Skip to main content

Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy

by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb

Under the feudal mode of production, peasants were often allowed to cultivate plots of land for themselves on a rental basis. However, those tenant farmers rarely succeeded in becoming landowners in their own rights because a major share of what they harvested was taken away by landlords as rent, often leaving them with a bare subsistence amount of what they produced. When the harvest was poor, they incurred debt. If peasants were unable to pay off their debts, they could find themselves reduced to the condition of serfs or slaves.

Today, under conditions of market dominance by parasitic finance capital, a similar relationship can be detected between the powerful financial oligarchs (as feudal lords of our time), on the one hand, and the public at large (as peasant population of today), on the other. In the same manner as the landed aristocracy of times past extracted rent by virtue of monopolistic ownership of land, so today the financial oligarchy extracts interest and other financial charges by virtue of having concentrated the major bulk of national resources in their hands in the form of finance capital.

The Marxist term wage-slaves refers to those who, lacking capital or means of production, have only their labor power to sell to make a living. This describes the vast majority of people in today’s capitalist societies whose sole means of subsistence is the sale of their capacity to work. “Just as the feudal-era serf had no choice but to enslave himself and his family to the manor-house lord, the modern-day serf must indenture himself to banks to own a car or home or buy a college education”.

In the latest edition of her book, Occupy Money, Professor Margrit Kennedy shows that today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector: bankers, insurance companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the like. Obviously, this means that, as Ellen Brown points out: “By taking banking back . . . governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector”.

Distribution Effects: Escalation of Poverty and Inequality

Like the feudal rent, the hidden tribute to the financial sector, the nearly 40 percent of consumer spending that is appropriated by the financial sector, helps explain how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly richer at the expense of the poor—not just because of greed or the blind forces of the market mechanism but, more importantly, because of deliberate monetary/economic policies, which have steadily come under effective control of the financial oligarchy. Indeed, the very mechanism of money creation and/or monetary policy itself exacerbates inequality.

Although obfuscated and/or mystified, the planned or premeditated mechanism by which redistribution of economic resources from the bottom to the top takes place is fairly straightforward. The insidious mechanism of redistribution in favor of the financial oligarchy is expertly sanitized and benignly called monetary policy. Private central banks (such as the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.) are usually the main institutional vehicles that carry out the monetary policy of redistribution. Central banks’ polices of cheap or easy money benefits, first and foremost, the big banks and other major financial players that can outbid small borrowers who must borrow at much higher rates than the near-zero rates guaranteed to the big borrowers.

By thus gaining privileged access to nearly interest-free money, the financial elites can enrich themselves in a number of ways. For one thing, they can snap-up income-producing assets at the expense of small borrowers who lack access to cheap money. For another, they can boost the value of their wealth by creating an artificial demand (such as stock buybacks) for those ill-begotten assets with the cheaply borrowed money. In addition, they can skim vast wealth by loaning out the cheap they obtain from central banks to everyone below the top of the wealth/income pyramid—at near four percent (mortgages), at seven or eight percent (auto, student and other loans), and above 15 percent (credit cards). Obviously, this would funnel much of the national income stream to those who can borrow cheap and lend at much higher rate.

Instead of regulating or containing the disruptive speculative activities of the financial sector, economic policy makers, spearheaded by central banks, have in recent years been actively promoting asset-price bubbles—in effect, further exacerbating inequality.

Proxies of the financial oligarchy at the helm of monetary/economic policy making apparatus seem to believe that they have discovered an insurance policy for bubbles that burst by blowing new ones:

Both the Washington regulators and Wall Street evidently believed that together they could manage bursts. This meant that there was no need to prevent such bubbles from occurring: on the contrary, it is patently obvious that both regulators and operators actively generated them, no doubt believing that one of the ways of managing bursts was to blow another dynamic bubble in another sector: after dot-com, the housing bubble; after that, an energy-price or emerging market bubble, and so on”.

It is obvious that this policy of effectively insuring financial bubbles would make financial speculation a win-win proposition, a proposition that is aptly called “moral hazard,” as it encourages risk-taking at the expense of others—in this case of the 99%, since the costs of bailing out the “too-big-to-fail” gamblers are paid through austerity cuts. Knowing that the central bank/monetary policy would bail them out after any bust, they go from one excess to another.

This shows how the proxies of the financial oligarchy, ensconced at the helm of central banks and their shareholders (commercial banks), serve as agents of subtlely funneling economic resources from the public to the financial oligarchy—just as did the rent/tax collectors and bailiffs of feudal lords collected and transferred economic surplus from the peasants/serfs to the landed aristocracy.

Contractionary or Anti-developmental Nature of Parasitic Finance Capital

As mentioned earlier, today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector. Not only does this redistribute resources in favor of the financial oligarchy, it also drains the real sector of the economy of the necessary resources for productive investment and economic development.

Experience shows that, contrary to the extractive or parasitic private banking, public banking has proven quite beneficial to the developmental objectives of their communities and/or nations. Nineteenth century neighborhood savings banks, Credit Unions, and Savings and Loan associations in the United States, Jusen companies in Japan, Trustee Savings banks in the UK, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia all served the housing and other credit needs of their communities well.

Perhaps a most interesting and instructive example is the case of the Bank of North Dakota, which continues to be owned by the state for nearly a century, and which is widely credited for the state’s relatively healthy budget and its robust economy in the midst of budgetary problems and economic stagnation in many other states. The bank was established by the state legislature in 1919, specifically to free farmers and small business owners from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad barons. The bank’s mission continues to be to deliver sensible financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.

Explaining how the Bank of North Dakota utilizes people’s savings for productive credit and/or investment, Eric Hardmeyer, president of the bank, points out, “Really what separates us [from private banks] is that we plow those deposits back into the state of North Dakota in the form of loans. We invest back into the state in economic development type activities.” The bank president further indicates that in the course of the last dozen years or so “we’ve turned back a third of a billion dollars just to the general fund to offset taxes or to aid in funding public sector types of needs”.

Contrary to the case of North Dakota, most other states, burned by interest payments and other financial obligations to private banks, are forced to cut investment on public capital formation, to slash jobs and liquidate state-owned properties or state-sponsored services—often at fire-sale prices. Consider California, for example. At the end of 2010, it owed private banks and other bondholders $70 billion in interest only—44% of its total financial obligations of $158 billion. “If the state had incurred that debt to its own bank,” writes Ellen Brown, “California could be $70 billion richer today. Instead of slashing services, selling off public assets, and laying off employees, it could be adding services and repairing its decaying infrastructure”.

At the national level, the U.S. federal government paid in 2011 a sum of $454 billion in interest on its debt—the third highest budget item after the military and Social Security outlays. This figure amounted to nearly one-third of the total personal income taxes ($1, 100 billion) collected that year. This means that if the Federal Reserve Bank was publicly owned, and the government borrowed directly from it interest-free, personal income taxes could have been cut by a third. Alternatively, the savings could be invested in social infrastructure, both human and physical, thereby drastically augmenting the productive capacity of the nation and elevating the standard of living for all.

It can reasonably be argued that the ravages wrought on today’s economies/societies by parasitic finance capital’s extraction of economic resources are even more destructive than was the extraction of feudal rent to the social fabric under feudalism. There are at least two major reasons for this judgment.

For one thing, the landed aristocracies’ appropriation of the major bulk of economic surplus, or rent, required production and, therefore, employment of the farming labor force. This meant that although the farming workforce was, of course, exploited, it nonetheless benefitted from production—albeit at poverty or subsistence levels of remuneration. In the age of finance capital, however, profit making or surplus extraction by the parasitic financial oligarchy is largely divorced from real production and employment, as it comes largely through parasitic appropriation from the rest of the economy. As such, it employs no or a very small percentage of labor force, which means that, today, the financial sector generates income/profits without sharing it with the overwhelming majority of the public.

For another, whereas periodic cancellation of unsustainable peasants’ debts by landed aristocracies were considered as restorative measures for maintaining the feudal mode of production and social structure, under today’s rule of finance capital such healing measures are ruled out as omens of economic catastrophe. Historical records show that debt cancellation in the Bronze Age Mesopotamia took place on a fairly regular basis from 2400 to 1400 BC. Ancient documents decoded from cuneiform inscriptions have led many historians to believe that the Bronze Age tradition of debt cancellation in the Near/Middle East may have served as the setting or model for the Biblical pronouncements of debt relief.

Careful studies of those records indicate that, contrary to today’s perceptions (shaped largely by the influential financial interests) that debt cancellation may lead to economic disorder, as epitomized by the too-big-to-fail refrain, those earlier practices of debt relief were carried out precisely for the opposite reasons: to restore economic revival and social harmony by undoing the ravages of debt wrought on the economy and the overwhelming majority of the population. Freedom in those days meant real, economic freedom—freedom from debt bondage—not the abstract or hollow concept of freedom promoted today.

The type of economic freedom being referred to was the royal act of cancelling back taxes and other personal debts, restoring traditional family landholding rights and freeing citizens who had been enslaved for debt. These royal interventions ensured rather than encroached on general economic freedom”.

What is to be Done?

Many critics of parasitic finance capital have called for a robust regime of regulation of the financial sector. Experience shows, however, that as long as the dynamics and structures of the accumulation of capital are left intact, regulation cannot provide an effective long-term solution to the recurring crises of financial bubble and bursts.

For one thing, due to the political influence of powerful financial interests, financial regulations would not be implemented in a meaningful way, as evinced, for example, by policy responses to the 2008 financial implosion and the ensuing Great Recession.

For another, even if regulations are somehow implemented, they would provide only a temporary relief. For, as long as there is no community or real democratic control, regulations would be undermined by the influential financial interests that elect and control policy-makers. The dramatic reversal of the extensive regulations of the 1930s and 1940s that were put in place in response to the Great Depression and World War II to today’s equally dramatic deregulations serves as a robust validation of this judgment. This means that the need to end the recurring crises of the capitalist system requires more than financial regulation; it calls for changing the system itself.

Other critics of parasitic finance capital have called for public banking. The idea of bringing the banking industry, national savings and credit allocation under public control or supervision is neither complicated nor necessarily socialistic or ideological. In the same manner that many infrastructural facilities such as public roads, school systems and health facilities are provided and operated as essential public services, so can the supply of credit and financial services be provided on a basic public utility model for both day-to-day business transactions and long-term industrial projects.

As pointed out earlier, provision of financial services and/or credit facilities after the model of public utilities would lower financial costs to both consumers and producers by about 35 to 40 percent. By thus freeing consumers and producers from what can properly be called the financial overhead, or rent, similar to land rent under feudalism, the public option credit and/or banking system can revive many stagnant economies that are depressed under the crushing burden of never-ending debt-servicing obligations.

Even in the core capitalist countries public banking has occasionally been used to save capitalism from its own systemic crises. For example, in the face of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and following the Hoover administration’s unsuccessful policy of trying to bailout the insolvent banks, the F.D.R. administration was compelled to declare a “bank holiday” in 1933, pull the plug on the terminally-ill banks and take control of the entire financial system. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, introduced by President Roosevelt (four days after he declared a nationwide bank holiday on March 5, 1933) and passed by Congress on March 9th, guaranteed full payment of depositors’ money, thereby effectively created 100 percent deposit insurance. Not surprisingly, when the banks reopened for business on March 13, 1933, “depositors stood in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks”.

Similarly, in the face of the collapse of its banking system in the early 1992, the Swedish state assumed ownership and control of all the insolvent banks in an effort to revive its financial system and prevent it from bringing down its entire economy. While this wiped out the existing shareholders, it turned out to be a good deal for taxpayers: not only did it avoid costly redistributive bailouts in favor of the insolvent banks, it also brought taxpayers some benefits once banks returned to profitability.

Both in Sweden and the United States once profitability was returned to insolvent banks their ownership was returned to private hands! It is perhaps this kind of capitalist governments’ commitment to powerful financial–corporate interests that has prompted a number of critics to argue that one definition of capitalism is that it is a system of socializing losses and privatizing profits.

In the absence of incestuous business–political relationship between Wall Street and the government apparatus, nationalization of banks and other financial intermediaries is not as complicated or difficult as it may sound; since banking laws already empower regulators to impose extraordinary controls and close supervision over these institutions. It is certainly easier than public ownership and management of manufacturing enterprises that require much more than record keeping and following regulatory or legal guidelines.

Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial implosion, the U.S. and British governments became de facto owners of the failed financial giants such as Citibank, A.I.G, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Anglo-Irish Bank. Through the provision of enormous amounts of public funds, these governments effectively became the main investors in the collapsed institutions. Were it not because of political and/or ideological reasons, they could have easily made their de facto ownership legal ownership.

The fraudulent compensation of Wall Street’s gambling losses at the expense of everyone else is testament, once again, to the demagogical pretentions of the champions of austerity and neoliberalism that the government should stay out of the market’s affairs.

While public banking could certainly mitigate or do away with market turbulences that are due to financial bubbles and bursts, it will not preclude other systemic crises of capitalism. These include profitability crises that could result from very high levels of capitalization, from insufficient demand or under-consumption, from overcapacity or overproduction, or from disproportionality between various sectors of a market economy. To do away with the systemic crises of capitalism, therefore, requires more than nationalization of banks; it requires changing the capitalist system itself.

Source and references:


Related:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Άρχισαν να το μετανιώνουν από τώρα οι 'νοικοκυραίοι' πατριώτες;

failed evolution
Δεν θα μπορούσαμε να φανταστούμε ότι θα δικαιωνόμασταν τόσο γρήγορα. Ήδη από τα τέλη Μαΐου είχαμε γράψει:

Οι νεοφιλελεύθεροι ιμπεριαλιστές λοιπόν έστησαν το τέλειο κόλπο. Θέλοντας να ετοιμάσουν την απόλυτα αφοσιωμένη μαριονέτα τους, τον Κυριάκο Μητσοτάκη, για να αναλάβει την εξουσία, έστησαν το σκηνικό στα μέτρα του. Έβαλαν τον Τσίπρα να υπογράψει μνημόνιο, να υπογράψει τη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών και γενικά να κάνει όλη τη βρόμικη δουλειά για να μη λερωθεί ο 'ατσαλάκωτος' Κυριάκος.
Το εγχώριο μιντιακό κατεστημένο δεν έχασε χρόνο. Άρχισε αμέσως νέες επιχειρήσεις προπαγάνδας με επίκεντρο τη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών, προκειμένου να φανεί ότι η εγχώρια δεξιά, όσο και αν έχει αλλάξει, δεν έχει χάσει τα πατριωτικά ανακλαστικά της, σε αντίθεση με τους 'προδότες Αριστερούς'.  
Η προπαγάνδα έπιασε, και ένα σημαντικό ποσοστό των λούμπεν μικροαστών πήγε στην κάλπη θυμωμένο, προκειμένου να τιμωρήσει τον 'ανθέλληνα' Τσίπρα. Η μιντιακή πλύση εγκεφάλου κατάφερε με τ…

Εθνικές εκλογές 2019: τι μας επιφυλάσσει ο νεοφιλελεύθερος εφιάλτης που επιστρέφει δριμύτερος

Οι προβλέψεις φαίνεται να επαληθεύονται εντυπωσιακά. Όπως είχαμε αναφέρει ήδη από το 2016 και αμέσως μετά την εκλογή Μητσοτάκη στην ηγεσία της ΝΔ, το αποτέλεσμα των εσωτερικών εκλογών στη γαλάζια παράταξη έλυνε τα χέρια του άξονα Βρυξελλών-Βερολίνου. Οι γραφειοφασίστες των Βρυξελλών και το διευθυντήριο του Βερολίνου απέκτησαν μια πρώτης τάξεως εφεδρεία σε περίπτωση που τα πράγματα "στράβωναν" με την κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα.  

globinfo freexchange 

Η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ έδωσε κάποια μικρά σημάδια ανυπακοής ενάντια στη λιτότητα που επιβάλλει το νεοφιλελεύθερο ιερατείο, ρέποντας 'επικίνδυνα' προς μια πιο φιλολαϊκή πολιτική. Δεν είναι τυχαίο φυσικά ότι τα πρώτα αυτά σημάδια άρχισαν να γίνονται ορατά μόλις η χώρα βγήκε από το πρόγραμμα επιτήρησης που επέβαλε η Τρόικα (έστω και τυπικά).

Παρόλο που το τοπίο καταστροφής στην οικονομία είναι κάτι παραπάνω από ορατό, λόγω των επιβαλλόμενων καταστροφικών πολιτικών του ΔΝΤ, η κυβέρνηση έσπευσε να εκμεταλλευτεί τα διευρυμένα περιθ…

Την ώρα που ο Μητσοτάκης σχεδιάζει ασφαλιστικό Πινοσέτ, ο πιο δημοφιλής υποψήφιος για την Αμερικανική προεδρία κυρήσσει πόλεμο στις ασφαλιστικές

globinfo freexchange

Σοκ και δέος είχαν προκαλέσει οι δηλώσεις Καραγκούνη το Σεπτέμβριο του 18 περί "ασφαλιστικού Πινοσέτ" προλειαίνοντας το έδαφος για τους σχεδιασμούς μιας πιθανής κυβέρνησης Μητσοτάκη. 
Λίγο πριν τις εκλογές της 7ης Ιουλίου, η ΝΔ έδωσε μια πρόγευση του τι πρόκειται να επακολουθήσει στον τομέα της ασφάλισης. Ορισμένα γαλάζια στελέχη προσπάθησαν να διασκεδάσουν τις εντυπώσεις δηλώνοντας ότι δεν πρόκειται να ιδιωτικοποιηθεί ο ασφαλιστικός κλάδος και υπονοώντας (ως συνήθως) ότι τέτοιες υπερβολές οφείλονται στην "Αριστερή προπαγάνδα".

Όμως η απόλυτη αφοσίωση του σκληρού πυρήνα της γαλάζιας παράταξης στη νεοφιλελεύθερη ιδεολογία είναι κάτι παραπάνω από φανερή. Είναι σχεδόν βέβαιο ότι νεοφιλελεύθεροι 'τζιχαντιστές' της δεξιάς ονειρεύονται πλήρη ιδιωτικοποίηση υγείας, ασφάλισης, παιδείας, ως πρώτο πιάτο στο μενού του νεοφιλελεύθερου 'οδοστρωτήρα'.

Οι μιντιακοί γκεμπελίσκοι και τα δεξιά τρολ κραυγάζουν εναντίον της Αριστερής "ιδεοληψί…

The Greeks have just committed suicide by electing the most fanatically neoliberal government ever

globinfo freexchange

The result of the recent Greek national elections will puzzle future historians for decades. The Greek voters gave a clear victory to the conservative right party, New Democracy, which will govern with 158 seats, without the need to make any coalitions.
It could be characterized a "paradoxical" result mainly for two reasons:
First, the voters gave a clear governmental order to one of the traditional powers of the old political system, which are highly responsible for the Greek crisis that erupted in 2010. Several top names of the new government, and even New Democracy leader, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, have been accused of being involved in various corruption scandals, in the not so distant past.
Second, the fact that the voters elected perhaps the most fanatically neoliberal government ever. This means that Mitsotakis administration is expected to implement the brutal neoliberal policies imposed by Greece's creditors to the letter. Recall that those polic…

Σοκ και δέος από την υφυπουργό εργασίας της κυβέρνησης Μητσοτάκη: "καταφέραμε να μειώσουμε πάρα πολύ το κόστος εργασίας" (!!!)

globinfo freexchange
Ήταν Απρίλιος του 2017. Η τότε σύμβουλος μεταρρυθμίσεων του Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη και νυν υφυπουργός Εργασίας στην κυβέρνησή του, Δόμνα Μιχαηλίδου, δήλωνε στο άκρως φιλικό περιβάλλον του ΣΚΑΙ:
"Η Ελλάδα μεταξύ 2013-2014 ήταν πρωταγωνίστρια στις μεταρρυθμίσεις και στις μεταρρυθμίσεις ανταγωνιστικότητας. Και σύμφωνα με στοιχεία από τον ΟΟΣΑ και σύμφωνα με στοιχεία από την Παγκόσμια Τράπεζα, είχαμε πάρα πολύ μεγάλη άνοδο της ανταγωνιστικότητας.  [...] Καταφέραμε να μειώσουμε πάρα πολύ το κόστος εργασίας. Το εργασιακό μπήκε σε ένα πλαίσιο πιο ευέλικτο, το μισθολογικό μπήκε σε ένα πλαίσιο πολύ πιο σκληρό, οπότε καταφέραμε να μειώσουμε το κόστος εργασίας."

Προσέξτε όμως κάτι πολύ χαρακτηριστικό. Ο δημοσιογράφος του ΣΚΑΙ, πριν κάνει την ερώτησή του, παρουσιάζει ορισμένα στοιχεία που δείχνουν ότι οι χώρες με τα πιο ακριβά μεροκάματα (Ελβετία, Γερμανία) βρίσκονται στην κορυφή του πίνακα της ανταγωνιστικότητας. Επιπλέον, στην επόμενη καρτέλα, παρουσιάζει τ…

Preparing the invasion of Iran: the US empire regroups its proxies in Afghanistan

globinfo freexchange

On the occasion of the recent attack against two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, we estimated that the US imperialists will follow a certain scenario to achieve primary goal, which is to fully control the Strait of Hormuz. The goal could be achieved through a strategically and geographically restricted, fast-track invasion of Iran.

A certain part of the operation could include some US forces and proxies inside Afghanistan.

As we wrote, already since 2017 the US announced that it will increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan, and one reason probably has to do with Iran. A significant number of US troops on the Iranian eastern border would be very useful. It will be used to keep the Iranian forces busy and gradually weaken the Iranian operational capabilities in an extended attrition war. This will permit the US to gradually secure and establish their presence in the Strait of Hormuz.

This attrition war could be held - and probably would be more effecti…

Πρόγραμμα ΝΔ: το απόλυτο τίποτα της νεοφιλελεύθερης καταστροφής

του system failure
Είναι πολύ εύκολο να καταλάβει κανείς το σχέδιο Μητσοτάκη για την επόμενη μέρα, με βάση αυτό που διαφημίζει ως "πρόγραμμα". Η χειρότερη δεξιά της μεταπολίτευσης, φανατικά προσηλωμένη στον καταστροφικό νεοφιλελευθερισμό, έχει ως βασικό και απ'ότι φαίνεται μοναδικό στόχο, τις επενδύσεις και την ανάπτυξη. Δηλαδή, με λίγα λόγια, ο Κυριάκος θα πατήσει ένα κουμπί και όλα τα άλλα θα τα κάνουν οι περίφημες αγορές. Θα'ρθουν επενδυτές, θα δημιουργήσουν θέσεις εργασίας, θα επιστρέψουν οι νέοι από το εξωτερικό και η νεκρή μεσαία τάξη θα αναστηθεί ως εκ θαύματος. 
Μια μεσαία τάξη που, κατά τη λογική των μιντιακώνγκεμπελίσκων και των δεξιών τρολ, καταστράφηκε επί ΣΥΡΙΖΑ. Λες και δεν υπήρχε χώρα πριν το 15. Λες και η γαλαζοπράσινη λαίλαπα δεν χρεοκόπησε τη χώρα, δεν πετσόκοψε μισθούς και συντάξεις, δεν ρήμαξε τα ασφαλιστικά ταμεία, δεν έσωσε τα τραπεζιτικά παράσιτα με δισεκατομμύρια στέλνοντας τον λογαριασμό στα συνήθη υποζύγια. 
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι…

Αδίστακτοι, αμετανόητοι, φανατικοί: οι νεοφιλελεύθεροι 'τζιχαντιστές' της δεξιάς θέλουν να δώσουν και άλλο πακέτο στις τράπεζες!

globinfo freexchange

Είναι τόσο αδίστακτοι και φανατικοί; Ναι, είναι. Μετά την πρόγευση που πήραμε για τον εργασιακό μεσαίωνα και το ασφαλιστικό Πινοσέτ που ετοιμάζει μια πιθανή κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη, ήρθε άλλο ένα στέλεχος του σκληρού νεοφιλελεύθερου πυρήνα να αποκαλύψει άλλη μια συνιστώσα της νεοφιλελεύθερης λαίλαπας που έρχεται: νέο πακέτο δισεκατομμυρίων για τις τράπεζες, σε βάρος φυσικά των γνωστών υποζυγίων. 
Βλέποντας τη διαφορά που πήρε η ΝΔ στις ευρωεκλογές και τις δημοσκοπήσεις να της δίνουν σταθερό προβάδισμα, οι νεοφιλελεύθεροι 'τζιχαντιστές' της δεξιάς έχουν αποθρασυνθεί εντελώς και δεν μπορούν να κρατήσουν ούτε τα προσχήματα. 
Σοκ και δέος, λοιπόν, αυτή τη φορά από τις δηλώσεις του Μπάμπη Παπαδημητρίου. Ο δημοσιογράφος του ΣΚΑΪ και υποψήφιος βουλευτής με τη ΝΔ δήλωσε στον ραδιοφωνικό σταθμό Real News ότι «η εποπτεία λέει ότι τα κόκκινα δάνεια, τα οποία είναι το μεγάλο πρόβλημα των τραπεζών και τις εμποδίζει να κάνουν πιο καλά τη δουλειά τους θα απορροφηθούν τ…

CIA's critical role in the revival of Islamic fundamentalism

globinfo freexchange

Historian, journalist and Marxist intellectual, Vijay Prashad, describes to Afshin Rattansi the growing relationship between the US, CIA and radical Islam.

As Prashad points out:

The Muslim intellectuals - of, firstly, the Tsarist Empire, but then, all the way out to Iran and to Indonesia - understood and recognized that the promise of equality and humanity was not going to be established merely spiritually. And so, you had an attempt by many scholars - again from Indonesia out to Iraq - trying to reconcile Islam and Marxism.
This was such an enormous threat that in the 1960s, the CIA colluded with the Saudis to create a group called the World Muslim League, whose express purpose was to break this link. And they forcibly pushed a kind of right-wing Islam to undercut it, whether it's up in Dagestan and Chechnya, or it's in Indonesia. And you see the fruits of it today.
Afghanistan was not a country of very conservative hyper-masculinist form of Islam. It wa…

Ο όχι και τόσο σοφός λαός έδωσε αυτοδυναμία στη χειρότερη δεξιά της μεταπολίτευσης

του system failure
Κυκλοφορεί συχνά-πυκνά το μύθευμα ότι ο λαός είναι σοφός και επιλέγει τους εκπροσώπους του με σοφία. Το συγκεκριμένο κλισέ που αναπαράγεται κοντά σε κάτι άλλα χαριτωμένα του τύπου "στη δημοκρατία δεν υπάρχουν αδιέξοδα", υπονοεί σχεδόν ότι, με κάποιον μυστηριώδη και μεταφυσικό τρόπο, μια ετερόκλητη μάζα εκατομμυρίων ψηφοφόρων καταφέρνει να συνεννοηθεί λίγο πριν από τις κάλπες για να εκλέξει ένα πολιτικά ισορροπημένο κοινοβούλιο, ότι και αν σημαίνει αυτό. 
Στις τελευταίες εκλογές, οι ψηφοφόροι έδωσαν αυτοδυναμία στην πιο νεοφιλελεύθερη δεξιά όλων των εποχών, πράγμα που εκ πρώτης όψεως φαντάζει παράλογο, ειδικά μετά από τις καταστροφικές νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές που επέβαλαν οι δανειστές στα χρόνια της κρίσης. Πολιτικές που έφεραν τη χώρα και την οικονομία σε χειρότερη κατάσταση.  
Φαντάζει ακόμα πιο παράλογο και για το γεγονός ότι οι ψηφοφόροι έδωσαν αυτοδυναμία σε ένα από τα κόμματα του παλαιοκομματικού κατεστημένου, το οποίο ευθύνεται σε μεγάλο βαθ…