Re: America's New Sanctions Strategy

Vladimiro Giacche'


Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 25 dic 2022, alle ore 19:06, aaron s. amaral <amaral1871@...> ha scritto:

I've pasted below the FA piece

Re: Biden and Zelensky Present a United Front Against Russia - The New York Times

abraham Weizfeld PhD

This is about Donetsk and Lugansk, is it not?


From: <> On Behalf Of Dayne Goodwin
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 2:42 AM
To: marxmail <>
Subject: Re: [marxmail] Biden and Zelensky Present a United Front Against Russia - The New York Times


V. I. Lenin
The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination
THESES Written January-February 1916
  .  .  .
2. The Socialist Revolution and the Struggle for Democracy
The socialist revolution is not one single act, not one single battle on a single front; but a whole epoch of intensified class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e., battles around all the problems of economics and politics, which can culminate only in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure, or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages
a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy.
  .  .  .
"The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain circumstances, be utilized by another “Great” Power in its equally imperialist interests should have no more weight in inducing Social Democracy to renounce its recognition of the right of nations to self-determination than the numerous case of the bourgeoisie utilizing republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial robbery, for example, in the Latin countries, have had in inducing them to renounce republicanism."
  .  .  .
... Russian Socialists who fail to demand freedom of secession for Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, etc., etc.—are behaving like chauvinists, like lackeys of the blood-and-mud-stained imperialist monarchies and the imperialist bourgeoisie.

  .  .  .



On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:09 AM Walter Lippmann <walterlx1944@...> wrote: 


The American flag in his right hand, Mr. Zelensky jabbed his left fist into the air triumphantly.

“We stand we fight and we will win because we are united — Ukraine, America and the entire free world,” he said. 


Re: Thomas Friedman and the Myth of Democratic Israel

Avram Rips

Now Avraham Burg a  former leader in the Labor party advocating for a one democratic state party and taking the first steps to try that.  

On Sunday, December 25, 2022, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@...> wrote:
It should be apparent that the "idealized Israel" has been dead for a very long time, and in fact, never actually existed in the first place. For a long time, progressive delusions about Israel and the Zionist project were sown by the dominance of the Labor Zionists within Israeli politics. Many of the Labor Zionists were avowedly socialist. For the first thirty years of Israel's existence, the Labor Zionists governed Israel. That remained the case until 1977, when the Likud Party, under Menachem Begin won a general election on behalf of the Revisionist Zionists for the first time. Since that time, the Revisionist Zionists have become increasingly dominant in Israeli politics, to the point that nowadays, the Labor Party is basically on life support. 

Likewise, in the US, liberal Zionism is increasingly becoming a dead letter, as Peter Beinart, who was a leading liberal Zionist, has come to acknowledge. Back in the early 2000's, Tony Judt, who was a prominent liberal intellectual, caused a ruckus when he wrote an article  in the New York Review of Book, in which he declared the two-state solution to the Palestinian question dead and called for a single-state solution in which Israel would be transformed into a democraticbi-national state.

Re: Thomas Friedman and the Myth of Democratic Israel

Jim Farmelant

It should be apparent that the "idealized Israel" has been dead for a very long time, and in fact, never actually existed in the first place. For a long time, progressive delusions about Israel and the Zionist project were sown by the dominance of the Labor Zionists within Israeli politics. Many of the Labor Zionists were avowedly socialist. For the first thirty years of Israel's existence, the Labor Zionists governed Israel. That remained the case until 1977, when the Likud Party, under Menachem Begin won a general election on behalf of the Revisionist Zionists for the first time. Since that time, the Revisionist Zionists have become increasingly dominant in Israeli politics, to the point that nowadays, the Labor Party is basically on life support. 

Likewise, in the US, liberal Zionism is increasingly becoming a dead letter, as Peter Beinart, who was a leading liberal Zionist, has come to acknowledge. Back in the early 2000's, Tony Judt, who was a prominent liberal intellectual, caused a ruckus when he wrote an article  in the New York Review of Book, in which he declared the two-state solution to the Palestinian question dead and called for a single-state solution in which Israel would be transformed into a democraticbi-national state.

One of the best pieces of journalism I've read in a long time

John Reimann

One of the best pieces of journalism I've read in a long time. It is also a condemnation of both the union leadership, the nonprofiteers and the left in general.

By Stephanie McCrummen
December 22, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EST

BEULAH, Ga. — As he pulled into the parking lot of Beulahland Baptist Church on Election Day last month, nearly everything about Cody Johnson suggested he would vote a certain way.

He was White. He was 33. He was an electrician with no college degree. He had a beard and a used pickup with 151,000 miles, and he was angry at what the country was becoming. Most of all, he was from northwest Georgia, a swath of rural America where people who looked like him had voted in large majorities to send Donald Trump to the White House and Marjorie Taylor Greene to Congress, many of them swept up in the emotional appeal at the heart of the Trump movement, which Greene now deployed in her own rallies.

“They hate you,” she would say, casting politicians as elitists, conspirators, communists, pedophiles and enemies of America — by which she always meant a certain kind of America, one that created the kind of person Johnson was expected to be.

Now he took a last inhale on his vape, walked into the polling place and voted against all of that. He voted against Greene, whom he called “an embarrassment.” He voted against the Trump-backed U.S. Senate candidate, Herschel Walker, because he didn’t want “some stupid s--- to happen.” He voted against every single Republican on the ballot for the same reason he supported Joe Biden in 2020, which had been the first time he voted in his life.

“I don’t want extremists in office,” he said, walking back to his truck. “And I have some small glimmer of hope that maybe things aren’t as screwed up as I think they are.”

All across the country, a similar uprising was underway as an unexpected tide of people showed up for midterm elections, turning what was supposed to be a rout for the Republican Party into a repudiation of Trumpism. In Arizona, voters rejected candidates who embraced white nationalist ideas and conspiracy theories about election fraud. In Pennsylvania, they rejected a candidate who said America is a Christian nation. Similar results had rolled in from New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia and other states including Georgia, where Walker would lose in a runoff earlier this month. Even in the deep-red 14th Congressional District, Greene saw her winning margin from 2020 slip by 10 percentage points, and one reason was Cody Johnson.

