|
Montenegro – Tiny Nation Vote Upsets Anti-Russian Front
by Debs is Dead
adapted from a comment
I dunno if the barcalounger lefties, who appear to be driven by whatever issue/subject/Thing, that all corporate media is currently venting about in unison, have noticed, but this weekend's (just past) poll in Montenegro has revealed that perhaps 'the Kremlin' is indulging in a little 'whatever you can do, I can do better', payback.
From today's BBC aka "tool of the neoliberal pipe dream":
"The Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) has been in power for 30 years.
Early results suggest the DPS – which has never lost an election – has won the largest share of the vote.
But the main opposition coalition, which leans towards Russia and Serbia, is close behind. Even if the DPS wins the most seats, it may struggle to form a governing coalition.
This could lead to Montenegro's first-ever transfer of power through the ballot box."
bigger
The heavily 'westernized' pro-euro whores are definitely in strife because just as there is no objectively measured way of determining what the correct vote in Belarus is, the Montenegro vote for a government which up until now has unfailingly supported EU/NATO tossage, chiefly by being a cypher for the political, social and economic problems that the EU/NATO consortium of naked self interest has visited upon the rest of Europe, Montenegro has become a mirror of the similar 'crisis' in Belarus.
The attempt to create a mess in Belarus may be a fail, but the response from the normal people in Montenegro seems to be a winner.
The result pointing to a claimed win for the pro-Ruskie official return of 32% of the votes in Montenegro versus the Montenegro fascist administration's alleged 'victory' return of 36% is far more credible than the claimed Belarus' opposition win when official numbers in Belarus are Lukashenko 80% and the fascists a portion of the rest.
Why? Because in spite of America's best efforts, Montenegro may now be a NATO member but most definitely is not a member of the EU. Consequently it is entirely possible that a state with full NATO access will align with the Russian economic coadunate.
Montenegro's soon to be realized position appears (at least to this observer), to be the premier configuration for any Euro state determined to obtain the best deal for its citizens outside of either group of assholes.
If Serbia does garner support from Montenegro that will alleviate Serbia from self serving destructive demands of either arsehole.
Yep I recognize we are meant to take sides, but as a dedicated fan of freedom from all outsiders, I wanna back whoever stands aside of either self indulgent play at attempting to show "how reasonable we all are nowadays". F**k em all, we humans never got ahead by listening to boss class lies.
Nevertheless the real interest from us who do not live in Montenegro must be: Does the American empire still have enough balls, ability, energy to deliver unwarranted violence upon the rest of us solely to claim victory?
I say no.
@Posted by: Constantine | Sep 1 2020 0:52 utc | 58
It was not difficult to understand, the question I was posing to you about the storming of the Bundestag this past day, and the few words in Spanish were not relevant and so few that you could translate them with a translator, as I do many times with several languages in which I read information, but, then, you chose to evade answering.
You have a derogatory authoritarian tone anytime you adress me which speaks volumes on that, or you are not on the left, or you are a Trotskyist, as this style I have witnessed from them in an incipient Spanish leftist formation some time ago, when they want you to shut up and leave…especially when yo udiscuss their unelected leadership, incongruencies…or NATO…in itself…
It is you who appeared here sending me to study…or to learn English!!…of all things( why in the Earth an alleged anti-imperialist leftist would send me to do such a thing, I wonder, when the numerous Americans here understand me quite well, and are not such purists in anything?… )
A warning to anybody here who could not have contacted ever with any leftist. That people show a deep knowledge in Marxism-Leninism does not imply they are from the left, there was/is a thing in every Western intelligence service called “Russian Desk”, and as well you give for sure they have a “Marxist Desk”…( as a sample, a button, Pat Lang who still has not retired at his 80s…still wishing with all his rage going up the wilderness to kill ´em…). Most of Western intelligence services are widely infilitrated by the far-right, if not because there are remanants there from the fascist dictatorships Europe suffered during its history. The German BND has a real problem with this, although I do not think the CDU is so much worried about it…otherwise a purge would be done…. I mean well done…The same happens in Spain and Italy…btw….
To detect a real leftist, pay attention that its opinions are always in the side of the people and agaisnt any kind of imperialism and any form of capitalism or corporatism, whatever the country we are talking about; citing Marx or Mein Kampf or showing off history knowledge is not enough to be a leftist. Neither it is necessary to be a leftist to have any grade or recognition by the universities of TPTB, most leftists you will find in common jobs, self-taught people, as always has been…think of Stalin more than of Lenin in this….
It is impossible for a leftist to find a common ground with the far-right, since the far-right project of life is always erasing the left, as history has so widely showed.
That message of finding a common ground between the left and the far-right was what brought Hitler to power, as at certain time his party achieved fooling the German unions to march together with which the unions who had the trust of the working people ceded their legitimacy to their future executioners.
Bannon tried to fool the US people and that of the world through this trick of a “illustrated far-right”, so as to get enough votes to grab power. Once in power we can witness what kind of “illustrated thugs” he has promoted in Europe.
Vox, a far-right party supported by Bannon and the Trump administration as a whole, and which financed its election campaign with funds coming from terrorist organization MEK ( on CIAs and Iranian diaspora pay roll…) called its followers to go Catalonia to beat the Catalan seccesionist to the shout “a por ellos!, and to this date keep harassing the ministries of Unidas Podemos in the government of coalition of the “mild” left in Spain in their own homes, day and night, without any judge intervening ( being as it is the judicial power not independent and also widely infiltrated by fascists…) stopping this clear undermining of rights and physical security of these people who moreover have little babies at home. They recently even had to suspend their holidays in Asturias due to this harassment…
They have gone into the streets with their supporters without masks, in the wosrst of the pandemic, offering the excentric view of people hitting the pan in the back seat of its own convertible Ferrari driven by his driver, while even a woman of the richest neigborhoods in Madrid took her service woman to hit the pan on her place…Where would be the common place between these people and their service people? Nowhere to be found, or course!
Believe me, it is impossible to find a common ground with this thugs, whose only objective in life is keeping squeezing and looting the poor and when something or someone places in their path they recurr only to harrasment, physical elimination and coup d´etat.
In the US there is long history of far-right people possing as leftist, labor or unionist, like LaRouche Organization ( to which our erudites here could well belong, since they have a recognized intelligence service, and their methods of harassment are well known…),and we all know how they ended beating the real unionist and leftist and helped Reagan to erase the unions and the real left from the USA…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou1.htm
Posted by: H.Schmatz | Sep 1 2020 10:54 utc | 75
@ all
-What is fascism?
The best definition of fascism I know of is Gramsci’s (who saw its ascension and died because of it).
To put it simply, fascism is a fail-safe against socialism/communism. When the bourgeoisie loses control of the situation, it can still resort to ancient and fossilized forces in its own country (Church, peasants, feudal-era intellectuals, feudal-era nobility, etc.) plus the lumpen-proletariat to crush a communist revolution in the streets (masses against masses). To do such, they resort to every type of irrational narratives they can find to amalgamate this disparate group. In Mussolini’s case, the narrative was the restoration of the Roman Empire; in Hitler’s case, it was the creation of the Thousand-year Reich.
This fail-safe exists until our days. The post-war pact put the far-right forces of the Western countries in the “election proof” institutions where they could best serve the bourgeoisie: the intelligence and police forces and the Armed Forces. The social-democrats could then win the elections, but never seize ultimate power within their nations. That’s why we still see embarrassing episodes today, like British soldiers using Corbyn’s portrait for target practice or the neo-nazi cells inside the Bundeswehr.
–//–
-why do we still rationalize politics in the West in Left-to-Right sides?
The concept of Left and Right comes from the French Revolution (Jacobins on the Left; Girondins on the Right; plus the Swamp on the Center). It arose as pure convention and was soon forgotten after the Revolution collapsed.
It was unearthed in the wake of the post-war, by intellectuals/Cold Warriors that we identify today as being from the “center-left”.
The reason the Western Left revived the concept was necessity. In the aftermath of WWII, the CPSU and the USSR were at the height of its prestige in the world. They were the shit back them: if you wanted to be a true revolutionary in 1945, you would want to be like a Bolshevik.
The Western socialists (social-democrats) then had to find a counter-narrative that could legitimize their weaker, subordinate and feeble position in the West, so the Western socialists could give up revolution. They then developed the the theory of Totalitarianism (the theory which stated the Soviets were basically Nazis) and its lesser known theory of the “Vital Center”, published by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947.
The “vital center” theory stated that, in order to not fall into totalitarianism, a political specter, made of socialists, liberals and conservatives, was necessary, so all these ideologies could freely compete for power in State-form. This leviathanic State, manifested by republican chaos, would always result in the best government possible, because representative democracy never fails. It would also be more flexible: in a moment where a conservative was needed, a conservative was elected, and so on for a socialist and a liberal. This dynamic equilibrium would result in a “vital center”, a de facto center ground, whose difference to totalitarianism was that it was “vibrant” (alive), to use today’s liberal terminology.
The only thing the vital center didn’t admit was fascism and communism (hence its complementary nature with the Totalitarianism theory). In these cases, Schlesinger not only admitted, but recommended, brutal repression and suppression. That’s why we call those two ideologies “far-” in today’s Western political vocabulary: they’re “outside the spectrum”. It’s also common for Westerners today to call both the far-right and the far-left the same thing, as they “join hands”, as if the political spectrum was a wheel, hence forming an elegant unity with the theory of totalitarianism.
That was the way Western social-democracy found to legitimize their weaker, subordinate position in relation to the USSR. That’s why I consider studying the writers of Totalitarianism a study of the history of the Western societies, and not of the history of the USSR – they’re telling more about themselves than about their enemy.
–//–
– what’s the Trotskyist conundrum?
Simplifying and not entering on the merits and demerits of Trotsky’s works:
According to Trotsky, the USSR was socialist for essentially three reasons:
1) expropriation of the means of production;
2) State monopoly of foreign trade;
3) centrally planned economy.
Here we have no polemics, as both sides agree the USSR is in fact socialist. The polemic comes when he talks about the instability of this set up.
According to Trotsky, this situation gives birth to a bureaucrat group, which controls the State. As they control how the economy is planned and how social wealth is distributed, they’ll inevitably get more for themselves and distributes less to the rest. The problem here isn’t the differences of wages between workers who work different amount of times or do different types of work, but the distribution of social wealth, i.e. wealth produced by the whole economy, to be redistributed equally among all members of society.
Why this bureaucrat “class” arises? Because the USSR was not self-sufficient, and was originally a very poor country. It doesn’t produce abundant wealth in a way everybody can get enough. Distribution of wealth degenerates into distribution of misery.
The only two way outs of this situation, according to Trotsky: capitalist restoration or the rest of the world also becomes socialist, thus “lifting the siege” on the USSR.
The USSR in fact dissolved to a capitalist restoration, but China didn’t. From this you can guess why Trotskyists are the only ones who consider China neoliberal – they must’ve fallen to a capitalist restoration, too, as socialism in one country (“Stalinism”) is theoretically impossible in a non-degenerate state.
Posted by: vk | Sep 1 2020 12:32 utc | 82
All this writing of fascism. I haven’t posted the below in a couple of years but this thread seems to call for it.
”
14 POINTS OF FASCISM
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).
”
Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 1 2020 14:41 utc | 91
vk@82 is I think entirely wrong that only Trotskyists think China is capitalist (“neoliberal” is usually more a scare word than an idea.) Maoists too will even claim China is imperialist, though when this happened can be surprisingly vague. For instance the war of choice against Vietnam is never—so far as I know—deemed to be imperialist, or even criticized. Most of all of course, the nearly universal claim in the media is that real communism died with Mao (for which they thank God,) and China’s success proves conclusively that capitalism has a future. Yet, it’s true that serious figures in the government, in certain situations, will admit otherwise. (Here’s an example: https://econofact.org/is-china-a-non-market-economy-and-why-does-it-matter)
As to the definition of fascism, I think the emergence of fascism in countries suffering defeat or trying to create a colonial empire exposes a critical aspect to fascism.* Of course trade unions and their political expression in social democracy, popular fronts and communism are suppressed. But even the members of the bourgeoisie are disciplined for the sake of the national crusade. Dictatorship in some form is a necessity for centralized command. So, I would define fascisms as the mobilization of a mystical version of the nation under a dictatorship/oligarchy. Select groups are scapegoated by both legal discrimination and illegal violence. The trade unions, and the political formations of workers such as social democrats, popular frontists and communists, are suppressed, while reactionary cross-class institutions are exalted, even privileged.** The particular forms of irrationalism are historically inherited, or copied from colonial empires that won.***
*Spain was defeated in el Desastre, the Spanish-American war. Even Italy could not be regarded as a real winner, despite Trieste. Japan of course did not lose, but faced huge obstacle in following up its victory in WWI. It was the custom at the time to acknowledge the relationship between Japan and the other fascist powers, despite the superficial differences. Japan did not have a major historical tradition of domestic minorities, being an island. And the illegal violence was assassination, rather than pogrom and ethnic cleansing of the Home Islands. But any definition of fascism should address why imperial Japan was fascist, or explain why it was incorrectly deemed fascist at the time.
**Spanish fascism, Croatian fascism, etc. were highly Catholic, rather than secular/modernist. But even Nazi Germany remained largely Lutheran and officially united with the Roman Catholic church, despite the occasional flirtations of some Nazis with Odinism etc. Japan’s State Shinto was their version of the same. The emphasis on mass parties was about mass mobilization. The militarism of the Junkers or Bushido, fused with elites and promoted to the masses on a massive scale also relied on a heavy dose of irrationalism to sell the false proposition that the nation could benefit from empire. This is only true if you define nation apart from the majority of the actual, living, breathing people.
***This is clearest with Hitler, who basically dreamed of recreating the American West in Siberia, with brave German settlers killing off the Injuns/Slavs. And US eugenics and scientific racism and Jim Crow were direct inspirations for Nazi laws. The Spanish concentration camps in Cuba and the English concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer war were models closely emulated. Personally I think the first attempts at death camps can be found in the prison labor in the post-war South of the US. The mortality rates of blacks—who I am somehow convinced tended to be more resisters to the restoration of white supremacy than mere criminals—was horrifying. But it’s true that the likes of Ava Duvernay merely see Lincoln restoring slavery.
If one objects that this definition implies that US and Israeli democracy overlap with fascism, I can only say that fascism, as a form of bourgeois class rule—which it is, as their property was protected, even if a handful of individual bourgois suffered, as in Putin’s Russia today—is on a political spectrum with bourgeois democracy. Socialism and communism are on a different spectrum entirely. I agree with vk that theories of totalitarianism (and the implicit vital center,) are falsifications, ideological constructs rather than real ideas with discernible relationships to facts.
Constantine@84 criticizes Stalin for being too left by adopting the Trotskyist program. I can only say that if Bukharin had won, the USSR would have been defeated by Hitler. This likelihood I think is the prime reason why Stalin is so bitterly hated even today. Obviously I can’t prove it. But then, it is not even clear that Bukharin would have even cared to fight Hitler. Another reason for the posthumous favoritism for Bukharin, I suppose.
As to Deng? I don’t think the success of Chinese economy is not entirely due to capitalism, even if direct investment by foreign capitalists played a huge role. I think a lot of it is due to the remnants of property in the means of production, that have served to subsidize much of the development. It may be customary to think of these subsidies as inefficiencies, because the rising bourgeoisie in China resents any income and property they don’t own. But, if they had their way, their government would be as effective in promoting capitalism as the US government. But I don’t think an astronomical Hang Seng is any more a proof of a strong economy than an astronomical NYSE. The growth of the Chinese economy with such gross distortions by capitalist elements has generated an extensive petty bourgeois class that is apt to follow the billionaire bourgeois into revolution against the remnant foundations of socialism. Simultaneously there are millions left behind, hidden behind the misuse of averages.
Even worse, the capitalist roading politics of Xi is leading to meaningless wars. Deng invaded Vietnam for, basically, shits and giggles, something more monstrous than Mao ever did. Xi today is trying to dispossess Korean socialism even though the goal of putting in a servile norther regime committed to capitalism is insane. The fall of socialism in the north will pose an existential threat to China. Xi meanwhile is pandering to “national” prestige with pointless escapades in Ladakh and the South China Sea. But Xi is grossly mishandling the open sores of Hong Kong and the Islamist threat in the northwest. (No, the China Dream is not going to win over the Uighurs or the Turkmen or Mongols or very likely not even the Hui.) The likelihood that Xi isn’t as doomed to failure as Bukharin in my view is extremely high.
psychohistorian@91 is fairly sensible in many ways. But the role of imperial projects, either to conquer an empire or create a new state, is still omitted here. Also, this overlaps so much with most states it is hard to say which aren’t fascist. As capitalism declines, the happier forms of bourgeois democracy decline with it, in my judgment. But most people believe capitalism works fine, as in, see China. If most governments count as fascist, how useful is this definition? In some ways, even the Umberto Eco version of fascism, with it’s mind reading and peering into the soul, is more specific, I think.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 1 2020 14:50 utc | 93
|
