How many Parliamentarians does it take to screw together an industrial restoration?

Out of the "amorphous," "uncertain" Libyan rebellion rises a road-map towards parliamentary government. More opportunity to elucidate my own apocalyptic Marxist heresy.

Note how in the early days of the rebellion, the media was unable to articulate the "character" or "direction" of Gaddhafi's antagonists. It defied their paradigms. Some on "the left," including conventional Marxists, made a big deal of the early use of the pre-Gaddhafi monarchist flag (which has pretty much been adopted, it seems, now that the rebellion's leadership is developing into a "legitimate" institution). There are complaints that the leaders of the rebellion are too pro-Western, in bed with the imperialists, making deals with the devils, etc. etc. And clearly this is true. And clearly there are times when people's movements are all-to-eager to compromise, even when they have the upper hand (*cough*Wisconsin*cough*).

Other times, there just isn't the higher-level thinking prevalent enough to make and stick to reasoned, virtuous choices. (Funny, how in that photo, I can't make out a single black person, despite gathering outside a black President's home in a city that roughly half black.) You can argue all you want with people about the things they ought to know better about. It isn't that people are immutably evil. It's simply that sometimes they are just too engaged in the habit of ego to be good. Their capacity isn't any generally less.

Anyway, I digress; points about individual egoism is only circumstantial to Libyan "leaders" and their promise to make a conventional parliamentary government. In my experiences with "politicized" folks (approximately meaning in this context "folks who have become passionate about the socialization of enmity enough to 'do something' about it") most people gravitate towards (or rattle around between) one of three positions when it comes to leadership (perhaps more acutely "management" - so-called "leaders" whose function is to mystify through a process called "government"):

1. High respect, and/or apologism for perceived bad policy. This is how liberals in the U.S. usually treat Democrats and how conservatives in the US treat Republicans.
2. Moderate respect, and/or criticism or even hostility towards perceived bad policy. This is how liberals and conservatives in the U.S. generally feel towards their opposing parties; how conventional Marxists think of parliamentary politicians on the whole. This latter point is because, in my experience, conventional Marxists can't imagine an imminent reality that isn't governed by parliamentary procedure but they do want the formation of their own Party (a "working class" party) to take the helm of it (functionally restoring the industrialist paradigm).
3. Nil respect and/or apathy and/or hostility towards leadership's existence and whatever institutions support them/enact their policies. Superficially, the whole gamut of anarchism fits in here - but I think there is room for something else, a creative anti-Parliamentarianism, an antagonistic philosophy that combs the social ruins of bureaucracy in decline and recombines the fluid constitution of what we once conceived of as concrete institutions.

The rebellion against Ghaddafi's eccentric, chaos-chronistic tyranny (unpacking it: this green-flagged government ostensibly linked "outdated" [the scare quotes of bourgeois perspective] tribal government with "advanced" [and the scare quotes of Vanguardist perspective! Look Ma, no hands!] people's council governments - by arbitrating past and future modes via cult of personality a la Stalinism or "third-world socialism") ... the rebellion against Ghaddafi's eccentric, chaos-chronistic tyranny ought to reveal to us the interstices between "forms" of "government."

The question that comes to mind: if a people can voluntarily enter into a war against a hated tyrant, "how much" government do they need? What is the purpose of "government" as we know it - "rule of law," as many Western politicians claim, or the negotiated slavery of populations, organized into classes, to an industrial mode of production? A mode of production whose harried, unresting, replicative logic extends beyond the control of any singular class or class alliance. A mode of production which blindly and mindlessly pillages the living and the dead and all the "useful" things of nature and leaves swaths of ruins and polluted wastelands in its wake?

an interim government would immediately take over to provide day-to-day governance and keep order, the Associated Press news agency reports.

It would comprise members from the NTC, technocrats from the Gaddafi regime, senior military and intelligence officers and a supreme court judge, he said.

A constitution would be drawn up and put to a referendum, followed a few months later by parliamentary and presidential elections.

What we see in Libya is a habitual surrender of the vital forces of rebellion to the industrial mode of government, which domesticates the human animal in order to turn the gears of the earth's mal-apportionment. Their instinct is to destroy that which oppresses them, but in doing so their only choices has been an alliance with the devil they don't know (yet).