Johnson, who has spent most of his 33 years in northwest Georgia, drives his truck this month near his home. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

A handmade sign last May along a rural road near Dalton, Ga., which is in the heavily GOP 14th Congressional District that has twice elected Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene to the U.S. House. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

Locals gather for a late breakfast this month at a diner in Adairsville, Ga. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
How Johnson became an unlikely part of an emerging voter revolt against Trumpism is not so much the story of some political strategy, or even the policies of the national Democratic Party, which has long been accused of ignoring places such as northwest Georgia.

Rather, it is the story of a thousand life experiences that add up to a certain kind of American character, one that can arise from the very landscape where the Trump movement took root.

For Johnson, the process was one of slow accumulation, and to explain this, he took a drive one day, tracing a childhood across the 14th District, an area that stretches from the Appalachian foothills to the outermost edges of Atlanta’s sprawl, encompassing farms and factories and one small town after another including the one where Johnson’s first memories were formed.

He drove past the prim shops of downtown Jasper, past the gas station where his mother had worked, and the marble quarry where his father had worked for 20 years. He stopped in front of a weedy lot where his house used to be. He remembered two things.

One was his parents’ fighting, which left him with an urge for escape. The other had to do with his father, who, Johnson remembered, had him carry heavy marble blocks from one corner of the yard to another, back and forth for hours.

“I was always in trouble,” Johnson said, explaining that this was such a constant state of being that it became the bedrock of an identity. “I was the troublemaker. I guess I just always remember kind of not going with the group, no matter what.”

Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
More from the midterms

He continued driving down a narrow, pine-shaded road until he stopped at a cluster of low brick buildings that was a housing project where he lived after his parents divorced, and where his neighbors were White and Black and poor. He remembered two more things.

The first was the image of his mother putting away groceries in the kitchen as he tried out a racial slur he’d picked up on the playground. He remembered the box of macaroni and cheese she had in her hand at that moment, and the feeling of the box slapping his face, and the sound of her yelling, “You’re not better than anybody,” and the shame he felt as he cleaned the noodles off the floor, thinking of his best friend, who was Black, and his friend’s father, who was always helping his mother out.

The second was his elementary school principal, a woman Johnson’s wife, Aliya, now refers to as “one of those blessed souls,” who noticed that he got in trouble all the time, and instead of punishing him, gave him the first book he ever read, “The Hobbit.”

“I remember there were all these themes about fighting the Dark Lord,” Johnson said, recalling how engrossed he became in stories of characters and their moral dilemmas, which had the effect of making him think about his own.

He was driving north now through brown and yellow fields, past two gun shops, four churches and a sunken barn with a cluster of flags — the American, the Confederate, the Trump — and soon he reached the outskirts of a town called Fairmount.

He turned onto a switchback, winding higher and higher along the mountain road until it narrowed and became dirt. He stopped in front of a long, overgrown driveway leading farther up the mountainside to a shack barely visible through the trees.

He remembered having to haul plastic jugs of water to the house, which had no running water. He remembered watching rocket launches on an old television with a rabbit ear antenna. He remembered wanting to be outside all the time, away from his father, reading about someplace else.

“See that tree right there?” he said, pointing into the woods at an oddly formed, L-shaped trunk where he’d sit for hours reading his fantasy books, and looking out over the blue mountain ridges.

“Everything on the outside seemed bigger and more complex than I could imagine,” he said, and soon he was winding down the other side of the mountain, accelerating onto a two-lane headed south, leaving behind a kind of place and a kind of life he might have had.

People stake out spots in downtown Fairmount, Ga., this month as they await the town’s Christmas parade. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
It was the sort of town that dots the northern part of the 14th District toward the Tennessee line, a barely surviving place where Trump ran up 80 percent of the vote in 2020.

Fairmount had streets named for deceased factory owners, a shuttered college and the town’s last practicing doctor. There used to be carpet mills, but now there was a plant that makes powdered chlorine, and another that made bricks. An IGA grocery anchored one end of town, an American Legion post the other, and in between were three gas stations, one diner, and an intersection where locals reliably shot out the one traffic light the county kept trying to install.

“People here do not like change,” said Connie Underwood, the clerk at the Citgo, explaining life in Fairmount one day. “Like if I moved the beef jerky, they’d get mad.”

She looked out the window at the 18-wheelers growling by. Another thing about Fairmount, she said. People never escaped their nicknames. She herself would forever be known as Tractor for an incident in a farm field a decade ago. Quaalude, Zipperhead, DoNo, Whitey, Big’un, Outlaw — all were grown men still answering for their youth.

“Whatcha need?” she said now to a regular, though she could anticipate the answer.

A pack of 24/7s, a Red Bull and a Fantasy 5. A pack of Pyramids, a Yoo-hoo and a Mega Millions. “Listen,” said a woman rushing in, breathless. “I want you to call him and see if I can get some gas,” she said as the clerk texted the owner about a credit. “Please. Tell him please.”

At the diner across the street, two men were talking about a huge cattle farm on the market, which led to a discussion of their changing world, which led one of them to say, “Sometimes I think they want this whole town to die.”

At another table, a 17-year-old was scrolling on his phone, saying, “I want to go to L.A. All the famous and all the important people live out there.”

At another, a man was saying to his friend, “Did you get to hurtin’ or what?”

“Yeah, I got to lay on that thing,” said the friend, referring to an MRI machine.

“I had to go for my liver. I get paranoid. Lady said, ‘You’re going to be okay.’ I said, ‘I am not.’ I said, ‘Back this thing out.’ They backed me out of there.”

At the Marathon gas station, a clerk named Sheila Balde was trying to think of the biggest thing to ever happen in Fairmount, something involving the whole town.

“Probably the Lomax murder was one,” she said, referring to an incident in 1978, in which an intruder one morning asked to use the phone of a couple named John and Ethel Lomax, then shot and killed the husband, and shot and injured his wife. “Will never forget it, either. Everybody was terrified. I was terrified.”

She tried to think of what else. She stared out the window.

“I guess the next thing was Trump,” she finally said.

She remembered how it felt when he first came on the scene — the pickups flying Trump flags, the freshly energized conversations over morning coffee.

“It was like people woke up around here,” she said. “Bunch of people would go to the rallies and come back and talk. It just felt like he was for all of us. With Trump, it was like we could breathe.”

She thought about how it felt in Fairmount now.

“Can’t afford groceries, can’t afford gas, heating fuel is ridiculous — us poor people are dying. We’re stifled, smothered, sinking quick,” she said, turning to a regular. “What else for you, son?”

An employee at a diner in Fairmount checks his phone at closing time this month. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

Johnson was a teenager when he moved out of the home, at left, in Rydal, Ga., where he lived with his father. “I was like, ‘Well, it’s on me now,’” Johnson said of the experience. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
Johnson was speeding away from all that now, past billboards for disability lawyers and worn-out yards heaped with old appliances, and soon, he arrived in a speck of a place called Rydal, where he lived with his father as a young teenager, during a time he could now see as pivotal to who he would become. He stopped at a plywood-patched house by some railroad tracks.

When trains came, it felt like an earthquake. He felt his father becoming more stressed, so he’d take long walks and think about how he was going to survive this place. He’d walk to a creek nearby. He’d walk to no place in particular. Sometimes he’d walk a mile to a church because the breakfast was good, and finally agreed to be baptized because the preacher promised to bring his grandmother to the ceremony.

He loved his grandmother, who died not long after that. She was the one person who always seemed happy to see him. She’d hook up her oxygen tank and pick him up in her Gran Torino when it was not broken down, and they’d go to yard sales, which she called “loafering,” and she’d tell him how smart he was, and how proud of him she was, which made him want to make her proud. When he found out there were no pallbearers planned for her funeral, he organized five people to help bear her coffin to the grave, a discount plot overlooking a Pizza Hut, her name, Christine Rickman, on a small metal plaque pushed into the grass. He remembered thinking, “That’s what you get when you’re poor,” not in a bitter way, but in the way of realizing that the world would not necessarily bestow honor on the worthy. He remembered that, after she was buried, things seemed to break down further at home, as if the moral center of the family was gone.

“See that hellish thing?” he said now, pointing to an overgrown mound in the yard of the house.

Underneath was a pile of asphalt chunks left over from paving projects, he said, explaining how his father would have him haul pieces of rock to make borders around every tree, until the tension between them got so bad that he left.

“I was like, ‘Well, it’s on me now,’” Johnson said.

He was 15. He spent weeks on this floor or that couch in the homes of friends. He spent as much time as he could in the library, where one day he came upon a pocket-size book whose broken binding, dog-eared pages and rows of checkout stamps made him think it must be as important as any Bible, and so he began reading the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the American philosopher of self-reliance.

“I remember he said something about the great men of history are no greater than you,” he said.

He remembered reading “whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist,” and “nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind,” and deciding he only needed himself to figure life out. “I realized all my choices were mine, and no one else’s,” he said.

He continued driving, past turnoffs where he had extended family who were versions of what he could have been. He had a relative who was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood. He had a few who’d spent time in jail and prison. He had others who died young of heart attacks, respiratory issues, obesity, suicide and desperation he wanted to escape.

He kept going, past a subdivision where he lived for a while with the family of his best friend, whose grandfather was a vegan for moral reasons, a healthy and vigorous walker in his 70s who loved talking about Emerson, and he remembers thinking, “There is a different way to be.”

He passed near the house of another friend, one who died by suicide, and remembered how he learned afterward all the ways that his friend had tried to be a good person — for instance, by buying groceries for people without telling anyone — and he came to think this was another way to be, too.

A hard hat belonging to Johnson, a union electrician. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
He graduated from high school. He told the librarian he wanted to keep the Emerson essays, and she did not resist. He enlisted in the Army and got posted to South Korea, where he remembers how it felt telling fellow soldiers about his life for the first time, and looking out his window at the vast city of Daegu, thinking, “I could be on the side of the mountain right now, and I’m glad to be where I am.”

He returned home to northwest Georgia and started a life in which he tried to live according to his own moral compass. He got married. He had a daughter. He tried to help his mom out with money when he could. He became a union electrician and mentored apprentices. He avoided church, which he came to see as a death cult. He avoided politics, too, because he did not want to take part in a system that had only two parties, both of which he saw as geared toward helping the powerful instead of regular people like him and everyone he grew up around, from Jasper to Fairmount to Rydal. “There’s so much that could be done to help people,” he said. But after Trump was elected, and then Greene, politics became almost impossible to ignore.

“You couldn’t turn around without seeing some sticker, some post promoting violence and hate,” he said. It was the red hats, the flags, the conspiracy theories, the bullying, the racism. It was the sheer totality of how the Trump movement seemed to overtake people’s minds, he said.

“To me, anything that starts to dominate everything about you — when you can only interact with an ideal instead of have a conversation — I’m skeptical.”

But what was most insulting to him of all was the assumption that he would go along with all of it because of how he looked and where he lived. He started to feel like a spy. He had neighbors who made him aware of a bar near his house that was supposedly a gathering place for people in the white nationalist movement. He got a Facebook invitation to join some militia group, which he blocked. He had White co-workers who flagrantly used the n-word and made racist comments to him, and he came to enjoy their shock when he told them to cut it out.

“It was disgusting that people might think I was okay with that,” he said. “I decided I wasn’t going to just let it slide. Because if you let it slide, you become complicit, and complicity turns into guilt, and guilt turns into shame, and shame turns into fear, and I don’t want to live in fear.”

He came to see the Trump movement rising all around him as built upon exactly that kind of fear, and when 2020 came around, he remembers his wife telling him that all his philosophizing meant nothing if he did not take action. He remembers how it felt to vote for the first time.

“There was this well-dressed fellow,” he recalled. “He was pleasant, and as we were leaving, he said, ‘We’ve got to keep them demon Democrats from stealing the election.’ He thought he knew how I was going to vote because of my skin color. I said, ‘Are you serious?’ I said, ‘Nah. And just so you know, I just canceled you out. So, suck on that.’”

Aliya Johnson, with her husband, Cody, outside the church where he voted this month in Georgia’s runoff election for Senate. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

Cody Johnson thumbs through a book of poems and essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose writings Johnson discovered as a teenager. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
And that was who Cody Johnson had become by the time he rolled up to Beulahland Baptist Church on the day of the midterm elections: an Emerson-reading troublemaker who was not going to let things slide, and instead was going to cast a ballot for only the second time in his life.

