Clinton could not have chosen a worse cabinet. Every selection so far has been either a general or a billionaire or a corporate chieftain of some stripe. I won't list them here, they are all over the "news". I heard this morning on one of the corporate "news" shows that Romney was the most likely choice for Secretary of State - Trump said that Mitt looked like he came from central casting for the part of SoS. Seems Trump is all about appearances - what a shock! A television barker that sees talent in terms of looks? Unheard of!

Anyway, between the "Mad Dog" military men and the "Fuck the Working Class" corporate Big Dicks, this is shaping up to be a real horror show. Even the Republican party may balk at some of these picks. Wait and see. As someone of one of the "news" shows said, "Trump doesn't seems to have any real ideology or theme to his presidency, yet." I don't think Caligula had any for his reign, either.

Clinton could not have chosen a worse cabinet. Every selection so far has been either a general or a billionaire or a corporate chieftain of some stripe.

I'm not so sure...This is actually a stacked line up, and very much consistent in his method of inconsistency. Personally I was hoping the entire cast of the Republican Nominee Show would make it's surprise return, including Rand Paul as Secretary of Agriculture.

I'm not so sure...This is actually a stacked line up, and very much consistent in his method of inconsistency. Personally I was hoping the entire cast of the Republican Nominee Show would make it's surprise return, including Rand Paul as Secretary of Agriculture.

Jeb could be Post Master General!

Jeb could be Post Master General!

In the spirit of Trump's business prowess I was hoping he could create some new roles using corporate euphemisms. Maybe Jeb could be "Secretary of Tubular Sanitation and Interior Maintenance."

'scuse me Jeby, you missed a spot next to the sink...

edit: I'll be here all day, sorry.

Clinton could not have chosen a worse cabinet. Every selection so far has been either a general or a billionaire or a corporate chieftain of some stripe. I won't list them here, they are all over the "news". I heard this morning on one of the corporate "news" shows that Romney was the most likely choice for Secretary of State - Trump said that Mitt looked like he came from central casting for the part of SoS. Seems Trump is all about appearances - what a shock! A television barker that sees talent in terms of looks? Unheard of!

Anyway, between the "Mad Dog" military men and the "Fuck the Working Class" corporate Big Dicks, this is shaping up to be a real horror show. Even the Republican party may balk at some of these picks. Wait and see. As someone of one of the "news" shows said, "Trump doesn't seems to have any real ideology or theme to his presidency, yet." I don't think Caligula had any for his reign, either.

It's all good, I'm sick to the teeth of 'little Eichmanns' and the banality of evil. We got some full-on comic book evil with real world consequences coming on. Maybe it'll be just another fart in the wind, more abject misery, but it could be a birth, which is always painful.

Clinton could not have chosen a worse cabinet. Every selection so far has been either a general or a billionaire or a corporate chieftain of some stripe. I won't list them here, they are all over the "news". I heard this morning on one of the corporate "news" shows that Romney was the most likely choice for Secretary of State - Trump said that Mitt looked like he came from central casting for the part of SoS. Seems Trump is all about appearances - what a shock! A television barker that sees talent in terms of looks? Unheard of!

Anyway, between the "Mad Dog" military men and the "Fuck the Working Class" corporate Big Dicks, this is shaping up to be a real horror show. Even the Republican party may balk at some of these picks. Wait and see. As someone of one of the "news" shows said, "Trump doesn't seems to have any real ideology or theme to his presidency, yet." I don't think Caligula had any for his reign, either.

Don't overlook the virulent racism -- people weren't fools to oppose Trump, they knew what was coming. The rulers are gearing up for major action -- and the longer the fratricidal twin parties take to get their (capitalist) shit together, the greater escalation and the severity of the coming crackdown.

Analytically, what we're seeing is not Bonapartist or fascist..but we certainly have the "vapid non-entity" and dire farce. Even by bourgeoisie standards US politics are particularly corrupt and dysfunctional..perhaps it is simply not plausible (cost feasible) to maintain such a tangled skein any longer. Either way, a shake down is overdue, inevitable, and will be warmly welcomed (as it will more clearly define who stands where)

Seems like we're about to go from slow motion to..Snow Motion

(choose your own lameass accompanying gif: http://giphy.com/search/snowglobe)

Don't overlook the virulent racism -- people weren't fools to oppose Trump, they knew what was coming. The rulers are gearing up for major action -- and the longer the fratricidal twin parties take to get their (capitalist) shit together, the greater escalation and the severity of the coming crackdown.

Analytically, what we're seeing is not Bonapartist or fascist..but we certainly have the "vapid non-entity" and dire farce. Even by bourgeoisie standards US politics are particularly corrupt and dysfunctional..perhaps it is simply not plausible (cost feasible) to maintain such a tangled skein any longer. Either way, a shake down is overdue, inevitable, and will be warmly welcomed (as it will more clearly define who stands where)

Seems like we're about to go from slow motion to..Snow Motion

(choose your own lameass accompanying gif: http://giphy.com/search/snowglobe)

In a way, Trump is the perfect "fall guy" for a bourgeois crack down. He can be "disavowed" at any point. Hell, even the Republicans could impeach him and be the "heroes" of the republic - I mean he isn't a real Republican, you know? Mike Moore predicts Trump will quit before his first year is out - too hard and no money in it. I don't know what is going to happen, but it isn't going to be good for the working class, that's a guarantee.

Insurrection in the Heartland
worker | December 8, 2016 | 8:22 pm | Marxism-Leninism Today (MLToday.com), political struggle
http://mltoday.com/article/2602-insurrection-in-the-heartland/90-frontpage-stories

By Zoltan Zigedy
Nov. 20, 2016The 2016 US Presidential elections produced a surprising result and a glaring contradiction. Donald Trump will guide the affairs of the most powerful country in the world. And that same person, a rapacious billionaire, enjoyed the votes of a substantial portion of the US working class.
In a rational society, the two thoughts — democratic ascension to power by a tyrannical, vulgar, unsparing capitalist bully and the consent, even support of a desperate working class — could not come together. But the US is not an idealized rational society.

The US, from the time of its founding by wealthy merchants and lawyers, is a state with institutional features meant to dampen or eviscerate any potential electoral movement that might challenge the rich and powerful. The “separation of powers” between three modes of governance, the balanced tension between states’ power and federal power, the bizarre “Electoral College,” and the evolved two-party system virtually assure a republic nearly immune to radical change or electoral insurgency.

Major democratic advances (the ending of slavery, women’s suffrage, desegregation, etc.) have been won on the battlefield and the streets and not in the voting booth. And the ownership of both of the two major parties by monopoly capital virtually guarantees that working people have a minor voice in affairs of the state.

The fate of this election hinged on US states that were battered by the flight of capital to cheap foreign labor markets and the resulting de-industrialization. The ease of capital movement, lower labor and other costs, and advances in logistics caught US workers in the scissors between job loss and radical cuts in pay and benefits. Add the effects of the 2007-2008 economic collapse, and the industrial core of the US working class was devastated.

Social scientists have well documented the dramatic rise in suicides, alcoholism, and drug abuse plaguing the working class over the last decade. What is unique about this moment is that white workers have also felt the brunt of capital’s abandonment of US manufacturing. In the past, the corporate policy of “last hired, first fired” and other racist barriers have insulated white workers from the harshest effects of policies and crises. Because minorities and women were on the workplace margins, they inordinately absorbed the shocks.

But today, white advantages have deteriorated in the face of twenty-first century corporate hyper-exploitation. With the threat of Communism (temporarily) abated, global capitalism doesn’t need to buy the white working class with privilege as often as it did in the past. Consequently, the economic pains of corporate pillage are felt by many white workers as well.

Predictably, white workers responded in different and contradictory ways. Many returned to old patterns of scapegoating, blaming African Americans, women, and immigrants for job losses and declining economic growth.

Still others blamed the elites of both parties and their policies for allowing, even encouraging the destruction of US manufacturing, the exiting of jobs, and the destruction of Midwestern communities.

Of course some embraced both responses.

Alienated white workers voted in large numbers twice for Obama– the Obama of “hope and change.” It was not racial tolerance that drove all of them to vote for Obama, but the desire for a break from the neglect of the Bush years.

We now know from the election data that many of the same predominantly white communities voted for Trump in 2016. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, formerly industrial strongholds, all showed a 10-point or more turnaround in favor of Trump from 2012 to 2016. It was not all racial intolerance that drove so many white workers to vote for Trump, but the desire for change, in this instance, from the neglect of the Obama years. Exit polls show that voters wanted someone who “can bring needed change.”

This strange brew of legitimate anger, ignorant racism, and years of endless war and media-stoked xenophobia was exploited by Trump. With more voters opting out of what they see as inconsequential elections every year, the 2016 election was a contest fueled by anger, fear, and disappointment with the insipid choices offered by the bankrupt two-party system.

The failure of traditional institutions to address the pain and hardships endured by workers must be added to that volatile mix. Organized religion, organized labor, and, of course, the political party that workers identify with — the Democratic Party — have offered workers little beyond a cold shoulder.

After Shock

Worldwide, equity markets reminded us that the capitalist class owns both major US parties. Despite capital’s strong vocal and financial support for Hillary Clinton, stocks rebounded from a pre-election eight-day decline with record-breaking peaks in the US. Investors are confident that President Trump will not wander too far from the reservation; he will cater to the interests of capital first and foremost.

With the pollsters, pundits, and consultants in disarray, the day-after brought widespread paralysis followed by a right and left reaction. Racists and immigrant-bashers emerged from their crevices and loudly proclaimed a new day. To their surprise, lynch mobs did not form in a country that largely rejects crude, violent racism, but remains deaf to institutional patterns of oppression.

Anti-Trump rallies sprang up spontaneously on many campuses throughout the US. While they passionately rejected Trump’s ethnic and gender vulgarity, they have yet to advance many demands, or hints of a common program, though they have sought to force university administrations and a few cities to make campuses “sanctuaries” for diversity.

There will be many other opportunities in the months to come for a fight-back to take shape and for the left to offer leadership as the Trump agenda unfolds. To be sure, the Democratic Party operatives will work diligently to deflect this energy from core economic issues of inequality that anger the working class toward the social liberalism that occupies urban elites.

Missing from the analyses of most commentators is any recognition of the secular trend in US two-party politics towards dysfunctionality. Trump and Clinton are only the latest instantiation of this festering neglect of race and class, a neglect producing greater and greater social fissures with every electoral cycle.

It is only the left, essentially the Marxist-Leninist left that grasps the unique intersection of race and class arising at this moment. It offers the only analysis that explains the historical role of racism and xenophobia in solving capitalism’s problems through war and division and that can lead people through the minefield laid by the cynical Trump candidacy.

In the last instance, it is as the Greek Communists remind, commenting on the two-party system on the occasion of the Trump election: “The people will stop being trapped between ‘Scylla and Charybdis’ when they chart their own course, for rupture with and the overthrow of the system which creates poverty, crises, wars.…”

This article first appeared in the Morning Star (UK)

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/insurrection-in-the-heartland/

Missing from the analyses of most commentators is any recognition of the secular trend in US two-party politics towards dysfunctionality. Trump and Clinton are only the latest instantiation of this festering neglect of race and class, a neglect producing greater and greater social fissures with every electoral cycle.

It is only the left, essentially the Marxist-Leninist left that grasps the unique intersection of race and class arising at this moment. It offers the only analysis that explains the historical role of racism and xenophobia in solving capitalism’s problems through war and division and that can lead people through the minefield laid by the cynical Trump candidacy.

In the last instance, it is as the Greek Communists remind, commenting on the two-party system on the occasion of the Trump election: “The people will stop being trapped between ‘Scylla and Charybdis’ when they chart their own course, for rupture with and the overthrow of the system which creates poverty, crises, wars.…”

(My emphases)

This is what the "no hierarchy, no vanguard party" folks can never seem to grasp; it isn't, "Trump is bad, but look how bad the Democrats are!" It is Democrats = Republicans, and the only ones who can't see that are Democrat supporters and Republican supporters. When some anti-Republican person screams about how bad the Republicans are, and some stupid person says that Republicans are the same as Democrats, the anti-Republican loses his/her mind. The Greek Commies got it exactly right - "Scylla and Charybdis", six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Taming Trump (print)

December 1, 2016 by jackrasmus
The following is a forthcoming article expanding at length on how US elites are maneuvering with the Trump administration and transition team, compromising in the short run but preparing in the longer to ‘tame Trump’ by various means should he depart too radically from mainstream elite policies. The piece is offered here to readers, despite its length more appropriate for a magazine than a blog.

Taming Trump, by Jack Rasmus, copyright 2016

“In the weeks since the November 8 US presidential election, the dim outlines of what a Trump presidency might look like are beginning to appear. Trump continues to retreat on several fronts from his campaign ‘right populist’ positions, while doubling-down on other radical positions he previously proposed during the campaign. How to make sense of his apparent evolving policy divergence?

One the one hand, Trump appears to moving closer to traditional Republican party elite positions on big reductions of taxes on corporate-investor elites and on delivering long standing elite demands to deregulate business; at the same time he appears to be moderating his position with regard to that third top priority of the US neoliberal elite—i.e. free trade—as he back-peddles rapidly from his campaign attacks on trade and free trade agreements.

At the same time Trump appears to be doubling down on his campaign’s radical social policy issues like immigration (promising to immediately deport or jail 3 million), taking a harder line position on law and order and civil liberties (declaring those who burn the flag should lose their US citizenship or go to jail), reaffirming his intent to privatize education services (by appointing a hard liner as Education Secretary who strongly favors charter schools and school vouchers), attacking environmental programs and protestors (calling for restoration of the Keystone pipeline), while showing early signs of moving closer toward Congressional Republican elite leaders, like Paul Ryan, and Ryan’s radical proposal to replace current Medicare with a federal ‘voucher’ system that would freeze the amount Medicare would pay doctors and hospitals as health care costs continued to escalate.

Areas Still Vague: Infrastructure Spending and Foreign Policy

Less clear than Trump’s above policy bifurcation are what policy positions he will take on fiscal and monetary matters.

Trump campaign promises of more government spending on ‘infrastructure’ still remain too vague. Will that mean more oil and gas pipelines and coal mining? More tax cuts to construction companies? More direct subsidies to businesses? And how much ‘spending’ is involved? Early indications are the infrastructure program may be mostly tax credits for businesses—and in addition to his massive corporate-investor tax cuts also planned. Trump in the past has called for $1 trillion. (Clinton had called for a $250 billion program over five years. That $50 billion was just about the amount the US now provides in subsidies to agribusiness). And so far as infrastructure spending’s impact on the US economy, $50 billion a year is insignificant. $1 trillion and $100 billion a year over ten years, Trump’s campaign proposal, might have some effect on US GDP. But GDP growth does not necessarily translate into benefits in income to all—as the last eight years has clearly shown as 97% of all GDP-income gains under Obama have gone to the wealthiest 1% households. Nor will infrastructure spending likely translate much into job creation—and could especially result in little positive impact on jobs if infrastructure spending is composed mostly of tax cuts, business subsidies, and high capital-intensive projects that may take years to realize. It is highly unlikely Trump is talking about a 1930s-like ‘public works program’. It’s more likely to be the federal government writing checks to big construction companies, pocketing nice profit margins in the process.

Trump’s influence over monetary policy in general—and interest rates in particular—will be even more minimal. The US elites will strongly oppose any Trump attempts, as promised during the election, to ‘reform’ the US central bank, the Federal Reserve. And the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hike cat is already out of the bag. Long term rates have been already rising rapidly and will continue to do so, as will the US dollar in turn, as the two—rates and the dollar—are highly correlated. And the Federal Reserve is clearly on track to raise short term rates soon.

The question is whether the rise in interest rates—short and long term–will discourage investment, thus hiring and job creation, in those industries not directly affected by infrastructure spending? Will the negative effect of rate rises on investment and job creation be greater than the positive effect of infrastructure spending? Will those negative effects emerge sooner than the positive from infrastructure investment? And will the rising dollar associated with the rate hikes further reduce manufacturing exports and jobs in that sector? The dollar rise has already stagnated manufacturing output and employment. Further increases will almost certainly result in a contraction of manufacturing exports and jobs.

‘Yes’ is probably the answer to all the above, which means Trump job creation net effects during his first two years in office may not materialize. Moderate at best job creation from delayed infrastructure spending could be more than offset by job loss from rising rates and the US dollar.

The other major Trump policy area that still remains vague is foreign policy. It is not clear as yet what Trump’s true positions will be on NATO and China. But the US elite are intent on bringing him around to their positions and will exert extreme pressure on Trump in order to do so. They have already begun to do so. They will not let up on the pressure.

Trump’s intent is to become more militarily aggressive against ISIS in the middle east, and possibly ‘partnering’ with Russia to do so. That latter possibility is currently causing fits with US elites behind the scene. Backing off from NATO military deployment provocations in eastern Europe, the US-NATO current policy, while looking favorably on Europe’s backing off of economic sanctions against Russia, may also become Trump policy.

Trump’s Big Three Cabinet Appointments

Whether that foreign policy redirection occurs under Trump is now playing out in backroom maneuverings within the Trump administration with regard to key Trump cabinet appointments involving departments of State, Defense, and remaining national security positions. The elite want Romney. Populist right forces in the Trump camp do not. And behind the appointment issue is whether a Secretary of State position under Trump becomes a mere figurehead to Trump foreign policy decided in the White House by Trump and his close aides like General Flynn and others.

The US elite want Romney and they want their Secretary of State to have independence. Should Romney get the appointment here, it will signal they have prevailed. The result will be a bifurcation on foreign policy directions in the Trump administration which will ultimately break down at some point.

Obama’s recent ‘tour’ of NATO countries should be viewed as an effort by US elites to try to ensure NATO allies that Trump’s campaign proposals targeting NATO will not be the final position of the Trump regime. The Obama tour was in part at least to hold NATO allies’ hands and ask them to be patient—i.e. the elite will bring Trump around to reality. Be patient. We will eventually ‘tame’ Trump is no doubt the message. After Europe, Obama scurried back to Asia, attending the APEC economic summit, and providing no doubt similar assurances to US allies there that Trump would ‘come to his senses’ as cooler elite heads advised him.

Trump appears to have just appointed General (nicknamed ‘mad dog’) Mattis. Petraeus, a more establishment figure under consideration is out; or maybe Petraeus decided himself that hitching a ride on a Trump administration was not the greatest career restoration move. But the Mattis appointment still leaves the direction of a Trump administration’s policies on NATO, Russia, or Asia up in the air.

The third key cabinet appointment is Secretary of the Treasury. Here Trump’s transition team initially appeared to favor the CEO of the biggest US bank, Chase’s Jaime Dimon. Treasury secretaries in recent decades, under US Neoliberalism since Reagan, have always been heads of some big financial institution. And in recent decades, the Treasury Secretaries have repeatedly been alumni of the big investment bank, Goldman Sachs. And so too is Mnuchin, continuing the trend of the wheeling-dealing ‘shadow banking’ sector still dominating the Treasury.

Together with Wilbur Ross, appointed to Commerce Secretary, also a ‘shadow banker’ and former Private Equity Firm owner, the Mnuchin-Ross team will determine banking and economic policy in the Trump administration. Their initial target will no doubt be dismantling what’s left of the skeleton of the Dodd-Frank banking regulation bill.

Trump ‘Free Trade’ Policy

Trade as a policy has both foreign policy and economic dimensions. The US elite is now facing a major challenge, having temporarily lost the TPP and with the Europe TTIP in trouble, given a year of intense political instability on the horizon in Europe. They will focus on just keeping the prospects alive temporarily. In the meantime, the thrust is to prevent the deterioration of NAFTA, CAFTA, and other bilateral free trade deals signed under Bush and Obama. The objective will be to stop Trump from making any changes in NAFTA in the short term, and ensuring whatever changes after is cosmetic and token in the longer term.

Taming Trump may prove more difficult with regard to Free Trade, however, compared to getting Trump to implement US elite objectives on matters of tax cuts and deregulation. Trump’s positions during the election were strongly anti-Trade. It played a key role in his election victory, and clearly in the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. It will be more difficult for him to renege and about-face on the trade issue. Taming Trump will prove more difficult.

But here’s how it nonetheless may develop:

Reversing the worst effects of NAFTA cannot be done in the short term. The elites have many ways to slow and block his efforts. Some token renegotiation of NAFTA will eventually take place, resulting in minor adjustments. In the meantime, however, Trump can gain publicity and placate his base on this issue by achieving ‘victories’ discouraging specific companies to abandon plans to relocate to Mexico or abroad. Recent events involving Ford Autos and the Carrier company are examples of what may be the Trump short term policy direction with regard to trade.

As for other multilateral free trade treaties, Trump has declared he would stop the TPP, Transpacific Partnership Asia-US free trade deal. But that was already dead in Congress. And the US-Europe counterpart to the TPP, the TTIP, is impossible in 2017 with the accelerating upheaval in European politics and coming unraveling of the Eurozone after next week elections in Italy and Austria, and with elections in France, Netherlands and Germany on the agenda in 2017.
What will Trump’s longer term free trade policy look like? It is important to understand that Trump is not against free trade. He opposed multilateral programs, which were at the center of US neoliberal elite objectives. Trump’s free trade policy will be to negotiate country-by-country free trade deals. Renegotiating free trade will make it appear as if he’s dismantling it. But the process will take a longer time, certainly not in the first year or two. The US elite can probably live with that. Their task in ‘taming Trump’ is to ensure he does not take precipitative action against current free trade deals, that he puts off such action, and settles into a longer term bilateral renegotiating policy. In the meantime, it will be more highly visible personal actions like the Ford and Carrier deals, to make it appear he is doing something on the matter.

What that all means is that except for token company examples like Ford and Carrier, free trade deals will continue. The US elite will get to continue their Neoliberal policy priority of free trade, just in another form that emphasizes slow, token changes to existing agreements and bilateral new free trade agreements. But free trade bilaterally is still free trade. And job losses and wage compression, the two major consequences of free trade deals, will continue. It’s just free trade in another form.

Trump is betting that the lack of job creation, from a retreat from is promises to ‘bring back jobs’ lost to trade, will be offset by job creation from infrastructure spending. Meanwhile, he can and will claim he is saving jobs by talking down Ford, Carrier, and other companies. Alongside this, bilateral free trade deals will go forward.

Massive Tax Cuts and Business Deregulation

The other two major priorities of the US elite are big corporate-investor tax cuts and deregulation. Here Trump has signaled he is in full agreement with the elite. No need to ‘tame’ Trump here. These policies will be forthcoming almost immediately in the new Trump regime.

Trump has proposed to cut corporate taxes even more than the Ryan-Republican Party faction in Congress. From the current 35% corporate rate, Trump proposed reducing it to 15% while Ryan and friends to 20%. Both are in agreement to reduce the top income tax rate for their wealthy friends, from current 39.6% to 33%. The Capital gains tax, now 23.8%, is scheduled for a cut to 20% by Trump and 16.5% by Congress. Both Trump and Ryan plan to abolish the Estate Tax, reducing taxation on estates worth $7 million (now the threshold) altogether. Both are strong proponents of allowing big US multinational corporations in Tech, Pharma, Banking and others to ‘repatriate’ $2.5 trillion in taxes they have been hoarding in profits offshore to avoid paying the US 35% rate to a low of 10%. The 4.8% surtax on the wealthiest to help fund Obamacare will also certainly disappear. Also notable is that net taxes on the middle class will rise under both plans, and the countless loopholes for investors will continue.

It should be noted that this massive tax cut package amounts to $4.3 trillion, according to Trump. But according to the Tax Policy Center research group, it will reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion. The wealthiest 1% would realize a 13.5% cut in their taxes, while the rest of all households would have a 4.1 % rise in their taxes.

This $4.3 or $6.2 trillion follows a $5 trillion tax cut agreed to by Obama, Democrats and Republicans in Congress that took place in early 2013 as part of the then phony ‘fiscal cliff’ crisis. That followed a $800 billion tax cut pushed by Obama at the end of 2010, in which Obama continued the previous Bush tax cuts for another two years and then some. That followed a preceding $300 billion tax cut in Obama’s 2009 initial recovery program. And all that came after George W. Bush’s estimated $3.4 trillion in tax cuts in 2001-04, 80% of which accrued the wealthiest households and businesses. So under Bush-Obama, taxes for the rich and their corporations totaled approximately $9.5 trillion, and now Trump-Ryan propose another $4.3-$6.2 trillion minimum, running the total up to more than $15 trillion.

And corporations and their lobbyists won’t wait for the tax cut legislation. They are already pressing for a Trump reversal of Obama administration measures over the past year to slow the rampant ‘tax inversion’ scams by big multinational tech, pharma and banks, that have been avoiding taxes by shifting their company headquarters offshore on paper. Corporations have avoided paying hundreds of billions of dollars in US taxes in just the past three years by means of ‘inversion’ scams. Trump doesn’t have to wait for Congress, for him to open the floodgates allowing massive corporate tax avoidance through unlimited ‘inversions’ once again. Big business lobbying arms, like the Business Roundtable, American Bankers Association, and National Association of Manufacturers are reportedly already demanding Trump lift all restrictions on ‘inversions’.

Trump and Ryan-Congress are no less in synch on the third policy priority of US elites—deregulation. Like corporate-investor tax cutting, Trump and the US elite are on the same page when it comes to deregulation. High on this agenda will be slicing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Trump will not need to repeal it and won’t. It will be given a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ and allowed to collapse. Already in big trouble as a program unable to control health insurance costs or prescription drug price gouging, ACA provisions like mandatory insurance purchases and the 4.8% surtax on the wealth to help pay for the subsidies are likely to go quickly. A similar major deregulation will be the Dodd-Frank banking regulation act, which has already had much of its provisions defanged since its passage in 2010. A main target will be the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

To gain public awareness of his pledges to deregulate, Trump will immediately in 2017 repeal, however, as many Obama Executive Orders as possible. Receiving the brunt of this will be immigration provisions, like the Dream Act, and numerous Environmental regulations. Trump’s EPA head will no doubt immediately reverse the regulations involving the industrial plant pollution proposals not yet or just recently proposed. In Labor matters, overtime pay rules and private pension rules are targets as well. Trump will immediately in 2017 reverse all the regulations he possibly can by Executive Order. That includes the Dream Act for youth of immigrants in the first 100 days, and new Executive Orders giving new powers of detention and arrest to border and police officials. Efforts by cities and universities to provide sanctuary to undocumented immigrants will result in immediate harsh financial and other actions against those same. Recent minimal rulings by the National Labor Relations Board favoring union workers and institutions will be quickly reversed as well.

The US elite, in Congress and beyond, will tolerate much of this deregulation, as well as a significant assault on immigration, law and order, policy repression of ethnic communities, deportations, limits on civil liberties, cuts in social programs, and privatization proposals across the board involving education, Medicare, and healthcare. Their priority is passage of policy in the areas of tax cuts, deregulation, and delaying any potential actions that might endanger existing free trade agreements.

Getting Trump to back off his campaign promises—i.e. his right wing populism—in areas of foreign policy and trade redirection are also elite priority issues. Trump has never needed ‘taming’ on tax and deregulation issues. And he will be allowed to proceed with elements of his right wing populism that involve attacks on environment, law and order, civil liberties, and immigration—so long as the latter involves low paid undocumented immigration from Latin America and does not interfere with the 500,000 high paid tech jobs legally given to Chinese and Indian immigrants on H1-B and L-1/2 visas. And so long as he doesn’t proceed so fast that it precipitates excessive social unrest. Go slow, he will be told. Nothing too extreme. And ensure that taxes, deregulation, trade and foreign policy are priority and are concluded first.

The US elite will abandon Trump if he doesn’t play ball on taxes, deregulation, going slow on Trade, and if he upsets long-standing foreign policy directions too radically. They will let him run amuck on issues of immigration, civil liberties, law and order, environment, and privatizing of social programs. So how might that elite ‘tame trump’ if and when necessary? The preparations just in case are already underway. They include the following:

How To Tame Trump

There are at least six ways by which they can, and are now preparing, to control him.

1. Trump Business Conflicts

Trump has 111 businesses in 18 countries. It is not possible to even put these in a blind trust, as previous presidents have done with their business interests. The elite will gather all the incriminating evidence they can to reveal his conflicts of interests, if necessary, at some point. They will threaten Trump quietly first to reveal and proceed against him and, if he doesn’t respond in their favor on some issue or policy, start the process of undermining his reputation and credibility in the media and with public opinion. Keeping the heat on will be mainstream media like the New York Times, Washington Post, and major broadcast TV sources. It won’t be difficult to dig up the dirt.

2. Trump Foundation

Like the Clinton Foundation, as with foundations of many of the super wealthy, the Trump Foundation is a source of potential major scandal. Incriminating or even insinuating investigations will be undertaken quietly, and then publicly if necessary.

3. Nepotism Charges

Trump has already shown a preference for family member involvement in his administration. That opens him to criticism of nepotism. That becomes the nexus for alleging Trump using the presidency to enrich himself indirectly through his family connections.

4. Trump’s Tax Returns

Trump may not have released his returns during the campaign, and probably for good reason. Few in the wheeling-dealing commercial real estate sector are squeaky clean when it comes to tax avoidance and even fraud. The worse of his tax matters will be quietly passed on to the New York Times and other media. They can be revealed at the appropriate juncture, if Trump doesn’t ‘play ball’ with the elite on matter of policy the latter consider strategic.

5. Attacks on Trump Appointees and Family

Trump can be damaged and undermined by attacking his appointments and family members. Favorite targets will be radicals like Steve Bannon of Breitbart who has been brought into the Trump White House as advisor. Trump’s son-in-law may prove another favorite target. So might even be his appointed national security adviser, General Flynn. Already major feature pieces on Bannon have appeared in the Times and media. The media continues to keep alive Flynn’s alleged pro-Russia views and contacts. Meanwhile, talking heads experts continue to appear on the mainstream press TV shows like CNN, MSNBC, CBS and others continuing the press the election themes of Trump’s character limits and dangerous personal traits. The elite will keep these issues of Trump judgment and volatility before the public, until Trump comes around and adopts US elite policies, especially on foreign policy, trade, and other matters.

6. Violations of Law

Trump’s proclivity to engage in tweets may yet get him in serious legal trouble. So too may any precipitous incitement of radical elements and actions that result from his public statements. Or any premature over-reaching Executive Orders.

From ‘Faux Left’ to ‘Faux Right’ Populism

In 2008 Barack Obama ran for president based on a program that in some ways was clearly populism. Entering the president primary race late, in early 2008, Obama’s advisers vaulted him to the nomination six months later by employing a strategy that consistently was to the left of the other Democrat candidates, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Obama appeared the popular left candidate. Many voters were sufficiently misled. Immediately after elected, however, Obama proceeded to appoint advisers and cabinet members who were clearly representatives of the banking industry and business interests in general. Neoliberal policies were given a ‘left cover’, as Obama then ruled from the ‘center-right’ on key matters of economic policy of primary interest to the elite—i.e. bailing out the banks, rescuing big businesses from bankruptcy, ensuring the stock and bond markets boomed, pressing for free trade deals, going slow and minimalizing banking regulation, ensuring healthcare reform did not include the ‘public option’ or even consider Medicare expansion, and turning over US jobs and trade policy to figures like Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric. Mortgage companies were given preference over bailing out homeowners facing foreclosure and ‘negative equity’. Latinos were deported in record numbers, students allowed to accumulate more than $1 trillion in debt, job creation involved mostly low paid, contingent service work, pensions were allowed to collapse, senior citizens’ savings evaporate while investors enjoyed eight years of near zero interest rates, and progressive labor legislation was quickly shelved.

What started as a hope of a resurrected left populism quickly and progressively decayed into a comprehensive program that delivered 97% of all income gains to the wealthiest 1% households.

Voters chose a black president in 2008 because they wanted change. They didn’t care about his race. They didn’t get it. In 2016 they now voted again—for change. Those voters did not become racist in the past eight years, even though the candidate they just voted for indicated in many ways he himself was racist and misogynist, to name but a few of his apparent character faults. Those voters who in 2008 chose a ‘left populism’ that turned out to be false, chose in 2016 a ‘right populism’. But what they will get is not populism but another disappointment.

Like the Obama regime, the Trump regime will retreat to a neoliberal US elite regime. It will be a ‘Neoliberalism 2.0’. An evolved new form of Neoliberalism based on the continuation of pro-investor, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy elite economic policies—with an overlay of even more repressive social policies involving immigration, law and order, privatizations, cuts in social programs, more police repressions of ethnic communities, environmental retreat, limits on civil liberties, more insecurity and more fear. This is the new form of Neoliberalism, necessary to continue its economic dimensions by intensifying its forms of social repression and control.

We predict Trump will concede to elite neoliberal policies on Trade and Foreign Policy eventually, as he already is about to do with regard to elite policy preferences on taxation and deregulation. If he does not, elite interests are waiting in the wings, gathering the evidence and ammunition to attack Trump more directly if necessary, should he not comply. So long as he plays ball with them, they’ll just hold their ammunition at the ready. They will lock and load, and cock the hammer, taking aim and give a warning.

Trump will respond. He will come around to their demands. After all, he has more personally to even lose than did Obama. Faux left is replaced by faux right in American politics.

Jack Rasmus

Jack is the author of Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy, by Clarity Press, 2016, ‘Looting Greece: An Emerging New Financial Imperialism’, by Clarity Press, October 2016, and the forthcoming ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, March 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His website is jackrasmusproductions.com. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/taming-trump/

Taming Trump, by Jack Rasmus, copyright 2016

This an interesting piece and I am not saying that Jack, here, is wrong. He does appear to overlook 'politics'. Trump won the election and so did the Republican Party, as a whole. Now, it isn't unusual for the out-going president's party to lose to the opposition (US politics are "secular", after all), but this was not your usual, cookie-cutter election. Trump won, at least in part, against the wishes of his own party. Trump, no doubt, is scared to death of being President - Emperor of the World. The election was all "Survivor-meets-The Apprentice" game show and shout fest (where your Orange Barker shown). Actually dealing with possessing the power must be overwhelming for the intellectually challenged, reality TV star. But Trump is also an egoist of biblical proportions, a narcissist beyond the pale of most run-of-the-mill narcissism. Predicting what Trump will do based upon what a "normal" person would do is dangerous. His own fear of his new position may cause him to just hand over everything to underlings and never look back; operate the Presidency as a four-year-long victory tour where he simply basks in the adoration (assuming there is any adoration after the first 100 days).

One thing is for sure, this presidency will be anti-working class, to at least the extent that previous administrations have been. Will Trump's reign be worse than Regan's? Don't know - conditions are different, pressures different. One thing is that it looks unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more immigrants than Obama did, because of the costs involved. I read back last summer how much it would cost to deport the number of folks Trump was talking about (I'll try to find it), but it was ridiculously prohibitive - one of the reasons Obama's deportation numbers were no higher than they were - money.

Trump remains hard to predict. We will see what we will see.

This an interesting piece and I am not saying that Jack, here, is wrong. He does appear to overlook 'politics'. Trump won the election and so did the Republican Party, as a whole. Now, it isn't unusual for the out-going president's party to lose to the opposition (US politics are "secular", after all), but this was not your usual, cookie-cutter election. Trump won, at least in part, against the wishes of his own party. Trump, no doubt, is scared to death of being President - Emperor of the World. The election was all "Survivor-meets-The Apprentice" game show and shout fest (where your Orange Barker shown). Actually dealing with possessing the power must be overwhelming for the intellectually challenged, reality TV star. But Trump is also an egoist of biblical proportions, a narcissist beyond the pale of most run-of-the-mill narcissism. Predicting what Trump will do based upon what a "normal" person would do is dangerous. His own fear of his new position may cause him to just hand over everything to underlings and never look back; operate the Presidency as a four-year-long victory tour where he simply basks in the adoration (assuming there is any adoration after the first 100 days).