But, precisely because of the unusual historic balance of powers that I described in my last post, more of that interstitial space has been revealed than might normally appear in "simple" (perhaps better explained as "previous") civil war scenarios. To glance a moment at our own Civil War (because I assume our readers are most familiar with that), the South adopted the old Articles of Confederation without batting an eye. Hell, it was a handful of property owners who went to the state governments to instigate secession - it wasn't a people's movement at all until the ruling powers capitalized on regional patriotism. It simply went from being states in the United States to being a Confederacy without a struggle for form in between. Those rulers had cohesion as an organized class.

These people, in a Libyan refugee camp across the border in Tunisia, are not represented by any "real" (parliamentary) government and might never be.

The Libyan rebels have slipped, however temporarily, through the cracks of the industrial mode, and these cracks are widening. There is very much a chance the "22-nation contact group" working with the transitional government can foster a parliamentary government and bring the rebellion under control, declare a revolution "complete," and integrate them all some way into the current world order. But as resources become scarce, as labor becomes redundant and what industrialization has deemed "work" becomes "scarce" and commodities, environments, modes of living become antagonistic to the survival of our species, more of these interstitial gaps will yawn open with less opportunity for "appropriate" re-incorporation.

Who will build the new infrastructure for millennial capitalism's catastrophic zones? Where will they get the resources? Who will pay for it? And who will benefit? Worse yet - how, in light of peak oil and capitalism's sociopathic waste of resources - how can it possibly be sustainable?

Bicycle Licenses: Green Transit FAIL

With no ado, please read this quick letter to the editor on the NYT re: the ongoing debate over bicycle lanes in the Big Apple.

Ok, this is stupid. Any longtime readers of this blog should know by now that transit is one of my pet peeves. Automobiles are stupid, expensive, inefficient machine systems, the hidden costs of which have only been made clearer to me since I began reading Ivan Illich's "Tools for Conviviality." And, having immigrated to the Twin Cities in 2008 - the best metro region in the United States for biking - I naturally have nothing but respect for the alternative, low-cost, low-tech, high-input transit tool. Bicycles require less infrastructure. Physical or bureaucratic. Anyone can pick one up, learn to ride it, and be much more mobile than a pedestrian, while not ever having to stop for an oil change.

And they don't cause potholes.

So even the mere mention suggestion that cyclists be "required to wear vests with visible identity numbers," especially as "more revenue for the city," is infuriating. This would de-democratizes what is virtually an equal-access tool. And those are fucking hard to come by in this corporate-dominated oligarchy. You may as well require licenses to buy a god-damn screwdriver.

We ought to be moving away from cars, not attempting to make bicycles more like them. Cars are dangerous. Accidents involving bicycles are rarely, if ever, fatal - unless they involve automobiles. Bicycles are for people who prefer to opt-out of the institutionalized mess composed of insurance companies, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and car dealerships. There's no defensible reason for litigating this form of transit.

Why for the love of God do New Yorkers even own cars. why. why. why.

If I had that kind of access to mass transit, I would sell my car. And I was raised on car culture, suckled on the oily teat of Southern California. There was a time when I identified very strongly with the freeway lifestyle ... until I've come to see how much waste it creates.

More and more I am coming to see Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a shining bastion of progressivism, one of the few states where the slash-and-burn budget experiments are failing to take root. Our economy is relatively stable and slowly recovering, there is a fair division of labor between NGOs/nonprofits and government, a high literacy rate, thriving immigrant communities, high literacy rates, grassroots culture, wide expanses of wild space and a responsible hunter culture, and a strong respect for the environment that springs from both conservative and liberal camps. And not to mention a strong, intelligent radical layer that is rarely reactionary (with some exceptions).

As for Mr. I-was-almost-murdered-by-a-bicycle, automobiles often have front and back lights, and "noise-emitting warning device[s]," yet they maim and murder far more people than bicycles. Had he been hit by a car, he wouldn't even be alive to make the complaint. There is still no substitute for vigilance, and no amount of legislation is going to force him to look both ways before crossing the goddamn street.

Maybe he could try unplugging his goddamn iPod from his head when he's out on the town.

Nuclear Power and/or Barbarism (with apologies to Evan Calder Williams)

Recently I was privy to an argument on Facebook, wherein my older hippy friend N.C. and my college-age Marxist friend A.S. found themselves at odds over the sustainability of nuclear energy. (Obviously I needn't explain to you the cause for the debate.) N.C. pointed out problems with nuclear power plant regardless of where you place them. (The funny thing about earthquakes, you can't really hold anyone at fault. lololol ... seriously, though.)

A.S. points out that there is a need right now to choose between coal and nuclear power, that coal power is one of the leading causes of global warming, and that radioactive damage is limited by comparison (leading, in his words, to the dichotomy of "barbarism or nuclear power"). Fair enough. But someday soon we ought to see nuclear energy as marginalized as possible. The effects of radiation are awful.

And A.S. made the good (or perhaps rather "popular") point that wind energy especially (but also solar?) has its own impact on the environment. Some of my critics especially like to talk about the dead birds that seem to crop up in the vicinity of wind plants. But I can tell you, as an employee at an office building with a lot of very large windows, birds run into shit all the time. It's much easier for animals and biomes to adapt and evolve around these kinds of edifices than it is for them to adapt to large doses of radiation, or even extra carbon dioxide in the air. The buddhist in me hates to sound heartless but if they can adapt to make chirps sound like car alarms, they can alter their migration patters over time....

Breaking Wind: Silent But Deadly

A third friend, A.R., a chemist, chimed in and spoke about the pace of advancement in green energy industries. With the way these developing technologies are funded, he informed me, it could be decades before they could have a notable effect on how we power our society.

Aha. It all comes back to the ca$$$h money (yeah, I went there).

Look at the federal tax subsidies for the dead-dinosaur energy industries: oil, gas, and coal. That is a lot of money thrown at a not-problem. And while I seem to be the last person in America who thinks the federal deficit is not really the most pressing issue in the country today (I've yet to see hard evidence that a. "we're broke" or b. it's going to cause economic catastrophe - the banks were at fault for the only thing like that recently), I think this is money poorly apportioned. We could do a helluva lot better than renewable wind power by 2030.

I think this is a disastrously shortsighted energy policy. Oil, for example, is not in fucking dire need of federal subsidies. Alternatives are.

Oil made a killing by the end of last year, and it was being traded at roughly 3/4ths what it's going for today. Gouging takes place not only at the pump but on the stock exchange floor, too. There's no law in place to translate those profits into green R&D. If the U.S. government had a pro-Earth agenda, it would nationalize the dinosaurs and force exactly that change. But, firmly in the grip of capitalist industries, neither the Democrats nor especially the Republicans would ever go that far, not without extreme pressure from workers and voters. Before the oilpocalypse, BP spent very little of its profits on renewable energy but made a mountain of that molehill through their sophisticated PR machine. A lot, perhaps, has been forgotten concerning the oily money siphoned to Congress and the White House via PACs, but there's no questioning the influence on policy.

If I'm against oil, and I'm against nuclear power, and if I acknowledge that the problem is both critical and that the financial policy is unlikely to change, then what? Several people, my above-mentioned friend and my own father included (hi dad!), insist that a fall in standard of living therefore follows. Without energy, or perhaps more accurately, due to a fall in energy productivity if wind and solar implementation is made, our "standard of living" will crash. Is that what I want?

In a word, perhaps - although it's curious to imagine how our standard of living would be affected. Perhaps we could stop prioritizing a wasteful and hollow consumerist lifestyle where what matters most to us is what we watch on TV and what kind of car we drive and what we can order from the fancy downtown restaurants and who said what on Facebook (irony points!). I don't know what other people envision when they think of a fall in "living standards" brought about by drastically decreased energy usage. Perhaps they imagine the apocalypse. I imagine something more like widespread inconvenience - for the wealthy, of course, poor people are pretty used to getting by with a "low" standard of living.

AKA, "barbarism." At least to the middle class.

That NYT article bothers me for similar reasons. Not least of which is the tone - equating a few moaning yuppies with imagined - cynically expected, demanded - environmentalist hypocrisy. Yuppies are environmentalists like they are human right's activists - in the abstract. They are yuppies first and environmentalists second. They want to do more than live comfortably - they want to live well, with the private schools and the minivans and the fancy dinner out on the town. No meal is too quaint for them, and sustainability be damned, but naturally sustainability and bike lanes and buses are "a good idea." Hybrids are a status symbol. Green chic has taken the place of radical chic, and the great wheel of capitalism turns again.

I can't help but think of consumers as the "hungry ghosts" of Eastern lore

So yes, I think we can and should take some kind of hit to our so-called "standard of living." I think we could do a lot better with a lot less and do less damage to the planet in the meantime. A great many policies could be solved if we took economic planning out of the hands of profit-hungry corporations and put it back in the hands of a scientifically educated population. I do not fear having to change my way of life; I fear only that we've gone the point of no return, that there is no realistic fix to our mangled education, transportation, and industrial systems, that any attempt to unseat Mammon will unleash violence and chaos and ultimately annihilate the good along with the bad in America.

But there's no way to tell without trying, and no reason to go on if we don't make the attempt. All we need is some focus and some direction and the willingness to sacrifice the "comforts" we know in our hearts are toxic for us anyway.

-----

ADDENDUM: A note of optimism. I admit, my favorite part is when America springs to life. To think, I've waited years for that, and everyone told me I was stupid for believing!

Losing the Green Future

Yet another of those sacred pillars of the American Empire is evidencing some particularly ominous cracks: the auto industry. As domestic automakers were some of the biggest losers and/or crybabies of the Great Recession, the character of the industry was profoundly changed. The federal government had to quasi-nationalize General Motors, long seen as the figurative engine of the American industrial economy.

this is called a factory. we used to have these in this country.

(But of course, the industrial sector in the United States has long been in decline. Just ask Wisconsin workers.

Or, for that matter, take a look around many places in rural America. Or Northeast Minneapolis. Or the Southern California urban sprawl where I was born. You can see the hollow shells of industry everywhere like the concrete exoskeletons of shellfish behemoths. All the crunchy capital and gooey labor long since fled to friendlier - aka more oppressive - climates.)

But the problem with the automotive industry isn't strictly its finances, despite the war on United Auto Workers the last few decades. It isn't government regulations, which every industry encounters eventually (if the government knows what's good for it). The problem isn't even design. I have no patience for the arguments that Americans only want big gas-guzzling SUVs and hostile-looking mini monster trucks. Those are the fault of advertisement campaigns and the dismantling of city planning and the cancer-like spread of suburbia as much as it is any dream of the American public.

The problem is systemic. The problem is the auto industry's linkage and co-strategery with oil interests. This is an alliance that has dismantled public transit in key metro regions (especially Los Angeles, where commuters sit trapped in their cars for hours with right-wing hate radio pumped through their car speakers).

By de-socializing transit, the capitalist system in America not only placed the burden of commuting on each family, but also spun a nationalist narrative that equated freedom with machismo and geographical dominance. Goading said families into accepting this burden. Even valuing it. To the point where the car loan is right up there with the other heavy hitters in the world of modern debt slavery: medical bills, student loans, and the car loan's dialectical opposite: the sacred home loan.

As consumerism rose and real wages stagnated the last 30 years, consumer debt became one of the quiet underpinnings of the U.S. economy. Now more than ever U.S. workers are searching frantically for good deals on commodities and services to make ends meet. The more progressive elements of the working class - including college graduates, many of whom can't find the high-paying jobs they were promised - also want to do their part to help the environment.

climate change has turned my home region into a tinder-box

But government initiatives to expand green, high-speed mass transit between urban centers keeps getting cock-blocked by teabaggers hissing about budgets that have come unbalanced (because of right-wing corporate tax cuts, mostly). And the working class hasn't woken up to the reality of car ownership yet - and it will be a struggle to do so, considering our suburbs have developed along auto, not mass, transit channels. (Massive retrofitting required - but that would also bring jobs back in massive numbers, if we can figure out how to pay for it....)

So the U.S. auto industries do a little bit, as part of their green PR campaign, to capture the green progressive demographic. Problem is, they want to offset R&D and capital and production costs by marketing hybrids and electrics as luxury cars. As if the fate of the planet, and the species, is a luxury.

Not exactly doing their duty as a human institution to make their own sacrifices for the good of the planet. While we spend our own hard-earned cash on new lightbulbs, energy-saving appliances, and candles for brownouts (something we Californians are pretty used to), they generally look for every feasible way to lower their own costs, including passing off that cost to consumers and the environment. Would they ever consider operating at a loss to fund green research and low-cost, low-emission transit options?

Not in your life. So don't believe any talk of "shared sacrifice." As in so many other realms - budget cuts are one popular example right not - there is more sacrifice to business than from business.

But, as long as the environment remains fashionable - and it should, considering it's not exactly poised for a rebound anytime soon - rest assured automakers will continue their lackadaisical wandering towards cheap green transit ... eventually ... in their own good time.

That's where China comes in. Apparently the F3DM, while doing next to nothing to redeem the stereotype of boring communist consumer goods (more of an industrial-era thing, you know, silver is the new Fordian black), is the first mass-produced hybrid. In the world.

You heard right. Cheap hybrids for everyday folks.

they also have high-speed rail.

A little bumpy, yeah, but what working person doesn't have something that's falling apartment? Nice things are for rich people - just look at Comrade X and his coffee pot. I'm being a little facetious, yeah, but it would be nice to own something so cheap that we didn't feel trepidation when trying to open it up and customize the damn thing.

All this once again underlines the role of government in business. As if the fat profit sharing GM autoworkers are going to get didn't hammer it home well enough for you. (Remember, GM was the one that got nationalized.) For Chrissake, as if the very internets you're reading this on wasn't evidence enough that government involvement in business can be good for both business and workers.

'Course the Chinese gov't treats their workers far, far worse than we do here (uhh, right?) and that needs to be changed. But this is just further evidence of a fraying American empire, unable to meet the stringent demands of the 21st century - the very century it has played such a central role in creating.

A couple other slick readings for you: ECW's discussion of last year's holes, which includes a good rendition of oil's significance true significance, and a recent post from Mr. Thomas L. Friedman that I, frighteningly enough, almost completely agree with: use Libya as an excuse to get off oil dependency once and for all. Friedman even says "history is back," which has interesting repercussions. Slowly the amber lets go of the Middle East, coagulates around the United States....

The Hills are Alive with the Sounds of ... Profit

Personally, I don't like to reflect much on political personalities and the changes in bureaucratic cogs. Rearranging the deck chairs (or changing the mast head) may have an impact on how people percieve what's occuring, but it doesn't change the underlying reality of capitalism, consumerism, and the fundamental character of the state. My comrade Nullstellensatz wrote recently in his own blog, "Liberals believe that fundamental change can be secured by replacing a few politicians." I would say that description applies to conservatives as well, only on the opposite side of the spectrum. Even the tea baggers are taking a conservative, rather than a radical-right, stance when they call for ousting incumbent officials.

Policies and personalities shape each other, but for all intents and purposes (or at least my own at this stage), I am not interested.

I am interested, however, in the study released last week concerning "mineral riches" lying under Afghanistan.

States the NYT: "The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. "

This is, in my humble opinion, the best political news of the year so far. My only criticism is the timing of this report. I imagine these particular causes for enthusiasm and concern are not obvious, so let's look at it in more detail.

Why Afghanistan Needs Capitalism

This central Asian, civil-war-torn nation is fucked. Caught between insurgents and imperialists, the every-day people can't get by, industry can't grow, government can't provide services, and the overall quality of life remains as landlocked as the geography. Agriculture remains the central feature of the economy - and opium remains the central feature of agriculture. No matter how much opium occupying forces light on fire, the economic incentive to grow drugs remains. Proving, yet again, that the characteristics of an economy play a decisive role in determining the characteristics of a society.

The presence of valuable minerals is a game-changer. But only, of course, for the long-term prospects. Local industry is hideously under-developed. Even hiring a bunch of people to go dig up some gold is pragmatically implausible. Who has the money to spare for shovels or gold pans, not to mention labor? And you probably aren't going to mine any friggin minerals at all without the use of hydraulics. And then you have to refine the mined product. It's the same way for each mineral, and it requires some serious capital investment. Not to mention supply lines for exports or distribution lines for commercial retail. And the presence of commercial retail in the first goddamn place.

So we can see the opportunities for domestic investment and development of a mining industry in Afghanistan is pretty goddamn microscopic.

That means foreign investment, foreign capital, which is a form of imperialism (which is an advanced stage of capitalism, not to be confused with colonialism, a cruder stage of capitalism). And in this case, foreign business is a little reluctant to put down roots. And will probably be especially hesitant to invest in such a labor-intensive industry. No matter how much investors may foam with lust for the Islamic Republic's rich lithium veins, the present situation just isn't safe enough to support their desires.

It is inevitable that foreign capitalism will attempt to make Afghanistan "safe." (Incidentally, "safe for democracy" is really just a code for "safe for our investments," they don't give a rat's ass if they need a dictator to do it. A sham democracy just looks nice. Foreign policy/public relations brownie points!) And there will be those investors who want to challenge the situation, "get the jump" ... and inevitably get creamed. (The poor sods they get to work for them are the "contractors" you hear about, getting kidnapped or beheaded. Workers get screwed every which way.) But it will take a while. It will take paying off the insurgents like they did in Iraq, and the blood of many more Afghans. Men, women, children. More US and coalition soldiers, too. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, flag-draped caskets you won't see on the news. But we'll squeeze that precious dust from the rocks, by God.

Karzai, inevitably, will also have to go. More warlords and ter'rists too. Allies will become enemies and enemies allies. Eventually, either American imperialism will breed Afghani puppet-capitalists, or the United States will be forced to pull out in a humiliating defeat, and a breed of capitalists more acceptable to the Afghani ruling class (and more marketable to the Afghan people) will assume the role. The top three candidates for the position, in order of least likely to most likely, are Russia, China, and Iran. (I won't get into why right now; perhaps you can muse it over yourself and let me know what you think.)

"But Drez," you poor beleaguered souls may be saying, "I thought you stand opposed to all capitalism, foreign and domestic."

Too true, comrades! I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and as a vast and complicated political system I can't even hoist the goddamn thing. But history has shown (at least so far) that you can't "skip over" the "phases of development." Afghanistan needs some degree of capital investment to make a transition into a more sustainably democratic society. The Afghani working class will only have something to seize and be thus equipped to revolutionize their society - if there is an introduction of capital.

Or should I say ... a re-introduction of capital.

Why This Report is Suspect

(I mean, besides the fact that it's been released by the US government.)

This poor country gets a lot of flak. I mean, people talk about it like it's been the backwaters of the planet for its entire history. And that's just not true; back in the day, Afghanistan was a pretty swingin' place - well, if you were a rich Afghan or a rich Brit, at least. And you have to hand it to the European colonialists: they were interested in "civilizing the savages." Often that meant shooting the crap out of anyone who resisted their rule, but in this case it also meant helping draft a constitution, build up infrastructure, and introduce compulsory education. All very capitalist developments.

Eventually Afghanistan got some indepenence from the Brits, and then - as was fashionable in poor countries in the latter half of the century - went on a Marxist kick. At one point the standard of living began to have similarities to industrialized nations. The US backed the anti-Soviet forces in the country, the corrupt USSR invaded in retaliation, the Taliban took over, and the rest is history. (Or current events, if you will.) Booting out the Marxists in favor of the USSR and then the ultra-right wackos tore the country to bits.

Yay Umerika!

So in reality, the complete disarray of this country isn't an unbroken thread of barbarism, but a dialectic of development and the strategic intervention of international powers and the internal competition for the country's soul, so to speak (will it be a country ruled by might, or will it transcend nationhood and build itself on reason?).

And furthermore, there have been sophisticated studies on the valuable mineral deposits in this region at least since the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1970s, though I don't doubt that the anal-retentive British colonialists also scoured the soil meticulously. The gold, at least, should have been common knowledge in geological (and, presumably, military intelligence; those guys are pretty damn comprehensive in their analyses) circles. The lithium has probably been known since pretty early in the invasion.

Now obviously, the US didn't declare war on Afghanistan just because there are gold deposits under Takhar. We aren't talking about oil, the great consumer-capitalist lubricant. Gold is a capitalist bauble in comparison.

It is the timing of this report that is suspect. At a time when the popularity of "the good war" is steadily sinking, and disillusionment in Obama is building, I think the administration is looking for some way to rebuild the confidence of its own investors. There have been almost 10 years of conflict and there can easily be another 10 and you have to reassure the corporate world that you can, and will, and should slug it out. It isn't a revelation; it's a reminder.

And it should remind us, too. It should remind us that war is a racket. Fought by we the workers, lost by we the workers, and won - win lose or draw for us - by the rich.

There has Gotta be a Better Way

It's not looking too positive now. In another five years the world may start shooing away the gluttonous supply of Afghanistan opium. That's good. Any number of people out of that particular drug trade is positive. Constructive jobs for the Afghan people? Also positive. Without a doubt some citizens remember, or have at least have knowledge of, a better period for their people. Keeping that hope alive can always infuse their struggle with purpose and vigor and throw off the oppossed oppressions of the US and the Taliban.

There is always a possibility, albeit small at this stage, of a third route that circumvents US capitalism and other forms of foreign oppression: a planned economy. Democratic control of the workplace by the workers and nationalization of industries and the co-struggle of workers and farmers - therein lies the key to this route. Such dramatic participation of the people in the economy and government could so radicalize Afghanistan that industrialization could occur in a matter of years and make it a major regional, even world, power. That was the effect on Russia in 1917 when it transitioned to vast Tsarist hinterland to a republic of worker's councils.

But that republic in Russia was quickly lost - an unindustrialized country simply does not have the economic basis to maintain this advanced form of organization for long. It would need to link up to working-class movements in more developed countries, such as Greece, Ireland, or Spain, where those movements are challenging capitalism's global oligarchy. It's a tall task. But otherwise, the people of Afghanistan will end up living in mining towns that resemble work camps, and their harsh but beautiful countryside will be subjected to the worst practices capitalism has to offer. The profit system leaves undeveloped nations few alternatives to exploitation, and so the working class there needs to seize foreign capital with zeal and vigor and just not let go.

Send the Donkey to the Dust-Bin

While X is on the subject of the uselessness of the two pro-business parties, I thought I'd throw out the idea of what a real working people's party would look like, if it were to spring out of the movements and sentiments of right now.

It would require the broad enlistment of rank-and-file members from these sectors of society:

• Trade Unions, both from the big, traditional industries and the more grass-roots efforts;
• The LGBT movement, from the couple who wants their marriage recognized by the state to the transsexual triad that recognizes their oppression is one more way to divide the working class and therefore they will not subscribe to gender-normative consumer culture;
  
• Every immigrant, legal or not (whatever the term you want to use), their family and friends, of every race and color and creed and ethnicity, who knows that Democrats and Republicans alike only enforce borders when it suits their own conquest of wealth;
• The anti-war movement, whether its members be freshly angered by the raids in Pakistan and Yemen, or burnt out on nine years of protest without a single goddamn acknowledgement from the System;
• Community activists and environmentalists, who know that free trade and the destruction of the environment are two sides of the same coin;
• Some Marxists and socialist, although admittedly this portion of the left as a whole has failed at really stepping in and assisting the working class - for a wide variety of reasons, some the fault of the Marxists (or "marxists") and some not - the sectarian portions cannot and will not take a notable part.

And what, pray tell, would this party's platform look like?

Hopefully - and just going off popular sentiments today - something like this:

• The nationalization of BP as punishment for the global eco-disaster they have created, profits to be invested in a gigantic, national mass-transit system - and a bit fat tax on the profits of all other oil companies doing business with America;
  
• The immediate repeal of SB1070 and the strict enforcement (and expansion) of all federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, language, gender (and/or gender identity), sexuality, etc.;
• An immediate withdraw of all United States forces from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt;
• A condemnation of the policies of the state of Israel as regards not only the Flotilla Massacre, but also the rampant human rights abuses committed against the Palestinian people - complete severing of all weapon sales and suspension of commerce until it fucking shapes up;
• Full funding for schools, Social Security, medicare and medicade, unemployment and employment services - to be funded by the money-formerly-known-as "the military budget."

Now that is what I call "a start." With a party like that up and running, what would we need these spineless so-called Democrats for?

(Also the Socialist Rose makes a much cooler emblem than some dumb animal.)

Recession Part II: The Stock Market Strikes Back

Global stock markets, those infallible thermometers of capitalism's health, are back on the rise with the news of Greek's loan deal and a 750-billion-Euro plan to back up loans and provide emergency funds to future failing governments. These promised funds from the European Central Bank are like water to the parched roots of Wall Street, the London FTSE, and even the Asian markets. Proving, once again, that this is truly a global economy, all is right in the world, glory glory hallelujah.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (who happens to be Portuguese) even says, according to the BBC, "Our fundamentals are certainly good."

Surely he must mean the "fundamentals" of a regional and global economy, meaning consumer goods, industry, and raw materials?

When we juxtapose (I love juxtaposing) this statement from a BBC article with yet another good article, this one on the sustainability of the environment and its economic implications for the future, we see this is not the case. Human economies are often conceived of as a supply chain, but we forget that the beginning point of this chain is nestled in the complicated web of the Earth's environment. It's a web we hardly understand, yet one corporations fuck with like the own the place. (Seriously? Golf balls and tires? It's the 21st Century!)

So my apologies to the fine bankers of Europe, but your institutions are built on sand. In 20 or 30 years, it won't matter how many shiny Euros you have in the bank; if there's no arable land, no amount of gold will buy you food.

This is just another touted event in the "inevitable" climb to "global recovery." Of course we will remember that after every "recession," the so-called "recovery" leaves hundreds of thousands of people all across the globe worse off than before. Their homes foreclosed, their once-stable jobs irrevocably lost, their future in peril. As this instability increases, the chances that their region will go to war increase as well, and we all know by now that war is not a desirable outcome (except, perhaps, if you're Haliburton).

So yes, the banks are now investing in Spain and Portugal and all the rest of those governments that teetered on the edge of disaster. Perhaps that will stave off the remaining fallout from 2008's Great Recession. Now the stock market can creep back towards its "infinite growth" and the capitalists can rub their paws in anticipation of their "absolute wealth." It'll be 1991 all over again, only this time the European Union version: the countries taking international loans will sacrifice their people's livelihoods on the altar of austerity.

But let us here not forget that the seeds of the next crisis have already been sewn. The peoples of Europe, led for the moment by the rowdy but largely stumbling Greeks, will not take all this lightly. Not when banks and industry go back to making record profits. Unemployment in the United States has felt no alleviation. The wealth continues to concentrate on the top and wreck havoc at the bottom. BP will get a slap on the wrist (at best a spanking) when it deserves the corporate death penalty. There are other problems here at home, too: commercial land prices, consumer debt, the coming health and education sector storms. (And further on, the public sector.)

So I wouldn't look so smug and hopeful if I were you, Mr. MBA. If you don't get a decent war to clear your slate, the pace of recession and economic disaster will only pick up.

More Dead Workers, Environmental Disaster, And Bought Politicians: Business As Fuckin' Usual

I don't really blame President Obama. He is just doing what every other capitalist politician has ever done: show his outraged face to the public and his ass- kissing face to the corporate leaders. But what the fuck, Average Joe American? Especially y'all down on the Gulf Coast. Haven't you about had enough of this shit? This is the second time in under a decade where a huge disaster ( and this one is going to be a lot worse than Hurricane Katrina- the killing will just take longer) has hit your area and the Federal government is engaged in another stumblefuck, trying to deal with the problem with one hand tied to their balls.
Man, if I were living on the Redneck Riviera, I would be preparing the torches and sharpening my pitchforks. Because British Petroleum ( BP) with the blessings of our toady government in Washington, is dealing with the spill by dispersing it with chemicals. Think about that for a minute. The oil is being dispersed. Not cleaned up, not destroyed, dispersed. As in, spread out over a greater area. Sure it sinks and saves the birds and wetlands- some of them- but now the deepwater life gets the poison (plus, the agent used by BP was not tested by the EPA- that would have cost money).
What a monumental insult to injury. BP and our capitalist- controlled government are doing the equivalent of sweeping the dirt under the rug on a massive scale. How fucking stupid do you think we are, Mr. President? Just because the oil is floating on the surface of the ocean, do you think that we assume it's gone? Jesus, you are well on the way to joining Dub'ya in The Presidential Asshole Hall Of Fame.
Of course, if never occured to the President or anyone else in his administration of stooges to actually regulate the safety standards of their corporate benefactors. This whole mess could have been avoided if the Feds required BP to install a back- up switch on the pipeline's automatic shut-off valve. But no, not a word on the utter farce of corporate self- regulation. No insistence on protecting labor rights or workplace safety. Instead, Obama offers empty words and cold comfort to the families of the eleven dead oil rig workers, like he offered to the families of their brethren who died ( murdered is more like it)in last month's mine disaster. Meanwhile, the banksters, the mining tycoons, and the oil barons get a blank check.
Add these victims to the mound of corpses in Central Asia and you get a President who is every bit as lethal to workers as his predecessor.

Update: In a rare flash of sanity by corporate bloodsuckers, the spraying of dispersants was halted ( after the potential damge was done) so the new strategy of using a giant cap to seal the leak can be tried. I hope it works, but the corporate track record for efficiency leaves me doubtful.