Tuesday, April 07, 2020

PSYCHOANALYZING THE UNABOMBER
Was The Unabomber The Original Incel?

Unpacking Ted Kaczynski's Relationships With Women

Ted Kaczynski didn't have much luck with the ladies, which some observers say may have contributed to his feelings of alienation.


BY GINA TRON FEBRUARY 28, 2020, 6:49 PM ET Crime TV
In this April 4, 1996 file photo, Ted Kaczynski, better known as the
 Unabomber,  is flanked by federal agents as he is led to a car from
 the federal courthouse in Helena, Montana. Photo: AP

Unabomber Ted Kaczynski had a complicated, and at times, hostile relationship with women.

When he was arrested in 1996 for his bombing spree — which killed three people and injured 23 between 1978 and 1995 — he was 54 and had never had a girlfriend. He lived alone as a mostly self-sufficient hermit in a cabin in Lincoln, Montana.

But even before he began living as a recluse, he struggled to connect with women.

The Netflix docu-series “Unabomber - In His Own Words" noted that while Kaczynski excelled academically during the early part of his life, he had trouble connecting with other people socially. Then, the prodigious student was accepted at Harvard when he was just 16. Elliott Halpern, a filmmaker behind the docu-series, blamed the university experience, in part, for stunting Kaczynski's emotional growth.

“If you have this culmination of psychological immaturity and high intelligence and high sensitivity and you're dropped into an environment where it’s really challenging for you and girls are not going to date you, it’s definitely going to have an affect on you,” he told Oxygen.com.

The only apparent woman that Kaczynski was ever romantically involved with was a co-worker he met while employed at Cushion-Pak, an Illinois rubber foam factory near the Kaczynski family home, USA Today reported. He was working under his younger brother David, who was a supervisor at the factory.

Ted and the woman had a few dates in 1978, and that woman also gave the future domestic terrorist what FBI agent Kathy Puckett believes was his first kiss at age 36, she told legal analyst Lis Wiehl in the author's upcoming book "Hunting The Unabomber."

"He writes about how she kissed him," Puckett explained. "And, he describes it like a Martian meeting an Earthling. He said she was doing something with her tongue that he couldn't quite understand. He had never kissed another woman in his life, because if he had, he would have written it down."

Soon enough though, the woman rejected Ted as a possible partner.

“Ted was extremely upset,” David Kaczynski reflected in “Unabomber - In His Own Words.” ”He wrote these limericks [...] these very unflattering, ugly sort of limericks about her and he posted them around the work site.”

David Kaczynski said he threatened to fire Ted if he didn’t stop harassing the woman, and Ted responded by showing up to work the next day and posting another one of the limericks up. As a result, David did indeed fire him.

Elizabeth Trojian, one of the two Canadian filmmakers behind the Netflix docu-series, told Oxygen.com that this situation only further proved to Ted that he couldn't connect to women.

“I think it was really hard for him,” she said. “I think he went to the factory with the effort that he was going to connect with people and connect with his brother. He made this leap forward to try and date this woman and when it failed, it felt extreme to Ted. If he felt objected against, he wanted to object back harder.”

Puckett told Wiehl that Kaczynski struggled to even approach other women. She said that he had journaled "long agonizing passages that we took from the cabin about how he had a crush on a girl who worked at a gas station in Montana, and he bought a new pair of jeans in an effort to walk up to her, and he ended up sobbing in front of his campfire, because he couldn't bring up the nerve to talk to her."

He also journaled about a failed attempt to join a singles hiking group.

"He goes on a hike and is trying to talk to people, and he writes about this beautiful woman, but he couldn't talk to her," Puckett said. "He couldn't make the connection."

Kaczynski also appeared to hung up on being a virgin — something that caused friction between him and his brother David when the latter became engaged to a woman named Linda Patrik. An irate Kaczynski felt betrayed.


“He even wrote a letter to David talking about how they were both virgins, intimating that by getting married, David was breaking that bond,” Puckett said in "Hunting The Unabomber."

At this point, Kaczynski was at least 44 years old.

Wiehl told Oxygen.com that Kaczynski explained to his brother in seething letters that marrying Parik “was the ultimate betrayal” and “it was clear that part of the betrayal was the virginity.”

If his anger over being a virgin was true, Kaczynski could be one of the first high-profile incels — or involuntary celibate, an increasingly vocal online subculture — before the term ever existed. The term incel has been linked to several infamous deadly attacks. In 2014, Elliot Rodger blamed women's lack of attraction to him for his deadly rampage. He killed six people and injured 14 before killing himself. Rodger was allegedly cited as a warped hero by Alek Minassian. He's accused of using his van to fatally mow down 10 people and injure 16 on a busy Toronto, Canada street.

Kaczynski not only cut his own brother out of his life but he also cut ties with his mother too. While the real reason for doing so remains unclear, Trojian theorized that “if you have issues with women, if you can’t connect with women, if you can’t have a personal relationship then you are going to begin to have feelings of anger towards your mother.”

In Kaczynski's notorious manifesto, which was published in 1995, Ted wrote that “feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.”

Halpern noted that Kaczynski did have a “general hostility towards women.”

The bomber’s former neighbor, Wendy Gehring, said in the docu-series, “In my opinion, he hated women. He had no use for us."

However, it can be argued that while he clearly had issues connecting with women romantically, he did respect them at points in his life. Trojian said that Ted was full of dichotomies and she didn’t get the sense that he hated women through her correspondence with him. She and Halpern exchanged letters with Ted during the filmmaking process.

Halpern said it’s important to note that Kaczynski, despite all his issues with women, selected a female journalist as the first person to interview him after his arrest. Theresa Kintz, now a lecturer in sociology at Indiana State University, accepted Ted’s invitation and interviewed him in 1999 for Earth First! Journal. She was an editor at the ecological resistance publication at the time, and Kaczynski chose her over a gaggle of male journalists who were chomping at the bit to interview him, Halpern said. The interview between Kaczynski and Kintz is prominently featured in the docu-series.

“The journalist that he reached out to and who he trusted his entire story to, initially, was a woman,” Halpern. “A young woman.”

And, Trojian doesn't think he had any ulterior motive for choosing a woman other than mutual respect.

“It’s very important to make it clear, I have read every line in the 16 hours of their interview and there is nothing flirty, no sexualization,” Trojian said. “He liked her intellect and wanted to connect with her. I think that’s really important.”

She added of her interactions with Kaczynski, “there’s the person you come in contact with that does not seem like a murdering terrorist and then there’s this internal person who has such dark thoughts and it makes him a very complex human.”

Since his subsequent life sentences, all of which he is currently serving in Colorado, he's apparently had more success with women. The attention his case has garnered has triggered an onslaught of letters from women, Kaczynski noted in an interview included in “Unabomber - In His Own Words.” In an interview included in the series, he acknowledged that many women have shown interest in him but seemingly dismissed their interest as genuine because he said certain women tend to gravitate towards high profile inmates like himself.

Reporter Jill Sederstrom contributed to this report.


My brother, the Unabomber

David Kaczynski on his agonising decision to inform on his sibling and why, despite their not having spoken for 20 years, he still loves him

Ed PilkingtonTue 15 Sep 2009 
 
Terror through the mail . . . 
Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Photograph: AP

Of all the riveting stories that David Kaczynski tells about his brother Ted, the most haunting is the tale of the rabbit in the cage. One summer during their 1950s childhood, spent in a suburb outside Chicago, their father caught a baby rabbit. He put it on display in the backyard in a little cage fashioned out of wood and wire. A crowd of local kids, David among them, gathered round, jostling to get a better view.
Suddenly there was a cry from the back: "Oh, oh, let it go!" The boys turn round to find Ted looking distressed and panicked at the sight of the rabbit visibly trembling in its box. The mood turned instantly from jovial to shame-faced; how funny it had been to be ogling at the tiny animal, and how cruel it seemed now. The father grabbed the box and quickly carried it to a wooded area across the street where he let the little rabbit go, back to the wild.

The story is poignant in part because Kaczynski's brother now lives in a cage built of concrete and reinforced steel within a "supermax" security prison, and in part because of how the story was recalled to David years later. For he had forgotten all about the rabbit for the best part of 40 years, until his mother reminded him of it – on the day he told her that his brother was suspected of being the Unabomber, the "neo-Luddite" murderer who, over 17 years, waged a twisted campaign of mail bombings against targets including American universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring many more. Kaczynski confessed to his mother that he had informed on Ted to the FBI, fearing further atrocities, and that because of his action, his brother could face the death penalty.

Kaczynski had no idea how his mother would react to the news. Would she disown him for betraying his own brother? Would she for ever cast him out of her love? Instead, she took his head in her hands and kissed him. "I know you love Ted, and wouldn't have done that if you hadn't had to," she said. And then she told him the story of the rabbit in the cage. "She told me that story," Kaczynski says, "at the moment Ted was caught, was trapped, knowing perhaps he would end in the fulfilment of his own worst nightmare."

Kaczynski knows a thing or two about the joys and the torture of being a younger brother, and has distilled his experiences of life as the brother of the Unabomber into an essay for a new collection of reflections on brotherly love and rivalry. David calls his chapter Missing Parts – he has had virtually no contact with Ted for the past 20 years and has, in a sense, lost part of himself in the process. By 1996, when Ted was brought into court on 13 counts of bombing and murder, they had already been estranged for seven years. Kaczynski recalls seeing Ted again after all that time: "He walked into the court almost directly towards me, but he never made eye contact. He just turned and sat down with his back to me."

Kaczynski's essay is painful testimony to the ability of brothers to inflict almost unthinkable wounds on each other. Ted cut off all relations with David in 1989; David shopped Ted to the Feds six years later. But it also dwells on the kinder side of brotherhood; on the friendship and loyalty that each bestowed upon the other, and on the love that Kaczynski still reserves for Ted despite his grotesque deeds.

Through the pall of anger and ugliness that descended over his brother, the vicious letters he received from Ted and the rants against technology, Kaczynski still remembers the small acts of kindness and affection that Ted extended to him in their younger years. When David, aged three, couldn't reach the door handle in their home, Ted improvised a new one for him out of an old spool of thread.

Every weekend, the brothers would be driven by their father into the forests outside Chicago, where they would revel in nature (a theme that would build over the years), identifying plants and pitching tents. "Some of the happiest experiences of my life were these with Ted; out of doors, a release from confinement of various kinds," Kaczynski says when we meet in New York. "Growing up, I never doubted my brother's fundamental loyalty and love, or felt the slightest insecurity in his presence."

And yet, from an early age, Kaczynski was aware of something different, something inexplicable and out of place about his big brother. Ted was hyper-smart – everybody knew that. He was a mathematics whizz-kid and destined for Harvard and great things. But he was also a withdrawn, awkward boy who recoiled from social contact.

"When we were young, friends and family would turn up at our house unannounced. My feeling was 'Oh good! Here's Uncle Stanley or our friend Ralph' – but Ted's reaction was the opposite. He saw it as an incursion into his world, and almost in panic would run upstairs to the attic. I remember thinking, why did he have this aversion to people?"

Kaczynski was only seven when he first formulated those doubts into words. "What's wrong with Teddy?" he asked his mother. In reply, she told him that when Ted was just a baby, he had been hospitalised for several days with a rash; the experience of being separated from his parents had, she believed, hurt him deeply with lasting consequences. Then she said something startling to her younger son: "Never abandon Ted, because that's what he fears the most."

And until he faced the awful decision of whether to turn Ted over to the FBI, Kaczynski never did abandon him. In spite of his brother's growing eccentricities, he provided Ted with a social prop. "It almost seemed I was his ticket to having social relationships."

Indeed, it was because of David that Ted ended up in Montana, the rugged north-western state in which he built his now infamous remote wooden cabin. Together they had bought a plot of forest land outside Lincoln, and there Ted constructed what was to become the headquarters of his bombing campaign.

Though David was the socially-adept half of the relationship, he continued to idolise and emulate Ted throughout his youth and well into adulthood. He applied for Harvard, following in Ted's footsteps, but was rejected. Later, he decided to follow Ted's example and go back to the land. When Ted refused to let him build a second cabin on their shared plot in Montana, Kaczynski went instead to a wild part of western Texas where, just like his brother, he lived without running water or electricity for eight years in a cabin he built by hand. They would correspond frequently; two spartan men in their cabin hermitages 1,000 miles apart.

But as time passed, it became clear they were not really communicating, and were, in fact, living in wholly separate wildernesses. Kaczynski's vision of back-to-the-land was a spiritual journey of discovery, towards some inner understanding, whereas Ted's philosophy, his cabinology, was all about getting away from the collective mess of the modern world. There was a despondency, a sorry defeatism in him. "You could call the difference between us one between the left brain and the right brain. Ted was hyper-analytical. It's curious that he rejected technology because his way of thinking was very scientific, very binary."

The moment that crystallised this yawning gulf between them came, paradoxically, at a time when the brothers had never felt more close. It was 1969 and they had spent the whole summer together, travelling huge distances across Canada in search of a plot of land where Ted could begin his anti-civilisation mission. At the end of the trip, as they were driving back to Chicago, they camped overnight in the grasslands of Nebraska. They lay side by side, staring up at the immense night sky stuffed with stars. David felt eager to get home, to familiar things and their mother's home cooking. "I wish we were home," he said.

Ted felt the opposite: "Really? I wish we didn't have to go back," he said.

Later, of course, the distinctions grew stark and ugly. From 1977, Ted began sending his parents angry, blistering letters accusing them of never having loved him. Then, in 1978, Kaczynski ended up sacking his own brother from a factory job in Illinois after Ted began harassing a fellow woman worker, posting crude and offensive limericks about her on the factory wall. The timing was significant – only a few months before, in May 1978, he had posted his first mail bomb to a university professor in Chicago, who was mildly injured in the blast. A year later, he came close to blowing up an American Airlines jet but the bomb failed to detonate.

Over time, Ted's homemade bombs became more sophisticated and powerful, and the first serious injury occurred in 1982 when a university secretary suffered severe burns to her hands. Three people died during the 16-bomb campaign – a computer rental store owner in 1985, an advertising executive in 1994, and (the final target) a timber industry lobbyist in 1995. Another 23 suffered often hideous injuries, the victims having often been selected – by dint of Ted's loathing of technology – from university departments and airlines; hence the moniker Unabomber (University and Airline Bomber).

As the violence escalated, so too did the hostility Ted showed for his family. The final rift came in 1989, when Kaczynski wrote to Ted to tell him he was leaving his cabin retreat in Texas and going to live in New York state with Linda, a childhood friend with whom he had fallen in love. Ted's response was a 20-page letter in which he tore into his brother, accusing him of lacking the integrity to lead a pure life.

"Wow! It was like a metaphorical bomb for me, that he was so hostile," Kaczynski says. "It was at a different level to anything before."

Ted ended the letter by saying that he would have nothing to do with his brother from then on. If there was a family emergency, David was to put a line under the stamp on the envelope, otherwise Ted would just burn the letter unopened. If David abused the privilege of the line under the stamp, by using it for anything other than a genuine emergency, all lines of contact would be terminated for ever.

Kaczynski only once used the line under the stamp, to tell Ted that their father was dying from lung cancer. Ted did reply to that letter. He thanked David for using the line appropriately. He made no mention of their father.

In the end it was Linda, by now Kaczynski's wife, who connected Ted to the Unabomber. She had noticed telling similarities from newspaper accounts. At first Kaczynski had been sceptical, but then in 1995 when the Unabomber produced his 35,000-word "manifesto", excoriating the industrial revolution and modern science, David had a sinking feeling. The tone was chillingly similar to some of the more hate-filled letters he had received from Ted, and there was one phrase in particular he recognised: "Cool-headed logicians."

The recognition that his brother might be the Unabomber sent Kaczynski into a tailspin. "It was a feeling of being trapped – trapped in this brother relationship, trapped in this dilemma in which people's lives were at stake either way. One way, if we did nothing, another bomb might go off and more people might die. The other way, I turned Ted in and he would be executed."

Weeks of agonising followed. His mother's exhortation – never abandon Ted! – rang in his ears, but ultimately the decision was simple. He could not stand idly by and watch more people die. He went to the FBI.

His brother's life was now at stake. Though the authorities assured Kaczynski they would not seek the death penalty, they reneged on the promise. The threatened capital punishment was only dropped after Ted was diagnosed with schizophrenia and pleaded guilty to all charges.

For Kaczynski, the years since Ted was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996 have been like a prolonged discourse in what it is to be a brother. There has been plenty of time to reflect on what happened, on what Ted did. He doesn't feel guilt so much as regret. "That time I sacked him, could I have been less angry, tried a different approach? Could I have been more understanding, a better brother?"

Kaczynski is still trapped in the definition of being the Unabomber's brother. He now devotes his working life to campaigning against death row, inspired by his sense of betrayal by the federal prosecutors. As head of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, he seeks to build bridges between victims of violence and the relatives of the perpetrators. His closest friend is Gary Wright, a computer store owner from Utah who had more than 200 pieces of shrapnel lodged in his body from one of Ted's bombs.

Kaczynski has no idea how Ted is doing in his cage in a high security prison in Colorado. He never replies to letters, and the prison authorities will not say how, or even if, he is being treated for his mental illness. Kaczynski thinks often of that rabbit. "Where Ted is, in some senses, is his worst nightmare. Totally under other people's control, enclosed, cut off from the sky and the wilderness."

Sometimes Kaczynski will be driving down the road from his home in upstate New York and, glancing in the rear-view mirror, he'll see Ted driving the car behind. A moment later, he'll realise it's just another man with a beard. He remembers how the Unabomber once sent a bomb to an airline executive. It was concealed in a hollowed-out copy of a book. Its title: Ice Brothers.

Brothers: 26 Stories of Love and Rivalry, edited by Andrew Blauner and with a foreword by Frank McCourt, is published in the US by Jossey-Bass books.
It’ll Be Over By Easter: How Trump Became the Covidiot-in-Chief
April 7, 2020
Written by Sean Ledwith
Published in Opinion 

Counterfire                   

Tragically, the events leading up to the Coronavirus outbreak and the manner in which he has bungled the federal response confirms that the Trump Presidency is destined to go down as one of the most disastrous in US history, says Sean Ledwith

The country is poised to become the epicentre of the global pandemic with a death toll that threatens to surpass that of the worst-hit countries so far such as Italy and Spain.
Epicentre

With only a few days scratched off this calendar month, the national death toll now stands at 6,000 based on 25,000 recorded cases and the peak in the US is still weeks away. At the end of February, Trump foolishly predicted: “When you have 15 people and the 15 within a couple of days is going down to close to zero, that’s a good job we’ve done.” The upper end of the predictive scale now indicates the US could end up with a staggering 250,000 deaths by the time the outbreak subsides.

Beautiful time?

One month after his first delusional prediction, the President makes another commitment about containing the outbreak that now also sounds like the ravings of a madman: "I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter…Easter is a very special day for me. Wouldn't it be great to have all the churches full? You’ll have packed churches all over our country. I think it’ll be a beautiful time." In reality, the only places likely to be packed in the US over Easter are the country’s emergency wards, groaning under the weight of a public health disaster that has overwhelmed its already threadbare healthcare system.

Venal elite


This unfolding nightmare does not just reflect on the risible performance of a sociopathic President; at a more fundamental level, it illustrates the grotesque failure of the world’s dominant capitalist state to safeguard the lives of millions of its own citizens. The selfish opposition of the US elite over many decades to anything even remotely resembling a socialised healthcare system has left the country horrendously exposed to this devastating epidemic.

The bile-filled hate that the American right spewed over the relatively modest demands of Clintoncare in the 1990s and then Obamacare in the first decade of this century now looks like the hopelessly misguided recalcitrance of a venal elite. A state that, over many decades, has invested most of its industrial and technical expertise into exporting death and destruction around the world has been brought to its knees by an invisible enemy that makes nuclear weapons, smart bombs and the other paraphernalia of the US military machine appear even more irrelevant.


Pandemic preparedness scrapped

Trump’s mismanagement of this crisis began long before the virus was first identified in China at the end of 2019. One of his first acts following his election three years earlier was to shut down the Pandemic Preparedness Office of the National Security Council established by Obama in response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Beth Cameron, one of the senior members of the office, explained "its inception was based on the recognition that epidemics know no borders and that a serious, fast response is crucial. Our job was to be the smoke alarm — keeping watch to get ahead of emergencies, sounding a warning at the earliest sign of fire — all with the goal of avoiding a six-alarm blaze."
Slash and burn

The absence of such an informed authority in the early phase of the US response to the current crisis is the striking characteristic of the Trump administration. Stephen Morrison, another Washington commentator on federal policy, notes: "You can attribute some of the sluggishness and confusion that we have seen bedevil this effort since the very beginning . . . to the absence of effective structures within the White House."

Eliminating essential elements of the apparatus of the state such as the Pandemic Preparedness Office was the disastrous consequence of the slash-and-burn approach to federal agencies hard-wired into Trump’s turbo-charged brand of neoliberalism.
Crimson Contagion

Trump tried to claim at the start of this year that everyone has been blindsided by the corona crisis and no one could have seen it coming: "Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion. Nobody has ever seen anything like this before." Actually, only last year twelve US states enacted a multiagency exercise based on the possibility of a mass flu-type contagion. Operation Crimson Contagion was supervised by the Department of Health and Human Services and included the involvement of other key federal agencies such as the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the American Red Cross. The conclusion of the operation pointed to a chronic shortage of ventilators and Personal Protective Equipment for healthcare workers, and the need to enforce social distancing from an early point in an outbreak.


Painful trajectory

Shamefully, the report was initially suppressed by the administration and only became known thanks to a leak to the New York Times last September. The paper concluded that Trump’s claim not to have seen a disaster like this coming is a lie: “What the scenario makes clear . . . is that his own administration had already modelled a similar pandemic and understood its potential trajectory.” Although it should be added, the man’s attention span is so deficient it is equally likely he read the report and then forgot about it.

Revolving door


Apart from Trump’s narcissistic personality, the administration’s response has also been hampered by his revolving-door approach to hiring and firing which has seen four men in as many years trying to cope with the impossible job of being his Chief of Staff. The lack of continuity and consistency has affected all levels of White House but in this case, has had a catastrophic consequence. Healthcare analysts noted that Tom Bossert, the President’s Homeland Security Advisor appeared to be taking the pandemic threat seriously in 2018; only to be stunned by Bossert’s sacking and his replacement by the arch neocon, John Bolton, who swiftly reoriented the Department’s focus to an illusory threat from Iran.

One of the few who is emerging with any credit in Team Trump is Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Commenting on the closure of the NSC pandemic office, he told Congress last month: "It would be nice if the office was still there". Fauci is often to be seen standing alongside the President during the White House press briefings, often with an exasperated expression on his face as he listens to Trump’s idiotic comments.

Covidiot-in-Chief

Once it became apparent in the early weeks of the year that this crisis was escalating on a scale never before experienced, Trump reverted to the racism and ignorance that are the hallmarks of his politics. A list of some of his blundering comments on the corona outbreak would be funny if the consequences of his idiocy were not so tragic:
January 22nd: It’s one person coming in from China and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.

January 24th: It will all work out well.

January 30th: We have very little problem in this country – five. And those people are all recuperating successfully.

January 31st: We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.

February 10th: Looks like by April you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.

February 19th: I think the numbers are going to get progressively better as we go along.

February 27th: It’s going to disappear. One day – it’s like a miracle – it will disappear.

March 10th: It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away. I’ve been briefed on every contingency you could possibly imagine. Many contingencies. A lot of positive. Different numbers, all different numbers, very large numbers, and some small numbers too.

March 16th: I’d rate it as 10 (when asked to evaluate his own crisis management out of 10).
Paranoia and xenophobia

Alongside these outbursts of crass stupidity, Trump has allowed his congenital paranoia and xenophobia to affect his judgement on the nature of the threat. For instance, downplaying the lethality of the virus, comparing it to the common cold; alleging the virus was a hoax, promoted by the Democrats as another means to impeach him; labelling it a Chinese or foreign virus – as if nationality was a relevant factor in this situation; and being more concerned about the effect of the outbreak on his November election chances than the clear and present danger to millions of citizens.

Shoot the messenger


Even more incredibly, the domestic disaster has not impacted on the willingness of the US imperial leviathan to torment the handful of states that try to resist its power around the world. Sanctions on Venezuela and Iran have remained in place despite the declaration of a global pandemic, adversely affecting the ability of those states to combat the virus. The absurdity of White House priorities is also illustrated by the sacking of a US naval commander who reported a corona outbreak on his aircraft carrier!

Bigoted buffoon

Just as on this side of the Atlantic, the American people have tragically found themselves with a bigoted buffoon for a leader when a disaster of unprecedented magnitude hits them. Fortunately, also like the UK, workers on the front line have stepped up to defend their own safety in the face of negligence at the top. Chris Smalls, an Amazon worker in New York, sparked a wave of walk-outs at other warehouses across the US following his dismissal for highlighting a lack of social distancing in that company’s operations. Courageous nurses and doctors have defied gagging orders from privately run health authorities to denounce the criminal lack of PPE and ventilators. One of the few positives from this calamity is that those activist voices that have repeatedly called for a properly funded federal healthcare system in the US will be impossible to ignore in the future.

Sean Ledwith is a Counterfire member and Lecturer in History and Sociology at York College, where he is also UCU branch secretary. Sean is also a regular contributor to Marx and Philosophy Review of Books and Culture Matters
If the Coronavirus crisis leads to a global economic depression, what will it to do world (geo)politics?
April 6, 2020
Written by Vladimir Unkovski-Korica
Published in Analysis


In four points, Vladimir Unkovski-Korica considers how a global economic depression could affect global politics.

1
An immediate impression is that the West is failing and the East is still on the rise, confirmation of a trend that became clear in the aftermath of the long crisis starting in 2008. The difference between the US-UK debacle of a response to the current crisis (and the disarray in the EU) by comparison with the Chinese response is stark. Like in the 1930s, too, this could be interpreted as failed market vs successful state planning, ie, West after 1929 compared with the Soviet Union after 1929. There is nothing necessarily 'leftist' about this: authoritarian states are not what the left is about, and this time round the battle for interpretation will be all the more open than then.
2
As with 2008, governments and institutions will begin to buckle globally, as when the Arab Spring spread from the periphery to centres of global power. Demands for democracy will again be heard because the class power behind the liberal democratic facade will be easier to see. While the ultra rich hide away on private islands, most of us worry about not getting ill, juggling the kids and making a living, and worrying about how long this will all last. My feeling is that the health emergency and accompanying social distancing measures in some form are here to stay for some months and up to two years, on and off. The longer it carries on, the more social and political anger will build up.

3
Even more starkly than in the 1930s, the challenge will be to kickstart economies - which at the end of the 1930s only occurred as a consequence of the Second World War and massive state intervention to build up military capacity for total war. Here, we will also have a constant push to get back to work in some fashion, with major health and safety repercussions. But what will kickstart economies? This remains a dangerous question. The left can argue that the coronavirus is part and parcel of the neoliberal global capitalist model that produces global climate change, environmental stresses that create virus spread, and the austerity climate that leaves us all exposed as health and safety infrastructures get eroded to save a few bucks for the finance sector. More radical variants on the 'green new deal' - if coupled with industrial action to protect health and safety - can begin to push an alternative global socialist response. But we can expect a series of localised and maybe not so localised wars at the same time as countries struggle to cope and states try to get better of one another as opportunities for their aggrandisement arise.

4
In times like these the Keir Starmers and Joe Bidens of this world do not represent tomorrow's alternative. They act as yesterday's men, acting out parts in a collective consciousness that lags behind the times. But consciousness will begin to catch up, here slowly, there by leaps, in sharp twists and turns, and yesterday's men will be confined to the dustbin of history, as new faces and forces emerge to fight the battles that are emerging now. Yesterday's men will play the part of loyal defenders of the status quo. They will play a part in the response that the hostile brothers of the global capitalist class, divided by nation states and imperialist blocs, divise in the coming period to restructure the world, our lives and bodies, our working conditions, our cities and landscapes etc, to fit their struggle for power and profit. They will only fail if the revolutionary left rises to the challenge. Our central idea that the world needs fundamental and rapid - REVOLUTIONARY - change is likely to be popular, so we should be bold in the coming period. The times will be tougher than many of us have imagined or experienced but I am convinced that world changing events are upon us.


Vladimir Unkovski-Korica is a member of Marks21 in Serbia and a supporter of Counterfire. He is on the editorial board of LeftEast and teaches at the University of Glasgow.
The Sanders campaign and the corona crisis: 
stay in the race and retool for the long game
April 6, 2020
Written by Kate O'Neil
Published in Analysis


Bernie Sanders, California Democratic Party Convention, 2019. Photo: Gage Skidmore
Tweet

The pressure on Sanders to withdraw is intense. He must stay, and fight the long game, argues Kate O'Neil

In following the Bernie Sanders’s campaign for president over the past several months, I have put a great deal of thought into the factors that would prevent a socialist from assuming the highest office of the world’s most powerful country. The treachery of the Democratic Party establishment, slander from the liberal media, and outspending by corporate-backed competitors have all been studied at length. Never did I, or any of us, imagine that one of the greatest obstacles would be a global pandemic.

To be sure, early hopes that Sanders would clinch the Democratic Party nomination had already been frustrated by Joe Biden’s rash of primary victories even before the corona outbreak took major effect in the US. On March 11, the day WHO characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic and Trump announced his travel restrictions with Europe, a chorus of mainstream commentators were already calling for Sanders to drop out of the race. Since then, a few more primaries have quietly perpetuated Biden’s winning streak, and Biden now has 60% of the delegates he needs to win the nomination, while Sanders has 44%.

This is a wide gap, but in normal times it could be bridged. Twenty-seven primaries are yet to be held, and there would still be much to play for in major states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. These are not normal times, however, and the Sanders campaign’s principal methods of reaching out to voters at the grassroots level are impossible to carry out in the context of social distancing. As one columnist for the Washington Post wrote recently:


Were it not for the novel coronavirus, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would be barnstorming the country. He’d be traveling from one state to the next, holding rallies, doing interviews — and explaining, over and over, why despite Joe Biden’s all but insurmountable delegate lead, there was still a good reason for him to stay in the race. But now Sanders is trapped like the rest of us, his campaign in a kind of suspended animation…You can’t mount a canvassing effort to knock on thousands of doors in the middle of a pandemic.

Furthermore, the Sanders campaign has relied heavily on bringing new, traditionally marginalised voters out to cast ballots. But this would be impossible to orchestrate now. As most remaining primary states postpone elections to this summer, switch to postal balloting or both, we can only expect it to be harder for marginalised groups to vote. In my home state of Wisconsin, where the next primary will take place on 7 April, the Republican-controlled state legislature has shamefully decided to run elections as normal, and the effect will undoubtedly be widespread disenfranchisement. Already, 7000 poll workers have said they will not report to polling stations, forcing many to close. Milwaukee, the largest and by far most racially diverse city in the state, projects it will operate only 12 of its 180 polling stations.

The biggest factor working in Biden’s favour, however, may be the fact that people are just not thinking about the election right now. According to Wisconsin’s Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler


It doesn’t feel like we’re in the middle of a presidential campaign here. People are trying to figure out how to get groceries safely and checking their mail for absentee ballots.

Wisconsin is a key swing state that Sanders won in 2016, where he had built a strong campaign presence and where he was expected to win as of February. In that month, polls predicted Sanders would beat Biden by 14 percentage points. Now he trails by 28 percentage points.

This shift is certainly not due to the fact that Biden has suddenly become more popular than Sanders, either personally or politically. John Nichols, a long-time commentator on Wisconsin politics, has concluded the following about the brand of campaign that is required to win the state in the general election. Wisconsin is


a place where progressive populist messages work—Sanders won 71 of 72 counties in his 2016 primary fight with Clinton—and where even Republicans frame their policy agendas, however cynically, as attacks on elite privilege… The Democratic nominee has to talk about how a Democratic administration would transform the jobs of today and tomorrow…into the high-paying jobs of the future. And it can’t just be feel-good talk. It has to focus on balancing the power in the economy between the boss class and the working class.

Needless to say, corporate-backed Biden is not running that kind of campaign. It is more likely that his solid lead going into the crisis, and support from official party channels, will make him the candidate of easy default at a time when people are thinking about more immediate concerns.

This is not to assert that the coronavirus is the main force working against the Sanders campaign at this time. A brief look at polling data across the past year shows that, although Sanders sparked high hopes for a nomination when he took the early lead in February, this was actually a brief blip in the course of the primaries. From December 2018 to the Iowa Primary this February, Biden held a consistent lead over Sanders, and this lead was restored overnight in early March, after Biden’s comeback victory in the multi-state Super Tuesday primaries. As ideologically weak, out of touch and unpopular as they are, establishment moderates still hold sway in the Democratic Party. Now that they have regained their footing with the Biden candidacy, they are using all measures at their disposal to ensure his nomination.

And one of their main tasks at this juncture is dumping the Sanders campaign. Biden is already posturing for victory by starting his selection process for a vice-president and cabinet, and hosts of liberal newspapers are calling for Sanders to drop out. A particularly outrageous example of this was an article on Slate.com which argued that Sanders should step down ‘for the health of the nation’ because further voting would require people to congregate in large groups.

Harassment on televised interviews has also hurt the campaign’s ability to get its message out through mainstream media. A guest appearance by Sanders a few days ago on actress Whoopi Goldberg’s programme The View demonstrated this. He had come on the show to discuss his campaign’s response to the coronavirus epidemic, but Goldberg and another interviewer interrupted him repeatedly to ask why he was still running against Biden if he had no path to victory. Sanders eventually had to fire back


Last I heard, people in a democracy have a right to vote. And they have a right to vote for the agenda that they think can work for America, especially in this very, very difficult moment.

Sanders could not have made the point better. And it is for this reason that he should stay in the race through the course of the primaries.

At the moment, the Sanders campaign’s official position is that it is undergoing a period of ‘assessment’. Given the chances of winning, however, it will need to develop not only a new strategy but a new purpose. Trade union organiser Dustin Guastella and Democratic Socialists of America activist Benjamin Fong have outlined what is currently at stake for the campaign and proposed a new direction.


The campaign now faces a harrowing choice. If Sanders drops out, as mainstream media and centrist liberals are urging him to do, Biden and the establishment won’t budge an inch, and a generation of socialists and progressives is demoralized. If Sanders stays in, his campaign is severely limited without the ability to hold big rallies or canvasses because of the pandemic, in addition to the many other enormous hurdles he faces.

There is another option, though: stay in the race, but make a wholesale transition from campaigning for the nomination to campaigning for Bernie’s coronavirus policy — not just redirecting some donations to charity or sending text messages to encourage social distancing, but transforming the entire organizational apparatus of the Bernie campaign into a virus-fighting machine.

The ’virus fighting machine’ would involve a mix of propaganda—a media blitz of Bernie’s social democratic solution to the coronavirus crisis—and relevant socially distanced activism—such as re-deployment of campaign volunteers to do mutual aid work. The strategy would be to ‘outflank’ Biden on the question of the coronavirus, thus pressuring the Democratic Party to adopt Sanders’s plan.

This kind of re-think is clearly needed, and the Sanders campaign has already begun to adopt some of these changes. The day following Trump’s clumsy oval office speech of 11 March, Bernie held a press conference, in which he likened the gravity of the coronavirus crisis to that of a major war and eloquently outlined a necessary course of action for the country. The campaign’s three-point response to COVID-19 calls on the government to:
Empower Medicare (the federal healthcare insurance for the elderly) to lead the response to the health crisis, expanding hospital capacity, implementing free testing and treatment for all, and using the Defense Production Act to force private firms to produce medical equipment and supplies
Establish a new agency to oversee the economic crisis, including monthly $2000 cash payments to individuals, paid medical leave for all, a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures, food delivery services, construction of emergency shelters and waiver of student debt

Create an oversight agency to fight corporate corruption and price-gauging.

Sanders worked overtime in the Senate to get many of these demands included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package Congress passed last month, and has been one of the most prominent voices opposing its $500 billion bailout for corporations. The campaign has held numerous online meetings, raised millions in funds for charities helping ordinary people to deal with the crisis and organised petition campaigns calling for protections for workers at Walmart, Amazon and elsewhere.

Retooling the campaign as a ‘virus-fighting machine’ is an exciting prospect and could work well as a general approach. But there are a few shortcomings worth considering.

If the Sanders campaign is to be successful in keeping the flame burning for socialism through the elections, they will have to make a clear distinction between their programme for working class empowerment in the long-term and the temporary state interventionist measures that moderate and right-wing politicians are agreeing to in Washington today. Though less eloquent and more prone to gaffes, Biden also delivered a rebuttal to Trump in March which included very similar emergency response policies to the ones Bernie put forward. And the electorate will now be confused by media assertions that Bernie’s socialist programme has already been realised through the government’s recent spending spree. As one observer postulated


We have crossed the Rubicon. When historians record the moment that the U.S. economy transitioned from free-market capitalism to democratic socialism, they will point to this week…For months, the rising influence of big-government liberals such as Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has caused many Democrats to worry that their nominee would be vulnerable to the label “socialist.” They should no longer be concerned. We are all socialists now.


Sanders and the real socialists in Congress should take credit where credit is due, but they will need to make clear that these budget measures are largely a capitalist response to a capitalist crisis that will be inadequate in the long-run. Our movement still needs to prepare for a long-term systemic crisis that the 1% will ultimately try and make the 99% pay for.

The Sanders campaign must also resist pressure to limit its demands to coronavirus-specific questions and continue to advocate for its broad programme of social change, including single-payer healthcare, rights at the workplace, and the Green New Deal. So far, Sanders has done this well. In a recent one-on-one debate between Biden and Sanders, Biden tried to downplay the importance of single-payer healthcare as a political programme. Touting his own stop-gap plan to give free medical care to those being treated for COVID-19, he declared ‘We’re responding. It’s all free. That has nothing to do with whether or not you have an insurance policy.’

Sanders countered by showing that the current health crisis is nothing new. It has been endemic to the private insurance healthcare system for years.

You’re saying ‘in the middle of a crisis’, but you know what? Last year 30,000 people died in America because they didn’t get healthcare when they should.

The campaign needs to continue to draw this big picture. As the COVID-19 crisis unfolds with its many pronged and unforeseen consequences, Sanders will only benefit from having more to offer. Skyrocketing unemployment will make a Green New Deal more relevant, the growing number of workplace disputes across the country will leave people looking for more protection on the job.

Of course if the campaign maintains this broad scope and these far-reaching goals, it cannot expect the second party of the capitalist class to adopt its full programme. It may still be able to shift the Democratic Party on some questions, but this is not the key point. Bernie should stay in the race for exactly the reason he gave Whoopi Goldberg last week: because people have the right to vote for an agenda they believe in. Bernie may not win the Democratic nomination or shift the Democratic Party by continuing the campaign, but his ship can help working people to navigate the rough waters of this crisis and ensure socialist ideas and organisation are more widespread coming out of it. For those who believe change will come through mass movements, that is the most important goal for us now.

The Sanders campaign must stay in the race and retool for the long game.

April 6, 2020 
Written by Mike Wayne 
Published in Opinion

Fox, Minneapolis. Photo: Joanna Gilkeson/USFWS.

Through the Covid-19 crisis we glimpse the need for change and the possibility of change, argues Mike Wayne

One of the obstacles to radical change is an imagination deficit. The inability to imagine anything other than incremental reform and technocratic tweaking within a course that seems set in the concrete of daily life and institutional norms is one barrier to going beyond what is to what ought to be. Alternatively, there is the fear (and sometimes in popular culture, the desire) of a sudden catastrophic breakdown as the long accumulating contradictions bubbling away within our reality look to suddenly converge, erupt and shatter everything that we have known (the apocalyptic Hollywood scenario).

The crisis opened up by Covid-19 is a chance to think in the space between business as usual and such disaster scenarios. To be sure, C-19 is framed by such anxieties at both ends. The UK establishment, after heaving a long collective sigh of relief that the threat of a Corbyn government had been avoided, is now pushed into operating in emergency mode and implementing policies previously written off as cosmically stupid. The unthinkable is now so routine that the recent announcement by Health Secretary Matt Hancock, that 13.4 billion of NHS debt was being written off, barely raised a collective eyebrow in the media commentariat.

At the same time and strangely penetrating these large-scale ruptures with neo-liberal orthodoxy, you can sense the deep unease, the concern in the apparently open but rather haunted question that is constantly being asked by the establishment: ‘what kind of country will we be on the other side of this….’. The conservative and liberal political culture which together and against each other defeated the Corbyn project, wants very much for the answer to be, not much different from what we were before C-19 struck.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are the fears of looming disaster and economic collapse awaiting us should this crisis go on for a long time as well as the very understandable concern that the Tories answer to their 2020 bail-out of the economy will be a hundred years of austerity, never mind the ten we have had since 2010. But even here, within this panorama of anxiety strange new images and visions of something better bubble to the surface of the collective unconscious. The massive decline in air pollution now that car travel has declined, industrial and commercial activity has slumped, and the airline industry globally has been shuttered, has been captured in those satellite images displaying Before C-19 and After C-19.

Who knows what ideas people may get when they see the inky black waters of Venice’s canals turn blue and re-populated with fish and fowl? The surreal flourishing of wildlife in the abandoned streets of towns are like images from a disaster movie but with a benevolent tinge, since we are still here to witness it. The sheep and deer seem to carry a message to us concerning the need to refashion our relationships with the natural world, one that would require us to stop commodifying it, along with ourselves.

Contradictions abound in crises, tendencies pull one way and another simultaneously and thought as well as practice stretches to encompass the dynamics of the situation. The state for example seems at once both reborn as an initiator of action on the scale and scope required to deal with our accumulated problems after 40 years of neo-liberal disaster capitalism and at the same time, the British state in particular, seems badly exposed as lacking the co-ordination capacity required to deal effectively with the crisis. On the one hand the bizarre spectacle of Rishi Sunak, formerly of Goldman Sachs, latterly the newly appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, effectively nationalising 80% of the wage packet of millions of workers. On the other hand, the headless chicken tribute act that constitutes the rest of the government’s response to the pandemic. 

Yes, this is hardly the crème de la crème of the ruling class with their hands on the levers of power. It would be too cruel to name names, but from the Prime One down, this phoney ‘populist’, mendacious, deeply self-serving, wholly careerist bunch of chancers do not even have the best interests of the bourgeoisie close to their hearts – just their own best self-interests. The ruling class ought to be – and probably already are - deeply worried about the calibre of people now in control of state power.

What’s more, the government clearly surround themselves with yes men and women in the field of science as well – stuffing their advisory boards with neo-liberal social scientists who put the economy first and elaborated the now disavowed lunacy of the ‘herd immunity’ strategy. But beyond the question of individual competency, the crisis has revealed a broader state and cultural incompetency, the legacy of decades of hollowing out by privatisation and pseudo-markets in public organisations. The inability to co-ordinate between Public Health England and all the laboratories in the private sector and in the universities, to scale up testing is one example of the weakness of state co-ordination capacity. The inability to provide Personal Protective Equipment to frontline staff is another.

There is probably some investigative journalism to be done into whether the NHS supply chain that is so badly letting down frontline staff has anything to do with the fragmented contracting out system to a range of large corporate providers (disguised by the state-owned Supply Chain Coordination Company that overseas the contracts). The threadbare links between government and a depleted manufacturing sector is exposed in the dangerous time wasted in mobilising the domestic production of ventilators. The possible longer-term threat to British food supply chains is likewise deeply connected to the deferment from the state to Tesco et al on food policy.

So everywhere we see the potential for state involvement leveraging investment to radically transform lives and protect livelihoods and at the same time we see the deterioration of the British state – especially stark by the international comparisons to German and South Korean responses to the crisis – laid out before us after decades of neo-liberal governance. Both the potential of the state and the exposure of state incapacity will worry the Tories.

And finally there is the very sudden transformation in value and esteem being accorded to the newly designated keyworkers. The other night, prior to the Channel Four news, the announcer offered the broadcaster’s thanks to keyworkers which included such formerly despised occupations as cleaners and porters. Along with the doctors and nurses, already well regarded, suddenly those working in the supermarkets, the transport systems, the communication networks such as the post office and social care, have had a public make-over in the mainstream channels of the media.

Perhaps beneath the thanks and gratitude that these media organs now bestow, there may also stir a renewed self assertion on the part of the keyworkers, that while thanks is welcome, it would be nice to exert a bit of collective organised power as well and demand what is owed and a big share in what has been snaffled away by the ruling class.

Coronavirus – the trigger for a slump?
March 9, 2020
Written by Michael Roberts
Published in Analysis


Michael Roberts explains why Coronavirus has destabilised the global economy

As I write the coronavirus epidemic (not yet declared pandemic) continues to spread. Over 100,000 people have been infected with more than 3300 deaths. Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a flu-like virus that affects the human respiratory system. Even though more people die each year from complications after suffering influenza, and for that matter from suicides or traffic accidents, what is scary about the infection is that the death rate is much higher than for flu, at least ten times and perhaps 30 times higher. So if it spreads across the world, it will eventually kill more people than annual flu ever does. If you are old, have lots of health issues and live in bad conditions, but you still must travel and go to work, then you are at a much greater risk of serious illness or death. COVID-19 is not an equal-opportunity killer.

But the illnesses and deaths that come from COVID-19 is not the worry of the strategists of capital. They are only concerned with damage to stock markets, profits and the capitalist economy. And stock markets are now in meltdown, with the biggest percentage fall since the global financial crash in 2008.

The real worry is whether this epidemic could be the trigger for a major recession or slump, the first since the Great Recession of 2008-9. That’s because the epidemic hit just at a time when the major capitalist economies were already looking very weak. The world capitalist economy has already slowed to a near ‘stall speed’ of about 2.5% a year. And now the shutdown from COVID-19 has pushed the second largest economy in the world, China, into a ravine. The US, so far, has avoided a serious downturn, partly because the epidemic has not spread widely in America. Maybe the US economy can avoid a slump from COVID-19. But the signs are still worrying. It really depends on how long the shutdown of factories, schools and travel lasts if the virus continues to spread globally.

The international agencies have limited options to avoid a slump. The US Federal Reserve stepped in to cut its policy interest rate at an emergency meeting. Canada followed suit and others will follow this week. The IMF and World Bank are making available about $50 billion through its rapid-disbursing emergency financing facilities. But cuts in interest rates and cheap credit are not going to work to get an already weak global economy going again.

The problem is that this coming recession is not caused by ‘a lack of demand’, as Keynesian theory would have it, but by a ‘supply-side shock’ – namely the loss of production, investment and trade. Keynesian/monetarist solutions won’t work, because interest rates are already near zero and consumers have not stopped spending – on the contrary. Jon Cunliffe, deputy governor of the Bank of England, said that since coronavirus was “a pure supply shock there is not much we can do about it”.

Already major industries are in trouble. Airlines are forecasting losses of up to $130bn in reduced flights and travel. The collapse of the British regional airline, Flybe, is a micro example of what could happen across many sectors. Flybe was already what we can call a zombie company, where profits were only barely enough to service large debts and pay wages, with nothing left to invest or expand. The drop in flight sales from the virus epidemic was the final straw.

Globally, corporate debt is at record highs and, while the large super-tech companies like Apple or Amazon pile up the cash, most small and medium firms have already seen profits fall. Indeed, the average profitability of capital in the top economies is at a 70-year low, while total profits are now falling globally.



The COVID-19 epidemic is sweeping capitalism into a new global slump.

April 4, 2020 
Written by Michael Roberts 
Published in Engels 200
Marx-Engels Forum. Photo: Flickr/fhwrdh

In the third of our series on the revolutionary Frederick Engels, on the 200th anniversary of his birth, we repost this excerpt from an upcoming short book on Engels' contribution to Marxian political economy by Michael Roberts


Marx and Engels are often accused of what has been called a Promethean vision of human social organisation, namely that human beings, using their superior brains, knowledge and technical prowess, can and should impose their will on the rest of the planet or what is called ‘nature’ – for better or worse.

The charge is that other living species are merely playthings for the use of human beings. There are humans and there is nature – in contradiction. This charge is particularly aimed at Friedrich Engels, who it is claimed, took a bourgeois ‘positivist’ view of science: scientific knowledge was always progressive and neutral in ideology; and so was the relationship between man and nature.

This charge against Marx and Engels was promoted in the post-war period by the so-called Frankfurt School of Marxism, which reckoned that everything went wrong with Marxism after 1844, when Marx and Engels supposedly dumped “humanism”. Later, followers of the French Marxist Althusser put the blame on Fred himself. For them, everything went to hell in a hand basket a little later, when Engels dumped ‘historical materialism’ and replaced it with ‘dialectical materialism’, in order to promote Engels’ ‘silly belief’ that Marxism and the physical sciences had some relationship.

Indeed, the ‘green’ critique of Marx and Engels is that they were unaware that homo sapiens were destroying the planet and thus themselves. Instead, Marx and Engels had a touching Promethean faith in capitalism’s ability to develop the productive forces and technology to overcome any risks to the planet and nature.

That Marx and Engels paid no attention to the impact on nature of human social activity has been debunked recently in particular by the ground-breaking work of Marxist authors like John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett. They have reminded us that throughout Marx’s Capital, Marx was very aware of capitalism’s degrading impact on nature and the resources of the planet. Marx wrote that,


“the capitalist mode of production collects the population together in great centres and causes the urban population to achieve an ever-growing preponderance…. [It] disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil. Thus it destroys at the same time the physical health of the urban worker, and the intellectual life of the rural worker.”



“it is difficult to argue that there is something fundamentally anti-ecological about Marx’s analysis of capitalism and his projections of communism.”

To back this up, Kohei Saito’s prize-winning book has drawn on Marx’s previously unpublished ‘excerpt’ notebooks from the ongoing MEGA research project to reveal Marx’s extensive study of scientific works of the time on agriculture, soil, forestry, to expand his concept of the connection between capitalism and its destruction of natural resources. (I have a review pending on Saito’s book).

But Engels too must be saved from the same charge. Actually, Engels was well ahead of Marx (yet again) in connecting the destruction and damage to the environment that industrialisation was causing. While still living in his home town of Barmen (now Wuppertal), he wrote several diary notes about the inequality of rich and poor, the pious hypocrisy of the church preachers and also the pollution of the rivers.

Just 18 years old, he writes:


“the two towns of Elberfeld and Barmen, which stretch along the valley for a distance of nearly three hours’ travel. The purple waves of the narrow river flow sometimes swiftly, sometimes sluggishly between smoky factory buildings and yarn-strewn bleaching-yards. Its bright red colour, however, is due not to some bloody battle, for the fighting here is waged only by theological pens and garrulous old women, usually over trifles, nor to shame for men’s actions, although there is indeed enough cause for that, but simply and solely to the numerous dye-works using Turkey red. Coming from Düsseldorf, one enters the sacred region at Sonnborn; the muddy Wupper flows slowly by and, compared with the Rhine just left behind, its miserable appearance is very disappointing.”Barmen, 1913. Photo: Public Domain

He goes on:


“First and foremost, factory work is largely responsible. Work in low rooms where people breathe more coal fumes and dust than oxygen — and in the majority of cases beginning already at the age of six — is bound to deprive them of all strength and joy in life." 

He connected the social degradation of working families with the degradation of nature alongside the hypocritical piety of the manufacturers.


“Terrible poverty prevails among the lower classes, particularly the factory workers in Wuppertal; syphilis and lung diseases are so widespread as to be barely credible; in Elberfeld alone, out of 2,500 children of school age 1,200 are deprived of education and grow up in the factories — merely so that the manufacturer need not pay the adults, whose place they take, twice the wage he pays a child. But the wealthy manufacturers have a flexible conscience and causing the death of one child more or one less does not doom a pietist’s soul to hell, especially if he goes to church twice every Sunday. For it is a fact that the pietists among the factory owners treat their workers worst of all; they use every possible means to reduce the workers’ wages on the pretext of depriving them of the opportunity to get drunk, yet at the election of preachers they are always the first to bribe their people.”

Sure, these observations by Engels are just that, observations, without any theoretical development, but they show the sensitivity that Engels already had to the relationship between industrialisation, the owners and the workers, their poverty and the environmental impact of factory production.

In his first major work, Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, again well before Marx looked at political economy, Engels notes how the private ownership of the land, the drive for profit and the degradation of nature go hand in hand.


“To make earth an object of huckstering — the earth which is our one and all, the first condition of our existence — was the last step towards making oneself an object of huckstering. It was and is to this very day an immorality surpassed only by the immorality of self-alienation. And the original appropriation — the monopolization of the earth by a few, the exclusion of the rest from that which is the condition of their life — yields nothing in immorality to the subsequent huckstering of the earth.”

Once the earth becomes commodified by capital, it is subject to just as much exploitation as labour.Dialectics of Nature, Friedrich Engels

Engels’ major work (written with Marx’s help), The Dialectics of Nature, written in the years up to 1883, just after Marx’s death, is often subject to attack as extending Marx’s materialist conception of history as applied to humans, into nature in a non-Marxist way. And yet, in his book, Engels could not be clearer on the dialectical relation between humans and nature.

In a famous chapter “The Role of Work in Transforming Ape into Man.”, he writes:


“Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the present devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture. When, on the southern slopes of the mountains, the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were … thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, with the effect that these would be able to pour still more furious flood torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that they were at the same time spreading the disease of scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other beings of being able to know and correctly apply its laws.” (my emphasis)

Engels goes on: 


"in fact, with every day that passes we are learning to understand these laws more correctly and getting to know both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. … But the more this happens, the more will men not only feel, but also know, their unity with nature, and thus the more impossible will become the senseless and antinatural idea of a contradiction between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body. …”

Engels explains the social consequences of the drive to expand the productive forces.


“But if it has already required the labour of thousands of years for us to learn to some extent to calculate the more remote natural consequences of our actions aiming at production, it has been still more difficult in regard to the more remote social consequences of these actions. … When afterwards Columbus discovered America, he did not know that by doing so he was giving new life to slavery, which in Europe had long ago been done away with, and laying the basis for the Negro slave traffic. …”
Arawaks fighting the Spanish, Trinidad and Tobago. Photo: Creative Commons

The people of the Americas were driven into slavery, but also nature was enslaved. As Engels put it:


“What cared the Spanish planters in Cuba, who burned down forests on the slopes of the mountains and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertilizer for one generation of very highly profitable coffee trees–what cared they that the heavy tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the unprotected upper stratum of the soil, leaving behind only bare rock!”
The Mill yard, Antigua 1823. Photo: Creative Commons

Now we know that it was not just slavery that the Europeans brought to the Americas, but also disease, which in its many forms exterminated 90% of native Americans and was the main reason for their subjugation by colonialism.
Aztec smallpox victims. Photo: Creative Commons

As we experience yet another pandemic, we know that it was capitalism’s drive to industrialise agriculture and usurp the remaining wilderness that has led to nature ‘striking back’, as humans come into contact with more pathogens to which they have no immunity, just as the native Americans in the 16th century.

Engels attacked the view that ‘human nature’ is inherently selfish and will just destroy nature. In his Outline, Engels described that argument as a “repulsive blasphemy against man and nature.” Humans can work in harmony with and as part of nature. It requires greater knowledge of the consequences of human action. Engels said in his Dialectics:


“But even in this sphere, by long and often cruel experience and by collecting and analyzing the historical material, we are gradually learning to get a clear view of the indirect, more remote, social effects of our productive activity, and so the possibility is afforded us of mastering and controlling these effects as well.”

But better knowledge and scientific progress is not enough. For Marx and Engels, the possibility of ending the dialectical contradiction between man and nature and bringing about some level of harmony and ecological balance would only be possible with the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. As Engels said: “To carry out this control requires something more than mere knowledge.” Science is not enough. “It requires a complete revolution in our hitherto existing mode of production, and with it of our whole contemporary social order.” The ‘positivist’ Engels, it seems, supported Marx’s materialist conception of history after all.



In the second of our series on the revolutionary Frederick Engels, 
on the 200th anniversary of his birth, we are republishing this piece 
by John Rees which first appeared in the International Socialism Journal in 1994
March 20, 2020 
Written by John Rees 
Category: Engels 200


In the first of our series on the revolutionary Frederick Engels, 
on the 200th anniversary of his birth, we are republishing this
 piece by Lindsey German which first appeared in the 
International Socialism Journal in 1994
February 21, 2020 
Written by Lindsey German 
Category: Engels 200

William Morris: father of socialist ecology
Written by Gabriel Polley
COUNTERFIRE
September 25, 2019 
Portrait of William Morris by William Blake Richmond. 
Photo: Wikimedia Commons


William Morris is one of the greatest environmentalists of the socialist tradition and his work becomes more relevant by the day, writes Gabriel Polley

Two things are blindingly obvious about climate change.

The first is that humanity, and most life on Earth, are in profound danger. According to the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Programme, July 2019 was, globally, the hottest month ever recorded. It was a month in which forest fires ripped through the Arctic, and the Greenland ice sheet melted at an unprecedented rate.

Sadly, July was not a one-off fluke event; if recent trends are anything to go by, it will become the new “normal”. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that we only have until 2030 to take action to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, which itself could have a catastrophic impact, rendering vast parts of the planet uninhabitable and putting millions of species at risk.

The second is that this is a crisis of capitalism, an economic system inseparably married to fossil fuels and the exploitation of the environment. A 2017 report from the CDP or Carbon Disclosure Project, revealed that 70 percent of carbon emissions can be attributed to 100 companies, a handful of mega-corporations, the wealthy shareholders of which are holding humanity to ransom.

The poorest half of the world’s population, 3.5 billion people, are responsible for just 10 percent. The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, warned in June of a “climate apartheid” situation emerging, whereby the world’s elite may be able to escape the worst consequences of global warming for a time, while the brunt of the suffering will fall on those who are already most vulnerable.

The belief of the rich that they may be able to save themselves explains why right-wing governments, such as the regimes of Trump in America and Bolsonaro in Brazil, have stubbornly denied the danger posed by climate change, and have empowered the corporate interests so implicated in the environmental crisis. Bolsonaro, for instance, has sought to make good on his election promise to speed up deforestation of the Amazon, with three football fields of rainforest now disappearing every minute and his government slow to take action against the thousands of forest fires tearing through the lungs of the world.

Capitalism got us into this crisis, and cannot be expected to get us out of it. The struggle to mitigate the effects of global warming is a deeply intersectional one: it can only succeed if it replaces the old structures with a fundamentally different system which not only protects the environment, but also liberates all those oppressed under capitalism, and those who will suffer first and hardest from global warming. The search for a new model of society is imperative.

While this is naturally the left’s domain, the articulation of an environment-centred socialism has been complicated by history. In the twentieth century, states that described themselves as socialist were associated with developmental models prioritising rapid industrialisation, which had a transformative effect on their economies, but also led to further environmental damage. With hi-tech “fixes” for carbon emissions, such as carbon capture and storage, still a distant prospect, the models of the past cannot be repeated; however, socialism’s emphasis on liberation and egalitarianism is more crucial than ever.

It may therefore seem surprising that a voice from nineteenth century Britain, the crucible of the industrial revolution and also the early days of the Marxist socialist movement, may indicate the way forward to a vision of the future uniting socialism with ecology. William Morris (1834-1896) is perhaps most remembered today for his role in the Arts and Crafts movement which brought medieval-inspired art and design into middle class homes; yet Morris was also a committed socialist, and a founding member of the Socialist League in 1884.

While Morris’ socialism came from his understanding of the dehumanisation and exploitation of the working class under rampant capitalism, his environmentalism was a reaction against the destruction of the landscape, rapid industrialisation and concentration of hundreds of thousands of people in the cities in cramped living conditions – all, as Morris understood, the results of capitalism. The Walthamstow of Morris’ birth was a quiet village in the Essex countryside. In his later years, the fields and forests had gone, surrounded by miles of houses in London’s urban sprawl.

Morris’ outstanding political statement was his novel News from Nowhere, serialised over several months in 1890 in the Socialist League’s magazine Commonweal. Morris’ attitudes hardened after he attended the “Bloody Sunday” demonstration on November 13th 1887 against unemployment and the British occupation of Ireland. During the demonstration, police attacked the crowd in Trafalgar Square, leading to tens of injuries. Morris became convinced that capitalism could not be reformed but had to be overthrown. In News from Nowhere the novel’s narrator, closely based on Morris himself, falls asleep in Morris’ present, a Britain characterised by state brutality, lack of freedom, vast inequality and wanton environmental destruction, and wakes up in the year 2102, decades after the revolution has occurred.

Environmental concerns are at the heart of News from Nowhere, in which Morris articulates a vision of restoring a landscape blighted by industrial capitalism. The narrator continually expresses his surprise at finding the industrial centres of the past gone, replaced by forests and clean air and water. Morris questioned why production to meet human needs should be so disharmonised with the environment, and why in the industrial revolution “we allowed the making of goods, even on a large scale, to carry with it the appearance, even, of desolation and misery.”

Even more dramatically, in Morris’ post-revolutionary London, Trafalgar Square where Morris witnessed the police brutality of 1887, has been replanted with “an orchard, mainly, as I could see, of apricot-trees”, the nearby Houses of Parliament made obsolete, as society is run through a direct democracy in which one citizen tells the narrator “the whole people is our parliament.” Morris’ vision of the city of the future is one where nature and human life are intertwined.

Morris was unhesitating in blaming capitalism’s crises of overproduction and overconsumption for the environmental destruction of the late nineteenth century. This he called “a vicious circle in the matter of production of wares”, which burdened society with “a prodigious mass of work merely for the sake of keeping their wretched system going.” This was spread abroad by colonialism, which Morris unflinchingly attacked. “Some bold, unprincipled, ignorant adventurer was found (no difficult task in the days of competition),” Morris wrote, “and he was bribed to ‘create a market’ by breaking up whatever traditional society there might be in the doomed country, and by destroying whatever leisure or pleasure he found there.” Morris’ writing provided a visceral explanation of Marxist views of capitalism and colonialism, but one in which environmental destruction was highlighted as inherent in this process.

At the heart of Morris’ dream of a socialist future was the elimination of the division between humanity and nature which he believed had been created by capitalism’s mechanised methods of production. “Was not their mistake once more bred of the life of slavery that they had been living?” Morris had one of his characters ponder of those alive during the industrial revolution. “A life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate – ‘nature,’ as people used to call it – as one thing, and mankind as another, it was natural to people thinking in this way, that they should try to make ‘nature’ their slave, since they thought ‘nature’ was something outside them.” Morris understood that human society and nature would stand, or fall, together.

It is easy to dismiss News From Nowhere as a naïve utopia. Yet as the magnitude of the planet’s environmental crisis becomes clearer with every disaster from the Amazon rainforest to the Greenland ice sheet, Morris’ novel now appears prophetic: never has such a transformation in human social relations and humanity’s relationship with the planet, as envisaged by Morris 130 years ago, seemed so urgently necessary. Morris stands today as one of the greatest environmentalists of the socialist tradition, and his work becomes more relevant each day.