One thing is for sure, this presidency will be anti-working class, to at least the extent that previous administrations have been. Will Trump's reign be worse than Regan's? Don't know - conditions are different, pressures different. One thing is that it looks unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more immigrants than Obama did, because of the costs involved. I read back last summer how much it would cost to deport the number of folks Trump was talking about (I'll try to find it), but it was ridiculously prohibitive - one of the reasons Obama's deportation numbers were no higher than they were - money.

Trump remains hard to predict. We will see what we will see.

Hard to predict, indeed, especially when he's the sort to go for shock value in order to discombobulate his opponent. But on the other side what he wrote about elite response to Trump is likely accurate.

How long he can hold on to his base, in view of the shitheads he's appointing who are shamelessly anti-working class remains to be seen. It's been pointed out that it took years, if ever, for Obama fans to realize they'd been snookered, but I think it will be different this time, if only for 'historical accretion'. And of course he don't have dumb ass liberals in his camp.

This administration could tank as fast as Junior's was until 911......

Uh-oh.

Hard to predict, indeed, especially when he's the sort to go for shock value in order to discombobulate his opponent. But on the other side what he wrote about elite response to Trump is likely accurate.

How long he can hold on to his base, in view of the shitheads he's appointing who are shamelessly anti-working class remains to be seen. It's been pointed out that it took years, if ever, for Obama fans to realize they'd been snookered, but I think it will be different this time, if only for 'historical accretion'. And of course he don't have dumb ass liberals in his camp.

This administration could tank as fast as Junior's was until 911......

Uh-oh.

What the hell is his base anyway BP. I suggest it's beyond what the common narrative suggests. About near 50% didn't vote (that block is filled with struggling disaffected blue-collar workers that many claim is Trump's base) If you break down the peeps who voted it's only a small percentage of that strata. I think claiming that's his base is not accurate. A large percentage of his vote totals were from the college educated professional and business owning strata with incomes in the top 10-15% of the economic pyramid. Many in the top 5% and higher and they couldn't give a shit less about any common purpose with anyone below their station. They are salivating at the thought of tax cuts, tax breaks, loose regulation, padding their portfolios, and the rest of it. These peeps got theirs and they feel immune from it all. "Slash everything baby. Those poor peeps are losers anyway. Not our problem they can't cut it." Closet bigots and racists abound and Trump speaks for them despite any lip-service otherwise. I ain't so sure he doesn't have a block of upscale liberals in his camp either. His base is solid in that respect. Just ruminating here BP.

Would you like your username changed to Little Bo Peeps?

Clinton could not have chosen a worse cabinet. Every selection so far has been either a general or a billionaire or a corporate chieftain of some stripe. I won't list them here, they are all over the "news". I heard this morning on one of the corporate "news" shows that Romney was the most likely choice for Secretary of State - Trump said that Mitt looked like he came from central casting for the part of SoS. Seems Trump is all about appearances - what a shock! A television barker that sees talent in terms of looks? Unheard of!

Anyway, between the "Mad Dog" military men and the "Fuck the Working Class" corporate Big Dicks, this is shaping up to be a real horror show. Even the Republican party may balk at some of these picks. Wait and see. As someone of one of the "news" shows said, "Trump doesn't seems to have any real ideology or theme to his presidency, yet." I don't think Caligula had any for his reign, either.

I know this isn't your one of your favorite sources :D But what the hell...

http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/donald-trumps-mentor-was-roy-cohn-union-buster/

-- Al Hart

(Snip)

The late Roy Cohn, an unscrupulous New York lawyer and power broker, was Donald Trump’s mentor for 13 years during his rise to celebrity status. Cohn helped shape the Trump we see today, and from him Trump learned his signature tactics of attack; insult; manipulate the media; never back down; never apologize or admit you were wrong; and when you have nothing to attack with, make stuff up. The relationship between Cohn and Trump has been the subject of articles this year in the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Politico, New York Daily News and other news media.

Cohn’s own career as an attack dog began in the 1950s, when he rose to prominence as chief counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin. McCarthy built his political career on the witch-hunt against Communists, suspected Communists, imagined Communists, and other political nonconformists. He is identified with the paranoia and repression of the 1950s to the extent that the decade is often called the McCarthy Era. McCarthyism became a noun meaning unfair persecution of political opponents.

Cohn vs. UE

What is less widely known about Cohn is that, to a large degree, he got his start attacking the United Electrical Workers union, both with and without McCarthy.

The 1950s was a time when UE faced relentless efforts to destroy our union. Following the triumphs of labor in the huge postwar strike wave of 1946 (including a coordinated national strike of UE against GE and Westinghouse, the UAW against GM, and the Steelworkers against the basic steel industry), Big Business counterattacked. Shortly after the conclusion of the big strike, GE CEO Charles Wilson declared that the country’s problems could be summed up as, “Russia abroad, labor at home.” The corporations decided to conflate those two “problems” and attack the labor movement, at least the most militant unions, as disloyal to the United States and servants of the Soviet Union.

Republicans won control of Congress in the November 1946 election by calling the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) a “Communist front.” The CIO was the federation of industrial unions founded in the 1930s, which included UE. In 1947 the Republican Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, an anti-labor law that weakened unions in many ways and still weakens us today. One provision of Taft-Hartley (struck down years later by the courts) required all union officers to sign sworn affidavits that they were not Communists. If they didn’t sign, their unions would lose all protections of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and not be permitted to appear on any NLRB ballot in a representation election.

Taft-Hartley leads to raiding

All unions opposed Taft-Hartley, and most at first refused to sign the non-Communist affidavits, viewed as unjust government interference in internal union affairs. But one by one unions did sign, and some then took advantage to steal members from unions that still refused to sign, and were therefore barred from NLRB elections. When other CIO unions raided UE in this manner, UE demanded that the CIO enforce the no-raiding provision in its constitution. CIO President Phil Murray refused, and UE withdrew from the CIO. The CIO then declared UE “expelled” and set up a rival union, the IUE, to raid, destroy and replace UE. (UE officers eventually signed the Taft-Hartley affidavits so the union could survive.)

UE employers – in particular GE and Westinghouse – joined the effort to wipe out UE. As the anti-communist hysteria grew, several congressional committees got into the act. Senators and congresspersons posed as patriotic heroes, ruining the lives of many innocent people in the hunt for reds in government, education, the movie industry, labor and elsewhere.

Roy Cohn goes to work for Joe McCarthy

Joe McCarthy soon emerged as the most ruthless of the witch hunters. Beginning in December 1952 the chief counsel of McCarthy’s committee, and the mastermind behind McCarthy’s tactics, was a brash young lawyer from New York, Roy Cohn.

McCarthy helped rival unions and companies that wanted to eliminate UE by scheduling “field hearings” in cities where UE was facing a raid in a major plant, a few days before the voting. He’d then subpoena UE shop leaders, make accusations, grill them over whether they were Communists or knew any Communists, and the local newspapers would eat it up. Headlines like, “McCarthy Quizzes Union on Red Ties” were often enough, in that fearful atmosphere, to tip an election against UE.

UE counter attacks

But UE counterattacked. In November 1953 McCarthy was holding hearings in Boston to intimidate UE supporters in the GE plant in nearby Lynn, where an NLRB election between UE and IUE was scheduled. UE send McCarthy a telegram demanding that he subpoena UE Director of Organization James Matles. When McCarthy didn’t respond, UE General Counsel David Scribner phoned Cohn and threatened to tell the press that McCarthy was afraid to question Matles.

Cohn and McCarthy took the bait, and at the hearing Matles turned the tables on them. Matles called out McCarthy for “terrorizing and browbeating decent working people.” Matles bluntly told McCarthy, “Senator, you’re a liar.” McCarthy blew up. Matles, a World War II vet, also took a shot at the 23-year-old Cohn, who had somehow evaded the Korean War draft. “I put in my time in the Armed Services, Cohn. What are you doing around here?” McCarthy interjected, “You don’t have to answer that, Roy.”

Union’s run-ins with Cohn

UE’s first run-ins with Cohn, however, came before he went to work for McCarthy, in 1951 and ’52 when he was a special assistant to the U.S. Attorney in New York. In consultation with GE and Westinghouse, Cohn came up with a gambit he hoped would wipe UE off the map in one fell swoop. In 1952, he subpoenaed UE’s General Secretary-Treasurer Julius Empak and Matles before a federal grand jury to grill them over the “truthfulness” of their non-Communist affidavits. (Cohn had done this the year before and gotten nowhere with it.) Cohn still had no legal basis to indict the UE officers for perjury or anything else, but this time he planned to get the grand jury to approve a written document he had drafted, called a “presentment”, which declared that the UE officers’ affidavits were “not worth the paper they were written on” and “a subterfuge.” The “presentment” then recommended that the NLRB “revoke the certification” of UE as a collective bargaining organization.

One day in November 1952 UE received the shocking news that the NLRB was taking Cohn’s scam seriously, and was preparing to, in effect, outlaw the union. The UE leadership quickly alerted the membership to mobilize for a major battle, and UE’s lawyers prepared a full-scale legal fight to reverse the NLRB’s action. Against the odds, the union prevailed in this case, and in late January 1953 a federal judge issued a permanent injunction barring the NLRB from taking any action against UE on the basis of Cohn’s trumped-up “presentment.”

McCarthy’s overreach led to his downfall. In late 1953 he began investigating the U.S. Army, claiming it was infested with Communist spies. He found nothing to support those wild charges. He and Cohn also pressured the Army to give favorable treatment to David Schine, a former McCarthy aide and friend of Cohn who had been drafted. Army counsel John G. Adams later testified that Cohn had threatened to “wreck the Army” if their demands weren’t met. The Army and the Washington political establishment decided they’d have enough of McCarthy’s and Cohn’s antics. McCarthy’s committee was placed under the chairmanship of another Republican senator, and what became known as the Army-McCarthy Hearings were televised live. It was McCarthy’s Waterloo, and after the hearings Cohn resigned and returned to New York to set up a private practice.

Cohn meets Trump

Over the next 30 years Cohn became a New York lawyer with powerful clients, a celebrity in social and political circles, and a man widely hated and feared. In October 1973 he met a young real estate developer, Donald Trump, at an exclusive Manhattan disco. Trump’s father Fred Trump was a millionaire landlord and developer in Brooklyn and Queens, but Donald wanted to get into the real action, Manhattan. Trump informed Cohn that he and his father were being sued by the U.S. Justice Department for refusing to rent to black tenants, and their lawyers were advising them to settle. “Tell them to go to hell and fight the thing in court,” Cohn responded.

What the hell is his base anyway BP. I suggest it's beyond what the common narrative suggests. About near 50% didn't vote (that block is filled with struggling disaffected blue-collar workers that many claim is Trump's base) If you break down the peeps who voted it's only a small percentage of that strata. I think claiming that's his base is not accurate. A large percentage of his vote totals were from the college educated professional and business owning strata with incomes in the top 10-15% of the economic pyramid. Many in the top 5% and higher and they couldn't give a shit less about any common purpose with anyone below their station. They are salivating at the thought of tax cuts, tax breaks, loose regulation, padding their portfolios, and the rest of it. These peeps got theirs and they feel immune from it all. "Slash everything baby. Those poor peeps are losers anyway. Not our problem they can't cut it." Closet bigots and racists abound and Trump speaks for them despite any lip-service otherwise. I ain't so sure he doesn't have a block of upscale liberals in his camp either. His base is solid in that respect. Just ruminating here BP.

Actually I've argued somewhat the same, though my take is that 'base' being the bottom end of the petty booj, tradesmen, middle managers, franchise owners, that strata. Those are the folks who really feel shat upon by the government, which is partially true in that they are unable to game the system like their richer 'betters'. These are the 'enthusiasts' who show up at all the rallies, make all the noise. From the interviews I've heard the workers of the Rust Belt are more pragmatic. Racism is the base condition of white folks in the USA, a product of our history, social environment. That it is expressed and the manner of that expression is a matter of the stimulation applied and Mr Trump ain't been shy. How much he keeps that up will be a major thing to watch. As for the Nazis and such, fine, they are still fringe, and we got some easy targets.

Hard to predict, indeed, especially when he's the sort to go for shock value in order to discombobulate his opponent. But on the other side what he wrote about elite response to Trump is likely accurate.

How long he can hold on to his base, in view of the shitheads he's appointing who are shamelessly anti-working class remains to be seen. It's been pointed out that it took years, if ever, for Obama fans to realize they'd been snookered, but I think it will be different this time, if only for 'historical accretion'. And of course he don't have dumb ass liberals in his camp.

This administration could tank as fast as Junior's was until 911......

Uh-oh.

Here's something new. The Trump transition team is asking for a list of the names of civil servants who attended and work on Climate Change meetings, internationally and domestically. The DOE, evidently, looks at this request as the beginnings of a climate change enemies list.


Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings

The Trump transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking officials there to*identify which*department employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.
The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years*and “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”
The questionnaire, which one Energy Department official described as unusually “intrusive” and a matter for departmental lawyers, has raised concern that the Trump transition team was trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama.
The questionnaire was first reported by Bloomberg News. The Post has obtained its own a copy of the document as well as confirmation from other people in the department.
The memo provides the clearest indication yet of how Trump’s administration would begin to dismantle specific aspects of President Obama’s ambitious climate policies. Thousands of scientists have already signed petitions calling on the president-elect and his team to respect scientific integrity and refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration’s policy goals.
This potential clash could prompt a major schism within the federal government, with many career officials waging a battle against incoming political appointees.
One question zeroed in on the issue of the “social cost of carbon,” a way of calculating the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. The transition team asked for a list of department employees or contractors who attended interagency meetings, the dates of the meetings, and emails and other materials associated with them.
The social cost of carbon is a metric that calculates the cost to society of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Obama administration has used this tool to try to calculate the benefits of regulations and initiatives that lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Another question appeared to delve deeply into the mechanisms behind scientific tools called “integrated assessment models,” which scientists use to forecast future changes to the climate and energy system. It even asked what the Energy Department considers to be “the proper equilibrium climate sensitivity,” which is a way that climate researchers calculate how much the planet will eventually warm, depending upon the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
“My guess is that they’re trying to undermine the credibility of the science that DOE has produced, particularly in the field of climate science,” said Rob Jackson, a Stanford climate and energy researcher, in response to the question about the Integrated Assessment Models.
The transition team list also asked how to keep open aging nuclear power plants, restart the controversial Yucca mountain nuclear waste site shelved by President Obama, and support the licensing of small modular reactors.
It included 15 questions for the Energy Information Administration, some of them routine but some questioning the way the agency uses data about energy production.
The questions called to mind past cases of conflicts between Republican administrations and federal agency scientists, on the environment and other matters.
In Ronald Reagan’s first term, Anne Gorsuch was appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency amid a major push for regulatory rollback. But after Gorsuch resigned amid controversy in 1983, Congress opened investigations into supposed “hit lists” at the agency used to track the views of members of scientific advisory boards, according to contemporary press reports.
During the George W. Bush administration, meanwhile, there were complaints that scientific documents had been edited to raise doubts about the science of climate change, and that researchers had been prevented from speaking openly to the media and sharing their expertise.
Energy Department officials have not yet decided how to respond to the questions targeting the agency’s climate activities, according to federal officials who asked not to be identified to discuss internal deliberations.
“With some of these questions, it feels more like an inquisition than a question, in terms of going after career employees who have been here through Bush years to Clinton, and up to now,” said one current Energy Department employee. “All of a sudden you have questions that feel more like a congressional investigation than an actual probing of how the Department of Energy does its job.”
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, called the memo’s demand that Energy officials identify specific employees “alarming.”
“If the Trump administration is already singling out scientists for doing their jobs, the scientific community is right to be worried about what his administration will do in office. What’s next? Trump administration officials holding up lists of ‘known climatologists’ and urging the public to go after them?” Halpern asked, adding that lawmakers have attacked executive branch scientists in the past for doing “work they find inconvenient. It seems that they are about to get accomplices in the Department of Energy. But don’t expect the federal workforce to simply roll over. The new administration will find thousands of federal workers who still believe in their departmental mission and will work hard to resist attacks on their peers. Scientists outside government are standing by to expose these actions and fight back.”
The questionnaire spanned a broad area of Energy Department activities, including spelling out its loan program, its technology research program, responses to Congress, estimates of offshore wind, and cleanup of uranium at a site once used by the military for weapons research.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/ar-AAlmcz2?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Of course MSM is going to see this as nefarious, but it is hard to see anything else. Another thing that should be obvious to even the Trump team is that all the reports issued by the DOE relating to national and international climate change meetings, protocols, findings, etc. will have all the names of everyone involved in the reports listed in the reports. Maybe they are just too lazy and uninterested to actually look at the reports, themselves.

Would you like your username changed to Little Bo Peeps?

Is that addressed to moi Kid ? If so...just how the fuck am I supposed to interpret that. If this is a shot... please expand so the dumb ass in the cheap seats can understand :D

Actually I've argued somewhat the same, though my take is that 'base' being the bottom end of the petty booj, tradesmen, middle managers, franchise owners, that strata. Those are the folks who really feel shat upon by the government, which is partially true in that they are unable to game the system like their richer 'betters'. These are the 'enthusiasts' who show up at all the rallies, make all the noise. From the interviews I've heard the workers of the Rust Belt are more pragmatic. Racism is the base condition of white folks in the USA, a product of our history, social environment. That it is expressed and the manner of that expression is a matter of the stimulation applied and Mr Trump ain't been shy. How much he keeps that up will be a major thing to watch. As for the Nazis and such, fine, they are still fringe, and we got some easy targets.

Off topic BP but what is the rule here on posting articles if there is one. Can you post the whole thing or do you have a rule on that. Don't want to get you in hot water by posting full shit if there's a problem.

Off topic BP but what is the rule here on posting articles if there is one. Can you post the whole thing or do you have a rule on that. Don't want to get you in hot water by posting full shit if there's a problem.

Generally no rules as to length and such but there should be attribution and some attention to relevance. There is a limit of one video per post.

Generally no rules as to length and such but there should be attribution and some attention to relevance. There is a limit of one video per post.

Thanks...

Top that, Betsy!

http://www.al-fanarmedia.org/2016/12/funds-cut-prominent-arabic-language-program/

Back in 2006, after living and working as a journalist in Cairo for a number of years, I decided I needed to go back to university to study the Middle East, since my undergraduate studies had had nothing to do with the Arab world. I started a master’s-degree program in Near East Studies at New York University. I also decided to get serious about learning Arabic. There was only one program that I thought of applying to: the Center for Arabic Studies Abroad, or CASA.

Today this unique Arabic language program, which has trained generations of Middle East specialists, is under threat.

CASA is an intensive, one-year Arabic language program. At that time it was hosted at the American University in Cairo. It was funded by the Department of Education and open to American graduate students (and some professionals). It was famous for its rigor and for its results.

In 2007, I arrived back in Cairo to start my year at CASA. It was everything I could have hoped for. The professors taught us with enthusiasm and endless resourcefulness; my fellow students were bright and eager. Learning Arabic can be daunting. CASA’s approach is to do it all: We studied Classical Arabic as well as Egyptian Colloquial; we practiced reading, listening (endlessly rewinding media broadcasts and movies) and even writing. I have the fondest memories of afternoons spent in a Cairo flat, drinking coffee, plodding through my reading assignments and thumbing through my well-worn Hans Wehr dictionary. (The program had a philosophy: read, read and read. Keep reading even if you don’t understand everything. The more you read, the more the meaning of words will fall into place and stick in your mind. It worked). By the end of the year, we were taking seminars in Arabic from Egyptian university professors. I was able to read the novels that went on to be the basis of my master’s degree thesis.

This September, the Department of Education chose, for the first time in CASA program’s 49-year-history, not to fund it. The funding for Fulbright-Hayes programs—under which CASA falls—has been cut in recent years. Where it used to fund eleven programs, the department now supports only five or six. This year, the department introduced new guidelines, favoring new rather than established programs, ones from institutions that serve members of minority groups, and ones that focus on education between kindergarten and 12th grade.

“We expected to get less money,” Nevenka Korica Sullivan, the program’s U.S. director told me, “but nobody expected they would give us nothing. This is a shock. This is a new reality.”

CASA is a scholarship program. It covers students’ travel, their courses, and gives them a modest stipend with which to pay for rent and food. (Students must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents in the United States.) Being able to take a whole year to focus exclusively on Arabic was a turning point for me. The Arabic I learned allowed me to carry out academic research and the journalistic reporting I wanted to do. Quite simply, that year at CASA changed my life. And that seems to be true of most everyone who goes through the program. In letters of support submitted with CASA’s funding application, graduates of the program describe it in the most glowing terms: “unmatched,” “one of a kind” “invaluable.”

“It is hard to think of a colleague in the field (Arabic and Middle East Studies more broadly) who has not participated in this program” wrote Christopher Stone, head of the Arabic division at Hunter College/CUNY.

“My teaching career spanning 35 years across Harvard University, the College of William and Mary (where I founded the Arabic program), Emory University, and now the University of Texas at Austin simply would not have happened if not for CASA” wrote Kristen Brustad, Associate Professor of Arabic Studies, at the University of Texas at Austin. Ms. Brustad argued that “no other program anywhere in the world that provides this breadth and depth of Arabic training.”

It seems shortsighted, if not downright inexplicable, to leave an educational program whose value and impact are so universally acknowledged in the lurch. Especially at a time when there is such a preoccupation in the United States with Islamic terrorism and such a need for informed analysis of the Arab world.

As David Simonowitz, associate professor of Middle East Studies at Pepperdine University, argued in another letter of support: “Now more than ever, future U.S. students, educators, diplomats, civil servants, military personnel, and policy makers need the training provided by CASA” as well as “the cultural insights and resources that CASA provides.”

There are other intensive Arabic language programs, but none that are based in the Arab world, are as intensive as CASA, and largely serve future educators.

“It is the only program that caters to academia, [to people] who need Arabic for research purposes, and people who work in related fields, journalism and NGOs,” says Korica Sullivan, who teaches Arabic at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. “Because it built its reputation, it was able to attract the best students, who are completely motivated, who give up their life for a year to study Arabic, and it generates a wonderful energy.”

When I posted a note on social media about the program’s defunding, it was met with consternation and shock from many former Casaweyeen (I’m afraid that’s the nerdy term some of us used) who are in my network of friends and acquaintances. One friend today interviews Syrians applying for refugee status thanks to the Arabic she learned in CASA. Another has gone on to teach Arabic himself at a university level, and is about to finish a dissertation he says he couldn’t have undertaken without the program, which he calls “an experience that was pivotal to me.”

CASA has already gone through significant upheavals in recent years because of its commitment to being an immersion program that is based in an Arab country. It left Cairo twice since the uprising there in 2011, and is currently based in Amman, Jordan.

The program has a small endowment that will allow it to run, with a small number of students, this year and perhaps the next. Fifteen students are studying in Amman at the moment. CASA administrators are exploring other sources of funding they can apply for. They are hopeful that this invaluable program will find the support it needs.

Top that, Betsy!

Huh?

Huh?

lol. Arabic funding was cancelled by the Department of Education. Can't wait to see what DeVos will come up with once she takes the helm.

(My emphases)

This is what the "no hierarchy, no vanguard party" folks can never seem to grasp; it isn't, "Trump is bad, but look how bad the Democrats are!" It is Democrats = Republicans, and the only ones who can't see that are Democrat supporters and Republican supporters. When some anti-Republican person screams about how bad the Republicans are, and some stupid person says that Republicans are the same as Democrats, the anti-Republican loses his/her mind. The Greek Commies got it exactly right - "Scylla and Charybdis", six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Your vindictive mindset is clouding your analysis. The point is this and you simply don't get it. It's not a matter of "hierarchy and vanguards" it's a matter of working class power. Working class power means exactly that. The workers will control any party in direct fashion...no party will control the workers in dictatorial fashion.

As for the rest of it. I can post this below and get agreement from just about every faction of the anti-capitalist left. More caricatures that only exist in your mind. You're not making any effort at all. The realization of the points you make are everywhere on the anti-capitalist left not just the Marxist/Leninist faction.

"The capitalist class is represented by the Republican, Democratic, Populist and Prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the means of production, and the triumph of any one of which will mean continued wage-slavery to the working class.The very moment that the workers understand this paramount issue, they part company with the capitalist politicians and fall in line with their own class on the political battlefield.

The struggle in which we are engaged today is a class struggle,and as the toiling millions come to see and understand it and rally to the political standard of their class,they will drive all capitalist parties of whatever name into the same party, and the class struggle will then be so clearly revealed that the hosts of labor will find their true place in the conflict and strike the united and decisive blow that will destroy slavery and will achieve the full and final emancipation of the working class."

--Eugene Debs

Is that addressed to moi Kid ? If so...just how the fuck am I supposed to interpret that. If this is a shot... please expand so the dumb ass in the cheap seats can understand :D

I was making fun of using the word 'peeps'

I was making fun of using the word 'peeps'

I have feelings man :D I'm an idealist. I'm overly sensitive to slights right now jousting with you cats on a daily basis :D I thought you meant the post was that of an infantile lost sheep.

List the Communist Parties that have controlled the workers in a "dictatorial fashion" and provide documentation for the claim.

List the Communist Parties that have controlled the workers in a "dictatorial fashion" and provide documentation for the claim.

If the political ORGAN of the working class is not going to dictate the will and policy of the proletariat -- who is?

"Direct control", "working class power means exactly that" etc.

To the extent these are empty phrases they are irrelevant and to the extent that they mean anything at all they are backwards ass jive. "An iphone in every hip holster and back pocket" is not a political program. Class power without class organization..except the really squishy kind.

If the political ORGAN of the working class is not going to dictate the will and policy of the proletariat -- who is?

"Direct control", "working class power means exactly that" etc.

To the extent these are empty phrases they are irrelevant and to the extent that they mean anything at all they are backwards ass jive. "An iphone in every hip holster and back pocket" is not a political program. Class power without class organization..except the really squishy kind.

Yup, and let me reiterate with these pearls from of all people Vlad the paranoiac poet and Phil Greaves:

"Organization is embedded strategy,expressing character of the state" Vlad

" Indeed, that the workers Parties themselves lead the State necessitates the State binding the masses in action." Phil

Could be any state, but we're talking about the working class state, until it's task is done.

If the political ORGAN of the working class is not going to dictate the will and policy of the proletariat -- who is?

"Direct control", "working class power means exactly that" etc.

To the extent these are empty phrases they are irrelevant and to the extent that they mean anything at all they are backwards ass jive. "An iphone in every hip holster and back pocket" is not a political program. Class power without class organization..except the really squishy kind.


blindpig Yup, and let me reiterate with these pearls from of all people Vlad the paranoiac poet and Phil Greaves:

"Organization is embedded strategy,expressing character of the state" Vlad

" Indeed, that the workers Parties themselves lead the State necessitates the State binding the masses in action." Phil

Could be any state, but we're talking about the working class state, until it's task is done.


This is where I was headed in my inimitable way. I was going to take it step by step, but I realize now that that approach would be useless. I have said in numerous places in this seemingly endless harangue that it did not matter if there was direction from a party as long as the party is the party of the working class. The idea that the "problem" is "dictatorial control" is laughable - who is dictating the control? Is it the Party of the Working Class? Then fine, dictate away, no problem.
What I was getting at with my question to steel prate was that he is taking all of the western bourgeois propaganda, created to condemn and smear any and all socialist revolutions and governments, as true and valid. He is reiterating western, imperialist lies, intended to mislead, misdirect, and blunt the struggle for working class power.
At this point I don't really even want nor expect a reply from steel pirate. I won't read his posts any more. With the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution coming up this year, he should have plenty of opportunity to spread his particular message.
I won't be reading his posts because if I want to read posts that grave-dance on Castro, compare Bolsheviks with Nazis, and disparage every success that the working class has had over the last 100 years, I will go to some liberal, conservative, right-wing board. But I won't read it here, not on this board.

This is where I was headed in my inimitable way. I was going to take it step by step, but I realize now that that approach would be useless. I have said in numerous places in this seemingly endless harangue that it did not matter if there was direction from a party as long as the party is the party of the working class. The idea that the "problem" is "dictatorial control" is laughable - who is dictating the control? Is it the Party of the Working Class? Then fine, dictate away, no problem.
What I was getting at with my question to steel prate was that he is taking all of the western bourgeois propaganda, created to condemn and smear any and all socialist revolutions and governments, as true and valid. He is reiterating western, imperialist lies, intended to mislead, misdirect, and blunt the struggle for working class power.
At this point I don't really even want nor expect a reply from steel pirate. I won't read his posts any more. With the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution coming up this year, he should have plenty of opportunity to spread his particular message.
I won't be reading his posts because if I want to read posts that grave-dance on Castro, compare Bolsheviks with Nazis, and disparage every success that the working class has had over the last 100 years, I will go to some liberal, conservative, right-wing board. But I won't read it here, not on this board.


Just because you don't like the brew doesn't mean it ain't coffee. Your accusations are laughable sectarian nonsense of the highest degree. The working classes are still mired in wage-slavery despite the "successes they've had over the last hundred years."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm

-- Anton Pannekoek

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Under public ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labor; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under public ownership this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. Thus in Russia bureaucracy as the ruling class is master of production and produce, and the Russian workers are an exploited class.

In Western countries we know only of public ownership (in some branches) of the capitalist State. Here we may quote the well-known English “socialist” writer G. D. H. Cole, for whom socialism is identical with public ownership. He wrote

“The whole people would be no more able than the whole body of shareholders in a great modern enterprise to manage an industry . . . It would be necessary, under socialism as much under large scale capitalism, to entrust the actual management of industrial enterprise to salaried experts, chosen for their specialized knowledge and ability in particular branches of work” (p. 674).

“There is no reason to suppose that socialisation of any industry would mean a great change in its managerial personnel” (p. 676 in An Outline of Modern Knowledge ed. By Dr W. Rose, 1931).

In other words: the structure of productive work remains as it is under capitalism; workers subservient to commanding directors. It clearly does not occur to the “socialist” author that “the whole people” chiefly consists of workers, who were quite able, being producing personnels, to manage the industry, that consists of their own work.

As a correction to State-managed production, sometimes workers’ control is demanded. Now, to ask control, supervision, from a superior indicates the submissive mood of helpless objects of exploitation. And then you can control another man’s business; what is your own business you do not want controlled, you do it. Productive work, social production, is the genuine business of the working class. It is the content of their life, their own activity. They themselves can take care if there is no police or State power to keep them off. They have the tools, the machines in their hands, they use and manage them. They do not need masters to command them, nor finances to control the masters.

Public ownership is the program of “friends” of the workers who for the hard exploitation of private capitalism wish to substitute a milder modernized exploitation. Common ownership is the program of the working class itself, fighting for self liberation.

We do not speak here, of course, of a socialist or communist society in a later stage of development, when production will be organized so far as to be no problem any more, when out of the abundance of produce everybody takes according to his wishes, and the entire concept of “ownership” has disappeared. We speak of the time that the working class has conquered political and social power, and stands before the task of organizing production and distribution under most difficult conditions. The class fight of the workers in the present days and the near future will be strongly determined by their ideas on the immediate aims, whether public or common ownership, to be realized at that time.

If the working class rejects public ownership with its servitude and exploitation, and demands common ownership with its freedom and self-rule, it cannot do so without fulfilling conditions and shouldering duties. Common ownership of the workers implies, first, that the entirety of producers is master of the means of production and works them in a well planned system of social production. It implies secondly that in all shops, factories, enterprises the personnel regulate their own collective work as part of the whole. So they have to create the organs by means of which they direct their own work, as personnel, as well as social production at large. The institute of State and government cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under Socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of each personnel, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves. Their organs must consist of delegates sent out as the bearers of their opinion, and will be continually returning and reporting on the results arrived at in the assemblies of delegates. By means of such delegates that at any moment can be changed and called back the connection of the working masses into smaller and larger groups can be established and organization of production secured.

Such bodies of delegates, for which the name of workers’ councils has come into use, form what may be called the political organization appropriate to a working class liberating itself from exploitation. They cannot be devised beforehand, they must be shaped by the practical activity of the workers themselves when they are needed. Such delegates are no parliamentarians, no rulers, no leaders, but mediators, expert messengers, forming the connection between the separate personnel of the enterprises, combining their separate opinions into one common resolution. Common ownership demands common management of the work as well as common productive activity; it can only be realized if all the workers take part in this self-management of what is the basis and content of social life; and if they go to create the organs that unite their separate wills into one common action.

Since such workers’ councils doubtlessly are to play a considerable role in the future organization of the workers’ fights and aims, they deserve keen attention and study from all who stand for uncompromising fight and freedom for the working class.

Just because you don't like the brew doesn't mean it ain't coffee. Your accusations are laughable sectarian nonsense of the highest degree. The working classes are still mired in wage-slavery despite the "successes they've had over the last hundred years."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm

-- Anton Pannekoek

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Under public ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labor; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under public ownership this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. Thus in Russia bureaucracy as the ruling class is master of production and produce, and the Russian workers are an exploited class.

In Western countries we know only of public ownership (in some branches) of the capitalist State. Here we may quote the well-known English “socialist” writer G. D. H. Cole, for whom socialism is identical with public ownership. He wrote

“The whole people would be no more able than the whole body of shareholders in a great modern enterprise to manage an industry . . . It would be necessary, under socialism as much under large scale capitalism, to entrust the actual management of industrial enterprise to salaried experts, chosen for their specialized knowledge and ability in particular branches of work” (p. 674).

“There is no reason to suppose that socialisation of any industry would mean a great change in its managerial personnel” (p. 676 in An Outline of Modern Knowledge ed. By Dr W. Rose, 1931).

In other words: the structure of productive work remains as it is under capitalism; workers subservient to commanding directors. It clearly does not occur to the “socialist” author that “the whole people” chiefly consists of workers, who were quite able, being producing personnels, to manage the industry, that consists of their own work.

As a correction to State-managed production, sometimes workers’ control is demanded. Now, to ask control, supervision, from a superior indicates the submissive mood of helpless objects of exploitation. And then you can control another man’s business; what is your own business you do not want controlled, you do it. Productive work, social production, is the genuine business of the working class. It is the content of their life, their own activity. They themselves can take care if there is no police or State power to keep them off. They have the tools, the machines in their hands, they use and manage them. They do not need masters to command them, nor finances to control the masters.

Public ownership is the program of “friends” of the workers who for the hard exploitation of private capitalism wish to substitute a milder modernized exploitation. Common ownership is the program of the working class itself, fighting for self liberation.

We do not speak here, of course, of a socialist or communist society in a later stage of development, when production will be organized so far as to be no problem any more, when out of the abundance of produce everybody takes according to his wishes, and the entire concept of “ownership” has disappeared. We speak of the time that the working class has conquered political and social power, and stands before the task of organizing production and distribution under most difficult conditions. The class fight of the workers in the present days and the near future will be strongly determined by their ideas on the immediate aims, whether public or common ownership, to be realized at that time.

If the working class rejects public ownership with its servitude and exploitation, and demands common ownership with its freedom and self-rule, it cannot do so without fulfilling conditions and shouldering duties. Common ownership of the workers implies, first, that the entirety of producers is master of the means of production and works them in a well planned system of social production. It implies secondly that in all shops, factories, enterprises the personnel regulate their own collective work as part of the whole. So they have to create the organs by means of which they direct their own work, as personnel, as well as social production at large. The institute of State and government cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under Socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of each personnel, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves. Their organs must consist of delegates sent out as the bearers of their opinion, and will be continually returning and reporting on the results arrived at in the assemblies of delegates. By means of such delegates that at any moment can be changed and called back the connection of the working masses into smaller and larger groups can be established and organization of production secured.

Such bodies of delegates, for which the name of workers’ councils has come into use, form what may be called the political organization appropriate to a working class liberating itself from exploitation. They cannot be devised beforehand, they must be shaped by the practical activity of the workers themselves when they are needed. Such delegates are no parliamentarians, no rulers, no leaders, but mediators, expert messengers, forming the connection between the separate personnel of the enterprises, combining their separate opinions into one common resolution. Common ownership demands common management of the work as well as common productive activity; it can only be realized if all the workers take part in this self-management of what is the basis and content of social life; and if they go to create the organs that unite their separate wills into one common action.

Since such workers’ councils doubtlessly are to play a considerable role in the future organization of the workers’ fights and aims, they deserve keen attention and study from all who stand for uncompromising fight and freedom for the working class.

What we got here is the purest of idealism, completely divorced from reality. No context, no historical analysis (just a capitalist throwaway).

If the worker's state does not defend the revolution against class enemies who shall? Damn straight we must dominate class enemies.

The assumption that everybody becomes good socialist overnight is ludicrous, I think that'll take a generation or two for all of the bad habits and assumptions to fade away.

The implication here that there neither is nor has been democracy in existing socialists states is hogwash.

The difficulty of converting from one economic system to a vastly different one is blithely ignored, it's all rainbows and unicorns. Attention to history is in order, and we have those lessons, good and bad, to build upon.

If you don't think the Cuban Revolution is the Real Deal then you ain't no materialist.

Under public ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labor; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under public ownership this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. Thus in Russia bureaucracy as the ruling class is master of production and produce, and the Russian workers are an exploited class.

This is the centerpiece of 'Council Communism'. Some of the workers, somehow, FORM A NEW CLASS to exploit the rest of the workers. Wuzzat again?

Don't agree with everything here but one of the main points, that these are a time of possible advancement, need be emphasized.

The Election of Donald Trump and the Implosion of Liberalism
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/14/2016 - 01:23

http://blackagendareport.com/sites/default/files/styles/image-400x300/public/AMIN_statue%20of%20liberty%20under%20water.jpg?itok=nRYxssGu

by Samir Amin
Trump’s victory signals the inevitable implosion of the liberal order. This will pave the way for construction of the alternative, which comprises: at the national level, the abandonment of liberal economic management for the benefit of sovereign projects, giving rise to social progress; and at the international level, the construction of a system of polycentric globalization.

The Election of Donald Trump and the Implosion of Liberalism
by Samir Amin
This article previously appeared in Pambazuka News.

“The citizens of the United States have never condemned military interventions abroad and the genuine crimes against humanity associated with them.”

1. The recent election of Donald Trump after Brexit, the rise of fascist parties in Europe, but also and much better, Syriza's electoral victory and the rise of Podemos, are all manifestations of the depth of the crisis of the system of globalized neoliberalism. This system, which I have always considered unsustainable, implodes before our eyes in its very heart. All attempts to save the system -- to avoid the worst -- by minor adjustments are doomed to failure.

The implosion of the system is not synonymous with advances on the road to building a truly better alternative for people: the autumn of capitalism does not coincide automatically with the spring of the people. A separation separates them, which gives our epoch a dramatic tone bearing the gravest dangers. Nonetheless, implosion -- because it is inevitable -- should be grasped as precisely the historical opportunity offered to the people. It paves the way for possible advances towards the construction of the alternative, which comprises two indissociable components: (i) at the national level, the abandonment of the fundamental rules of liberal economic management for the benefit of sovereign projects giving rise to social progress; and (ii) at the international level, the construction of a system of polycentric globalization can be negotiated. Parallel advances on these two levels will become possible only if the political forces of the radical left conceive the strategy and succeed in mobilizing the popular classes to advance the attainment of the objectives. This is not the case, as demonstrated by Syriza's setbacks, the ambiguities and confusions of the British and US votes, the extreme timidity of the heirs of Euro-communism.

“If the social ravages of liberalism are visible in the West, they are of a magnitude tenfold in the peripheries of the system.”

2. The system in place in the countries of the historic imperialist triad (the United States, Western Europe, Japan) is based on the exercise of the absolute power of the national financial oligarchies concerned. The latter alone manage all national productive systems, having succeeded in reducing almost all small and medium-sized enterprises in agriculture, industry and services to the status of subcontractors for the exclusive benefit of financial capital. These oligarchies manage also the political systems inherited from bourgeois electoral and representative democracy, having succeeded in domesticating the right and left electoral political parties, at the expense of eroding the legitimacy of the democratic practice concerned. These oligarchies also control the propaganda apparatuses, having succeeded in reducing the patrons of information to the status of media clergy in its exclusive service. None of these aspects of the dictatorship of the oligarchy is challenged by the social and political movements at work in the triad, especially not in the United States.

The oligarchies of the triad also claim to extend their exclusive power to the entire Planet by imposing a particular form of globalization, that of globalized liberalism. But here they face more resistances than they are in the societies of the triad, heirs and beneficiaries of the "advantages" of imperialist domination. For if the social ravages of liberalism are visible in the West, they are of a magnitude tenfold in the peripheries of the system. To the point that few existing political regimes may still seem legitimate in the eyes of their peoples. Fragile in the extreme, the comprador classes and states which constitute the conveyor belts of the domination of the collective imperialism of the triad are, therefore, rightly regarded by the oligarchies of the centers as uncertain allies. The logic of the system then imposes the militarization and the right of imperialism to intervene -- including by war -- in the countries of the South and the East. The oligarchies of the triad are all "hawks"; NATO, the instrument of their permanent aggression, has thus become the most important institution of contemporary imperialism.

Proof of this aggressive option was given in the tone of President Obama's remarks during his last European tour (November 2016): to reassure European vassals about US involvement in NATO. Obviously the organization is not presented as an instrument of aggression -- which it is -- but as the means of ensuring the "defense" of Europe. Threatened by whom?

“The logic of the system imposes the militarization and the right of imperialism to intervene -- including by war -- in the countries of the South and the East.”

First of all by Russia, as we are told by the media clergy in place. The reality is different; Putin is criticized for not accepting the Euro-Nazi coup of Kiev, the power of the mafia of brigands in place in Georgia. He is compelled to do so by, beyond the economic sanctions, the threats of war uttered by Hillary Clinton.

Then, we are told, the terrorist threat of Islamic jihadism. Again, opinion is perfectly manipulated on the subject. Jihadism is only the inevitable product of the triad's continued support of reactionary political Islam inspired and financed by Gulf wahabism. The exercise of this so-called Islamic power is the best guarantee of the total destruction of the ability of societies in the region to resist the dictates of liberal globalization. At the same time, it offers the best pretext for giving the appearance of legitimacy to NATO's interventions. In this regard the press in the United States acknowledged that Donald Trump's accusation -- that Hillary had actively supported the establishment of Daesh -- was well founded.

Let us add that the accompanying speeches associating the interventions of the NATO and the defense of democracy are a farce, confronted with the reality.

3. The defeat of Hillary Clinton -- more than the triumph of Donald Trump -- is therefore good news. It may be the defeat of the most aggressive falcon clan led by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I say "may be" because it is not stated whether Donald Trump will engage his country on a different path.

In the first place, neither the opinion of the majority which supported it, nor that of the minority which manifests against it, do so. The debate concerns only some of the problems of society in the United States (anti-feminism and racism in particular). It does not call into question the economic underpinnings of the system, which has led to the deterioration of social conditions in important segments of society. The sacredness of private property, including that of monopolies, remains intact; the fact that Donald Trump is himself a billionaire has been an asset and not an obstacle to his election. But the debate was never concerned with Washington's aggressive foreign policy. We would have liked to see today's protesters against Donald Trump calling yesterday to protest against Hillary Clinton's aggressive remarks. This obviously did not happen; the citizens of the United States have never condemned military interventions abroad and the genuine crimes against humanity associated with them.

“Jihadism is only the inevitable product of the triad's continued support of reactionary political Islam inspired and financed by Gulf wahabism.”

Sanders' election campaign had given rise to much hope. By daring to introduce a socialist perspective into the debate, Sanders initiated the sound politicization of public opinion, which is no more impossible in the United States than elsewhere. We can only deplore, under these conditions, the capitulation of Sanders and his rallying to the support of Clinton.

Much more important than "public opinion" is the fact that the ruling class of the United States conceives no other international policy than that which has been in place since the creation of NATO 70 years ago -- the guarantee of its domination of the entire Planet.

In the two Republican and Democrat camps dominating the Congress and the Senate, we would be told are "doves" and "hawks." The first of these qualifiers is certainly forced; these are falcons that only think a little more before embarking on a new aggressive adventure. Donald Trump and some of his entourage may be among them. Not much better. You must know it; avoid making too many illusions against her; but also to exploit this small flaw in the American edifice to reinforce the possible advances towards the construction of another globalization, a little more respectful of the right of peoples and the demands of peace. The European vassals of Washington fear this more than anything else.

Moreover, the remarks made by Donald Trump concerning the international policy of the United States are contradictory. On the one hand, he seems to be willing to understand the legitimacy of Russia's fears of NATO's aggressive projects in Ukraine and Georgia, and that Moscow is supporting Syria in a fight against jihadist terrorism. But on the other hand he said he wanted to denounce the agreement concerning the Iranian nuclear project. Moreover, it is not yet known whether he is determined to pursue Obama's policy of unconditional support for Israel or whether he intends to qualify this support.

4. We must therefore place the electoral victory of Donald Trump within the wider framework of the manifestations of the implosion of the system. All these manifestations remain ambiguous to this day, carrying at best possible but also detestable drifts.

Some of the evolutions associated with these events do not in any way call into question the power of the oligarchical ruling class in place. This is the case of the Brexit, the election of Trump, the projects of the European fascists.

“Implosion -- because it is inevitable -- should be grasped as precisely the historical opportunity offered to the people.”

Certainly the campaign in favor of the Brexit appealed to nauseous arguments. Moreover, this project does not call into question the fundamental capitalist / imperialist option of Great Britain. It only suggests that, in the conduct of its foreign policy, London should have a margin of maneuver allowing it to deal directly with its partners, the United States in the front line. But behind this option is also drawn what should have been known: that Great Britain does not accept German Europe. This dimension of Brexit is certainly positive.

The fascists of Europe, who have the wind in their sails, are on the extreme right; that is to say, they do not question the power of the oligarchies in their respective countries. They wish only to be chosen by them for the exercise of power in their service. At the same time, of course, they use nauseous racist and other arguments, which prevents them from responding to the real challenges faced by their peoples.

The power of Donald Trump falls into this category of false criticism of liberal globalization. The "nationalist" tone aims to strengthen Washington's control of its subordinate allies, not to grant them an independence that they do not even claim. Donald Trump could, from this point of view, take some modest measures of protectionism; which, moreover, the American administrations have always, without saying so, imposed on their subaltern allies, to whom it is forbidden to retaliate. Here is drawn the analogy with what Britain of Brexit might want to do.

Donald Trump suggested that the protectionist measures he is thinking of are primarily aimed at China. Before him, Obama and Hillary had already, by their decision to transfer the center of gravity of their armed forces from the Middle East to East Asia, designated China as a major adversary. This aggressive, economic and military strategy, in flagrant contradiction with the principles of liberalism of which Washington is the champion, could be defeated by inviting China to move forward in a salutary evolution towards strengthening its internal popular market and the search for other partners in the countries of the South.

Will Trump go so far as to repeal NAFTA? If he did so he would render a great service to the people of Mexico and Canada by freeing them from their status as impotent vassals and encouraging them to engage in new directions based on the autonomy of their popular sovereign projects. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the vast majority of Republican and Democratic representatives in Congress and the Senate, all of whom have won unconditional support of the interests of the American oligarchies, will allow Trump to go that far.

“Obama and Hillary had already, by their decision to transfer the center of gravity of their armed forces from the Middle East to East Asia, designated China as a major adversary.”

The consequences of Donald Trump's hostility towards COP 21 are less serious than his European protagonists suggest, since it is unfortunately -- or should be known -- that in any event the treaty will remain dead letter as the rich countries do not intend to keep their financial promises in this area.

On the other hand, certain other manifestations of the implosion of liberal globalization are associated with social, vague or better advances.

In Europe, the electoral victory of Syriza and the rise of Podemos are part of this framework. But the projects carried out by these new forces remained contradictory: the refusal of austerity imposed on the one hand, and the illusion of the possibility of European reform. History is already demonstrating the error of appreciation regarding this reform, in fact impossible.

In Latin America, the advances made during the first decade of the century are now being questioned. The movements which have led to these advances have undoubtedly underestimated the reactionary character of the middle classes of the countries concerned, in particular Brazil and Venezuela, who refuse to share with the working classes the benefits of development worthy of the name.

Emerging projects -- especially those of China and Russia -- remain equally ambiguous: Is their objective to "catch up" by capitalist means and in the context of globalization, which is also capitalist, but to be forced to accept it? Or, aware that the realization of this project is impossible, will the powers in the emerging countries concerned be oriented more in the direction of popular sovereign projects?

The exposition of these reflections on the future of the system Donald Trump draws the reader's attention to the complementary aspects of the analysis of the implosion of contemporary capitalism, which will be found in particular under the following headings:

· The implosion of contemporary capitalism; Monthly Review (MR) 2014

· Russia and the long transition from capitalism to socialism; MR 2016, chap 6 (Ukraine)

· Brexit and the implosion of the EU; Sites Tlaxcala, MR Zine July 2016.

· From Bandung to 2015; International Critical Thought, No. 4, dec 2015.

· The return of fascism in contemporary capitalism; MR, Sept. 2014.

· Popular Movements towards socialism; MR, N ° 3 2014.

· Contemporary Imperialism; MR N ° 3, 2015.

· China 2013; MR No. 10, 2013

· Autumn of capitalism, the spring of the peoples? Blog SA August 2016.

· What can we expect from the North? ; Blog SA, March 2016.

· Sovereign projects for Africa; Blog SA, March 2016

· Facing the European crisis, a glory to the lucid courage of the Greek people; Blog SA, July 2015.

Translation by Dimitri Devyatkin.

http://blackagendareport.com/trump_and_neoliberal_implosion

Time to make 'determinism' work....

What’s behind Trump cabinet choices

Capitalism in crisis

By Sara Flounders posted on December 14, 2016

Since the election, the corporate media have focused on the president-elect’s cabinet and senior White House staff appointments, often announced by tweets and leaks.

The contention among ruling-class factions over coordinating vast government ministries is still a vicious fight, involving subterfuge, leaks, sudden scandals and personal exposés of past dirty deeds. Enormous profits hang in the balance.

The individuals nominated are overwhelmingly reactionaries and billionaires. Their appointments confirm a new stage of all-out war on poor and working people. This overreach may provoke a new phase of militant class struggle from below.

Departments overseeing public education, health care, housing and environmental protection are in the hands of administrators committed to their dismantlement and destruction.

The appointments confirm that no section of the working class belongs to Donald Trump’s real base. His cronies are overwhelmingly corporate billionaires and hedge-fund operators, all people from his narrow, privileged strata.

His cabinet will be the wealthiest in U.S. history. Preservation of their positions and personal profit will drive the administration.

Despite his many campaign attacks on Goldman Sachs and on Hillary Clinton’s connections to Wall Street, Trump appointments include three present or former Goldman Sachs bankers and other billionaire investors, plus CEOs of big corporations.

Each of Trump’s appointments will be dealing with government services that dispense billions of dollars in tax revenues to private corporations.

Trump’s cabinet and capitalism

What do Trump’s appointments say about the capitalist system itself?

For three generations the U.S. ruling class has bought social peace at home in order to fight wars abroad. But the decay of capitalism, deindustrialization, a globalized economy and the flight of capital chasing the lowest possible wages has undermined past gains of the U.S. working class.

Even before the Trump election, the United States had fallen behind every other industrialized country on measurable standards of life expectancy, infant mortality and educational levels.

The drive to maximize profits is becoming more ruthless. Every social gain won through decades of class struggle in the U.S. is under attack.

During the election campaign, Trump repeatedly called out Goldman Sachs for hurting the working class. He nevertheless chose the president of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn, to head the powerful White House National Economic Council.

He named Steven Mnuchin, who worked at Goldman Sachs for 17 years, as Treasury secretary. Wilbur Ross, CEO of the investment banking company Rothschild Inc. and worth $2.5 billion, was nominated to head the Department of Commerce.

A New York Times Dec. 10 headline applauded these cabinet choices as “tough-minded.”

Such “tough-minded” choices include multimillionaire Betty DeVos as secretary of the Department of Education. Her goal is to undermine public education and give school vouchers to finance private and religious schools.

Tom Price as secretary of Health and Human Services wants to gut the Affordable Care Act. He is co-sponsor of a bill to grant fetuses equal protection under the 14th Amendment and is for banning health coverage and all federal funding for abortion.

Jeff Sessions, named as attorney general, is a Republican senator from Alabama whose focus is on ruthless immigration policies. He is a racist advocate of mass incarceration, with the excuse of fighting addictive drugs.

Andrew Puzder as secretary of Labor is a fast food CEO who opposes a federal minimum-wage increase.

Republican Congress member Mike Pompeo, who urged Congress to re-establish bulk collection of domestic calling records, was named director of the CIA.

Trump’s military choices should be a wake-up call for those who had an illusion that Trump would have a less threatening approach than Clinton, who talked of a “no-fly zone” in Syria, expansion of NATO and encirclement of Russia and China.

He named Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of Defense, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly as secretary of Homeland Security and retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn as his national security adviser. All of these generals are considered extreme militarists, even by Pentagon standards.

Disbelief in climate change and a strong alliance with the oil and coal industries are the qualifications of Cathy McMorris Rodgers, to head the Interior Department. She supports drilling on Native American treaty lands and opening untouched federal lands.

Scott Pruitt as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency calls for “freedom for American businesses” and an end to regulations.

To anyone concerned with the environment, climate change and war, the expected nomination of Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil — “big oil” — as secretary of State is especially ominous. ExxonMobil is the most powerful force in climate change denial and has multibillion dollar investments in the Middle East, Russia, China, Venezuela and beyond.

The way forward

The fierce struggle in the ruling class that is emerging among contending corporate interests will further destabilize the political process and undercut confidence in capitalist order. The Democratic Party will make every effort to steer this into safe, controlled electoral channels.

The sheer scale of the assault on the working class projected by these nominations will awaken an unprecedented resistance from the most oppressed.

The role of revolutionary leadership is to help arouse a working-class resistance that fights in its own interests.

http://www.workers.org/2016/12/14/whats-behind-trump-cabinet-choices/?utm_content=buffer334fa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.WFK3xbIrLIU

Bolding added

Yeah, it's Workers World, yet even they got the proper perspective, so far...

The sheer scale of the assault on the working class projected by these nominations will awaken an unprecedented resistance from the most oppressed.

Hope she's right. Resistance must be preceded by consciousness, otherwise it is impossible to form any kind of united front based organization. We've seen massive outbreaks of violent resistance to this bourgeois government in the past, but it has almost always been unorganized as far as theory and class are concerned. This has to be remedied somehow.

The "Elite" Coup Of 2016

There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
The above theses are thus far only a general outlay. No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now.

The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling U.S. power circles. These are:

The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The current CIA director Brennan, a leading figure of the CIA torture program and Obama consigliere, is in the Clinton/anti-Trump camp. The former CIA heads Hayden and Panetta are public Clinton supporters as is torturer king and former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

It is thereby no wonder that the CIA is leading the anti-Russian campaign. Its task now is to implant the idea in the U.S. public that Russian intervention skewed the U.S. election towards Trump. The purpose is the delegitimization of the Trump victory in the eyes of the media and public but even more so in the eyes of the electors within the electoral college. The CIA is heavily supported by the same mainstream media that pushed for Clinton during the election. (These are, not by chance, also the same media that pushed the CIA's earlier "Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction" campaign.)

Could 37 Republican electors, put there by voters in their states to vote for Trump, be convinced to move from electing Trump to abstain or vote for someone else, Trump would miss the needed 270 votes. The whole election of the president would then by kicked over to the House of Representatives.

Should the electors vote for Trump there is still a possibility that members of the House and the Senate could officially question that vote and cause delays or Congressional probes and legal challenges.

Here are the detailed general proceedings and specifics for the electoral college as explained by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Though neoconservatives have no genuine support within the U.S. electorate they have a strong hold on significant parts of Congress and the relevant MSM commentariat. Many leading neoconservatives and war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and the Washington Post editorial board came out for Clinton during the campaign. Clinton even ran campaign advertisements with Republican Congress luminaries like Lindsay Graham, Sasse and Flake.

The House and the Senate majority may well be on the anti-Trump side if push comes to shove. But whatever the outcome there surely would be intense legal challenges and I expect the case to go up to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile the Vice President-elect would sit in as acting President:

If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
If the legal process around the Trump election gets delayed, that may be a state for a long time. The ruling Washington blob or borg could well live with an acting President Pence while Trump would have no say in government business.

The media intervention on the anti-Trump side is heavy.

But first keep in mind that there is no public evidence, ZERO, that Russia indeed had anything to do with the DNC or Podesta or other leaks and the publication of emails by various outlets like Wikileaks.

Craig Murray assures us that he knows that these were not hacks but insider leaks and that he knows the leaker(s). Former intelligence officials including the technically very knowledgeable former NSA official William Binney concur that the hacking story is false.

All we have heard or seen so far are hearsay rumors and allegations of evidence. To me as experienced IT professional the case is technically laughable just as Murray explains here. If the claimed hacks occurred at all the alleged methods were so common that anybody could have done these. There is not even one claimed fact yet that is halfway acceptable as evidence that "Russia did it".

But still the NYT runs a big package of pieces telling us that "Russia did it" based on the non-factual CIA rumors and unprofessional IT assertions by Crowdstrike, a self-promoting IT security company the DNC hired and paid.

NBC News now tops that with "intelligence officials" saying Putin himself ran the hacking campaign. Authors of the story are the long time insider hacks Bill Arkin and Ken Dilanian known for clearing his stories with the CIA before publishing.

Many news outlets and editorials follow these "leads".

Part of the scheme the Clinton campaign has worked out was explained by a former opposition research consultant to the Democratic National Council, the Ukrainian-American Alexandra (aka Andrea) Chalupa, in this thread:

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress

2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator

3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.
...

Editorials and op-eds in the major papers are pushing the scheme along. Just for example from a long list A.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:

The CIA’s finding that Russia actively intervened in our election to make Trump president is an excellent reason for the electors to consider whether they should exercise their independent power. At the very least, they should be briefed on what the CIA knows, and in particular on whether there is any evidence that Trump or his lieutenants were engaged with Russia during the campaign.
The New York Times editorial laments about Trump ridiculing the CIA fairy tales it promotes.

Many people who have voted for Trump would be disgusted and outraged if or when Trump will be denied his office. Many of them are armed and would protest. Violence is ensured should the coup succeed.

Trump selected four former generals to joins his cabinet and staff. Should the troubles escalate we might be roughly in for a scenario as laid out in the 1992 military paper: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (pdf) by Charles J. Dunlap.

Posted by b on December 15, 2016 at 01:56 PM | Permalink

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/elite-coup.html

While there is some indication that something of the sort is taking place I'm not so sure that the ruling class would embark upon something so fraught with possible repercussions. I'm not so sure that a Trump administration would be so adverse to ruling class consensus, though no doubt some will be. OTOH Trump has got the full support of fossil fuel. Whether they would chance civil disturbance, and more importantly the triggering of a massive loss of faith in the American Farce is the question. Civil disturbance would be a handy excuse for martial law with the sweet bump that it would be initiated against racist rioters, supposedly. And it would never go away, and maybe that's a factor too.

And mebbe Trump's cabinet choices are designed to produce outrage.....but it is daily getting harder to contend that he's still trying to throw it to Clinton. Sometimes an idiot is an idiot, money can fix anything, right?

While there is some indication that something of the sort is taking place I'm not so sure that the ruling class would embark upon something so fraught with possible repercussions. I'm not so sure that a Trump administration would be so adverse to ruling class consensus, though no doubt some will be. OTOH Trump has got the full support of fossil fuel. Whether they would chance civil disturbance, and more importantly the triggering of a massive loss of faith in the American Farce is the question. Civil disturbance would be a handy excuse for martial law with the sweet bump that it would be initiated against racist rioters, supposedly. And it would never go away, and maybe that's a factor too.

And mebbe Trump's cabinet choices are designed to produce outrage.....but it is daily getting harder to contend that he's still trying to throw it to Clinton. Sometimes an idiot is an idiot, money can fix anything, right?

It seems like it would be easier to just impeach Trump at the earliest possible moment, especially if Pence is an acceptable alternative. If there is enough senatorial support to turn the Electoral College around, then there aught to be enough to impeach Trump. Now, the ruling class may be tired of having to put on the charade all the time and just want to "get it over with", but that doesn't seem likely either. However, they are already passing laws to restrict freedom of the press and to more fully control information, so clamping down across the board may be where they are headed.

One thing remains to be explained and that is what is the endgame for all these "The Russians and Putin dodged-up the election in order to elect Trump" folks? Where are they going with this? It seems clear that McCain and Graham and Rubio and who knows how many Republicans and all of the Democrats (even the Bernites) want Trump gone. If this Russian "ploy" is not to foment a coup, what is it for?

I know this isn't your one of your favorite sources :D But what the hell...

http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/donald-trumps-mentor-was-roy-cohn-union-buster/

-- Al Hart

(Snip)

The late Roy Cohn, an unscrupulous New York lawyer and power broker, was Donald Trump’s mentor for 13 years during his rise to celebrity status. Cohn helped shape the Trump we see today, and from him Trump learned his signature tactics of attack; insult; manipulate the media; never back down; never apologize or admit you were wrong; and when you have nothing to attack with, make stuff up. The relationship between Cohn and Trump has been the subject of articles this year in the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Politico, New York Daily News and other news media.

Cohn’s own career as an attack dog began in the 1950s, when he rose to prominence as chief counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin. McCarthy built his political career on the witch-hunt against Communists, suspected Communists, imagined Communists, and other political nonconformists. He is identified with the paranoia and repression of the 1950s to the extent that the decade is often called the McCarthy Era. McCarthyism became a noun meaning unfair persecution of political opponents.

Cohn vs. UE

What is less widely known about Cohn is that, to a large degree, he got his start attacking the United Electrical Workers union, both with and without McCarthy.

The 1950s was a time when UE faced relentless efforts to destroy our union. Following the triumphs of labor in the huge postwar strike wave of 1946 (including a coordinated national strike of UE against GE and Westinghouse, the UAW against GM, and the Steelworkers against the basic steel industry), Big Business counterattacked. Shortly after the conclusion of the big strike, GE CEO Charles Wilson declared that the country’s problems could be summed up as, “Russia abroad, labor at home.” The corporations decided to conflate those two “problems” and attack the labor movement, at least the most militant unions, as disloyal to the United States and servants of the Soviet Union.

Republicans won control of Congress in the November 1946 election by calling the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) a “Communist front.” The CIO was the federation of industrial unions founded in the 1930s, which included UE. In 1947 the Republican Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, an anti-labor law that weakened unions in many ways and still weakens us today. One provision of Taft-Hartley (struck down years later by the courts) required all union officers to sign sworn affidavits that they were not Communists. If they didn’t sign, their unions would lose all protections of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and not be permitted to appear on any NLRB ballot in a representation election.

Taft-Hartley leads to raiding

All unions opposed Taft-Hartley, and most at first refused to sign the non-Communist affidavits, viewed as unjust government interference in internal union affairs. But one by one unions did sign, and some then took advantage to steal members from unions that still refused to sign, and were therefore barred from NLRB elections. When other CIO unions raided UE in this manner, UE demanded that the CIO enforce the no-raiding provision in its constitution. CIO President Phil Murray refused, and UE withdrew from the CIO. The CIO then declared UE “expelled” and set up a rival union, the IUE, to raid, destroy and replace UE. (UE officers eventually signed the Taft-Hartley affidavits so the union could survive.)

UE employers – in particular GE and Westinghouse – joined the effort to wipe out UE. As the anti-communist hysteria grew, several congressional committees got into the act. Senators and congresspersons posed as patriotic heroes, ruining the lives of many innocent people in the hunt for reds in government, education, the movie industry, labor and elsewhere.

Roy Cohn goes to work for Joe McCarthy

Joe McCarthy soon emerged as the most ruthless of the witch hunters. Beginning in December 1952 the chief counsel of McCarthy’s committee, and the mastermind behind McCarthy’s tactics, was a brash young lawyer from New York, Roy Cohn.

McCarthy helped rival unions and companies that wanted to eliminate UE by scheduling “field hearings” in cities where UE was facing a raid in a major plant, a few days before the voting. He’d then subpoena UE shop leaders, make accusations, grill them over whether they were Communists or knew any Communists, and the local newspapers would eat it up. Headlines like, “McCarthy Quizzes Union on Red Ties” were often enough, in that fearful atmosphere, to tip an election against UE.

UE counter attacks

But UE counterattacked. In November 1953 McCarthy was holding hearings in Boston to intimidate UE supporters in the GE plant in nearby Lynn, where an NLRB election between UE and IUE was scheduled. UE send McCarthy a telegram demanding that he subpoena UE Director of Organization James Matles. When McCarthy didn’t respond, UE General Counsel David Scribner phoned Cohn and threatened to tell the press that McCarthy was afraid to question Matles.

Cohn and McCarthy took the bait, and at the hearing Matles turned the tables on them. Matles called out McCarthy for “terrorizing and browbeating decent working people.” Matles bluntly told McCarthy, “Senator, you’re a liar.” McCarthy blew up. Matles, a World War II vet, also took a shot at the 23-year-old Cohn, who had somehow evaded the Korean War draft. “I put in my time in the Armed Services, Cohn. What are you doing around here?” McCarthy interjected, “You don’t have to answer that, Roy.”

Union’s run-ins with Cohn

UE’s first run-ins with Cohn, however, came before he went to work for McCarthy, in 1951 and ’52 when he was a special assistant to the U.S. Attorney in New York. In consultation with GE and Westinghouse, Cohn came up with a gambit he hoped would wipe UE off the map in one fell swoop. In 1952, he subpoenaed UE’s General Secretary-Treasurer Julius Empak and Matles before a federal grand jury to grill them over the “truthfulness” of their non-Communist affidavits. (Cohn had done this the year before and gotten nowhere with it.) Cohn still had no legal basis to indict the UE officers for perjury or anything else, but this time he planned to get the grand jury to approve a written document he had drafted, called a “presentment”, which declared that the UE officers’ affidavits were “not worth the paper they were written on” and “a subterfuge.” The “presentment” then recommended that the NLRB “revoke the certification” of UE as a collective bargaining organization.

One day in November 1952 UE received the shocking news that the NLRB was taking Cohn’s scam seriously, and was preparing to, in effect, outlaw the union. The UE leadership quickly alerted the membership to mobilize for a major battle, and UE’s lawyers prepared a full-scale legal fight to reverse the NLRB’s action. Against the odds, the union prevailed in this case, and in late January 1953 a federal judge issued a permanent injunction barring the NLRB from taking any action against UE on the basis of Cohn’s trumped-up “presentment.”

McCarthy’s overreach led to his downfall. In late 1953 he began investigating the U.S. Army, claiming it was infested with Communist spies. He found nothing to support those wild charges. He and Cohn also pressured the Army to give favorable treatment to David Schine, a former McCarthy aide and friend of Cohn who had been drafted. Army counsel John G. Adams later testified that Cohn had threatened to “wreck the Army” if their demands weren’t met. The Army and the Washington political establishment decided they’d have enough of McCarthy’s and Cohn’s antics. McCarthy’s committee was placed under the chairmanship of another Republican senator, and what became known as the Army-McCarthy Hearings were televised live. It was McCarthy’s Waterloo, and after the hearings Cohn resigned and returned to New York to set up a private practice.

Cohn meets Trump

Over the next 30 years Cohn became a New York lawyer with powerful clients, a celebrity in social and political circles, and a man widely hated and feared. In October 1973 he met a young real estate developer, Donald Trump, at an exclusive Manhattan disco. Trump’s father Fred Trump was a millionaire landlord and developer in Brooklyn and Queens, but Donald wanted to get into the real action, Manhattan. Trump informed Cohn that he and his father were being sued by the U.S. Justice Department for refusing to rent to black tenants, and their lawyers were advising them to settle. “Tell them to go to hell and fight the thing in court,” Cohn responded.

Is this one of your primary information go-to sites SP?

Is this one of your primary information go-to sites SP?

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.

Your quite right, so much for what passes for anti-Trump is partisan Dem bullshit and it looks as though they are really trying overthrow the election, which is hysterical, fraught with dangers and possibilities. How far they wish to push that envelope remains to be seen, but this whole anti-Russian campaign is a big part of it and I think it hangs on how much the public buys this crap.

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.


I agree with the bolded part here. So this character just showed up out of the blue? Used the "in" of befriending us through outing of Allen and that's all coincidental? Somehow understood who Allen was at DU and OET and has "been reading here for years." Doesn't add up with the story he peddles.

Hey SP did you want to come answer to this? You reek of lies and disinformation.

I agree with the bolded part here. So this character just showed up out of the blue? Used the "in" of befriending us through outing of Allen and that's all coincidental? Somehow understood who Allen was at DU and OET and has "been reading here for years." Doesn't add up with the story he peddles.

Hey SP did you want to come answer to this? You reek of lies and disinformation.

Yeah... I just happened on the scene out of the blue you fucking clown. J. Reed, Orwellian_Ghost, J Crowley, Jimbo, Poe ect... Any of those ring a bell to you fucking idiot ? Shall I drag up your posting histories from DU and elsewhere you fucking hypocrite.

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.

Your quite right, so much for what passes for anti-Trump is partisan Dem bullshit and it looks as though they are really trying overthrow the election, which is hysterical, fraught with dangers and possibilities. How far they wish to push that envelope remains to be seen, but this whole anti-Russian campaign is a big part of it and I think it hangs on how much the public buys this crap.

http://www.socialistworkeronline.net/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/

--John Molyneux

Five years ago I wrote an article (reproduced below) about the prevalence of ‘conspiracy theories’ on the fringes of the left in Ireland and elsewhere.

Events of recent weeks – especially the election of Donald Trump, but also the war in Syria and Russia’s bombing of Aleppo – have shown that a ‘conspiracy theory’ view of the world is still very much around.

Conspiracy theories which see the whole world as run by a tiny group of secret insiders [‘the Bilderberg Group’, ‘the Rothschilds and the Zionists’, or George Soros and co.] have no concept of the real economic dynamics of the capitalist system or the many contradictions within it. Consequently they are prone to believe that anyone like Stalin, Gaddafy, Assad or Putin who is systematically attacked or vilified by the bulk of ‘the establishment’ or by the mainstream media, who are part of the conspiracy, cant be too bad or may even be progressive. Hence, because the mainstream ‘liberal’ media have been shocked by Trump and clearly preferred Clinton, it follows that Trump should be defended and the left who protest against him should be denounced.

This is despite the fact that just as Stalin, Gaddafy, Assad and Putin are mass murderers, so Trump is a billionaire property developer, racist and misogynist.

A feature of the thinking of conspiracy theorists is that they are more or less incapable of grasping the fact that both in society as a whole and on the left there are people with serious political disagreements i.e. people and groups who, in good faith, actually disagree on questions and have different views of the world. Instead they tend to believe that everyone who takes a different view from themselves, for example of Donald Trump, has either been bribed (by George Soros or the Rothschilds or whoever) or is part of the establishment conspiracy. At any rate they must be terrible people or traitors of some sort.

Another, slightly more sophisticated, version of this way of thinking is to see US imperialism (and the CIA/ Pentagon etc) as not only the main enemy but as more or less the only enemy in the world and therefore to judge all other rulers and powers by their relation to the US. From this point of view Putin, Assad and Gaddafy are all seen as somehow progressive.

What this leaves out is the small matter of these rulers’ relationship, their exploitative and oppressive relationship, with their own people and the whole question of the class struggle inside Russia, Syria, Libya etc. It also leaves out a) the matter of Russia’s and therefore Putin’s imperialist relationship to numerous countries (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria etc); b) the matter of Assad and Gaddafy’s history of collaboration with imperialism. In place of any serious attempt to analyse these complexities it substitutes the idea that anyone who opposes Putin/Assad/Gaddafy etc must just be brainwashed by US propaganda and be a tool of US imperialism, if not outright Trotskyite fascists.


It is in the context of these debates that this five year old article continues to be of some relevance.

In recent months I have noticed conspiracy theories popping up with increasing frequency around, and sometimes within, the left. There is, I think, a serious reason for this. The world is in turmoil, society is breaking down in many different ways – the economic crisis or crises, the environmental crisis, the crisis of political alienation, the proliferation of scandals, the riots and so on.

It is very scary for many people and if, as in Ireland at the moment, the working class movement is not offering a clear way forward, they can turn in all sorts of directions looking for answers. This is particularly the case when people are newly radicalised in a situation where the left is relatively weak.

But however understandable this phenomenon is, it is also a problem because conspiracy theories are an obstacle either to making sense of the world or to changing it. This article, therefore, will look at what is wrong with the conspiracy theory approach to the world.

It will do this in general terms, explaining the differences in principle between a Marxist analysis and a conspiracy theory, and showing why the former is rooted in much deeper understanding of the structure of society and how power works than the latter.

I have adopted this approach because there are several difficulties involved in dealing with conspiracy theories. One is that there are a lot of them about so no sooner have you produced a credible answer to one theory than another is advanced to take its place. Another is that the amount of effort and knowledge required to disprove any theory, no matter how outlandish, is very considerable, e.g. try disproving the theory that aliens built the Pyramids. A third is that the difference between a Marxist analysis and a conspiracy theory is NOT that Marxists think there are no conspiracies. On the contrary it is plainly the case that politicians, business , media, police etc DO conspire from time to time, in the phone hacking affair for example, or to mislead the public over the Iraq war.

So what are the key differences between conspiracy theories in general and Marxism ? I suggest there are four that are pretty fundamental

1. Conspiracy theories rely on ‘special’ or ‘hidden’ knowledge. In contrast the case for socialism and for Marxism can (and should) be made on the basis of widely known and publically available facts. Clearly a book like ‘Capital’, or Trotsky’s ‘History of the Russian Revolution’ or Chris Harman’s ‘People’s History of the World’ contains a lot of information that most ‘ordinary’ people don’t know but it is the interpretation of the facts, the interconnections between them , that distinguish these classic works – not ‘amazing’ factual revelations. This matters because if a radical criticism of the existing system is to reach and influence a mass audience it has to connect with working people’s experience; in an important sense Marxism is a generalisation of and from working class experience. By the same token it is never going to be possible to win mass support for ideas which DEPEND on hours of special research to uncover buried evidence. This is by no means the central or key characteristic of the conspiracy theory but it is a useful first signifier.

2. Marxists and conspiracy theorists have a very different view of how society is run and who runs it. At the heart of most conspiracy theories lies a vision of the world being run by a very tiny, and secret, elite, all in touch with one another and controlling more or less everything important that happens. Marxism argues that societies are run by ruling classes who while constituting a small minority of total population, say 1%, nevertheless consist of quite a large number of people, maybe 40,000 in Ireland or half a million in Britain. Moreover they rule with the aid of state machines (army.police, courts, government departments etc) which are hierarchies headed by members of the ruling class. The conspiracy theory view is inherently implausible because such a tiny group would not be able to take or even monitor the multitude of decisions involved in running a complex modern society, and even if it could would be enormously unstable and easily overthrown. In reality the regimes of the major capitalist countries (especially the United States) have been remarkably stable and secure since the Second World War.

3. Underpinning the conspiracy theory view of the power structure is the idea that the ruling group cohere through personal contact and by all being ‘in on it’. Underlying the Marxist view is the idea that what holds the ruling class together is their common interests, especially their common interest in exploiting the working class. Grasping this enables us to understand why businesses and governments behave as they do without continually discovering secret conspiracies. They are both constrained and driven by the objective logic of capitalism which is the logic of competitive accumulation of capital. In conspiracy theories the system has no objective logic, which makes any understanding of its development dependent on uncovering the latest plot.

4. Grasping the logic of competitive capital accumulation, which Marx explored in such depth in ‘Capital’, enables us to understand not only what unites the ruling class but also what divides them, both one capitalist against another, and one capitalist state against another. This in turn is necessary for understanding the recurring inter-imperialist conflicts and wars which have played such a major role in modern history. Conspiracy theories consistently overestimate the unity (and the strength) of our rulers. Moreover, lacking any analysis of the objective contradictions of capitalism which drive it into crisis (such as the Marxist theories of overproduction and the falling rate of profit) conspiracy theories have to fall back on entirely ad hoc explanations of economic crises and often fall into the fanciful notion that they must be deliberate (because everything significant MUST have been planned by the secret rulers) as if it were in the interests of the system to plunge into a major recession in which trillions are wiped off share values and productive activity goes into decline. In general conspiracy theories greatly exaggerate the degree of control our rulers have over history in contrast to Marxism which explains why, in the final analysis, the system is not under the control of anyone.

5. Conspiracy theories are not founded on any overall theory of historical development beyond the conviction that history is a succession of hidden conspiracies. They are therefore no use at all in charting or explaining the broad patterns of social and historical change, such as the origins and rise of class society, the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the causes of the industrial revolution and such like. Specific Marxist analyses of current situations are founded on historical materialism – a general theory which has made possible innumerable historical studies of the highest quality such as Geoffrey de St.Croix , ‘The Class Struggle in the Ancient World’, E.P. Thompson, ‘The Making of the English Working Class’, and Christopher Hill, ‘The World Turned Upside Down’, as well as such a powerful synthesis as Chris Harman’s ‘People’s History of the World’. Conspiracy theories have nothing intellectually comparable to their credit.

6. Conspiracy theories generally do not generate any strategy for practical action to change the world, beyond trying to inform people of the conspiracy. In contrast Marxism has developed over one hundred and sixty years of continual practice a comprehensive strategy for revolutionary change which rests on Marx’s theory of class struggle, supplemented by, for example, the theory of the mass strike (Rosa Luxemburg), of permanent revolution(Leon Trotsky), of the role of the revolutionary party (Lenin) , of the united front ( Lenin and Trotsky) and much else besides. Marxism, therefore, has over conspiracy theory the great advantage of possessing a perspective for achieving the eventual overthrow of capitalism and the ability to say concretely what should be done today and tomorrow to advance the interests of working people. Conspiracy theories are completely lacking in this ability.

7. One of the most typical characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they operate with blatant double standards of proof when it comes to comparing official interpretations of events with their own. They often put considerable effort into casting doubt on, or showing inconsistencies in, the government or media account of an event or situation, in the belief that having done this they can simply make up their own interpretation or explanation without any serious proof or evidence. For example, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that if they can establish that, contrary to official denials, an Unidentified Flying Object flew over Dublin last week, this then entitles them to declare with confidence (but without evidence) that it must have come from Mars. In contrast Marxists, while they certainly critique the standard bourgeois explanations of events put even more effort into establishing their own interpretations: the immense labour involved in Marx’s ‘Capital’ is the classic example of this but there are a multitude of other works that could be sited such as Lenin’s ‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Trotsky’s ‘History of The Russian Revolution’ or Tony Cliff’s ‘State Capitalism in Russia’ or Chris Harman’s ‘Zombie Capitalism’.

8. Last but not least many conspiracy theories have at their heart an element of racism, usually anti-semitism. Very often it turns out that ‘the secret inner government’ claimed to be controlling the country or the world is actually a conspiracy of Jews or Zionists (though sometimes it is Catholics). One sign of this is the recurring obsession with the Rothschild family and the fantasy that that they own and control all or most of the world’s major banks. This notion of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world has nothing to do with the Marxist and left wing critique of Zionism as a political movement leading to the establishment of the state of Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians. Rather it is a long standing feature of vile anti-semitic prejudice which is both nonsense and politically dangerous and which should be vehemently opposed by all progressive people.

These then are the main differences between the conspiracy theory approach as a whole and the Marxist approach. To return to points made at the beginning the popularity of conspiracy theories at present is very understandable, indeed Marxism contains a theory (the theory of alienation) which is very useful for explaining exactly why people would feel that the world is dominated by hidden forces beyond their control. It also constitutes the best framework for analysing the conspiracies that do exist, i.e. locating them within the fundamental objective drives and contradictions of the capitalist system, rather than seeing them as constituting the central drive of the system in themselves. In contrast conspiracy theories both get in the way of understanding the world and tend to leave people passive with no perspective for resistance or changing it.

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.

Your quite right, so much for what passes for anti-Trump is partisan Dem bullshit and it looks as though they are really trying overthrow the election, which is hysterical, fraught with dangers and possibilities. How far they wish to push that envelope remains to be seen, but this whole anti-Russian campaign is a big part of it and I think it hangs on how much the public buys this crap.

From your own foundations. Get some balance BP...

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/11/donald-trump-choice-of-capitalist.html

Donald Trump: A choice of the capitalist establishment
EDITORIAL

The result of the U.S Presidential elections highlights the deep intensification of the contradictions within the bourgeois system of the United States. The victory of Donald Trump has been presented by many as an "anti-establishment" message of the American voters. There is a whole mechanism of media, both in the United States as well as in Europe, which tries to present Trump as the "epitomy of the American dream", as the successfull non-professional politician who is willing to clash with the U.S political establishment.

Among those who celebrated the victory of Donald Trump are the political protagonists of fascism in Europe: From Marie Le Pen in France to the reactionary Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and from the far-right Austrian Freedom Party to the Nazi-fascist Golden Dawn in Greece.

The presentation of Donald Trump as an "anti-establishment" candidate was used as a tool in order to entrap a large number of voters. The part of the U.S. capital which supported Trump presented him as the "alternative" to the political establishment. The same had been done 8 years earlier, with the rise of Barack Obama in the U.S. Presidency. Back in 2008, Obama was the supposed "hope", he was the first African-American President who would end the wars abroad and who would bring social justice and peace in the United States. Of course, the expectations were not met at all.

The problems in the U.S. economy, the series of measures which the Obama administration took in order to respond to the financial crisis, as well as the intensification of the antagonism between the U.S capital with new, economically powerful rising countries, such as China, had a significantly negative impact on the working class and the low-income families of the country.

Without having developed class conciousness and without the existence of a strong working class party, a very large part of low-income Americans- especially in the countryside- fell "victims" of Trump's bombastic rhetoric. They saw Trump as the alternative solution to the crooked, corrupted political system that Hillary Clinton represented. Instead of blaming the real enemy and the source of their misery- the capitalist system- a large percentage of America's popular strata was charmed by Trump's pseudo-revolutionary, reactionary and xenophobic rhetoric of intolerance.

However, Donald Trump, like Hillary Clinton, is a representative of the rotten U.S capitalist system. Like Hillary, Trump is part of an establishment which expresses the power of the monopolies and large corporations. Trump and Hillary may have differences in their recipes regarding economy or foreign policy- however, their ultimate goal is the same: the preservation of the exploitative system which brings poverty, misery, unemployment to the American people and which produces wars and imperialist interventions abroad.

In his post-elections statements, Donald Trump said that its time for the United States "to come together as one united people". Actually, what the president-elect intends to do is to continue the barbaric, antipeople policy in favor of the monopoly groups and U.S. corporations, both internally and abroad. Nothing positive for the working class of the United States will take place during Trump's Presidency - as nothing positive would happen under Hillary Clinton.

The working people, the low-income, poor families in the United States must stop being under the false flag of either Democrats or Republicans. Their interests are not the interests of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The only way out of misery, poverty and unemployment lies in the creation of a strong, class-based popular labour movement which will fight against the rotten capitalist establishment.

IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.

Your quite right, so much for what passes for anti-Trump is partisan Dem bullshit and it looks as though they are really trying overthrow the election, which is hysterical, fraught with dangers and possibilities. How far they wish to push that envelope remains to be seen, but this whole anti-Russian campaign is a big part of it and I think it hangs on how much the public buys this crap.

Certainly not your strain of Marxism but what the hell... I don't really give a shit about ideological constraints at this point. Idealism it is and I'm sure you'll have a nice puke on this but fuck Trump...

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/news/the-extraordinary-dangers-of-trump-and-trumpism-2.html

Marxist-Humanist Initiative is thoroughly, unequivocally, opposed to Donald Trump and all that he stands for. We are aghast that part of the so-called “left” thinks that there is anything good about him, and that some “leftists” actually support Trump because he comes from outside the political establishment and trash-talks about it. Whether such responses are based on “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” or “better the devil you don’t know than the one you do,” they are irredeemably irresponsible and unserious. They disregard Trump’s class bias, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, totalitarian inclinations, and interest in using nuclear weapons, and treat those who will suffer under Trump as “collateral damage.”

The backbone of his campaign are appeals to racism, nativism, xenophobia, and sexism. Despite Trump’s recent vague doubletalk, he has—as everyone knows–vowed to build a wall across the Mexican border and force Mexico to pay for it, and to ban Muslim immigration. Even if he is defeated on November 8, the racist, xenophobic movement he has created—Trumpism—is likely to persist and it is questionable whether the flimsy institutions of U.S. bourgeois democracy are any match for it.

The allegedly “anti-establishment” and “anti-elite” character of Trumpism doesn’t make his racism and chauvinism any less despicable or more deserving of “understanding.” Any and every discussion of Trump and Trumpism that fails to denounce their racism, sexism, and xenophobia clearly, loudly, and without qualification—without ifs, ands, or buts—is complicit with them. There are no mitigating circumstances. There is no silver lining. There is just willingness to tolerate racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

It is not “far left” to say that there is some good in Trumpism. It is just infantile posturing.

No support for Clinton

Although Trump is by far the greater evil, we do not support Clinton. (We are saying this repeatedly for the benefit of the dialectically challenged, who have trouble getting their heads around the fact that condemning one candidate does not equal supporting the other.) We have no expectation that she would be much different from all recent presidents, Democrats or Republicans. Like them, she is anti-worker, anti-poor, imperialistic—in sum, a functionary in the capitalist system.

Furthermore, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party are corrupt, self-interested, and cut off from and disdainful of working people and minorities. They have neither the will nor the ability to build the kind of mass movement that will be needed to crush Trumpism.

But we do not draw a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton just for the sake of making clear that we don’t support either of them. To falsely equate Trump and Clinton is to ignore the grave threat to our civil liberties and lives that Trump represents. He and Clinton are not “basically the same,” as we detail below. We are quite able to distinguish between them without supporting one over the other. We reject the presupposition that we have to choose between them–or to choose some candidate to support. We put no faith in the electoral system within this society.

But neither do we simply say “a plague on both your houses” while remaining aloof from a real and unprecedented danger. That position is like refusing to take sides in the U.S. Civil War on the grounds one is opposed to all slavery, whether chattel slavery or wage-slavery. In contrast, although Marx strongly opposed both wage- and chattel-slavery, he fervently supported the North in the war, while criticizing it for not making abolition of slavery central to the war from the start. We urge the left, workers, people of color and other minorities, women and youth to oppose Trump by all means possible, and to hew out an altogether different path to change, independent of the entire capitalist class and its parties and politicians.

Do's and don't's

Reject the ruling-class’ choices. Create alternative choices.

We can create alternatives to the choices presented by the ruling class—not by means of wishful thinking, but by means of serious theoretical and practical work. First, we have to clear our heads. That is, first we have to face “with sober senses” the danger of Trump and Trumpism, give up all illusions that he will not be even worse than Clinton or actually good for the working class, and reject the idea that unless we choose between the candidates, we can have nothing to say. Only when we break out of the confines of the choices that the rulers hand us, and are guided instead by the pull of a future socialist society, can we work out a fourth alternative—one that doesn’t support Trump, doesn’t support Clinton, and isn’t passive resignation. For an example, see our editorial five years ago on the Libya crisis. We opposed both Qaddafi and U.S./NATO intervention, searching for an independent proletarian path to aid the Libyan people, and being guided by a vision of a future society based on freely associated labor and new human relations:

If we allow the immediate situation to determine our response for us, then another path, independent of all capitalist powers and solutions, never has the opportunity to develop, since the “episodic danger[s]” are never-ending. And so we become bystanders to history. And much worse, we recommend that potentially revolutionary forces also become bystanders, taking sides from among that which is immediately given to them, i.e., the sides that others, capitalist powers and forces, have constructed as “the sides.”

So we decry Trump and Trumpism as an especially horrendous danger, and we condemn a flaccid left that is unwilling or unable to escape a false dichotomy between Clinton and Trump and unwilling to hew out an independent perspective—grounded in self-activity from below as guided by a philosophy of human liberation. Such an independent perspective can help defeat Trumpism (not just Trump’s electoral hopes), and aid in the overthrow of the existing social-economic system and the creation of a new, human society.

What Trump stands for, and what he could do

A Trump victory would threaten the whole human race. As President, his power to unleash a nuclear attack or counter-attack would essentially be absolute and unlimited.

We frequently hear that Trump’s powers would be constrained by the “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” that characterize the U.S. political system. It is imperative that everyone understand that these things do not apply to a decision to unleash nuclear weapons. The president makes a unilateral decision that no one else is entitled to veto or even review. Only the general to whom he gives the order stands between him and the launching of nukes, and the general is not entitled to use his own judgment. The president’s decision must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.

… there is no wiggle room for evasion or defiance of the president’s orders. … It does not even matter if the commander in chief simply orders the use of nuclear weapons on an ordinary day for reasons unknown to all but him or her.

John Noonan, a former nuclear launch officer and national security advisor to Republican politicians, has stated that, if the president had ordered him to use nuclear weapons, “I would have done my duty and I can damn near guarantee everyone on alert right now wouldn’t blink either.” He opposes giving Trump the power to launch nuclear weapons.

Of course, other candidates for President–such as Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein—would have the same power if they were elected. The crucial difference is that none of them is Trump. His track record has made clear that he is exceedingly thin-skinned and hot-headed, a vindictive bully, and proudly “unpredictable.” Furthermore, Trump is abysmally ignorant of the “deterrence” doctrine that stands at the center of U.S. nuclear strategy; he has asked, repeatedly, “if we have [nuclear weapons], why can’t we use them?” This combination of traits makes nuclear weaponry in the hands of President Donald J. Trump an enormous danger.

In addition to the distinct possibility that he would decimate humanity, Trump would certainly bring on and enforce extreme repression against racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, workers, and leftists. Separation of powers would not stop this; all three branches of government would be reshaped in the image of his repressive authoritarianism.

Once Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, House Speaker Paul Ryan and almost all of the rest of the formerly anti-Trump Republican establishment quickly capitulated to him, in a pitiful and humiliating fashion. So there is no reason to think that the legislative branch would exercise any serious countervailing power to Trump if he became President. He would remake the judicial branch, appointing the next several Supreme Court judges as well as large numbers of lower-level federal judges. In the executive branch, which stands directly under the President’s control, he would appoint the members of the National Labor Relations Board that make the rules about workplace and union rights. He would staff the executive agencies that make and enforce rules about the environment, health, food and drugs, education, and more. He would staff the Justice Department, which is responsible for enforcement of voting rights and many other “good” laws. Action by the Justice Department has been the only hope for “justice” and imposition of reforms when police murder African-American youth.

As head of the executive branch of government, Trump would have enormous power. He could issue all manner of wide-reaching executive decrees without consulting Congress. He could overturn, at will, democratic precedents regarding the way the executive branch functions that are not explicitly written in statutes. He would also have the ability to influence the judiciary by instigating challenges to existing law. Those who think that the U.S. has “checks and balances” that would prevent Trump from doing what he wants greatly underestimate how much unilateral power is directly in the hands of the U.S. chief executive and commander-in-chief of the military. They misinterpret previous presidents’ (partial) adherence to democratic traditions and the rule of law as actual limits on the powers of the president.

Although civil liberties, freedom of the press, and separation of powers are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Trump has indicated, in word and deed, his intent to change them. He has barred numerous publications from his press conferences and rallies and has threatened to change the libel laws. He has already attacked the independence of the judicial branch, declaring that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is biased against him and therefore should not be allowed to preside over the lawsuit against Trump’s phony “university.” Trump suggested that the “bias” stems from the fact that Curiel is of Mexican heritage, while Trump plans to make Mexico pay for his wall across the Mexican border.



Trump Racista



Trump has also incited violence against protesters at his rallies, and even against Clinton if she is elected. Roger Stone, a key Trump adviser, has promised that a “bloodbath” will ensue if the Democrats “steal” the election—that is, if Clinton’s share of the vote in certain precincts substantially exceeds her share in preference polls. For Marxist-Humanists, the violence and repression that Trumpism promises is particularly ominous. It would severely restrict our ability to struggle inside the U.S. against capitalism, racism, xenophobia, and sexism.

Thus, the upcoming election is fundamentally a referendum on civil liberties, freedom of the press, and separation of powers in the U.S. government. A Trump victory would be a decisive victory for those who regard these rights as expendable; and they will be expendable. The fact that the authoritarian strongman who rules over us came to power “democratically,” and the fact that a majority of voters effectively endorsed his plans, would be used to legitimize the abrogation of more than two centuries of bourgeois democratic rights.

Not a conservative or mainstream Republican

Some self-styled leftists have portrayed Trump as a moderate, or moderately conservative, on the grounds that some of his “policy positions” are “to the left of” Clinton’s. This preposterous line of “reasoning” leads directly to the conclusion that Hitler was also a moderate or moderately conservative. As the Political Compass team has pointed out, “Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today’s Labour parties.” The truth is that the standard left-right political continuum is unable to come to grips with fascism and proto-fascism. “Policy positions” notwithstanding, these are retrogressive, reactionary phenomena.

We have also encountered efforts to portray Trump as just another conservative or mainstream Republican, and to discount what he says as mere electoral rhetoric. These efforts often come from people outside the U.S., who do not read and hear about Trump 24/7. In fact, his nomination constitutes a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It is no longer the party of free-market economics, religious and social conservatism, and neo-conservative warmongering. That veneer has been stripped off; the underlying white nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and hatred now stand in front of us, naked and brazen.

Far from being an ordinary Republican, Trump is an outsider, a billionaire businessman who befriended politicians for favors but was never in politics until recently. He used to give contributions to both major parties. He decided to run for President as a Republican because of his enormous ego, his hunger for power, and the fact that he had widespread name recognition as a “reality”-TV star. But he also saw a new opportunity. There was a void in the Party, which has been torn apart in recent years by ideological battles and which has ever-diminishing shots at winning Presidential elections as the nation’s demographics shift against it. Trump sensed the chance to take over the Party’s base with a naked appeal to it, an appeal not covered in free-market, social-conservative, religious-conservative, or neo-conservative drapery.

He became the Party’s nominee partly because there were so many other primary candidates in the running. The majority of Republican voters were anti-Trump, but their voting power dissipated as it was split up among more than a dozen barely-distinguishable candidates. Furthermore, in many states, independents and even registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primaries; Trump did disproportionately well in those states. The Republican establishment (and independent conservatives) tried again and again to stop Trump, but failed because they were bound by the election rules they had previously made and because they feared that the party’s base would exact retribution.

The unique danger that Trump poses should not be downplayed by pointing to superficial similarities between him and figures such as Sarah Palin or Bernie Sanders. The all-important difference between Trump and Palin is that she was only a candidate for Vice-President, and thus not an independent player in the presidential race. And to lump together Sanders (who we also do not support) and Trump as expressions of a “populist” upsurge is facile. It shows only that the concept of “populism” is about form, not substance. In a concrete political analysis, it can play only a minor, subsidiary role.

The myth of Trump’s working-class support

Many people erroneously think that Trump is supported by a majority of the working class. Nothing could be further from the truth. To arrive at this conclusion, one first has to exclude from the working class all African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, immigrants (undocumented and documented) who lack the right to vote, and the tens of millions of workers who have college degrees. What gets reported are figures that supposedly reflect the attitudes of the “white working class,” a category that has no real existence in the U.S., where Blacks, Latinos, and immigrants are a much larger share of the working class than they are of the population as a whole.

Second, it is not even true that Trump’s strongest support is among white workers or even white male workers. A massive study by a Gallup researcher has found that Trump supporters have “relative[ly] high household incomes,” and that “living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support,” even after controlling for other factors such as race, gender, age, and education.

Recent polls reinforce the conclusion that Trump’s strongest support comes from higher-income people. Earlier this month, a Washington Post / ABC poll found that only 34% of lower-income registered voters prefer Trump—which is less than the 38% share of the lower-income vote that Mitt Romney received in the 2012 election—while 46% of middle-income and 48% of high-income voters prefer Trump. And a Monmouth University poll found that only 29% of the lower-income group, but 35% and 36% of the middle-income and higher-income groups, respectively, intend to vote for Trump or are leaning in that direction. In addition, several recent polls indicate that Trump is in fourth place among African-Americans, and support for Trump among Latinos, Asian-Americans, and youth is also strikingly low.

Ironically, the same leftists who buy into the illusion that Trump enjoys especially strong working-class support–perhaps because they want to believe that Trumpism represents the emergence of a new proletarian movement–are also willing to ignore the lack of minority and youth and women’s support for Trump. They cling to a pre-World War II image of workers as white males, whom they regard as the “real” workers, while overlooking the majority of the U.S. working class, which does not fit their model.

No to “leftist” accommodation to Trumpism

We are greatly disturbed to see a segment of the left, and not only in the US, taking the position that Trump is not so bad. Some suggest, without any evidence, that he will not do what he has vowed to do if he becomes president. Others refuse to consider probabilities and thus ignore the evidence—Trump’s stated intentions—as they bizarrely pretend that all possibilities are equally likely. Trump’s recent supposed modification of his position on immigration lacks all credibility, coming after a year of incessant immigrant-bashing, promises to build a wall across the U.S. border with Mexico, and commitment to deport 11 million undocumented residents.

Trump wolf and sheep

Even worse, some regard him as a positive alternative to well-known establishment oppressors like Clinton, etc., since he is an outsider and, supposedly, less belligerent to foreign powers (as if vowing to build a wall along the border with Mexico and make the Mexican government pay for it were not an act of extreme belligerence). We suspect that such blindness to realities, and nonchalance about the dangers of Trumpism that have not yet materialized–since he is not yet president–are largely fueled by a knee-jerk “anti-imperialist” attitude that is not actually anti-imperialist. It does not constitute consistent, principled opposition to imperial expansion by all capitalist state powers (which include Russia, Iran, the Islamic State, etc.). It is anti-Americanism in leftist garb. In all too many cases, such “anti-imperialists” not only oppose U.S. foreign policy, but disdain the American people and their culture as well as civil liberties, a free press, and rule of law.

Once such “niceties,” and the well-being of the American people, are considered collateral damage in the struggle against U.S. imperialism, perhaps Trump can be regarded as not so bad or even as the lesser evil. It is time to eradicate this kind of “anti-imperialism.” The left needs once again to stand for freedom and human rights for all.

The positive element here is that the soft-on-Trump left is being decisively repudiated on the ground by the actual left in the U.S.–Blacks, Latinos, youth, women, and others who understand quite well the threat to their well-being that Trump and Trumpism represent. Many of them have engaged in nearly continuous protests at Trump’s rallies. They are not allowing his “right” to hold “private” rallies interfere with their right to speak freely in order to challenge the torrent of filth and hate he spews forth. It is this left that we stand with and are part of. It needs to grow and develop to the point where it can defeat Trump and Trumpism. This is no time to trust the Democrats. We cannot trust them to win the election. Much less can we trust them to continue to fight Trumpism if they need to make peace with it in order to preserve U.S. capitalism, or even their own career prospects.

Some of the left’s softness on Trump seems to draw on the narrative that he has wide support among the working class—as if that by itself means that he isn’t so bad. This is false, as we discussed above. But Marxist-Humanist Initiative would oppose Trump implacably even if he had a lot more support among working people than he actually has. We will never countenance racism, chauvinism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc. no matter how popular they might be. Anti-racism is a principle that exists not only in the form of an ultimate aim, but also as a guide to immediate practice here and now.

We stand for emancipatory self-activity from below. There is no greater obstacle to this than figures such as Trump, who use racism, sexism, etc. to pit working people against one another, in order to divide and conquer them and have them fall in behind the great leader who tells them that “I alone can fix it.”

Betting markets and election forecasts currently indicate that Trump has about a one-in-four or one-in-five chance of becoming the next president. But even if he loses, we face the prospect of serious retrogression, now that he has made racism and xenophobia somewhat respectable. Trump may go off and play golf, but Trumpism is much more likely to be an ongoing threat. The damage it can do has already begun. We may be witnessing the start of a “red-brown” alliance between parts of the left and the proto-fascist right that we may have to contend with for decades. The dominant discourse has already moved substantially to the right—including the “alt-right.” Extremely reactionary positions are being treated as serious alternatives, and open expressions of racism, sexism, xenophobia and the rest are becoming socially acceptable once again. Children are learning the lesson that Trump’s hateful speech is normal.

The political-economic roots of Trumpism

One pillar of Trump’s success thus far is his ability to appeal to the Republican base on its own terms—that is, with a racist, white-nationalist, authoritarian message freed from the trappings of economic-, religious-, social-, and neo-conservatism. A second pillar is the existence of a large base that finds this message appealing. This has little to do with “neoliberal” trends such as “globalization” and the much-exaggerated rise in inequality. In truth, this base has existed for many decades–if not longer. It existed during the 1950s and 1960s, when it fought civil rights for Blacks tooth and nail. It existed in the late 1960s and early 1970s when Richard Nixon and George Corley Wallace appealed to “the silent majority” with anti-desegregation and law-and-order messages. It has existed ever since. But until now, the Republican establishment has been able to manipulate this base, to placate it with relatively minor concessions, and to get it to march behind the establishment’s own, rather different, aims.

The base is being manipulated again—this time to support a megalomaniacal super-rich real-estate developer in his drive for attention and power. The difference this time is that it is not being held in check, but whipped up into a frenzy. We are witnessing the beginnings of what could develop into a modern Americanized version of the Nazis’ Schutzstaffel (SS).

Why now? Part of the answer seems to be that the rise of Trumpism is due to accidents, such as the crowded Republican primary field and Trump’s pre-existing fame. Another part of the answer seems to be that his base feels increasingly demoralized and threatened in a country in which Blacks and women hold positions of power and prominence, a country that is becoming more and more cosmopolitan, less and less “traditional” and sexist, and more and more nonwhite, non-Christian, and non-native.

And part of the answer is economic. We are not referring to globalization or inequality, but to the Great Recession and its prolonged aftermath. In some respects, the U.S. economy still has not recovered from the recession. For instance, the rate of labor-force participation and the percentage of people who own their homes are still much lower than they were in 2007. And significant pockets of the country remain seriously depressed. The working class has been hit hard. But so have the middle and upper-middle classes, and it is they who experience the loss of status and economic security, and their diminished opportunities, as a shocking assault on the way things are “supposed to be.”

The Great Recession is the dirty little secret of U.S. political discourse in 2016. Bourgeois policymakers and politicians have come to realize that they cannot turn the economy around, and so none of them pinpoint the recession and its aftermath as the causes of the increase in “economic distress.” Trump does not. Clinton does not. Even politicians further to the left like Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein do not.

Instead, they focus on inequality, student debt, immigrants taking jobs, capital flight abroad, and “unfair” foreign trade deals. What all of this has in common is the bourgeois politicians’ lack of confidence that the economy will turn around. They therefore put forward nostrums that will, supposedly, benefit their target audience at the expense of “the other.” Shift the income around! Shift the benefits and costs of trade around! Shift the jobs around!

In Trump’s case, “the other” is the working class in other countries, and from other countries. This is why the economic dimension of Trumpism is not progressive in the least. It is an integral part of Trump’s xenophobia, nativism, and racism. He is not giving voice to working-class grievances. He is preying on his supporters, diverting their grievances into white-nationalist channels, and pitting worker against worker.

This divide-and-rule strategy harms workers of all colors—including white. We must therefore not make any concessions to white nationalism or be “understanding” of it. We must say, as we have consistently said since 1848, that working people have no country. We must urge working people in all countries to unite.

Fighting the greater evil does not mean supporting the lesser evil

Some of those who support or are soft on Trump try to justify it by saying that his evil is “all talk,” whereas Clinton has a proven track record of evil-doing as an aide to President Bill Clinton, then a senator, then Secretary of State. There is no question that she will continue the same economic and foreign policies as Bill and the presidents who followed. But it is crazy to say that Trump is less evil because he has not yet had an opportunity to make those policies.

We have to take him at his word regarding what he would do in power, and that is what is so scary. Although he recently took back one or two of his horrendous proposals to “make American great again,” this was clearly an attempt to win the support of the ordinary Republicans who were deciding not to vote for him. There is no chance that he will suddenly become a nice liberal, nor that he will genuinely abandon his prior statements, hints and threats.

Trump has spent his entire adult life as an exploitative and bullying landlord and developer, threatening and harassing rent-regulated tenants out of his buildings, refusing to pay his workers and contractors, making money from a fake Trump University, cheating his investors, being a racist and a womanizer. After so many years of uttering racist statements, who can believe his current proclamation that “I have a great relationship with the blacks”?

The internal repression he would impose, and the increased probability of nuclear war, make Trump’s anticipated use of the presidency far worse than what Clinton is likely to do (maintain the status quo). It is simply not true, as many nihilists, including some leftist “burn-it-all-down” types, say, that things can’t get much worse. So although we don’t support the “lesser evil” candidate, we do recognize that there exists a “greater evil” candidate, and we urge people to defeat him.

There do exist lesser and greater evils. For example, bourgeois democracy is better than authoritarianism, and freedom to project Marxist-Humanism is better than being jailed or killed by vigilantes or the government. Of course there would be similar possibilities for repression under a Clinton government. But we aren’t dealing with a “possible vs. impossible” situation here. We are dealing with probabilities, and in politics one always has to assess probabilities as accurately as possible. Abstract reduction of the situation to “it’s possible whoever becomes president” is naïve and politically irresponsible.

In short, we have to recognize the existence of greater evil, because the greater evil is more likely to cause greater evil!

Trump middle finger in air

What to do

Most people—those who live in “safe states” for Clinton or Trump—need not vote, or can vote for another candidate. The relatively small number who live in the handful of “battleground states” should bear firmly in mind that defeating Trump is the crucial immediate task and thus vote in a way that minimizes the chance that he will be elected. This election is not about you. Your vote isn’t an act of self-expression or personal morality.

Voting is only a stopgap measure at best. Because Trumpism is likely to persist whether or not Trump wins the election, we foresee the need for protracted struggle against it. That struggle cannot rely on faith in the electoral process or bourgeois politicians and parties; they are always prepared to sell us out. We need a mass movement, independent of capitalist interests and politics, to fight Trump and Trumpism on the ground. That fight can begin now, if the protesters at Trump rallies have the perspective of gaining sufficient power and focus to make it in Trump’s interest to give up his bid for the presidency and to go hide in one of his multi-million dollar residences. It is high time that he, not the courageous protesters, be the person escorted out of his rallies.

The special role of Marxist-Humanists in this struggle is to oppose the “leftists” who are pro-Trump, soft-on-Trump, or “understanding of” Trumpism. They need to be driven out of the left. As we said above, the left needs to stand for freedom and human rights for all once again.

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.

Your quite right, so much for what passes for anti-Trump is partisan Dem bullshit and it looks as though they are really trying overthrow the election, which is hysterical, fraught with dangers and possibilities. How far they wish to push that envelope remains to be seen, but this whole anti-Russian campaign is a big part of it and I think it hangs on how much the public buys this crap.

http://www.internationalmarxisthumanist.org/articles/trumps-election-capitalisms-dangerous-turn-toward-open-racism-misogyny-peter-hudis

Trump’s Election: Capitalism’s Dangerous Turn Toward Open Racism and Misogyny

— by Peter Hudis


Dear Comrades,

The freedom movements in the U.S., and indeed around the world, have been dealt a tremendous blow with the election of Donald Trump as President of the U.S. As we absorb the significance of this development and prepare to respond to it on the basis of firm Marxist-Humanist principles, there are several points that I think may be worthwhile to keep in mind.

First, we must not underestimate the fact that the rabid racists, sexists, and anti-leftists who felt emboldened and unleashed by Trump’s campaign now feel free to directly move against everyone and anyone they disagree with—from anti-racist activists to feminists and from defenders of LGBTQ rights to those who challenge a pro-capitalist agenda. We already see many signs of this in the number of Trump supporters and sympathizers—some of whom may not have openly revealed their political biases before the election—who are now going up to Latinos, Muslims, and others saying “looks like it is time for you to start packing your bags.” Such verbal harassment will no doubt take on a more virulent expression, especially when it comes to African Americans, immigration activists, feminists and others who have made (and will continue to make) their voices heard against all that Trump and his followers stand for. That view expressed by many immigrants and minorities following the election— “we are no longer welcome in this country”—will no doubt be felt in even more palpable ways in coming months.

Second, while we have seen many such nefarious figures comes to power in the past—just recall Nixon’s 1968 election with his policy of “benign neglect” of African Americans or Reagan’s election of 1980 which ushered in an entire generation of political retrogression—Trump will have many tools at his disposal that they lacked, such as complete Republican control of both houses of Congress and an army of dedicated followers (in the literal sense of the word, given the level of their gun possession). Trump will quickly move to dismantle every progressive enactment or piece of legislation that remains on the books—from ending DACA (the executive ruling that allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth to be protected from deportation) and Obama Care (which despite its many defects provided access to medical insurance for 20 million people). But even this is but the beginning, since he will have the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with the most reactionary figures imaginable while promoting “tax reform” that will make the economic inequality generated over the past several decades (largely thanks to the perfidity of the Democrats) look like child’s play by comparison. Do not be surprised if one of his first acts in office is to push for a nationwide “right to work” statute. After all, despite whatever misgivings some Republican leaders had with Trump, they are now embracing him because they see him as the lightening rod to dismantle whatever remains of workers’ rights and the welfare state.

But Trump’s impact on international developments have to be watched just as closely. It would not be hard for him to openly ally with Putin’s effort to keep Assad in power—after all, that is the direction U.S. policy-makers under Obama were headed anyway and he has no concern with how many Syrians are murdered by Assad’s regime. There is no evidence that Trump will be any more understanding of the plight of the Palestinians than any of his predecessors in the White House, and a lot of evidence that he would be a lot worse—especially given the venom he spills against Muslims as a whole. As his proclamation that he will pull the plug on the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal (an action that will certainly be warmly greeted by Netanayahu) threatens a renewal of hostilities that could well lead to a new war on the U.S.’s part in the Middle East.

Third, the moment now before us is of such magnitude that it brings to mind earlier unexpected developments that tested revolutionaries–such as August 4, 1914 when the Second International’s voting of war credits helped unleash the most horrific war then known to human history; January 1933, when Hitler took power in Germany (then considered the most cultured and sophisticated of European societies); or August 1939, when the Hitler-Stalin Pact gave the green light for even a more bloody carnage, World War II. I am not suggesting that Trump’s victory is directly comparable to these events; but it does seem to me that we will be tested as severely by them as those who lived through 1914, 1933, or 1939. This history is no longer about the past; we have now reached a point that could signal a massive shift not only in U.S. politics but those in many nations around the world as well (especially since his election will embolden the National Front in France, the UKIP in Britain, the BJP in India, and the many other rightwing racist nationalist parties that are gaining ground in Europe and elsewhere).

Given all this, we must keep in mind what Marxist-Humanism teaches us about how to respond to such shocking developments. The first order of business is to take stock of the situation, and patiently and carefully analyze how and why it happened–instead of jumping to quick and easy answers. The last thing we need to is to plunge into utter despair, just as we must not brush off the seriousness of the situation. Surely, we must stand firm and FIGHT BACK—something that those who poured into the streets around the country to protest the election results appear to understand very well. At the same time, Trump’s ascendancy calls for a reorganization of thought–including OUR thought. We must get to the root of how it could be that the most reactionary figure ever to run for President pulled off such a convincing victory. Working that out will no doubt be painful and difficult to go through, but it is the only thing that can place us on a path to transcend the given moment. Simply responding with one more claim that these events disclose “the backwardness of the masses” will get us nowhere.

To be sure, the ability of Trump to win so convincingly has much to do with the pathetic failure of Clinton to mount an effective opposition. It was not only that she ran a incoherent campaign that failed to produce a single significant idea or slogan that could clearly explain why anyone should vote for her (she apparently thought she could win simply by emphasizing her “experience” and “temperament” as compared to Trump). More damning was that she ran as the defender of the status quo and neoliberal policies that have produced such damage over the past several decades—despite her effort to mildly distance herself from aspects of it by adopting Sanders’s positions on TPP and college tuition. That she apparently didn’t think it important to devote considerable time to states like Michigan and Wisconsin and bypassed opportunities to directly address the concerns of working class voters sort of tells the tale. Nevertheless, those who place the entire blame on Clinton for Trump’s victory are missing a critical point. Male chauvinism clearly was pivotal in the electoral outcome. That Trump could manage to grow his support even after the evidence of his history of sexual abuse became widely known is a very disturbing sign of the sexism that is endemic to this society.

There is another lesson of this election that is no less significant. Clinton’s defeat may show that neoliberalism is in crisis, but that does not in any way mean that it points to a weakening of the hegemony of capitalism. In fact, it is now clear how wrong it was for many leftists to focus their politics for the past two decades on attacking “neoliberalism”—without ever getting to explicitly oppose the logic of capital as a whole and articulate an alternative to it. Trump is part of a worldwide rejection of neoliberalism on the part of reactionary forces, who feel it has failed to live up to its promise. However, today’s collapse of neoliberalism does not represent a step forward, but a reactionary move to atavistic nationalism, racism, and misogyny. Capitalism may be turning away from its neoliberal phase as convincingly as it earlier dropped Keynesianism. But this time the situation is far more serious, since this statist rejection of free trade and global integration—based as it is on a racist and misogynist agenda—clearly has mass support. In this sense, those on the Left who are celebrating these latest developments as signaling the death of neoliberalism seem not to notice that what we are getting in its place is corporate capitalism with neo-fascist overtones. They have fixated on neoliberalism for so long that they seem unable to even recognize what a challenge to capitalism entails.

Trump’s victory clearly shows that rightwing opponents of neoliberalism have found a way to speak to disaffected segments of the working class by draping their critique of neoliberalism in racist and misogynist terms —all as part of ensuring, at one and the same time, that capitalism itself remains unquestioned. That issues a serious challenge to revolutionaries, since it signals that Trump’s populist appeal cannot be combatted on economic or class terms alone. Since racist animus is clearly the stratagem being used by such reactionary forces to appeal to those who have grown disenchanted with aspects of neoliberalism, we must begin and end our opposition to it with a firm and uncompromising rejection of any program, tendency, or initiative that in any way, shape or form dovetails—no matter how indirectly—with racist and/or anti-immigrant sentiment. Any other approach will simply lead to a failure to distinguish a genuine critique of class inequality, trade deals, and globalization from reactionary ones.

What's goin' on here, Chlams? Our pirate seems to have tired of this place, and I suspect that it's because we're not taking his bait and requiring answers he's unable to provide without hanging himself. He ain't no waif, and I don't think a frustrated leftist either. A troll, shit-stirrer, or mebbe just DSA or CPUSA.

Your quite right, so much for what passes for anti-Trump is partisan Dem bullshit and it looks as though they are really trying overthrow the election, which is hysterical, fraught with dangers and possibilities. How far they wish to push that envelope remains to be seen, but this whole anti-Russian campaign is a big part of it and I think it hangs on how much the public buys this crap.

Jesus, BP, now steelpirate is dredging up Rae Spiegel. She broke with Trotsky because he wasn't Trotsky enough. Man his shit is just getting too stupid. This Spiegel character said that no "communist" could stand with the Soviets after they sided with the Nazis! What a simpleton, and it gets worse. The rag he is posting from is full of anti-commie shit - and I mean shit. It is pitiful. I think this is the best we can expect from him. He is essentially anti-communist, he cloaks it in radical sounding slogans and quotations, but at bottom, to him, all communists are suspect.

Yeah... I just happened on the scene out of the blue you fucking clown. J. Reed, Orwellian_Ghost, J Crowley, Jimbo, Poe ect... Any of those ring a bell to you fucking idiot ? Shall I drag up your posting histories from DU and elsewhere you fucking hypocrite.

That would be great if you could. There was some excellent work (which always gets you banned) in there and it gets lost when one gets banned. Do you have all those archived? If so do post them.

Where were you during those days? What was your moniker? That place seems like a natural fit for you.

Don't bother with the OET stuff that place was a dump.

Will you be posting another stream of links that give us the amazing insight that right-wing reactionaries (as exemplified by The Trumpster circa 2016) are dangerous. It's quite sophisticated and nuanced so please help everyone understand this.

Jesus, BP, now steelpirate is dredging up Rae Spiegel. She broke with Trotsky because he wasn't Trotsky enough. Man his shit is just getting too stupid. This Spiegel character said that no "communist" could stand with the Soviets after they sided with the Nazis! What a simpleton, and it gets worse. The rag he is posting from is full of anti-commie shit - and I mean shit. It is pitiful. I think this is the best we can expect from him. He is essentially anti-communist, he cloaks it in radical sounding slogans and quotations, but at bottom, to him, all communists are suspect.

Here is another link from SP's site- if you read the piece you can see where SP gets several of his talking points:

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/news/why-i-voted-for-the-imperialist-hillary-clinton.html

Jesus, BP, now steelpirate is dredging up Rae Spiegel. She broke with Trotsky because he wasn't Trotsky enough. Man his shit is just getting too stupid. This Spiegel character said that no "communist" could stand with the Soviets after they sided with the Nazis! What a simpleton, and it gets worse. The rag he is posting from is full of anti-commie shit - and I mean shit. It is pitiful. I think this is the best we can expect from him. He is essentially anti-communist, he cloaks it in radical sounding slogans and quotations, but at bottom, to him, all communists are suspect.

Hey... I learned from the best over here... Doom Porn, James Lovelock, Gaia Theory, Population Control, Eugenics, and Deep Ecology nothwithstanding. IMFAO Here's what you should Dhal. Go to mirror immediately and remove the t-shirt that says I'm with stupid. It would do you a world of good you insidious hypocrite.

That would be great if you could. There was some excellent work (which always gets you banned) in there and it gets lost when one gets banned. Do you have all those archived? If so do post them.

Where were you during those days? What was your moniker? That place seems like a natural fit for you.

Don't bother with the OET stuff that place was a dump.

Will you be posting another stream of links that give us the amazing insight that right-wing reactionaries (as exemplified by The Trumpster circa 2016) are dangerous. It's quite sophisticated and nuanced so please help everyone understand this.


"Socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists, and IWWs spend more time and energy fighting each other than they do fighting capitalism. Each faction assumes that it is entirely right and that all others are entirely wrong, a very human way of seeing things, but far better calculated to prevent than to promote the effective organization of the workers.

There are of course and of necessity differences between these various groups of organized workers, and these differences are wholesome and result in clearer understanding and a corresponding unity and solidarity, provided they are met in the right spirit and are made the means of promoting intelligent discussion and acquiring more truth and greater knowledge, thereby building and adding up new strength to the organization.

But if such differences are allowed to provoke ill temper and ugliness of spirit, the result is disastrous if not fatal to efforts to unite the workers in a class-conscious body for a common purpose, and that is what has happened among us and kept the labor movement in a backward state in America.

Personally I have equal respect for all who stand four square for the working class and for the overthrow of the capitalist system, whether they be socialists, communists, anarchists, or IWWs. I don’t find it necessary to hate and denounce them because their method differs from mine. They may be right. I don’t think they are, but I have been mistaken a good many times in the past and am just as apt to be so now as anyone else."

--Eugene Debs

What is Debs really saying here? Not much actually. Is it a call for unity? That's not wrong.

But how far does such a call take us? Abandon principle for a not-really-existing unity?

Almost everybody, leftists included, is nuts. That's fine if for no other reason than the fact that it couldn't be any other way.

But what does that mean to us? You want to cater to every crazed prophet who saw a burning bush once? Clearly you don't just from the epithets you hurl at anyone who disagrees with your views on whether socialist bridal gowns should have short or long trains.

We do our own analysis, we act in accordance with our understanding and work out understanding through action, we say our piece, then we wake up in the morning and do it all over again.

From your own foundations. Get some balance BP...

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/11/donald-trump-choice-of-capitalist.html

Donald Trump: A choice of the capitalist establishment
EDITORIAL

The result of the U.S Presidential elections highlights the deep intensification of the contradictions within the bourgeois system of the United States. The victory of Donald Trump has been presented by many as an "anti-establishment" message of the American voters. There is a whole mechanism of media, both in the United States as well as in Europe, which tries to present Trump as the "epitomy of the American dream", as the successfull non-professional politician who is willing to clash with the U.S political establishment.

Among those who celebrated the victory of Donald Trump are the political protagonists of fascism in Europe: From Marie Le Pen in France to the reactionary Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and from the far-right Austrian Freedom Party to the Nazi-fascist Golden Dawn in Greece.

The presentation of Donald Trump as an "anti-establishment" candidate was used as a tool in order to entrap a large number of voters. The part of the U.S. capital which supported Trump presented him as the "alternative" to the political establishment. The same had been done 8 years earlier, with the rise of Barack Obama in the U.S. Presidency. Back in 2008, Obama was the supposed "hope", he was the first African-American President who would end the wars abroad and who would bring social justice and peace in the United States. Of course, the expectations were not met at all.

The problems in the U.S. economy, the series of measures which the Obama administration took in order to respond to the financial crisis, as well as the intensification of the antagonism between the U.S capital with new, economically powerful rising countries, such as China, had a significantly negative impact on the working class and the low-income families of the country.

Without having developed class conciousness and without the existence of a strong working class party, a very large part of low-income Americans- especially in the countryside- fell "victims" of Trump's bombastic rhetoric. They saw Trump as the alternative solution to the crooked, corrupted political system that Hillary Clinton represented. Instead of blaming the real enemy and the source of their misery- the capitalist system- a large percentage of America's popular strata was charmed by Trump's pseudo-revolutionary, reactionary and xenophobic rhetoric of intolerance.

However, Donald Trump, like Hillary Clinton, is a representative of the rotten U.S capitalist system. Like Hillary, Trump is part of an establishment which expresses the power of the monopolies and large corporations. Trump and Hillary may have differences in their recipes regarding economy or foreign policy- however, their ultimate goal is the same: the preservation of the exploitative system which brings poverty, misery, unemployment to the American people and which produces wars and imperialist interventions abroad.

In his post-elections statements, Donald Trump said that its time for the United States "to come together as one united people". Actually, what the president-elect intends to do is to continue the barbaric, antipeople policy in favor of the monopoly groups and U.S. corporations, both internally and abroad. Nothing positive for the working class of the United States will take place during Trump's Presidency - as nothing positive would happen under Hillary Clinton.

The working people, the low-income, poor families in the United States must stop being under the false flag of either Democrats or Republicans. Their interests are not the interests of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The only way out of misery, poverty and unemployment lies in the creation of a strong, class-based popular labour movement which will fight against the rotten capitalist establishment.

IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM

So what's your point here, SP? I like DoC a lot but don't have to agree with every detail. Trump is certainly the choice of a portion of the RC, the rump of old school domestic manufacturing, the 'extractive industries'. It seems to me that the bunch of Wall St scum he's appointed is meant to placate the RC majority which backs Clinton but it looks like that gambit is a fail. They rightfully don't trust him to continue the imperial program like they want and so we have a handful of options, starting with the Electoral College tomorrow, which I don't think will come off. Only thing I find surprising is that they would risk damaging the credibility of booj democracy and that it to our advantage.

Popular rebellions often start as a row in the ruling class(or petty booj in 1848) which recruits the working class to their factions only to have things slip out of control, that is the case of the French Revolution.

What ya want us to do, run around hair on fire? Ain't gonna do it, if Trump survives the hurdles being erected he will be very bad but if in your face fascism is to be instituted it will be the liberals doing it, as usual. Tragedy and farce, no jackboots but crocs this time.

Here is another link from SP's site- if you read the piece you can see where SP gets several of his talking points:

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/news/why-i-voted-for-the-imperialist-hillary-clinton.html

That's one stinking heap of opportunism. No historical perspective, which by the way is the lynch pin of all booj propaganda.

The Cold War, Continued: Post-Election Russophobia
by GARY LEUPP


Mainstream TV news anchors including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes are reporting as fact—with fuming indignation—that Russia (and specifically Vladimir Putin) not only sought to influence the U.S. election (and—gosh!—promote “doubt” about the whole legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system) but to throw the vote to Donald Trump.

The main accusation is that the DNC and Podesta emails leaked through Wikileaks were provided by state-backed Russian hackers (while they did not leak material hacked from the Republicans). I have my doubts on this. Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people, has also opined this was an inside job.)

Contrary to reports, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have not signed on to the conclusions the CIA has leaked (not announced formally) through anonymous officials to the New York Times and Washington Post. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Reuters reports, “has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.” There is an intelligence football game going on behind the scenes. Meanwhile CounterPunch’s Andrew Cockburn has listed a series of good questions about the plausibility of the alleged Russian hacks themselves.

How Could, and Why Would, Russia Interfere?

People asking why Putin would intefere into the U.S. elections sometimes—rarely—point as motive to revenge for Hillary Clinton’s call for protests in Russia after his victory in the 2011 election, which she declared “unfair” and urged Russians to protest. They very occasionally mention U.S. interference in the Russian election of 1996, in which the U.S. darling, the drunken bully Boris Yeltsin who had bombarded the Russian parliament building in 1993, was aided by billions in U.S.-arranged IMF funds needed to pay salaries and pensions (and thus buy votes), and by U.S. political consultants who helped manage his anti-Communist campaign. (Communist candidate Gennady Zhyuganov was an early lead; Yeltsin was in the single digits. But something weird happened and Yeltsin was reelected. How many U.S. politicians protested this interference? Perhaps if you think you live in the Exceptional Nation you believe that global norms and laws don’t apply to your exceptional self.)

Few point out that, while expressing outrage that any foreigner would try to interfere in a U.S. election, the U.S. (the CIA in particular) has intervened in elections elsewhere, indeed as a matter of policy, since the Truman Doctrine announced in 1947. Electoral interference is part of the tool-kit of any imperialist power cynically committed to “democracy” while rejecting any election that doesn’t serve their needs. (Examples: Palestine 2006, Lebanon two months ago.) The outrage of these media talking heads mouthing the State Department line on their teleprompters, moaning about Russian interference, reeks of hypocrisy (although as much, I suspect, from genuine ignorance and intellectual laziness).

How often are people educated to know that the U.S. intervened decisively in Italy in 1948, to prevent the victory of a Communist-Socialist coalition, using all the dirty tricks in the book? (Jack Devigne, CIA chief in Rome at the time, declared proudly “Without the CIA, the Communist Party [of Italy] would surely have won the elections of 1948.”) Such interference continued for a quarter century. Was that okay? How many mention the fact that the U.S. spent $ 5 billion in order to effect regime change in Ukraine in 2014? Or even have any grasp, beyond the memorization of State Department talking points, of what happened in Ukraine two years ago?

Aleppo, Mosul, and Russophobic Hypocrisy

In general the coverage, as usual, lacks any comparative-historical perspective. These anchors cannot even rationally compare the present situations in Aleppo, Syria and Mosul, Iraq. But the situations are in fact very comparable. Both are terrorist-held cities under siege by state forces backed by foreign powers. Both have been brutally bombed, the civilian toll high. Both are producing massive humanitarian crises. But the first is depicted by the U.S. media uniformly (according to those State Department talking points) as a tragedy; the advances of the Syrian Arab Army as constituting “genocide”; the reconquest of East Aleppo by the Syrian Arab Army as a setback for U.S. policy and and infuriating triumph by the wily, evil Putin!

In contrast, the reconquest of the second city (Mosul) is portrayed as a heroic turning point in the anti-ISIL struggle, a testament to the success of the U.S.’s effort at state-building in the country it invaded (as you recall, criminally and on the basis of lies, producing sheer ongoing disaster) in 2003. An accompanying refugee crisis; the flow of ISIL forces out of Mosul towards Palmyra in Syria and the ISIL capital of Raqqa Syria; the conflicts between Iraqi Arab Shiites and Sunnis, Kurds, Turkish forces in Iraq illegally, and the U.S. over the course of the Mosul battle; are all largely ignored. It’s simple and easy to remember; the one is bad news, the other good. (Meanwhile U.S. mass media reports appears uninterested in actually following the situation on the ground and stationing reporters in dangerous areas. RT television reports every day live from Aleppo; the U.S. channels report from Turkey. So much for the “who-how-when-where-why” tradition of actual journalistic reportage, and the traditional ranking of empirical reality over the mounting challenge of Fake News feeding on the most naive, gullible and ignorant.)

It’s a reversion to the worst sort of Cold War mentality, without the ideological component. Russia is not the enemy because it anymore constitutes a rival system, attractive to the world’s oppressed. Still, it’s the enemy—the number one, existential enemy, according the the Secretary of the Air Force the other day.

(Notice by the way how that term, popularized by Jean-Paul Sartre in arguing for the need of the individual to carve out meaning in this existence in a meaningless world, has become mostly used in the paranoid Israeli sense. Just like Israel’s very existence is threatened supposedly by the surrounding hostile Arab masses, or Iran’s mythical nukes, so the U.S.’s very existence is supposedly threatened by the very continued existence of Russia.)

How to make sense of that senseless proposition (aside from citing Goering on the need to deploy mass fear to justify aggressive war)? After all, Russia has a GDP smaller than that of New York State and spends about 14% of what the U.S. spends on its military. Russia has half the U.S. population, living in a country almost twice as large as the U.S. It has few naval ports, and only one aircraft carrier. It has bases in six foreign countries, as compared to the U.S.’s 800 or so. Between 1945 to 1991, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia and (fatally) Afghanistan. During that same period the U.S.invaded or made war on North Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Haiti, Cuba, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, and Serbia at least. You compare. Compare the death figures. The Korean and Vietnam wars killed at least four million. The Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 took the lives of maybe 2500 Hungarians and around 100 Czechs. The U.S./NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 is thought to have killed up to 5700 civilians.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan at the max killed two million—and that was a war on the Soviet border, motivated by Russian fears of Islamic fundamentalism in Soviet Central Asia. Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wanted to use the Afghan situation to “bleed the Soviets, like they bled us in Vietnam.” In doing so the U.S. unwittingly nurtured those who later formed the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and their many spin-offs. (Good job, Zbigniew!) The U.S.’s objection to a Soviet-aligned Afghanistan, as a secular society such as Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, caused it to actively promote a religious jihad in Afghanistan that has had horrific ramifications for the world ever since. This intervention brewed the Taliban (originally not anti-U.S. but eager for ties up to 9/11), al-Qaeda, and the predecessor of ISIL now called Fateh al-Sham.

Russia as the Existential Threat

I am 60; the U.S. has been at war somewhere over half of my life. This is, fortunately, not the case for my counterpart living in Russia (for whom the Afghan War—for a mere ten years,1979-1989—is a painful memory, like my memory of Vietnam). Any sensible person studying the relevant history will realize that the U.S. has been a far, far more bellicose nation than Russia since 1945. That recognition need have nothing to do with one’s feelings about the contemporary Russian state. The only thing the military brass can point to (taking its cue from Goering) is Russia’s nuclear weapons arsenal as “existential threat.”

But recall that the U.S. introduced the use of nuclear weapons to the world when it dropped two bombs in Japan that killed over 200,000 civilians in 1945. (That’s back when it was still cool to do that, and boast about it. No talk about “smart bombs” to prevent civilian fatalities them. Gen. Cutis LeMay had indeed boasted of his desire to fry men, women and children and bomb Japan back to the stone age.) The U.S. remains the only country ever to use such weapons, although seven countries now have them.

President Harry Truman insisted after the fact that the use of nukes was necessary to end the war and protect the American lives—lives so much more worthy of continuation and happiness than the Japs who’d had the audacity to attack us. (His successor Gen. Eisenhower strongly disagreed; he later opined that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”) But the new bombs were really deployed to warn Russia—emerging triumphant in the anti-Nazi struggle and in a position to dominate post-war Eastern Europe (while the U.S. dominated the rest)—that the U.S. would be a terrible foe. As the international communist movement expanded after the war, Truman established the anti-Soviet NATO alliance in 1949. The Russians responded with their first nuclear test, shocking Washington that had underestimated the maturity of the Soviet nuclear program.

When West Germany, occupied by the U.S. after the war and created as a separate state from the eastern, Soviet-occupied zone in May 1949, joined NATO in 1955, the Russians belatedly organized their own (much smaller) defensive bloc—the Warsaw Pact (disbanded in 1991). Still, nuclear parity caused Moscow to proclaim in 1956 a “policy of peaceful coexistence” and “peaceful transition to power” of communist parties aligned with Moscow around the world. That is to say, Soviet moves were reactive and defensive, while the U.S. engaged in an orgy of violent conflicts, coup plots, covert attacks on democratic processes from Italy to Iran Indonesia, always maintaining geopolitical advantage over the USSR until it finally dissolved.

(The dissolution of the USSR produced an array of “frozen conflicts” in the former soviet socialist republics, produced largely by competing nationalisms, as in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and the Russian Caucasus. In the Georgian conflict the U.S. has stood with the Georgian state, the Russians with the Abkhazians and Ossetians. Russia’s brief war with Georgia in 2008, following NATO’s announcement that Georgia would eventually join the alliance, and Moscow’s subsequent recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was a direct response to Washington’s recognition of Kosovo, a province of Serbia wrenched from Serbia by NATO in 1999 after Serbia refused to accept nationwide NATO occupation. Again, rekatively speaking, reactive and defensive.)

It’s amazing how that Cold War mentality has survived, evolving from anti-communism (which can at least be explained intellectually) to this primitive anti-Russia mentality (which can only be explained as the result of a foolish essentializing of an Other, as a threat, for some unspecified reason). What is this Russian threat? The talking heads (always avoiding any comparative discussion of U.S. actions) always adduce three main arguments for their existential paranoia: the brief war in Georgia in 2008; the annexation of Crimea following the February 2014 coup that threatened to bring Ukraine into NATO and expel Russian naval forces from the peninisula (plus alleged aid to the separatists in the Donbas); and the supposed threats Moscow poses to the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) where expanding NATO has stationed forces and conducted massive military exercises. In NATO;’s backwards logic, it is not the provocative expansion of the alliance to Russia’s very borders in 1999, but Russia’s response in amassing troops within Russia on those borders that constitutes a threat to someone!

Do not expect logic from these Russophobes, these unreconstructed wooden-headed Cold Warriors. What they want is, if not bloody confrontation, at least the opportunity to exploit that Russophobia culturally ingrained in many of my generation in particular. (Educated young people tend to be much less vulnerable to Cold War-typed propaganda.) In this case, liberal Democrats (like most of the cable news anchors), consternated by Trump’s unexpected, shocking victory, can do no better than to blame Russia. Didn’t a Podesto email to the DNC recommend pushing the putative Putin link to discredit Trump, just assuming that Russian ties are the kiss of death? How many members of the DNC said, “No, that’s unprincipled”? I doubt there was any opposition, because it’s traditionally fine in U.S. politics to smear your opponent with Russian ties. It didn’t end with McCarthyism in the 50s, and while the sophistication level of this practice remains low, it is sometimes effective.

“Any Democracy” would Call for New Elections?

Time‘s intelligence correspondent Bob Baer told CNN the other day that, given Russian interference, there is “no choice now but to hold a new election.” Wow! The longtime CIA agent actually stated: “But I’ll tell you, having worked in the CIA, if we had been caught in interfering in European elections or Asian elections or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections. Any democracy would. And I just, I don’t see it any other way.” As though when the U.S. rigs elections, the people of the country victimized actually enjoy the degree of agency allowing them to call new elections in defiance of Washington? How often does that happen in, say, Honduras? How likely was that in Italy in 1948?

There are efforts underway to get Trump supporters in the Electoral College to change their vote (out of fear of the Russkies). It is both fascinating and ridiculous to see mainstream liberals embracing a crude spin-off of Cold War thinking that has nothing to do with communism but a slavish, frightened hostility to a great, important country no longer a serious geopolitical rival to the U.S., indeed a potential friend of the U.S.—if only the U.S. would back off on its NATO expansion and its insane regime-change wars in the Middle East producing headaches for Russia and (the rest of) Europe in the form of more terrorism and refugee flows accompanying the slaughter.

In this season of crazy, unexpected events, I expect to be surprised for the duration, humbled when my expectations—my “concrete analysis of concrete conditions” (Lenin) —prove wrong in this new period. It is just barely possible—especially if the CIA has it out for Trump—that his inauguration will be sabotaged by certain folks in the Deep State. Or that this declining country might experience a constitutional crisis. Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow would be delighted. So would I, if for very different reasons, while fearing the alternatives. I would much prefer paralyzing conflict within the ruling class to a consolidated white nationalist-led regime. But if the multi-pronged attacks on Trump continue, and he is successfully denied the presidency, the likelihood of World War III could grow.

That this whole farce might ultimately enhance the asinine Russophobia that is part of the political DNA of millions—-and produce a showdown in Syria and/or Ukraine—-is as scary as a smooth transition to a Russia-friendly Exxon presidency.

* * * * *

Questions for discussion:

If Russia intervened to influence the election, what revelation in the leaked emails most influenced the voters?

The fact that the Democratic leadership wanted to use their press moles to facilitate a Trump nomination, by broadcasting all his campaign talks live?

Or the fact that the DNC worked overtime to prevent Sanders (so much more popular than either Clinton or Trump) from becoming the Democratic nominee?

Isn’t it more good than bad that we know what the Wikileaks revealed?

Why should anyone but John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz be upset?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/16/the-cold-war-continued-post-election-russophobia/

Isn’t it more good than bad that we know what the Wikileaks revealed?

Why should anyone but John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz be upset?

These questions and one more that no one will or can answer: What is the purpose of these anti-Russian moves? To force Trump into accepting the Cold War 2.0? To undermine Trump's capacity to act as emperor? To over turn the election?

What about all these "reports" of violence against Clinton supporters? No documentation, just 'My uncle knows this guy who said his daughter was at the mall and bla, bla, bla." Even published "reports" say things like 'someone said something ugly and WE KNOW violence is next' - yeah, what are the winning lottery numbers? This is all ideologically driven hand-waving. Again, though, to what point? If you even suggest that folks should wait till the evidence is clear whether Trump's reign will be worse than Obama's or Bush's, you get tarred with the 'fascist supporter" squeal. One thing in these times of (perhaps) upheaval is a positive, who your real friends are is becoming clearer and clearer.

These questions and one more that no one will or can answer: What is the purpose of these anti-Russian moves? To force Trump into accepting the Cold War 2.0? To undermine Trump's capacity to act as emperor? To over turn the election?

What about all these "reports" of violence against Clinton supporters? No documentation, just 'My uncle knows this guy who said his daughter was at the mall and bla, bla, bla." Even published "reports" say things like 'someone said something ugly and WE KNOW violence is next' - yeah, what are the winning lottery numbers? This is all ideologically driven hand-waving. Again, though, to what point? If you even suggest that folks should wait till the evidence is clear whether Trump's reign will be worse than Obama's or Bush's, you get tarred with the 'fascist supporter" squeal. One thing in these times of (perhaps) upheaval is a positive, who your real friends are is becoming clearer and clearer.

I saw the SNL Trump skit, it was a thing of beauty, if you're idea of that is well constructed propaganda. Hit every talking point like a gong, guaranteed to put liberals & ilk into 7th heaven, hands in their pants.

Whose side are they on? Heh heh...

Trump adds another billionaire to his administration
By Patrick Martin
20 December 2016

On the same day that the Electoral College formally ratified his election, Donald Trump named billionaire Vincent Viola to be the new secretary of the Army in his administration.

The owner of the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League, Viola made his fortune as a commodities speculator. He graduated from West Point in 1977, served as an officer in the 101st Airborne Division and remained active for decades in the US Army Reserve. In 1982, he bought a seat on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), where he made millions on oil and gasoline futures during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

By 2001, he had become the chairman of NYMEX and supervised emergency efforts that successfully restarted trading on the exchange less than a week after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which temporarily shut down Wall Street.

In 2002, Viola and several partners began a new trading firm specializing in high-speed, computer-driven transactions. The company eventually became Virtu Financial, worth $2.4 billion and active on 200 exchanges worldwide, according to the Wall Street Journal. Retired Army General John Abizaid is on Virtu’s board of directors.

Viola worked with Gary Cohn at NYMEX in the 1980s. Cohn went on to become president and chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, and earlier this month was named by Trump to be chairman of his National Economic Council.

Viola would be the sixth billionaire to take a prominent role in the Trump administration.

The roster begins with Trump himself, whose estimated $4 billion fortune is derived from real estate speculation, casino gambling and his television ventures, according to Forbes magazine. (Trump himself claims to be worth $10 billion.) The other billionaires include:

Wilbur Ross, nominated to head the Department of Commerce, amassed $3 billion as an asset-stripper preying on the coal, steel and auto parts industries.

Betsy DeVos, heir to the billion-dollar Prince auto parts fortune, married into the $5 billion DeVos Amway fortune. She has been named secretary of education.

Linda McMahon, billionaire co-owner of World Wrestling Entertainment, will head the Small Business Administration.

Todd Ricketts, son of TD Ameritrade boss Joe Ricketts and owner of the Chicago Cubs, will be deputy commerce secretary under Ross. His fortune is estimated at $2 billion.

What all six billionaires have in common is the fact that their fortunes are derived not from building up business empires based on the production, distribution or even sale of goods, but from activities that are parasitic or directly destructive in character.

Trump sets the tone, with his casino gaming and reality television empire, followed by two financial speculators (Viola and Ricketts), a vulture capitalist (Ross), a wrestling mogul (McMahon) and an heiress to the Amway pyramid scheme (DeVos).

The composition of Trump’s cabinet reflects the composition—or more precisely, the decomposition—of the capitalist elite in the United States, where great fortunes are being amassed from activities that prey on human weakness, exploit social backwardness and promote ignorance.

Under Trump, the billionaires will not merely dictate government policy behind closed doors, as they have done for decades under both Democrats and Republicans. The billionaires are to be out in front, openly governing the country in the interests of themselves and their class.

The combined worth of the six billionaires in the Trump administration is at least $17 billion. And that does not count the wealth of the near-billionaires in his cabinet, including Treasury Secretary-designate Steven Mnuchin and NEC Chairman Gary Cohn, both formerly of Goldman Sachs, Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson, the outgoing CEO of ExxonMobil, and the multimillionaire congressmen, senators and senators’ wives who will fill out the remaining cabinet positions.

With only a few remaining slots to fill, Trump’s may well become the first American cabinet to have no non-millionaires in its ranks.

In a statement announcing the nomination, Trump wrote, “I am proud to have such an incredibly accomplished and selfless individual as Vincent Viola as our secretary of the Army.”

The adjective “selfless” is not the first that comes to mind when considering Viola’s lifestyle. According to one press account, his home is an upper-east side Manhattan townhouse that covers 20,000 square feet and was listed in 2013 for $114 million, later reduced to “only” $98 million.

The Viola nomination, and the social trend it represents, was largely overshadowed in the media by speculation about possible defections among the presidential electors. Since these were invariably chosen from among party loyalists in each of the states, there were only a handful of so-called “faithless” electors.

Two Texas Republican electors voted for other Republicans, Ohio Governor John Kasich and former Representative Ron Paul, instead of Trump. Four Democratic electors in Washington switched from Hillary Clinton in an abortive effort to prompt a similar shift by Republicans from Trump, and one Democratic elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders.

The final count showed Trump with 304 electors, well over the 270 required for election, and Clinton with 227, with seven other votes scattered. These results will be certified by the US Congress on January 6, 2017.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/20/trmp-d20.html

Bad Narratives Going Forward in the Age of Trump
by PAUL STREET

The Twitter-addicted right-wing uber-asshole and authoritarian megalomaniac Donald Trump and his team of racist, arch-plutocratic, and eco-cidal vultures are about to set up shop alongside a right-wing Congress and a soon-to-be right-wing majority Supreme Court in Washington D.C. So what if the Republican Party is a widely hated institution, viewed with disapproval by nearly two-thirds of the U.S. populace?

Fourteen Narratives to Reject

As we struggle to build and expand popular resistance in this new era, here are fourteen narratives for left progressives (and others) to avoid about how this happened and what we must now do:

1 “The Green Party spoiled things for Hillary and elected Trump.” This story line is false. The numbers don’t remotely support it. If one makes the very bad assumption that all the voters who selected Jill Stein would have gone for Hillary if Stein had not been on the ballot, then Stein made the difference in Michigan and Wisconsin. But that flawed calculation doesn’t explain Trump’s triumph in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida, all bigger battleground states Mrs. Clinton lost. Stein came in at one percent, nationally.

2 “Hillary was defeated by a big ugly racist, sexist, and nativist white working class ‘rustbelt rebellion’ that catapulted Trump into power.” Nope. The purported great white-Trumpenproletatian uprising has been badly oversold. Trump got pretty much the Republican presidential candidate’s usual voting share of non-college educated whites and whites making less than 50K a year while the Democratic candidate lost working class voters both white and non-white. As the left political scientist Anthony DiMaggio recently noted on Counterpunch, “The real story of the 2016 election is not that Trump won over working class America, so much as Clinton and the Democrats lost it…’Trump did not really flip white working-class voters in the Rust Belt. Mostly, Democrats lost them.’ Per data pulled from various exit polls, Slate reports that the decline of Democratic voters among the working class in 2016 (compared to 2012) was far larger than the increase in Republican voters during those two elections. Of those earning less than $50,000 a year, the decline in Democratic voting from 2012 to 2016 was 3.5 times greater than the rise in Republican voting.”

3 “Vladimir Putin’s Russian hackers did it.” There’s no real smoking-gun proof on Putin’s involvement. The notion that possibly Russia-initiated document dumps to WikiLeaks illustrating the Democratic National Committee(DNC)’s rigging of the primaries against Bernie Sanders cost Hillary the general election is a big reach, to say the least. The Russian hacking charge seems designed in part to help the DNC and the neoliberal Democratic Party elite more broadly avoid responsibility for blowing the election. The Democrats went with a wooden, Wall Street-captive, and corruption-tainted candidate and campaign that couldn’t mobilize enough working- and lower-class voters defeat the noxious and highly unpopular Trump. The “Moscow Stole It” narrative is a fancy version of “My Dog Ate My Homework” for a dismal dollar-drenched Democratic Party that abandoned the working class and the causes of peace, social justice, and environmental sustainability a long time ago.

4 “The Electoral College screwed Hillary.” Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by nearly three million ballots. The Electoral College (EC) is an absurd violation of the core democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” It is a purposefully undemocratic institutional overhang from the aristo-republican Founding Fathers and their holy Constitution, which was explicitly designed to keep the Founders’ ultimate nightmare – democracy – at bay. It works to Republicans’ advantage because it over-represents disproportionately white and rural states with small populations. But the Clintons and the DNC knew all about the EC, of course, going into the campaign. It’s nothing new, after all. The 2016 presidential election is the fifth one in American history given by the EC to a candidate who lost the popular vote. The Democrats made no efforts – Constitutional or otherwise – to challenge the Monty Python-esque EC after it (with some help from Florida Governor Jeb Bush, viciously racist and systematic voter suppression, and a Republican Supreme Court) handed the presidency to the open moron George W. Bush in 2000-2001. And Hillary still had no business losing key Electoral College states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to Trump, who is heading into the White House with the lowest approval rating of any incoming president.

5 “Comey did it.” Of all the excuses the Democrats advance for why Trump’s victory wasn’t their fault, the chilling James Comey fiasco and the problem of Republican-led racist voter suppression (Greg Palast’s recurrent topic) in contested states are the most credible ones. But there’s no precise way to measure the impact of FBI Director Comey’s creepy political intervention ten days out from the election. The Comey card should not be seen as grounds to pardon Hillary and the Democrats for the dismally uninspiring and centrist campaign they ran.

6 “The Democrats’ 2016 humiliation will show them that they have no choice but to make themselves over as a progressive champion of all working people against the wealthy Few.” Don’t hold your breath. The Democratic Party’s recently installed new U.S. Senate Minority Leader isn’t a liberal or progressive Democrat like Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), or even Sherrod Brown (D-OH). It’s the neoliberal Wall Street Democrat Charles Schumer (D-NY). The House Minority Leader continues to be the big money San Francisco pro-war corporate Democrat Nancy Pelosi, idiotically endorsed by the supine AFL-CIO over the pro-union heartland progressive Democrat Tim Ryan (D-OH).

Yes, the Bernie Sanders-affiliated Congressman Keith Ellison [D-MN] is considered a top contender for the chairmanship of the DNC. But don’t be surprised if that falls through. He’s getting bashed for past association with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and for making some “anti-Israel” comments as a law student in the 1980s. Ellison’s ascendancy to the job of party chairman could cost the Democrats big money. CNN recently quoted one of party’s biggest donors, Haim Saban, as saying that Ellison is “clearly an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel person.”

It gets worse. Last Monday morning on CNN, Daily Beast columnist Patricia Murphy reported on interviews she’d recently conducted with Democrats around the country. She found “no soul-searching” or critical self-reflection among the Hillary voters with whom she spoke. To the contrary, some Democrats even told her that “we won” because Mrs. Clinton did better than Trump in the popular vote – as if the EC is an irrelevant technicality. Murphy also reported that the Democrats she spoke with seem ridiculously content to simply write off a huge part of the U.S. electorate – the white working class – as a mass of appallingly racist and sexist brutes (“deplorables”):

“What I am astounded by talking to Democrats about what happened in the election, there is no consensus among Democrats about why they lost, or even whether they really lost. So it’s going to be very difficult for them to come up with a cohesive plan about how to move forward. I talked to Democrats and some of them will go back to saying, hey, we won the popular vote, we really did win. You know, it’s just a technicality that we didn’t win the White House. So when you have that kind of an attitude going forward, there are not — there’s very little soul searching, very little effort to look inside and say, what do we need to say and do differently in order to get more people to win? In particular, I mean, they’re writing off a large portion of the electorate as a group of people they don’t even want.”

Soul-searching? Nah, it’s more fun to blame others – the Greens, Comey, Russia, and the big mythical racist-sexist-nativist “rebellion” of the “deplorable” white working class – than it is to take an honest look at one’s own failings.

7 “Trump’s election is an antiwar victory.” Come on. Yes, the Russia-hating NATO-expansionist warmonger Hillary “Queen of Chaos” Clinton seemed recklessly Hell-bent on a dangerous confrontation with Moscow – a confrontation that candidate Trump clearly wanted not to have. And yes, we do have some breathing space on the score for the next few months. Still, Trump’s campaign reeked with hyper-masculinist white-nationalist and anti-Muslim militarism. The coming “militarization of the West Wing” is quite pronounced. Trump has said profoundly dangerous things about the use and spread of nuclear weapons. His “defense” appointments and his rhetoric and Tweets (seriously?) point to coming dangerous conflicts with China and Iran, both key Russia allies. Don’t rule out conflict with Russia and the cooling of Trump’s hot bro-mance with Putin down the road. Anyone who thinks Trump’s ascendancy heralds a new American era of pacifist isolationism – a retreat from imperial war as a central tool of U.S. “statecraft” – is engaged in some very seriously delusional thinking.

8 “The corporate and financial establishment hates Trump and will undermine him.” There may be some truth in this assertion but it should be treated with extreme skepticism. Hillary was their first choice, but Wall Street is playing make-up with Trump. Top financial services trade groups like the American Bankers Association have run to help Trump fill top financial regulatory positions in the next White House. The Financial Services Roundtable is raising $4 million to help Trump “pay for the transition process.” After Trump defeated Mrs. Clinton, the former harsh Trump critic and current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein praised the victor as “market friendly and asset friendly.” A Wall Street Journal three weeks ago was titled “Wall Street and Trump Make Up Quickly.” It matter-of-factly noted that “After largely opposing his 2016 presidential campaign, financial service executives are making fast friends with President-elect Trump… Wall Street,” the newspaper reports, “could wind up being a big winner under Mr. Trump, despite his broadsides against big banks during the campaign.”

The accommodation makes perfect sense. Janus-faced finance capital runs like water to the powers that be at the end of the day. The elite financial sector is looking forward to significant regressive corporate and personal tax cuts and financial deregulation with Republicans in charge of both the White House and Congress in coming years. The stocks of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been on a great run ever since the election. And Trump has given current and former Goldman Sachs elites and other top finance-capitalists (including coming Commerce Secretary and noted billionaire Wilbur Ross) numerous key economic policy positions in his coming administration. Every month, CNN reports, President Trump will consult with a group of top U.S. business executives convened by Steven Schwartzman, CEO of the infamous “alternative investment” firm the Blackstone Group. The group includes a “who’s who” of current and former Fortune 25 CEOs, featuring (so far) GM’s Mary Barra, JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, GE’s former CEO Jack Welch, Disney’s Bob Iger, and Walmart’s Doug McMillon. The “populist” Trump is certainly doing his best to seduce the financial chieftains he sometimes railed against on the campaign trail.

It isn’t just the financial elite he’s making up with. A New York Times report nine days ago related how Trump reached out to Silicon Valley captains:

“The meeting between President-elect Donald Trump and the nations tech elite was hyped as something out ‘The Apprentice’: The new boss tells his minions to shape up. It turned out to be a charm offensive, a kind of ‘Dancing with the Silicon Valley Stars.’”

‘This is a truly amazing group of people,’ the president-elect said on Wednesday in a 25th-floor conference room at Trump Tower in Manhattan. The gathering included Jeff Bezos of amazon; Elon Musk of Telsa; Timothy D. Cook of Apple; Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook; and Satray Nadella of Microsof, among others. ‘I’m here to help you folks do well,’ Mr. Trump said.”

“He kept going in that vein. ‘There’s nobody like you in the world,’ he enthused. ‘In the world!’ There’s nobody like the people in this room.’ Anything that government ‘can do to help this along,’ he made clear, ‘we’re going to be here for you.’”

“And that was just in the first few minutes. The candidate who warned during the presidential campaign that Amazon was going to have antitrust problems, that Apple needed to build its iPhones in the United States instead of China, was nowhere to be seen…on the way out, Safra Catz, the co-chief of Oracle who attended the meeting, gave a thumbs-up.” (NYT, 12/14/2016).

Smart move by Trump. Silicon Valley stands alongside Wall Street and the military-industrial complex (MIC) as the three most powerful Big Business components of the state-capitalist Deep State that runs the nation beneath and beyond the marionette theater of electoral politics. As Mike Lofgren notes in his indispensable new book The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (Penguin, 2016), “the Valley has far outstripped traditional smokestack industries as a generator or wealth and has generated individual fortunes that easily rival those of Wall Street. Its research and development operations are vital to the operation of the Deep State – not only for its globe-spanning surveillance technology, but for the avionics, sensors, and guidance systems of every plane, ship, tank, missile, and drone that the military buys.”

Could Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and/or the MIC end up undermining Trump before it’s all over? Certainly. But there’s a honeymoon of sorts of underway right now and it would be foolish now to invest one’s hopes for the destruction of the Trump nightmare in the corporate and financial elite.

9 “Trump doesn’t really mean all the nasty stuff he said to get elected. He will govern differently than how he ran for office.” Well, candidate Trump certainly didn’t really mean it when he claimed to be a populist champion of the American working class in its struggle with Wall Street and other corporate-globalist evil-doers. Just look at his arch-plutocratic transition team and cabinet-in-formation. Trump’s populism was fake, of course. But Trump’s quasi-fascism probably isn’t and it would be foolish indeed to normalize what’s happened. Expect the administration’s racist and nativist scapegoating to accelerate in rough proportion to Trump’s service to the wealthy Few. The more he makes policy in the interest of his super-opulent upper-class comrades, after all, the more Trump is going to have to try to distract and divide the working-class majority with ugly racist and nationalist finger-pointing.

10 “All the people and others who have protested the Trump victory and ascendancy are silly sore losers manipulated by George Soros and MoveOn.” Yes, the left needs to watch out for elite liberal/neoliberal and Democratic Party-affiliated agents (for me that includes Sanders’ “Our Revolution”) working to control and manipulate anti-Trump resistance. Absolutely. But the reflexive denunciation of all anti-Trump protesters as childish agents of the Democratic establishment takes pseudo-radical cynicism to a new low. Folks don’t need to be prodded by slimy actors like Soros and MoveOn to find some very good and obvious reasons to march against incoming Trump administration.

11 “Resistance to Trump is illegitimate on the part of people who failed to adequately protest the neoliberal and imperialist Barack Obama presidency.” Yes, it is depressing that many U.S. citizens can’t seem to get it together to fight back when the White House is held by a smooth-talking teleprompter-ized Democrat like Bill Clinton, Obama, or (as I and most left analysts expected) Hillary Clinton. It’s sad and irritating that it seems to take a brutish white male Republican in the White House for a lot of Americans to protest and resist Deep State policies that are in fact richly bipartisan. But, okay, it’s a fact. Work with the opportunity afforded by the new public enemy number one – the coming appalling Trump administration – to build a new popular resistance movement that cannot be hijacked by movement-killing Democratic Party electoralists and opportunists and the deadly election cycle. Connect with people on issues and do your best to show them why such a movement is worthwhile

12 “Noam Chomsky and other left intellectuals and activists who called (again) for Lesser Evil Voting [LEV] were shills for Hillary Clinton.” There is a recurrent debate on the U.S. left about whether progressives should vote for Democratic Party candidates as the “lesser evil.” I’m on the anti-LEV side of that debate for reasons I won’t rehearse here. But it’s a difference about strategy and tactics, not underlying world-view. It’s unfair to call fellow leftists “shills” for Hillary when they referred to Mrs. Clinton as a “lying neoliberal warmonger” (Adolph Reed, Jr.), a “right-wing fanatic” (Arun Gupta), and, well, evil. (I used to make the left-LEV argument myself and was no less of a radical when I did than I am now. My position changed on tactical and strategic grounds.) Demonizing folks who come (often for some defensible if ultimately flawed reasons) to the LEV position (I know some very smart and radical folks who do) is also dysfunctional going forward. As Chomsky himself has long argued, the question of how to vote (or not) for five minutes in the one-every-four-years candidate circus is a secondary matter compared to much more important and urgent politics of movement-building beneath and beyond the nation’s populace-marginalizing and mass-marketed quadrennial electoral extravaganzas. Do we really want sniping over the question of what was the best lane to be in on the bourgeois-electoral highway to get in the way of acknowledging the many things you agree with, say, Chomsky or Reed or Gupta about? In the way of forming an anti-Trump resistance? In the way of building great people’s movements beyond the election cycle – movements that should include in their list of demands a call for radical electoral reforms what would allow progressives to back candidates aligned with their values without fear that doing so might help the rightmost of the major capitalist parties prevail? I think not. At the same time, many on the other side of the quadrennial intra-leftist voting debate also need to stand down from snotty sniping over what was the best way to respond to the terrible “choices” on offer in the U.S. presidential voting booth. Both sides might want to think of this endless and ugly debate as yet another form of top-down divide-and-conquer.

13 “The 2016 Election Shows the Futility of Any and All Identity Politics. Serious Progressives Must Reject Any and All Such Politics in Favor of Class Politics.” Nonsense. Yes, the Left is committed to the bottom-up political struggle of the (multiracial-multiethnic-multi-religious [partly irreligious] and multi-gendered) working class against the capitalist wealthy Few. But we cannot and must not simply abandon the particular realities of: female experience and oppression: Black experience and oppression; Latino experience and oppression; Muslim experience and oppression; gay experience and oppression, and so on. Such class-reductionist denialism leads nowhere morally or politically.

What needs to be rejected is the sickening kind of bourgeois identitarianism that candidate Hillary advanced. As Conor Lynch noted on Salon last month, “The Clinton campaign tried to make this election all about Trump’s hatefulness (‘Love Trumps Hate’) and his ‘basket of deplorables,’ while offering no real vision of progressive and populist change. And when those on the left raised legitimate concerns about Clinton’s uninspiring message or her political baggage during and after the primaries, they were ridiculously labeled sexist or racist ‘bros’ by establishment figures (even though some of Clinton’s harshest progressive critics were in fact women and people of color ).”

Earlier in the year, Daniel Denvir insightfully described the Clinton’s strategy as “peak neoliberalism, where a distorted version of identity politics is used to defend an oligarchy and a national security state, celebrating diversity in the management of exploitation and warfare.”

The left at its best has always understood identity differently – in ways that are opposed to both ruling class divide-and-conquer (ala Hillary Clinton and Herr Trump) and to class reductionism (ala some of Bernie Sanders’ supporters). As the “unrepentant Marxist” Louis Proyect recently reflected on Counterpunch:

“While the idea of uniting workers on the basis of their class interests and transcending ethnic, gender and other differences has enormous appeal at first blush, there are no easy ways to implement such an approach given the capitalist system’s innate tendency to create divisions in the working class in order to maintain its grip over the class as a whole…My own experience goes back to the 1960s when the Trotskyist movement was still rooted in American realities. Party leaders conceived of the coming American revolution as a kind of united front of different struggles that would come together on a basis of shared class interests. If that is a concession to ‘identity politics,’ I plead guilty…A socialist movement that disavows particular Black demands and those of other sectors of the population acting on their own interests on the basis of gender, sexual preference, etc. will inevitably lack the universality it needs to triumph over a unified capitalist class. To state it in dialectical terms, denying the existence of contradictions and refusing to resolve them will only lead to deeper contradictions.” (emphasis added)

That strikes me as brilliantly stated – and emblematic of the sort of intelligent, reality- and history-based Marxism for which no repentance is due. Working class left “identity politics” is very different from what Denvir calls “neoliberal identity politics.”

14 “Trump’s election shows that U.S. politics and society is completely hopeless and pathetic. It’s time to retreat into personal concerns.” That’s your option, of course, but it will only make things worse. The Chicago-based anti-racist writer and activist Jamie Kalven rightly worries about the “danger…that people will become demoralized and retreat into denial, that they will seek refuge amid the pleasures and fulfillments of private life. That would give carte blanche to power…That is certainly tempting at a time like this,” Kalven adds: “to live one’s life in the wholly private realm, enjoying the company of friends, good food and drink, the pleasures of music and literature, and so on. Privileged sectors of our society are already heavily skewed that way. It’s a real danger at a time like this. If we withdraw from public engagement now, we aid and abet that which we deplore.” (The Chicago Reader, December 8, 2016,emphasis added). The threat to become an “expatriate” (which I am hearing again and again online) is a particularly pouty and privileged version of the same dysfunctional syndrome. Becoming an émigré – either internal (retreating into private life) or external and literal (leaving the county if you can) – will fix nothing. (And, by the way, you can’t really escape the American Empire on this planet.)

Two Narratives to Handle with Extreme Care

Here are two narratives not to be rejected so much as to be handled with extreme care.

1 “There are great popular movement-building and system-challenging silver linings – from a dialectical and radical perspective – in Trump’s victory.” I do not simply reject this “accelerationist” storyline. To the contrary, I recently specified what some of those “silver linings” might be. Kalven is right, I think, when he says that “this is a moment of great opportunity – and also peril. The election of Trump certainly increases peril, but it may also increase the clarity we need to be effective…one door closes, another door opens.” But the “silver lining” trope should come with two key qualifications. Caveat number one is that none of the movement opportunities afforded by Trump’s coming presidency (and by the discrediting of a dismal dollar-drenched Democratic Party that proved itself too corrupt, unimaginative, corporatized, dull and conservative to defeat Trump) are going to show themselves in real history without dedicated and difficult day-to-day rank and file activism connected to radical-reformist and revolutionary vision – real progressive policy ideas and societal alternatives. The second caveat is that Trump’s election is a grave threat to vast swaths of humanity at home and abroad and indeed to life itself. It is indeed a great black cloud. If you are or seem happy that a vicious racist and sexist bastard like Donald Trump is moving in the White House, then God help you, comrade. “It’s important now.” Kalven adds, “to take time to absorb what’s happened and to grieve…I’m looking for a word besides catastrophe.” The word fits.

2 “The left must overcome single-issue obsessions.” I agree with that statement to a very significant degree. How could I not after decades of witnessing progressives fighting on numerous separate causes that cry out for consolidation and common struggle in a many-sided anti-capitalist movement? The left is way too scattered, issue- and other-wise. But it’s not true that none of the left’s issues stand out above all others. We need to be candid and forthright about the primacy of the environmental question. The capitalogenic climate change-driven threat of ecosystem collapse by the end of the current century is now “the biggest issue of our or any time” (John Sanbonmatsu). As Noam Chomsky has argued, nothing that we care about on the left is going to matter all that much if environmental catastrophe isn’t averted soon by serious efforts to – among other things but first and foremost – keep fossil fuels in the ground and shift to renewable energy. Who wants to more equitably share out the pieces of a poisoned pie? What good is it to turn the world upside down and “inherit” (take) it from the ruling classes if the planet has been poisoned beyond safe habitation?

Of all the dreadful things about the coming Trump administration, the one that strikes me as most horrific and most urgently in need of dedicated popular opposition is Trump’s arch-petro-capitalist commitment to the Greenhouse Gassing-to-death of life on Earth. The opposition already has a North America movement vanguard, so to speak: the remarkable multi-tribal struggle of Native Americans and others who came together beneath and beyond the election cycle to confront Energy Transfer Partners’ planet-cooking Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in Standing Rock. Expect Trump to target the North Dakota pipeline fighters and water-/climate-protectors as “economic terrorists.” Prepare to defend those environmental heroes as the leading symbols and agents of the Resistance we need to build and expand if humanity is going any shot at a decent future.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/23/bad-narratives-going-forward-in-the-age-of-trump/

Hold the Date: Counter-Inaugural March and Rally on Friday, January 20
worker | December 28, 2016 | 9:49 pm | class struggle, Donald Trump, political struggle
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
Donald Trump is the most openly racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, and authoritarian candidate to become president of the United States in modern history. He was not democratically elected, and he will never be a legitimate president for scores of millions of us. As this billionaire sociopath moves into the White House and the threat of fascism grows, it is imperative that workers, women, oppressed people, and democratic-minded allies make clear: Not My President! Resist Trump!
The January 20 coalition is organizing a march and rally to protest the inauguration of Trump on Friday, January 20, 1-4 pm. We have applied for park and parade permits for a location in downtown Houston but cannot publicize the location until the permits have been approved. We also have contingency plans in the event the permits are denied. The rally will include speakers, chants, spoken word artists, and the dramatic smashing of a new Trump piñata.

The January 20 action will be an independent political action by workers and oppressed people, without any ties to organizations led by the Democrats or Republicans. As Trump moves into the White House and the threat of fascism grows, our message will be that only the masses of workers and oppressed people can effectively resist Trump, defeat fascism, and lay the foundation for revolutionary change.

Together, we will demand: Stop the attacks on immigrants! Stop the attacks on women! Black lives matter! Brown lives matter! Stop racist police terror! Defend the Muslim community! Defend and expand the rights of workers and the 99%! Defend the LGBT communities! Stop the rise of fascism! Stop US imperialist wars! Stop the destruction of Mother Earth!

The January 20 coalition includes the Houston Communist Party, the Houston Socialist Movement, Latinos Inmigrantes Triunfadores, Organizacion Latino Americana Pro-Derecho Del Inmigrante, and other organzations (list in formation). If your organization would like to endorse the January 20 action or if you would like more information, please call us at 832. 692. 2306, 713.447-4106 (se habla espanol), or 713.714.5361. If you would like to help spread the word about the action, please like and share our “hold the date” event page at https://www.facebook.com/events/1755961954728284/.

We will mail you with additional details and update the event page as soon as possible.
In Solidarity,
Houston Socialist Movement

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/hold-the-date-counter-inaugural-march-and-rally-on-friday-january-20/

Great care will be needed to insure that this is not co-opted by Dems, or Greens for that matter. I think participants should expect violence and plan accordingly.

Stop the attacks on immigrants! Stop the attacks on women! Black lives matter! Brown lives matter! Stop racist police terror! Defend the Muslim community! Defend and expand the rights of workers and the 99%! Defend the LGBT communities! Stop the rise of fascism! Stop US imperialist wars! Stop the destruction of Mother Earth!

Great slogans.


Great care will be needed to insure that this is not co-opted by Dems, or Greens for that matter. I think participants should expect violence and plan accordingly.

If violence breaks out it will be Democrat-inspired. There will be no point for the "authorities" to do anything but contain the protests to the designated locales. I may just be and old curmudgeon (maybe?), but this feels a lot like OWS to me.

Also, these organizers are either lying or don't understand what they are talking about:
"Donald Trump is the most openly racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, and authoritarian candidate to become president of the United States in modern history"
Really? Can we run down the list of some of the Presidents we've had? And what criteria are you going by? Things he has said? Things he has done? Should we list some of the things former US Presidents have done?
"He was not democratically elected."
Can you back that up with any kind of evidence? In what way was Trump's election less "democratic" than say Obama's or GW Bush's?
"As Trump moves into the White House and the threat of fascism grows."
This statement is repeated several times, but never explained. How does Trump's election signal a rise in fascism that Clinton's, Bush's, or Obama's did not? "Fascism" in the US is a slow-growing non-partisan development beginning some time in the early 1950s and continuing to this date. It grew and developed throughout the Cold War years and then grew exponentially after the fall of the Soviet Union. IT isn't the fascism of swastikas and torchlight marches, it is the fascism of Total Information Awareness, rampant, undisguised imperialism, cops with the license to kill on the spot, nonexistent and impotent labor unions, ill-literacy, expanding and brutalizing gulags, and now information control through propaganda legislation and alternative information crackdowns.
Trump is no doubt a monster - as bad or worse than any of the monsters we have had in office. But to single out Trump as an aberration to be opposed in his person, blunts and negates the critical identification of the system as the problem. Focusing on Trump may be a way to bring folks together, but the Bush years should have told everyone that that kind of rally is only good until the next election. In other words, it is not effective.

Great slogans.



If violence breaks out it will be Democrat-inspired. There will be no point for the "authorities" to do anything but contain the protests to the designated locales. I may just be and old curmudgeon (maybe?), but this feels a lot like OWS to me.

Also, these organizers are either lying or don't understand what they are talking about:
"Donald Trump is the most openly racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, and authoritarian candidate to become president of the United States in modern history"
Really? Can we run down the list of some of the Presidents we've had? And what criteria are you going by? Things he has said? Things he has done? Should we list some of the things former US Presidents have done?
"He was not democratically elected."
Can you back that up with any kind of evidence? In what way was Trump's election less "democratic" than say Obama's or GW Bush's?
"As Trump moves into the White House and the threat of fascism grows."
This statement is repeated several times, but never explained. How does Trump's election signal a rise in fascism that Clinton's, Bush's, or Obama's did not? "Fascism" in the US is a slow-growing non-partisan development beginning some time in the early 1950s and continuing to this date. It grew and developed throughout the Cold War years and then grew exponentially after the fall of the Soviet Union. IT isn't the fascism of swastikas and torchlight marches, it is the fascism of Total Information Awareness, rampant, undisguised imperialism, cops with the license to kill on the spot, nonexistent and impotent labor unions, ill-literacy, expanding and brutalizing gulags, and now information control through propaganda legislation and alternative information crackdowns.
Trump is no doubt a monster - as bad or worse than any of the monsters we have had in office. But to single out Trump as an aberration to be opposed in his person, blunts and negates the critical identification of the system as the problem. Focusing on Trump may be a way to bring folks together, but the Bush years should have told everyone that that kind of rally is only good until the next election. In other words, it is not effective.

Trump will prove to be an anomaly only for the ruling class and that largely a matter of appearance. The working class continues on it's trajectory, down the tubes. As far as Nazis & such being emboldened, when non-state racists cause as much trouble as state racists lemme know. Ain't gonna happen, 'order will be maintained'.

Violence is possible from any quarter, especially the way the Dems are ginning this up. Nazi and 'anarchists' provocateurs are likely and no doubt the state will be more than happy to 'intervene'.

Yeah, with the anarchists on the one side and Nazis on the other that is a yin/yang for violence. But pointless violence. Maybe if somebody becomes radicalized by it, but we'll see...

Let's look at this whole thing.


Dear Sisters and Brothers,
Donald Trump is the most openly racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, and authoritarian candidate to become president of the United States in modern history. He was not democratically elected, and he will never be a legitimate president for scores of millions of us. As this billionaire sociopath moves into the White House and the threat of fascism grows, it is imperative that workers, women, oppressed people, and democratic-minded allies make clear: Not My President! Resist Trump!
The January 20 coalition is organizing a march and rally to protest the inauguration of Trump on Friday, January 20, 1-4 pm. We have applied for park and parade permits for a location in downtown Houston but cannot publicize the location until the permits have been approved. We also have contingency plans in the event the permits are denied. The rally will include speakers, chants, spoken word artists, and the dramatic smashing of a new Trump piñata.

The January 20 action will be an independent political action by workers and oppressed people, without any ties to organizations led by the Democrats or Republicans. As Trump moves into the White House and the threat of fascism grows, our message will be that only the masses of workers and oppressed people can effectively resist Trump, defeat fascism, and lay the foundation for revolutionary change.

Together, we will demand: Stop the attacks on immigrants! Stop the attacks on women! Black lives matter! Brown lives matter! Stop racist police terror! Defend the Muslim community! Defend and expand the rights of workers and the 99%! Defend the LGBT communities! Stop the rise of fascism! Stop US imperialist wars! Stop the destruction of Mother Earth!

The January 20 coalition includes the Houston Communist Party, the Houston Socialist Movement, Latinos Inmigrantes Triunfadores, Organizacion Latino Americana Pro-Derecho Del Inmigrante, and other organzations (list in formation). If your organization would like to endorse the January 20 action or if you would like more information, please call us at 832. 692. 2306, 713.447-4106 (se habla espanol), or 713.714.5361. If you would like to help spread the word about the action, please like and share our “hold the date” event page at https://www.facebook.com/events/1755961954728284/.

We will mail you with additional details and update the event page as soon as possible.
In Solidarity,
Houston Socialist Movement

That first paragraph says that Trump is the most racist, bigoted, misogynistic, etc. "candidate" to become president in modern history. Now all this is debatable and what constitutes "modern history" is a question, but leaving all that aside, he is designated as a "candidate" to become president. Why "candidate"? Why not "man" or "human", or "person" or "citizen" - why "candidate"? Is it because this is still, at bottom, about Clinton losing, more than Trump winning? By using "candidate" it brings into play the other "candidate" who must have won "democratically", because it is an either/or proposition - if one "candidate" was not "democratically" elected, the other must have been.

Then it is that Trump "will never be the legitimate president for millions of us". What does this mean? There were quite a few folks back in 2000 and early 2001 who said much the same thing about "W" Bush. It did not get to this extent, but the sentiment was there. What is the ramifications of "millions" of citizens disavowing the legitimacy of the president? Are there any ramifications, at all? Is this just talk?

Next, with the advent of Trump the "threat of fascism grows" Not "fascism", but just its "threat". Well, that threat has been around for quite some time and the way the US government has grown into such an all pervasive presence in everyone's lives, I'm not sure where fascism would be able to find a place to stand.

Then, "it is imperative that workers, women, oppressed people, and democratic-minded allies make clear: Not My President! Resist Trump!" Again, what does this mean. If these are not just empty slogans, then what do the phrases actually mean? "Not my president!" "Resist Trump!" I am not sure what is being said, but I, personally, have never "had" a president. No president in my lifetime has been "my" president. So, I can't even address that. But "resisting" something or someone is an action that can be contemplated. What would be the suggested methods for "resisting Trump"? Turn your back whenever he enders a room - I'll never get that opportunity. Just tell him :no" whenever he asks anything? Again, I won't be able to ever do anything like that. Maybe resistance suggestions will come later.

Protesting, marching, civil disobedience are all good tried and true methods for voicing opposition against and advocating for. They have to be able to articulate their message better than they have so far. The only folks they will reach with the message, so far, will be Democrats, DS, and social justice warriors. If BLM becomes involved in any large way, they will have to be careful about their issues becoming muddled, with all the soft-left mush going on.

"Together, we will demand: Stop the attacks on immigrants! Stop the attacks on women! Black lives matter! Brown lives matter! Stop racist police terror! Defend the Muslim community! Defend and expand the rights of workers and the 99%! Defend the LGBT communities! Stop the rise of fascism! Stop US imperialist wars! Stop the destruction of Mother Earth!"

If anyone wanted a lesson in how to water-down and obfuscate a message, read the above. Where is the kitchen sink? Oh, there it is.

Sorry, if I am too dismissive. This is just the next OWS, as far as I can see.

Not My President! Resist Trump!"

I came out of the new Star Wars saying "Not my Rebel Alliance". Buncha mooks.

This is just the next OWS, as far as I can see.

Proly so, still we gotta pay attention, "fortune passes everywhere."(Been wanting to say that for years...)

Too right about that grab bag of demands, two, mebbe three at most or ya lose focus, cohesion.

Officials in US replace science with climate change denial days after Donald Trump's election victory
Wisconsin state website downplays climate change as a subject under debate while the planet is merely experiencing change ‘as it has done throughout the centuries’

Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent 21 hours ago172 comments





https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2017/01/03/10/greatlakes.jpg
A government webpage in Wisconsin previously warned higher temperatures would mean less winter ice in places like the coast of Lake Superior near Cornucopia Reuters
Officials in Wisconsin removed information about climate change on a state government website and replaced it with unfounded claims that the science behind global warming is still a matter of “debate” within days of Donald Trump’s US election victory, it has emerged.

The Earth’s atmosphere has already warmed by nearly one degree Celsius in little over a century and the basic science demonstrating that carbon dioxide emissions have driven this process and will continue to do so is undeniable.

The head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science recently suggested disputing the reality of climate change was as ludicrous as denying the existence of gravity. In June, 31 scientific bodies wrote to Congress with the central message that climate change is real.

However, America’s President-elect has dismissed the science as a “hoax” and climate change denial is alarmingly common among rightwing American politicians.

READ MORE
Bush's environment chief accuses Trump of ignoring science
Trump officials question State Department about environmental spending
Trump urged to scrap Obama's climate change strategy by 24 states
Carney says business must be more honest about climate change risks
In the new guidance, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) does not actually mention climate change – although it does appear in the URL of its webpage.

Headlined “The Great Lakes and a changing world”, it reads: “As it has done throughout the centuries, the Earth is going through a change.

“The reasons for this change at this particular time in the Earth’s long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

“The effects of such a change are also being debated but whatever the causes and effects, the DNR’s responsibility is to manage our state’s natural resources through whatever event presents itself; flood, drought, tornadoes, ice/snow or severe heat.”


READ MORE
Climate change 'game over'? Scientists say global warming could hit 7C
This is a standard line used by climate science deniers and sceptics.

Previously the same page, headlined “Climate Change and Wisconsin’s Great Lakes”, echoed the scientific consensus and stated a number of simple, verifiable facts.

“Earth’s climate is changing. Human activities that increase heat-trapping (‘greenhouse’) gases are the main cause,” it said.

“Earth’s average temperature has increased 1.4 °F [0.4C] since 1850 and the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

“Increasing temperatures have led to changes in rainfall patterns and snow and ice cover. These changes could have severe effects on the Great Lakes and the plants, wildlife and people who depend on them.

“While no one can predict exactly what climate change will mean for our Great Lakes, scientists agree that the following changes are likely if climate change patterns continue.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/climate-change-denial-us-officials-wisconsin-donald-trump-presidential-election-victory-global-a7506831.html

The Earth’s atmosphere has already warmed by nearly one degree Celsius in little over a century and the basic science demonstrating that carbon dioxide emissions have driven this process and will continue to do so is undeniable.

Well, it isn't "undeniable", because the shit-heads are denying it. Still, it is bracing how quickly the pendulum swings.

Ethic Reviews Being Rushed for Trump's Rich, Racist Cabinet

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Ethic-Reviews-Being-Rushed-for-Trumps-Rich-Racist-Cabinet-20170109-0002.html
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump talks to members of the media at Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 21, 2016. | Photo: Reuters

Published 9 January 2017 (7 hours 36 minutes ago)

With a cabinet dubbed the wealthiest administration in modern U.S. history, conflicts of interest should come as no surprise.

Days before their confirmation hearings begin, many of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees remain unvetted by the Office of Government Ethics, leaving many possible conflicts of interest potentially unexplored.

For four days beginning Tuesday, Jan. 10, eight of Trump’s picks will face various senate committee hearings. Wednesday, Jan. 11, will be the fullest, with six major confirmation hearings scheduled. Trump also rescheduled a press conference for that day, and a 'vote-o-rama' has also been organized – where Senators vote endlessly on various amendments "with no apparent end," according to Politico.

This packed schedule has been criticized as a strategy to distract the public and lawmakers, “preventing any one nominee from dominating a news cycle,” according to a piece in the Washington Post.

Yet, many of those nominees have failed to submit their financial statements to the OGE despite numerous well-documented potential conflicts of interest.

In a letter released on Friday by Walter Shaub, the head of the OGE, in response to a progress-report request by two Democrat Senators, he expressed “great concern” for this apparently unprecedented strategy. He explained that it put “undue pressure” on OGE officials to rush through important and sensitive reviews.

"More significantly, it has left some of the nominees with potentially unknown or unresolved ethics issues shortly before their scheduled hearings,” wrote Shaub, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013.

“I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process."

While Republican Senators contested this claim, arguing Democrats had done it too in the past, ethical experts on both sides agree the decision to have confirmation hearings without full ethical reviews is troublesome and “unprecedented.”

“This suggests that there has been a real breakdown between the transition and the Office of Government Ethics,” Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission who served as counsel to several Republican presidential candidates and Cabinet nominees told the Post.

Of course, with a cabinet dubbed the wealthiest administration in modern U.S. history – with an estimated accumulated wealth of more than $35 million, discounting Trump’s own riches – conflicts of interest should come as no surprise.

From wealthy insiders and bankers connected to the very industries they are appointed to oversee, to others currently caught in legal scandals and investigations, Trump’s cabinet is fraught with controversy.

Rex Tillerson, for instance, one of his latest appointments as U.S. Secretary of State, was until very recently the chairman and CEO of oil and gas company Exxon-Mobil. With no public sector experience, and with known ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he will be appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, appointed attorney general despite a spotty racial record, is another key figure in the hearings.

Back in 1986, the Alabama senator was accused of making racist comments while serving as a U.S. attorney in Alabama. This included calling the NAACP "un-American" and "communist-inspired," which caused him to be lose the federal judge seat he had been nominated to by then-President Ronald Reagan. This was based on his views on "race and his role in prosecuting a voter fraud case against black civil rights activists in Alabama," according to the Post.

While Democrats have vowed to not let the nominees through without resistance, they acknowledge that most of them will probably slither in by the end anyway.

The packed schedule of hearings was organized between the Trump transition team and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican. He has vowed that “all the president-elect’s Cabinet appointments will be confirmed,” according to the Post.

WATCH: Richest 10% Control 89% of World's Wealth
(Video at link.)

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Ethic-Reviews-Being-Rushed-for-Trumps-Rich-Racist-Cabinet-20170109-0002.html

Fuck yeah, approve them all, vet them later.

Crisis, what crisis?

This is a died-in-the-wool bourgeois cabinet. These guys are either soldiers, hirelings who have worker their entire lives for the advancement of the ruling class or actual bona fide members of that ruling class. These mooks of the non-military stripe are not bourgeois flunkies, they are the bourgeoisie. This is the kind of cabinet the earliest Presidents had.


Of course, with a cabinet dubbed the wealthiest administration in modern U.S. history – with an estimated accumulated wealth of more than $35 million (I think this should be billions), discounting Trump’s own riches – conflicts of interest should come as no surprise.

This cabinet isn't just "dubbed" the richest, it is the richest in modern history. You have to go all the way back to the first 5 or 6 Presidencies to find cabinets made-up of obscenely wealthy bourgeoisie, like Trump's. I think it is significant that these posts are being filled with actual ruling class members and not just their toadies. What is the impetus for this "hands-on" approach?

Oh, and this is just a little quirk of mine, Jeff Sessions is an exception in this cabinet, he is a non-military lickspital. He in no way is a member of the ruling class - only one of its toilet cleaners. He has always been a racist asswipe, but calling the NAACP "un-American" and "communist-inspired," is not a racist statement. He no doubt has many racist statements in his past, but this isn't one. It is a stupid statement, idiotic in the extreme, but not racist.

This is a died-in-the-wool bourgeois cabinet. These guys are either soldiers, hirelings who have worker their entire lives for the advancement of the ruling class or actual bona fide members of that ruling class. These mooks of the non-military stripe are not bourgeois flunkies, they are the bourgeoisie. This is the kind of cabinet the earliest Presidents had.



This cabinet isn't just "dubbed" the richest, it is the richest in modern history. You have to go all the way back to the first 5 or 6 Presidencies to find cabinets made-up of obscenely wealthy bourgeoisie, like Trump's. I think it is significant that these posts are being filled with actual ruling class members and not just their toadies. What is the impetus for this "hands-on" approach?

Oh, and this is just a little quirk of mine, Jeff Sessions is an exception in this cabinet, he is a non-military lickspital. He in no way is a member of the ruling class - only one of its toilet cleaners. He has always been a racist asswipe, but calling the NAACP "un-American" and "communist-inspired," is not a racist statement. He no doubt has many racist statements in his past, but this isn't one. It is a stupid statement, idiotic in the extreme, but not racist.

More proof that Trump doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. In this here democratic USA power is supposed to be behind the curtain. No doubt in certain quarters of the ruling class there is great consternation, he's rocking the boat all wrong. For all the pain and death this bunch will bring they are also eroding the bogus but commonly understood 'social contract', and that can't be anything but helpful to those of us who would see this boat capsized.

In his quest for 'greatness' the Donald could become the next JFK......but despicable as he is I'd hate to see that as he's an asset, like a high ranking but utterly incompetent enemy general, like John Bell Hood.

The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government’s Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia

Posted on Jan 8, 2017

By Chris Hedges


http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/russiahedgesreport_590.jpg
A detail of a page in the declassified report. (Jon Elswick / AP)

Some thoughts on “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election,” the newly released declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

1. The primary purpose of the declassified report, which offers no evidence to support its assertions that Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election campaign, is to discredit Donald Trump. I am not saying there was no Russian hack of John Podesta’s emails. I am saying we have yet to see any tangible proof to back up the accusation. This charge—Sen. John McCain has likened the alleged effort by Russia to an act of war—is the first salvo in what will be a relentless campaign by the Republican and Democratic establishment, along with its corporatist allies and the mass media, to destroy the credibility of the president-elect and prepare the way for impeachment.

The allegations in the report, amplified in breathtaking pronouncements by a compliant corporate media that operates in a non-fact-based universe every bit as pernicious as that inhabited by Trump, are designed to make Trump look like Vladimir Putin’s useful idiot. An orchestrated and sustained campaign of innuendo and character assassination will be directed against Trump. When impeachment is finally proposed, Trump will have little public support and few allies and will have become a figure of open ridicule in the corporate media.

2. The second task of the report is to bolster the McCarthyist smear campaign against independent media, including Truthdig, as witting or unwitting agents of the Russian government. The demise of the English programming of Al-Jazeera and TeleSur, along with the collapse of the nation’s public broadcasting, designed to give a voice to those not beholden to corporate or party interests, leaves RT America and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! as the only two electronic outlets with a national reach that are willing to give a platform to critics of corporate power and imperialism such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Ralph Nader, Medea Benjamin, Cornel West, Kshama Sawant, myself and others.

Seven pages of the report were dedicated to RT America, on which I have a show called “On Contact.” The report vastly inflated the cable network’s reach and influence. It also included a few glaring errors, including the statement that “RT introduced two new shows—‘Breaking the Set’ on 4 September and ‘Truthseeker’ on 2 November—both overwhelmingly focused on criticism of the US and Western governments as well as the promotion of radical discontent.” “Breaking the Set,” with Abby Martin, was taken off the air two years ago. It could hardly be tarred with costing Hillary Clinton the election.

The barely contained rage of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at the recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on foreign cyber threats was visible when he spat out that RT was “promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights, et cetera.” His anger was a glimpse into how the establishment seethes with hatred for dissidents. Clapper has lied in the past. He perjured himself in March 2013 when, three months before the revelations of wholesale state surveillance leaked by Snowden, he assured Congress that the National Security Agency was not collecting “any type of data” on the American public. After the corporate state shuts down RT, it will go after Democracy Now! and the handful of progressive sites, including this one, that give these dissidents space. The goal is censorship.

3. The third task of the report is to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat, the arms sales plummet. War is a racket.

4. The final task of the report is to give the Democratic Party plausible cover for the catastrophic election defeat it suffered. Clinton initially blamed FBI Director James Comey for her loss before switching to the more easily demonized Putin. The charge of Russian interference essentially boils down to the absurd premise that perhaps hundreds of thousands of Clinton supporters suddenly decided to switch their votes to Trump when they read the leaked emails of Podesta. Either that or they tuned in to RT America and decided to vote for the Green Party.

The Democratic Party leadership cannot face, and certainly cannot publicly admit, that its callous betrayal of the working and middle class triggered a nationwide revolt that resulted in the election of Trump. It has been pounded since President Barack Obama took office, losing 68 seats in the House, 12 seats in the Senate and 10 governorships. It lost more than 1,000 elected positions between 2008 and 2012 nationwide. Since 2010, Republicans have replaced 900 Democratic state legislators. If this was a real party, the entire leadership would be sacked. But it is not a real party. It is the shell of a party propped up by corporate money and hyperventilating media.

The Democratic Party must maintain the fiction of liberalism just as the Republican Party must maintain the fiction of conservatism. These two parties, however, belong to one party—the corporate party. They will work in concert, as seen by the alliance between Republican leaders such as McCain and Democratic leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, to get rid of Trump, silence all dissent, enrich the war industry and promote the farce they call democracy.

Welcome to our annus horribilis.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi#.WHOui9FvRIU.twitter

Dunno if all of those four points were the intention of this effort but they sure look like results.

We shall see, the next couple days should be interesting as Trump lays down his cards. I think we'll see for sure if he really wants the office.

In the past we've talked about the autocratic potential of the US presidency, tactically ignored and seldom used, by 'gentleman's agreement'. The office is a potential dictatorship, and I'm sure the Foundering Fathers meant it that way. After all, dictatorship was a part of the Roman Republic which they fetishized, conveyed upon one or both consuls as necessity demanded by the Senate, but apparently they never imagined a President getting elected against the will of the ruling class. That will never do. That it came as a complete surprise and that Trump is one of their own, however crude, is probably the only thing that has prevented drastic action. So far.

Trump is one of their own

He would have to be, no other group can even be represented in the elections. But that was how it always went down in Rome, too. The fly in the ointment (Caesar, the Gracchi, et al) was always "one of their own", just not one of their choosing.

If Trump really wants this thing, he will have to "take" it. He has surrounded himself with generals and corporate "wet-work" artists so maybe that's what is going down. One thing is sure, the least little "whiff of grapeshot" and the progressive liberals will fall in line. The real question will be the corporate paramilitary, where will they settle? Right now, corporate money is funneled through the government and governmental protections are assured and solidified. The government is absolutely essential for bourgeois survival and success, so I can't see the corporations going against Trump, if he "dictators-up". This could all get messy fast - but the bourgeoisie have a way of burying the hatchet and doing business. I can just hear Soros saying in a quivering voice, "Can't we all just get along?"

Hillary Clinton’s cabinet would have been bad.Noted access-seeker and Axios founder Mike Allen has released Clinton’s so-called “ghost cabinet,” the individuals her campaign likely would have nominated to fill key administration roles.
Here’s the list courtesy of Axios Presented By The Bank Of America, which I have decided will be its full name from now on:

https://images.newrepublic.com/b72ed9b1300ac739ed8a4cc5cd9f47f2d591a13a.jpeg?w=600&q=65&dpi=1&fm=pjpg&h=729

This list contains no surprises, which is exactly why it’s so troubling. Politico initially reported in October that Clinton was considering Sheryl Sandberg for Treasury secretary. Progressives opposed that at the time, and for good reason: Sandberg’s only qualifications for that position are that she is wealthy and friendly with Clinton. Those two characteristics, wealth and loyalty, constitute the same low standard Donald Trump has applied to his own cabinet nominees. See also: Howard Schultz (of Starbucks) for labor secretary and Anna Wintour (of Vogue) for ambassador to the U.K. And then there’s Cory Booker, who has been criticized by progressives for his ties to Wall Street and his support for school vouchers—a position he shares with Trump education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos.

If Allen’s list is accurate, Clinton viewed the presidency as an opportunity to empower her wealthy, centrist allies. There’s no evidence at all, in fact, that she learned anything from the anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Bernie Sanders’s popular challenge to her candidacy.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139751/hillary-clintons-cabinet-bad

just sayin'...

By the time the first day of hearings for Donald Trump's secretary of state pick concluded, Rex Tillerson had expressed a range of opinions at odds with those of his future boss. As Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) noted, Tillerson's views on Muslims, Russian aggression, Saudi Arabia, NATO, the Paris climate agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, nuclear arms, and more were notably different from Trump's campaign statements.
"All of these to me are quite encouraging," Coons said. "But these suggest some tensions with the president-elect."
Asked about how he'd resolve these differences with Trump's stated views, Tillerson said:

"One of the reasons I came to the conclusion...to say yes to President-elect Trump when he asked me to do this, is that [in] my conversations with him on the subjects we have discussed...he’s been very open and inviting of hearing my views and respectful of those views. In terms of my categorizing it as my pushing back on him, my sense is we're going to have all the views presented [at the] table and everyone will have an opportunity to express those and make the case. And the president decides."
Throughout the hearing, the former ExxonMobil CEO said he had not been briefed, examined the evidence, or received proper security clearances in order to answer questions on a range of international policy issues.
Coons wasn't the only senator to note the contrast with Trump. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) observed, "Many of these statements have been undercut by earlier statements by the president-elect."
Earlier in the day, Shaheen asked Tillerson if he would be willing to divest from ExxonMobil stock. Tillerson replied that he would. She noted yet another difference with Trump—this one in his approach to his holdings. "I’m sad to say, it stands in stark contrast to what Trump had to say today," she said. "That he’s not going to divest from his vast interests around the world​."
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/motherjones/main/~4/p8IuIqu92mM

More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/motherjones/main/~3/p8IuIqu92mM/what-rex-tillerson-said-about-conflicting-opinions-trump-administration)

Tillerson Disagrees With Trump on Nearly Everything

Wow. Hey, Ma J, maybe he is lying. Maybe both he and Trump are lying. Maybe everybody involved on both sides of the hearing panel and desks are lying. "He disagrees with Trump!" Jesus...

USA / Donald Trump government: Priority in serving the general interests of the capital

Article published on 'Rizospastis' Sunday Edition, 15 January 2017 / Translation: In Defense of Communism.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HYm_VTbqyq4/WHzazZ8799I/AAAAAAAACLY/LwmklHGN1PkaMuNKlqhJmYsB0mBOIijwQCLcB/s320/trump%2Bdonald%2BUSA.jpg

The priorities of the government of the newly-elected U.S. President, Donald Trump, who takes office on January 20th, do not differ from those of the outgoing President Barack Obama because- despite the existing differences in their declarations- their common denominator is to safeguard the general interests of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't negate a multilevel intra-bourgeois confrontation for the way through which this will be achieved more effectively, especially in a period when the inter-imperialist antagonism is exacerbated, with an estimated relative loss of U.S. leadership in the international capitalist economy and given the difficulties for a more impetuous capitalist recovery. More specifically Trump promotes a different mix of management with stronger elements of protectionism, an issue which however creates difficulties in international trade, which in turn displeases other parts of the (U.S) capital.

Last Wednesday, Donald Trump gave his first press conference after his electoral victory, offering a foretaste of the new tactics and the fronts of a possible collision. In the background, of course, is the peak of the confrontation between the intelligence agencies (inside and outside the U.S), especially after the publication of a controversial 35 pages-long "report" written by the British former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, currently owner of the "stratetic advice company" named Orbis Business Intelligence. The report claimed that the Russian intelligence services keep the new President under control because of intelligence information regarding financial and sexual activities. These informations were denounced by Trump as "vile and fabricated lies", giving him rise to criticize part of the bourgeois media, such as CNN.

In any case, the "war" between secret services isn't expected to settle down soon, as it reflects intra-bourgeois contrasts. It is characteristic that on Thursday night, the Inspector General of the U.S. federal Justice Department announced an inquiry regarding the decision of the outgoing FBI Director James Comey to re-open, shortly before the election, the investigation about the e-mails of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Review of inter-state agreements.

Trump also seemed taking a position regarding a possible conflict with competing forces, such as China, thus bringing back to the fore his campaign promises and intentions to renegotiate trade agreements. This is a fact which, of course, will influence international developments and which, obviously, creates concern to staffs and other imperialist centers, combined with the developments such as the bazaar for Britain's disengagement from the EU (Brexit) and the Eurozone's cohesion itself. Trump has already warned for the U.S. withdrawal from the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP), something which inevitably mean new big bazaars and sharpening of the confrontation between competing monopolies that will seek the biggest piece from the "pie" of the new opportunities. It is not clear which power will gain more from a new negotiation, nor it is certain that the U.S. will be that power. Some analysts believe that the possible withdrawal of the U.S. from the TPP will leave an open door to Beijing, in order to push forward for China's benefit the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" (RCEP) which began in 2012.

In his interview, Trump "shook his finger" to China which, as he said, "makes billions of dollars by taking advantage of U.S. weaknesses". That happened while, a few days ago, he had announced, after his meeting with the 52 years-old Chinese business magnate (owner of the e-commerce firm "Alibaba") Jack Ma, the latter's plans to create "one million jobs in the U.S.".

Respectively, regarding the so-called "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement" (TTIP), Trump has said that he will seek hard renegotiation in defense of the U.S. companies.

In relation to Russia, Trump seems to keep a more conciliatory stance, despite the wild war between intelligence services which has targeted him for this choice. It is characteristic that he described as a "plus" the fact that the Russian President Vladimir Putin "likes" him, because, as he explained, this could contribute to the restoration of the bilateral relations which, as he said, are "terrible" today. One must point out that Trump's choice to compromise with the Russians is not a matter of preference but an issue of interest, as he may use a possible bridge with Moscow in order to exacerbate the pressure towards Beijing. Nonetheless, during their confirmation hearings at the Senate, the proposed Trump's ministers, Rex Tillerson for the Department of State and James Mattis for the Department of Defense, marked Russia as a "threat".

A significant part of the press conference was also dedicated to the need, as Trump pointed out, for the U.S better defense towards cyberattacks, which, for the first time he admitted, have been unleashed "from Russia, China and many other countries". It is interesting that he appointed the former New York Governor Rudolph Giuliani in the new position of the cybersecurity adviser, responsible for private sector's cybersecurity. That means a very positive action for the monopolies operating in the field of cybersecurity, such as Giuliani's company "Giuliani Partners".

Trump clarified once again that he will immediately proceed to the construction of the wall in the southern borders of the USA with Mexico, despite "the friendship and respect" for the people and the government of the neighboring country. He (Trump) tried to show consistency with his central electoral campaign promises, taking into account his objective to present himself as the "antisystemic president" who wants to "make America great again" and to create in the long term a "movement" which will resonate in the middle and lower social strata.

Promises for better healthcare and employment.

As it has been seen, it is in the immediate priorities of Trump to withdraw and replace the reforms promoted by the outgoing President Barack Obama (Obamacare), in order to benefit specific monopolies of pharmaceutical groups and parts of the diagnostic medical centers' "industry".

Trump claims that he will replace Obamacare with a "cheaper and better" system. Chances are that he will attempt to redistribute the "pie" in favor of the monopolies operating in the sectors of Health and Insurance.

Furthermore, Donald Trump repeated his promises for the "rescue" and the creation of new jobs, thus "throwing down the gauntlet" to those industries which didn't correspond strongly to his efforts to prevent the transfer of factories abroad, such as in Mexico. He managed to highlight his recent agreements with industries, such as the automobile company "Ford" and the air-conditioning manufacturer "Carrier" that withdrew their plans for transfering their factories in Mexico and he threatened with very heavy imposts or "border taxes" those industries which will resist the pressures for keeping job positions in the US, such as the automotive "General Motors" corporation which doesn't seem to "give in".

It becomes obvious that the choice of Trump, like the one of Obama previously as the first black President, serves the specific needs of the capital in every given time. However, the billionaire businessman has managed more effectively to manipulate the popular strata which had no benefit from the slight capitalist recovery after the outbreak of the 2008 capitalist crisis. The fact of the absence of a strong Communist Party with a revolutionary strategy and a class-based orientation undoubtedly contriubutes to the overal entrapment of popular forces.

Rizospastis, 15/1/2017, p.30.

https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2017/01/usa-donald-trump-government-priority-in.html

EU nations react with surprise, defiance to Trump remarks

BRUSSELS — European Union nations reacted with surprise and defiance Monday to Donald Trump's comments that he believed NATO was "obsolete" and that more member states would leave the 28-nation EU.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the U.S. president-elect's view on NATO and criticism that allied members weren't paying their fair share has "caused astonishment."
At a meeting of EU foreign ministers, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the best response to such an interview was simple — a united Europe.
In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that even though Trump's positions had been well known "I think we Europeans have our fate in our own hands."
"I'm personally going to wait until the American president takes office, and then we will naturally work with him on all levels," she told reporters.
Some EU officials fear Trump's frequent, often acerbic Twitter postings might be the prelude to a caustic presidency after Friday's inauguration.
"We are going to move away from, I guess, a kind of Twitter diplomacy, and then into a reality," said Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen, adding that reality could be "perhaps more difficult than what is going on on Twitter."
Although Trump had made similar statements about NATO during his election campaign, his recent comments still came as a bit of a surprise since his choice for defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, stressed his support for the NATO military alliance in his U.S. congressional confirmation hearing last week.
Trump's views, in an interview published Monday with German daily Bild and The Times of London, contradict Mattis, Steinmeier said.
There has even been fears the U.S. military commitment to Europe would wane under Trump. A German newspaper group reports that Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite has urged Trump to continue meeting the U.S.'s financial obligations toward the alliance.
"Since World War II, the presence of U.S. troops has been a prerequisite for rebuilding the continent, safeguarding peace and ensuring security," she told the RND network of some 30 German papers.
"We expect continuity from the new U.S. administration. Trump must maintain this leadership role, to ensure security, stability and peace," she was quoted as saying.
Trump indicated he was indifferent to whether the EU stays together or not, a sharp break from the Obama administration, which encouraged British people to vote to remain in the EU in the June referendum.
"I believe others will leave ... I do think keeping it together is not gonna be as easy as a lot of people think," Trump said in the interview.
The British exit from the EU would "end up being a great thing," he said.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it's "very good news that the United States of America wants to do a good free trade deal with us and wants to do it very fast."
Trump was less kind to German industry officials, saying car manufacturers including BMW could face tariffs of up to 35 percent if they set up plants in Mexico instead of in the U.S. and try to export the cars to the U.S.
Such tariffs would make "the American auto industry worse, weaker and more expensive," Sigmar Gabriel, Germany's economy minister, told Bild.
Gabriel suggested Europeans should exhibit more self-confidence in dealing with Trump. "We're not weak and inferior," he said.
Whatever his goal, Trump's comments were strong enough to make him the talk of the town in European capitals.
"It is clear that we are discussing this issue all the time," Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek said at the EU meeting in Brussels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/eu-nations-react-with-surprise-defiance-to-trump-remarks/ar-AAlUeq7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


"Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite has urged Trump to continue meeting the U.S.'s financial obligations toward the alliance.
"Since World War II, the presence of U.S. troops has been a prerequisite for rebuilding the continent, safeguarding peace and ensuring security,""

I guess this means it has to go on forever. And why should the US rebuild the continent almost 75 years after WWII? The Baltic bourgeoisie want to be dominated and controlled by the US and not Russia. I guess being Russia's "Mexico" is less desirable than being the US's new Philippines.

""We expect continuity from the new U.S. administration. Trump must maintain this leadership role, to ensure security, stability and peace," she was quoted as saying."

I wonder how it is going to go over with der Führer Trump that the President of Lithuania is telling him what he "must" do and what she "expects" of him? I wonder if der Trumpster will remain in office long enough for people to figure out how to deal with him? And how is it that Putin has figured it out? All you have to do is flatter the narcissist and praise him for, well, anything and you will be his new best friend. Trump is kinda' like a child (a dumb, dangerous, vicious child), who must have his ego stroked. Being under the thumb of such a self-centered maniac is scary enough, having the walls closing in on him is down right frightening.

"Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite has urged Trump to continue meeting the U.S.'s financial obligations toward the alliance.
"Since World War II, the presence of U.S. troops has been a prerequisite for rebuilding the continent, safeguarding peace and ensuring security,""

I guess this means it has to go on forever. And why should the US rebuild the continent almost 75 years after WWII? The Baltic bourgeoisie want to be dominated and controlled by the US and not Russia. I guess being Russia's "Mexico" is less desirable than being the US's new Philippines.

""We expect continuity from the new U.S. administration. Trump must maintain this leadership role, to ensure security, stability and peace," she was quoted as saying."

I wonder how it is going to go over with der Führer Trump that the President of Lithuania is telling him what he "must" do and what she "expects" of him? I wonder if der Trumpster will remain in office long enough for people to figure out how to deal with him? And how is it that Putin has figured it out? All you have to do is flatter the narcissist and praise him for, well, anything and you will be his new best friend. Trump is kinda' like a child (a dumb, dangerous, vicious child), who must have his ego stroked. Being under the thumb of such a self-centered maniac is scary enough, having the walls closing in on him is down right frightening.


It sure don't look as though he's going to buckle under, but that could be facade too. I will be surprised if beyond expectations he neither quits nor is driven from office nor is 'tamed' by his peers but actually does proceed to 'do it his way'. Might give new meaning to 'disaster capitalism'.

Trump, my friend, is the flower of our generation. I'll not argue about boomer complicity with the punks no more.

I used to like Surrealism but it ain't that cool 24/7.

Trump warns NATO member states: pay up, stop whining about Russia, and start fighting terror

President-elect Trump calls NATO "obsolete". Freeloaders, time to pay up for US protection.

Finally a US president calling out NATO for what it is…a useless, military alliance that represents a relic of days gone by, where corrupt politicians scream about “Russian aggression”, so as to line their pockets with huge sums of military industrial complex kickbacks.

Or as Donald Trump so aptly put it…NATO is “obsolete.”

US President-elect Donald Trump gave a stunning interview to the UK based Sunday Times newspaper, blasting NATO for its lack of purpose and freeloader member state mentality…

“I said a long time ago that NATO had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. Number two the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror.”

“With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”

Sputnik News notes that…
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump called into question the viability of NATO, the disproportionate US financial contribution to the alliance and Washington’s pledge to defend NATO’s members as per Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that established the alliance in 1949.

We can only imagine that all the freeloader NATO member states that are continuously whining about Russia’s expansion west (see image below), but pay nothing in membership fees because big brother America will flip the bill, are now shaking in their whiny little snowflake boots.

https://i1.wp.com/theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/russia_wants_war_look_how_closely_they_put_country_to_our_military_bases.jpg?zoom=1.5625&resize=500%2C346

http://theduran.com/trump-warns-nato-member-states-pay-up-stop-whining-about-russia-and-start-fighting-terror/


Saturday Night Live just needs to follow Ringling Brothers and fold their tent - they just aren't funny anymore. Real life is just too funny to compete with. Everyone and their brother is about to have their hair on fire. There is just too much wrapped-up in NATO for this to continue. Trump's presidency will be the shortest in history - he won't out last Harrison; Trump's new nickname should be "Tippecanoe". One thing is sure, Trump knows how to stir a pot and he ain't afraid to do it.

USA / Donald Trump government: Priority in serving the general interests of the capital

Article published on 'Rizospastis' Sunday Edition, 15 January 2017 / Translation: In Defense of Communism.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HYm_VTbqyq4/WHzazZ8799I/AAAAAAAACLY/LwmklHGN1PkaMuNKlqhJmYsB0mBOIijwQCLcB/s320/trump%2Bdonald%2BUSA.jpg

The priorities of the government of the newly-elected U.S. President, Donald Trump, who takes office on January 20th, do not differ from those of the outgoing President Barack Obama because- despite the existing differences in their declarations- their common denominator is to safeguard the general interests of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't negate a multilevel intra-bourgeois confrontation for the way through which this will be achieved more effectively, especially in a period when the inter-imperialist antagonism is exacerbated, with an estimated relative loss of U.S. leadership in the international capitalist economy and given the difficulties for a more impetuous capitalist recovery. More specifically Trump promotes a different mix of management with stronger elements of protectionism, an issue which however creates difficulties in international trade, which in turn displeases other parts of the (U.S) capital.

Last Wednesday, Donald Trump gave his first press conference after his electoral victory, offering a foretaste of the new tactics and the fronts of a possible collision. In the background, of course, is the peak of the confrontation between the intelligence agencies (inside and outside the U.S), especially after the publication of a controversial 35 pages-long "report" written by the British former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, currently owner of the "stratetic advice company" named Orbis Business Intelligence. The report claimed that the Russian intelligence services keep the new President under control because of intelligence information regarding financial and sexual activities. These informations were denounced by Trump as "vile and fabricated lies", giving him rise to criticize part of the bourgeois media, such as CNN.

In any case, the "war" between secret services isn't expected to settle down soon, as it reflects intra-bourgeois contrasts. It is characteristic that on Thursday night, the Inspector General of the U.S. federal Justice Department announced an inquiry regarding the decision of the outgoing FBI Director James Comey to re-open, shortly before the election, the investigation about the e-mails of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Review of inter-state agreements.

Trump also seemed taking a position regarding a possible conflict with competing forces, such as China, thus bringing back to the fore his campaign promises and intentions to renegotiate trade agreements. This is a fact which, of course, will influence international developments and which, obviously, creates concern to staffs and other imperialist centers, combined with the developments such as the bazaar for Britain's disengagement from the EU (Brexit) and the Eurozone's cohesion itself. Trump has already warned for the U.S. withdrawal from the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP), something which inevitably mean new big bazaars and sharpening of the confrontation between competing monopolies that will seek the biggest piece from the "pie" of the new opportunities. It is not clear which power will gain more from a new negotiation, nor it is certain that the U.S. will be that power. Some analysts believe that the possible withdrawal of the U.S. from the TPP will leave an open door to Beijing, in order to push forward for China's benefit the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" (RCEP) which began in 2012.

In his interview, Trump "shook his finger" to China which, as he said, "makes billions of dollars by taking advantage of U.S. weaknesses". That happened while, a few days ago, he had announced, after his meeting with the 52 years-old Chinese business magnate (owner of the e-commerce firm "Alibaba") Jack Ma, the latter's plans to create "one million jobs in the U.S.".

Respectively, regarding the so-called "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement" (TTIP), Trump has said that he will seek hard renegotiation in defense of the U.S. companies.

In relation to Russia, Trump seems to keep a more conciliatory stance, despite the wild war between intelligence services which has targeted him for this choice. It is characteristic that he described as a "plus" the fact that the Russian President Vladimir Putin "likes" him, because, as he explained, this could contribute to the restoration of the bilateral relations which, as he said, are "terrible" today. One must point out that Trump's choice to compromise with the Russians is not a matter of preference but an issue of interest, as he may use a possible bridge with Moscow in order to exacerbate the pressure towards Beijing. Nonetheless, during their confirmation hearings at the Senate, the proposed Trump's ministers, Rex Tillerson for the Department of State and James Mattis for the Department of Defense, marked Russia as a "threat".

A significant part of the press conference was also dedicated to the need, as Trump pointed out, for the U.S better defense towards cyberattacks, which, for the first time he admitted, have been unleashed "from Russia, China and many other countries". It is interesting that he appointed the former New York Governor Rudolph Giuliani in the new position of the cybersecurity adviser, responsible for private sector's cybersecurity. That means a very positive action for the monopolies operating in the field of cybersecurity, such as Giuliani's company "Giuliani Partners".

Trump clarified once again that he will immediately proceed to the construction of the wall in the southern borders of the USA with Mexico, despite "the friendship and respect" for the people and the government of the neighboring country. He (Trump) tried to show consistency with his central electoral campaign promises, taking into account his objective to present himself as the "antisystemic president" who wants to "make America great again" and to create in the long term a "movement" which will resonate in the middle and lower social strata.

Promises for better healthcare and employment.

As it has been seen, it is in the immediate priorities of Trump to withdraw and replace the reforms promoted by the outgoing President Barack Obama (Obamacare), in order to benefit specific monopolies of pharmaceutical groups and parts of the diagnostic medical centers' "industry".

Trump claims that he will replace Obamacare with a "cheaper and better" system. Chances are that he will attempt to redistribute the "pie" in favor of the monopolies operating in the sectors of Health and Insurance.

Furthermore, Donald Trump repeated his promises for the "rescue" and the creation of new jobs, thus "throwing down the gauntlet" to those industries which didn't correspond strongly to his efforts to prevent the transfer of factories abroad, such as in Mexico. He managed to highlight his recent agreements with industries, such as the automobile company "Ford" and the air-conditioning manufacturer "Carrier" that withdrew their plans for transfering their factories in Mexico and he threatened with very heavy imposts or "border taxes" those industries which will resist the pressures for keeping job positions in the US, such as the automotive "General Motors" corporation which doesn't seem to "give in".

It becomes obvious that the choice of Trump, like the one of Obama previously as the first black President, serves the specific needs of the capital in every given time. However, the billionaire businessman has managed more effectively to manipulate the popular strata which had no benefit from the slight capitalist recovery after the outbreak of the 2008 capitalist crisis. The fact of the absence of a strong Communist Party with a revolutionary strategy and a class-based orientation undoubtedly contriubutes to the overal entrapment of popular forces.

Rizospastis, 15/1/2017, p.30.

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/01/usa-donald-trump-government-priority-in.html

Rex Tillerson Already Talking Regime Change in Venezuela

http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1485122855750/sites/telesur/img/news/2017/01/22/rex_tillerson_suggests_regime_change_in_venezuela.jpg_1718483346.jpg
Rex Tillerson testifies during a confirmation hearing. | Photo: Reuters

Published 22 January 2017

The secretary of state nominee attacked both Venezuela and Cuba.

The new U.S. administration of Donald Trump has made it public that it will seek a regime change policy in Venezuela disguised in “transition to democracy” rhetoric, the country’s potential new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an interview this week.

“If confirmed, I would urge close cooperation with our friends in the hemisphere, particularly Venezuela’s neighbors Brazil and Colombia, as well as multilateral bodies such as the OAS, to seek a negotiated transition to democratic rule in Venezuela,” the former executive in ExxonMobil told Latin America Goes Global.

He further claimed that the economic crisis in the oil-rich South American country was “largely a product of its incompetent and dysfunctional government, first under Hugo Chavez, and now under his designated successor, Nicolas Maduro.”

The government of President Maduro has, however, blamed the recent crisis on an economic war by right-wing politicians as well as corporations who are hoarding products and halting production to put pressure on the socialist administration.

Meanwhile, Tillerson struck a less aggressive tone when pressed about how he would deal with the standoff between the government and the opposition-led national assembly in Venezuela.


“The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government and the opposition that now controls the National Assembly.”

But then he called for sanctions against what he called “human rights violators” when asked about political prisoners while also slamming Maduro’s government for “undemocratic practices.”

The right-wing website also asked the nominee for U.S. top diplomat post “about the controversial and misguided decision to normalize relations with Cuba” to which he did not suggest a full rollback from Barack Obama’s steps on Cuba.

"I will engage with Cuba but continue to press for reform of its oppressive regime. I will support human rights defenders and democracy activists in Cuba, empower civil society, defend freedom of expression, and promote improved internet access and I will ask our allies to do the same," he said.

He added that he would engage in bilateral and multilateral talks with Havana in order to “press Cuba to meet its pledge to become more democratic and consider placing conditions on trade or travel policies to motivate the release of political prisoners.”

However, when the interviewer pressed further Tillerson said he would stand by statements made by Vice President Mike Pence stating that the Trump administration would reverse Obama’s Cuba rapprochement policy.

“Yes. There will be a comprehensive review of current policies and executive orders regarding Cuba to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect human rights and promote democratic changes.”

Tillerson and Venezuela, in fact, have a bitter history and some say he might pursue personal revenge against the socialist government as he takes the international diplomatic stage in Washington.

In 2007, late President Hugo Chavez ordered the nationalization of 22 major multinational corporations operating in the country including ExxonMobil, then headed by Tillerson.

He rejected the compensation deal offered by the government of US$1 billion and took Venezuela to the international arbitration court demanding instead US$10 billion. But the rarely defeated CEO lost and his company settled for US$1.6 billion.

“(Tillerson) took it very personal with Chavez,” said Ghassan Dagher, a Venezuelan oil industry consultant to the New York Times in December.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Rex-Tillerson-Already-Talking-Regime-Change-in-Venezuela-20170122-0020.html

Videos at link.

Time to start drilling the militia.

Time to start drilling the militia.

And forming tight-knit leagues of like-minded nations to jointly defend against these murderous Yankee monsters. There is safety in numbers - well, at least, some safety...

And forming tight-knit leagues of like-minded nations to jointly defend against these murderous Yankee monsters. There is safety in numbers - well, at least, some safety...

Gonna be another 'color revolution', proly 'turn' some generals too. I don't think you can make nice with these people, impossible, the want they Bolivarian Republic dead, dead, dead. They want to scream about authoritarianism, I'd show them some authoritarianism: expropriate, for a start the consumer distribution outfits which have been hoarding in order to create unrest and other strategic targets. Throw out the NGOs. Arrest any opposition leader who says 'boo'. And drill those militia constantly and visibly, that'll give the generals pause, purge the General Staff if ya can.

(Yeah, easy for me to say, sitting here....)

Gonna be another 'color revolution', proly 'turn' some generals too. I don't think you can make nice with these people, impossible, the want they Bolivarian Republic dead, dead, dead. They want to scream about authoritarianism, I'd show them some authoritarianism: expropriate, for a start the consumer distribution outfits which have been hoarding in order to create unrest and other strategic targets. Throw out the NGOs. Arrest any opposition leader who says 'boo'. And drill those militia constantly and visibly, that'll give the generals pause, purge the General Staff if ya can.

(Yeah, easy for me to say, sitting here....)

Right now Maduro has strong support among the common people, he should strike while the iron is hot. Class conscious army sergeants make good revolutionary army officers. Maduro need not worry about "image", Trump and Tillerson don't give a damn if he is a catholic nun in drag, they are out to kill him - he and Venezuela got nothing to lose now.

The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned
By Josh Rogin January 26 at 11:02 AM

Here's what happened at Rex Tillerson's rocky Senate confirmation hearing Play Video5:14

(Video at link)
Rex Tillerson, President-elect Trump's nominee for secretary of state, had a rocky first day facing members of the Senate during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 11 at the Capitol. (Video: Peter Stevenson/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post/The Washington Post)

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.

Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In addition, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr retired Jan. 20, and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, departed the same day. That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.

“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”

Several senior foreign service officers in the State Department’s regional bureaus have also left their posts or resigned since the election. But the emptying of leadership in the management bureaus is more disruptive because those offices need to be led by people who know the department and have experience running its complicated bureaucracies. There’s no easy way to replace that via the private sector, said Wade.

“Diplomatic security, consular affairs, there’s just not a corollary that exists outside the department, and you at least can afford a learning curve in these areas where issues can quickly become matters of life and death,” he said. “The muscle memory is critical. These retirements are a big loss. They leave a void. These are very difficult people to replace.”

Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department. Just days before he resigned, Kennedy was taking on more responsibility inside the department and working closely with the transition. His departure was a surprise to other State Department officials who were working with him.

One senior State Department official who responded to my requests for comment said that all the officials had previously submitted their letters of resignation, as was required for all positions that are appointed by the president and that require confirmation by the Senate, known as PAS positions.

“No officer accepts a PAS position with the expectation that it is unlimited. And all officers understand that the President may choose to replace them at any time,” this official said. “These officers have served admirably and well. Their departure offers a moment to consider their accomplishments and thank them for their service. These are the patterns and rhythms of the career service.”

Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time.


The officials who manage the building and thousands of overseas diplomatic posts are charged with taking care of Americans overseas and protecting U.S. diplomats risking their lives abroad. The career foreign service officers are crucial to those functions as well as to implementing the new president’s agenda, whatever it may be, Boucher said.

“You don’t run foreign policy by making statements, you run it with thousands of people working to implement programs every day,” Boucher said. “To undercut that is to undercut the institution.”

By itself, the sudden departure of the State Department’s entire senior management team is disruptive enough. But in the context of a president who railed against the U.S. foreign policy establishment during his campaign and secretary of state with no government experience, the vacancies are much more concerning.

Tillerson’s job No. 1 must be to find qualified and experienced career officials to manage the State Department’s vital offices. His second job should be to reach out to and reassure a State Department workforce that is panicked about what the Trump administration means for them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/26/the-state-departments-entire-senior-management-team-just-resigned/?utm_term=.656eff47a6e9

I am torn between giddiness at the sound of things falling apart and some dread anticipating what sort of reactionary madness is to come. At the best imperialism will be hampered by amateur practitioners, at the worst we're all gonna die.


http://youtu.be/hRguZr0xCOc

Edit: Moon of Alabama ‏@MoonofA 48m48 minutes ago
More
Moon of Alabama Retweeted Will McAvoy
Correct tweet: "Entire senior management team in the State Department was told it would be fired. It preemptively resigned."

I am torn between giddiness at the sound of things falling apart and some dread anticipating what sort of reactionary madness is to come. At the best imperialism will be hampered by amateur practitioners, at the worst we're all gonna die.

And we gonna die anyway - just how and when are the questions.

Great choice of video!

This is the executive order banning "sanctuary cities and campuses" and is a very long and detailed authoritarian crack-down on the immigration of brown people.

There are probably numerous items that are very legally challengeable, but "Section 14" seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

I think that the "right to privacy" has been upheld in the supreme court (might be wrong about that) and that that protection is afforded everyone within the US citizen or not.

Trump is really stirring the shit. He might lose his entire government - everyone not appointed by him might just up and quit.

It is hard to keep up with how far south and how quickly this thing is going.

The Trump administration’s order against immigrants makes clear that the new government intends to utilize its control over the state to the maximum to enforce the interests of the financial oligarchy.

More... (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/01/30/pers-j30.html)

Trump underlined Bannon’s central position in his White House with an executive order Saturday restructuring the National Security Council (NSC), the principal White House instrument for directing foreign and military policy. The order added “the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist,” namely Bannon, to the list of top officials entitled to attend every meeting of the Principals Committee, a subcommittee of the NSC that plays a critical role in preparing decisions for the president, and includes the national security adviser, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense.
The same order removed from the Principals Committee the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.

I think this is what ya call 'reckless', picking fights with the wrong people. I don't care what the speculation is concerning the promotion of flat-out fascism by the ruling class is today, he could have put Bannon on that council and not raised too much of a stir. But to diss both the military and the spooks in the same stroke seems foolhardy. They can fuck him twenty ways to Tuesday without putting a cap in his ass. I cannot imagine how they'd be OK with this move.


Remember how we used to talk about the nationalist vs globalist factions of the ruling class? Remember how it was generally agreed that the nationalists were about toast, a finance capital noose around the world? Looks as though them nationalists still got some life left in them. They may not have been on the bandwagon but they know which side the butter is on. Trump might grandstand, spanking this or that domestic company, but the across the board deregulation, in defiance of any humane consideration or scientific fact more than mollifies that section. A last hurrah, but get while the getting is good.

At the same time Trump has made a number of moves to please global finance in his appointments. How pleased, and whether they will relent in subtly opposing him through the NGOs they fund remains to be seen, and I expect will be dependent upon the detailed roll out of his trade policy.

I think this is what ya call 'reckless', picking fights with the wrong people. I don't care what the speculation is concerning the promotion of flat-out fascism by the ruling class is today, he could have put Bannon on that council and not raised too much of a stir. But to diss both the military and the spooks in the same stroke seems foolhardy. They can fuck him twenty ways to Tuesday without putting a cap in his ass. I cannot imagine how they'd be OK with this move.


Remember how we used to talk about the nationalist vs globalist factions of the ruling class? Remember how it was generally agreed that the nationalists were about toast, a finance capital noose around the world? Looks as though them nationalists still got some life left in them. They may not have been on the bandwagon but they know which side the butter is on. Trump might grandstand, spanking this or that domestic company, but the across the board deregulation, in defiance of any humane consideration or scientific fact more than mollifies that section. A last hurrah, but get while the getting is good.

At the same time Trump has made a number of moves to please global finance in his appointments. How pleased, and whether they will relent in subtly opposing him through the NGOs they fund remains to be seen, and I expect will be dependent upon the detailed roll out of his trade policy.

Yeah, Trump is on a tear. It makes no sense, at least to me. Why would he stick his finger in the eye of both the military and the spies? He put his "Goebbels" (sorry, but I like that) on the committee? Trump is so unsure of himself that he has to have someone at his side who can think and chew gum at the same time - to tell him what is politically good or bad. This shows me that Trump has no political convictions, at all. He has been convinced that he won the election because of Bannon's expertise and acumen, so he has to have Bannon by his side, because Trump doesn't "get" politics. Trump has to be told what is good or bad for him politically. That is not just stupid, it is scary.

As for the pushmepullyou of nationalist vs globalist ruling class, I have no idea. As far as capitalism goes, I don't see the distinction. There are many Republicans and right wing Democrats who are strong globalists, and of course the Republicans are eat-up with nationalists. But "nationalism" need not be "anti-globalist", I mean Hitler was a nationalist with globalist aims.

I don't know, I can't figure this shit out. It appears to be so chaotic: you got Senate Republicans dissing Trump, yet the House Republicans think Trump is doing fine. You got military and spy-boys butt-hurt over the security council and every "news" org is openly at war with Lord Trump. I just cannot follow it. It feels like a meltdown on the way, but maybe THIS White House functions like that - don't know.

Yeah, Trump is on a tear. It makes no sense, at least to me. Why would he stick his finger in the eye of both the military and the spies? He put his "Goebbels" (sorry, but I like that) on the committee? Trump is so unsure of himself that he has to have someone at his side who can think and chew gum at the same time - to tell him what is politically good or bad. This shows me that Trump has no political convictions, at all. He has been convinced that he won the election because of Bannon's expertise and acumen, so he has to have Bannon by his side, because Trump doesn't "get" politics. Trump has to be told what is good or bad for him politically. That is not just stupid, it is scary.

As for the pushmepullyou of nationalist vs globalist ruling class, I have no idea. As far as capitalism goes, I don't see the distinction. There are many Republicans and right wing Democrats who are strong globalists, and of course the Republicans are eat-up with nationalists. But "nationalism" need not be "anti-globalist", I mean Hitler was a nationalist with globalist aims.

I don't know, I can't figure this shit out. It appears to be so chaotic: you got Senate Republicans dissing Trump, yet the House Republicans think Trump is doing fine. You got military and spy-boys butt-hurt over the security council and every "news" org is openly at war with Lord Trump. I just cannot follow it. It feels like a meltdown on the way, but maybe THIS White House functions like that - don't know.

Trump has no political convictions, he has personal preferences, he is at heart a liberal. And he will do anything possible to preserve his 'brand'. All the rest is small change, let the flunkies take care of the boring stuff..

Yeah, it is pretty overwhelming. One thing for sure though, no faction of the ruling class gonna save us, the liberals ain't gonna save us, the working class can only save itself from capitalism.

no faction of the ruling class gonna save us, the liberals ain't gonna save us, the working class can only save itself from capitalism.

This has to be hammered away at night and day. Every discussion, argument or salutation must end with this refrain.

The theme of this morning’s news updates from Washington is additional clarity emerging, rather than meaningful changes in the field. But this clarity is enough to give us a sense of what we just saw happen, and why it happened the way it did.

I’ll separate what’s below into the raw news reports and analysis; you may also find these two pieces from yesterday (heavily referenced below) to be useful.



http://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*zepGMLI8j9wMaPUz95JXGg.jpeg

From “The Day After Tomorrow.” I resisted the temptation to use the analogous shot from “Planet of the Apes.”


News Reports

(1) Priebus made two public statements today. One is that the ban on Muslims will no longer be applied to green card holders. Notably absent from his statement was anything about people with other types of visa (including long-term ones), or anything about the DHS’ power to unilaterally revoke green cards in bulk.

The other was that the omission of Jews from the statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day was deliberate and is not regretted.

A point of note here is that Priebus is the one making these statements, which is not normally the Chief of Staff’s job. I’ll come back to that below.

(2) Rudy Giuliani told Fox News that the intent of yesterday’s order was very much a ban on Muslims, described in those words, and he was among the people Trump asked how they could find a way to do this legally.

(3) CNN has a detailed story (heavily sourced) about the process by which this ban was created and announced. Notable in this is that the DHS’ lawyers objected to the order, specifically its exclusion of green card holders, as illegal, and also pressed for there to be a grace period so that people currently out of the country wouldn’t be stranded — and they were personally overruled by Bannon and Stephen Miller. Also notable is that career DHS staff, up to and including the head of Customs & Border Patrol, were kept entirely out of the loop until the order was signed.

(4) The Guardian is reporting (heavily sourced) that the “mass resignations” of nearly all senior staff at the State Department on Thursday were not, in fact, resignations, but a purge ordered by the White House. As the diagram below (by Emily Roslin v Praze) shows, this leaves almost nobody in the entire senior staff of the State Department at this point.


https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/600/1*8IDunC3Egvsw1Lr9_o6yxA.png

The seniormost staff of the Department of State. Blue X’s are unfilled positions; red X’s are positions which were purged. Note that the “filled” positions are not actually confirmed yet.

As the Guardian points out, this has an important and likely not accidental effect: it leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban (which they would normally resist) are coming down.

The article points out another point worth highlighting: “In the past, the state department has been asked to set up early foreign contacts for an incoming administration. This time however it has been bypassed, and Trump’s immediate circle of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus are making their own calls.”

(5) On Inauguration Day, Trump apparently filed his candidacy for 2020. Beyond being unusual, this opens up the ability for him to start accepting “campaign contributions” right away. Given that a sizable fraction of the campaign funds from the previous cycle were paid directly to the Trump organization in exchange for building leases, etc., at inflated rates, you can assume that those campaign coffers are a mechanism by which US nationals can easily give cash bribes directly to Trump. Non-US nationals can, of course, continue to use Trump’s hotels and other businesses as a way to funnel money to him.

(6) Finally, I want to highlight a story that many people haven’t noticed. On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Conclusive? No. But it raises some very interesting questions for journalists to investigate.

What does this all mean?

I see a few key patterns here. First, the decision to first block, and then allow, green card holders was meant to create chaos and pull out opposition; they never intended to hold it for too long. It wouldn’t surprise me if the goal is to create “resistance fatigue,” to get Americans to the point where they’re more likely to say “Oh, another protest? Don’t you guys ever stop?” relatively quickly.

However, the conspicuous absence of provisions preventing them from executing any of the “next steps” I outlined yesterday, such as bulk revocation of visas (including green cards) from nationals of various countries, and then pursuing them using mechanisms being set up for Latinos, highlights that this does not mean any sort of backing down on the part of the regime.

Note also the most frightening escalation last night was that the DHS made it fairly clear that they did not feel bound to obey any court orders. CBP continued to deny all access to counsel, detain people, and deport them in direct contravention to the court’s order, citing “upper management,” and the DHS made a formal (but confusing) statement that they would continue to follow the President’s orders. (See my updates from yesterday, and the various links there, for details) Significant in today’s updates is any lack of suggestion that the courts’ authority played a role in the decision.

That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

A second major theme is watching the set of people involved. There appears to be a very tight “inner circle,” containing at least Trump, Bannon, Miller, Priebus, Kushner, and possibly Flynn, which is making all of the decisions. Other departments and appointees have been deliberately hobbled, with key orders announced to them only after the fact, staff gutted, and so on. Yesterday’s reorganization of the National Security Council mirrors this: Bannon and Priebus now have permanent seats on the Principals’ Committee; the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both been demoted to only attending meetings where they are told that their expertise is relevant; the Secretary of Energy and the US representative to the UN were kicked off the committee altogether (in defiance of the authorizing statute, incidentally).

I am reminded of Trump’s continued operation of a private personal security force, and his deep rift with the intelligence community. Last Sunday, Kellyanne Conway (likely another member of the inner circle) said that “It’s really time for [Trump] to put in his own security and intelligence community,” and this seems likely to be the case.

As per my analysis yesterday, Trump is likely to want his own intelligence service disjoint from existing ones and reporting directly to him; given the current staffing and roles of his inner circle, Bannon is the natural choice for them to report through. (Having neither a large existing staff, nor any Congressional or Constitutional restrictions on his role as most other Cabinet-level appointees do) Keith Schiller would continue to run the personal security force, which would take over an increasing fraction of the Secret Service’s job.

Especially if combined with the DHS and the FBI, which appear to have remained loyal to the President throughout the recent transition, this creates the armature of a shadow government: intelligence and police services which are not accountable through any of the normal means, answerable only to the President.

(Note, incidentally, that the DHS already has police authority within 100 miles of any border of the US; since that includes coastlines, this area includes over 60% of Americans, and eleven entire states. They also have a standing force of over 45,000 officers, and just received authorization to hire 15,000 more on Wednesday.)


The third theme is money. Trump’s decision to keep all his businesses (not bothering with any blind trusts or the like), and his fairly open diversion of campaign funds, made it fairly clear from the beginning that he was seeing this as a way to become rich in the way that only dedicated kleptocrats can, and this week’s updates definitely tally with that. Kushner looks increasingly likely to be the money-man, acting as the liaison between piles of cash and the president.

This gives us a pretty good guess as to what the exit strategy is: become tremendously, and untraceably, rich, by looting any coffers that come within reach.


Combining all of these facts, we have a fairly clear picture in play.
1.Trump was, indeed, perfectly honest during the campaign; he intends to do everything he said, and more. This should not be reassuring to you.
2.The regime’s main organizational goal right now is to transfer all effective power to a tight inner circle, eliminating any possible checks from either the Federal bureaucracy, Congress, or the Courts. Departments are being reorganized or purged to effect this.
3.The inner circle is actively probing the means by which they can seize unchallenged power; yesterday’s moves should be read as the first part of that.
4.The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime, and are likely to be acted on with much greater speed than was earlier suspected. The secondary aim of personal enrichment is also very much in play, and clever people will find ways to play these two goals off each other.

If you’re looking for estimates of what this means for the future, I’ll refer you back to yesterday’s post on what “things going wrong” can look like. Fair warning: I stuffed that post with pictures of cute animals for a reason.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.gv7wtck4o


So this guy makes a pretty scary scenario. Don't know if he has anything right or not, but he is connecting dots whether they are imaginary dots, I don't know. But Trump et al is doing something and should be watched. I guess this is "must see TV" ... or politics or...something.

This has to be hammered away at night and day. Every discussion, argument or salutation must end with this refrain.

Somebody said the liberals were begging for the"Deep State" security apparatus so save us from Trump, preferring capitalism to kleptocracy(which may indeed be one of the primary thrusts of this administration and might explain Trump's hard-on for Russia). It was pointed out that once open ya can't close that box, and all I could think of was Praetorians.

http://medias.photodeck.com/71d30be2-3a2e-11e0-ab85-99abb98ceef2/000029_xgaplus.jpg
Praetorians hail Claudius as Emperor

And are we to think that those ancient cops were uninfluenced by their ruling class?

And who is this “chief policy adviser?”

Miller was profiled by both the New York Times and Washington Post on Sunday. The 31-year-old aide has been an ultra-right activist since his teens. Born into an upper-middle class liberal Jewish family, something went seriously wrong in Miller’s personal development.

He developed a fascination with the extreme right. At Duke University he found a friend in Richard Spencer, the anti-Semitic white supremacist neo-Nazi who has been promoted by Breitbart News. After college, Miller went on to become a spokesman for a series of ultra-right figures in Congress, including Representative Michelle Bachmann and Senator Jeff Sessions. Early in 2016, he joined the Trump campaign, eventually becoming the candidate’s chief speechwriter and a frequent warm-up act at Trump campaign rallies.
Miller is one of a trio of high-profile fascists in the White House. The ultra-right views of White House “chief strategist” Stephen K. Bannon have been widely publicized in the American media, from cover stories in weekly magazines to profiles in major daily newspapers. Bannon ran the ultra-right Breitbart News until last August and made it a focal point for so-called alt-right.

A New York Times profile published Sunday noted Bannon’s familiarity with the work of Julius Evola, an Italian racist and anti-Semite whose writings were a staple of Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship, and who has been cited as an inspirer of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. Bannon cited Evola’s writings in a speech to a Vatican conference of right-wing Catholics in 2014.

A lesser-known but equally repugnant figure is Michael Anton, recently appointed as director of strategic communications for the National Security Council, making him the second-highest press spokesman for the White House after Sean Spicer. A former speechwriter for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Anton was a Bush White House aide, in which capacity he fervently backed the decision to invade Iraq. He moved on to communications positions with right-wing publisher (and owner of Fox News) Rupert Murdoch and with Citibank, and then a post as a managing director of the huge hedge fund BlackRock.

Last week, William Kristol, publisher of the neo-conservative journal Weekly Standard, revealed that Anton was the author, under a pseudonym, of a screed issued last September and widely circulated in right-wing circles titled The Flight 93 Election. This essay portrayed a Trump victory as the sole hope for the survival of America (and implicitly compared Hillary Clinton to the Al Qaeda hijackers of the doomed United Airlines flight on September 11, 2001).

Anton made an explicitly racist appeal for support for Trump, claiming that “the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle.” As a result, he warned, the 2016 election was the last chance for “my people,” i.e., white Americans.

This argument is so openly racist and authoritarian that Kristol, himself a longtime right-wing Republican operative and warmonger, compared Anton to the jurist Carl Schmitt, a notorious Nazi apologist.

The White House has over the past half-century provided employment for many unsavory and criminal types. But the Trump administration represents an entirely unprecedented descent into the lower depths. The presence of political filth like Bannon and Miller in positions of great power and influence in the White House signifies a terminal crisis of American democracy.

There have already been suggestions, from New York Times columnists Paul Krugman and Roger Cohen, among others, that the Trump administration plans to seize on the next terrorist incident as the justification for the abolition of democratic rights. Cohen even cited the precedent of the Reichstag Fire, the pretext manufactured by Hitler to impose emergency rule in Germany.

These columnists offer no explanation as to how this situation has arisen, let alone any proposal as to how the accelerating descent toward a police state can be stopped. As is typical of Democratic Party propagandists, they say nothing about the obvious connection between the breakdown of democracy and the socio-economic realities of contemporary capitalism.

The threat of dictatorship arises directly out of the oligarchic character of American society. Trump, Bannon, Miller and Anton did not emerge from a Munich beer hall, but from Wall Street and the corporate elite. Trump is a real estate and casino billionaire, with close ties to the media bosses. Bannon was a Goldman Sachs executive and his media venture, Breitbart, has been underwritten by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. Anton served Rupert Murdoch, then CitiBank, then BlackRock, the world’s largest hedge fund.

There is a growing movement against the Trump administration and its attacks on democratic rights and the social interests of the “bottom” 90 percent of society. This movement requires a clear political strategy and program. It must be anchored in the working class and armed with an uncompromising anti-capitalist and socialist perspective. We urge the readers of the World Socialist Web Site to fight for this perspective.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/02/13/pers-f13.html

Trump names general as new national security adviser

This just in from Reuters.

Well, I guess this guy ain't as bad as if they'd reanimated Curtis Lemay, but he seems to be damned near as bad - shaved head an' all.

Learning Eye-Popping Details About Mr Sater

https://res.cloudinary.com/tpm/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_face,w_653,h_361,dpr_2.0/ogcvlii0kfn15bf7fpxa.jpg
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedFEBRUARY 19, 2017, 10:53 PM EDT
75071Views
As I noted in my previous post, I've been keenly interested in Donald Trump's association with Felix Sater going back to last Spring. I also knew he had been an FBI informant and leveraged that status to dramatically reduce his sentence in a major financial crime. I didn't realize until this evening that there were more details about this part of the story in the public domain than I'd realized. It's rather mind-blowing.

First, let's review a bit about Felix Sater. Sater was born in the Soviet Union in 1966 and emigrated to the US with his parents at the age of 8. He is an American citizen. He dropped out of college and began working as a stock broker. But in his late 20s he got into bar fight where he stabbed a fellow broker in the face with a shattered glass. He did time in prison for this attack. After he got out he got involved in a major securities fraud scheme (basically a 'pump and dump' operation) tied to the Genovese and Colombo crime families. He got caught. And that's where things get interesting.

After Sater got busted, somehow he managed to offer his services to the FBI and supposedly the CIA to work on their behalf purchasing stinger missiles and other weapons on the then wild and free-wheeling Russian black market. Whatever Sater was doing for the CIA in the black market arms smuggling world seems to have become much more important after 9/11 - thus Sater's high value to the US government.

I know that sounds all but incredible. The details of Sater's alleged work for the CIA are contained in this September 2012 article in The Miami Herald. A good bit of the story emerges from an account by Sater's accomplice, Salvatore Lauria. Lauria was Sater's accomplice in the pump and dump scheme and was also there the night he stabbed the guy in the face at the bar. And yes, we'll hear more from him in a moment. Because Lauria was also involved with Sater and Trump in the Trump SoHo building project.

The Miami Herald article I'm referring to is no longer online. I've linked to a copy of it on a Yahoo groups page. But I've read it in the Nexis news database; it's legit. There's more and overlapping detail on both the securities fraud case and the alleged work for the CIA in Central Asia in this December 2007 piece in The New York Times.

As I said, we don't know for certain whether the story of arms smuggling work for the CIA is true. Read the Miami Herald article and the Times article and make your own judgments. What we do know is that federal law enforcement went to amazing lengths to secure Sater's assistance and protect him. And in various of the articles I'm linking here there are clues in federal court transcripts which make it seem highly likely that Sater was doing something for the US government of that level of seriousness. The adjudication of the securities fraud case against Sater was handled entirely in secret and Sater's sentencing was delayed for more than a decade. When he was finally sentenced in 2009, he was fined $25,000 and received no jail time. He was also not required to make restitution despite losses totaling $40 million.

Let's review. Sater is a Russian emigrant who was jailed for assault in the mid-90s and then pulled together a major securities fraud scheme in which investors lost some $40 million. He clearly did something for the US government which the feds found highly valuable. It seems likely, though not certain, that it involved working with the CIA on something tied to the post-Soviet criminal underworld. Now Bayrock and Trump come into the mix.

According to Sater's Linkedin profile, Sater joined up with Bayrock in 1999 - in other words, shortly after he became involved with the FBI and CIA. (The Times article says he started up with Bayrock in 2003.) In a deposition, Trump said he first came into contact with Sater and Bayrock in the early 2000s. The Trump SoHo project was announced in 2006 and broke ground in November of that year. In other words, Sater's involvement with Bayrock started soon after he started working with the FBI and (allegedly) the CIA. Almost the entire period of his work with Trump took place during this period when he was working for the federal government as at least an informant and had his eventual sentencing hanging over his head.

What about Salvatore Lauria, Sater's accomplice in the securities swindle?

He went to work with Bayrock too and was also closely involved with managing and securing financing for the Trump SoHo project. The Times article I mentioned in my earlier post on Trump SoHo contains this ...
Mr. Lauria brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians “in favor with” President Vladimir V. Putin, according to a lawsuit against Bayrock by one of its former executives. The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a “strategic partner,” along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.
All sounds totally legit, doesn't it?

But there's more!, as they say.

Sater's stint as a "Senior Advisor" to Donald Trump at the Trump Organization began in January of January 2010 and lasted roughly a year. What significance that has in all of this I'm not sure. But here's the final morsel of information that's worth knowing for this installment of the story.

How exactly did all of Sater's secret work and the federal government's efforts to keep his crimes secret come to light?

During the time Sater was working for Bayrock and Trump he organized what was supposed to be Trump Tower Ft Lauderdale. The project was announced in 2004. People paid in lots of money but the whole thing went bust and Trump finally pulled out of the deal in 2009. Lots of people who'd bought units in the building lost everything. And they sued.

So far it's your typical Trump story of small investors screwed out of their money and winding up in court. But this time there was a key difference. Someone leaked documents to the plaintiffs detailing Sater's criminal record and his conviction for securities fraud. The investors argued, quite reasonably, that they never would have invested in Trump Tower Fort Lauderdale if they had known that the key executive organizing the project had been convicted of cheating investors out of $40 million. The federal government had prevented them from learning this information by keeping the securities fraud case secret. This sparked a highly complex and dramatic legal case in which the federal government used all the full force of its need to protect national security in defense of keeping Sater's crimes secret. For this part of the story, the plaintiffs efforts to loop the federal government into their suit against the organizers of the Florida building project, see this article from The Miami Herald.

What does this all mean? I wish I knew, frankly.

It seems highly likely that Sater has deep and longstanding ties to at least certain elements of US law enforcement and intelligence. It's clear he worked on their behalf in some capacity and seems quite likely, though not certain, that he aided the US in purchasing black market weapons in Russia and/or Central Asia as a way to skate on his fraud conviction. One could definitely argue that his work in that role - basically being a US operative, in some sense - runs counter to any theory that Sater is some agent of the Russian government or in any way a conduit for Russia capital or advancing Russian interests with Trump. But Sater clearly has many masters or rather works with a bewildering cast of characters in the interests of saving his own neck. So anything is possible. If nothing else, the CIA/arms smuggling story, if true, would suggest he was quite plugged in with the Russian and post-Soviet criminal underworld. So there are many possibilities.

All we can be certain of at the moment is that we should know much more about Sater, his ties to US law enforcement and intelligence, his role organizing and funding Trump's business enterprises, his relationship with Trump and what any and all of it has to do with his now being the conduit for 'peace plans' for Russia and Ukraine which end up in the White House courtesy of President Trump's personal lawyer.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/learning-eye-popping-details-about-mr-sater

A New York real estate developer employs unsavory character, who could imagine? And a Putin connection too, oooh!

The guy likes to hire people he knows and expects loyalty from as he's shown many times.(He's proly got enough dirt in Sater to keep him in line too)

Josh Marshall undoubtedly pines for some 'respectable' sociopath like Brzezinski to face down the dirty commies....(oh, wait)

The thing these half bright libs are seemingly unable to understand is what the hell is really going on in Ukraine. They swallow the State Dept line without question. And naturally the class aspect flies right over their heads, this is gonna be a deal which benefits the oligarchy close to Putin, and no one else. This is the sort of 'deal' which Trump perfectly understands, he's traded with the mafia before. Those newly recognized documents in Donbass gonna come in handy...

A New York real estate developer employs unsavory character, who could imagine? And a Putin connection too, oooh!

The guy likes to hire people he knows and expects loyalty from as he's shown many times.(He's proly got enough dirt in Sater to keep him in line too)

Josh Marshall undoubtedly pines for some 'respectable' sociopath like Brzezinski to face down the dirty commies....(oh, wait)

The thing these half bright libs are seemingly unable to understand is what the hell is really going on in Ukraine. They swallow the State Dept line without question. And naturally the class aspect flies right over their heads, this is gonna be a deal which benefits the oligarchy close to Putin, and no one else. This is the sort of 'deal' which Trump perfectly understands, he's traded with the mafia before. Those newly recognized documents in Donbass gonna come in handy...

Agreed. There is one small aspect of this that is intriguing. If this article is true, then the US government (to include Master Obama) knew of Trump's association with this Sater and Lauria duo and the liability this would put Trump under as President. I mean, the CIA/FBI can pull the rug from under Sater at any moment they choose - assets have a shelf-life, after all. There is a every reason to believe that Clinton as Secretary of State knew about these things. This "deep state" shit makes less and less sense by the day. If the CIA is really "at war" with Trump, then Sater would be a perfect bludgeon, wouldn't he? He is the "smoking gun" for Trump's "Russian connection", right? Fuck Jesus...