriers and state regulations to protect industries and workers from ‘unfair’ competition from overseas conglomerates and low-wage immigrant labor.

The problem is that protectionism limits the imports of cheap consumer goods sold in many small retail shops and affordable to workers and the lower middle class. The Right ‘dreams’ of a corporatist model where national workers and industries bond to oppose liberal competitive capitalism and class struggle trade unions. As the class struggle declines, the ‘tri partite’ politics of the neo-liberal right is reconfigured by the New Right to include ‘national’ capital and a ‘paternalistic state’.

In sum, the nationalism of the Right evokes a mythical past of harmony where national capital and labor unite under a common communal identity to confront big foreign capital and cheap immigrant labor.

Political Strategy: Electoral and Extra-Parliamentary Politics

Currently, the new Right is primarily oriented to electoral politics, especially as it gains mass support. They have increased their share of the electorate by combining mass mobilization and community organizing with electoral politics, especially in depressed areas. They have attracted middle class voters from the neo-liberal right and working class voters from the old Left. While some sectors of the Right, like the Golden Dawn in Greece, openly flaunt fascist symbols – flags and uniforms – as well as provoking street brawls, others pressure the governing neo-liberal right to adopt some of their demands especially regarding immigration and the ‘deportation of illegals’. For the present, most of the new Right’s focus is on advancing its agenda and gaining supporters through aggressive appeals within the constitutional order and by keeping the more violent sectors under control. Moreover, the current political climate is not conducive to open extra-parliamentary ‘street fighting’ where the new Right would be easily crushed. Most right-wing strategists believe the current context is conducive to the accumulation of forces via peaceful methods.

Conditions Facilitating the Growth of the Right

There are several structural factors contributing to the growth of the new Right in Europe:

First and foremost, there is a clear decline of democratic power and institutions resulting from the centralization of executive – legislative power in the hands of a self-appointed elite in Brussels. The new Right argues effectively that the European Union has become a profoundly authoritarian political institution disenfranchising voters and imposing harsh austerity programs without a popular mandate.

Secondly, national interests have been subordinated to benefit the financial elite identified as responsible for the harsh policies that have undermined living standards and devastated local industries. The new Right counterpoises ‘the nation’ to the Brussels ‘Troika’ – the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission.

Thirdly, ‘liberalization’ has eroded local industries and undermined communities and protective labor legislation. The Right denounces liberal immigration policies, which permit the large-scale inflow of cheap workers at a time of depression level unemployment. The crisis of capitalism combined with the large force of cheap immigrant labor forms the material basis for right-wing appeals to workers, especially those in precarious jobs or unemployed.

Right: Contradictions and the Double Discourse

The Right, while criticizing the neo-liberal state for unemployment, focuses mainly on the immigrants competing with nationals in the labor market rather than on the capitalists whose investment decisions determine levels of employment and unemployment.

The Right attacks the authoritarian nature of the European Union, but its own structures, ideology and history pre-figure a repressive state.

The Right rightly proposes to end foreign elite control of the economy, but its own vision of a ‘national state’, especially one linked to NATO, multi-national corporations and imperial wars, will provide no basis for ‘rebuilding the national economy’.

The Right speaks to the needs of the dispossessed and the need to ‘end austerity’ but it eschews the only effective mechanism for countering inequalities – class organization and class struggle. Its vision of the ‘collaboration between productive capital and labor’ is contradicted by the aggressive capitalist offensive to cut wages, social services, pensions and working conditions. The new Right targets immigrants as the cause of unemployment while obscuring the role of the capitalists who hire and fire, invest abroad, relocate firms and introduce technology to replace labor.

They focus the workers’ anger ‘downward’ against immigrants, instead of ‘upward’ toward the owners of the means of production, finance and distribution who ultimately manipulate the labor market.

In the meantime the radical Left’s mindless defense of unlimited immigration in the name of an abstract notion of ‘international workers solidarity’ exposes their arrogant liberal bias, as though they had never consulted real workers who have to compete with immigrants for scarce jobs under increasingly unfavorable conditions.

