Global Crises


9 October 2015

In a Perspective column published at the beginning of 2015, the WSWS commented on the frequency of crises convulsing the global capitalist system. “The ‘peaceful’ intervals between the eruption of major crises—geopolitical, economic and social—have become so short that they can hardly be described as intervals,” we wrote. “Crises, on the other hand, appear not as isolated ‘episodes,’ but as more or less permanent features of contemporary reality.”

As the world enters the final months of 2015, it can be said that not only the frequency, but also the intensity of crises is reaching a new inflection point. The necessity of resolving the crisis of revolutionary leadership is posed with ever-greater urgency.

The global economy remains mired in the contradictions that erupted to the surface seven years ago. The policy of the ruling class in response to the Wall Street crash has reached an impasse. The flooding of financial markets with money has inflated asset bubbles while failing to produce any significant economic growth. Yet any move to curb the easy money policy of the Federal Reserve and other central banks risks sparking a financial panic even more severe than that which erupted in 2008.

This week, the International Monetary Fund cut its global growth forecast to just 3.1 percent for 2015, the slowest growth rate since 2009. “Six years after the world economy emerged from its broadest and deepest postwar recession,” IMF Economic Counselor Maurice Obstfeld reported, “a return to robust and synchronized global expansion remains elusive.”

This is a considerable understatement. In the more advanced capitalist countries, economic growth is stagnant, with persistent widespread unemployment and flat or declining wages. The situation is even worse in the so-called “emerging markets.”

Lawrence Summers, US treasury secretary under President Clinton, pointed to the crisis facing the ruling class in a comment published in the Washington Post on Thursday. Under the headline, “A global economy in peril,” Summers wrote that the dangers “are more severe than at any time since the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008.” He continued: “The problem of secular stagnation—the inability of the industrial world to grow at satisfactory rates even with very loose monetary policies—is growing worse in the wake of problems in most big emerging markets, starting with China.”

The world economy is faced with the “specter of a global vicious cycle in which slow growth in industrial countries hurts emerging markets, thereby slowing Western growth further,” Summers declared, adding, “Industrialized economies that are barely running above stall speed can ill afford a negative global shock.”

The economic crisis at once intensifies and is compounded by mounting geopolitical crises and international conflicts, driven above all by the relentless pursuit of global hegemony by American imperialism. For a quarter century, the American ruling class has been engaged in endless wars of ever-expanding geographical scope. For the past fifteen years, the military interventions have been waged under the banner of the “war on terror,” the ideological framework used by the American financial aristocracy to reorganize the Middle East and Central Asia through bloodletting and violence.

One country after another has been targeted for regime change or subversion by the US and its allies: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. The carnage produced by these wars has led to a virtual collapse of state structures throughout the Middle East, producing a flood of desperate refugees to which the ruling classes of Europe have responded with violence and repression.

Here too, the crisis is reaching a tipping point. The local wars in the Middle East are leading increasingly to direct conflict between the major powers. This week, French President Francois Hollande declared that the conflict in Syria risked devolving into “a total war, a war that will also affect our territories,” i.e., Europe.

Over the past week, the Russian ruling class has sought to defend its interests in Syria by more openly backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which is targeted for overthrow by US-backed Islamist militias. The US and NATO powers have responded with extreme belligerence.

Speaking at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter declared that Russia’s moves “will have consequences for Russia itself, which is rightly fearful of attacks. In coming days, the Russians will begin to suffer casualties,” he warned ominously.

Even as it intensifies its threats against Russia, the US is ratcheting up its military maneuvers in Asia. According to media reports, the US is planning within the next two weeks to sail warships inside territorial waters claimed by China. These provocative actions follow the finalization of the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade and investment deal between the US, Japan and other Asian economies concluded with the specific aim of isolating China and countering its influence in the region.

The United States is not the only imperialist power asserting its interests on the global stage. Japan is remilitarizing and expanding its arms industry, currently with the encouragement of the Obama administration. Germany is once again asserting its claim to hegemony over the European continent, and has global ambitions. German imperialism, which came into conflict with the United States in the two world wars of the Twentieth Century, has its own interests in Syria, Iran, Russia and China.

To the economic and geopolitical crisis must be added the extreme crisis of bourgeois rule. The old political institutions, used by the ruling class for decades, are breaking apart or in disarray. In the United States, in the midst of an election campaign dominated by the spokesmen of various billionaires, the political system is increasingly dysfunctional.

One of the principal parties of the ruling class, the Republican Party, has been thrown into chaos following the withdrawal of Kevin McCarthy, the current House majority leader, from the contest to become the new House speaker. According to media reports, representatives who had gathered to select the speaker of the house—the second person in the line of presidential succession—were in “total shock,” with some audibly weeping as the gathering broke up.

All of these crises are surface manifestations of something more profound: the crisis of the world capitalist system itself. This crisis brings with it the danger of world war and a descent into barbarism. At the same time, it creates the objective basis for the overthrow of the capitalist system—the radicalization of the working class internationally.

Decades of war, intensifying economic crisis and growing social inequality have produced immense changes in the consciousness of billions of workers and young people internationally. These subterranean processes are beginning to break to the surface. There is everywhere a growing restlessness and desire to fight.

In a period of crisis, the class character of political tendencies emerges more clearly. In Greece, opposition to austerity swept the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) to power at the beginning of the year. The organization was proclaimed by all manner of pseudo-socialist and pseudo-left organizations to be the hope for the future, an alternative to the bank-dictated impoverishment of the Greek working class and youth.

Ten months later, Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras is leading the campaign to impose a new round of EU-backed austerity. “We have to tighten our belts,” he declared this week as he unveiled the government’s new budget, “to dare to implement the reforms this country needs.” Meanwhile, former Syriza Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, the self-described “erratic Marxist,” has announced his admiration for Margaret Thatcher.

Not only have the pseudo-left representatives of more privileged sections of the middle class been exposed in Greece as the accomplices of austerity, they have also served as champions of imperialist operations in the Middle East. In Syria, groups and publications such as the International Socialist Organization and International Viewpoint have provided the “human rights” justifications for the CIA drive to bring down the Assad regime by stoking a catastrophic sectarian civil war. Parroting the most rabidly militaristic factions of the US ruling class, they criticize the Obama administration for not moving quickly or aggressively enough to oust Assad.

