Monday, January 01, 2024

 

The word fascism is a relatively new term that has joined the political discussion in the United States as the 2024 election campaigns heat up. As an ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic, far-right movement, it is being driven by Donald Trump, the former president, now the leading Republican presidential candidate running on an anti-government fascist platform. This article brings a brief historical and current perspective to what now seriously threatens democracy in this country.

The population of the U.S. has been steadily diversifying to the point that we are now a multicultural and multiracial society. The total white population has shrunk for the first time in its history. The U.S. is projected to become “minority white” at 49.7% by 2045.

Increasing corruption of our political system has been a major factor in leading us to rising oligarchy and authoritarianism in this country. The Citizens Unitedruling in 2010 unleashed an unlimited amount of money into election campaigns from billionaires as they turned their wealth into political power. Since then, billionaire contributions have increased sharply whereby the ultra-wealthy buy access to legislators and influence over tax policies in each election.

The GOP “freedoms”—to control (eg. bodily autonomy of women), to exploit, to censor, and to menace—are the polar opposites of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four freedoms as part of the New Deal—freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in individual ways, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear—all building blocks of a free society.

These are some of the ways in which Big Money interests undermine representative government and majority rule:

  • GOP-led gerrymandering has been carried out in many states whereby voting districts are redrawn to control election results in their favor.
  • Large corporations have sponsored voter suppression bills in 12 states.
  • Local election workers have been intimidated, even receiving death threats, as happened in Arizona leading up to the 2022 midterms.
  • Election deniers have been installing loyalists in states’ secretary of state positions with the goal to change election results.
  • Corporate media tread lightly on the threat and consequences of fascism in this country for fear of losing advertising revenue.

These are further threats to American democracy:

  • Increasing extremism of the Republican party (eg., the failed coup attempt during the January 6, 2021, insurrection attack on the U. S. Capitol).
  • Disinformation: Despite all evidence that the election was fair without widespread fraud, the big lie of a Trump win has been largely adopted by the Republican Party and Trump’s base of loyalists.
  • Increasing violence: Gun violence has become the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in this country. The Anti-Defamation League has found that white supremacists committed more than 80% of mass shootings in 2022.

These kinds of anti-democratic actions are being carried out in Republican-led states as examples of an extremist far-right agenda:

  • Extremist elements in the GOP are demonstrating their inability and lack of interest in governing.
  • Harsh limits are placed on what teachers and other educators can say in the classroom about American history, with at least 18 states passing laws banning discussion of racial discrimination, slavery, and structural inequality.
  • Legislation in 25 states allows residents to carry concealed weapons in public places without a permit.

These GOP “freedoms”—to control (eg. bodily autonomy of women), to exploit, to censor, and to menace—are the polar opposites of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four freedoms as part of the New Deal—freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in individual ways, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear—all building blocks of a free society.

These are some major reasons whereby growing fascist movements now seriously threaten American democracy:

Our votes are stolen

The authoritarian policies of fascist movements work to increase their own voting power as they work to reduce that of their opponents by gerrymandering, voter suppression, opposing the Voting Rights Act, and other election sabotage tactics. During the Trump administration, for example, the 2020 Census undercounted 19 million minorities while overcounting whites.

Our elections are corrupted

Because our “system” of campaign finance relies almost entirely on private money, the election process greatly favors candidates with deep-pocketed supporters. Winning a seat in the U. S. Senate now costs more than $10 million. The highest spending candidate wins in 90% of House elections and 80% of Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The labor movement is held back

Conservative forces and corporate consolidation have led to a marked loss of union power since the 1970s.

Public dollars are diverted from the common good

With the highest profit margin in 70 years in 2022, U. S. corporations still press Congress to keep their tax breaks coming. Our multinational corporations shift billions of dollars to overseas tax havens to avoid paying taxes in the U. S.Those dollars could make a big difference in alleviating pressing needs of Americans as they struggle under the burden of corporate-induced inflation.

Conclusion

The American Experiment in democracy is being tested to its outward limit. Activated voters in the 2024 elections can reverse the damage done by fascist and other anti-democratic forces, but they will have to be fully engaged and turn out to vote in less than one year!


 

Year-ends invite retrospectives. And every year is, by definition, “unprecedented.” After all, it has never occurred before. But “unprecedented” is a cliche that drains the very word of its intended impact.

The year 2023 is not so much “unprecedented” as it is “epochal,” a “turning point,” or, as in the terminology I choose, “The Year the Bubble Burst.” That implies rapidity, for bursting happens quickly, and irreversibility, for burst bubbles don’t reassemble themselves. This bursting is especially true on the foreign front where the U.S. has been the global leader since the end of the Cold War, if not since the end of World War II.

The bubble of U.S. leadership in the world burst in 2023 because of the combined impact of three events: Ukraine, BRICS, and Gaza.

The year will be remembered as the pivot point, the turning away from the post-Cold War unipolar era, and the ushering in of the post-unipolar, post-Western-centric multipolar world.

Ukraine is lost. In a war of attrition, the advantage goes to the side with the greater population. Russia’s population is six times Ukraine’s. And a defense has an inherent 3-to-1 advantage over an offense. Russia, having captured 20% of Ukraine, is now on the defense. Ukraine doesn’t have the manpower, the artillery, the ammunition, the air power, the air defenses, the time, the money, the strategy, or the allies to repel what U.S. News & World Report says is the strongest military in the world.

Absent the U.S. getting directly involved, which is just not going to happen in a presidential election year, there is no plausible scenario in which Ukraine wins. Insiders know this. The public will have to wait until after the 2024 election to get the memo. Either way, the damage done in the loss is incalculable.

The U.S. menaced Russia for decades by relentlessly moving NATO up to Russia’s borders. Then, the U.S. helped overthrow the democratically elected but Russian-leaning government in Kiev and installed its own oligarchic, crypto-fascist, Western-leaning government. That was the 2014 Maidan coup, referred to by one U.S. intelligence asset as “the most blatant coup in history.” The mission was to dismember Russia and put its vast natural wealth in the hands of U.S. corporations.

The failure of that mission cannot be disguised or minimized. It is especially embarrassing after the very public U.S. defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is all the more damning because Ukraine sacrificed 500,000 of its men to carry out the U.S.’ mission, yet the U.S. couldn’t even keep it supplied with ammunition. Beyond the direct damage, the collateral damage of the loss is staggering.

The never-deserved reputation of the U.S. for military prowess is devastated. NATO is weakened. The Nord Stream pipeline destruction revealed the U.S. to be the world’s greatest perpetrator of international terrorism. The loss of the pipeline has left Europe with energy costs 2.5 times what they were before the war, gravely damaging its international competitiveness. The mythic repute of U.S. weapons, before this only deployed against much lesser foes, is shattered. And, instead of being dismembered, Russia has come out of the war stronger than ever.

In addition to now possessing the world’s strongest military, Russia’s economy shook off “the greatest sanctions regime in the history of the world” and is outstripping those of the U.S. and Europe. It has pivoted east and deepened its strategic ties with China, the world’s leading commercial power and the U.S.’ leading adversary. And it has gained enormous stature in the Global South for having stood up to and defeated the world’s most inveterate bully. Ukraine is an epochal failure for the U.S. in all dimensions, the worse for having been entirely self-inflicted.

Then, Ukraine accelerated the growth of the BRICS consortium. This group, originally made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (hence, the acronym) aims to bypass the U.S.-dominated global trading system, instead building one that allows nations of the Global South to not simply be milked of their wealth by the West, but to prosper in their own right. In August, it named six new nations for membership: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

These now-11 nations contribute a combined 37% of global GDP, versus 30% for the Western G7 bloc. They are explicitly committed to dethroning the dollar as the world’s international reserve currency, by, among other things, trading with each other in non-dollar currencies. Russia and China, for example, no longer use dollars in trade between themselves.

Of key significance is the composition of the new members. Half of them are major oil exporters, among them, importantly, Saudi Arabia, a formerly staunch U.S. ally. With Russia, they produce 44% of the world’s oil. Why is this important? The dollar’s status as international reserve currency is closely tied to oil. Until recently, oil was only sold in dollars, meaning that all of the world’s nations had to acquire dollars to be able to buy oil. So, when BRICS+ oil exporters begin accepting payment for their oil in non-dollar currencies, it is the dollar that will be damaged.

Nations will no longer need dollars to buy oil. That means they will not need to “buy” dollars by purchasing U.S. Treasury securities. That will make it almost impossible for the U.S. to fund its massive budget and trade deficits, which are financed—that’s right—by selling treasures to other nations. That day is fast approaching, as seen in Saudi Arabia announcing this year that it will begin accepting payment for oil in Chinese yuan.

The growth of BRICS, its economic clout, its explicit de-dollarization agenda, and the centrality of oil-exporting nations in its members will prove like the water shifting in the bottom of a rowboat. It will decisively reverse the primacy of the U.S. and the West in global economic affairs. The damage isn’t all landed, yet, and won’t be for many years, but the direction is clear and irreversible. There’s a new economic sheriff in town.

Most important in bursting the bubble of U.S. leadership in international affairs is its tragic, morally suicidal complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The Biden administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to enable Israel to murder tens of thousands of innocent, defenseless Palestinian civilians, most of them women and children.

It has provided—and dramatically increased—economic subsidies. It has rush-shipped tens of thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to Israel, even bypassing Congress to do so. It has provided military cover in the form of two aircraft carrier battle groups to prevent other nations from intervening to stop the slaughter. It has exercised its veto power at the U.N. Security Council to prevent a cease-fire, even for humanitarian reasons. The U.S. is all in on the massacre of tens of thousands of defenseless Palestinian civilians.

As a result of the U.S.’ help, Israel is able to bomb, with impunity, working hospitals, refugee camps, schools, churches, mosques, relief agencies, anything where civilians shelter to try to escape the apocalyptic destruction. And it is doing this, knowing that civilians are the main casualties, thus making it not just “killing” innocent, defenseless women and children, but murdering them. And this is still just the beginning of the depraved degeneracy.

The World Food Program says that as many as 750,000 civilians are now being intentionally starved. This, by a supposedly civilized nation. And, with no hospitals, no medicines, no water, and no sewerage, it is only a matter of time before epidemic diseases emerge and spread and kill hundreds of thousands. It is undisguised mass murder for the undeniable purpose of ethnic cleansing, which has always been Israel’s agenda, since even before it was founded. It is genocide, pure and simple, and all in public view of the world’s 8 billion people.

In Gaza, the U.S. returns to its roots, albeit vicariously. It, too, was founded in genocide, in its case, of the 50+ million native Americans who once populated the North American continent. It too, used vastly disproportionate force, the mechanized tools of an industrial-age civilization systematically exterminating a stone-age one. It, too, bolstered its commitment to ethnic cleansing with its self-flattering myths of racial superiority and its carefully cultivated conceits of cultural supremacy.

The difference is that then, all the world was not watching the daily depravity. And it had not formed its present-day revulsion and international prohibitions against such state-sponsored barbarism. Now it is, and has. The damage to the U.S.’ reputation is palpable, undeniable, stunning, and irreversible.

I’m not a Bible thumper in any way. But, I was raised in a Christian household and remember some of my verses. One of the most wise, in no way connected to theology, is from Mark: “No man can be defiled by anything that comes to him from without. A man can only be defiled by that which comes out of himself, from within.” Isn’t it so? The U.S. has defiled itself, humiliated itself, as no other nation could possibly do. It has destroyed goodwill that has taken centuries to acquire and that will never be recovered.

If Ukraine exemplifies yet another iconic U.S. military failure, and BRICS the changing of the guard in the economic realm, the sadistic savagery in Gaza repudiates the moral right of the U.S. to lead… anything. No nation will ever again be intimidated by its hypocritical tut-tutting about human rights or its sanctimonious finger wagging about the responsibility to protect. It is, more than anything else, the world’s leading purveyor of death and all the nations of the world can see it.

The combination of these three events signal the 2023 bursting of the bubble of U.S. global leadership. The year will be remembered as the pivot point, the turning away from the post-Cold War unipolar era, and the ushering in of the post-unipolar, post-Western-centric multipolar world. Five hundred years of Western domination of the world order are ending. There will be no going back.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

“Are We the Baddies?”

Western support for genocide in Gaza means the answer is yes

The desperate smear campaign to defend Israel’s crimes highlights the toxic brew of lies that’s been underpinning the liberal democratic order for decades.

In a popular British comedy sketch set during the Second World War, a Nazi officer near the front lines turns to a fellow officer and, in a moment of sudden – and comic – self-doubt, asks: “Are we the baddies?”

For many of us, it has felt like we are living through the same moment, extended for nearly three months – though there has been nothing to laugh about.

Western leaders have not only backed rhetorically a genocidal war by Israel on Gaza, but they have provided diplomatic cover, weapons and other military assistance.

The West is fully complicit in the ethnic cleansing of some two million Palestinians from their homes, as well as the killing of more than 20,000 and the injuring of many tens of thousands more, a majority of them women and children.

Western politicians have insisted on Israel’s “right to defend itself” as it has levelled critical infrastructure in Gaza, including government buildings, and collapsed the health sector. Starvation and disease are starting to pick off the rest of the population.

The Palestinians of Gaza have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide from Israel’s US-supplied bombs. If they are ultimately allowed to escape, it will be into neighbouring Egypt. After decades of displacement, they will be finally exiled permanently from their homeland.

And as western capitals seek to justify these obscenities by blaming Hamas, Israeli leaders allow their soldiers and settler militias, backed by the state, to rampage across the West Bank, where there is no Hamas, attacking and killing Palestinians.

In defending Gaza’s destruction, Israeli leaders have reached readily for an analogy with the allies’ firebombing of German cities like Dresden – apparently unembarrassed by the fact that these were long ago acknowledged as some of the worst crimes of the Second World War.

Israel is waging an old-style, unabashed colonial war against the native population – of the kind that predates international humanitarian law. And western leaders are cheering them on.

Are we sure we are not the baddies?

Slave revolt

Israel’s attack on Gaza provokes revulsion from so many because it seems impossible to rationalise it. It feels like a reversion. It lays bare something primitive and ugly about the West’s behaviour that has been obscured for more than 70 years by a veneer of “progress”, by talk about the primacy of human rights, by the development of international institutions, by the rules of war, by claims of humanitarianism.

Yes, these claims were invariably bogus. Vietnam, Kosovo, AfghanistanIraqLibya and Ukraine were all sold based on lies. The true goal of the US, and its Nato sidekicks, was plundering the resources of others, maintaining Washington as the global top dog, and enriching a western elite.

But importantly, the deception was sustained by an overarching narrative that dragged along many westerners in its wake. Wars were to counter the threat of Soviet communism, or Islamic “terror”, or a renewed Russian imperialism. And as a positive corollary, these wars claimed to be liberating oppressed women, protecting human rights, and fostering democracy.

None of that narrative overlay works this time.

There is nothing humanitarian about bombing trapped civilians in Gaza, turning their tiny prison enclave into rubble, reminiscent of earthquake disaster zones but this time an entirely man-made catastrophe.

Even Israel does not have the gall to claim to be liberating the women and girls of Gaza from Hamas as it kills and starves them. Nor does it pretend to be interested in democracy promotion. Rather, Gaza is full of “human animals” and must be “flattened”.

And it has been all but impossible to make Hamas, a group of a few thousand fighters penned into Gaza, appear a credible threat to the West’s way of life.

Hamas cannot send any kind of warhead into Europe, let alone in 45 minutes. Their prison camp, even before its destruction, was never the plausible heart of some Islamist empire ready to overrun the West and subject it to “sharia law”.

In fact, it has been barely feasible to refer to these past weeks as a war. Gaza is not a state, it has no army. It has been under occupation for decades and under siege for 16 years – a blockade in which Israel has counted the calories allowed in to maintain low-level malnutrition among Palestinians.

As the American Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein has noted, Hamas’ breakout on 7 October is better understood not as a war but as a slave revolt. And like slave rebellions throughout history – from Spartacus’ against the Romans to Nat Turner’s in Virginia in 1831 – it was inevitably going to turn brutal and bloody.

Are we on the side of the murderous prison guards? Are we arming the plantation owners?

Mass gaslighting

In the absence of a persuasive justification for assisting Israel in its genocidal campaign in Gaza, our leaders are having to wage a parallel war on the western public – or at least on their minds.

To question Israel’s right to exterminate Palestinians in Gaza, to chant a slogan calling for Palestinians to be free of occupation and siege, to want equal rights for all in the region – these are now all treated as the equivalent of antisemitism.

To demand a ceasefire to stop Palestinians dying under the bombs is to hate Jews.

The extent to which these narrative manipulations are not only abhorrent but themselves constitute antisemitism should be obvious, were we not being so relentlessly and thoroughly gaslit by our ruling class.

Those defending Israel’s genocide suggest that it is not just Israel’s ultra-right government and military but all Jews who will the destruction of Gaza, the ethnic cleansing of its population, and the murder of thousands of Palestinian children.

That is the real Jew hatred.

But the path to this mass gaslighting operation has been paved for a while. It began long before Israel’s levelling of Gaza.

When Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015, he brought for the first time a meaningful anti-imperialist agenda to the heart of British politics. And as a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights, he was viewed by the establishment as a threat to Israel, a critically important US client state and the lynchpin of the West’s projection of military might into the oil-rich Middle East.

Western elites were bound to respond with unprecedented hostility to this challenge to their forever war machine. This appears to have been duly noted by Corbyn’s successor, Keir Starmer, who has since made sure to present Labour as Nato’s number one cheerleader.

During Corbyn’s tenure, little time was lost by the establishment in working out the best strategy for putting the Labour leader permanently on the back foot and undermining his well-established anti-racist credentials. He was recast as an antisemite.

The campaign of smears not only damaged Corbyn personally but tore the Labour Party apart, turning it into a rabble of feuding factions, eating up all the party’s energy and making it unelectable.

Smear campaign

That same playbook has now been rolled out against much of the British and US public.

This month the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution equating anti-Zionism – in this case, opposition to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza – with antisemitism.

Protesters who have turned out to demand a ceasefire to end the massacres in Gaza are characterised as “rioters”, while their chant of “from the river to the sea” calling for equal rights between Israeli Jews and Palestinians is denounced as a “rallying cry for the eradication of the state of Israel and the Jewish people”.

Tellingly again, this is an inadvertent admission by the western ruling class that Israel – constituted as a Jewish chauvinist, settler-colonial state – can never allow Palestinians equality or meaningful freedoms any more than apartheid South Africa could for the native Black population.

In a complete inversion of reality, opposition to genocide has been reframed by US politicians as genocidal.

This mass smear campaign is so unmoored that western elites are even turning on their own to shut down freedoms of speech and thought in the institutions where they are supposed to be heavily protected.

The heads of three top US universities – from which the next members of the ruling class will emerge – were grilled by Congress about the threat of antisemitism to Jewish students from campus protests calling for an end to the killing in Gaza.

The West’s order of priorities was laid bare: protecting the ideological sensitivities of a section of Jewish students who fervently support Israel’s right to kill Palestinians was more important than either protecting Palestinians from genocide or defending basic democratic freedoms in the West to oppose genocide.

The reticence of the three university presidents to cave in to the politicians’ demands for the snuffing out of free speech and thought on campus led to a campaign to defund their colleges as well as calls for their heads.

One, Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, has already been forced out of office.

Crisis on all fronts

These developments are not the outcome of some strange, temporary, collective psychosis overtaking western establishments. They are yet more evidence of a desperate failure to stop the West’s long-term trajectory towards crises on multiple fronts.

They are a sign, first, that the ruling class understands it is again visible to the public as a ruling class, and that its interests are beginning to be seen as completely divorced from those of ordinary people. The scales are falling from our eyes.

The simple fact that one can again use the language of “establishments”, a “ruling class” and “class war” without sounding unhinged or like a throwback to the 1950s is an indication of how perception management – and narrative manipulation – so central to upholding the western political project since the end of the Second World War is failing.

Claims about the triumph of the liberal democratic order declared so loudly in the late 1980s by intellectuals such as Francis Fukuyama – or “the end of history”, as he grandly termed it – now look patently absurd.

And that is because, second, western elites clearly have no answers for the biggest challenges of our era. They are floundering around trying to deal with the inherent paradoxes in the capitalist order that liberal democracy was there to obscure.

Reality is breaking through the ideological cladding.

The most catastrophic is the climate crisis. Capitalism’s model of mass consumption and competition for the sake of competition is proving suicidal.

Limited resources – especially in our oil-addicted economies – mean growth is proving an ever-more costly extravagance. Those raised from birth to aspire to a better standard of living than their parents are growing not richer, but more disillusioned and bitter.

And the promise of progress – of kinder, more nurturing and equal societies – now sounds like a sick joke to most westerners under the age of 45.

Brew of lies

The claim that the West is best is starting to look like it rests on shaky foundations, even to western audiences.

But that idea crumbled long ago abroad, in the countries either devastated by the West’s war machine or waiting for their turn. The liberal democratic order offers them nothing except threats: it demands fealty or punishment.

Which is the context for the current genocide in Gaza.

As it claims, Israel is on the front lines – but not of a clash of civilisations. It is an exposed, precarious outpost of the liberal democratic order, where the brew of lies about democracy and liberalism are at their most toxic and unconvincing.

Israel is an apartheid state masquerading as “the only democracy in the Middle East”. Its brutal occupation forces masquerade as “the most moral army in the world”. And now Israel’s genocide in Gaza masquerades as “the elimination of Hamas”.

Israel has always had to obscure these lies through intimidation. Anyone daring to call out the deceptions is smeared as an antisemite.

But that playbook has sounded grossly offensive – inhuman even – when the matter at hand is stopping genocide in Gaza.

Where does this ultimately lead?

Nearly a decade ago, the Israeli scholar and peace activist Jeff Halper wrote a book, War Against the People, warning: “In an endless war on terror, we are all doomed to become Palestinians.”

Not just the West’s “enemies”, but its populations would come to be seen as a threat to the interests of a capitalist ruling class bent on its permanent privilege and enrichment, whatever the costs to the rest of us.

That argument – which sounded hyperbolic when he first aired it – is beginning to seem prescient.

Gaza is not just the front line of Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinian people. It is also a front line in the western elite’s war on our ability to think critically, to develop sustainable ways to live, and to demand that others be treated with the dignity and humanity we expect for ourselves.

Yes, the battle lines are drawn. And anyone who refuses to side with the baddies is the enemy.


Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.
We Must Reckon With the Most Dangerous System of Extinction Humans Ever Created

Capitalism, especially U.S. militarized capitalism, is a structural extinction force we need to confront foremost.
December 30, 2023
Military personnel take part in the Defense Shield 23 multinational battle group military exercises as U.S. national flag is seen in Novo Selo, Bulgaria, on May 29, 2023
.BORISLAV TROSHEV / ANADOLU AGENCY VIA GETTY IMAGES

INTERVIEW 

Capitalism is killing us. That’s the unequivocal message of a new book, Dying for Capitalism: How Big Money Fuels Extinction and What We Can Do About It by Charles Derber and Suren Moodliar. The authors draw critical links between capitalism, militarism and environmental destruction to show how nothing short of radical change is required to shift the deadly course humanity as a whole is now on. The book blends historical and contemporary analysis with a concluding interview from 2062 based on speculative fiction.

Derber and Moodliar call for a “new abolitionism” that draws wisdom and inspiration from the movement to abolish slavery and for a deep understanding of how our most critical problems are intertwined.

Derber, a professor of sociology at Boston College, has written 26 books — on politics, democracy, fascism, corporations, war, capitalism, climate change, the culture wars and social change. Some of his other recent books include Welcome to the Revolution, Moving Beyond Fear, and Capitalism: Should You Buy It? In this exclusive interview with Truthout, Derber discusses how the myth of American exceptionalism undermines the solutions to the existential threats we face today, why “green capitalism” is an oxymoron, and the need to confront a “triangle of extinction.”

Peter Handel: In your new book, Dying for Capitalism, you write “a ‘triangle of extinction’ that connects capitalism, environmental death and war creates an emergency that humanity-as-a-whole has never faced before.” How are these things interlinked?

Charles Derber: Americans are normalizing what is truly the greatest emergency ever faced by humanity — one threatening to doom all life species. In an earlier 2010 book, Greed to Green, I argued that President Obama should declare a national emergency to stop impending climate extinction and wake up Americans. Obama did not declare the emergency, and millions of Americans didn’t wake up.

RELATED STORY
Debt abolitionist Astra Taylor discusses how capitalism’s manufactured insecurity can feed movements for radical change.
By C.J. Polychroniou , TRUTHOUTOctober 22, 2023

Dying for Capitalism shows the existential threat has grown faster than I had imagined. This is not simply because of the acceleration of climate tipping points but the escalating risk of nuclear war arising from an increasingly unstable and militarized international and American world order. Witness not just Ukraine after U.S.-driven NATO expansion to the Russian border but the bipartisan new Cold War with China and today’s erupting wars in the Middle East.


Many U.S. wars have been fought to secure more oil. Protecting the U.S. right to create climate change is thus fueling “forever” wars.

As people are dying for capitalism in the sense that they want ever more of it, they are also literally dying for the consequences of craving a literal death system. The “triangle of extinction” exposes what many on the left have suspected but never fully understood. U.S. capitalism fuels both climate change and militarism for five core reasons: 1) elevating profit over all other aims; 2) commitment to unfettered economic growth; 3) expanding to control markets and resources domestically and internationally; 4) producing commodities for sale on the market rather than public goods; and 5) concentrating political power among corporate elites, notably the military-industrial complex and the carbon-industrial complex. All of these forces lead capitalist elites and the market to ignore the existential risks and treat them as what economists call “externalities” — which include the ultimate costs externalized from producers and paid by the general public.

How climate and military threats fuel each other is a major neglected subject. Ironically, the Pentagon itself annually reports that climate change is the biggest national security threat, with environmental disasters and sea rise driving people from endangered residences toward inhabitable land. Such migrations — along with intensifying floods, droughts and extreme temperatures — set up violent competition among people desperate for land and resources. Moreover, many U.S. wars have been fought to secure more oil. Protecting the U.S. right to create climate change is thus fueling “forever” wars.

The Pentagon also does not tell us that it is the world’s biggest institutional creator of carbon emissions. While climate change drives war, militarism drives climate change. This is not just about the obvious environmental destruction wrought by war. The modern military is a monster carbon producer, with massive carbon burned every day in training and wartime military flights; in fueling huge naval carriers, submarines and tanks; in producing planes and munitions; and in running more than a thousand military bases.

Most of us realize that the fossil fuel industry makes massive amounts of money while destroying the environment, but you show how the development of the fossil fuel industry is inextricable from the advent of modern capitalism. Tell us about this.

While fossil fuels were central to capitalist development, it didn’t have to be that way. Early industrial capitalism could have developed without fossil fuels. Indeed, 19th century British factories initially used water-powered steam engines but shifted away toward coal and oil.


Tank warfare and the new importance of planes in World War I was a major catalyst for the 20th century shift toward oil. World War II sealed the deal.

This had less to do with technological efficiency than social and political factors. Owners were worried that water would be viewed as part of the commons and subject to public controls or appropriation, threatening profits. Coal and oil were less likely to be viewed as part of the commons, since they were not as historically central to public use and well-being as water.

The long historical shift from coal toward oil was also driven by social and political interests rather than technological advantages. Coal miners were rebellious at an early stage, mobilized by communities formed working under adverse and dangerous conditions. Fear of unions helped shift industrial capitalism in the late 19th and 20th centuries toward oil.

Oil became the central energy source of U.S. 20th century capitalism largely because of wars, especially World War I and World War II. Tank warfare and the new importance of planes in World War I was a major catalyst for the 20th century shift toward oil. World War II sealed the deal. Enormous amounts of oil were needed to power the planes and produce the arms to win this huge conflagration. And U.S. interests in both securing and selling oil in Asia were a major factor fueling U.S. interest in war in the Pacific.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been. Why has the risk of nuclear catastrophe become so heightened?

The Bulletin issued a statement saying the change was “largely but not exclusively” due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They also now connect nuclear doomsday with environmental doomsday, noting that climate change and other environmental-linked threats such as COVID-19 played a role in resetting the clock. They are pulling the curtain back to reveal some of the “triangle of extinction.”

The Doomsday Clock is an important symbol, recognized around the world as a crucial indicator of potential imminent extinction. Founded in Chicago after the U.S. development of the nuclear bomb — a subject popularized in the film Oppenheimer — the Bulletin’s scientists, despite their major contributions, have their own limitations. They are not political economists or social theorists, and their U.S. roots have shaped their thinking. This may explain why they have not portrayed the full “triangle of extinction,” nor focused on the unique U.S. role in supercharging the race to extinction.

This goes beyond their relative lack of attention to the historical role of the U.S. and NATO in leading up to the Ukraine war. They have not offered a strong critique of the extinction risks inherent in building U.S. hegemony throughout the nuclear era. Nor have they highlighted the U.S. role in catalyzing Middle Eastern wars for oil and now heating up the new Cold War with both Russia and China, as well as playing a role in the current Israel-Hamas-Iran-U.S. military crisis, all intensifying extinction perils.


The building of a world economy around U.S.-dominated oil and arms is the heart of today’s “extinction triangle.” [But] instead of seeing extinction, many in the U.S. see a chosen people’s defense of liberty.

Nor does the Bulletin highlight how capitalist economies, and especially U.S. militarized capitalism, are crucial structural extinction forces. We hope that the Bulletin’s scientists will read Dying for Capitalism. If the nuclear scientists were to discuss the need to transform U.S. militarized capitalism, it would expose more of the “triangle of extinction,” and help mobilize both scientists and the public.

While you are focused mostly on the disastrous impact of capitalism, you also take on elements of American culture in Dying for Capitalism. In particular, you discuss the myth of American exceptionalism. How did this idea come to be so ingrained in American culture and how does it undermine solutions to the dire problems we face today?

American exceptionalism — the idea that the U.S. is the only nation equipped to manage world affairs and preserve freedom and democracy — goes back to the foundation of the nation. The Puritans defined their settlement in America as a blessed “city on the hill.” George Washington stated that the U.S. was destined to become a great empire. The Monroe Doctrine confirmed that empire would begin in the Americas itself.

Soon thereafter, the U.S. embraced the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, perhaps the most seductive military and moral doctrine of American exceptionalism, legitimating military expansion into the Pacific, including the murderous colonization of the Philippines. Teddy Roosevelt’s idealization of himself as a “rough rider” was part of the new 20th century U.S. drive to global empire; Roosevelt’s idealization of war, tied to his close relation to robber baron capitalists, such as the Morgan and Rockefeller financial and oil interests, helped fuel the long drive to a U.S.-led global fossil fuel, militarized capitalism.

Empires need what I have called “immoral morality,” the use of lofty moral ideals to legitimate evil behavior. U.S. exceptionalism cloaked the rise of U.S. fossil fuel-based, militarist global empire as a crusade for democracy. The building of a world economy around U.S.-dominated oil and arms is the heart of today’s “extinction triangle,” shrouded in immoral morality. Instead of seeing extinction, many in the U.S. see a chosen people’s defense of liberty.

You write that “green capitalism is an oxymoron.” Why?

Americans have long been taught that technology is the solution to everything. Green capitalism exploits this seductive approach, which tells Americans not to worry: our technological prowess will solve climate change. Instead of helping Americans see capitalism as a leading cause of climate change, it flips the equation and says that capitalism is the solution, since only capitalism can create the technological innovations — whether electric cars, carbon capture, geo-engineering or cheap wind and solar energy — that will save the planet.


Without changes in capitalist appetites for insatiable profit, growth, consumerism, expansion and war, the system will continue to place an infinite burden on a finite planet.

Technology is obviously important in dealing with climate change. But even if capitalism delivers many green technologies, it will not prevent climate disaster. Our book explains why “green capitalism” is a dangerous illusion. Without changes in capitalist appetites for insatiable profit, growth, consumerism, expansion and war, the system will continue to place an infinite burden on a finite planet.

This awareness is beginning to surface. People note that electric cars require scarce lithium that can generate militarized competition; moreover, building all the other parts of the car and the roads they depend on will continue to deplete the planet. It makes far more sense to build walkable cities than a new interstate highway system connecting suburbs with big lawns. The oxymoron derives from the reality that capitalism is designed for accumulating wealth and living big on a small planet, the perfect recipe for environmental death.

You call for a “new abolitionism” that draws inspiration and wisdom from the first abolitionist movement. Talk about this.

Our book ends with a conversation between a reporter and a climate and peace activist in 2060, describing how activists discovered in the 2020s the “slender path” to survival of life. They faced enormous skepticism about transforming large systems such as capitalism. But they found a path forward partly by looking backward.

COURTESY OF CHARLES DERBER

The 2020 activists were aware that pre-Civil War abolitionists were told they could never end slavery; it was an eternal system in human history and the U.S. We show that 2020s activists took from the abolitionists the refusal to lose hope and unexpected ways to challenge large systems regarded as unchangeable.

There is no simple abolitionist formula; in fact, part of the slender path was rejecting the idea of a single orthodoxy. The abolitionists grew from a tiny group because they found ways of building links and solidarity with so many different movements and change agents. Radical socialists like William Lloyd Garrison welcomed moderate abolitionists such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Formerly enslaved people such as Frederick Douglass found common cause with white suffragettes. Reformers became part of the same larger struggle as militants like John Brown.

Abolitionists often melded a mix of economic, political and cultural strategies into their own individual work. Douglass is a good example. He worked closely with Lincoln and foreign global leaders on the politics of emancipation, globalizing the struggle. At the same time, he helped lead the U.S. underground railroad and was an economic activist against the capitalist profitability of the slave trade. Douglass became the most widely photographed American of the 19th century, recognizing the role of culture in ending the slave system.

We show how abolitionists of fossil fuels, war and yes, capitalism itself, find themselves in similar quandaries, and often despair, as did their abolitionist ancestors. But we highlight how a new abolitionism is already finding earlier abolitionist lessons for universalizing resistance — and protecting the commons and a new economy of public goods from what is surely the most dangerous system of extinction that humans have ever created.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Newly Uncovered Documents Reveal the FBI’s Campaign Against Bob Dylan

The US impulse toward repression didn’t die with the Cold War, as current attempts to suppress support for Gaza show.
PublishedDecember 30, 2023
Bob Dylan performs onstage at the Chicago Stadium in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1978.PAUL NATKIN / GETTY IMAGES
Bob Dylan performs onstage at the Chicago Stadium in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1978.PAUL NATKIN / GETTY IMAGES

Veteran singer-songwriter Bob Dylan is currently promoting his album Rough and Rowdy Ways, with the epic song “Murder Most Foul” — a deconstruction of the John F. Kennedy assassination and the larger 1960s, full of paranoia, intimations of conspiracy and foreboding. While the song reconstructs the world of the ‘60s, it is also, with its allusions to sinister forces at play, very much a song of the moment. The irony in all this, however, is that documents buried in the archives recently discovered by this author detail how Dylan himself was a target of a secret government program during that period.

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. On December 13 that year, the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (ECLC) — an advocacy group for constitutional rights, with considerable Communist Party influence — held its annual Bill of Rights Dinner. The event aimed to honor people it considered at the forefront of the fight for civil liberties. One of those up for an award was Bob Dylan.

Dylan, who had been drinking freely throughout the evening, was not employing the most diplomatic behavior. When he rose to accept the honor, he proceeded to give a rambling speech, where among other things, he opined on the assassination — a matter still white-hot in most people’s thinking:

I got to admit that the man who shot President Kennedy, Lee Oswald, I don’t know exactly where — what he thought he was doing, but I got to admit honestly that I too — I saw some of myself in him. I don’t think it would have gone — I don’t think it could go that far. But I got to stand up and say I saw things that he felt, in me — not to go that far and shoot.

While much of the audience responded to Dylan’s remarks with boos and hisses, FBI informants — there were at least five in the audience — were taking notes. Based on these, an internal memo claimed Dylan had said, “He would not go that far, but he is not sure.” Later reports, such as those in his girlfriend Suze Rotolo’s Bureau file, would omit the provocative phrase “but he is not sure.” The initial report, however, went into and would remain in the FBI’s records.

RELATED STORY

FBI Tracking of Bob Dylan and Suze Rotolo Foreshadowed Future Abuses
Rotolo’s FBI file is a reminder that the greatest threat to freedom is the agency tasked with protecting it.
By Aaron J. Leonard , TRUTHOUT  September 1, 2019


Dylan would walk back his comments to a degree, issuing a statement saying, among other things, “when I spoke of Lee Oswald, I was speakin of the times I was not speakin of his deed if it was his deed the deed speaks for itself.” But it did not stop the fallout. We now know the FBI quickly crafted a plan for using the remarks against Dylan and the ECLC. These revelations come via memos buried in the voluminous, and largely unexamined, files of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) aimed at the Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA).

In the wake of the dinner, the New York FBI sent a memo, dated December 16, 1963, to J. Edgar Hoover recounting the particulars of the incident. In it, agents wrote, “The statement in the letterhead memorandum made by Dylan pertaining to the assassination of President KENNEDY has been furnished to the Secret Service in New York City.” However, in another memo a week later, they made clear they were not limiting things to the Secret Service:


The above statement of Dylan’s [on Oswald] was furnished to the Secret Service in New York City by the New York Office (NYO). At the Seat of Government [Washington DC] we disseminated copies of the memorandum concerning the meeting, including Dylan’s statement, to Secret Service, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley and to the intelligence agencies of the armed services.

In this way, the FBI was not just alerting the Secret Service, but was also alerting other key federal agencies, suggesting Bob Dylan was a potential national security threat.

That same memo also laid out what the FBI knew about Dylan up to that point. In it, they report that the April 16 issue of the National Guardian — a leftist weekly — “contained an announcement regarding a ‘Folk and Jazz Concert’ to be presented on 4-25-62 by the U.S. Festival Committee. One of the individuals listed to perform at this ‘concert’ was Bob Dylan.” The scare quotes around the word “concert” suggesting ulterior aims.

That same report notes Dylan’s aborted appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” citing a New York Times article from May 14, 1963. Dylan had been scheduled to appear on the show and planned to perform the song, “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues,” which ridiculed that right-wing organization. However, the producers told him after the rehearsal that he could not play the song because it was “controversial.” That incident in turn led CBS — which owned Dylan’s label, Columbia Records — to remove the song from Dylan’s forthcoming Freewheelin’ album.

The Bureau, however, was not content to just write memos. The incident occurred at a time when the FBI was undertaking an aggressive campaign to disrupt the Communist Party through COINTELPRO. In the FBI’s view, the CPUSA was in disarray in the aftermath of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of Joseph Stalin in 1956. As such, the Bureau assessed that the situation was “made to order for an all-out disruptive attack against the [Communist Party] from within.” What followed was an extensive campaign to disrupt the group by spreading rumors, sending out poison pen letters, planting stories in the press, and other secret measures. In that regard, they saw Dylan’s speech as an opportunity:


Under the Counterintelligence Program, it is urged that this statement of BOB DYLAN, made at this meeting, be brought to the attention of all the Bureau’s contacts in the mass media field so that proper publicity will be given to DYLAN, who by means of his folk singing, has the ability to have some communication with American youth. In addition, publicity of this sort will point up the type of organization the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee is to honor an individual of Dylan’s mentality.

The contempt exhibited for Dylan in this is palpable.

Two weeks later, a piece by nationally syndicated columnist Fulton Lewis Jr. was published in newspapers around the country. Lewis’s column was a detailed report of the dinner — though notably, he did not claim to be in attendance — that reads as if taken straight from the FBI’s files. For example, he notes the attendance of Robert Thompson, a “top-ranking Communist official once convicted of violating the Smith Act, and Harvey O’Connor, the oft-identified Communist.”

The column also disparages James Baldwin — honored at the event alongside Dylan — as a “liberal egghead,” before turning to the musician:


The ECRC Tom Paine Award went to folksinger Bob Dylan, who wore dirty chinos and a worn-out shirt. He accepted the award “on behalf of all those who went to Cuba because they’re young and I’m young and I’m proud of it.” He went on to say that he saw part of Lee Harvey Oswald “in myself.”

It is not surprising that Lewis would have such information. He was one of the media sources considered to be among the FBI’s “press contacts.” He was also considered to be an ally of the Bureau and its longtime director, J. Edgar Hoover. This closeness can be seen in a letter from Hoover, obtained via a FOIA request by this author, to Lewis’s successor after Lewis died in 1966. While the addressee of the letter is redacted, a typed “Note” on the bottom reads “Fulton Lewis, Jr., was a good friend to the Bureau and the Director.”

How all this ultimately impacted the ECLC and the CPUSA is unclear — it was but one among a barrage of efforts by the Bureau. With Dylan, however, it offers another piece in the puzzle of the attention and repression aimed at him during his most overtly political period, when he wrote such songs as “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “Masters of War,” and “The Times They Are a-Changin’.” Not only had he been prohibited from singing “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues” on “The Ed Sullivan Show” that May, two weeks before the ECLC dinner, there was a hit piece on Dylan in Newsweek. The piece, along with ridiculing his singing, claimed a New Jersey high school student — not Dylan — wrote the song “Blowin’ in the Wind.” Notably, those attacks were conducted more or less in the open. The FBI, however, was operating in the shadows.

The pushback on Dylan happened amid the Cold War contention between the now long-gone U.S.S.R. and the U.S. While that was a time with its own peculiar forms of repression, the impulse has not disappeared. Putting aside for the moment the fascistic politics percolating across the U.S., one need look no further than the current calls and actions to suppress those standing with the people of Gaza to see how fraught the current landscape is. If the Bob Dylan of today is writing songs about a dark turn of events in the U.S. — or as Dylan writes in “Murder Most Foul,” the place where faith, hope and charity die — he is only expanding on a narrative that has been in play for a considerable amount of time.

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Aaron J. Leonard is the author of The Folk Singers & the Bureau and Whole World in an Uproar. In May 2024 he will publish Meltdown Expected: Crisis Disorder & Upheaval at the End of the 1970s (Rutgers University Press).
Danish Queen Margrethe II announces her abdication

2024/01/01
Queen Margrethe II of Denmark arrives at the residence. Queen Margrethe II intends to abdicate on January 14, the 83-year-old says in her televised New Year's address.
 Sven Hoppe/dpa

Denmark's Queen Margrethe II intends to abdicate on January 14, the 83-year-old said on Sunday in her televised New Year's address.

The resignation coincides with her 52nd anniversary on the throne.

In her annual speech, which is always closely followed by the Danes, Margrethe referred to her back operation this year. The operation had gone well thanks to health staff, but had made her think about her future as queen.

During her rehabilitation, she cancelled numerous appointments or was represented by her son Crown Prince Frederik, 55, and his wife Mary, 51. Her eldest son - heir to the throne for so long - is already attending appointments that the queen used to do herself.

Frederik's eldest son Prince Christian, 18, has also recently been authorized to officially represent the queen.

Margrethe will hand the throne on to her son Frederik, she said. Above all, she wanted to say thank you for the warmth and support she had received over the years, added the monarch.

The world's longest-serving living monarch began her speech with comments on the Gaza and Ukraine wars, after which she addressed the climate crisis and artificial intelligence.

After greeting the people of the Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are part of the Danish kingdom, she dropped the bombshell news, which was described in the Danish media as "absolutely historic."

The onlookers who had gathered in the square in front of Amalienborg Palace broke into spontaneous applause after the announcement.

Margrethe had always stressed that she wanted to remain on the throne until her death - until she came up with the big surprise in Sunday's speech.

Margrethe's move is considered extremely unusual and historic. Since the introduction of the hereditary monarchy in 1660, there has never been a monarch who has voluntarily abdicated the throne, history professor Lars Hovbakke Sørensen from the University of Absalon told the Ritzau Danish news agency.

Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen praised Margrethe as the "epitome of Denmark," who over the years has found words and feelings for who the Danes are as a people and as a nation.

The soon to be former queen was born Margrethe Alexandrine Thórhildur Ingrid on April 16, 1940. Her father, King Frederik IX, only had the line of succession to the throne changed in 1953 when it became clear that he would have no male offspring.

Margrethe inherited the throne after the death of Frederik on January 14, 1972.

Her motto was "God's help, the people's love, Denmark's strength." As Margrethe II, she was Denmark's first female monarch in 500 years.

The always radiant - and often seen smoking - monarch is popular with the people, and her New Year's Eve speeches have cult status.

She is extremely creative and interested in art, is considered pragmatic and sometimes a little unconventional. Since the death of Britain's queen Elizabeth II, whose third cousin she was, Margrethe has been the longest-serving monarch in the world.

It was also her love of art that united her with her husband, the French Count Henri Marie Jean André de Laborde de Monpezat, later known as prince Henrik. They met in London, where he was working at the embassy. They married in 1967.

Crown Prince Frederik was born in 1968 and Prince Joachim a year later. Henrik died in February 2018 - after more than 50 years of marriage.

Like his mother, Frederik is popular with his fellow countrymen. Frederik is also known for his sporting fervour: he ran various marathons, completed an Ironman and launched the Royal Run event for his 50th birthday.

In his mid-20s, he underwent tough military training to become a combat swimmer in the navy. His wife, Crown Princess Mary, and he are considered a well-rehearsed team. The couple have four children: Christian, 18, Isabella, 16, and twins Vincent and Josephine, 12.



DPA International