The radical Left, under the banner of ‘international solidarity’, has ignored the historical fact that ‘internationalism’ must be built on the strong national foundation of organized, employed workers.

The Left has allowed the new Right to exploit and manipulate powerful righteous nationalist causes. The radical Left has counterpoised ‘nationalism’ to socialism, rather than seeing them as intertwined, especially in the present context of an imperialist-dominated European Union.

The fight for national independence, the break-up of the European Union, is essential to the struggle for democracy and the deepening of the class struggle for jobs and social welfare. The class struggle is more powerful and effective on the familiar national terrain – rather than confronting distant overseers in Brussels.

The notion among many radical Left leaders to ‘remake’ the EU into a ‘Social Europe’, the idea that the EU could be converted into a ‘European Union of Socialist States’ simply prolongs the suffering of the workers and the subordination of nations to the non-elected bankers who run the EU. No one seriously believes that buying stocks in Deutsche Bank and joining its annual stockholders meetings would allow workers to ‘transform’ it into a ‘People’s Bank’. Yet the ‘Bank of the Banks’, the ‘Troika’, made up of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF, set all major policies for each member state of the European Union. Un-rectified and remaining captive of the ‘Euro-metaphysic’, the Left has abdicated its role in advancing the class struggle through the rebirth of the national struggle against the EU oligarchs.

Results and Perspectives

The Right is advancing rapidly, even if unevenly across Europe. Its support is not ephemeral but stable and cumulative at least in the medium run. The causes are ‘structural’ and result from the new Right’s ability to exploit the socio-economic crisis of the neo-liberal right governments and to denounce authoritarian and anti-national policies of the unelected EU oligarchy.

The new Right’s strength is in ‘opposition’. Their protests resonate while they are distant from the command centers of the capitalist economy and state.

Are they capable of moving from protest to power? Shared power with the neo-liberals will obviously dilute and disaggregate their current social base.

The contradictions will deepen as the new Right moves from positions of ‘opposition’ to sharing power with the neo-liberal Right. The massive roundups and deportation of immigrant workers is not going to change capitalist employment policies or restore social services or improve living standards. Promoting ‘national’ capital over foreign through some corporatist union of capital and labor will not reduce class conflict. It is totally unrealistic to imagine ‘national’ capital rejecting its foreign partners in the interest of labor.

The divisions within the ‘nationalist Right’, between the overtly fascist and electoral corporatist sectors, will intensify. The accommodation with ‘national’ capital, democratic procedures and social inequalities will likely open the door to a new wave of class conflict which will expose the sham radicalism of the ‘nationalist’ right. A committed Left, embedded in the national terrain, proud of its national and class traditions, and capable of unifying workers across ethnic and religious ‘identities’ can regain supporters and re-emerge as the real alternative to the two faces of the Right – the neo-liberal and the ‘nationalist’ new Right. The prolonged economic crisis, declining living standards, unemployment and personal insecurity propelling the rise of the nationalist Right can also lead to the emergence of a Left deeply linked to national, class and community realities. The neo-liberals have no solutions to offer for the disasters and problems of their own making; the nationalists of the new Right have the wrong -reactionary – answer. Does the Left have the solution? Only by overthrowing the despotic imperial rule of Brussels can they begin to address the national-class issues.

Post-script and final observations

In the absence of a Left alternative, the working class voters have opted for two alternatives: Massive voter abstention and strikes. In the recent EU election, 60% of the French electorate abstained, with abstention approaching 80% in working class neighborhoods. This pattern was repeated or even exceeded throughout the EU – hardly a mandate for the EU or for the ‘new Right’. In the weeks and days before the vote, workers took to the streets. There were massive strikes of civil servants and shipyard workers, as well as workers from other sectors and mass demonstrations by the unemployed and popular classes opposing EU-imposed ‘austerity’ cuts in social services, health, education, pensions, factory closures and mass lay-offs. Widespread voter abstention and street demonstrations point to a huge proportion of the population rejecting both the neo-Liberal Right of the ‘Troika’ as well as the ‘new Right’.

May 30, 2014 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

Exxon, BP Defy White House; Extend Partnership with Russia

By Nick Cunningham | Oilprice.com | May 26, 2014

Several of the largest oil companies in the world are doubling down in Russia despite moves by the West to isolate Russia and its economy. ExxonMobil and BP separately signed agreements with Rosneft – Russia’s state-owned oil company – to extend and deepen their relationships for energy exploration. The U.S. slapped sanctions on Rosneft’s CEO Igor Sechin in late April, freezing his assets and preventing him from obtaining visas.

However, the sanctions do not extend to Rosneft itself, allowing western companies to continue to do business with the Russian oil giant. ExxonMobil signed an agreement with Rosneft, extending its partnership to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on Russia’s pacific coast. Known as the Far East LNG project, the export terminal will receive natural gas from Russia’s eastern fields as well as from Sakhalin-1, an island off Russia’s east coast. Rosneft announced the deal in a press release on its website on May 23.

The following day, Rosneft and BP signed an agreement to jointly explore oil in the Volga-Urals region. It will consist of a pilot project in the Domanik formations, and if successful could lead to the development of shale oil in Russia. Rosneft will maintain a 51 percent ownership of the joint venture and BP will own 49 percent.

The signing of the agreement occurred during a ceremony at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The oil majors attended despite pressure from the White House to boycott the event. Many big name companies chose not to attend even though they have large economic interests in Russia, including PepsiCo, German companies E.ON and Siemens, and some of the biggest banks in the U.S.

By defying the White House, the oil majors salvaged what would have otherwise been an embarrassing event for the Kremlin. The absence of the world’s largest companies would have demonstrated Russia’s increasing isolation. Instead, Russia used the event to detail plans to expand its massive energy sector. “(They’re) eager to continue work on projects in Russia,” Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak said of ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

BP CEO Bob Dudley emphasized his company’s determination to stick with Russia. “We are very pleased to be a part of Russian energy complex,” he said at the forum. “President (Putin) has urged us today to invest into shale oil… There’s so many natural resources in Russia, the openness and partnerships Russia has with companies from all over the world is a good thing for energy,” Dudley added.

Even though there are international sanctions on Rosneft’s Igor Sechin, Dudley insisted that their business with Rosneft will continue. “It does not affect our cooperation with the company itself,” Dudley said, referring to sanctions on Rosneft’s boss. He was even able to meet Sechin privately.

French oil giant Total S.A. also signed an agreement with Lukoil – Russia’s second largest oil company – to explore for shale oil and gas. Total’s chief executive Christophe de Margerie also went to lengths to reassure the Russian hosts. “My message to Russia is simple – business as usual,” he said at the event.

To be clear, the oil companies are not legally running afoul of international sanctions. But their collective shrug in the face of European and American pressure to boycott Russia – along with the $400 billion natural gas deal Russia signed with China last week – illustrates the difficulty which the West will have at undermining Russia’s energy sector, if it chose to do so. Russia is too big of a prize for the likes of ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.

Or viewed another way, the moves to deepen business in Russia suggest that the world’s biggest oil companies are confident that the U.S. and Europe won’t be so bold as to truly attack Russia’s energy machine.

May 28, 2014 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

The business behind Ukraine’s new billionaire president

RT | May 26, 2014

One of Ukraine’s richest men, newly elected President Pyotr Poroshenko, has a long history of mixing business with politics. The tycoon has vowed to give up his business interests, and campaigned to align closer to Europe.

In 1991, the Odessa native took over an old state-run sweet factory shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, and now the ‘Roshen’ candy company has made the 48-year old one of the country’s richest men, with his fortune estimated at $1.3 billion by Forbes.

He will be in charge of reviving Ukraine’s moribund economy, which has been in free-fall for the better part of a year. Poroshenko will have to juggle huge debts, a nearly empty treasury, and a sinking investment climate.

Primarily Poroshenko will be tasked with helping Ukraine manage its $17 billion International Monetary Fund aid program, which will likely include unpopular austerity measures like gas subsidy cuts. Ukraine has been promised over $27 billion in economic aid from various sources, including the European Commission, World Bank, and the United States government.

The chocolate tycoon has expressed his willingness to mend ties with Russia, even after it imposed a ban on the sale of his chocolate, as well as shut down one of his warehouses in southern Russia on criminal charges.

However, Poroshenko has vowed to unite the unruly east, which has deep business and cultural ties to Russia. His company, Rosen, though it wants to focus on the European market, is deeply rooted in the east. Rosen operates confectionery factories in Kiev, Vinnytsia, Mariupol, and Kremenchuk, the Bershadmoloko dairy producer, a stud farm in Ukraine and confectionary facilities in Klaipeda, Lithuania and Lipetsk, Russia

“I assure you, as soon as we’ll achieve stability in the east and these problems in Ukraine will be solved, the investment boom will immediately begin,” Poroshenko declared at a press conference in Zaporozhye on May 18.

Poroshenko has worked across the political spectrum. Originally, he served in pro-Russian governments, and then he played a big role in the 2004-2005 ‘Orange Revolution’ along with Yulia Tymoshenko, which ended up bringing Viktor Yushchenko to the presidency. Later, in 2012, he served as an economics minister to Viktor Yanukovich, but when Yanukovich was ousted, he sided with the Maidan.

The expert’s opinion “Petro Poroshenko is a bright representative of the Ukrainian oligarchy. He was actively participating in the financing of Maidan and he has a certain support abroad,” Andrey Pilko, the director of the Eurasian communication center told RT by phone.

Poroshenko’s program is aimed “to provide Ukrainian production access to the world markets. To sign the economic part of the free trade agreement with EU, and to implement its provisions in a short time…The agrarian side may become a breakout point for the Ukrainian economy”.

Poroshenko described relations with Russia as “the most difficult”.

“I don’t remember such a crisis between our countries for the last 200 years. Nevertheless, the negotiations are progressing it is the Geneva format. I think that today we can conduct negotiations with Russia involving the US, EU and in other formats,” the billionaire said.

He also promised to sell-off his business if he won the presidency.

“I would like to put an example to others when the elected president publicly sells business assets belonging to him in order to achieve a complete concentration on state service,” Poroshenko said.

However, he remarked that he does not see any problems when a successful businessman begins making policy, “when he is the person who has experience in the real economy, who has created jobs. Who is the largest taxpayer and is able to build factories and plants and applies the experience to lift the economy and the country”.

May 26, 2014 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

‘Ukraine must pay gas debts’ – EU Energy Commissioner

RT | May 26, 2014

EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger said Ukraine needs to begin repaying its $3.5 billion gas debt to Russia and proposed a fair ‘market price’ of between $200-$400 per 1,000 cubic meters to resolve the dispute.

“The bills are on the table, and they must be paid,” Oettinger said on German radio station SWR on Monday after holding talks in Berlin with Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and Gazprom Deputy CEO Aleksandr Medvedev.

Oettinger suggests Ukraine use some of the $3.2 billion from its first IMF aid tranche and other EU assistance programs to start paying off its debt to Gazprom.

Ukraine owes Russian state-owned Gazprom more than $3.5 billion, as it has not paid its gas bills in full since July 2013. Russia has even given Ukraine 10 billion cubic meters of gas free of charge, as much as Russia delivers to Poland in a year.

President Vladimir Putin said that Russia is only ready to discuss a new gas discount for Ukraine once it starts paying off its debt.

Oettinger said that a “fair and suitable market price” to resolve the dispute would be between $200-$400, which the commissioner considers “common for the European market.”

Kiev has said it is ready to pay Russia as long as Gazprom lowers its current rate of $485 per 1,0000 cubic meters. The price climbed when Gazprom canceled two gas discounts from the $268.50 per 1,000 cubic meters rate it paid in the first three months of 2014.