A political realignment is beginning to take place, bringing with it a growing intersection between the perspective and program fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth International and the upsurge of working-class struggle. In the United States, the WSWS has played a central role in a growing movement of autoworkers, who are striving to cast off the dead weight of the trade unions and take an independent path. This is a significant indication of a radicalization and political reorientation of the working class in the United States.

The expanding crisis is a symptom of capitalism in an advanced state of disintegration.

Joseph Kishore

Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich


One day in March of 2014, a Google engineer named Justine Tunney created a strange and ultimately doomed petition at the White House website. The petition proposed a three-point national referendum, as follows:

1. Retire all government employees with full pensions.
2. Transfer administrative authority to the tech industry.
3. Appoint [Google executive chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America.

This could easily be written off as stunt, a flamboyant act of corporate kiss-assery, which, on one level, it probably was. But Tunney happened to be serious. “It’s time for the U.S. Regime to politely take its exit from history and do what’s best for America,” she wrote. “The tech industry can offer us good governance and prevent further American decline.”

Welcome to the latest political fashion among the California Confederacy: total corporate despotism. It is a potent and bitter ideological mash that could have only been concocted at tech culture’s funky smoothie bar—a little Steve Jobs here, a little Ayn Rand there, and some Ray Kurzweil for color.

Tunney was at one time a prominent and divisive fixture of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Lately, though, her views have . . . evolved. How does an anticapitalist “tranarchist” (transgender anarchist) become a hard-right seditionist?

“Read Mencius Moldbug,” Tunney told her Twitter followers last month, referring to an aggressively dogmatic blogger with a reverent following in certain tech circles.

Keanu Reeves cartoon

Keanu cartoon by Pete Simon

Tunney’s advice is easier said than done, for Moldbug is as prolific as he is incomprehensible. His devotees, many of whom are also bloggers, describe themselves as the “neoreactionary” vanguard of a “Dark Enlightenment.” They oppose popular suffrage, egalitarianism and pluralism. Some are atheists, while others affect obscure orthodox beliefs, but most are youngish white males embittered by “political correctness.” As best I can tell, their ideal society best resembles Blade Runner, but without all those Asian people cluttering up the streets. Neoreactionaries like to see themselves as the heroes of another sci-fi movie, in fact, sometimes boasting that they have been “redpilled,” like Keanu Reeves’s character in The Matrix—a movie Moldbug regards as “genius.”

“Moldbug.” The name sounds like it belongs to a troll who belches from the depths of an Internet rabbit hole. And so it does. Mencius Moldbug is the blogonym of Curtis Guy Yarvin, a San Francisco software developer and frustrated poet. (Here he is reading a poem at a 1997 open mic.)

According to Yarvin, the child of federal civil servants, he dropped out of a graduate computer science program at U. C. Berkeley in the early 1990s (he has self-consciously noted that he is the only man in his immediate family without a PhD) yet managed to make a small pile of money in the original dot-com bubble. Yarvin betrayed an endearingly strange sense of humor in his student days, posting odd stories and absurdist jokes on bulletin board services, contributing to Wired and writing cranky letters to alternative weekly newspapers.

Yet even as a student at Brown in 1991, Yarvin’s preoccupations with domineering strongmen were evident: “I wonder if the Soviet power ladder of vicious bureaucratic backbiting brings stronger men to the top than the American system of feel-good soundbites,” he wrote in one board discussion.

Yarvin’s public writing tapered off as his software career solidified. In 2007, he reemerged under an angry pseudonym, Moldbug, on a humble Blogspot blog called “Unqualified Reservations.” As might be expected of a “DIY ideology . . . designed by geeks for other geeks,” his political treatises are heavily informed by the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and George Lucas. What set Yarvin apart from the typical keyboard kook was his archaic, grandiose tone, which echoed the snippets Yarvin cherry-picked from obscure old reactionary tracts. Yarvin told one friendly interviewer that he spent $500 a month on books.

Elsewhere he confessed to having taken a grand total of five undergraduate humanities courses (history and creative writing). The lack of higher ed creds hasn’t hurt his confidence. On his blog, Yarvin holds forth oneverything from the intricacies of Korean history to contemporary Pakistani politics, from the proper conduct of a counterinsurgency operation to macroeconomic theory and fiscal policy, and he never gives an inch. “The neat thing about primary sources is that often, it takes only one to prove your point,” he writes.

In short, Moldbug reads like an overconfident autodidact’s imitation of a Lewis Lapham essay—if Lewis Lapham were a fascist teenage Dungeon Master.

Yarvin’s most toxic arguments come snugly wrapped in purple prose and coded language. (For instance,“The Cathedral” is Moldbuggian for the oppressive nexus of liberal newspapers, universities and the State Department, where his father worked after getting a PhD in philosophy from Brown.) By so doing, Moldbug has been able to an attract an audience that welcomes the usual teeth-gnashing white supremacists who haunt the web while also leaving room for a more socially acceptable assortment of “men’s rights” advocates, gun nuts, transhumanist libertarians, disillusioned Occupiers and well-credentialed Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

When Justine Tunney posted her petition online, the press treated it like comic relief that came from nowhere. In fact, it is straight Moldbug. Item one, “retire all government employees,” comes verbatim from a 2012 talk that Yarvin gave to an approving crowd of California techies (see video below). In his typical smarmy, meandering style, Yarvin concluded by calling for “a national CEO [or] what’s called a dictator.”

“If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia,” Yarvin said in his talk. He conceded that, given the current political divisions, it might be better to have two dictators, one for Red Staters and one for Blue Staters. The trick would be to “make sure they work together.” (Sure. Easy!)

“There’s really no other solution,” Yarvin concluded. The crowd applauded.

This plea for autocracy is the essence of Yarvin’s work. He has concluded that America’s problems come not from a deficit of democracy but from an excess of it—or, as Yarvin puts it, “chronic kinglessness.” Incredible as it sounds, absolute dictatorship may be the least objectionable tenet espoused by the Dark Enlightenment neoreactionaries.

Moldbug is the widely acknowledged lodestar of the movement, but he’s not the only leading figure. Another is Nick Land, a British former academic now living in Shanghai, where he writes admiringly of Chinese eugenics and the impending global reign of “autistic nerds, who alone are capable of participating effectively in the advanced technological processes that characterize the emerging economy.”

These imaginary übermensch have inspired a sprawling network of blogs, sub-Reddits and meetups aimed at spreading their views. Apart from their reverence for old-timey tyrants, they espouse a belief in “human biodiversity,” which is basically racism in a lab coat. This scientific-sounding euphemism invariably refers to supposed differences in intelligence across races. It is so spurious that the Wikipedia article on human biodiversity was deleted because, in the words of one editor, it is “purely an Internet theory.” Censored once again by The Cathedral, alas.

“I am not a white nationalist, but I do read white-nationalist blogs, and I’m not afraid to link to them . . . I am not exactly allergic to the stuff,” Yarvin writes. He also praises a blogger who advocated the deportation of Muslims and the closure of mosques as “probably the most imaginative and interesting right-wing writer on the planet.” Hectoring a Swarthmore history professor, Yarvin rhapsodizes on colonial rule in Southern Africa, and suggests that black people had it better under apartheid. “If you ask me to condemn [mass murderer] Anders Breivik, but adore Nelson Mandela, perhaps you have a mother you’d like to fuck,” Yarvinwrites.

His jargon may be novel, but whenever Mencius Moldbug descends to the realm of the concrete, he offersfamiliar tropes of white victimhood. Yarvin’s favorite author, the nineteenth-century writer Scot Thomas Carlyle, is perhaps best known for his infamous slavery apologia, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question.” “If there is one writer in English whose name can be uttered with Shakespeare’s, it is Carlyle,” Yarvin writes. Later in the same essay Yarvin calls slavery “a natural human relationship” akin to “that of patron and client.”

As I soldiered through the Moldbug canon, my reactions numbed. Here he is expressing sympathy for poor, persecuted Senator Joe McCarthy. Big surprise. Here he claims “America is a communist country.” Sure, whatever. Here he doubts that Barack Obama ever attended Columbia University. You don’t say? After a while, Yarvin’s blog feels like the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of a Gwar concert, one sick stunt after another, calculated to shock. To express revulsion and disapproval is to grant the attention he so transparently craves.

Yet the question inevitably arrives: Do we need to take this stuff seriously? The few mainstream assessments of the neoreactionaries have been divided on the question.

Sympathetic citations are spreading: In the Daily Caller, The American Conservative and National Review. Yet the conservative press remains generally dismissive. The American Spectator’s Matthew Walther calls neoreactionism “silly not scary” and declares that “all of these people need to relax: spend some time with P.G. Wodehouse, watch a football game, get drunk, whatever.”

TechCrunch, which first introduced me to Moldbug, treats the “Geeks for Monarchy” movement as an Internet curio. But The Telegraph says, yes, this is “sophisticated neo-fascism” and must be confronted.Vocativ, which calls it “creepy,” agrees that it should be taken seriously.

The science fiction author David Brin goes further in his comment on a Moldbug blog post, accusing the blogger of auditioning for the part of Machiavelli to some future-fascist dictator:

The world oligarchy is looking for boffins to help them re-establish their old – pyramidal – social order. And your screeds are clearly interview essays. “Pick me! Pick me! Look! I hate democracy too! And I will propagandize for people to accept your rule again, really I will! See the fancy rationalizations I can concoct????”

But your audition materials are just . .  too . . . jibbering . . . loopy. You will not get the job.

As strange as it sounds, Brin may be closest to the truth. Neoreactionaries are explicitly courting wealthy elites in the tech sector as the most receptive and influential audience. Why bother with mass appeal, when you’re rebuilding the ancien régime?

Moldbuggism, for now, remains mostly an Internet phenomenon. Which is not to say it is “merely” an Internet phenomenon. This is, after all, a technological age. Last November, Yarvin claimed that his blog had received 500,000 views. It is not quantity of his audience that matters so much as the nature of it, however. And the neoreactionaries do seem to be influencing the drift of Silicon Valley libertarianism, which is no small force today. This is why I have concluded, sadly, that Yarvin needs answering.

If the Koch brothers have proved anything, it’s that no matter how crazy your ideas are, if you put serious money behind those ideas, you can seize key positions of authority and power and eventually bring large numbers of people around to your way of thinking. Moreover, the radicalism may intensify with each generation. Yesterday’s Republicans and Independents are today’s Libertarians. Today’s Libertarians may be tomorrow’s neoreactionaries, whose views flatter the prejudices of the new Silicon Valley elite.

In a widely covered secessionist speech at a Silicon Valley “startup school” last year, there was more than a hint of Moldbug (see video below). The speech, by former Stanford professor and Andreessen Horowitz partner Balaji Srinivasan, never mentioned Moldbug or the Dark Enlightenment, but it was suffused with neoreactionary rhetoric and ideas. Srinivasan used the phrase “the paper belt” to describe his enemies, namely the government, the publishing industries, and universities. The formulation mirrored Moldbug’s “Cathedral.” Srinivasan’s central theme was the notion of “exit”—as in, exit from democratic society, and entry into any number of corporate mini-states whose arrival will leave the world looking like a patchwork map of feudal Europe.

Forget universal rights; this is the true “opt-in society.”

An excerpt:

We want to show what a society run by Silicon Valley would look like. That’s where “exit” comes in . . . . It basically means: build an opt-in society, ultimately outside the US, run by technology. And this is actually where the Valley is going. This is where we’re going over the next ten years . . . [Google co-founder] Larry Page, for example, wants to set aside a part of the world for unregulated experimentation. That’s carefully phrased. He’s not saying, “take away the laws in the U.S.” If you like your country, you can keep it. Same with Marc Andreessen: “The world is going to see an explosion of countries in the years ahead—doubled, tripled, quadrupled countries.”

Srinivasan ticked through the signposts of the neoreactionary fantasyland: Bitcoin as the future of finance, corporate city-states as the future of government, Detroit as a loaded symbol of government failure and 3D-printed firearms as an example of emerging technology that defies regulation.

The speech succeeded in promoting the anti-democratic authoritarianism at the core of neoreactionary thought, while glossing over the attendant bigotry. This has long been a goal of some in the movement. One such moderate—if the word can be used in this context—is Patri Friedman, grandson of the late libertarian demigod Milton Friedman. The younger Friedman expressed the need for “a more politically correct dark enlightenment” after a public falling out with Yarvin in 2009.

Friedman has lately been devoting his time (and leveraging his family name) to raise money for the SeaSteading Institute, which, as the name suggests, is a blue-sea libertarian dream to build floating fiefdoms free of outside regulation and law. Sound familiar?

The principal backer of the SeaSteading project, Peter Thiel, is also an investor in companies run by Balaji Srinivasan and Curtis Yarvin. Thiel is a co-founder of PayPal, an original investor in Facebook and hedge fund manager, as well as being the inspiration for a villainous investor on the satirical HBO series Silicon Valley. Thiel’s extreme libertarian advocacy is long and storied, beginning with his days founding the Collegiate Network-backed Stanford Review. Lately he’s been noticed writing big checks for Ted Cruz.

He’s invested in Yarvin’s current startup, Tlon. Thiel invested personally in Tlon co-founder John Burnham. In 2011, at age 18, Burnham accepted $100,000 from Thiel to skip college and go directly into business. Instead of mining asteroids as he originally intended, Burnham wound up working on obscure networking software with Yarvin, whose title at Tlon is, appropriately enough, “benevolent dictator for life.”

California libertarian software developers inhabit a small and shallow world. It should be no surprise then, that, although Thiel has never publicly endorsed Yarvin’s side project specifically, or the neoreactionary program in general, there is definitely a whiff of something Moldbuggy in Thiel’s own writing. For instance, Thiel echoed Moldbug in an infamous 2009 essay for the Cato Institute in which he explained that he had moved beyond libertarianism. “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” Thiel wrote.

Thiel’s eponymous foundation funds, among other things, an institute to advance the ideas of a conservative Stanford academic, René Girard, under whom Thiel studied as an undergraduate. In 2012 Thiel delivered a lecture at Stanford that explained his views regarding the divine rights of Silicon Valley CEOs. The lecture did address some of Girard’s ideas about historical “mimetics,” but it also contained a heavy dose of Moldbuggian thought. Thiel says:

A startup is basically structured as a monarchy. We don’t call it that, of course. That would seem weirdly outdated, and anything that’s not democracy makes people uncomfortable. We are biased toward the democratic-republican side of the spectrum. That’s what we’re used to from civics classes. But the truth is that startups and founders lean toward the dictatorial side because that structure works better for startups.

Might a dictatorial approach, in Thiel’s opinion, also work better for society at large? He doesn’t say so in his Stanford lecture (although he does cast tech CEOs as the heirs to mythical “god-kings” such as Romulus). But Thiel knows where to draw the line in mixed company. Ordinary people get so “uncomfortable” when powerful billionaires start talking about the obsolescence of participatory government and “the unthinking demos,” as he put it in his Cato essay. Stupid proles! They don’t deserve our brilliance! “The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom,” Thiel wrote.

It is clear that Thiel sees corporations as the governments of the future and capitalists such as himself as the kings, and it is also clear that this is a shockingly common view in Thiel’s cohort. In a 2011 New Yorkerprofile, George Packer wrote:

Thiel and his circle in Silicon Valley may be able to imagine a future that would never occur to other people precisely because they’ve refused to leave that stage of youthful wonder which life forces most human beings to outgrow . . . . He wants to live forever, have the option to escape to outer space or an oceanic city-state, and play chess against a robot that can discuss Tolkien, because these were the fantasies that filled his childhood imagination.

Packer is perhaps too generous to his subject. But he captures the fundamental problem with these mouthbreathers’ dreams of monarchy. They’ve never role-played the part of the peasant.

Corey Pein is a writer and reporter in Brighton, England. He offers free samples at

Noam Chomsky: America is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy

The linguist and political scientist weighs in on the forthcoming elections and our politicians’ radical move right

Noam Chomsky: America is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy
(Credit: AP/Hatem Moussa)
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

As the war of words between presidential candidates have only begun to blossom, I’ve already grown battle weary, anxious, and disheartened.

While critiquing the existing state of affairs in his essay “State of the Union” (The Nation, 1975), Gore Vidal shared the following observation: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.” Far from a mere witty turn of phrase, what Vidal alluded to was the not so inconspicuous trend of both camps gradually realigning themselves further “right” (conventional, constrained) on issues despite enthralling rhetoric that would suggest otherwise. Forty years later, his Cassandra dilemma regarding the abandonment of liberalism still rings true though its significance holds no sway over those deafened by partisan favoritism.

In my piece “Under the Microscope: Black Conservatives,” I clarify that, though I hold very progressive political views contra conservatism, I do not identify as a Democrat. Part of the reason is due to the fact that many Democrat officials—and thus the political platform they epitomize and endorse—simply don’t push for truly liberal-leaning policies that would catalyze radical change this nation so desperately needs.

The term liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, which means “pertaining to a free person.” Within the confines of political discourse, liberalism prescriptively refers to one open to new behavior and willing to discard traditional values, the antithesis of “Traditional Values™,” a revered cornerstone of conservative ideation. Why, then, does it appear Democrats have a tendency to disavow programs that would coincide with their adoptive moniker?

Seeking insight regarding this political malaise, I was able to pick the brain of Professor Noam Chomsky, renowned philosopher and linguist. The world’s leading political theorist had this to say about today’s incarnation of the Democrat and Republican parties:

“Both parties have shifted well to the right, the Republicans almost off the spectrum. Respected conservative commentator Norman Ornstein described them, plausible, as a ‘radical insurgency’ that has largely abandoned parliamentary politics. Democrats now are mostly what used to be called ‘moderate Republicans.’ There’s ample evidence that most of the population, at the lower end of the income spectrum, is effectively disenfranchised – their representatives pay no attention to their opinions. Moving up the income ladder, influence increases slowly, but it’s only at the very top that it has real impact. Plutocracy masquerading as formal democracy.”

The frameworks of this nation’s political system is an ostensible democracy as studies reveal, which is only a secret to the apathetic or those living under a rock. In an in-depth interview to be published later this week, Professor Justin Lewis—political analyst and media critic—echoes the sentiment of Chomsky regarding the erasure of left representation, which makes sense given their collaborative work titled The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News (see video here).

Much of Lewis’ research focuses on how there’s many issues wherein the U.S. public are to the left of both main parties but that such polling results are rarely referenced due to it conflicting with conventional political agenda. By contrast, what we tend to see is polling data that reinforces views aligned with mainstream party debates: That which is “Part of the Plan.”

Now, regarding my despondency.

None of the presidential hopefuls impress me, which is par for the course. That said, Bernie Sanders appears to be an apparition of hope for real social progress that would be absent within the neo-conservative seriously-not-liberal regime of Hilary Clinton and would degenerate midst the clutches of any Republican candidacy. There are significant drawbacks with Sanders (e.g., insinuations that he’d maintain “business as usual” regarding foreign policy is egregious), but in a race advertising 31 flavors of the horrible and grotesque, he’s a somewhat bitter-sweet relief for those desiring a faint taste of liberal representation.

Chomsky seems to agree. When asked about the more noteworthy contenders in the 2016 presidential race, he said:

“Sanders is a decent New Dealer, way to the left in the current U.S. political system. I don’t agree with some of his stands, but he’s a breath of fresh air. Clinton’s a centrist Democrat, Bush a right-wing Republican, sane by today’s weird standards. Trump is a very dangerous demagogue, though one can understand his appeal after decades of stagnation and loss of hope, even though the targets of the fears and angers are misplaced.”

The problem is the Wu Tang Clan were right: cash rules everything around me. The Big Two (re: Democrats, Republicans) receive a substantial chunk of financial support from corporate entities that demand politicians reciprocate with supporting policies that favor them. Those who don’t capitulate to these typically conservative forces aren’t likely to be viable contenders, which is one of the reasons why Bernie Sanders is seen as an underdog compared to corporate sycophant Hilary Clinton.

It’s still difficult for me to take Donald Trump’s run seriously. I get that his sideshow bravado swept up in mainstream media’s captivation is dangerous in a way. I also concede with many points made regarding Trump being the new face of white supremacy. The thing is, the appeal of this uncouth loudmouth isn’t proof that his explicitly racist, sexist, Islamophobic, and privilege-induced ramblings are in any way valid, but rather a collective sigh of discontent with common political sophistry. We live in a society that craves entertainment and those with whom we can identify with—Trump delivers on these attributes though lacking any real substance sheltered away behind that obtuse curtain guarded by blowhard antics. Also, keep in mind this white-oriented culture just endured eight years of having to call a Black man their leader…Trump’s present success—given what he represents—doesn’t surprise me.

Moreover, people want tangible change that amounts to more than just a catchy slogan. For the right, that means supporting candidates that thrive on victim blaming, yearn to hinder and divest in policies that aid women, LGBTQIA, immigrants, and people of color, and will greenlight stricter theocratic legislation. For the ostensible left, that means (thus far) placing odds on one of two choices: one with considerable clout but a distant stranger to liberal principles though she feigns otherwise, and one who, though far from flawless, actually bears resemblance to a liberal candidate.

Liberalism is important to me, and likely to anyone else of a similar mindset, because the way progress is effectively enacted across social institutions—the complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures—is by way of evolving and forward-thinking. These standards are prone to stimulate directives targeting the marginalized and support multiculturalism, which literally (seriously, literally) contradicts the motivations and interests of conservative ideology.

You’d think more would be on board for further development and more inclusionary lawmaking…but then I remember those who benefit from the status quo are more inclined to relish the current horse-and-buggy-pace of societal maturation, or even champion a devolution to “The Good Old Days” (read: Dixiecratic, “Jim Crow wasn’t so bad” resolve) where it’d be more widely acceptable to not consider classism, ableism, toxic masculinity, racism, transantagonism, etc. I understand being a decent person is “hard” for those who adore their privilege. These are the people who perceive their abject disconnect from those who are othered as a sign of the outsider’s weakness instead of realizing the frailty is their own.

And so I sit, battle weary, anxious, and disheartened. Liberalism isn’t dead, but when it comes to a political institution that prefers stagnancy, it sure is hard to come by.

Markets “celebrate” poor US jobs data


By Nick Beams
6 October 2015

Last Friday, the US Labor Department reported that jobs growth for September was only 142,000, some two-fifths below the trend of the past 12 months and well below expectations of an increase of 201,000. Coupled with the revising down of August jobs growth from 173,000 to 136,000, it was clear evidence that the deflationary and recessionary trends worldwide are impacting on the US economy.

Financial markets interpreted this news as meaning that the Fed would not now increase interest rates from their present level of near zero until March 2016 and possibly beyond. In September, the Fed had kept rates on hold but indicated that it favored an initial increase before the end of the year.

With that prospect receding rapidly, the stock market began to rise after the release of the jobs data. On Monday, having digested the news over the weekend, the stock market celebrated in anticipation that the supply of ultra-cheap money was going to continue, possibly for at least the next six months.

It was as if the players in a gambling casino had been told that they would get another supply of free chips from the house.

The bad news is good news syndrome saw the Dow rise more than 300 points, an increase of 1.8 percent, the S&P 500 rose by 1.8 percent and the NASDA Composite advanced by 1.6 percent. For the S&P it was the fifth straight day of gains and the longest stretch of increases since last December.

In an interview with the business channel CNBC, the former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the principal architect of the cheap money policy following the financial crisis of 2008, said the “mediocre job numbers for the last couple of months” was a “negative” for any move to lift interest rates. In other words, what has become known as the Bernanke put—the belief that that Fed will underpin financial markets—will continue.

His comments followed remarks by Boston Fed president Eric Rosenberg over the weekend, who said his confidence that interest rates could rise had been diminished. Rosenberg is not a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates, but his comments were significant because in the recent period he has moved into the camp of those who favor an interest rate increase this year.

However this was not a unanimous view. St Louis Fed president James Bullard, who is on record as favoring a move to normalizing the interest rate regime, repeated his view that now was the time to start that process. Fed vice chairman Stanley Fischer said there were obvious “bubbles” in the economy and the Fed could target them with higher interest rates at certain times.

But the prevailing view is that interest rates will not move this year. “In terms of demand, concern about Fed hikes in 2015 is evaporating, particularly following the disappointing jobs numbers,” said Andrew Hollenhorst, an interest rate strategist at Citigroup Global Markets.

Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Capital Markets, said: “The Fed is off the table for 2015, no matter what they say.”

It was significant that among the rises on the stock market were energy and mining companies. This was not because the prices of commodities have risen—the downward pressure is continuing. Rather, it was a reflection of the belief that many of these highly indebted companies would not be faced with an immediate funding squeeze which could occur in the event of an interest rate increase by the Fed.

Another expression of the perversity that prevails in financial markets came with the announcement yesterday that, for the first time in history, the US Treasury had sold a government security with a three-month maturity for a yield of zero. This implied that if investors held the security for its full term they would have given the government a short-term loan for free. In fact, those who purchased the security anticipate that with the cheap money spigot still open they will be able to sell at a higher price than they purchased it for and make a profit.

The latest jump in Wall Street again underscores the divorce between financial markets and the underlying real economy. The US jobs data were an expression of global trends, including a marked slowdown in the Chinese economy, lower growth in emerging markets, the mounting prospect of two consecutive quarters of negative growth in Japan—a technical recession—and continuing deflationary pressures.