He had been sick for days before the election, and after he voted, he went home, took Nyquil, and drowsed in and out of sleep as his wife read him the results every few minutes. By the time he was heading to work the next morning, the emerging trend was becoming clear.

He had been part of a minor uprising against Trumpism all across the country — a revolt of contrarians and others who defied expectations of pundits, polls, and even the Democratic Party itself.

Sometimes he and his wife discussed how the Trump movement had ever taken root in this place they loved, and sometimes hated, and nonetheless had chosen to make their home.

“The hardest part is the juxtaposition of knowing these are good, kind, loving, caring people here,” Johnson’s wife would say. “It’s like they put their morality in a box.”

To Johnson, though, it was less about other people and more about the kind of person he wanted to be. And so when it was time to vote again — this time in Georgia’s Dec. 6 runoff for the U.S. Senate — he got into his pickup truck and headed to Beulahland Baptist Church one more time.

He walked across the parking lot, past other pickup trucks and cars with Trump stickers, and through the door. And then a 33-year-old White man from northwest Georgia voted for the third time in his life.

He voted against the Trump-backed candidate, and as he saw it, he voted against all the politics of Trumpism that had been expected to work on somebody like him — white nationalism, grievance, bitterness, bullying and, perhaps most of all, fear of a changing world.

“I have relatives who retreated rather than adapted,” he said, thinking of the life he left behind. “I think of it as, I left the mountain to come into the world, to go out into the world. It’s something I’m kind of proud of.”

“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https: also on Facebook


Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...>

"A Guerrilla War is Being Waged by Ukraine. Here is the Latest: The
below list of resistance incidents is almost certainly incomplete. The
Ukrainian armed forces have been extremely active in September, having
launched counteroffensive operations in Kherson and Kharkiv provinces.
Multiple explosions have taken place every day; and there is no doubt
that partisans are involved in some, or all, of these activities. For
the sake of accuracy, however, I’ve only listed those incidents for
which partisans were expressly given credit or for which the armed
forces were not..." At
, where Motyl , lists a # of attacks by Partisans.

Cf. , "The campaign involves long standing sleeper cells that the
allied spy service has activated to hinder Moscow’s invasion of
Ukraine by waging a secret war behind Russian lines.

Years in the planning, the campaign is responsible for many of the
unexplained explosions and other mishaps that have befallen the
Russian military industrial complex since Russia’s full-scale invasion
of Ukraine in February, according to three former U.S. intelligence
officials, two former U.S. military officials and a U.S. person who
has been briefed on the campaign. The former officials declined to
identify specific targets for the CIA-directed campaign, but railway
bridges, fuel depots and power plants in Russia have all been damaged
in unexplained incidents since the Kremlin launched its full-scale
invasion of Ukraine in February.

While no American personnel are involved on the ground in Russia in
the execution of these missions, agency paramilitary officers are
commanding and controlling the operations, according to two former
intelligence officials and a former military official. The
paramilitary officers are assigned to the CIA’s Special Activities
Center but detailed to the agency’s European Mission Center, said the
two former intelligence officials. Using an allied intelligence
service to give the CIA an added layer of plausible deniability was an
essential factor in U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to approve the
strikes, according to a former U.S. special operations official..."
More @

Michael Pugliese

Re: America's New Sanctions Strategy

aaron s. amaral

I've pasted below the FA piece: 

On the morning of Sunday, February 27, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen sat huddled in a secure room with a group of other senior Treasury officials—including me—to discuss a set of extraordinary economic and financial measures against the Russian Federation. A few days earlier, Russia had invaded Ukraine, a stark and violent transgression of international law. At the direction of U.S. President Joe Biden, the Department of the Treasury had already imposed full blocking sanctions on a number of Russia’s largest banks, put in place Russia-wide export controls on sensitive technologies, sanctioned a number of Russian elites, and determined that any Russian financial services firm could be a target for further sanctions. But in response to Russia’s growing aggression, Biden was calling on us to take further steps to cut the Kremlin off from the resources it needed to pursue its illegal war. 

Over the course of the weekend leading up to Sunday’s meeting, we had worked with U.S. allies in Asia and Europe and our colleagues at the Department of State, the National Security Council, and across the U.S. government to develop a new tranche of actions: immobilizing Russia’s central bank assets, creating an international task force to hunt down and freeze Russian assets around the world, and removing key Russian financial institutions from the global SWIFT messaging system. Many of these steps were unparalleled in their scale and scope. But what was most significant was the speed with which this international coalition coalesced behind the actions. Within three weeks of Russia’s renewed invasion, more than 30 partners—including Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the members of the European Union and the G-7—joined with the United States to counter Russia’s aggression. 

There is a reason why so many countries backed these sanctions. The international economic system today reflects the rules-based financial architecture the United States and its allies collectively built after World War II to promote peace, prosperity, and economic integration. This system was designed to make these goals mutually reinforcing by enabling participating states to prevent countries that violate the system’s principles from reaping its benefits. The Treasury Department’s efforts to deter and, later, make it harder for the Kremlin to wage this war rested on the ability of the United States and its allies and partners to leverage their positions at the system’s center. It is no accident that the coalition includes the issuers of the world’s major convertible currencies, most of the world’s key financial centers, and more than half the global economy.

These efforts are succeeding. The bravery and determination of the Ukrainian people, aided by tens of billions of dollars in security and economic assistance from the United States and its allies and partners, have been paramount in Ukraine’s valiant defense against Russia. But economic sanctions have played a critical supporting role, as well. Over the course of the last ten months, Washington and its allies and partners have denied Russia’s key financial institutions access to the infrastructure that powers the global financial system and cut Russia off from the imports and advanced technologies that are essential to modern economic production. 

Multilateralism has been decisive for the effectiveness of these economic measures. After the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for the 2014 invasion of Crimea, Moscow spent eight years working to limit its exposure to the U.S. financial system, hoping to insulate Russia’s economy from the impact of future U.S. sanctions. But although Russia was able to reduce its exposure to the United States and the dollar, it could not avoid the international economic system and the other major freely convertible currencies that form its core—leaving Moscow deeply vulnerable. 

In addition to the world’s financial infrastructure, the companies that produce certain critical goods—such as semiconductors and other advanced technologies—are predominantly located in G-7, European Union, and other economies that joined the U.S. response. As a result, the coalition’s sanctions and restrictions hit the Kremlin even harder. Russia now faces years or even decades of economic decline. Foreign companies have exited the country en masse, significantly degrading Russia’s economic base. Without access to these critical imports, Russia will see its manufacturing sector shrink. One outside analysis predicts that, in the long term, Russia’s economy could contract as much as 30 to 50 percent relative to its prewar level. Most important, these actions will degrade Russia’s military-industrial complex and erode its ability to project power.

The lesson of these actions is that their potency rests not on the size of the U.S. financial system or the widespread use of the dollar alone but on the reach and resilience of the international economic system as a whole. Far from undermining that system, this international and coordinated response has underscored its power, value, and importance.


Over the past 80 years, U.S. sanctions policy has dramatically evolved. In 1940, when Adolf Hitler’s Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the latter two countries’ U.S.-held assets. Over the following year, it also froze the assets of other countries that Germany invaded. But unlike today’s sanctions, these actions were designed only to keep those assets from falling into the hands of the Nazi regime—until the United States formally entered the war, the Department of the Treasury did not prohibit trade or financial transactions with Germany more broadly. 

Over the course of the twentieth century, the United States increasingly employed economic sanctions as a core tool of foreign policy, rather than merely as a supportive measure. For example, it imposed an array of sanctions and export controls on the Soviet Union and countries within the Soviet sphere beginning in the 1940s, as well as sanctioning South Africa in the 1980s for its apartheid policies. Washington further modernized its sanctions policies after the attacks of September 11, 2001. In 2004, the government created the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to coordinate Treasury’s sanctions and intelligence activities, which further enabled it to use sophisticated sanctions strategies to target terrorists and other nonstate adversaries—as well as the countries harboring them. 

It isn’t just the terrorist attacks that have demanded changes to U.S. sanctions policies. Over the last two decades, the international financial system’s size and importance have grown, demanding a more sophisticated sanctions apparatus. From 2001 to 2021, global external assets as a share of GDP nearly doubled. And from 2011 to 2021, the share of people over 15 with an account at a bank or mobile money service provider jumped from 50 percent to 76 percent. At the same time, the expansion of cryptocurrency and decentralized finance has created new ways to hold and transfer value outside of traditional systems, enabling alternative methods for states, people, and organizations to launder illicit revenues. This evolution has created new ways to attempt to move beyond the reach of sanctions, raising the stakes for governments using these economic measures to hold rogue actors accountable. 

Freight trains in Kaliningrad, Russia, June 2022
Freight trains in Kaliningrad, Russia, June 2022
Vitaly Nevar / Reuters

In light of these changes, in the spring of 2021, Yellen asked me to work with our colleagues at the Treasury and the State Departments to conduct a comprehensive review of how U.S. sanctions authorities, strategies, and implementation have evolved—the first study of its kind since the attacks of September 11, 2001. In October of last year, we published the results of this study: the 2021 Treasury Sanctions Review. Among its many important findings, it showed that sanctions are most effective when coordinated with allies and partners, both because coordination bolsters diplomacy and because multilateral sanctions are harder to evade. It concluded that sanctions should be tied to a clearly articulated foreign policy strategy that is, in turn, linked to discrete objectives. And the review determined that U.S. sanctions should incorporate detailed economic analysis of their anticipated impacts, including the collateral effects. 

Today, these conclusions may sound obvious. But past sanctions were not always well calibrated. In total, the number of U.S. sanctions designations grew over 900 percent from 2000 to 2021—some more carefully designed than others—as the number of U.S. sanctions programs increased more than 2.5 times. Our review found that more granular analysis would allow sanctions officials to better target restrictions and achieve more nuanced objectives, all while minimizing unintended effects. 

Less than a month after the conclusion of the review, U.S. intelligence revealed that Russia was beginning to plan for a potential invasion of Ukraine. It was fortuitous that we had completed our work. In statements public and private, Biden made clear that, should the invasion come to fruition, sanctions would be central to the U.S. response. To ensure we were prepared, he tasked Secretary Yellen with developing a sanctions strategy that would maximize the costs imposed on Russia’s economy while minimizing the impact felt by the United States, our allies and partners, and the global economy more broadly.


On February 24, 2022, Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. From the beginning, it was clear that crafting a response that was both effective and properly calibrated would be challenging. Although the scale of the Kremlin’s brutality demanded a powerful answer, the size and international integration of the Russian economy made it hard to impose significant costs, especially without causing widespread damage to the global economy. Russia is one of the world’s most populous states, and it has a central role in global energy markets. To damage the Russian war effort by using economic tools, the United States needed to incorporate the lessons from the sanctions review—and it had to do so quickly. 

That started with the lesson that sanctions should be tied to a clearly articulated foreign policy strategy and linked to discrete objectives. In this case, the overarching objective was clear: to degrade Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to wage his illegal war. To that end, the United States has used a set of innovative and sweeping sanctions and export controls to deny Russia the revenue and resources needed to pursue its invasion and project power, including by diminishing its military-industrial complex. The United States and its allies have also undertaken substantial diplomatic engagement and provided abundant military and economic support to Ukraine, totaling tens of billions of dollars, and the Biden administration has requested an additional $38 billion from Congress to provide further assistance. These goals reflect the fact that sanctions alone are unlikely to stop Putin’s invasion entirely. But they have made it far harder for Putin to continue his war and have dramatically lowered his chances of battlefield success. 

One way to think about this strategy is as a set of targeted, surgical strikes on Russia’s ability to wage war. It has allowed the United States to have a significant impact on Russia—frustrating Moscow’s ability to pursue its invasion and prop up its economy—while limiting the collateral impact on the global economy, especially on U.S. allies and developing economies. We decided to target three elements of Russia’s economy: its financial system, its elites, and its military-industrial complex. To target the financial system, we sanctioned Russia’s key financial institutions, immobilized its central bank reserves, and cut off many of its banks from the SWIFT messaging system in the days immediately following the invasion. To hit the network of elites and oligarchs who support the Russian government and act as its agents and instruments, we set up an international task force—the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs (REPO) Task Force, with representatives from eight countries and the European Commission—to identify and seize their assets in jurisdictions around the world. This effort would prevent Russian oligarchs from accessing resources they could use to prop up Putin’s regime. And to target Russia’s military-industrial complex and critical supply chains, we implemented export controls and other restrictions that would deny Russia the imports needed to keep its war machine operational, forcing Russia’s military to steadily turn to outdated and less reliable weapons.

To make this targeted strategy work, the Department of the Treasury had to work closely with a global coalition of allies and partners—consistent with the sanction review’s conclusions. From the outset, Biden and Yellen made multilateralism the foundation of our response to Russia, building on the administration’s commitment to rebuild U.S. alliances and restoring trust in the United States’ global role. At Biden’s direction, we began building our coalition far in advance of the war, reaching out many of the allies and partners we had consulted during the sanctions review. In November, the U.S. intelligence community quickly shared the intelligence pointing to Russia’s potential invasion with U.S. allies and partners in Europe and began laying the groundwork for the response. Although not every decision was finalized by February 2022, the United States and its allies and partners had developed a thorough set of initial actions.

The composition of this coalition has been critical to its efficacy. From a financial perspective, it includes the issuers of the world’s major freely convertible currencies. These currencies form the connective tissue of the global banking and payments system, enabling efficient and low-risk cross-border finance and trade. Russia’s need to transact in these currencies explains why the financial sanctions were so effective and why, despite its best efforts, Russia was unable to escape their reach. For example, as of 2019, 87 percent of Russia’s foreign exchange transactions were denominated in dollars. The European Union, meanwhile, is Russia’s largest trading partner, making the EU’s actions to economically isolate Russia highly potent. And because this coalition includes Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—the world’s most important producers of key advanced technologies, along with the United States—its export controls have successfully cut Russia off from access to critical imports such as semiconductors, badly degrading its military in the process. To the extent there are risks involved in unilateral sanctions, the lesson of the U.S. response to Russia is that acting alongside allies and partners in the G-7—and across Europe and Asia—is the best way to mitigate them.


Washington and its allies and partners have been innovative in the execution of this strategy. To deny Russia the financial resources to fund its invasion, for example, the coalition immobilized Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and central bank reserves. This move was deeply effectual. Over the preceding eight years, Russia had built up $630 billion in sovereign wealth and central bank assets to protect its economy from the impact of potential sanctions. The coalition’s actions made much of this war chest inaccessible, blunting the effect of Russia’s preemptive actions. 

The coalition is also pursuing a novel approach to limit Putin’s revenue from Russia’s oil exports without taking that oil off the market: the price cap policy implemented by the European Union, G-7, and Australia earlier this month. The price cap was designed to overcome a seeming dilemma. Since the beginning of the conflict, the United States and its allies have purposefully crafted our sanctions to allow Russian oil and gas exports to reach the global market, even as the United States and some other governments have banned the import of these goods into their own countries. This was done for good reason. With consumers and businesses in the United States and around the world already under pressure because of elevated energy prices—caused in substantial part by the Kremlin’s actions—these governments did not want to add on. But it has meant that Russia has continued to reap significant profits from its energy exports, especially oil. At one point, Russia received more than $100 per barrel. Over the summer, it received prices 60 percent more per barrel than it did in the year before, meaning that Russia made more money despite the decline in its export volumes. 

Using traditional sanctions strategies, the tension between these two objectives—restricting Russia’s revenue while continuing to allow its oil to reach the market—would be intractable. But the price cap policy balances these goals through a new approach: pairing sanctions that cut off seaborne Russian oil shipments from critical services such as insurance, trade finance, and shipping with an exception for oil sold at or below a specific price. Rather than an outright ban, the price cap essentially creates two markets for Russian oil: one market—at or below a certain price—in which Russia’s oil exports keep flowing, with the benefit of these services, and another market—above that price—where Russian oil can only be shipped using services from alternative suppliers that are likely to be more expensive and less reliable. It institutionalizes the discount on Russian oil by setting a ceiling for buyers who formally join the coalition imposing it and giving greater leverage to buyers outside the coalition to negotiate lower prices—even if they do not formally adopt the policy. All net oil-importing countries and consumers of oil globally stand to benefit from lower oil prices, while the Kremlin takes in less revenue. As an added benefit, low- and middle-income countries that need this cheaper oil most are likely to be the main economic beneficiaries of the price cap. 

Biden speaking about gas prices in Washington, D.C., June 2022
Biden speaking about gas prices in Washington, D.C., June 2022
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

In addition to its creativity, the price cap policy is also emblematic of U.S. efforts to infuse rigorous economic analysis into our sanctions, the review’s third key finding. In addition to our traditional work with the Department of State, a team of sanctions experts, economists, and financial market experts at the Treasury Department—in coordination with the Department of Energy—has worked closely with economic analysts in finance ministries and other departments at the European Commission and across the G-7 to refine estimates of the price effects of the seaborne services ban; calibrate the right price for the cap itself based on historical pricing patterns; and assess Russia’s potential response based on the country’s oil output, equipment, and other variables. This new way of deploying sanctions—to segment the market for Russian oil rather than ban it entirely—has required corresponding innovation in analytic methods. Building on this experience, the Treasury Department is currently recruiting a chief sanctions economist who will help develop a full-fledged unit and corresponding analytical capabilities to enhance the United States’ ability to undertake this sort of detailed economic analysis in other instances.

Disrupting the critical supply chains that feed Russia’s military-industrial complex has also constituted a sea change for sanctions policy. The United States has remained heavily focused on ending Russia’s war and its brutalities in Ukraine. The goal, put simply, is to frustrate Russia’s ability to use the money Russia has to build the weapons it wants. But instead of concentrating on inflicting sheer economic pain, the Treasury Department—in coordination with the Department of Defense and Department of Commerce—and the United States’ allies have used sanctions and export controls to go after the specific technologies and inputs Russia needs to fight its war. This includes items such as semiconductors, transistors, and software that are only made outside Russia and in many cases only by the United States and its allies. The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence estimates that measures by Washington and its partners have degraded Russia’s ability to replace more than 6,000 pieces of military equipment, forced key defense-industrial facilities to halt production, and caused shortages of critical components for tanks, aircraft, and submarines. The world is seeing the results of these shortages on the battlefield, where Ukraine’s tenacious fighters have forced Russia to quickly exhaust its supplies of modern weapons and turn to outdated, Soviet-era equipment or lower-quality alternatives procured from North Korea and Iran.

Together, these approaches constitute a bespoke strategy to deny Russia access to the revenue it needs to pay for its war, cut Russia off from resources to prop up its failing economy, and degrade its military capabilities. The design and implementation of these actions have required technical expertise and elaborate diplomatic coordination. The countries behind them will have to continue working together, particularly to prevent Russia from evading the various restrictions. But these economic measures are already eroding Russia’s ability to project power and will shape international economic policy for decades to come. 


When we began our campaign to hold Russia accountable, using all our economic and financial tools, we were met with criticism from some that our actions risked unraveling the global financial system. Ten months into this conflict, we can safely conclude the opposite. Far from driving a wedge between the United States and its allies, these sanctions have offered the strongest possible statement of our unity in the face of Russia’s aggression. They have demonstrated that Washington and its partners are willing to defend the principles at the core of the international economic system—including self-determination, territorial sovereignty, and free and open economic exchange—even when it may cost their own economies, representing a literal investment in the future of the international economic order. 

The coalition’s response to Russia’s invasion reflects both the conclusions of our sanctions review and particular elements of the international economic system’s design—from the dollar’s role, to the correspondent banking networks that facilitate payments within it, to the geography of the service providers that support real economic exchange between its participants—that enable the benefits the system provides. These features are also what make denial of the system’s benefits so potent. The multilateral coordination that has undergirded the coalition’s actions from beginning to end—from strategy to tactics and execution—has reinforced that same system in the face of its greatest threat in a generation.

None of this means that the international economic system does not need updating. The system will require new investment as it further adapts to the twenty-first century. The United States and its allies should modernize the international institutions that form the backbone of this system, such as the multilateral development banks; finalize the international agreement on a global minimum tax that more than 135 countries reached at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development last fall; and update the international payments infrastructure to make it faster, cheaper, and more inclusive. These actions will help ensure the international economic system continues to drive global prosperity, that it lives up to the values embedded at its creation, and that it remains robust enough to matter when malign actors are denied access.

Of course, there is more work to be done. But there is no doubt that what the United States and its allies have accomplished is historic—and heartening. This coalition is not only holding Russia accountable for its unconscionable war; it is doing so in a multilateral fashion that demonstrates the enduring strength and importance of investing in the international economic system. We will remain focused on holding Russia accountable as the country wages its brutal war and will keep supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. Years or decades from now, Russia’s invasion and the resulting, collective response will be viewed as a moment in which the international economic system, when faced with an enormous challenge, cemented its essential role.

On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 3:13 PM Vladimiro Giacche' <vladimiro.giacche@...> wrote:
Access unfortunately restricted.

Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 23 dic 2022, alle ore 16:30, Richard Fidler <rfidler@...> ha scritto:

Interesting piece by US Deputy Treasury Secretary explaining how Washington has used Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine to reinforce its global financial architecture:


 Seek for food and clothing first, then
the Kingdom of God shall be added unto you.  
   Hegel, 1807  
  The class struggle, which is always present to a historian influenced by Marx, is a fight for the crude and material things without which no refined and spiritual things could exist. Nevertheless, it is not in the form of the spoils which fall to the victor that the latter make their presence felt in the class struggle. They manifest themselves in this struggle as courage, humor, cunning, and fortitude. They have retroactive force and will constantly call in question every victory, past and present, of the rulers. As flowers turn toward the sun, by dint of a secret heliotropism the past strives to turn toward that sun which is rising in the sky of history. A historical materialist must be aware of this most inconspicuous of all transformations.

-Walter Benjamin, Spring, 1940

83 years ago, Paul Sweezy taught a course on the economics of socialism at Harvard

Jim Farmelant

83 years ago, Paul Sweezy  taught a course at Harvard on the economics of socialism. My Quora post includes a link to the final exam for that course. And it also includes some of my own suggestions as to how such a course could be updated.

Re: the appropriate political instrument

Mark Baugher

On Dec 25, 2022, at 5:41 AM, Dayne Goodwin <daynegoodwin@...> wrote:

Voila! the appropriate political instrument is a revolutionary party
And what's that? How is it organized an how does it function?


Zoom Event: Fossil Fuel Dependency & Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

John Reimann

Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign Forum/Discussion:

Fossil Fuel Dependency and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Ending our dependence on oil and gas is the best way to stop fueling thugs like Putin

and the growing climate crisis,” says Svitlana Romanko, Ukrainian climate activist and


On Sunday, January 8, Svitlana will make a presentation on this issue. She will


  • The connection between Putin’s war machine and fossil fuel exports.

  • The role of fossil fuels and clean energy for peace.

  • Ukrainian reality and the call for a global energy transformation.

  • How support for the campaign around these issues can be increased.

Svitlana Romanko is a long time environmental activist and presently represents RazomWe Stand (Together We Stand). She holds a ph.D in environmental, natural resources, land and agrarian law, and a doctorate on climate change law, climate governance and climate policy. she was escorted out of the Cop 27 climate conference after she protested the presence of representatives of Russia, after which she commented: “I am glad that I named evil by name and I was able to tell them what all Ukrainians would like to tell them if they were here. You are a terrorist state, you are genociding, torturing and killing us daily for nine months, your oil and gas are killing us. You are war criminals, you must not be here but in international court.”

Come to the Zoom forum/discussion of the Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign

Sunday, January 8, 7:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time; 10:30 a.m. East Coast Time

Check time difference in your area

Register for meeting here

“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https: also on Facebook

the appropriate political instrument

Dayne Goodwin

On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 4:58 PM Mark Baugher <mark@...> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 12:44 PM, michael a. lebowitz <mlebowit@...> wrote: 
> In fact, no crises as such threaten the end-all of political economy but the crisis of the Earth system but that is a crisis of humanity rather than one of capital (and thus capital's feedback is not operative.) As I argue in the book, only a working class that develops its capacities through its struggles can put an end to the political economy of capital. And that requires the appropriate political instrument.
What is the appropriate political instrument?

On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 12:56 PM michael a. lebowitz <mlebowit@...> wrote:
    ... Is a political instrument necessary to end the political economy of capital?
If argued and answered affirmatively, then one can talk about the appropriate political instrument. My own answer to that is set out in the concluding chapter of Between Capitalism and Community. You may get a sense of that from the description of that book on my webpage and, for that matter, from earlier books. solidarity, michael

at Michael Lebowitz web page
the first review/comment on his book Between Capitalism and Community is by Tony Smith who says:
"Since the interregnum in which capitalism and community coexist is marked by the interpenetration and mutual deformation of both sides within this whole, however, the path to community cannot emerge spontaneously but requires a revolutionary party that stresses the development of the capacities of people through their protagonism."

Voila!  the appropriate political instrument is a revolutionary party

we need "a political party that will better serve the interest of not just railroad workers but all working-class people.”

Dayne Goodwin

Railroad Workers United
"Democrats, Then Republicans Smite Rail Labor"
December 2, 2022 Press Release
. . .
"RWU believes that railroad workers need to explore options other than
the existing two political parties since neither appears to have our
backs. RWU also believes that railroad workers need to consider doing
away with the archaic and divided craft union system that hampers our
unity and solidarity, and initiate the process of building a single
and powerful railroad workers union that can win in future rounds of
contract bargaining. According to RWU Organizer Ron Kaminkow, “We have
been played for well over a century by politicians and union officials
alike. The fiasco of recent months will show that perhaps the time has
come for railroad workers to push for a unified and powerful labor
organization of all crafts, together with a political party that will
better serve the interest of not just railroad workers but all
working-class people.”
# # #

Putin Wants Fealty, and He’s Found it in Africa

Dennis Brasky

With Unfit Drinking Water, Indigenous Communities in Canada Bear Hardship

Dennis Brasky

January 6th Committee Issues final report: Does Trump bear all the blame?

John Reimann

The January 6th Committee has issued its last will and testament - its final report. It is more significant for what it leaves out than for what it says. Workers - and especially socialists within the working class - should pay attention.

John Reimann
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https: also on Facebook

Re: Medea Benjamin , Jimmy Dore & Scott Horton to headline paleo-con/libertarian anti-war rally

Avram Rips

Yes they are horrible and pretty incoherent when I challenge them on  the PP Facebook page.They are very into alliance with the US fascist right and worship the Anti Vax fake comedian Jimmy Dore.

On Saturday, December 24, 2022, Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...> wrote:
One of the 2 lead organizers is grifter ,Nicholas Brana , People’s Party Chair .

Michael Pugliese

Medea Benjamin , Jimmy Dore & Scott Horton to headline paleo-con/libertarian anti-war rally

Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...>

Re: Let's all work less

John A Imani

<<Not only would we be much happier if we work less, but the planet would be better off for it. Work is mostly a misery to be avoided, resisted and reduced...While capitalism is exhausting the supply of natural resources and sending our ecosystem into a death spiral, it is long overdue to focus our organizing on work. We need to shift our focus to organizing against work, not for more work...We need to introduce “work share” so that those with too little work can pick up the work of those of us with too much.>>


The above statements would be true...under developed socialism.


Today, the problem is not that we work too much. The problem is that we work too little. The problem is what we are doing. The problem is what we are not doing...under capitalism.


The problem is that the above quoted statement founds its logic upon the situation facing ‘First World’ nations and, even then, only a portion of the workforces thereof. In the ‘FW’ how to account for the unemployed and, even lower on the socio-economic rungs, the lumpen-proletariat (here defined as those long out of work, out of social benefits, out of hope, even out of shelter, etc). Those exiled to modern-day versions of historic Molokai. Those whose very visages are sights to be averted by the eyes of the better-to-do.


Why is the southern so-called ‘border’ here crowded with those seeking work but herded and shuttled as if livestock and not living human beings? Why is this same phenomenon playing out world-wide?  Is there no work to be done in their homelands? Is there nothing to do? Nothing that needs to be done? When there is so much to do?


The workers of the non-‘FW’ find their homelands doubly-desecrated, initially by colonial imperialistic terraforming of their natural economies so as to be suited to the needs and desires of the ‘FW’ers; and today--where that initial rape and ransacking has not faltered and there are still commodities worth extracting--those left out, the non-’FW’ers and where they ‘live’, look so much akin to LA’s Skid Row and the many ‘American’ blighted, impoverished, ghettos and barrios, that save for language, mirror themselves as each other’s mirrors.


There is but one way to stop the migrations, work. Work done by the native populations so as to reengineer their homelands to fit their own needs. Environmentally sustainable work enabled and paid for, as it ought be, by the former colonial and the present still scavenging powers. Healthy foodstuffs and health care. Clean water and clean shelter. Disease control and disease elimination. Education facilities, etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. The West owes this because of their original sins of colonization and exploitation.


And it is much the same here. There is but one road leading to the resurrection of the Lazarus layers of the populations And work with initially paid trainings. There those residents of the Kalaupapa peninsulas that are the inner cities might find dignity, peace of mind, harmony within themselves and with their neighbors.


The alternative, the continuation of the state of affairs as is, will not only continue but, inevitably almost unimaginably, become even worse than the hell holes existent.


Re: America's New Sanctions Strategy

Vladimiro Giacche'

Access unfortunately restricted.

Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 23 dic 2022, alle ore 16:30, Richard Fidler <rfidler@...> ha scritto:

Interesting piece by US Deputy Treasury Secretary explaining how Washington has used Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine to reinforce its global financial architecture:


Falling rate of profit — not the end-all of political economy

michael a. lebowitz

On Dec 23, Mark Baugher cited me as follows:
In fact, no crises as such threaten the end-all of political economy but the crisis of the Earth system but that is a crisis of humanity rather than one of capital (and thus capital's feedback is not operative.) As I argue in the book, only a working class that develops its capacities through its struggles can put an end to the political economy of capital. And that requires the appropriate political instrument.
And he asked, 'What is the appropriate political instrument?'- The first question [and central one appropriate to this topic]: Is a political instrument necessary to end the political economy of capital? If argued and answered affirmatively, then one can talk about the appropriate political instrument. My own answer to that is set out in the concluding chapter of Between Capitalism and Community. You may get a sense of that from the description of that book on my webpage and, for that matter, from earlier books. solidarity, michael

Michael A. Lebowitz
Latest Book: Between Capitalism and Community