Very good recent lengthy Varoufakis interview – English with German subtitles

Posted by: somebody | Dec 13 2015 11:56 utc | 4

I doubt they have been fooled by Hollande. More likely they are humouring him and would seek to embarass him in the eyes of the French citizens when the weasel fails to live up to his words to work with Russia against the terrorists.
Given the latest Turkish provocation of Russia I hope Russia is ready to switch off the gas taps to Turkey at a moments notice – and also to execute a Shock & Awe on Incirlik/Adana that will leave the world in no doubt about how Russia treats having its red lines crossed.

Posted by: Julian | Dec 13 2015 14:50 utc | 6

Watching John Pilgers documentary on Latin America I came across this shitbag Duane Clarridge, the CIA chief in Latin America during the 70s and 80s, getting very angry at the suggestion that the CIAs actions were wrong.
Turns out he currently runs his own ‘private CIA’ called Eclipse Group. They helped provide ‘security’ for the Benghazi compound along with a British firm called Blue Mountain. Security who had no weapons or security experience.
It seems they are using the same agents they used decades ago only with an extra degree of deniability. Anyone got more info on his Eclipse business? Apparently they tried to get evidence of Karzai taking smack but I cant find any other record of their activities.

Posted by: Bob | Dec 13 2015 15:42 utc | 8

Unfortunately for MoA, of about 17 million Dutch, we got a broken record retard troll, a Russophobic nincompoop, card-carrying member of the “conspiracy theories” crowd who troll here day in and day out, with the purpose of hijacking any thread topic and turn it into a theater of the absurd.
As dh@204 said in the former thread @201 OK. 2249 huge mistake. Got you the first time. Now, would you just STFO?

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 13 2015 16:32 utc | 10

nmb | 11, Great link.
Found lots more:
Mexican, Colombian ‘Blackwater’ mercenaries killed in Yemen

A Mexican mercenary commander and an Argentine soldier of fortune working for a U.S. military firm Blackwater in Yemen died in fierce combats in the southeastern Yemeni city Taiz, local media reported Thursday.
The Mexican mercenary has been identified as Macias Bacneba, who was killed Wednesday in clashes between Yemeni and foreign forces, security sources told local media.
http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/12/mexican-colombian-blackwater.html

Private armies everywhere. What did we expect after 14 years of non-stop open warfare. Poisoning ourselves with GMO food on one end, on the other fueling a financial system that will collapse without constant growth. Are we at a crossroads?
Any ideas on the Dupont/Dow merger?
DuPont, Dow Chemical Agree to Merge, Then Break Up Into Three Companies
Deal forms more than $120 billion chemical, agricultural giant amid weakening commodity prices
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dupont-dow-chemical-agree-to-merge-1449834739

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 13 2015 17:12 utc | 12

Thierry Meyssan on Webster Tarpley’s radio show 12/12/15 (whole statement}
Turkey’s reason for coming into Iraq was to prepare a pseudo-Kurdistan w/o Kurds, via training Peshmerga to help.
Coalition plane (maybe Qatari) bombing SAA at Deir es-Zoir was a Qatari false flag, using Russian bombs obtained from Ukraine. De-bunked by Rus -published docs.
.
Rus preparing big op inside Syria, opening a 2d military base & now trying to create a 3d one in the East of Syria, just at the border with Turkey & Iraq. W this base it wd be easier to stop this pseudo-Kurdistan.
SAA & Hezbolla preparing an uprising by the people who are under the rule of ISIS, al qaeda, etc., to oust them from the main part of Syria– not including the desert. Don’t know how Rus will proceed to help w this.
It will take a couple months to prepare both of these ops.
Rus is now testing all over Syria its new weapons– the inactivating one that prevents communication and radar/satellite imaging . For example, NATO can’t command its own weapons, like its missiles. In the last week, Rus was testing something else for two days in the Mediterranean, which involved shutting down aviation in Cyprus & Lebanon, also Iraq. Officially, they said they were testing new missiles, but they were testing something else too.
At Saudi Arabia opposition-meeting, Kurds not invited. So it is only Turkey, France, UK & Israel who are behind the pseudo-Kurdistan, not the Gulf countries. He says the op will be begun sometime after the beginning of the year.
Verrry difficult right now to understand who is governing in the US; because there are two different powers at the same time & it’s difficult to know who is deciding foreign military action.

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 13 2015 17:26 utc | 14

Posted by: Bob | Dec 13, 2015 10:42:26 AM | 8
Re: US Consulate in Benghazi
The report faulted as “misplaced” the mission’s dependence for security support on the “armed but poorly skilled” Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade militia members and unarmed guards hired by State Department contractor Blue Mountain Libya.
○ Regurgitated Video Fallacy by NYT Kirkpatrick
○ Feds Hired Unlisted British Security Firm for Benghazi Consulate

Posted by: Oui | Dec 13 2015 17:59 utc | 16

@ Lone Wolf |17…well we all remember who helped train Los Zetas who started the never ending drug war in Mexico:

2011
The Mexican criminal organization known as ‘Los Zetas’ was created in the mid to late 1990’s by Gulf Cartel Leader Osiel Cardenas and alleged DEA informer and double agent Edgar ‘Barbie’ Valdez. The criminal group ‘Los Zetas’ was originally formed by 33 Mexican special forces soldiers that were trained at Fort Benning, Georgia. Since the arrest of Osiel Cardenas in 2003, Los Zetas broke away from the Gulf Cartel and are currently disputing Mexico’s northern territory with the Cardenas family. Till this day, Los Zetas still recruit Mexican military members and veterans, which might indicate that Espinoza and his group were probably current or former military members.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-34-commandos-created-mexicos-most-brutal-drug-cartel-2015-3

Sprinkling stardust wherever we go.

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 13 2015 18:48 utc | 18

Fort Russ revisits the issue of US plans to change borders in the ME. http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-is-us-cooking-up-for-turkey-iraq.html

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Dec 13 2015 18:52 utc | 20

the F elections, was asked to explain to a friend far away. pasted.
Regional elections, the power of the Régions is not strong. France is a very centrally governed country, run by a self-satisfied clique in Paris. Régions are not US States or CH Cantons, but merely represent an intermediary administrative layer. In the previous Régionales, 2010, (the no. of regions was different, which goes to show), the Socialists won in 21 / 22 regions. There will be no other elections in F till the Presidential one, 2017.
The F MSM like to spin the results as the “rise of the far right.” The FN is not far right, it is nationalist-populist, *on the face* of it at least (this would merit an extremely long discussion), after the detox – removal of anti-semitism, neo-nazis, see link. In these results, the FN is now the first party of F, with a tiny 1% or so more than Les Républicains (LR, Sarkozy.)
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/marine-jean-marie-le-pen-national-front-immigration-elections/
The F mutter about ‘a protest vote – anger, fear.’ In part! What has happened, is the F elected Sark I because he promised a clean sweep, a new era, etc. and presented himself as a mirror of the F people. His rule was a diaster, so they elected a Socialist (who promised to be a *normal* president, no less!), even when the supposedly chosen, favored candidate, Strauss-Khan, went awol in the NY Sofitel. Now voters gingerly turn to the populist right (anti-immigration, Paris attacks, muslim hate, etc.) A party that has never governed.
The highest scores (41, 40, 35) are in the 3 regions where the person standing is known: Marion M.le.P. and Marine le Pen, and Philippot, the FN VP. This reflects a chronic problem of the FN – to attract ppl who are ‘good solid leaders’ and can get visual/audio media time. Problems, both internally (little party discipline, jockeying and infighting amongst the figures, see for ex. Marine ousting Papa) and externally, as the voters vote the person in first place, rather than a platform, a program.
Other aspects of the map are ‘traditional’ – Brittany is ‘left’ for ex. The FN score is very variable: from 10% in Corsica to 41% in Provence-…-… It is not related to ‘where the most immigrants /foreignors are.’
But to the economically disadvantaged REGIONS (link.) A slice and dice of the electorate (previous studies) shows it is not the “very poor” who vote FN, as they have extremely high abstention rates, and when voting go for ‘standard’ or ‘fringe’ such as Left Front, green, etc. Intermediary professions as the French call it vote FN: mechanic, hairdresser, PA, tourist guide, shop owner, cash-girl, carpenter …(are also a mainstay vote of LR.)
red (brighter = more) unemployment (old data but still valid) brown le pen vote (darker = more) for 2012 elections
http://craigwilly.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Le-Pen-vote-unemployment.jpg
Abstention rate, 50%, so analysis is hazardous. Abstention correlates with economic disadvantage, lower incomes, etc., e.g. 58% to 61% abstention for manual workers and ‘low’ employees. Also with age: 18 – 34 yr-olds abstained about 65%! (those who did vote preffered the FN) and older workers. Because the F have very short and intense working lives (see youth unemployment, older workers unemployment, poor situations for workers aged 55, etc.) Left sympathisers, etc., abstained, 56% or so. In comparison, for recent presidential elections, abstention rates were around 20%.
The interest in these elections (even in the Régions where the FN ‘wins’ they will govern with all the others, it is not a winner takes all system, but is roughly proportional) is as a predictor for the Presidential election.
I expect that events from now to 2017 will reinforce the FN: rising unemployment/poverty, financial scandals / difficulties, more EU problems (migrant crisis, etc.), more garbage from Hollande, more strife abroad, maybe more terrorism. The Pres. election might very well put forward the same 3 figures, Hollande, Sark, le Pen – which in itself is weird – > Marine would come out 1st or 2nd. The 2nd. round pits the two top candidates against each other, and le Pen cannot then win.
Marine is quite admired abroad! Actually, imho, she is there to gather the ‘discontented’ vote thus maintaining the whole system. It is ‘democratic’ and everyone can bash the FN. She – along with the other two parties – effectively block any change, any new parties, new proposals, etc.
Update: the results will be in soon, they don’t matter much. What matters is how the FN manages to ‘govern’ in the regions it does win. if that goes well, the FN will be in a better position. And on the world stage, France is now not even a minor power.

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 13 2015 19:10 utc | 22

The JFK assassination and the assassinations which followed were critical and pivotal events in world history. Preface the JFK presidency (the speeches & expert use of “the bully pulpit”; actions taken, tenacious refusal to backstop the CIA’s BoP invasion; and the subsequent assassination) with the ominous warning from President General Eisenhower….
… the calamity that would ensue if the MIC were left to grow unchecked as it were. And here we are.

Posted by: fast freddy | Dec 13 2015 19:37 utc | 24

@Demian:
Back in the “UK accuses US of Supporting Terrorists” thread (@111) you asked questions delving into my worldview, to which I said I’d need time to answer. My apologies for the delay (off-grid a lot these days) and length (big topic).
I do agree that we’re likely to be on the same side concerning resistance to imperial hegemony for the foreseeable future. Consider this analysis, which I’ve seen referenced but not linked to in earlier threads: Reading between the lines: the Great War of Continents, information wars, and multipolarity

This war, which is currently being waged in hybrid form, is called by different names and seen at different levels in different ideologies and worldviews. In geopolitics, this is the antagonism between Land and Sea. For conspirologists, this is an occult struggle. For Marxists, this is a manifestation of the struggle between labor and capital at the stage of national liberation and anti-imperialism. For the liberals themselves, this is a struggle for maintaining their precious neo-liberal capitalist “open society” and thwarting the “enemies of the open society.” For Eurasianists, this is a struggle for a multi-polar world against the unipolar “globalization” of the Atlanticists and the multi-faceted hegemony of the North American superpower. For Traditionalists, this struggle is against the destructive forces of modernity and what the Hindu tradition calls the Kali Yuga, the Christian tradition the Kingdom of the Antichrist, the Islamic tradition names Masih ad-Dajjal, etc. All of these struggles relate to, intersect with, and are woven into the fabric of the planetary confrontation of two alternative models of approaching human societies, organization, and interactions on a global scale.

Posted by: Vintage Red | Dec 13 2015 19:53 utc | 26

@Demian—here is the first part of my reply to your questions @comment 111 of the “UK accuses US of Supporting Terrorists” thread:
“I think the two of us are fully aligned in terms of what we want to see in the near to intermediate future, so the following question is purely of theoretical import. You seem to be operating within a ‘Marxist framework’, in which you expect that eventually the contradictions of the present system will became so severe that a major ‘social transformation’ will occur, in which the world, or at least individual societies, will shift to a ‘new system.’”
Social transformation is constant, a given of the historical dialectic. The transformation/shift to a new system in question I call revolution, the overthrow of one set of class relations for another. No need for all the quotation marks, I *am* working within a Marxist framework.
“I am honestly bewildered by how anyone can still think in these terms.”
You aren’t alone, at least here in the US. Folks from other countries seem to have a much more accepting if not sympathetic reaction encountering a US communist. If you remember when I first started posting here last year you asked me why I took the name Vintage Red—I replied that it reflected my tastes both in politics and in wine. I’ve never tried to hide this.
If many former Marxists have ceased to identify and act as such —especially in the Anglosphere—I’d venture that their socialism was never very deep, perhaps more a matter of faith and projected expectations than understanding. I’ve heard the Greek philosophers considered different levels of knowledge, of which they held faith to be the lowest. “Communism” held solely on the basis of faith is much more easily subverted, eroded or overthrown by reverses or ever-present superficial contradictions skillfully spun by ruling class propaganda—“A nice idea, but…” Communism as a method of investigation to understand the world sees through ruling class propaganda and perseveres despite inevitable contradictions and setbacks.
“As far as I can understand, we’ve seen three kinds of economic system since the industrial revolution:
1. unfettered capitalism;
2. regulated capitalism combined with a social welfare state;
3. socialism as implemented by the USSR et al.
Now, as far as I can tell, (2) is less bad than the other two. This whole idea that there is something radically different that succeeds capitalism was tried by Lenin et al, and it proved to be a catastrophe.”
Interesting that you pose these three alternatives. More on the first two in a following post; for now I’ll simply observe that your third characterization is phrased so as to dismiss every socialist revolution in one stroke (“This whole idea… as implemented by the USSR et al. … was tried…”). This is akin to saying, sometime in the 1820s, “This whole idea of capitalism as implemented by Cromwell, Napoleon, et al. was tried and proved to be a catastrophe.” It takes into account neither the unique circumstances, path and relationship of each revolution to the global struggle, nor their achievements and contributions, nor the development of more favorable conditions over time. More on all these below as well.
Even the counterrevolutionary catastrophe in the USSR and several other socialist societies is spun as a final sentence by capitalist propagandists (“the end of history”), when in fact that very socialism allowed an underdeveloped, mostly-illiterate and war-ravaged Russian Empire to rise within a single human lifespan as the USSR to challenge the most powerful and technologically advanced imperialist hegemonists the world has ever known. If anything, Communism hasn’t been a failure—it allows astonishing successes. That’s why capitalists worldwide celebrated its overthrow in the USSR, continue to heap scorn on all things socialist/communist, and even try to denigrate any regulation, social safety net, or anything not strictly privatized as “socialist.”
“Once they took over, the Bolsheviks abolished money, but they soon found that you can’t do without it, so they quickly brought it back. It took them a while longer to realize that markets and prices serve useful functions as well, and are not mere mystifications of power relations.”
I assume you are referring to the early periods of the Russian Revolution known as War Communism and the
New Economic Policy? While various groupings and individuals took different positions on both, as far as Lenin went he clearly stated War Communism to be an emergency measure due to war-related economic collapse, and the NEP to be likewise temporary if longer-term, strictly until the productive forces could be rebuilt to the point at which socialism was possible (again, more on this in a following post).
“It is well known that Marx did not have a theory of how to implement a socialist alternative to capitalism, so Lenin was left high and dry and had to muddle along as best he could.”
Marxism is a tool of analysis, not a crystal ball. If Marx had propounded detailed outlines or theories about how to construct socialism, it’s certain they would’ve differed from the Russian and all subsequent experiences. Two things would doubtless result: 1) his critics would now be excoriating his “bad theories/plans” on this point, and 2) some within the movement might provoke splits solely on the basis of whether a revolution was developing “according to script.” Oh, and a third: capitalist agents within the movement would specifically attempt to provoke the splits described in (2) where they weren’t happening spontaneously.
Marx was wise in not projecting detailed plans. He didn’t want “to write the cookbooks of the future” (as he put it) for he said social being determines consciousness, that any revolutionary society doesn’t emerge as fully-formed socialism but has to build socialism while still dealing with the scars left upon it by the previous ruling class(es), and that the social and material conditions from which any revolution arises will largely determine the nature of the transition.
I sincerely doubt Lenin felt “left high and dry” by Marx’s refusal to devise such plans. Indeed, I’m sure he realized (as Marx would’ve) that the new USSR was entering uncharted territory and that what was needed was not a detailed script but honest and rigorous observation, analysis, implementation and continuous reevaluation and reapplication to the struggle as it evolves. Strategize, yes, but let plans be flexible, for as in war no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
I am sure Mao would’ve concurred, as he stated China’s need for “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Theory must be rooted in practice:
“If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.”
“But after that, we had 70 years of “really existing socialism” during which both Soviet social scientists and Western social scientists could work on what the problems are of socialism as the Soviets implemented it and try to come up with a theory that would allow one to build a better system.”
Or really existing *building socialism*—again, see below. It should be noted that most of the Soviet social scientists were working constructively on the above effort, while the overwhelming majority of their Western counterparts were working on understanding the problems of socialism so as to find weak points through which Western capitalism could “make the economy scream” (as Kissinger put it regarding Chile). Ideologically, this “understanding” was utilized to drive divisive counterrevolutionary wedges into social solidarity. This went beyond “captive nations” and “religious freedom” scheming and backing Soviet dissidents, to even claim to advocate for Soviet women, sexual minorities, the environment, etc.—essentially developing an early prototype of their “right to protect” doctrine.
“And now we’ve had 25 years since the Russians themselves admitted that their approach to this problem didn’t pan out.”
Which Russians? Certainly not these or those whose memoirs of the counterrevolutionary transition appear here. Perhaps you mean the traitors who expropriated 74 years of workers’ achievements to become the new robber barons of the ‘90’s? The corporate media only seem to interview anticommunists…
“So what are we left with? …. All there is Anglophone predatory capitalism, and European’“social capitalism’.”
Ah, another two party system. TINA? Capitalism is capitalism, welfare or robber, and will run aground on its internal contradictions regardless. The “regulated” version may seem kinder, gentler, more rational, etc., but is still based on exploitation and ever-expanding markets for profitable investment in the face of its ever-worsening overproduction crises. “Social capitalism” is more “efficient” than its predatory version? Why has the “social” form pretty much given up the ghost in the US and EU, falling into lockstep behind austerity and privatization in the years after the USSR fell? Because Wall Street and its global vassals and wannabe rivals no longer had a alternative system whose offer they had to beat! “Social capitalism” was a tactic through which to look better than what then-existing socialism could offer. After it had served its purpose, back on the shelf.
As you responded to guest77 @115 in our old thread:
“It appears that you are right. I was not the only one who was fooled by the powers that be allowing for capitalism to be restrained in the West, because the example of the Soviet Union showed everyone that a moral order of society is possible in the modern age.”
Now, you asked me questions that are very much rooted in a worldview of capitalism triumphant. I do not share this perspective. Below is a brief sketch of my own with regard to Soviet history and socialism’s historical prospects, which should hopefully answer your question of how I “can still think in these terms”…

Posted by: Vintage Red | Dec 13 2015 20:00 utc | 28

@ 29
Yes you did:
UNSC 2249
Was it smart to invite Western countries to help in the fight against ISIS? Yes. But that had already been done before the resolution.
Also, critics are not saying that a resolution should not have been passed but that the resolution that WAS passed is flawed. The scope is too broad and sovereign States are an afterthought. And IMO there is yet another problem (which I had pointed out the day before passage): the resolution names the ISSG (the group of nations that are talking in Vienna) as the lead on the matter. But 15 of the 20 members of ISSG are anti-Assad countries. And AFAIK Russia and China do not have a veto in ISSG like they do in the UNSC.
I think the Russians accepted the French draft of the UNSC resolution because they believed (or were led to believe) that after the Paris attacks the French had a changed perspective. One that was more in-line with Russia’s view that ISIS as the bigger threat and Assad’s continued rule was necessary to defeat them.
So France was woo-ed – but to no avail. France is STILL in the Assad must go! camp.

Posted by: Anybody | Dec 13 2015 20:14 utc | 30

Susatta@23 Chas Freeman, who always talks sense on the middle east said “Turkey’s occupation of Iraqi territory, a flagrant act of aggression, is a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq and the collapse of all principles of international law in the region since then”, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman told Sputnik. http://sputniknews.com/military/20151208/1031396288/turkey-iraq-us.html When two veto wielding powers at the UNSC disagree on fundamentals, International law goes out the window, the resolution is ambiguous, [many experts do not regard it as authorizing aggression, also it has not been passed under chapter 7] therefore both sides can interpret it any way they like, bottom line is, Russia has red lines in Syria and will not back down as a result of any provocation.

Posted by: harry law | Dec 13 2015 20:38 utc | 32

The Turkish elites must be getting seriously concerned not only about sanctions on agricultural products and loss of Russian tourism and trade but about the repercussions of picking a fight with a major Black Sea neighbour. And not only that. With recent German and British involvement in Syria it is quite possible that a major tourist zone such as Antalya could be attacked by ISIS with the resulting obliteration of the tourist industry. Russian gas will surely keep flowing while the Bosphorus sea lanes remain open but Iranian gas may not be so dependable. Perhaps said elites will be casting an eye over at Ukraine, another country used by the U.S. as a proxy to attack Russia, and wondering whether a similar fate could await them.

Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 13 2015 20:40 utc | 34

@Lochearn@34
The Turkish elites must be getting seriously concerned not only about sanctions on agricultural products and loss of Russian tourism and trade but about the repercussions of picking a fight with a major Black Sea neighbour. And not only that. With recent German and British involvement in Syria it is quite possible that a major tourist zone such as Antalya could be attacked by ISIS with the resulting obliteration of the tourist industry. Russian gas will surely keep flowing while the Bosphorus sea lanes remain open but Iranian gas may not be so dependable. Perhaps said elites will be casting an eye over at Ukraine, another country used by the U.S. as a proxy to attack Russia, and wondering whether a similar fate could await them.
A very insightful view of a potential future for Turkey. An attack in Antalya a-la Paris would be a devastating blow for Turkey’s economy, and making enemies of Russia and Iran will be a serious mistake for Turkey’s future.
Diplomatically, Russia couldn’t issue a most stern warning to Erdogan after the incident with the Smetlivy.
Russian warns Ankara about possible consequences of actions against Russian military

MOSCOW, December 13. /TASS/. Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov on Sunday summoned Turkey’s defense attache Ahmet Gunes to warn him of possible consequences of Turkey’s actions against the Russian military, a defense ministry spokesman said.
“A strict representation was made to the Turkish diplomat about possible serious consequences of official Ankara’s reckless actions against the Russian military contingent on an anti-terrorist mission in Syria,” the spokesman said.
“In particular, the Russian side voiced serious concern over more provocative actions by the Turkish side against the Russian Smetlivy guard ship in the Aegean Sea, which was forced to open warning fire from firearms at a safe distance from the Turkish vessel to prevent possible collision,” the spokesman said.
“Rear Admiral Ahmet Gunes promised to immediately inform Ankara about the Russian representation,” the spokesman said.
According to earlier reports, the crew of The Smetlivy guard ship of the Russian Navy had to open fire from small arms to push away Turkey’s seiner in the Aegean Sea so that to avoid a possible collision as the Turkish ship wound not respond to attempts to establish contact.
The Russian defence ministry said the Russian vessel was 22 kilometres from Greek’s Lemnos Island in the northern Aegean Sea. At 09:30 a.m. Moscow time, the watch service located a Turkish vessel at the distance of about 1,000 metres. The Turkish ship was approaching the anchored Smetlivy from the starboard side. Despite numerous attempts by the crew, the Turkish seiner would not have a radio contact with the Russian ship or would not respond to special visual signals or signal flares.
“As the Turkish seiner was approaching the Russian guard vessel to a distance of about 600 metres, in order to avoid a collision of the vessels, small arms were used along the route of the Turkish vessel at the distance of guaranteed non-hitting,” the Russian defense ministry said. “Immediately after that, the Turkish vessel changed its route without communicating the Russian crew and continued moving past the Russian vessel at a distance of 540 metres.”.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 13 2015 21:16 utc | 36

@12. Thank you Shadyl. Private armies and all kinds of mercenaries increasingly gaining ground in various battlefields across the planet. But when the arms industry will fully automate the new weapons, private armies will only serve as assistance to fully automated war machines. We already see the test fields of the weapons of future˙ the drones in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. It’s not accidental that the arms industries demonstrate new weapons designed to be used inside urban areas for suppression of potential riots.

Posted by: nmb | Dec 13 2015 21:26 utc | 38

Vintage Red @28
An excellent rebuttal. Very few understand that Marxism is a School of Thought and thus an analytical tool. IMO, humanity will be forced to adopt Communalism if it wants to survive into the centuries beyond given the existential challenges constructed by Capitalistic Competition. The transition will likely be brutal, bloody and drawn-out given human history; I certainly won’t live to see the result.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 13 2015 21:36 utc | 40

@From the Hague re: shame on p5+1
If you are going to quote 2249, at least quote the whole paragraph. Like the part about complying with international law. What a troll…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-international-law-in-syria-us-natos-humanitarian-air-strikes/5492208
“Let’s examine the pertinent language of UNSCR 2249:
The resolution “calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter…on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq.
Note that the resolution demands “compliance with international law, in particular with the UN Charter.” This is probably the most significant explainer to the “all necessary measures” phrase. Use of force is one of the most difficult things for the UNSC to sanction – it is a last resort measure, and a rare one. The lack of Chapter 7 language in the resolution pretty much means that ‘use of force’ is not on the menu unless states have other means to wrangle “compliance with international law.”

Posted by: pirkster | Dec 13 2015 22:50 utc | 42

Interesting … reading in between the lines!
○ Western alliance worried about Russian return to Middle East: Former ambassador Pamir | Hürriyet Daily News |

Posted by: Oui | Dec 13 2015 23:17 utc | 44

In the last few years I have been perplexed by Turkish actions towards Syria. They seem to be completely against Turkish national interests. What seems to be happening is that Turkey has been taken over by an ideologue, ie Erdogan, that is guided by some other force. As b as described here in those three recent posts Erdogan’s ideology is guided by some crazed notion that he can re-establish the Ottoman empire and become the grand sultan for this empire.
It looks like it is up to Russia to bring the Turks back to reality. Unfortunately Turkey is part of NATO so any efforts by Russia to resist this insanity could result in a major military confrontation with the US. Hopefully, Obama and his advisers recognize this danger. If not we could really be looking at WWIII.

Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 13 2015 23:41 utc | 46

@45 ToivoS
Very apt, implicit, analogy between Erdogan in Turkey and Obama/the neocons in the USA … both following an ideological course which is not in the interest of their respective countries’ … or in the case of the USA, of the world’s.
And, by extension, it is Russia that is trying to bring not just the Turks but Americans and ‘their’, not our, empire back to reality.
We’re left to sit tight, root for the Russians, and hope they succeed, aren’t we? Fortunately, Russia, at least, seems to have competent leadership.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 13 2015 23:58 utc | 48

Noirette – thanks for that, very interesting.
Glad to see the Zetas being brought up. I’ve pointed this out a million times, but I find it “interesting coincidence” that the psychological terror tactics of groups like Los Zetas and ISIS/al Qaeda et al are so similar. The videotaped decapitations and insults, and the deft use of social media to advance their tactics… its like they all got that same training… *nudge nudge* *wink wink*
I tend to think that los Zetas vs the Sinaloa Cartel tracks conflicts and debates within the US ruling class. When we consider the old old rumors of Nazi involvement with the Colombian cartels and right wing death squads, and then we watch the development of los Zetas who struggled for command of Mexico with the very organic, long standing cartels like Sinaloa which emerged from the inhabitants Mexican countryside… there’s something there for sure. Another face of Mexico’s class wars. Reading Peter Dale Scott, Mike Ruppert, Gary Webb, and Al McCoy you can really get the sense of the epic nature of the drug wars and how they span so much history and conflict. So much money is at stake….
Lastly, I can’t wait to dig into Vintage Red and Demian’s conversation, I hope you both don’t mind… 😉

Posted by: guest77 | Dec 14 2015 0:00 utc | 50

@44 karlof1
I have not read the book/author but will look into it/him, thanks.
Your question, “Aside from killing them all, how do we break the solidarity of the global plutocratic financial elite and thus their grip on the levers of power?” I think is being answered as we spew our textual white noise. China is setting itself up as an alternative financial “center” as is evidenced by the AIIB, the BRICS bank and alternatives to SWIFT and BIS. The theology is called MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) by us Western types but in reality it is totally sovereign finance as opposed to the private finance that controls our world now. I am hopeful that socialist/communist/utilitarian/humanistic finance is in our species future.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 14 2015 0:12 utc | 52

Posted by: pirkster | Dec 13, 2015 5:50:10 PM | 41
There is an active debate on what it means to respect the UN Charter in the context of this resolution. See The Constructive Ambiguity of the Security Council’s ISIS Resolution which was linked to in the last thread. In sum, there is a question of whether any decision has been taken / authorization given.
IMO there has been a decision/authorization – one which addresses a novel situation.
The most straightforward interpretation of the reference to the UN Charter in light of the “call upon” nations to “eradicate the safe haven” that ISIS has established is that the measures taken against ISIS should not be such that it threatens sovereign borders (no land grabbing/annexation) or the apparatus of State. But operations on ISIS-held territory – which is not under the control of any UN member State – is fair game and is open-ended in scope and duration. All that is required is “coordination” – which could be simply informative, as in: our forces will enter territory held by ISIS in your State in 2 hours.
We now see talk of forming an international ground force to attack and hold ISIS territory. This force is mooted at 100k mostly comprised of Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian, and US. UNSC 2249 references to humanitarian and refugee concerns and its deference to ISSG creates the only ambiguity: at what point must territory freed from ISIS be returned to the control of the State (Iraq/Syria)?
Disclaimer: I am not an international diplomat or lawyer.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 14 2015 0:21 utc | 54

“…..all pursuing policies contrary to best interests of their citizens to the benefit of a very few and themselves.”
Not sure about it, there is parasitic relationship between the US ruling class and its voters. Nothing better is that relationship is shown that with its military force and so-called veterans.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-huge-lead-polls-194000337.html
“The poll also shows that Trump runs significantly stronger among less-educated, less-affluent voters, and performs particularly well among voters in the 50-64 age range.”
According to the article, truck drivers and construction workers, veterans and etc. are primary supporters of Trump. But I would argue that those with diploma are not any better, just a cave minded folks with the purchased paper. Since this type of people are representing 95% of US population no wonder that the US is fertile soil for fascism.
As a remainder the most backward region of Germany in 30s, Schleswig-Holstein and Bavaria were at the core of Hitler supporters.

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Dec 14 2015 0:59 utc | 56

ToivoS
“They seem to be completely against Turkish national interests.”
What would that be?

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Dec 14 2015 1:05 utc | 58

“The USSR and GDR sent technical advisors to Cuba and other socialist countries recently emerging from colonialism. If only Cuba could have sent *political* advisors in exchange, reintroducing them to revolutionary democracy, working class consciousness and internationalist solidarity”
This is very interesting! I like it.

Posted by: guest77 | Dec 14 2015 1:23 utc | 60

[ Posted by: Vintage Red | Dec 13, 2015 4:33:03 PM | 38 ]

From this time two factions effectively existed within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. One was for preserving the bureaucratized but collectivist status quo while continuing to develop the forces of production. The other was composed of those who realized they’d reached “the top of socialist society” and had no way to go up but to jettison socialism altogether and become capitalist.
What might I have liked to see? The USSR and GDR sent technical advisors to Cuba and other socialist countries recently emerging from colonialism. If only Cuba could have sent political advisors in exchange, reintroducing them to revolutionary democracy, working class consciousness and internationalist solidarity…
The struggle isn’t over by any means. In fact it may even be reaching a phase of new revolutionary potential.

Vintage Red writes “I learn from the past …” And I can too. I haven’t with regard to the USSR/PRC – the PRC went down the road of ‘those who realized they’d reached “the top of socialist society”’ in my opinion – but through ignorance, not inability to learn. So that’s why I appreciate your efforts to educate us all, or at least to share your informed opinions. Those are all any us have, after all. Not counting our uninformed opinions, of course 🙂

Posted by: jfl | Dec 14 2015 1:39 utc | 62

“Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of the financial capital… Fascism is neither the government beyond classes nor the government of the petty bourgeois or the lumpen-proletariat over the financial capital. Fascism is the government of the financial capital itself. It is an organized massacre of the working class and the revolutionary slice of peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in its foreign policy is the most brutal kind of chauvinism, which cultivates zoological hatred against other peoples.”
Georgi Dimitrov’s definition of Fascism and his last sentence is quite narrow by today’s standard, it cultivates zoological hatred against other peoples in its domestic policy as well. Just ask Latinos, Japanese, Muslim, Black and Brown etc.
@fast freddy this above is the answer to your question.

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Dec 14 2015 1:49 utc | 64

Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 13, 2015 6:41:09 PM | 45
“The machine hates Trump. Therein lies his appeal. He can’t do the bigoted nonsense if he wins the presidency. His adversarial relationship with congress (essentially getting nothing accomplished) might be our best hope.”
Being a pacifist, free thinkers an undecided voter and thinking on the same line like you, even if I’m wrong and Trump start WW3 so be it. The rest of the presidential hopeful including Bernie Sanders is warmongers and liars. There is no way I’ll vote for Democrats ever and I hate Republicans. The only exceptions switch to Ben Carson.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 14 2015 2:20 utc | 66

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” Emma Goldman

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Dec 14 2015 2:26 utc | 68

@ #64.
It’s probably just Russia’s way of saying “We don’t believe any of AmeriKKKa & Israel’s Fake Global War on Terror bullshit, and neither do some AmeriKKKans. And here’s just one of the reasons.”

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 14 2015 2:35 utc | 70

Jack Smith
There are other choices:

>> Vote Third Party
>> Write-in a candidate (real or spoof)
>> Deface the ballot
>> Don’t vote

Any of the above sends a message of dissatisfaction with THE SYSTEM, not the false choices. The duopoly thrives on your fear of the other candidates (aka lesser evil voting) and the legitimacy that you provide by voting for one of their candidates.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 14 2015 2:40 utc | 72

“Colombian troops, drilled in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency techniques, …”
Unfortunately, experts at killing weaponless peasants and converting them, post mortem, into guerilla fighters (google “false positives Colombia”) may even perform well against actual guerillas armed with light automatic weapons but still incompetent to fight with opponents that use artillery. I think that mercenaries cannot be canon fodder — that requires conscripts or ideologically motivated fighters.
Mercenary experts like snipers, drone operators, operators of long range artillery can form a valuable addition to the force, but GCC problem is the lack of ideologically motivated fighters or conscripted citizens. Plan A was to use Pakistanis and Egyptians, but that failed. Plan B was to blockade and bomb and wait until Yemenis, starving and running out of ammunition, will submit. It is unclear to me why it did not work, except that the blockade is imposed by Royal Saudi Navy, and this is not the most competent bunch. But if that is a reason, the little vessel running the blockade would have to transport an enormous amount of cargo from SOMEWHERE. Chinese base in Djibuti?
Plan C is to collect a bunch of mercenaries without any question where they come from and what kind of training and fighting spirit they possess. This basically means that KSA vassals switched to the support of KSA as cheaply as possible — and they do not care if mercs are competent or not.
Plan B still has a chance, but I guess that American government does not have the stomach for that atrocity. A blockade requires reliable targeting, something that KSA is not able to accomplish.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 14 2015 3:15 utc | 74

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 13, 2015 9:25:56 PM | 66
Two days later …
○ Riyadh, Rumeilan, and Damascus: All You Need to Know About Syria’s Opposition Conferences   by Aron Lund | Carnegie Endowment |
○ AQ linked terror group Ahrar al-Sham leaves Riyadh meeting … or did they?

Posted by: Oui | Dec 14 2015 3:24 utc | 76

I do not have to prove anything, I dare to say it is self evident. For NFL, Nascar, Harley, Dodge etc. folks who support our troops most likely it is not, and it never will be. For domestic white collar professionals who are in incestuous relationship with regime this is also valid. Not only the US is ruled by a Nazi regime as such it is Genocidal in its “nature”, from its inception onwards. That’s exactly what we can see in daily life, that is in Gov. controlled media outlets, and what Dimitrov had called “….zoological hatred against other peoples.” On domestic scene one can see Internal Colonies and colonial behaviors of “Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc.”
I know that from my personal experience from the Balkan. And it is what the people from Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Latin America, Indonesia or in short every corner of this planet.

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Dec 14 2015 3:29 utc | 78

@Neretva’43@77
I do not have to prove anything, I dare to say it is self evident.
As it is that “all men are created equal” blah, blah, blah. Me think you have a caricaturesque view of the US, and whatever you quote only conform your preconceived, distorted notions. You can call the US a fascist, nazi, racist, apartheid society, and won’t be advancing an inch in terms of defining the enemy configuration. But, since you don’t have to prove anything…I hope it helps venting anger.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 14 2015 4:11 utc | 80

Proof!? Here is one.
http://orientalreview.org/2011/07/06/anglo-saxon-roots-of-german-nazism/

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Dec 14 2015 4:31 utc | 82

Good discussion on the role of private finance/inheritance, and it’s impact on the globe today. After 40 plus yrs. of hearing the “deregulation” mantra, it’s time society took a look at where it’s taken us. But we won’t.

Posted by: ben | Dec 14 2015 4:57 utc | 84

Link to the Iran Contra arms dealer/Paris attack guns story.

Posted by: Ananymus | Dec 14 2015 5:09 utc | 86

@jackrabbit 73 ‘ Write-in a candidate (real or spoof) ‘
I think your choice number two is the only way to go at this particular point in time. Do you know that writing in a candidate is illegal in some jurisdictions? Louisiana, for instance.
The idea is to have the number of ‘write-ins/ballots spoiled by write-in’ exceed the total of the elephant and the donkey in the ‘race’. That’s the immediate, do-able goal. There will be outrage and blow-back when the ‘authorities’ disallow millions of votes, there will be even more outrage and blow-back when the ‘authorities’ pick a ‘winner’ who has received fewer votes than the number they have disallowed.
We can refine the process. Hold our own primaries. Hold multiple elections prior to the ‘real’ election to allow support to coalesce around some few of those written in. Eventually, individual candidates we chose ourselves will receive more votes than either the donkey or the elephant. Will be elected. From dog-catcher all the way ‘up’ to POTUS.
This is our only hope. But it’s not only a hope : it’s a plan. Self-actualizing democracy. Just do it. If we’d started in 2004 we’d be in control by now. Not only is it do-able it will be a hell of a lot of fun once we get started.
Once we have built-up our electoral muscles we can turn to the real tasks of restructure. Kick sand in the face of the oligarch bullies.
Consider the alternative …

Posted by: jfl | Dec 14 2015 5:47 utc | 88

@ruralito, 80, and @Demian re: unfettered vs. regulated capitalism:
A century ago most socialists felt revolutions would happen first in the most developed countries, which would then peacefully guide/help the rest of the world toward economic development and eventually socialism and communism. As noted above the Russian, Chinese and other revolutions shook up this expectation—the core vs. periphery struggle Lenin pointed out in his last years. When I was young and first radicalizing I remember hearing many speak of Third World liberation movements, more or less in conjunction with the USSR and PRC, steadily isolating the capitalist empires—a kind of global guerrilla war besieging the rulers in the metropolitan countries, slowly depriving them of colonies to exploit and so forcing their exported contradictions to come home to roost.
Instead socialist revolutions have occurred not in the metropolitan countries but in their colonies and neocolonies. In most of these the local capitalists were so deeply aligned with imperialism that the leadership of the national liberation struggles fell to communists, socialists and other left nationalist forces. Upon independence they were then faced not merely with creating just, cooperative and sovereign societies according to their ideals, but also with fulfilling the historic task of capitalism, building up the productive forces. This is necessarily a contradiction for egalitarian movements, as capitalism builds these forces up through extreme exploitation.
Two main strategies have emerged so far: 1) central planning with collectivization, and 2) NEP/the “capitalist road” (with somewhat less central planning). Either strategy is difficult and laden with contradictions. Either is easy for the US and other former colonists to sabotage (sanctions, mercenary “freedom fighters,” color revolutions, etc.). Also, either allows imperialism to depict the national liberation governments—whatever color their flag—as themselves exploitative and restrictive.
Ironically the periphery-vs.-core siege now seems to be manifesting, but led by a different sort of alliance than guerrillas and liberationist governments tacitly or openly backed by a socialist group of nations. The present struggle is shaping up to be between direct rule by the bankster-corporate capitalists versus an emerging constellation of “Sovereigntist” governments. These latter range from:
1) Russia, once building socialism and now capitalist, but retaining or reconfiguring a strong guiding role for the state in its capitalist economy (consider Putin’s recent address on this very synthesis: “State Capitalism 2.0”);
2) China, which is still building socialism, albeit pioneering what I’ve called a “New Economic Policy on steroids” to develop the means of production ASAP (a strategy working at least enough to freak out the US);
3) India, Brazil, South Africa, Iran and other former colonies or neocolonies who as mentioned above have developed strong state guidance and participation in their otherwise capitalist economies to facilitate development and sovereignty; and
4) Everyone else on the planet that doesn’t want to end up a debt serf to finance capital.
What the Sovereigntists have in common are economies not simply regulated by the state, but in which the state participates as a strong organizing principle—China and Russia are approaching this from opposite sides of class rule. In the US-led hegemony the financial sector is bent on austerity aimed, as Grover Norquist put it, at “shrink[ing] government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub”—even to the point that significant parts of their own repressive apparatus are being privatized: mercenaries, prisons, surveillance, courts… “Private armies are everywhere” as one poster recently put it—a capitalist parody of the withering away of the state?
Why this line-up of forces? Because capitalist sectors that are still developing the forces of production actually *benefit* from the state as the one entity that can focus and channel blind market forces (maximum-profit allocation of scarce resources) toward something more-or-less creative. I’ve heard it said that black markets are often tolerated as a defensive reaction to the pressures of scarcity while building socialism. There is a mirror-image phenomenon within capitalism, a defensive reaction by capitalists (or by capital itself?) to order the irrationalities in their own system for its further growth and development. End-stage capitalism, however, deeply mired in its own contradictions and with no further developmental potential, has gone completely rotten and has no such incentive. It only wishes to retard if not cannibalize or destroy the forces of production. It’s only guided by what it takes to maintain long-term control for the glory of maximizing short-term profits. It has nothing to offer humanity but debt and death.
It is no accident that all the above-mentioned national liberation movement-type governments are with the Soverieigntist camp—it is a natural continuation of their struggles over the last century for development and national liberation. The PRC, itself originating in a national liberation struggle, is almost as conspicuous among the Sovereigntists as the USSR was among its WW2 “partners,” but with a much larger economic weight and thus influence in the current camp.
Communists like myself certainly support the Sovereigntist camp not simply because of China’s presence and nostalgia for the remnants of socialism in Russia, nor “simply” because its victory over the fascism of finance capital is both essential for the interests of the great mass of humanity and indeed Earth’s biosphere. We also look ahead to a resurgence of our own—a Sovereigntist victory over the US-led hegemony will create the multipolar conditions most favorable for, as Hugo Chavez phrased it, 21st Century Socialism. By so defeating US imperialism it will indeed force capitalism’s contradictions to come home to roost, breaking the material basis for the stranglehold the US PTB have had on popular consciousness here for so long. One way or another, the class struggle will reemerge even here. Finally getting to your last question, Demian:
“So why not admit that that’s [“social capitalism” vs. predatory capitalism] all there is, instead of still continuing to dream of a kind of future which exists only in science fiction?”
Ah, science fiction… one of my best friends is a published science fiction author. No socialist, he surprised me one day by stating that in his view the world’s economically and technologically developed countries are perhaps of the verge of real abundance. But the PTB are holding back this abundance by hook and crook, by war and waste, up to and including global climate catastrophe. The capitalists know that realizing this potential would pull the rug out from under their web of control through commodity and financial markets. Perhaps my friend foresees the kind of revolution originally envisioned by socialists over a century ago.
For those who for whatever reason feel we will never achieve any kind of cooperatively-created and justly-distributed abundance, believe what you think best, but to my thinking this forever condemns the huge majority of humanity to poverty and repression under some kind of ruling class. I think we can do better than this.
Utopia lies at the horizon.
When I draw nearer by two steps,
it retreats two steps.
If I proceed ten steps forward, it
swiftly slips ten steps ahead.
No matter how far I go, I can never reach it.
What, then, is the purpose of utopia?
It is to cause us to advance.
—Eduardo Galeano

Posted by: Vintage Red | Dec 14 2015 7:11 utc | 90

Posted by: Oui | Dec 14, 2015 2:49:53 AM | 90
Times of Israel article might be a bogus story, the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter bolt-action rifle was ordered in Chicago and Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.

Posted by: Oui | Dec 14 2015 8:26 utc | 92

So, could Beijing’s new ten-year leasing agreement with Djibouti to build a logistical hub in the Horn of Africa just across from Yemen have anything to do with Saudi regime aggression in Yemen?
http://russia-insider.com/en/china-expands-military-reach-africa/ri11460

Posted by: doveman | Dec 14 2015 9:44 utc | 94

@89 vr
I don’t think it has to do with national borders. Pew Research has published a report, The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground. Check out the graph showing the relative proportion of ‘upper income’ and ‘middle income’ crossing :
  1970, 29%. 62%
  2014, 49%, 43%.
This is no surprise, but there it is on the graph. Even more greatly skewed distributions have long been the norm in ‘the South’, but it has reached the seat of empire now, so is certainly the case all over this earth. The socialist countries, willingly or un-, decided ‘if ya cant beat ’em, join ’em’. In the Plutocrats’ Republic, certainly. Being a capitalist country is like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t. It is a class-war on a global scale. The divergence is only going to increase between income classes and decrease among nations. As everything is monetized income becomes more and more crucial to us poor humans dispossessed by the cyborg plutocrats.
Will we humans do something to arrest the divergence? Or will the financial cyborgs set about eliminating us?
See Old Microbiologist | Dec 9, 2015 4:50:18 AM | 138 and Posted by: Old Microbiologist | Dec 9, 2015 7:12:36 AM | 140
I think we’re going to have to realize what we’re up against – those who are benefiting from the present arrangement certainly have – and seize control. I think it can be done, by the book, in the USA. It is going to take a victory for a large population so somewhere on earth to pull it off, both as an example, and to gain control of the presently repressive apparatus and apply relief elsewhere. We’re all in this together, and we have to realize it and join forces if we’re to have a chance. They won’t bat an eye at eliminating us.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 14 2015 10:47 utc | 96

Posted by: guest77 | Dec 13, 2015 8:17:47 PM | 58
the US partner is doing what it does everywhere, finds patsies to manipulate…new Saddams or Noriegas, of socialist states to turn into deplorable afghanistans

Posted by: brian | Dec 14 2015 10:47 utc | 98

@38
All I’d like to say about your narrative of the Soviet Union is that it completely ignores the vital, hidden role capitalists played in constructing Stalinist Russia. Albert Kahn, Ford’s right-hand architect, designed practically the entire First Five Year Plan in Detroit. There were massive contributions by American industrialists: Ford himself built the world’s largest car plant. The world’s largest iron plant was likewise constructed by American engineers (along with an entire city, Magnitogorsk, modeled on Gary, Indiana). The Kochs’ father contributed cutting-edge oil refineries (and only broke with the USSR, incidentally, after his client Stalin’s death). I could go on and on.
Stalinist Russia and its industrial “achievements” are unimaginable without capitalists, mostly American.

Posted by: Huffman Aviation | Dec 14 2015 11:54 utc | 100