As the Financial Times noted in an article published Monday: “Deflation, a prolonged decline in the price of products, is flowing like a draught of cold air from Asia’s powerhouse economies and casting a chill over Japan and Europe, while also endangering US efforts to sustain a recovery.”

The intensifying deflationary trend could see both the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank pump still more money into the financial system. However, the continued boosting of the financial markets by the world’s three major central banks is creating the conditions for a potential disaster.

Philip Moffitt, the head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, which oversees $1 trillion worldwide, told Bloomberg: “The next stage for both the Bank of Japan and the ECB [European Central Bank] is more easing; they’re going to keep putting more fuel on the fire, but at some point the fire’s big and there’s nothing left to burn. What do we do?”

The immediate response to such a situation, he continued, “would be a huge sell-off in risk assets.”

Following the wiping out of trillions of dollars from global equity markets in August and September, Monday’s rise on Wall Street is not a sign of a return to stability, but rather another gyration in the fever chart of the global financial system.

Washington’s war crime in Afghanistan


6 October 2015

The massacre of 22 people—12 doctors, nurses and other medical personnel, along with 10 patients, three of them children—in Saturday’s airstrike on the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical center in Kunduz, Afghanistan is an appalling war crime for which the US military and Obama administration are responsible.

On Monday, the top US commander in Afghanistan admitted that a US warplane carried out the deadly attack, while seeking to shift the blame onto Afghan puppet troops for calling it in.

“An air strike was then called to eliminate the Taliban and several civilians were accidentally struck,” Gen. John Campbell told a Pentagon press conference. This account is at odds with the Pentagon’s initial story that US special forces troops had come under fire and called in the airstrike.

The plane involved was an AC-130, nicknamed the “Angel of Death,” a huge, slow-flying aircraft equipped with multiple cannons, rockets and bombs that is capable of circling a target for long periods, delivering devastating firepower. The Pentagon has boasted about this flying fortress’s ability to strike targets with “pinpoint accuracy,” in this case a huge, well-marked hospital.

Survivors of the attack described horrific scenes, with patients burning in their beds and doctors and nurses covered in blood from multiple grievous wounds.

Afghan officials shamelessly defended the attack on the hospital. “When insurgents try to use civilians and public places to hide, it makes it very, very difficult…” Fawzia Koofi, an Afghan member of parliament from northern Badakhshan Province, told the Washington Post. “You have two choices: either continue operations to clean up, and that might involve attacks in public places, or you just let the Taliban control. In this case, the public understands we went with the first choice, along with our international allies.”

Similarly, the acting governor of Kunduz, Hamdullah Danishi, told the Post, “The hospital campus was 100 percent used by the Taliban. The hospital has a vast garden, and the Taliban were there. We tolerated their firing for some time” before responding.

These statements constitute an “admission of a war crime,” MSF General Director Christopher Stokes said Sunday. They “imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present,” he said.

MSF has categorically denied that any armed Taliban were present in the hospital and reported that it had repeatedly advised the US military as to the location of the hospital, which has operated in Kunduz for years.

The most plausible explanation is that the US military and its Afghan forces decided to attack the hospital because of its well-known practice of treating all in need of care, including wounded Taliban fighters. Such an atrocity is meant to send a message: anyone who aids an enemy of the US military forces occupying Afghanistan will die.

The attack is further evidence to be used in future war crimes trials. During its nearly seven years in office, the Obama administration has doubled down on the atrocities carried out by its predecessor.

Tomorrow marks the 14th anniversary of the October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. The Pentagon dubbed America’s conquest of the impoverished country straddling the strategic regions of Central and South Asia “Operation Enduring Freedom.” It would have been more accurate to call it “Operation Enduring Slaughter.” According to the extremely conservative estimate made by the United Nations, over 19,000 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since 2009 alone.

Conditions have only continued to worsen. Civilian casualties have hit a record high, increasing by a staggering 60 percent during the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2014. The UN acknowledged that the rise was “mostly due to increased civilian casualties caused by pro-Government [i.e., US-backed] forces during ground engagements.”

Meanwhile unemployment has peaked at 40 percent, while the poverty rate is roughly the same. Social inequality has risen dramatically, as Afghanistan’s US-backed kleptocracy pockets the lion’s share of foreign aid money. These increasingly intolerable conditions have forced many to flee, with Afghans making up 13 percent of the refugees attempting to reach Europe, second only in number to those escaping Syria.

Sold to the American people as revenge for the 9/11 attacks, the war grinds on 14 years later with the US military continuing the slaughter of innocent Afghans for the purpose of keeping a corrupt and impotent puppet regime in power.

Within two days of Washington launching the war, the WSWS rejected the official pretext, insisting that: “… while the events of September 11 have served as the catalyst for the assault on Afghanistan, the cause is far deeper…

“The US government initiated the war in pursuit of far-reaching international interests of the American ruling elite. What is the main purpose of the war? The collapse of the Soviet Union a decade ago created a political vacuum in Central Asia, which is home to the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world.”

The statement continued, “By attacking Afghanistan, setting up a client regime and moving vast military forces into the region, the US aims to establish a new political framework within which it will exert hegemonic control.”

14 years later, with Washington in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda in Syria, and amid a steady ratcheting up of tensions with Russia and China, this assessment has stood the test of time.

The war in Afghanistan has turned into a debacle, one of US imperialism’s own making. Washington’s earlier intervention in Afghanistan, directed at toppling the Soviet-backed government in Kabul beginning in 1979, saw billions of dollars in arms and aid funneled to Islamist guerrillas that included those who formed both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This effort ravaged Afghanistan, killing over one million and turning five million more into refugees.

The response to the fall of Kunduz to the Taliban will inevitably be another escalation of the US intervention and even more war crimes like that against the MSF hospital.

While those immediately responsible for the killing of medical personnel and patients must be held accountable for last weekend’s crime, the far greater criminals are those in the Bush and Obama administrations who launched and continued this predatory war based upon lies.

These political criminals can be brought to justice only through the mobilization of the working class against imperialist war and the capitalist system that is its source.

Bill Van Auken

Time Out of Mind: Richard Gere as a homeless man in New York City

By Robert Fowler
5 October 2015

Director Oren Moverman’s Time Out of Mind, with Richard Gere, is a sincere yet flawed film that attempts to portray the struggles of a homeless character named George Hammond.

Time Out of Mind

Moverman’s previous efforts include directing the Iraq war drama The Messenger (his debut as a director) and writing or co-writing I’m Not There (the Todd Haynes film about Bob Dylan) and the Brian Wilson biopic Love and Mercy .

In the opening scene of Time Out of Mind we discover a disheveled George Hammond (Gere) sleeping in a bathtub in an abandoned apartment. He is roused by an officious building manager ably played by Steve Buscemi. The building manager insists on removing George as quickly and efficiently as possible, and despite protestations from our protagonist he succeeds in doing so.

After being forced out of the building, George wanders aimlessly throughout the city. He is accompanied by the sights and particularly the sounds of New York, which serve as the film’s soundtrack. Moverman and cinematographer Bobby Bukowski chose to shoot Time Out of Mind in what might be considered a neo-realist style, with hand-held and hidden cameras. We hear off-screen conversations from passersby and there are several long-distance shots of George.

One would assume that this is an attempt to depict the isolation that George and so many homeless individuals must feel, but, unfortunately, in this case it comes across as contrived, and in the end creates an unnecessary distance between George and the viewer. One feels Moverman missed an opportunity or perhaps was reluctant to delve more profoundly into the depths of George’s plight.

As the very loose narrative unfolds, we learn that George has lost his job, that his ex-wife is dying from cancer and that he is estranged from his daughter, Maggie (Jena Malone). Along the way he befriends a gregarious African American man by the name of Dixon (Ben Vereen) in a homeless shelter. They soon become an “odd couple” in a rather clichéd fashion. That being said, Dixon, played competently by Vereen, comes across as the more true to life of the two homeless men. He is a former jazz musician who, despite his predicament, is consistent in his liveliness and ability to find humor and hope.

Some of the more authentic moments in the film come in the form of George’s difficulties with government bureaucracies and homeless shelter officials who insist on seeing some sort of identification. One empathizes strongly with George’s frustrations in these circumstances as he desperately tries to remember his social security number, home address, date of birth and other pieces of information, under constant passive-aggressive interrogation from detached bureaucratic mouthpieces. Moverman attempts to balance this with a scene involving a friendlier homeless shelter attendant who pointedly tells George: “I was once in the position you are now.”

George attempts to reconnect with his daughter Maggie on a couple of occasions. First at a laundromat, then in the bar where she works. Again, these moments, although well-intentioned, seem contrived and quite “Hollywoodish” in both their writing and acting. Predictably, Maggie is aloof and embarrassed at what her father has become. However, toward the film’s conclusion, she does have second thoughts about her coldness.

The inevitably repetitive nature of life on the streets is a strong focus of the film. This approach has mixed results. George pleading for change, for example, although quite realistic, failed in many respects as these moments seemed to lack an urgency and desperation. The little money George receives from the streets is spent on alcohol and clothes. There are vague allusions to George having a drinking problem, but for Moverman to harp on this aspect of his personality seems a bit lazy.

Time Out of Mind

Gere’s performance is earnest, but terribly self-conscious. He overdoes the naturalistic grunts and sighs, trying too hard throughout. Perhaps all this “special effort” is unsurprising as Gere had championed the script for many years seeking a suitable director.

Gere found his man in Moverman, who explains in an interview with Indiewire, “The project came with Richard. He approached me, he told me about a script that he had, an old script, and a character that he’s been obsessed with. That’s where the conversation started. In a way the movie came pre-cast. Otherwise, I would never, ever cast Richard Gere.”

According to, the actor was affected by reading Land of the Lost Souls: My Life on the Streets, “a memoir by a homeless person called Cadillac Man. ‘I loved the book because it was artless,’ Gere says. ‘He didn’t know how to write, and, so, the writing, of course, was wonderful.’ Gere met with Cadillac Man—a meeting that gave the actor the confidence to go ahead with Time Out of Mind. For three weeks, dressed in secondhand clothes, he roamed the streets. He’d scour Dumpsters for food, he’d stand at curbs, he disappeared in the thrum and hustle.”

There’s no reason to doubt Gere’s genuineness or his social concern. Another major film performer, Paul Bettany, has directed a film called Shelter, which opens in a limited run in the US November 13, about a homeless couple in New York (with Jennifer Connelly, Bettany’s wife, and Anthony Mackie)

Moverman further explained, “I didn’t make this film as some homeless advocate who is in the trenches for years, or as anyone with any kind of righteousness or superiority on this issue. I’m just like anybody else, I ignore people as much as anybody else. I think we all live complicated lives and we have lots going on. We have a lot of narratives happening in our hands and strands of communication. Reality is really something that we have to block out sometimes, or we can’t help but block out. I think that the movie opened our eyes, for sure, to noticing people more and to maybe being more conscious about it, which is the only thing you can hope for. It’s not a movie with a solution.”

Nobody is expecting Moverman to offer a “solution” to the crisis of homelessness in a two-hour film but surely an artist can at least offer a strong and clear point of view. Instead, Moverman opts for a false objectivity, convinced, no doubt, that he is showing “life as it really is.” In fact, this passivity is bound up with a certain superficiality, an unwillingness to go terribly deep into the social problem or the character’s psyche.

In terms of the housing crisis, as the WSWS has noted in numerous articles, the spiraling cost of living in New York City has forced thousands of people onto the streets. The official total of those living in shelters is over 60,000.

During Michael Bloomberg’s tenure (2002-2013) as mayor of New York, the homeless population is estimated to have increased somewhere between 60 and 70 percent. After his successor Bill de Blasio’s first year in City Hall, the total number of people sleeping in homeless shelters was 58,469. The number of people currently sleeping on the street on any given night is in the range of 4,000.

The great difficulty in finding affordable housing is obviously a major factor. A recent report on the real estate web site StreetEasy pointed out that it is impossible for a worker in New York making the city’s minimum wage, $8.75 per hour, to find an apartment. Meanwhile, the average sale price of a Manhattan apartment is $1.87 million. According to an article in Forbesmagazine, there are currently 78 billionaires residing in New York City.

At one point in Time Out of Mind, George cries “We don’t exist! We don’t exist!” This is a rare and powerful moment in the film that rings true for thousands and thousands of New York residents. Such have been the devastating consequences of the profit system.

Twenty-five years ago: the reunification of Germany

german anniversary reunification.preview

5 October 2015

On October 3, 1990 the German Democratic Republic (East Germany, known as the GDR), a state with 17 million inhabitants, was disbanded 41 years after its founding and incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany.

In both East and West Germany, only a few of those affected were aware of the consequences of this step. There was no public debate and no referendum. Instead, there was a propaganda campaign by every political party and the media, which proclaimed that the liquidation of the GDR, the privatization of nationalized property and the introduction of capitalism were synonymous with freedom, democracy, prosperity and peace. Chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU) spoke at mass rallies in the GDR and promised to transform the region into “flourishing landscapes where it pays to live and work.”

The GDR state party, the Stalinist Socialist Unity Party (SED), supported this campaign as well. “In my opinion, the path to unity was unavoidable and had to be followed with determination,” wrote the last SED prime minister, Hans Modrow, in his memoirs.

Gregor Gysi, who took over the chairmanship of the SED in late 1989 and is still playing a leading role in the Left Party, said this week in an interview that he had undertaken the task of leading “the eastern elites—including middle ranking functionaries—into the united Germany.”

Gysi has aptly summed up the role of the SED. Far from representing the interests of working people, the party spoke for the “Eastern elites,” the parasitic Stalinist bureaucracy, which regarded nationalized property primarily as the source of its own privileges. Facing mass protests, the bureaucracy concluded that its privileges could be defended better on the basis of capitalist property and under the protection of the West German state than by maintaining the GDR.

For the working class, the consequences of capitalist restoration were disastrous. Already prior to October 3, western corporations and banks swooped like vultures upon the GDR’s nationalized property. East German industry, which played a leading role in Eastern Europe, guaranteeing full employment and social security, was razed to the ground in a brief period of time.

The Treuhand agency, established by the Modrow government to privatize the state property of the GDR, oversaw the dismantling of no less than 14,000 state owned enterprises. Some were sold, while most were mothballed. Within the space of three years, 71 percent of all employees lost their jobs. The well-developed education and social system, and the dense network of cultural institutions, were broken up as well.

The eastern part of Germany has never recovered from this devastation. Unemployment in the east, at 9.8 percent, is well above the 5.8 percent in the west. The total population in the east has declined by two million due to emigration and a declining birth rate. Many young jobseekers have quit the east, and the region now has a disproportionately elderly population.

The social devastation was not confined to the former GDR. German big business used the low wages in Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe as a lever to drive down wages in the west. Ten years after German unification, the Social Democratic-Green Party coalition headed by Gerhard Schröder introduced the Hartz laws, which created the basis for an extensive low-wage sector, currently embracing more than a quarter of all employees.

Even more devastating than the social consequences are the political results of German unification. Following the crimes committed by the Hitler regime and its defeat in the Second World War, Germany was forced to adopt a policy of military restraint. However, the unification of Germany has changed all that. The German ruling class confronts the same dilemma as it did in the early 20th century. Too big for Europe and too small for the world, Germany is seeking to dominate Europe in order to assume the role of a world player.

German imperialism is once again spouting its former arrogance and aggressiveness. It has raised its claims to be the hegemon and disciplinarian of Europe, dictated austerity programs to Greece and other countries, recalling the brutality of the Nazi occupation, and is rapidly upgrading its military capacities.

Two years ago, President Joachim Gauck used the Day of German Unity to issue a call for Germany to play a role in foreign and military affairs, “commensurate with the importance of our country.” His demand was rapidly taken up by the government and the media. Berlin played a leading role in the coup in Ukraine, which helped bring a pro-Western regime to power, and in the military buildup of NATO at the Russian border.

Now Germany is also preparing an intervention in Syria, where two nuclear powers, the US and Russia, are in direct military confrontation. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung insists that “Germany has fundamental interests in the Syrian conflict.” Germany cannot count on Putin or rely on its American and French allies, the paper wrote this week. “Therefore Germany itself has to become more involved.” A nuclear world war, which was always on the horizon during the Cold War but never took place, is now again a real danger.

The return of militarism has in turn stripped away the democratic facade of the Federal Republic. Even conservative jurists are forced to admit this. “A quarter of a century after reunification this constitutionally bound country faces an existential crisis, the rule of law is eroding, democracy is weakening, the system of separation of powers has further shifted in favour of the executive branch,” wrote Peter M. Huber, a judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, in a commentary for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

To counter the support and solidarity of broad layers towards war refugees from the Middle East, the ruling elites are once again erecting border fences and walls in Europe, strengthening xenophobic, right-wing tendencies. The Bavarian CSU, a member of the federal government, has gone so far as to line up with the far-right Hungarian Premier Viktor Orban.

For three days the ruling elites are celebrating German unification in Frankfurt and Berlin, with pious speeches and triumphalism. For working people, the anniversary should be an occasion to draw their own balance sheet.

Many now look back at the unification with bitterness. According to one survey, “an anti-capitalist attitude” prevails in eastern Germany today. Eight out of ten East Germans associate the market economy with exploitation, and 50 percent associate the former planned economy with security. In the west, the response would not be fundamentally different.

What is missing from popular consciousness, however, is an understanding of the causes of the end of the GDR and an alternative political perspective. In particular, the role of Stalinism is not broadly understood. Stalin emerged in the 1920s in the Soviet Union as the representative of a conservative bureaucracy, which removed and then murdered the leaders of the October Revolution. This culminated in the assassination 75 years ago of Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the Russian Revolution and founder of the Fourth International.

After the Second World War, the Stalinist bureaucracy extended its control, along with the property relations created by the October Revolution, to Eastern Europe and Germany, while simultaneously suppressing the revolutionary aspirations of the working class in France, Italy and many other countries. In the GDR, Hungary and Poland, the ruling bureaucracy violently suppressed workers’ uprisings. It contributed significantly to the stabilization of capitalism after the catastrophe of the Second World War.

The nationalist program of Stalinism, expressing the interests of the counter-revolutionary state apparatus, was diametrically opposed to the internationalist program of socialism advanced by the Fourth International. The globalization of production rendered the Stalinist program of “socialism in one country” increasingly untenable. The bureaucracy, led by the CPSU under Gorbachev responded, as Trotsky had predicted as long ago as 1936, with the restoration of capitalism.

In a statement on German reunification, the Socialist Workers League (BSA), the predecessor of the Socialist Equality Party, warned in October 1990: “The international balance of forces, within which the imperialists have regulated their rule with the assistance of the Stalinists and social democrats and defended their global interests, has broken apart. The old conflicts between the imperialist powers for the re-division of the world, which have thrown humanity into the horror of world war twice this century, are re-emerging.”

Peter Schwarz