What is Happening Politically/Economically

Here are 2 interviews (thanks to Gary Goodman for forwarding) well worth listening to which help decipher what is happening economically and politically at this moment. It can only be summarized as pure theft and a profound transfer of power from the many to the few. While it’s tempting to label it true “March Madness,” it’s actually taking place right before us all deliberately with clear logic and strategy.

There are many responses required. All should include maintaining the right to self-governance and protection of our assets from being shifted to the select few connected to financial institutions, military contractors, and other transnational corporations.

No public official should receive a pass. All should be pressured to justify supporting $ for bank bailouts and war (er, “defense”) spending.

If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing the petition linked at the end...as just one action step.

We’ve been focused on this arena for the last few months because it seems to be so pivotal at this moment in history.

Thank you for your patience, interest, and support.

------------

Guns and Butter - "The Way We Were and What We Are Becoming" - March 4, 2009 at 1:00pm
with financial economist and historian, Dr. Michael Hudson. We begin with an analysis of the continuing bailout of insurance giant AIG and Monday's stock market selloff; price and debt deflation; the two sectors of the economy; two definitions of 'free markets'; the classical economists; revolution from the right and the former Soviet states; the threat of war; IMF/World Bank resurgence; the dollar versus the euro; analogies to Rome, neo-feudalism.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/48892
http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20090304-Wed1300.mp3

Guns and Butter - "America's Fiscal Collapse - Obama's Budget Will Impoverish America" - March 11, 2009 at 1:00pm
with economist and author, Michel Chossudovsky. The administration's 2010 budget will entail the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history, leading to social havoc and the potential impoverishment of millions of people. Defense spending and bank bailouts will consume all government revenue resulting in fiscal collapse that will lead to the privatization of the state.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/49073
http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20090311-Wed1300.mp3

------------

Petition to Ohio US Senators and Representatives
STOP BAILING OUT WALL STREET EMOCRATIZE CORPORATE BANKS

Please sign the petition: http://www.webpetitions.com/cgi-bin/print_petition.cgi?99504389

Please forward this email

Please circulate the petition and send it back by March 16 (feel free to fill out more than one!)
Download petition at http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/DemocratizeBanksPetition.pdf

Please join us on Tuesday, March 17 to turn in collected names to US Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich.

[We will meet at Noon on St. Patrick’s Day in front of Sherrod Brown’s office, 1301 E. 9th St. in Cleveland, deliver the names, then march to George Voinovich’s office where we’ll do the same. St. Patrick’s Day seems an appropriate moment to tell our Senators to “Save our Green by Stop Bailing out Wall St!” Please wear green. We’ll supply green hats. We’ll also send copies of all petitions to each US Representative from Ohio.]

Two Thoughts On Unemployment

1. Mass unemployment is caused by governmental and corporate policies and actions. It is social in origin and is never the fault of its victims, the now-jobless workers. Yet, that is precisely how the unemployed are treated by the authorities. They are forced to search for work and to engage in job-finding classes if they wish to collect unemployment insurance – for the minority fortunate enough to qualify. People who refuse are punished by having their meager benefits cut off. They did not cause the problem, but, in practice, they get the blame. Examine the logic behind it by this analogy. I assault you, yet the police don't arrest me, they arrest you. What happens to the unemployed in our system is a form of sociopathic inversion, where the perpetrator of a heinous crime blames his victim for what he did. Meanwhile, the guilty parties – the CEO's and politicians – still get their high salaries and perks. Those who caused the problem ought to be the ones to rectify it. They should be the ones finding you a job, and if they can't find one, pay you an income until they do.

Thing is, every unemployed person grumbles about their situation, yet no one seems ready to pin the blame where it ought to go. During our previous big economic crisis in the 1980's, groups organized unemployed workers. But they concentrated on helping the unemployed combat the Unemployment Insurance bureaucracy, certainly a worthy act, but shied away from directly confronting the system. Hopefully the situation will be different this time around.

2. It has always angered me that whenever an industry closes in a small town the locals are expected to pull up stakes and move elsewhere to find work. How about the work coming to them instead? Now many people will regard this as a ludicrous question, and the fact that they do, shows the great extent to which people are expected to serve the economy rather than the economy serving them. What is an economy really for anyway, but to provide people with necessary goods and services? An economy is a means to fulfill needs, not a end in itself, or rather it ought to be so, if a society is supposed to exist for human beings.

Uprooting masses of people and forcing them to follow the dollar destroys community. It is natural to live among people you know, it is natural to have roots. This is the way we lived for thousands of years, and only under capitalism have we been forced to scurry from place to place like lemmings. Peasants and First Nations peoples would rather die than give up the places where their ancestors lived. In small towns across the "developed" world some of this sentiment still lingers in the sadness of leaving.

The destruction of community brings with it a host of costly social problems not factored into the economic calculations of the MBA and state bureaucrat. And when the migrants flood into the new boom towns, they bring their problems with them, as well as putting stress on housing, public services and infrastructure. All totaled, it probably is not that more expensive to leave people where they are and start new industries to employ them. Of course, we would need a new kind of economy – one based upon need and solidarity rather than the greed and lust for domination of a handful of narcissists and sociopaths.

Resources and Petition on Democratizing Banks

More Than One Way to Take Over a Bank
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/magazine/01wwln-lede-t.html

AFL-CIO: Gov't Should Acquire Controlling Shares of Banks (at Least for a While)
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/afl-cio_govt_should_control_banks_at_least_for_a_while.php

Death To Zombies: Nationalize Banks Now
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henry-blodget/death-to-zombies-national_b_169095.html

Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America
[ Report shows $5 Billion in Wall Street Political Investments, 1998-2008]
http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/sold_out.pdf
An embargoed executive summary is at:
http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/executive_summary.pdf>
An embargoed excerpt with highlights of the campaign contribution and lobbyist data is at:
http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/part2.pdf>.
An embargoed copy of the report introduction by Harvey Rosenfield is at:
http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/introduction.pdf>

Money as Debt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&pr=goog-sl

The Dow Knows All
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220253&title=the-dow-knows-all

The Secret Government
by Derek Wilson ~ New Zealandnd
Pacific Institute of Resource Management Inc.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/

Early Bailout Scams
by Richard Moore rkm@quaylargo.com
Nasrudin was plodding along the village path on his donkey, minding his own business, when he was approached by a stranger. The stranger was distraught, and explained he had just lost a pile of money gambling. He was upset because he was supposed to host a banquet the next day, and it was too important to cancel.
Nasrudin, being a sympathetic soul, said he'd be glad to bail the stranger out, but he was broke himself. So the stranger says, that's no problem, I'll loan you the money and then you can give it to me. Nasrudin was bit slow in the head, perhaps from the desert sun, and he agreed.
A few days later Nasrudin was once more out on his donkey, and the stranger approached him again. This time he asked Nasrudin to repay the loan. Nasrudin said, "I can't, I gave the money to you." Too bad, the stranger says, I'll have to take your donkey.


SIGN AND CIRCULATE DEMOCRATIZE BANKS PETITION


Petition to Ohio US Senators and Representatives
STOP BAILING OUT WALL STREET:DEMOCRATIZE CORPORATE BANKS

Please sign the petition: http://www.webpetitions.com/cgi-bin/print_petition.cgi?99504389
[64 of you already have. Thank you! If you haven’t, please do so. Another 50 signatures have been collected/submitted on printed petitions to date]

Please forward this email

Please circulate the petition and send it back by March 16 (feel free to fill out more than one!)
Download petition at http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/DemocratizeBanksPetition.pdf

Please join us on Tuesday, March 17 to turn in collected names to US Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich.

[We will meet at Noon on St. Patrick’s Day in front of Sherrod Brown’s office, 1301 E. 9th St. in Cleveland, deliver the names, then march to George Voinovich’s office where we’ll do the same. St. Patrick’s Day seems an appropriate moment to tell our Senators to “Save our Green by Stop Bailing out Wall St!” Please wear green. We’ll supply green hats. We’ll also send copies of all petitions to each US Representative from Ohio — unless someone is willing to make a personal delivery to a local Congressional office. If interested, contact us and we’ll send you a copy of collected names.]

Changing Laws Asserting Local Self-Governance

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/40335
Maine Town Passes Ordinance Asserting Local Self-Governance and Stripping Corporate Personhood
The citizens of Shapleigh, Maine voted recently at a special town meeting to pass a groundbreaking Rights-Based Ordinance. This revolutionary ordinance give its citizens the right to local self-governance and gives rights to ecosystems but denies the rights of personhood to corporations.

http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/MoneyDownDrain.pdf
Money Down the Drain: How Private Control of Water Wastes Public Resources
Food and Water Watch, Washington, DC 2009
The successful citizen campaign in Akron, Ohio to keep public utilities public and letting citizens decide who should control their water/sewer system is prominently featured in the report. Akron voters overwhelmingly defeated a ballot measure sponsored by the mayor to privatize/corporatize the city sewer system and overwhelmingly passed a citizen initiative changing the city charter to prevent the future sale, lease or transfer of any public utility without a public vote.

Responses To "Anarchism And Radical Governments"

Unfortunately much of the response to this article has gotten bogged down in secondary matters. (1) Such as the reality of the situation in Venezuela, my real or alleged lack of historical insight and confusing analogies. I don't see where this has much bearing on the question of how we should act. I would like to re-emphasize what I wrote only applies to specific circumstances 1. a radical/populist/reformist government that has grown out of, or is backed by, a mass movement of workers and peasants. 2. Where we have no mass base.

There is no disagreement about the need to influence such people, and we are in accord that we should avoid losing our identity. Disagreement is over the level or type of criticism we should engage in.

Just to clarify matters. I am NOT saying we should keep quiet or uncritically accept what a mass-based populist govt is doing. What I am saying that this criticism must be framed in such a way that it does not alienate the mass movement and leave us on the sidelines irrelevant and despised. It is better to aim criticism where the populist govt does not live up to its own program – few rank and file members are "true believers", and are not at all adverse to criticizing an organization that waffles on it policies. But the best form of criticism in terms of advancing anarchism is the implicit or positive form, which is reiterating our program. The contrast between a program of genuine self-management and governmental half-hearted measures will have far deeper impact than negative propaganda. Of course, this implies that anarchists actually have a program rather than a vague wish list.

I have come to this position through experience in working within non-anarchist organizations such as trade unions and community groups. Indeed, every anarchist I know, other than a small minority of "crazies", acts in a similar manner within such groups. To say that there is a difference between such organizations and the mass movements giving rise to a radical govt. is to ignore the possibility that these unions and community groups are the very ones that would give rise to or back a populist govt in Canada, should that unlikely event occur.

Does anyone really think they can build an anarchist movement through having ten people stand on a street corner shouting denunciations at the tens of thousands who march by in a quest for a better life? How do you avoid the extremes of liquidationalism and sectarianism? If my attempts at finding a middle path between the two are seem unsuccessful, then please come up with an alternative.

1. Responses in the Anarkismo version See: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12265

Anarchism and Radical Governments

Anarchism is more influential and wide-spread than at any time in the last 70 years. And the movement continues to grow and develop. This does not necessarily mean that we will become the predominate tendency. Even during anarchism's previous zenith – the years immediately after World War One – we had to share the stage with other socialist currents. The most important and far-reaching anarchist movement – that of Spain in 1936 – saw the formation of a united front involving the CNT-FAI, the left-communist POUM and rank and file militants of the Socialist trade unions.



It is safe to claim that social change – let alone social revolution – will involve a number of different tendencies, of which anarchism will be one, and not always the predominant one. Anarchists will work together with the other tendencies which promote self-government and self-management, in essence, all tendencies that in some manner or other support the popular struggle. This notion is not a controversial issue among us. We are already working along side other tendencies in the environmental, peace, anti-fascist and anti-capitalist movements.



The problem comes for anarchists when the pressure of social movements gives rise to populist, democratic socialist or “revolutionary” governments. Examples of these are to found in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. How do we , as resolute anti-statists, relate to governments, which in some manner, reflect and act according to the needs and desires of the social movements and the working population? How we react to these situations can be fraught with danger to our movement.



In the past, anarchists have reacted in two opposing and erroneous ways. One might be called “liquidationalism”. Here anarchists give up their distinct program and dissolve themselves into the governing “revolutionary” tendency. During the Russian Revolution, thousands of anarchists joined the Bolsheviks or formed-Bolshevik inspired organizations in their respective nations. Needless to say, the Bolsheviks did not enact our program! After The 26 July Movement made its turn toward the Communist Party, and Cuban anarchists were suppressed, many anarchists outside Cuba tended to ignore the plight of their comrades out of solidarity with the Cuban Revolution. Liquidationalism means giving up on anarchism entirely, in exchange for a bit of social progress, and sometimes not even that.



I think that liquidationalism comes about through anarchist weakness. There had been few attempts at anarchist revolution prior to 1917, and anarchism had “growing pains.” Bolshevism seemed to show the way. The early 1960's were the nadir of the anarchist movement and a lot of anarchists looked for anything to be optimistic about, and Cuba seemed to fit the bill. Since anarchism today is a growing force, I do not see liquidationalism as a major problem, though, of course, one never knows for sure.



Sectarianism is the other error. Surprise, surprise, democratic socialists and populists are not anarchists! We cannot expect them to carry out our program, but we can expect them to carry out the aspects of their own program that help the populace. If they do this, should they be condemned as enemies as evil as the corporatists and oligarchs? What do the people think when anarchists damn these reformers ? Sectarianism separates anarchists from the mass of the populace, who cannot understand why erstwhile revolutionaries are condemning the very actions which are improving their lives. What is even worse, is when sectarianism leads to propaganda imitating the reactionaries. According to the sectarian, the glass is never half-full, it is always empty. Should reaction triumph, the sectarians will be tortured and killed along with the other tendencies, and their sectarianism will remain as a bitter taste in the mouths of a defeated people. (1)



This is most particularly the case in Latin America where the mobilization of the populace immediately leads to polarization between the masses and the oligarchy and its supporters. If the oligarchy gains the upper hand in this struggle the result is the suppression of popular movements, torture and massacre. To think that one can stand aside during this polarization, or that it is "only a struggle between bourgeois factions and doesn't concern us" is to live in a dream world.



One cause of sectarianism is fetishizing the alleged or actual lessons of the past. The Bolsheviks turned on their anarchist allies, so too, Fidel Castro. Wherever Stalinism took over, anarchists and other radical tendencies were eliminated. From this tragic history comes an unspoken view that any revolution or government led by Marxists, real or alleged, will end up following this pattern. But history does change not merely repeating itself like a rubber stamp. Stalinism is not some Platonic Form, hovering in the cosmos, just waiting to manifest at the first outbreak of revolutionary change.



The alternatives to Stalinism – Trotskyism, democratic socialism and anarchism – were too weak in the 1940's and 50's. Stalinism was hegemonic at this time. But

people learn what works and what doesn't. What was once seen as a viable model for revolutionary change – the one party state plus nationalization of productive wealth – is no longer seen as an answer. It does not create the sort of society that anyone wants.



The movement away from the hegemony of the Stalinist model began in the late 1960's. The Unidad Popular government of Chile attempted to create socialism, through a democratic process. The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua did not go in a Stalinist direction. Rather than suppressing all tendencies but their own, they favored a multi-tendency democracy – even for the right-wing, a kindness that was not acknowledged.



What then should anarchists do in the face of new revolutionary or progressive regimes that work to some measure in the interest of the population? First off; Our loyalty is to the people, not the government – or any government. If the people support a progressive government it is because that government is responding to their wishes. A direct frontal attack on such a government – until it truly begins to work against its supporters – is futile and creates a wedge between us and the people.



We should remain non-committal, as long as the government somehow acts in the popular interest. When it deviates from that path, we criticize. But there is also a way of criticizing that is not off-putting to the people. That method is one of positive re-enforcement. To never cease bringing up the need for direct democracy and self-management. If the progressive government is reticent to go beyond words, our unending needling on these points will be a powerful criticism, yet will not be seen as a negative attack. Our goal should be to push the progressive government, from below, to either the breaking point where it exposes its reactionary other face, or to where it begins to dissolve itself into popular power. And if this process cannot be pushed to its libertarian fulfillment, we must win a strong base among the people, in the unions, neighborhoods and social organizations, to defend our gains and build a base for the next step in the struggle.



We must involve ourselves with the populace, if the people win some measure of self-government and decentralization, we should be there, pushing these measures to the full. If the revolutionary government encourages coops, we should form them or join them, making sure they are autonomous and democratic. Should reactionaries attempt to re-establish their rule through a coup, electoral fraud or invasion, we must be at the forefront of the resistance, not as government lackeys, but as supporters of the popular movements the reactionaries will destroy if they regain power. Our slogan should not be “Defend our Government”, but “Defend the People ... our Neighborhoods, Trade Unions, Cooperatives etc.” At no time must we ally with reaction, even verbally, no matter what our differences with the progressive government.



This article also appears in Anarkismo See

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12265

1. During the campaign to overthrow Allende, the CIA funded a strike of truck drivers. The sectarians of the day crowed about the strike as an example of "class struggle" against the wicked Allende reformists.

It's Time to Democratize Banks

The time has arrived for public takeover of major US banks. The corporate model of banking has led to irresponsible investments, lavish executive gains, further bank consolidations, and, in part, to home foreclosures that have ravished communities.

An increasing number of economists, including Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, are calling for at least a temporary public takeover of the largest banks.

More tax dollars to bailout insolvent banks will only benefit shareholders and executives – widening the gap between the very rich and everyone else. Congress should protect taxpayers by opposing any further bailouts.

The FDIC has in the past taken over insolvent banks, wiped out debts, and placed them back on the market. The only difference now is scale.

Congress should also create financial incentives for worker ownership of banks returned to the market. Worker-owned cooperatives exist in every state and all over the world – including banks. Cooperative businesses in general are more transparent, democratic, and responsible.

Credit unions are one form of financial cooperatives. They serve their local communities, not stockholders who may live in another state or country. They are responsible to their owner-members who are also their customers. The do not engage is wild speculative investments.

The time has arrived to democratize banks.