Socialism or Barbarism

"Socialism or barbarism" -- what does that mean? Authoritarian regimes will ultimately control all aspects of the political life of a country either with the velvet or the iron fist depending on the consciousness of the population of the country. Orban in Hungary is trying to be as controlling as the previous Communist government so the question for Hungary isn't will there be "democracy" but which class will control the levers of power. Previously the working class was in power and the bourgeoisie felt oppressed and the petty bourgeoisie was split. The leaders of the working class were unable to maintain their class hegemony and lost power and the bourgeoisie felt oppressed and the petty bourgeoisie was split. The leaders of the working class were unable to maintain their class hegemony and lost power to the bourgeois forces. Now the bourgeoisie is in power and the working class feels oppressed and the petty bourgeoisie is again split. Each class will try to control the courts, media, education and civil society so it is never a case of "democracy" versus "authoritarianism" but, if you are a hard-nosed realist it's "capitalist authoritarianism" versus "working-class authoritarianism" or, if you prefer, "bourgeois democracy*" versus "socialist democracy." Both class types share a limited amount of their power with the other class depending on the historical circumstances of the country involved but ultimately the working-class can exist without the capitalist class but the capitalist class cannot exist without the working-class. We all know which class is now controlling most of the world and that there is only one major world power where the working class is in power -- as Marxists we are, as it were, the super-ego of the working-class and are working for its ultimate victory over the capitalists. Marx and Engels thought the working class would ultimately win this class struggle but they also warned it could end with "the common ruin of the contending classes". That would be the triumph of barbarism; either socialism will eventually triumph or capitalism will destroy civilization as we know it (it is well on the way of doing so).

* In extremis the capitalists will dispense with the pretense of "democracy."

NYTIMES.COM

In Eastern Europe, U.S. Officials Talk Deals, Not Erosion of Democracy

Promoting weapons sales and isolation of Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence did not speak out on the illiberal direction of some allies.

Impeachment and the Supreme Court

The problem is not having a Supreme Court, but having one that could go against the will of the majority of the American people on vital democratic rights. For example, Trump, as well as Bush Jr., got to the presidency by flukes and they did not represent the choice of the American people. Trump especially represents a very conservative to ultra-right minority and has already appointed two Supreme Court justices who represent views out of sync with the general population and approach constitutional questions from an extremely undemocratic interpretive stance based on their personal political ideologies, this also applies to others on the court but more so to the so-called conservatives who reflect the minority sentiments of the population. Congress has the power to impeach a Supreme Court justice and should not be afraid to use this power to protect the democratic rights of the American people if it is determined a justice is violating his/her oath to defend the Constitution or that he/she lied or dissembled to Congress during confirmation hearings in order to be confirmed. There is prima facie evidence that Justice Thomas, for example, may have been guilty of lying to Congress about the Anita Hill affair and there is no reason a newly elected Congress cannot reopen hearings to determine if a previous Congress was lied to. Justices are not sacrosanct and the democratic rights of the American people are too valuable to be held hostage by a cabal of Justices operating to further the interests of a political party or partisan minority against the general will of the people.

NYTIMES.COM

In Surprise Abortion Vote, John Roberts Avoids ‘Jolt to the Legal System’

The chief justice, a student of legal rules governing precedent, balances guarding his court’s legitimacy against his generally conservative impulses.

What is Racism? The UN definition of 1965 tells us.

This article is a case study of the behavior of racist governments and anyone who thinks that the UN rescinded its designation of Zionism as racism for any other reason than the pressure applied by the US government (itself an example of institutional racism) is sadly mistaken. ["The UN General Assembly based its 1975 anti-Zionist resolution on the UN’s own definition of racial discrimination, adopted in 1965. According to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, racial discrimination is “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” "-- Counterpunch, November 5, 2003 "Zionism as Racist Ideology" by BILL CHRISTISON - KATHLEEN CHRISTISON]

Just as a matter of logic, as long as the word "any" is in the Convention how can Zionism escape inclusion in the definition of racial discrimination? Can anyone honestly say that Palestinians and Israeli Arabs have "equal footing" with Jewish citizens of Israel? US democracy is also racist as it does not treat minority people and the poor on an "equal footing" with the privileged white majority. We will never be rid of racism, if we are to be honest, until we have a society in which the principle of from each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her needs is actually practiced.

About this website

NYTIMES.COM

As West Bank Violence Surges, Israel Is Silent on Attacks by Jews

Israel’s government has been reluctant to condemn attacks by Jewish settlers, wary of alienating the movement’s supporters in an election year.