After June 1, Ukraine will have to prepay for any gas deliveries, as Gazprom said it won’t let any more debt accumulate.

“There are some barriers to indulgence, some things we cannot afford,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said speaking at the 18th annual St. Petersburg Economic Forum on Saturday.

Europe sources about one third of its total energy supply from Russia, 50 percent of which flows through Ukraine. Any possible disruption therefore not only affects the pipeline host country, but all of Europe.

“We all know who is to blame – the transit country, Ukraine has abused its position. Ukraine insists on benefits it is not entitled to,” Putin said at the forum on Saturday.

Oettinger has been a major player in brokering a deal between the two embittered nations, but so far no concrete negotiation has been reached.

May 26, 2014 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Eurosceptic parties win dozens of European Parliament seats

May 26, 2014 Posted by | Economics, Video | , , | Leave a comment

China to ditch US consulting firms over espionage suspicion

RT | May 26, 2014

State-owned Chinese companies will cease to work with US consulting companies like McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group over fears they are spying on behalf of the US government.

US consulting companies McKinsey, BCG, Bain & Company, and Strategy&, formerly Booz & Co., will all be snubbed by state-owned Chinese companies, the Financial Times reported, citing sources close to senior Chinese leaders.

“The top leadership has proposed setting up a team of Chinese domestic consultants who are particularly focused on information systems in order to seize back this power from the foreign companies,” a senior policy adviser to the Chinese leadership was quoted by the FT as saying.

“Right now the foreigners use their consulting companies to find out everything they want about our state companies,” the adviser said.

Last Thursday China announced that all foreign companies would have to undergo a new security test. Any company, product or service that fails will be banned from China. The inspection will be conducted across all sectors – communications, finance, and energy.

China has already banned Microsoft’s Windows 8 operating system from government computers, according to Chinese state media agency Xinhua.

“Under President Xi Jinping, technology and implementation will look to be converging, so foreign tech firms should be very worried about their prospects,” Bill Bishop, an independent consultant based in Beijing, told the FT.

Chinese officials have said that government ministries, companies, universities, and telecoms networks are victims of US hacking, and will try to avoid using US technology in order to protect “public interest”.

The dictate follows the US Justice Department’s indictment of five Chinese military officers it suspects of committing cyber crimes against a number of major US companies, including US Steel, Westinghouse and Alcoa. The US accused the army officers of stealing trade secrets and even published their photos.

Beijing responded by calling the US a ‘robber playing cop’, and more recently said the US is a “mincing rascal” and involved in “high-level hooliganism”.

The US-China fallout came after revelations made by NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the US uses economic cyber espionage to spy on international competitors, including China.

The dispute is only the latest setback in relations between the world’s two largest economies. Issues like Ukraine, Syria, and North Korea have been divisive topics between the two superpowers.

May 26, 2014 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Creeping Decriminalization of Marijuana in the Caribbean

By Kevin Edmonds | The Other Side of Paradise | May 23, 2014

While the decriminalization of marijuana has been a topic of discussion for decades, those in attendance at this week’s Jamaica Cannabis Conference are doing more than just blowing smoke—they are discussing the upcoming stages of a long-overdue and vital transformation of the Caribbean’s regional economy. Jamaica has long been associated with potent, naturally grown marijuana, but also the unfortunate social ills that have accompanied its criminalization.

While marijuana, or ganja, arrived in the Caribbean with Indian indentured laborers in the mid-1800s, it was not criminalized until 1913, when the Ganja law came into effect at the behest of the church and colonial elites. The ban was largely based on ignorant, racist perceptions of the evil effects that ganja would have on the poor black majority, and thus dealt out fines and other oppressive penalties for consumption or cultivation. During the 1940s and the 1950s, despite the cultivation of ganja for spiritual and medical reasons, it became the routine justification for government raids upon the original, self-sufficient Rastafari community of Pinnacle.

Despite Jamaica’s independence in 1962, the colonial origins of criminalizing ganja were not eroded, but strengthened. When Jamaica signed the United Nations Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1964, it became obligated to treat marijuana as a harmful drug, following the prevailing attitude of the United States. Under the banner of the War on Drugs, the Jamaican government diverted millions of dollars from social development to eradicate marijuana plantations through aerial spraying. If Jamaica refused, under the conditions of the U.S. Drug Certification Policy enacted in 1986, Jamaica would risk losing access to U.S. trade, aid, loans, and visas.

There are very serious human rights issues associated with the prohibition of marijuana. Across the Caribbean, courts are backlogged with simple possession charges for small quantities of marijuana. In one case in St. Lucia, fines for small quantities of marijuana reached $200, or up to 30 days in jail. These charges in turn limit employment and travel opportunities, creating inter-generational disadvantages for those who face jail time. As a result of the overloaded prison systems across the region, the economic and social costs of marijuana are tremendous, as much needed economic resources are taken away from social development and funneled towards an endless cycle of law and order policies.

In addition, the criminalization of marijuana has also led to the unfortunate and unnecessary marginalization of the Rastafari community, which regard the herb as a holy sacrament. Last August St. Lucian journalist Earl Bousquet commented on the negative portrayal of marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s:

Marijuana was… pinned to the Rastafarian movement that started spreading to the rest of the region from Jamaica at the same time. The then leaders erroneously hoped they could easily do away with ‘Rastas and marijuana’ through new laws and armed police forces. By legally twinning Rastafarianism with an illegal substance, growth of a positive and distinctively Caribbean social movement driven by the works of Marcus Garvey, rooted in Pan Caribbean-African nationalism and advocating closer communion with nature half-a-century ago was stifled, suppressed and forced to spend more time resisting and fighting ‘Babylon’ than refining the philosophical, spiritual, cultural and political base of the only indigenous Caribbean movement of its kind in the 20th century.

As a further result of these criminalization policies, Jamaica now has to play catch up in the newly emerging legal and medical marijuana market, according to Dr. Albert Lockhart, a leading ophthalmologist and noted speaker at the Cannabis Conference, who stated that “we are 40 years late.” Dr. Lockhart has helped to pioneer medicine derived from marijuana such as Canasol (which treats glaucoma) and Asmasol (which treats asthma), but due to lack of funding their discoveries are not widely known outside of the island. Dr. Lockhart further warned that if Jamaica does not act now it would be at risk of missing the boat, losing out to countries such as the United States, where the states of Colorado and Washington have fueled the push for legalization across the region—and Canada where medical marijuana has become big business.

Phillip Paulwell, Jamaican Minister of Science and Technology, has assured interested parties that marijuana will be decriminalized by the end of the year. Paulwell remarked that “I am of the firm opinion that scientific research into marijuana, both in the very many uses of the plant as hemp, and its medical properties, is an idea whose time has come,” adding that a marijuana-based medical industry could earn as much as $5.2 billion.

So the Cannabis Conference closed with hope that Jamaica and the wider Caribbean will be able to finally cash in and create a world leading, legal industry which not only acts as a cash crop and provides much needed agricultural jobs, but also as the building blocks for the development of wide ranging medical treatments. Additionally, the new CARICOM Regional Commission on Marijuana Use shows a regional investigative interest. Beyond just decriminalization, the Ganja Future Growers and Producers Association has been advocating for a regulatory model that will benefit small growers instead of large corporations, stating: “For the first three years of a regulated industry, licenses should only be given to plots of one acre or less.” The taxable income from the industry has the power to transform stagnating Caribbean economies and will allow them to have the self determination to rightfully produce a quality product which the world has always demanded in great quantity, but has been criminalized for far too long.

Kevin Edmonds is a NACLA blogger focusing on the Caribbean. Edmonds is a former NACLA research associate and a current PhD student at the University of Toronto, where he is studying the impact of neoliberalism on the St. Lucian banana trade. Follow him on twitter @kevin_edmonds.

May 24, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Fascism or the Bankruptcy of the Left?

The anti-EU movement spreads all over Europe… apart from Ukraine*

By TAKIS FOTOPOULOS | The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2 (2013)

The events in Ukraine have been instructive, even though the mass media of the Transnational Elite (TE) have created the false impression that there has been a popular “revolution” there by cretins fighting for their right to become the TE’s slaves within the EU, so that they may starve like the Greek people! But I will not dwell here on the orange “revolution” that has just been staged in this country by the pro-western bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie of Kiev, with the decisive assistance of the provocateurs of the TE’s intelligence services who organized it[1], but rather on the two main lessons to be learned from it, which are especially important for all European peoples and, in particular, for the Greek people.

Firstly, social struggle in the era of neoliberal globalization can no longer be just a struggle for social liberation, as obsolete Marxists still believe today and some Trotskyites have always believed even during the Nazi occupation when they called upon German workers in the Nazi army to fraternize with occupied workers, while some “Marxists” and “anarchists” today still call for similar fraternization between the Zionist occupiers in Israel and the occupied Palestinians! The struggle for social liberation today must, first and foremost, be a struggle for national liberation. This becomes obvious when one considers the fact that, when a country (not belonging to the TE, i.e. mainly the “G7”) is incorporated into neoliberal globalization, it loses every trace of economic and, consequently, national sovereignty. This is why the struggle for social liberation today is inconceivable unless it has already gone through national liberation. The occupying troops that are now destroying and plundering Greece (or Portugal, Spain and Italy) and its weakest social strata (with the full cooperation of a small, local privileged elite which controls the media, the political parties, the “Left” intelligentsia etc.) are not a regular army in uniform and with lethal weapons of physical violence at their disposal, but an economic army in suits, possessing equally lethal instruments of economic violence, as well as the means to justify it.

Secondly, the target of social struggle today can only be neoliberal globalization, which is managed by a TE ensuring that only its own bogus revolutions succeed (the orange “revolutions” in Eastern Europe in the past[2] and today, or the pseudo-uprisings in Libya,[3] Syria, etc.) while even the attempted uprisings of the TE’s victims in Greece and elsewhere are suppressed in the most brutal way as soon as they occur – and yet Baroness Ashton finds nothing wrong with this, nor does she detect any violation of human rights occurring. Similarly, the peoples who resist being integrated into neoliberal globalization are condemned to remorseless slaughter, as the Libyan and Syrian people have been. Nevertheless, the impudent Barroso did not hesitate to declare that human rights had been violated in Ukraine when the police dared to beat “protesters” who attacked government buildings with bulldozers, “forgetting” that such conduct in any other “democratic” EU country would have sent many to the morgue!

In other words, contrary to the misleading propaganda of the degenerate “Left”, globalization is not a chimera, or just a continuation of the internationalization of the market economy taking place at the beginning of the last century, but, rather, a systemic phenomenon which can only be neoliberal within the capitalist system, as can easily be shown. Similarly, neoliberalism is neither a doctrine (of “shock” and similar fairy tales)[4] nor the bad policy making of certain “bad” neoliberal politicians and economists. It is simply the ideology of globalization. Neoliberal globalization is, in other words, the necessary institutional framework that ensures the opening and liberalization of the markets (capital, goods and labor), which is required for the effective operation of the transnational corporations that currently control the globalized economy.

On the basis of this analytical framework it is not surprising that an unprecedented mass movement “from below” is currently spreading throughout Europe, challenging the EU directly but also neoliberal globalization indirectly. This movement is essentially comprised of the victims of globalization who are driven to mass unemployment and poverty, as well as to homelessness, starvation or even suicide. These popular strata sooner or later become aware of the fraud of the degenerate “Left”, which consciously misleads them by claiming that the current disaster could be overcome even within the EU, despite the loss of economic and national sovereignty. Then, these strata inevitably turn to nationalist movements of all kinds, since these are the only ones that raise the anti-EU flag: from patriotic to neo-Nazi movements – depending on the local conditions. But this nationalism, which both the Transnational and Zionist elites condemn with such disgust (at the very moment when the strongest nationalist state today is the Zionist one!), has little to do with the prewar aggressive nationalism that led to two World Wars. It is a new kind of nationalism which is fundamentally defensive and does not aim to conquer new “vital space” etc. like the pre-WWII nationalism. Above all, it aims to “protect” national sovereignty (national culture, domestic labor, etc.) that is under threat from the opening and liberalization of the markets imposed by globalization.

The main reason that these popular strata have been turning to nationalist movements is, therefore, not that they have suddenly become fascist (as the TE claims in an attempt to defame them); it is the bankruptcy of the degenerate “Left” which, rather than raising the anti-EU flag in place of the nationalists to promote a struggle for social and national liberation, is engaged in “antifascist” struggles together with privileged “leftists”. It is not surprising, then, that this “Left” implicitly consents to the passing of “anti-fascist” legislation, as required by the Transnational and Zionist elites, so that it may effectively ban such movements that threaten its hegemony. In Greece, for instance, a so-called “anti-racist” bill is now being passed through Parliament, which effectively bans freedom of thought (not action!). This bill means, for example, that if somebody supported the national liberation struggle of the Syrian Baathist leadership against the TE and the criminals, pretending to be rebels, who have destroyed this country, s/he might end up in jail for supporting war crimes against humanity. This is based on a very recent utterly biased report by the well known instrument of the TE, the UN Human Rights Commission, which asserted  that as Navi Pillay, the UN’s human rights chief, said there is “massive evidence … [of] very serious crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity” and that “the evidence indicates responsibility at the highest level of government, including the head of state”.[5] Of course, neither this committee nor Navi Pillay who once said that “the Commissioner is the voice of the victim everywhere,”[6] nor its blood brothers among the NGOs for human rights (Amnesty International, Human Right Watch, etc.) have ever dreamed of declaring the arch-criminals Bush, Blair et al. to be guilty of war crimes, even though they are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Presumably, the millions of people killed or maimed by war criminals like them are not victims, according to Mrs Pillay’s definition of a victim!

However, the Greek “Left”, i.e. the SYRIZA party, instead of mobilizing the people against this unashamedly fascist law, has quietly consented to it by merely abstaining from voting (only the Greek Communist Party and the ultra-nationalist Golden Dawn party voted against it). It should be noted that SYRIZA, together with its leader, Alexis Tsipras – who has been heavily promoted by the media of the TE – is destined by the same elites to succeed the present parliamentary junta in implementing the same policies but under a “Left” cover. Yet the sordid professional politicians who voted in favor of this openly fascist law dare to speak of democracy and the fight against fascism. This blatant bankruptcy of the “Left” is yet another major reason why a mass popular Front is needed in Greece and in all other countries which have fallen victim to the TE that administers neoliberal globalization, as I stressed in my last article.[7]

* This is an expanded edited version of an article by Takis Fotopoulos under the same title published in the Athens daily Eleftherotypia (8/12/213).

[1] See e.g. Stephen Lendman, “Ukraine: Orange Revolution 2.0?,” Global Research (6/12/2013).

[2] Takis Fotopoulos,  “The Ukrainian Crisis and the Transnational Elite,” The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, vol.1, no.4 (July 2005).

[3] Takis Fotopoulos, “The Pseudo-Revolution in Libya and the Degenerate Left,” Part I & Part II, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2011).

[4] See e.g. Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine (Penguin, 2007).

[5] Ian Black, “Assad implicated in Syrian war crimes, says UN,” The Guardian (3/12/2013).

[6] Jonah Fisher, “Profile: New UN human rights chief,” BBC News (28/7/2008).

[7] Takis Fotopoulos, “Globalization and the End of the Left-Right Divide” (Part I), The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 8, Nos. 3/4 (Fall 2012-Winter 2013).

May 24, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »