Date   

Video- Dr. Tony Monteiro on Woke Antiracism Books

Andrew Stewart
 

https://youtu.be/2c0WHrBRomo


Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 
- - -
Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/


H-Net Review [H-Judaic]: Balakirsky Katz on Baskind, 'The Warsaw Ghetto in American Art and Culture'

Andrew Stewart
 



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...>
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:11 AM
Subject: H-Net Review [H-Judaic]: Balakirsky Katz on Baskind, 'The Warsaw Ghetto in American Art and Culture'
To: <h-review@...>
Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...>


Samantha Baskind.  The Warsaw Ghetto in American Art and Culture. 
University Park  Pennsylvania State University Press, 2018. 
Illustrations. xv + 309 pp.  $44.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-271-07870-0.

Reviewed by Maya Balakirsky Katz (Bar-Ilan University)
Published on H-Judaic (October, 2020)
Commissioned by Barbara Krawcowicz

This book demonstrates as much as it analyzes that the Warsaw
Ghetto--established during the Holocaust and the site of the Jewish
uprising launched on April 19, 1943, that staved off two thousand
German troops for twenty-eight days--has been an enduring source of
inspiration for American writers and artists, apparently second only
to the Anne Frank story. As so many conclusions that sound almost
intuitive once they have been articulated, the work required to
arrive at it is exhaustive. 

Samantha Baskind has collated a wide range of individual and
collaborative American projects and gives the representational
history of the Warsaw Ghetto shape across seventy-five years of
cultural productions. Beginning with the radio dramatization of the
ghetto narrative only two months after the tragic end of the ghetto,
the Warsaw Ghetto uprising seemed to grip American audiences as
relevant to their own survival and the survival of American freedoms
in a world threatened by evil. Corralling smaller audiences but
responding in the more long-lived mediums in pencil, ink, and oil,
graphic artists Arthur Szyk and William Gropper were among those who
represented the uprising within months of the ghetto's fall. With the
war still raging, the first anniversary of the uprising evoked
political activist projects fighting for an uncertain future for Jews
on both sides of the Atlantic. That year, the Yiddish play _The
Miracle of the Warsaw Ghetto_ opened in New York already bearing the
optimistic and heroic stamp that the uprising would acquire in the
later resistance narratives of John Hersey's _The Wall_ (1950).

The second chapter explores the efforts to challenge what was
developing into a conventional lens of "good versus evil" in Millard
Lampell's theatricalization of Hersey's _The Wall_ and Rod Serling's
teleplay _In the Presence of Mine Enemies _(1960). These projects
introduced both Jewish and gentile characters and both the desire for
and resistance to fighting, and they focused internally on the
psychological dramas within the ghetto walls. These nuanced
experiments proved short-lived as the theme of militant heroism
returned to popular acclaim with Leon Uris's _Exodus_ (1958) and
_Mila 18_ (1961), the subject of the third chapter and the one with
which most readers will be the most familiar.

The last two chapters focus on the less-known and less-studied
subject of the ghetto's children, expanding the image and narrative
of the ghetto to those who did not, could not, and were not expected
to fight. Baskind demonstrates that artists deploy the image of the
child as a symbol of innocence and all that was lost and on whose
behalf we must tolerate no naivete in the future. The attempt to
process the horrors of Holocaust realities, often recorded in
photography by the perpetrators, can be traced in the varied
appropriations of the boy with his hands in the air from the Stroop
Report by artists Samuel Bak, Judy Chicago, Audrey Flack, and Jack
Levine. The final chapter focuses on the 2003 graphic novel _Yossel:
April 19, 1943_, in which the artist Joseph Kubert fantasizes his way
out of the totality of the ghetto dust by imagining an alternative
ending for his alter-ego Yossel in a counter-history that imagines
his family not immigrating to the United States in the 1920s.

As she painstakingly draws the map of American culture produced
against the backdrop of the Warsaw Ghetto, Baskind analyzes the
broader contours that all the individual projects in various media
reveal in tandem about this corner of the American art scene. Baskind
suggests that the desire to turn to the subject of the Warsaw Ghetto
"suggests a meta-awareness on the part of the makers" not only of the
heroism that brought forth the Jewish uprising "but also the
struggles to record, preserve, and remember, which are always heroic
imperatives in their own right in the penumbra of the Holocaust" (p.
13). For the artist who has devoted his life to the struggle to
record, preserve, and remember, the act of representation is itself a
heroic imperative. In various points throughout the book, Baskind
creates symbolic links between the physical "combat" that inspired
these artists and the artistic "combat" work of the cultural
producers she has included in the book. If the analogy seems
overwrought, the fact that some of the artists and writers included
in the book, as well as Baskind in her own research, turned to the
Oneg Shabbos archive established by those sealed in the ghetto to
record their own experiences certainly speaks to the mutual drive to
survive through the historical record.

But for the scholar, the bundling of these various individual
projects as a category of cultural analysis carries different
implications. While the Polin Museum at the site of the Warsaw Ghetto
has sought to contextualize the ghetto, its uprising, and its
destruction in a thousand years of Polish Jewish history, Baskind has
chosen a single and exceptional event in Jewish history as a subject
of academic inquiry. As a result, this book asks the question: can we
discuss the Warsaw Ghetto apart from the Holocaust? To borrow a
modified version of Nathan Englander's query about that other
Holocaust icon Anne Frank: what are we talking about when we talk
about the Warsaw Ghetto?

Baskind engages with this thought experiment throughout the book,
sometimes landing on the rivaling of Frank as a tragic symbol to
manifest hope in a more heroic response and a different outcome to
tyranny. Although offering no fixed answers, Baskind has produced a
daring work of scholarship on American art in very concrete terms by
including not only voices critical of America's abuses of power but
also those promoting interventionist foreign policy, gun ownership,
and Jewish and American exceptionalism. Since Baskind's subjects
often buoy the theme of ghetto resistance with the threat of fascist
repetition, their representations of the Warsaw Ghetto often explore
extreme positions that challenge the ideological tenets that many of
the artists included in this book express in their other works. This
includes the use of the term "armed resistance" for the Warsaw Ghetto
context, as it is ubiquitously described, to promote private gun
ownership in America by imagining, as Jon Bogdanove's Superman does,
the victory over past and future Reichs. It also includes the use of
the ghetto to project revisionist Zionist perspectives and to
characterize criticism of Israeli militarism as a left-wing iteration
of fascism. Given how unpopular these perspectives are in a culture
that frowns upon gun violence and militarism, the result is a broader
spectrum of political and ideological visions than art historians
typically present.

Although Baskind does not explicitly offer this conclusion herself,
her richly illustrated book reveals that artists often reject (or
co-opt) political correctness to engage with the Warsaw Ghetto as a
historical subject that tests the premises and limitations of
universalist values.

_Maya Balakirsky Katz is associate professor of Jewish art at
Bar-Ilan University and a clinical psychoanalist._

Citation: Maya Balakirsky Katz. Review of Baskind, Samantha, _The
Warsaw Ghetto in American Art and Culture_. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews.
October, 2020.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55556

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License.




--
Best regards,

Andrew Stewart


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Andrew Stewart
 

Have you even read Federalist Paper 10, which explains how it was designed to reject Westminster-styled parliamentary coalitions <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/10>?

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular Governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular Governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our Governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our Governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community... Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a Republic has over a Democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small Republic,—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of Representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied, that the Representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties, comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Louis Proyect
 

On 10/12/20 12:53 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote:
You do realize that the vast majority of capital is no longer grounded in manufacturing and instead is oriented around the function of the FIRE industry, namely rent extraction, right?

Of course. I just responded to someone who posted a comment under my article reminding me that "the U.S. manufacturing industry employed 2.56 million in December 2017." In response, I posted a link to an article that showed that none of the 10 biggest employers in the USA are in manufacturing: https://www.backgroundchecks.com/community/Post/5836/Top-10-Largest-Employers-in-the-USA

For me, the most important data that militates against the notion that fascism is being plotted by the capitalist class is the weakness of its class adversary, as Gary McLennan pointed out the other day. In the Weimar Republic and Italy in the early 20s, there were powerful trade unions and working-class parties allied to the USSR that was offering sizable material aid to revolutionary movements. What's the situation today? This:


Union membership in the U.S. hit record low in 2018




Union membership in the U.S. continues to shrink, showing that organized labor still faces headwinds despite some recent victories.

Among American workers, participation in a union fell to 10.5 percent last year, from 10.7 percent in 2017 and 2016, with all demographic groups seeing a decline in membership. The drop continues a trend that except for a pause during the 2008 financial crisis, has been ongoing since the 1980s, when the share of organized labor was roughly double what it is today.

unions-percent.png

Just 6.4 percent of private-sector workers belonged to a union last year (a slightly higher figure, 7.2 percent, were represented by unions but were not officially members.) Real estate firms, utilities and construction industry players saw drops in the rate of unionization.

But some industries saw outsize gains. Education services added more than 100,000 union members last year, the most of any sector. Other industries that added union members include manufacturing, entertainment and waste services.

In the public sector, which has historically had a much heavier union presence than private businesses, union representation dropped by half a percent, to 37.2 percent. Membership grew among local government workers, shrank among state employees and held steady at the federal level.

Many were expecting public-sector membership to plummet in the wake of last year's Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which barred public-sector unions from charging fees to workers who did not join the union. 

But the Labor Department's figures show only a slight drop. The figures also don't reveal whether workers did or didn't pay union fees, indicating only whether they are represented by a union.

The AFL-CIO, the largest organized-labor group, called 2018 "one of the best years in history" in a tweet, and pointed to the increases in unionization among professional workers. Last year, more than 28,000 professionals--ranging from graduate teaching assistants to actors—chose to unionize, the labor federation said.

union-states.png

Geographically, unions have the biggest presence in the northeast and on the West Coast. New York has the highest share of unionized workers, with 25 percent being represented by a union, although that share shrank last year.

The Southeast, which historically had a small union presence, saw gains in 2018. Alabama added 44,000 union members last year—the most of any state—while the share of workers in unions also crept up in Florida, Louisiana and Georgia. 

Meanwhile, public approval of unions hit a 15-year high in 2018, according to Gallup.

unions-state-change.png


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

fkalosar101@...
 

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Stewart wrote:
And so I return to my point about how those definitions are written for European parliamentary systems and not the American federalist one

https://www.blackagendareport.com/911-legacy-two-contending-fascisms
The differences between parliamentary and presidential so-called democracy, while significant, are hardly decisive.  Tony Blair was able to create a Thatcherized "New Labor" that corresponded very neatly to the Reaganite neoliberal monstrosity that was birthed by the Clintons and would be perpetuated by bidenharris.

Moreover, the accessions to power by Mussolini--appointed by King Victor Emmanuel--and Hitler--made chancellor by "Lesser Evil" Hindenburg--were not made possible by parliamentarism as such, but by parliamentarism with an explicit authoritarian back door not intrinsic to parliamentary systems as such. 

In the end, however, that last point may mean less than it seems to because any mere political constitution has weaknesses that can be exploited by, as it were, the political hacker who rejects the shaky consensus on which "democratic" legitimacy is based.  

The Trumpians have identified a whole series of such exploits.  Not only that, but a majority of white men in the USA are apparently in favor of a racist dictatorship and willing to kill for it--or to look the other way while others do so.  A "hacked" authoritarian government is possible because the weaknesses of the present system have been identified accurately by its de facto opponents and because a plurality of citizens could easily be persuaded to support the result if they saw something in it for them.  Whether you call it fascism--which I agree is not accurate--or something else, may ultimately mean very little.  Such a system IMO could retain power for as long as there is a United States of America.

The point is that the legitimacy of the Constitution, such as it is, is at a breaking point and there is no consensus about an alternative.

One of the greatest deficits of the vulgar Graberism that appears to be dominating the broader social equality movement supporting  BLM is their belief that consensus itself is all you need for effective democracy--hence no votes, no demands, etc. etc.  In spite of the destructive folly inherent in this as applied at the so-called "occupation" level at present, one can't deny that consensus and legitimacy are essential to effective governance in the long run.

The Left must find and articulately spread a new consensus for socialism--this is part of the meaning of a mass movement.  Merely to oppose "fascism" accomplishes nothing unless it leads to this.  


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Andrew Stewart
 

You do realize that the vast majority of capital is no longer grounded in manufacturing and instead is oriented around the function of the FIRE industry, namely rent extraction, right?

https://youtu.be/1rlIXAUGans

Your analogy collapses because the majority of the American economy is dominated by service industries rather than manufacturing. Michael Hudson elaborates <https://michael-hudson.com/2020/03/radical-imagination-and-the-intellectual-edifice/>:

Marx analyzed the “real” economy’s circular flow between employers and wage labor buying the products they produced. But then, in Volume III, he said that rentier debt claims by the financial sector was a separate dynamic, independent from the economy of production and consumption. This industrial capitalist economy is wrapped in a financial sector composed of debt and property claims. These are external to the economy. They slow it and ultimately cause a crash. Marx was one of the first to talk about business cycles of about 11 years and the internal contradictions that led to a market collapse. He pointed out that the financial sector had different mathematics of growth – the mathematics of compound interest. These are exponential and inherently unsustainable. In Volume III of Capital and also of his Theories of Surplus Value – which was Marx’s history of economic thought and the theories leading up to him – he collected everything from Martin Luther to other analyses pointing out that debts grew so rapidly at compound interest that it is impossible to pay them.


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Louis Proyect
 

On 10/12/20 12:33 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote:
Your analysis is to pull out something about Germany from 85+ years ago as if that can be mechanically imposed upon the 21st century?

Of course not. I am giving you an example of  how Daniel Guerin tried to understand class relations in the 20s and 30s. He makes a distinction between heavy and light industry and how both relate to the organic composition of capital. That's what I'd expect of anybody trying to argue that both Trump and Clinton are fascists. That's not Glen Ford's orientation. He's very sharp but he's no Daniel Guerin.


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Andrew Stewart
 

Your analysis is to pull out something about Germany from 85+ years ago as if that can be mechanically imposed upon the 21st century? Also, Germany was not a settler-colonial society and Weimar was a parliamentary system as opposed to a Federalist system. C'mon Louis, de omnibus dubitandum. Ford's class analysis is there, it is Marxist, and you just don't want to see it. Remember, (despite what Lars Lih claims) Lenin's key to success was outright rejection and repudiation of the received wisdom from the prior 50 years of Marxist theory combined with a novel restatement of principles. You need to make a similar jump into the void in order to understand the current situation.


The Crown of Columbus

Louis Proyect
 

The Crown of ColumbuS

Although many commentators have declared the novel to be dead as an art-form, there will always be a need for it as long as the human imagination remains unvanquished in an increasingly cash-driven and commodified world. For the novel, unlike newer media such as television and film, has the capacity to summon up images and feelings from deep within that the poor, thread-bare movie screen can never compete with.

I was reminded of this after having read the late Michael Dorris and Louise Erdrich's masterpiece "The Crown of Columbus." Not only does this novel succeed on artistic terms, it is also a serious contribution to the vast literature surrounding the significance of 1492, America's original sin. Since Dorris and Erdrich are of American Indian descent, it would be expected that they would have much to say on the figure of Columbus. What is surprising, however, is the degree to which they rise above conventional thinking on the subject. Drawing upon a vast reservoir of literary, historical and indigenous associations, they examine the "discovery" of America from a variety of conflicting perspectives. Those varying perspectives are embodied in the points of view of the main characters who function both as key elements in a philosophical novel, and as engaging, quirky and lovable characters in a darkly comic saga.

full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/crown_of_columbus.htm


Covid, Capitalism & Ecology: A conversation with Mike Davis and Rob Wallace

Louis Proyect
 

:










View this email in your browser

presents

Covid, Capitalism & Ecology:
A Conversation with Mike Davis
and Rob Wallace

SATURDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2020

10:00 a.m. Pacific,  11 a.m. Mountain, 12 noon Central, 1 p.m. Eastern


Rob Wallace and Mike Davis, each of whom has new books out on this subject, are two of the world's leading left-wing thinkers and writers on the subject of the pandemic.

This conversation with Rob and Mike is sponsored by the newly organized Global Ecosocialist Network (GEN).  GEN is an international association of socialists formed in response to the catastrophic ecological crisis rapidly engulfing our world. 

The conversation with Rob and Mike will be introduced by GEN members Sabrina Fernandes from Brazil and Ian Angus from Canada.  System Change Not Climate Change is cohosting via Facebook to spread the word about this event to our followers throughout North America and around the world.

System Change Not Climate Change has affiliated with GEN because we agree with its core principles and recognize that only an international movement and global mobilization of people power can bring about the system change we need. We encourage activists  to visit GEN's webpage and consider joining GEN if you agree with GEN's key principles
. Individual membership entails a modest membership fee payable in Euros.

Rob Wallace is an evolutionary biologist, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Global Studies at the University of Minnesota, and a deli clerk at a local sandwich shop in St. Paul, Minnesota. Rob is the author of Big Farms Make Big Flu: Dispatches on Infectious Disease, Agribusiness, and the Nature of Science (Monthly Review Books 2020).


Mike Davis is the author of several books including City of Quartz, Buda's Wagon, Ecology of Fear, Planet of Slums, and (with Jon Wiener) Set the Night on Fire. Mike, a former meat cutter and truck driver, lives in San Diego. Mike's latest book is The Monster Enters: COVID-19, Avian Flu and the Plagues of Capitalism (OR Books 2020).

Click for Facebook Event Link


System Change Videos


System Change Not Climate Change has begun a new series of webinars to engage our growing movement. If you are not already a subscriber to this (low-volume!) newsletter, you can be sure to learn of upcoming events by subscribing here.

If you enjoy these videos and want to boost our ecosocialist message on YouTube, be sure to subscribe to the System Change Not Climate Change YouTube channel here. It costs you nothing, and it helps our videos reach a wider audience.

Here are our most recent videos:
To survive, we must swiftly transition to ecosocialism. But how do we do that? Kali Akuno of Cooperation Jackson describes that organization's inspiring model of local cooperative working and community life, and its visionary Call to Action: Towards a General Strike to End the COVID-19 Crisis and Create a New World.  View Now.

Richard Smith if the author of a stimulating new book from Pluto Press, China's Engine of Environmental Collapse. In this presentation and interview by Hong Kong and Los Angeles activist Promise Li, Smith addresses pressing questions about the role of China in the ecological emergency that confronts us. Smith explains the political and economic forces that are driving China to its current status as the world's leading carbon polluter.  View Now.

Labor organizer, climate activist, and historian Jeremy Brecher speaks about the role of the strike weapon in fighting the deepening and intertwined crises we face. Brecher is the author of Strike! and the co-founder and research director of the Labor Network for Sustainability. View Now.

Recent Articles from SystemChangeNotClimateChange.org

 
 
SCNCC.net welcomes you!

You can participate in any of the 250+ discussions on our forum or start a topic of your own.  The forum is accessible to ecosocialists and non-ecosocialists.  You don't have to sign up to peruse or search for content. If you sign up for free, you can start topics of your own and add comments to existing topics.  Unlike a listserv, SCNCC.net discussions are indexed by Google, Bing, and other search engines so the world will find your contributions to debates of key issues facing our ecosocialist movement.

COMMUNE, CONNECT, COLLUDE, COLLABORATE!


What is SCNCC?

System Change Not Climate Change is a network of ecosocialists who believe capitalism is incompatible with prospects for a decent life for future generations on planet Earth. We are based principally in the United States and Canada but our perspective is internationalist and anti-imperialist.

Want to collaborate?

SCNCC needs you if you want to become a part of our editorial/writing crew.  The imperative of building an ecosocialist movement is now more urgent than ever.  Click here and let us know if you want to write for the website or take on other tasks to maintain and create content for our communications channels.

You either requested information from SCNCC or signed up on our website for our low-volume email list.

Our mailing address is:
System Change Not Climate Change, the Ecosocialist Coalition 152 Home Avenue Burlington, Vt 05401 USA

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Louis Proyect
 

On 10/12/20 11:59 AM, Andrew Stewart wrote:
But for Ford, it is the police and other security forces. Elsewhere Ford has described the policing system as "system that is at its core designed to contain and terrorize and subjugate at every possible level the Black American population. That is the purpose of the mass Black incarceration state, although it has economic aspects in terms of making profits from prisons. But the central purpose is to contain and terrorize Black folks. And with that kind of mission, the tinkering around with reform measures, although useful but avoiding the central demand of Black community control of the police who patrol the Black community, will be ineffective in dismantling that whole structure.”
Again, Louis, you don't see the link between American settler-colonialism and fascism? You don't comprehend the multiple differences between a European-style parliamentary system and our Federalist system?

Unless you engage in a class analysis, particularly of the bourgeoisie, you end up with something that falls far short of the mark. I admire Glen Ford but this is not his forte. This is the kind of thing I would be looking for:

The light industrialists follow a rather different labor policy. The organic composition of their capital is lower, their fixed costs less burdensome, their arrogance less overpowering. Furthermore, the fact that they produce goods for consumption makes them fear that the too brutal measures of deflation demanded by heavy industry during a period of crisis will have a disastrous effect on the purchasing power of the masses, that is to say, of their consumers. So most of them prefer, in place of strong-arm tactics, what they call "class collaboration" and "industrial peace" and what is actually only a more hypocritical and insidious way of taming, and corrupting, the proletariat. It is, then, hardly surprising that in Italy and Germany, heavy and light industry should have looked on the growth of fascism with quite different feelings. Heavy industry wanted to pursue the class struggle until the proletariat was crushed; light industry still believed everything could be patched up by "industrial peace" and political horse trading. Heavy industry called for a "dynamic" foreign policy; light industry leaned toward a policy of "internal cooperation." Heavy industry wanted to strengthen its economic hegemony with the aid of a dictatorial state which should be its state; light industry feared this development.

https://libcom.org/files/Daniel%20Guerin-Fascism%20and%20Big%20Business-Pathfinder%20Press%20(2000).pdf


Re: "There will be no coup"

Michael Meeropol
 

Trump's "coup" will be through REpublican State LEgislatures declaring that the absentee ballots are rife with fraud and cutting off counting and selecting ELECTORS pledged to Trump (states like Pennsylvania, perhaps even Michigan and Wisconsin, perhaps Florida, etc.) ---

Thats the "legal" route to a coup ---- legislatures sending electors to vote for Trump no matter what the voters say ....



 
 


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Andrew Stewart
 

The key distinction, however, is who are designated as the agents of fascism. For the CPUSA, it was always the Republicans. For the paleo-libertarians at Off-Guardian, Global Research, and UNZ Review, it is multiculturalism and Affirmative Action. But for Ford, it is the police and other security forces. Elsewhere Ford has described the policing system as "system that is at its core designed to contain and terrorize and subjugate at every possible level the Black American population. That is the purpose of the mass Black incarceration state, although it has economic aspects in terms of making profits from prisons. But the central purpose is to contain and terrorize Black folks. And with that kind of mission, the tinkering around with reform measures, although useful but avoiding the central demand of Black community control of the police who patrol the Black community, will be ineffective in dismantling that whole structure.”
Again, Louis, you don't see the link between American settler-colonialism and fascism? You don't comprehend the multiple differences between a European-style parliamentary system and our Federalist system?


Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Louis Proyect
 

On 10/12/20 11:21 AM, Andrew Stewart wrote:
And so I return to my point about how those definitions are written for European parliamentary systems and not the American federalist one

https://www.blackagendareport.com/911-legacy-two-contending-fascisms

Ford is even more far-fetched than the CPUSA that routinely described Goldwater, Nixon et al as fascist. He applies the label to Hillary Clinton and her allies. His analysis is basically an adaptation of "deep state" nonsense:

The corporate Democrat fascists, now backed by most of the major media and the military-industrial complex, and openly aligned with the worst elements of the U.S. “intelligence” community, launched a furious campaign to delegitimize the Trump presidency through charges of “collusion” with “the Russians” and Wikileaks to pilfer Clinton campaign emails.

