INTERVIEWS

 Ilya Ponomaryov: The Russian elite used to, and now perceives many theories uncritically, and applies them dogmatically, formally

Thursday, November 01, 2018

11 min read

Posted on Nov 1, 2018 by IL GRIDO DEL POPOLO

This publication is the first independent internationalist INTERNET PORTAL 

FIRST SERIES OF THE SESSION “Dialogue with Ilya Ponomaryov”: discusses recent nation-wide protest reactions that have passed during the summer in 2018 in RUSSIA – as a resonance antisocial pension reforms of the ruling class, headed by President Vladimir Putin.

Hello, comrade Ilya! Today I would like to hear your

opinion on the current difficult socio-political situation in the Russian Federation, provoked by the antisocial legislative policy of the authorities, not the stranger’s opinion, but due to the physical distance from our latitudes, not immersed in the raging passions. Your view on what is happening is also particularly interesting because, in my opinion, in multi-level modern politics you try to keep to the line that is very close to the “theoretical- practitioner” image, the importance of which you wrote at the beginning of the twentieth century, Antonio Gramsci.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: So, in your opinion, what is the true essence and motivational characteristics of those steps towards a radical change in the Russian pension legislation that the Russian ruling class has taken, trying to justify them as “necessary for overcoming the long-overdue crisis of Russian socio- economic policy?”.

ILYA PONOMARYOV: I think this reform is “a reflection of the accounting approach to them. A.L. Kudrin (Kudrin Alexey Leonidovich – Minister of Finance of Russia in 2000–2011. Successive pro-capitalist line of neoliberal economic policies laid down by Yeltsin’s Prime Minister Ye.T. Gaidar. One of the “architects” who entered into force on the anti-people “Pension reform.” After being removed from his post, – since 2012 – one of the leaders of the radical liberal opposition. – AA) ”. Instead of the really necessary reform of the pension system that went bankrupt as a result of inconsistent neoliberal experiments, the government wants, without changing anything, to simply patch the hole – naturally, at the expense of retirees.

Putin was delaying these steps until the end of the federal election season, and, of course, he cynically tried to drive him out during the World Cup. I think that he only additionally turned people against himself.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: How do you think, to what degree did the Government of the Russian Federation and the Presidential Office forecast the volume of protest resonance that followed in reality – right after Prime Minister Medvedev announced it publicly through the media on June 14?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: The government is here-dependent people. Prime Minister Medvedev and Kudrin are enemies. If Kudrin had not persuaded Putin, Prime Minister Medvedev would hardly have exploited a “legislative adventure”. It was not by chance that his closest associate, responsible for PR, Natalia Timakova, quit his job.

I think the Kremlin is now quite a strong degradation of predictive abilities. Such decisions are made by Putin personally, and they believe that they will still be able to turn the tide through the media.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: Do you agree with the opinion that many interested observers are now developing about the processes taking place in the Russian Federation, according to which – at this stage it is

definitely possible to say that in the current intrastate confrontation, two real different-vector forces have finally clearly manifested themselves Of Russia: the first is the state bourgeois apparatus, which has manifested its too repressive function, which is overwhelming the will of the people, and the second is the main part of the population of Russia, who has realized itself now Is it socially unprotected, regardless of belonging to a particular social group?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: I would like to believe in it, but I don’t think so. Citizens of Russia have long divided the country into “we” and “they” – “we”, hard workers, and “they” – power, security forces, the rich, etc. But this does not mean that “we” are clearly aware of class interests and are able to oppose “them” in an organized way. To protest, primarily in the form of passive non-participation in the elections, or participation with a protest vote for anyone, if only not from “them,” is yes. But this is not enough for change in the country.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: What do you think, are mass protests of Russians against pension reform evidence that the process of forming collective social solidarity that has begun has entered a phase of its development that will naturally lead to the awakening of class consciousness of a new community that has recently begun its formation as an antagonist to the modern suprastate united bourgeois class? After all, we all watched for a long time how, against the background of a long socially stable existence, the workers and employees of the late USSR, before its collapse, did the masses manage to lose their class instincts, being not ready, defenseless, disconnected and confused before the fact of the new round of capitalization of Russia?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: No. According to Marxist theory, the budget-dependent and non-productive labor strata should be classified as the lumpen-proletariat. He, too, can show protest moods, but he cannot be a support for transformations, and the authorities always have the opportunity to manipulate them in their own interests.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: Can you try to give an objective, balanced assessment of the organization’s work of “The Confederation of Labor of Russia conditionally having independent status and, in our opinion, of the frankly pro-Kremlin “Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia” involved in the processes we are discussing?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: Creating a unified organization of truly independent trade unions “The Confederation of Labor of Russia” was a great success over the past decade. I am proud that I was able to provide this feasible assistance. “Yellowed” for a long time to conjunct trade unions, such as the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia, it’s time to go to the dustbin of history, I have no doubt that soon they will be there. They are not and should not be revolutionaries. Their task is to reach an agreement with the employer, to achieve the maximum possible to alleviate the position of their members, employees of enterprises. Political work on changing the socio-economic system as a whole is a matter of political organizations.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: Comrade Ponomaryov, are you satisfied as a political opposition activist who already has experience in the struggle with the measure of political consciousness of the Russian population that was manifested as a public resonance 2018 g – against the offensive of the bourgeois Russian elite on the existing pension social norms?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: I will be satisfied when it changes in the country will be replaced by socio-political kaya system. But the ability of people not to stay at home on the couch, as some called for, including opposition politicians, inspires hope. And the rally, and campaign elections, and more radical methods; in the struggle for change, there is no superfluous.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: Do you think that the theoretical assumption is permissible and meets reality that all steps of the Russian ruling bourgeois class, which is “armed” with the dusty neoliberal theory issued

by the coordinated international ruling elite (and, We know that it has long been discredited by the political and economic global crisis provoked by its use), it is at this moment that it has an “Achilles heel,” which is what causes feverish legislative seizures in the form of about the attack on the social rights of the majority of the population, and – is it easy to break now?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: The Russian elite used to, and now perceives many theories uncritically, and applies them dogmatically, formally. Such an approach once brought the USSR into a dead end; he also discredited liberalism in the eyes of the majority of the population and allowed Putin endless possibilities for manipulation. The “Achilles heel of neoliberalism” is in contradiction between the radical market approach bordering on libertarianism and the need to curtail the democratic rights of citizens without which it is impossible to get a mandate for neoliberal steps in the economy. This contradiction splits the liberals themselves, shows the hypocrisy of their leaders, and can only be resolved by transferring power into the hands of the citizens themselves, on which the left insist. I think that in the framework of representative democracy this is not feasible, therefore, as the slogan “All power to the Soviets” was on the agenda a hundred years ago, now we must achieve the universal introduction of direct democracy mechanisms, without any intermediaries.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: Ilya, in your honest opinion: The reforms provoked by the Government and supported by President Putin will lead to the depletion of the protest potential of the country’s population, due to the initial total ineffectiveness of the spent socially resistant energy LI – these processes can be assessed as the first stage of the proto-class struggle, giving the population an understanding that the Authority has entered an active phase of social discrimination of Russians, the answer to which will be followed by the formation of a potential revolutionary human resource – with an awakened class consciousness?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: This is a very useful an episode that helped many see that the Kremlin’s military adventures were only a red herring. Popularity, Putin’s rating returned – to “pre-Crimean” times, and this is a very important, albeit intermediate, result.

ALENA AGHEEVA: Do you think that in the stage of All-Russian mass protests that took place from June to September 2018, is there a danger? multi-political “layer” of systemic and non-systemic opposition formations, which assumed the role of organizing force, and, in reality, simply using an extremely convenient excuse, in order to increase the citation rating in global political monitoring, reanimation of the lost political role and other party “selfish” motives, for which real national aspirations, as a result, will remain “behind”?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: Of course. The lies and hypocrisy of individual politicians who change their views for the sake of conjuncture, of course, undermine the credibility of the opposition as a whole. Moreover, there is no doubt that the liberal part of the opposition, if it comes to power, will generally continue and even deepen the same socio-economic policy that Putin is now leading. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about it. Now we just need to work with our supporters, tell the truth, and be sure that history will judge us, and people will figure it out.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: Your practical and technological recommendations: Is it possible to go further, somewhat more effective than mass clashes with the police, anti-government strategy of self-organizing Resistance, which forms – alternative protest spontaneity, – instruments of pressure on the power structures or technology of the interregional tactical grass-roots destabilization of the current regime ?, And the real refractive index of the political line of the center of Ilya Ponomaryov: It is important to create two key elements – regional organizations, working permanently in contact with the center, and the mass media has the opportunity to conduct a dialogue beyond the traditional activist, protest environment. Power itself will do the rest, it works to create a revolutionary situation day and night.

ALYONA AGHEEVA: As a result of the first dialogue with you at RESISTENTIAM.COM, a consultation: If we, as an internationalist action, are preparing a series of international actions to support All-Russian social protest, What Russian organizations that are most organized and acting in the paradigm of the class struggle, spokesmen for the popular anti-bourgeois resistance, have you advised to focus on – in terms of cooperation in this area?

ILYA PONOMARYOV: I think it’s always necessary to rely on yourself. And inviting everyone who shares the program principles of your structure is, in the end, all riotous, and we have exactly the same name and are well known.

The interview was taken by Alyona Agheeva

INTERVIEWS

Domenico Moro: Fascism was the open and brute dictatorship of the elite of capital

Saturday, October 27, 2018

13 min read

foto: Domenico Moro’s private archive
Posted on Oct 27, 2018 by IL GRIDO DEL POPOLO

Domenico Moro (1964, Rome) is an Italian economist, sociologist and political researcher who for years has been analyzing and researching the European monetary system as well as large multinacional financial monopolies and groups such as Bilderberg and the Trilateral commission. So far, he has published several books: “Il gruppo Bilderberg” (2014), “Globalizzazione e decadenza industriale” (2015), “La terza guerra mundiale e il fundamentalismo islamico” (2016), “La gubbia dell’euro” (2018).

---

First I would ask you if the European Union has a future in the form of a corporate project of the ruling elites?

I think we have to distinguish between Eu and single European currency. It is difficult that Euro can survive, in the same way as other previous monetary unions in the History, for example the Latin union. First of all, the Euro system is unfit for coping with the evolution of world economy, because makes impossible to the single countries to adapt themselves to economic cycles. Without any control on exchange and interest rates, and on money emission of the central bank is impossible for a single State making any industrial policy and contrasting the decrease of GDP and employment. Euro is broadening the differences between countries, producing millions of poor people and, more of all, makes difficult resisting to external shocks. Another crisis, like the 2008-2009 one (the worst one since 1929), would means likely the collapse of euro system. But for which reason the ruling classes in Europe are so determined to defend Euro? Euro is a political project.  From a class point of view, Euro is the tool to force the working class to accept the European rules, written in the Treaties. The target is removing the control of public budget and industrial policy from other classes and put it only into hands of the superior sector of capital, the biggest and more internationalized one. Above all Euro is the tool to accept limitations on popular and democratic sovereignty, as it was established during a century of struggles, and make the Parliaments more weak with no power in public budget and industrial policy decisions. In this way, Euro and treaties has made possible modify the balance of power between capital and labour that was defined in favour of working class after the fall of fascism and after the struggles in sixties and seventies. With regard to the Eu treaties, also the European targets that force the decrease of debt to 60% on GDP are impossible to be reached. Perhaps what could survive is another system of relationships among European countries, with agreements which establish some kind of trade rules among countries.

How do you look at Brussels latest pressures on fiscal monetary policy of Italy, in terms of her debt?

Italian government actually is not doing an expansionary policy. It would be exaggerated call it a Keynesian policy. A public deficit of 2.4% is just 0.1% above the deficit of the previous Pd government. Notwithstanding the European commission is attacking the government as if it was doing a policy of strong spending, which can destroy Europe. It is the demonstration that European Commission is far from reality. According to Junker and Moscovici, Italy should cut public expenses further after years of austerity in order to pass from 131% to 60% of debt on GDP just in a couple of decades of years. All this during a period of economic stagnation with an inflation between zero and one per cent and with 5 million of absolute poors. It is ridiculous.

Italian public debt has already reached 131% of the state GDP, which is more of 2340 billion euros, while economic growth is below the EU average, and the unemployment rate is 11%, which amongst the young population is unbelievable 32%. How can Italy deal with these problems and can it at all?

That’s for sure that Italy cannot cope with unemployment and its big debt if it follow the European rules and cut the public expenses. We need to increase investments, particularly in construction, in order to revitalize the domestic market. Only the state can do it. For this reason Italy has to go much further a 2.4% deficit. In this case, it should be inevitable to crash with European authorities.

Right-wing populist “5stelle” and Lega Nord government in Rome are opposed to austerity measures, but will they step in front of the Brussels bureaucrats, as did in Greece once?

Italy is not Greece. First of all for its dimensions. Without Italy euro can arrive to the end quickly. Secondly, Italian industrial structure is quite strong and quite competitive. Italy has been realizing strong trade surpluses (goods and services) for the last 7 years (53 billion of euros in 2017). Instead France and Uk continue to have trade deficit. Italy has been doing public primary surpluses for last 20 years (Germany for only 12 years), i.e. Italy State expenses are less than its revenues. Furthermore in Italy household savings are quite high. International investments funds know it, as JP Morgan said recently. For this reason they are investing in Italian debt even now. From the other side, we do not have to forget the euro is a strong cage. Exiting from this cage requires a strong political determination. The question is if M5S and Lega will be firm and concerned to it. I have some doubt about this. In my opinion the true government target is to negotiate better conditions with Eu. Lega and M5S are bourgeois parties. They represent some sectors of capital and middle and petty bourgeoisie damaged by austerity.  Do not forget that Italy has a biggest sector of little and middle firms than other European countries, like Germany and France. In any event the situation could fall if the Commission hardens its position, but it is difficult forecast what will happen.

We are witnesses today that the Italian left is at the lowest possible level of its existence and socio-political action. Which is the real reason for it?

The reasons of collapse of Italian left are many and have origin in the past twenty-thirty years of Italian history. When Italian communist party (Pci) broke up in 1991, it was divided in two parts. The majority organized  a party (called Pds and then Ds and Pd), which was rather liberal democratic than social democratic. It was the demonstration of how Pci was changed in the last decade, surrendering on the political and ideological field. This party become the spokesperson of big capital interests and in particular of European union and single currency. All of this was hidden by the opposition of Berlusconi, depicted as the most important danger for Italy. The minority of former Pci and some other far left little organizations and groups organized the Party of Rifondazione Comunista (Prc). This party was the assembly of many political and ideological currents in perpetual fight each against other rather than an organization composed by well-blended elements. Not much was done in this direction by the leadership, more interested in electoral tactics. Furthermore, in order to fight Berlusconi, considered the most (or the only) dangerous enemy, the sole political tactic of Prc was the centre-left coalition with Pds (later Ds) and leaded by Romano Prodi, a former State top manager, the person responsible for privatization of many State enterprises. The second Prodi government (2006-2008) was a disillusionment for many voters of Prc, PdCI (a 1998 secession from Prc) and Greens. At the elections in 2008 the votes of this parties decreased from 12% to 3% and they were expelled from Parliament. This result was destinate to do not change. For two reasons. Firstly, a part of far left electorate moved to abstention and a bigger part passed to Movimento cinque stelle, which will began the first Italian party in 2013 and go to the government in 2018. Secondly, because of the defeat, the political and ideological differences broke up inside Prc and the far left. Some people wanted go on with centre-left collation, some did not. Some people thought that was necessary get rid of communism and marxism, some did not. There were many secessions, which weakened Prc. The situation fell with the 2008-2009 crisis and European austerity, in particular during Monti government, a sort of Eu commissioner, supported by Pd and Berlusconi. The moderate left was the more sure supporter of European constrictions and payed the price for this at the last elections,  in the same way the as moderate left did in France, Greece, Spain, Germany. The far left was negative with austerity, but its position on Eu and the single currency was little clear, confusing defense of Eu with internationalism and the fight against Euro with nationalism. Summarizing, moderate left was the defender of big capital interests while far left was not able to understand the modification of the Italian and European society, in particular the impact of Euro on economy and policy. On the contrary, M5S and Lega were able to do it. It was remarkable the ability of Lega to transform from defender of North Italy interests into defender of “national” interests, building a social alliance (in the sense which Gramsci gave to the word) with some sectors of capitalist firms (which have the leadership), middle classes and working class. In a way, today we assist to a civil war inside the Italian (but also European) capitalist class, of which the birth of last Italian government is the evidence.

How do you see today on this growing rising climax of fascism in Europe and whether a modern left can even oppose this trend and how?

The rising of fascist groups depends on the European austerity and crisis, in the same way as nazism depended on the austerity policy with which was faced the 1929 crysis. They also depend on the tolerance towards them of moderate left and centre-right parties that underestimated antifascism and Resistance importance in the last decades. But the true question is: there is a danger of fascism regime in Europe? In order to answer we have to understand what was fascism and why took power. Fascism was the open and brute dictatorship of the élite of capital. This dictatorship was useful to remove popular and democratic sovereignty, eliminating Parliament and elections, as well as trade unions and working class parties. Furthermore fascism and its nationalistic soul was coherent with a capitalistic accumulation that was mainly domestic and with a territorial shape of imperialism. Fascism was the preparation to the second time of the world war for the defeated country (Germany) and the unsatisfied country (Italy) of the First World War. Today  – we have to ask ourselves – what has eliminate o reduced popular and democratic sovereignty? What has neutralized the universal suffrage, trade unions and popular parties? The answer is simple. European treaties and single currency. You can vote a policy after that the European constraints and Euro prevent to put into practice. Thanks to them, élite of capital do not need to abolish democracy or use direct brutality. Furthermore, the capitalist accumulation is much more global than in the thirties and imperialism is not territorial but managed by multinational enterprises. The most bizarre thing is that M5S and Lega – a centre and a far right party – seem the defender of the vote results (and of the democratic sovereignty) against the international market and European Commission influence on the political decision. Meanwhile, Pd, Berlusconi and President of Republic defend the European Commission and say “We have to respetct the rules, otherwise the markets will punish us”. The problem is that Italian workers and unemployed people has been punished for a decade by austerity, of which is impossible to see a end. You can imagine the consequences of Junker declarations on Italian electorate: Lega has increased its votes from 17,3% to 30%. This is the demonstration of the confusion existing in Italy (but also in many European countries) and of the difficulties of the left to fight the M5S and Lega positions. For this reason we have to be clear about European treaty and single currency. Exit from Euro or even from Eu do not resolve all the problems but is a necessary conditions, particularly if we want to be credible. It is true that the problem is the capital, but capitalism fights its class battle and do profits in different historical ways. Today European integration takes on a strategic role for European capital egemony and capital accumulation.

All this does not mean that does not exist any difference inside capital and between capitals of different nations and consequently that does not exit competition among capitals and among States. On the contrary, Euro, widening differences in economy and reducing domestic markets, increases the imperialistic tendency to expansion abroad and tensions among States, strengthening the role of the national State, as well as nationalism and xenophobia. Euro and Eu do not abolish or weaken national-States, but change them, redefining their parts and the relationship among these in order to put in a cage the subordinate classes.

Consider one of the best experts when it comes to organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. Tell me how really these organizations really are capable of carrying the decision on the international political scene, and is there any cooperation between them and the NATO military alliance through an institution such as the Club of Rome?

Usually people connect Bilderberg to conspiracy theory. They think that there is a little group of people that decide about all what concern the events in the world. Actually Bilderberg and its sister organization, Trilateral Commission, are think tanks of a part of the superior sector of international capital of western countries, the majority member countries of Nato (Usa, Canada, Uk, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc.). Their target is discussing and defining policies useful to their interests. Even if there is no conspiracy, the strategical importance of Bilderberg and Trilateral is evident in connection with European integration. The proposal of a single currency in Europe was proposed in a meeting of Bilderberg in Buxton in 1958, in order to control the public budget and reduce the power of Parliaments. Particularly meaningful is The Crisis of democracy, a report for the Trilateral meeting at Tokyo in 1975, written by Huntigton and Crozier. The crisis of democracy, according to the two authors, was depending on an excess of democracy, which should have been reduced. The tool to reach this goal was European integration. The strength of Bilderberg and Trilateral depends on the connection between business élite (top managers and member of boards of multinationals, transnationals, and internationals banks), policy élite (prime ministers and heads of State, finance and foreign ministers, European Commission members, Nato council members), élite of European and national bureaucracy (International monetary fund, central banks and Bce members), and élite of University and mass media.  Many European prime ministers has attended the meeting, among them Blair, Merkel, Prodi, Monti. In this way the business élite can exercise an influence on politics. Summarizing, there is no conspiracy theory but hegemony building of transnational capital in western society.

This interview was taken by Gordan Stosevic.

Dictatorship Domenico Moro Fascism

- Antonio Gramsci

" I've never been a professional journalist selling his pen to the one who pays him better, and he has to lie constantly because he becomes a lie his professional code. I was to the end of a free newspaperman, always a single opinion, and I never had to hide my deepest beliefs to treat the masters or their confederates."

Antonio Gramsci (January 22, 1891. - April 27, 1937.) was an Italian Marxist journalist, philosopher and politician. Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. He was founded the Communist Party of Italy (Partito Comunista d'Italia-PCd'I) on January 21, 1921. in the town Livorno. Later on the November 9, 1926. the fascist regime arrested Gramsci, despite his parliamentary immunity and brought him to prison. Gramsci was one of the most important Marxist thinkers of the 20th century and a particularly key thinker in the development of Western Marxism.

Stunning Fossil Discovery Could Offer Glimpse into Day the Dinosaurs Died

Read more: https://to.pbs.org/2IIrXKM 

A mass of fossilized fish, uncovered in North Dakota, appear to preserve the catastrophic fallout of the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs.