Sunday, May 05, 2019

Technology & Science

Permafrost is thawing in the Arctic so fast that scientists are losing their equipment

Instead of a few centimetres of thaw a year, several metres of soil can destabilize within days

Abrupt permafrost thawing has caused a large landslide into a side channel of the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories. Permafrost in some areas of the Canadian Arctic is thawing so fast that it's gulping up equipment left there to study it. (Carolyn Gibson/Canadian Press)
"The ground thaws and swallows it," said Merritt Turetsky, a University of Guelph biologist whose new research warns the rapid thaw could dramatically increase the amounts of greenhouse gases released from ancient plants and animals frozen within the tundra.
"We've put cameras in the ground, we've put temperature equipment in the ground, and it gets flooded. It often happens so fast we can't get out there and rescue it
"We've lost dozens of field sites. We were collecting data on a forest and all of a sudden it's a lake."
Turetsky's research, published this week in the journal Nature, looks at the rate of permafrost thaw across the Arctic and what its impact could be on attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
It's been known for years that the vast belts of frozen soil that underlie much of the North are thawing as the Arctic warms. That releases greenhouse gases as organic carbon from plants and animals, once locked away in the ice, thaws and decomposes.

'Crazy liquefication'

Climate scientists have assumed a slow, steady erosion of permafrost and a similar pace of carbon release. Turetsky and her colleagues found something different.
Instead of a few centimetres of thaw a year, several metres of soil can destabilize within days. Landscapes collapse into sinkholes. Hillsides slide away to expose deep permafrost that would otherwise have remained insulated.
Thawing permafrost and ice are visible along the coast of the Mackenzie Delta. (Roger MacLeod/Natural Resources Canada)
"Permafrost at [that] depth, even 100 years from now, probably would still be protected in the soil," she said. "Except here comes this really crazy liquefication where this abrupt thaw really churns up this stuff."
Wildfires, becoming larger and hotter every year over the Canadian boreal forest, are also causing rapid permafrost thaw.
Nearly one-fifth of Arctic permafrost is now vulnerable to rapid warming, Turetsky's paper suggests. Plenty of it is in Canada, such as in the lowlands south of Hudson Bay.
Soil analysis found those quickly thawing areas also contain the most carbon. Nearly 80 per cent of them hold at least 70 kilograms of carbon per cubic metre.
That suggests permafrost is likely to release up to 50 per cent more greenhouse gases than climate scientists have believed. As well, much of it will be released as methane, which is about 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide.
"These are minimum estimates," Turetsky said. "We've been very conservative."
Despite the rapid thaw, it'll be decades before the extra carbon release starts to influence global climate. "We've got a bit of time."
The abrupt collapsing of permafrost, however, will affect northerners long before that.
"The landscape is going to be affected more and more every year by permafrost degradation," Turetsky said.
"We've got a lot of people living on top of permafrost and building infrastructure on top of permafrost. It's enough to sink northern budgets."

Corrections

  • An earlier version of this Canadian Press story incorrectly said methane is about 30 per cent more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. In fact, it's about 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
    May 03, 2019 8:27 AM ET

New Green Party poll puts Paul Manly in lead in Nanaimo-Ladysmith byelection

WATCH: The final push is on in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, as campaigns give it all they’ve got ahead of Monday’s hotly contested federal byelection. As Skye Ryan reports, new polling for the Green Party suggests it may no longer be the NDP stronghold it once was.

The Green Party’s Paul Manly has never felt so good about his chances.
“Let’s send some reinforcements to Ottawa,” Manly told a cheering crowd outside his campaign headquarters.
On the final campaign weekend ahead of Monday’s byelection in Nanaimo-Ladysmith his team is fuelled by some positive new polling.
Data that if to be trusted, which recent elections have shown polls often can’t be, the Greens are way out ahead in the race.
“I can pretty much guarantee that we will come first or second,” said Manly’s campaign manager Ilan Goldenblatt.
“I was happy to see it,” said Green candidate Paul Manly.
“But I’m not taking it for granted.”
It would be a historic result in the riding that is traditionally an NDP stronghold.
“I really believe in what you feel on the ground,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
“And when you’re talking to people. And there’s definitely a buzz.”
The polling was done May 1 by Oracle Poll Research, with a sampling size of 500 people in live calls within the riding, with a margin of error within 4.4 points.
According to the poll, the Greens have scrambled a 14-point increase since March and are widening their lead over the NDP that the poll suggests are losing support.
“Polls are polls,” said NDP candidate Bob Chamberlin.
“I mean I’m doing the work and I’m letting people know about the experience I have especially on the environment.”
Shaking hands in downtown Ladysmith Saturday, Chamberlin said he’s confident the NDP will hold on to the riding.
Liberal candidate Michelle Corfield said the Liberal vote can’t be counted out either.
“I am the only one that can deliver a seat at the table,” said Michelle Corfield.
“I am the only one who has the opportunity to bring Nanaimo-Ladysmith issues to the current government while they’re sitting.”
As this mid-Island riding decides its course going forward, Monday’s byelection may prove if polls have finally gotten it right or are out of touch once again.

Boris Kagarlitsky: We have to develop a new class consciousness through new practice and organization to mobilize these social groups for struggle
Saturday, November 24, 2018
13 min read



foto: INRU
Posted on Nov 24, 2018 by IL GRIDO DEL POPOLO
Boris Y. Kagarlitsky (1958) is a Russian Marxist theoretician and sociologist who has been a political dissident in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. He is coordinator of the Transnational Institute Global Crisis Project and director of the Institute of Globalization and social Movements in Moscow, that also runs Rabkor.
Kagarlitsky’s books include: “From Empires to Imperialism: The state and the Rise of Bourgeoise Civilization” (2014)  ,  “Empire of Periphery: Russia and the World System” (2008) , “Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-Liberal Autocracy” (2002) , “New Realism, New Barbarism: The Crisis of Capitalism” (1999) , “The Return of Radicalism: Reshaping the Left Institutions” (1999) , “The Twilight of Globalization: Property State and Capitalism” (1999) , “ Restoration in Russia: Why Capitalism Failed” (1995) , “Square Wheels: How Russian Democracy Got Derailed” (1994) , “The Disintegration of the Monolith” (1993) , “Thinking Reed, The: Intellectuals and the Soviet State 1917 to the Present” (1989).
Boris, tell me first of all about your political activism and dissidence during the ’80s?
My political views were initially formed by the experience of my parents’ generation. In the 1950s and early 1960s there was a lot of enthusiasm about destalinisation and democratic change initiated by XX Congress of the Communist Party of Soviet Union. It was clearly seen as a confirmation of moral strength of communist ideas and Soviet system that was capable to correct itself. These expectations suffered a great defeat with Soviet invasion in Czechslovakia in 1968. At that point most of the elite intelligentsia changed their views starting to look at Western liberal democracy as a solution, at least in ideological and moral terms. But quire a few remained committed to socialist principles. Much of that was discussed at home with my parents, I grew up listening to these debates. It became clear to me that intervention of 1968 which was the defeat for democratic socialism also was the evidence of the strength of these ideas. They were not defeated through debates, so the only way to defeat them was to use tanks. Than came 1973, the coup in Chile. Which proved the same conclusion. Socialist democracy can’t be defeated as a principle, it can only be crashed by force.
In 1978 I joined a small underground group of young marxists who were involved in producing samizdat material critically analysing Soviet reality and discussing the crisis which the system was facing. We also spent much time reading and discussing Marxist theoretical and historical texts which were not published, not recommended or banned in the USSR (from Trotsky to Marcuse, from Gramsci to Wallerstein).
In 1982 we were arrested and spent 13 months in jail, but then Brezhnev died and we were released. Later in 1990 when perestroika was already under way I was elected to Moscow City Soviet. When Yeltsin launched a coup in 1993, I was among those who resisted and was arrested again but released 2 days later. By the way last time I faced repressive force of the state already under Putin. In 2013 my flat was searched.
In your political essay: “Russia 1917 and the global Revolution” you ask the question; ‘why Russia’, and I ask you why Russia, but not England or Germany?
It was Gramsci who initally described Russian revolution as a revolution against «The Capital» stressin that it happened contrary to the theories of orthodox Marxists. However I think that there is not much to be added to what Lenin said and write. Capitalist crisis was global but revolution took place in the weakest link of the system. Lenin didn’t know yet about world-system theory which understands capitalism as a global phenomenon. But he understood the logic of the process. And by the way, though world-system theory as we know it emerged only in 1970s, Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Pokrovsky in 1900s came to conclusions very similar to those later formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein and Samir Amin. It is no accident that both Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Pokrovsky were born in Russian Empire. Pokrovsky was later almost completely forgotten because his works were publically denounced under Stalin in 1930s. But one should note that in November 1917 he was considered by some Bolsheviks as a candidate to replace Lenin if they were to form a coalition with Mensheviks. Of course Lenin was not a kind of political figure to be replaced. But it is interesting to note that in the Bolshevik party Pokrovsky was seen as a leading theorist next to Lenin.
Is today’s world precariat aware of its power and its labor rights?
I don’t like the word «precariat» it represents the frustration of Western middle classes with deteriorated social conditions and re-proletarisation. In fact, there is nothing in the condition of so called «precariat» that was not characteristic for the proletariat in classical marxist terms. But exploited members of European decaying middle class don’t want to be called intellectual or skilled proletarians, so they involve a new term.
Of course we see that much of the society is now becoming declasse, people are socially lumpenised even when their actual material condition is not so catastrophic. Of course, we have to develop a new class consciousness through new practice and organisation to mobilise these social groups for struggle.
Are globalization and capitalism in crisis today?
Of course they are. Neoliberal model is in crisis. This model presupposed the use of cheap labour and deconstruction of Welfare state going on together with growing consumption. However together with Welfare state they undermined the consumer society as well. This could continue as long as one had unlimited resources of cheap labour in the Far East. But this is over now. China’s labour resources are also limited. Workers demand higher wages in China as well as in other countries. Class struggle is becoming reality in new industrial countries. And decline of Western working class turned into a global demand crisis. Capitalism can’t solve these contradictions without re-industrialising old industrial countries (on the basis of new technologies, of course). But that means recreating conditions for strong unions, and for a strong and militant left fighting to rebuild the Welfare state. Will this fight lead further to bring about new socialist revolutions? Quite possible.
How do the Left and Labour in Russia under Putin survive today?
The main problem is not Putin or repressions. In fact Russian authoritarian state is rather soft compared to almost every other post-Soviet regimes including Ukraine which is so positively described by Western press. The main problem is the demoralisation and apathy of the masses after the shock of «terrible 1990s».
However the situation is changing. Mass protests against the pension reform and protest vote in many regions where people elected whatever candidate just to kick out representatives of Kremlin show us that the mood is up again. So the struggle continues.
In the book “Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-liberal Autocracy” you talk about the period of authoritarian rule in the country, how many things have changed today after two decades of Vladimir Vladimirovich’s rule?
Things got worse in political terms. But in 2000-2008 there was a real recovery of living standards. Throughout the period of 2008-2016 these standards we stagnating and now we are back into the situation of falling wages and rapidly deteriorating living conditions. Not surprisingly that generates protest.
About 90% of the population opposed pension reforms. The Kremlin disregarded this position of citizens. But that led to a massive change in public opinion when Putin’s rating collapsed.
Tell me how the pension reforms will affect the Russian economy and the standard of citizens?
Russian pension law allows you to get pension without leaving your job. So when pension age is increased it doesn’t mean you are going to continue working for longer (most people here work till they are 67-70 years old) but that only means you are going to have less money. To make things worse, average male life expectancy is about 64-65 in Russia. That means that most men simply will not get pensions at all.
Russia has for years been giving back its Siberian forest fund to mining Chinese companies, how do you look at this exploitation?
Chinese capital has very bad reputation in Russia, and even worse in Siberia. But within neoliberal system there is no way one can protect forest or other resources effectively. The problem is not only with the Chinese, Russian companies are not much better.
In Irkutsk province, where so far we have the only progressive regional government under Serguey Levchenko (elected on KPRF ticket in 2015) they managed to introduce an ecological standards much more tough than elsewhere in Siberia. For a year private companies were boycotting this region. Now they are coming back accepting these conditions, but the question is whether Levchenko administration will survive. It is under constant attack. At the same time it proves that things can be done differently on a provincial level. Why not on the national level then?
Why was the KPRF “thrown out” in this year’s presidential election for its candidate, neoliberal Grudinin, and not Zyuganov, is that part of the deal with Putin?
Putin’s popularity was declining for years but most people were not really negative about the president. They simply didn’t care and had no opinion about him. Society is totally depoliticised. Elections in 2018 had to legitimise the regime to prepare ground for a new set of anti-social neoliberal reforms. KPRF leader Gennadiy Ziuganov is not interesting for anyone and his presence in the race was going to increase absenteeism. So the Kremlin needed a new face to generate some interest but a person without any chance of winning or even attracting enough support to change electoral statistics. A billionaire Pavel Grudinin looked like a good option. He is not a neoliberal but rather represent the section of business elite not very happy with current economic policies. However the calculation made by the administration was correct. Grudinin somewhat increased electoral participation without changing the outcome. As for the left, most groups called for boycott. The only serious exception was Left Front that unconditionally supported Gridinin and KPRF.
Can we call Russia imperialist power today after interventionism in Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Syria…?
Let’s be clear: post-Soviet states represent no more than pieces of a larger society which was destroyed and split by capitalist restoration. In that sense we can speak about Russia intervening in Ukraine or Crimea no more than we could speak about the Duke of Milano intervening in the affairs of Florence or Garibaldi backed by Piemontese imperialism illegally taking over Sicily from legitimate Kingdom of Naples. This doesn’t mean that Russia has the right to intervene or that it is doing something positive. It only means that this situation can’t be discussed without understanding that these states are not nation states in the traditional sense. Neither is Russia by the way. Sooner or later the whole post-Soviet state system will collapse. It may bring about quite a lot of new violence.
Destruction of Austro-Hungatian political and social space in 1918 was essential part of pan-European effort of the ruling classes to stop and prevent revolution in Central Europe. Capitalist restoration led to the destruction of Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and even Czechoslovakia. Do you think it is an accident? Splitting larger societies into smaller ones is part of the neoliberal project, part of the general logic of fragmentation. And when the left supports the logic of fragmentation it works against the logic of social change. This is something that Rosa Luxemburg noted critically to Lenin. And in practice he had to follow her advise even without recognising it.
This is the dilemma which Lenin was facing. On the one hand you have to respect the rights of all peoples and ethnic groups, but on the other hand without bringing back together the social and economic space of the former Empire, there is no way to guarantee the survival of a socialist republic.
The solution, of course, is not expansion of current Russian state, but social change within all these «new countries». We have to do our work inside today’s Russia because this is the biggest and most important piece. Today’s Russia has a reactionary government but this may change. And it will happen probably much sooner than you expect.
What do you think of the Russian influence in the Balkans, and does the Kremlin slowly give up its interest in that area after Montenegro joins NATO and diplomatic pressure on the West to Macedonia to change its name in order to join NATO?
Russian government is on the retreat globally. No matter what they say, their aim is deal with the West. Accumulation process of Russian capitalism is externally oriented. In the long run capitalist regime in Russia makes no sense if it is not part of global capitalist system. It is a country that survives on the export of raw materials. One can move export to China but Western financial and real estates markets are crucial for the reproduction of Russian capitalist elite. So they are not fighting to defeat the West, they are trying to get a better deal. However the West is in crisis itself and can’t afford concessions to Russian oligarchs either. This is a dead end situation, but Russian elites are weaker. So they are gradually pulling back.
They will scale down their presence in the Balkans and even in Syria. This war is unpopular with the people and even with some sections of the bourgeoisie.
And finally, how/where you see Russia after Putin’s rule?
There is a big difference between what we want and what really comes out. Russian people want change and there is a popular consensus for a so called «left turn» — restoration of Welfare state, nationalisation of big corporations controlled by the oligarchy, increasing social mobility. I guess this is a popular mood more or less everywhere. But the state and the elites are determined not to let it happen. And without serious struggle this will not happen (even though we are speaking about a very moderate reformist programme). The question is whether people are ready for a serious fight after so many years of apathy and depolitisation. However I’m optimistic. People will learn in the process of struggle.
The interview was taken by Gordan Stosevic




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

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



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

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.

- 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.