Bulletin N°495
Subject: FROM REIGN OF TERROR, TO RULE BY OLIGARCHY, TO COLLAPSE: A STORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. |
25 June 2011
Grenoble, France
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
I was recently telling my children about my old Uncle Omer, a wheat farmer from Kansas, and how he used to tell me: "If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately." These were his words of wisdom after spending a lifetime scratching out a living on the Kansas plains and fighting speculators who sought to "buy grain cheap and to sell it dear." Today, the United States is a country where 400 individuals possess more wealth than is owned by one-half of the country's entire population, i.e. more than 150 million Americans. How does this system hang together? Where might we look to see similar patterns, where similar concentrations of wealth and power occurred in history, and discover what dynamics are unleashed to unravel this system when it hits "critical mass."
Before the counter-revolution of the 1980s in Great Britain and the United States, much was written on theories and strategies that aimed at assuring a better future for all humankind. The redistribution of wealth was on the public agenda, so to speak, as the Vietnam War had taught most of us a lesson about the untenable growth of capitalism. Books like Paulo Freire's (1921-1997) Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Ivan Illich's (1926-2002) Tools for Conviviality were read in high schools and on university campuses across North America and in Europe. Such books served as practical guides, until social class war was declared against most of us by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan & Co., and the newly organized capitalist state plowed ideologies like liberation theology deep beneath the surface of the earth, where the sun does not shine, greatly impoverishing civil society everywhere.
The private manufacture of public apathy has been analyzed and much publicized by humanist scholars like Gregory Bateson (1904-1980), R.D. Laing (1927-1989), David Cooper (1931-1986), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Fritjof Capra (b.1939), to name only a few.... Essentially, apathy is produced by an intense interpersonal relationship that looks something like this: "I love you more than I love myself. I cannot live without you. You must do what you want to do, and this is why I love you. And if you do what you really want to do, it will kill me. You must do what you really want to do!" We can see the production of a paradox by the simultaneous use of such contradictory injunctions. In the dynamics of such human relationships a bond frequently becomes a bind and, under certain conditions, the bind becomes a double-bind, when finally the victim finds him/herself in a situation of constant oscillation, back and forth to where he is "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and damned anyway." This is the manufacture of schizophrenia, the apathetic zombies, neutralized by capitalist no-win relationships, who are increasingly considered "the surplus population," excluded from consumerism and seeking to survive in no other way than by remaining docile and obedient to the ambivalent forces around them. [For more on this technique of oppression and its antidote, please see Howard Zinn (1922-2010), "the wrong people are in jail, and the wrong people are out of jail...."
Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) --in addition to the many film documentaries on Stalin, an interesting propadanda piece on Stalinism, can be seen at the Internet link to the recent BBC production, Who Killed Stalin?-- was the efficient pathological protector of civilization in the Soviet Union and as such can perhaps teach us about a paradigm that is recognizable today in the science of modern management, i.e. neutralizing the opposition.
In the introduction to his anthology, Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation (1977), Princeton University professor Robert Tucker (1918-2010) explains the importance of coming to terms with the Stalinist phenomenon in history. "In scholarship, as in war, it is often useful to follow what has been called the strategy of the 'indirect approach'." (see B.H. Liddel Hart (1895-1970), Strategy,1954.)
Kolakowski writes, for example, of "mature Stalinism" :
Markovic, on the other hand, compares the core ideas of Stalinism with those of Marx :The upshot of this process --of which all phases were deliberately decided and organized, though not all were planned in advance-- was a fully state-owned society which came very close to the ideal of perfect unity, cemented by party and police. Its integration was identical with its disintegration; it was perfectly integrated in that all forms of collective life were entirely subordinated to, and imposed by, one ruling center; and it was perfectly disintegrated for the same reason: civil society was virtually destroyed, and the citizens, in all their relations with the state, faced the omnipotent apparatus as isolated and powerless individuals. The society was reduced to the position of a 'sack of potatoes' (to use Marx's phrase applied to French peasants in the Eighteenth Brumaire).
This situation --unified state organism facing atom-like individuals-- defined all the important features of the Stalinist system. They are all well-known and described in my books. We should briefly mention a few of them, the most relevant to our topic. 1) the abolition of law, "in the sense of rules which could in any point infringe upon the state's omnipotence when dealing with individuals"; 2) one-person autocracy, as the "logical outcome of the perfect-unity principle which was the driving force in the development of the totalitarian state"; 3) the system of universal spying, "as the principle of government, where people were both encouraged and compelled to spy upon each other..." As citizens, they were supposed to live in the perfect unity of goals, desires, and thought --all expressed through the mouth of the leader. As individuals, they were expected to hate each other and to live in never-ending mutual hostility. Only thus could isolation of individuals from one another achieve perfection, ... where all people were at the same time inmates of concentration camps and secret police agents."(pp.287-289)
Both [Marx and Stalin] say that in the process of socialist revolution the proletariat becomes the ruling class, the means of production are socialized, and produced goods are distributed according to work.
But Marx considers the seizure of political power only 'the first step in the revolution,' and he calls it . . . 'winning the battle of democracy.' The dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time a 'democracy.' The state is 'the proletariat organized as the ruling class.' He speaks about 'despotic inroads on the rights of property' in the beginning. But the purpose is to 'entirely revolutionize the mode of production.' In the new society just as it emerges from capitalist society, individuals are regarded only as workers and are remunerated only according to their work --which is still the narrow horizon of bourgeois right. '[Later] in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.' Then society will inscribe on its banners, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'
In Stalin everything is quite simple. There are no contradictions because there is no longer any interest in historical development. ...
Stalinism and Marxism differ essentially both in their critique of capitalist society and in their approach to socialism. However, Stalinism has some roots in Marxism, not only genetically but also in sofar as it offers a simple and invariably conservative, ahistorical interpretation of a number of puzzles present in Marx's theory.
Stalin's critique is very simple and superficial in comparison. It entirely lacks . . . the critique of domination of living labor by accumulated labor, and the critique of alienation (alienated labor, alienated politics). Consequently, it lacks precisely those most basic humanist elements of Marx's critique which are still relevant not only for capitalism but also for the Stalinist society of the transition period.
Stalin's critique deals only with those features of capitalism which are associated with private ownership of the means of production, over-emphasizing in such a way the discontinuity between capitalism and the system existing at the time in the Soviet Union. . . .
The less profound and radical the critique of capitalism is, obviously the less profound and radical the idea of socialist revolution. If capitalism is seen only as a particular social system and not also as an instance of a deeper structure of class domination due to the state's disposal of the total accumulated past labor and, furthermore, as merely an instance of universal human alienation and reification, then the whole idea of revolution will be very narrow and restrictive.
There are three important aspects in which Marxist and Stalinist conceptions of the socialist revolution are essentially different. These are (1) the objectives of revolution, (2) the conditions under which revolution is possible, (3) the nature of the negation of capitalism. (pp.302-306)
The 6 items below should provide CEIMSA readers with insights into various techniques used to subvert revolution from below in the wake of economic devastation, by bribing, blackmailing, coercing and bludgeoning social critics to achieve submission --all for the most temporary of advantages. This collective suicide in the guise of "class war" is led by investment bankers and followed the various echelons of ideologues and their army of zombies.
Item A. is a Real News Network release of Julian Assange reporting on the conditions of his own house arrest in England.
Item B. is an update on ecologist Tim DeChristopher, awaiting prison sentencing for civil disobedience in Utah, from The Real News Network.
Item C. is a broadcast from Democracy Now! on Code Pink and its "Audacity of Hope" heading toward Gaza.
Item D. is a report by The Real News Network on cultivating militarism in God's garden, a.k.a. the colony called Israel.
Item E. is a Democracy Now! special on The Historic 21st Century African Land Grab & the Role of US Universities.
Item F. is the new Internet site, A.N.S.W.E.R., featuring The Honorable US Representative Cynthia McKinney in Libya, sent to us Eileen Savdié.
And finally we offer CEIMSA readers an instructive and entertaining lesson on :
Sincerely,
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies
Director of Research
Université Stendhal Grenoble 3
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/
P.S. We highly recommend two additional sources for those interested in a critical understanding of the political economy of the United States and where it might lead in the next few years: Professor Bertell Ollman's work on methods of dialectical materialism, and Professor David Harvey's 13 lectures on Capital.
______________
A.
from The Real News Network :
Date: 16 June 2011
Subject: Julian Assange under house arrest in England.
http://therealnews.com/t2/
Tim DeChristopher: The "drill now, think later" mentality posing massive threat to our future
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6938
______________
C.
from Democracy Now! :
Date: 20 June 2011
Subject: Code Pink and its "Audacity of Hope" heading for Gaza.
http://www.democracynow.org/
Dozens of Americans hope to set sail this week on a U.S.-flagged ship, “The Audacity of Hope,” as part of an international flotilla which aims to challenge Israel’s embargo of the Gaza Strip. Palestinian solidarity activists are setting sail from a number of ports just over a year after Israeli forces killed nine activists on an aid boat called the Mavi Marmara, which was part of the first such international flotilla. Israel says it will again use force to stop the aid flotilla from reaching Gaza. We speak with passengers of the U.S. boat, New York labor attorney Richard Levy and peace activist Kathy Kelly. Levy says the flotilla’s challenge to Israel’s embargo is legal and that it is the blockade that is illegal. “It’s a violation of the Geneva Accords to occupy a country, as has been done here through the control of all its borders, and then block supplies, block people from moving in and out,” says Levy
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/20/the_audacity_of_hope_us_peace
______________
D.
from The Real News Network :
Date: 23 June 2011
Subject: God's garden of militarism.
http://therealnews.com/t2/
People and organizations from all over the country are joining together to support the Eyewitness Libya speaking tour featuring Cynthia McKinney that begins tomorrow night in Los Angeles. The speaking tour is sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition. Click here for details about the tour. Also speaking on the tour will be Akbar Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition. In New York City, we have secured the historic National Black Theater on 125th St. as the venue for the meeting that will take place on Saturday, June 25 at 2 p.m. The tour has now been extended to Syracuse, N.Y., for an event on Sunday, June 26. Please make an urgently needed donation today. By a margin of 2-to-1, people in the United States oppose the war in Libya, and there is growing Congressional opposition. The Obama White House offered an absurd rationale for its refusal to comply with the War Powers Act of 1973, asserting that the massive bombing of Libya by U.S., British and French war planes is somehow different from the "hostilities" associated with war. At the same time, the U.S. government and the other NATO members who are raining bombs and missiles on downtown Tripoli are refusing any effort by the Libyan government to negotiate a resolution of the civil war. They want to carry out regime change in Libya and a create client government in a country that possesses the largest oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world. Be a sponsor of this nationwide speaking tour featuring Cynthia McKinney. Funds are urgently needed. Please circulate this statement widely via email and social networking websites: |
Cynthia McKinney tells the truth about U.S./NATO war on Libya in ChicagoOn June 22, the Eyewitness Libya tour with Cynthia McKinney packed a lecture hall on the University of Illinois at Chicago campus. |
|
Saturday, July 9 at the White House: Stop the Bombing of Libya!The ANSWER Coalition has initiated the July 9 demonstration at the White House following the Cynthia McKinney national speaking tour titled “Eyewitness Libya.” |
|
Eyewitness Libya event featuring Cynthia McKinney draws hundreds in Los AngelesA vibrant, multinational crowd of over 200 people packed into the Los Angeles meeting of the “Eyewitness Libya” national speaking tour, featuring former congresswoman and presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney. |
|
VIDEO: Brian Becker on EU sanctions against SyriaIn an interview with Russia Today, Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, discusses the selective concern of western governments for the lives of protesters and democracy movements, and the real motives behind the potential third round of EU sanctions against Syria. |
|
Eyewitness Libya: Cynthia McKinney nationwide speaking tour beginsThe ANSWER Coalition is sponsoring a nationwide speaking tour featuring former Congressional representative and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, who will offer an eyewitness report from her fact-finding mission in Libya. |
|
Why the NATO powers are trying to assassinate Moammar GaddafiWikileaks-released State Department cables from November 2007 and afterwards show the real reason for the mounting U.S. hostility to the Libyan government prior to the current civil war. |
|
Soldiers speak out on Memorial Day: 'No more deaths from Wall Street’s wars!'March Forward! remembers the civilian and military casualties of the U.S. wars, and active-duty infantrymen speak out about the suicide of a fellow soldier. |
|
Five noes, many lies: Netanyahu’s speech to CongressDemocrats and Republicans alike responded with adulation to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech May 24. |
|
Reality Check: The Profound Hypocrisy of President Obama’s Speech on the Middle EastUsing the rhetoric of democracy and freedom to mask the responsibility of U.S. imperialism in the enduring oppression and suffering of the peoples of the Middle East, President Obama’s speech was a demonstration of profound hypocrisy. |
|
Labor Will Win: Time to Fight Back!Students and Teachers Fight Back and the ANSWER Coalition held a successful forum entitled “Labor Can Win: It’s Time to Fight Back!” In Chicago on May 7 at the United Electrical Workers Hall. |