Corporate Democrat fascists? This is very close to the garbage on Off-Guardian, Global Research, and UNZ Review, as if the Democrats, George Soros and the "deep state" are carrying out a color revolution. Phooey, I say.



Re: Fascism, Trumpism, and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

Andrew Stewart
 

And so I return to my point about how those definitions are written for European parliamentary systems and not the American federalist one

https://www.blackagendareport.com/911-legacy-two-contending-fascisms


Re: "There will be no coup"

kristinbaird@...
 

Of course there won't be. So many people in this country have worked themselves into a state of near-madness.
 
While focussing on Trump in this piece, Douthat ignores that there simply isn't a right-wing army large enough, or prepared, to launch any type of coup. That is far more important than Trump's effectiveness.
 
Kristin

 
 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM
From: "John Reimann" <1999wildcat@...>
To: marxmail@groups.io
Subject: [marxmail] "There will be no coup"
I have tended to emphasize the drive by Trump towards one-man rule, AKA bonapartism. Here is a column emphasizing the opposite - what stands in his way. I think the writer, Ross Douthat, underestimates how far Trump has gone. For example, he doesn't mention that Trump has seized personal control over the capitalists' favorite political party, and that is important. Douthat says that the US Supreme Court would block Trump. He bases that on the rulings that have gone against Trump recently. But there will be a new (in)justice on the court who will almost certainly rule with Trump, which will add to the 4 vote minority in the recent rulings against Trump. Not only that, but Roberts jumped ship on issues of secondary importance. When it comes right down to raw, naked power there is no guarantee which way Roberts would go. Douthat explains that the entire capitalist media, with the exception of Fox (and the Wall St. Journal) is campaigning against Trump. The main effect that has is to sway public opinion, and it certainly has accomplished that, but only to a degree. Richard Nixon at his zenith, for example, was at 22% approval rating (vs. about double that for Trump). Douthat is correct that just about the entire military command opposes Trump. However, I think it's highly unlikely that they would move against him if he can have a Constitutional/legal cover. (And even if they did, that would pose a whole new set of problems.) Up until now, Trump has controlled the senate. That control may be slipping, but it's still pretty strong. In addition, he has made important steps towards direct control over the Department of (in)Justice and the State Department. He still doesn't totally control those important wings of the government, but he exercises a lot of power there. Finally, Douthat correctly explains that Trump doesn't have anything near the private forces that fascists like Hitler and Mussolini had. That is correct, and it means that fascism is not really on the agenda in the US. But we cannot discount the role of the vigilante groups and a wing of mobilized Republicans to seriously disrupt the vote and the vote count.

I bet somebody a dinner that Trump won't succeed himself, and I'm already anticipating where and how I will get that bet paid off. However, I think it's far - very far - from certain.
John

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/10/opinion/sunday/trump-election-authoritarianism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist

Oct. 10, 2020

Three weeks from now, we will reach an end to speculation about what Donald Trump will do if he faces political defeat, whether he will leave power like a normal president or attempt some wild resistance. Reality will intrude, substantially if not definitively, into the argument over whether the president is a corrupt incompetent who postures as a strongman on Twitter or a threat to the Republic to whom words like “authoritarian” and even “autocrat” can be reasonably applied.

I’ve been on the first side of that argument since early in his presidency, and since we’re nearing either an ending or some poll-defying reset, let me make the case just one more time.

Across the last four years, the Trump administration has indeed displayed hallmarks of authoritarianism. It features egregious internal sycophancy and hacks in high positions, abusive presidential rhetoric and mendacity on an unusual scale. The president’s attempts to delegitimize the 2020 vote aren’t novel; they’re an extension of the way he’s talked since his birther days, paranoid and demagogic.

These are all very bad things, and good reasons to favor his defeat. But it’s also important to recognize all the elements of authoritarianism he lacks. He lacks popularity and political skill, unlike most of the global strongmen who are supposed to be his peers. He lacks power over the media: Outside of Fox’s prime time, he faces an unremittingly hostile press whose major outlets have thrived throughout his presidency. He is plainly despised by his own military leadership, and notwithstanding his courtship of Mark Zuckerberg, Silicon Valley is more likely to censor him than to support him in a constitutional crisis.

His own Supreme Court appointees have already ruled against him; his attempts to turn his voter-fraud hype into litigation have been repeatedly defeated in the courts; he has been constantly at war with his own C.I.A. and F.B.I. And there is no mass movement behind him: The threat of far-right violence is certainly real, but America’s streets belong to the anti-Trump left.

So if you judge an authoritarian by institutional influence, Trump falls absurdly short. And the same goes for judging his power grabs. Yes, he has successfully violated post-Watergate norms in the service of self-protection and his pocketbook. But pre-Watergate presidents were not autocrats, and in terms of seizing power over policy he has been less imperial than either George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

There is still no Trumpian equivalent of Bush’s antiterror and enhanced-interrogation innovations or Obama’s immigration gambit and unconstitutional Libyan war. Trump’s worst human-rights violation, the separation of migrants from their children, was withdrawn under public outcry. His biggest defiance of Congress involved some money for a still-unfinished border wall. And when the coronavirus handed him a once-in-a-century excuse to seize new powers, he retreated to a cranky libertarianism instead.

All this context means that one can oppose Trump, even hate him, and still feel very confident that he will leave office if he is defeated, and that any attempt to cling to power illegitimately will be a theater of the absurd.

Yes, Trump could theoretically retain power if the final outcome is genuinely too close to call.

But the same would be true of any president if their re-election came down to a few hundred votes, and Trump is less equipped than a normal Republican to steer through a Florida-in-2000 controversy — and less likely, given his excesses, to have jurists like John Roberts on his side at the end.

Meanwhile, the scenarios that have been spun out in reputable publications — where Trump induces Republican state legislatures to overrule the clear outcome in their states or militia violence intimidates the Supreme Court into vacating a Biden victory — bear no relationship to the Trump presidency we’ve actually experienced. Our weak, ranting, infected-by-Covid chief executive is not plotting a coup, because a term like “plotting” implies capabilities that he conspicuously lacks.

OK, the reader might say, but since you concede that the Orange Man is, in fact, bad, what’s the harm of a little paranoia, a little extra vigilance?

There are many answers, but I’ll just offer one: With American liberalism poised to retake presidential power, it needs clarity about its own position. Liberalism lost in 2016 out of a mix of accident and hubris, and many liberals have spent the last four years persuading themselves that their position might soon be as beleaguered as the opposition under Putin, or German liberals late in Weimar.

But in reality liberalism under Trump has become a more dominant force in our society, with a zealous progressive vanguard and a monopoly in the commanding heights of culture. Its return to power in Washington won’t be the salvation of American pluralism; it will be the unification of cultural and political power under a single banner.

Wielding that power in a way that doesn’t just seed another backlash requires both vision and restraint. And seeing its current enemy clearly, as a feckless tribune for the discontented rather than an autocratic menace, is essential to the wisdom that a Biden presidency needs.
 
--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
 
 
 


The Stories Michael Shellenberger Tells - Los Angeles Review of Books

Louis Proyect
 

MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER WANTS US to believe environmentalists are impeding our ability to solve environmental problems. This has long been the position of Bay Area ecomodernists, who argue that technology and growth, not limits, will save the planet. Now, in his best-selling new book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Shellenberger goes further, claiming that climate change and species extinction are not terribly threatening anyway.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-stories-michael-shellenberger-tells/


Fifth of countries at risk of ecosystem collapse, analysis finds | Biodiversity | The Guardian

Louis Proyect
 


Re: So who is in control of the nuclear football right now?

Alan Ginsberg
 

The question raised by Andrew is addressed in a New York Times article, "Trump’s Virus Treatment Revives Questions About Unchecked Nuclear Authority".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-coronavirus.html


California GOP accused of operating fake 'official' ballot drop boxes: 'Appalling criminal conduct' - Alternet.org

Louis Proyect