Category Archives: Globalisation

The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class: Corporate Power in the 21st Century (2010) by Dr. William K. Carroll

06 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Imperialism, Critical Theory, Globalisation, Marxian Theory (Marxism), Neoliberalism, Political Economy, Political Science, Sociology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

transnationalcapitalistclasswilliamkcarrollamazonLUMPENPROLETARIAT—On this week’s edition of free speech radio’s Project Censored, Dr. William K. Carroll discussed his classic and influential book, The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class: Corporate Power in the 21st Century, on the capitalist imperialism of Euro-North American hegemony, represented by interlocking directorates, corporate power, and resisted by various social movements. [1]

Leslie Sklair (London School of Economics), author of The Transnational Capitalist Class (2001), called Professor Carroll‘s The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class, “the most significant recent contribution on the transnational capitalist class.”  Listen (and/or download) here. [2]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Project Censored.]

ProjectCensoredPROJECT CENSORED—[6 JAN 2017]  [KPFA station ID by Erica Bridgeman(sp?)]

[Project Censored theme music:  “We Want” by Junkyard Empire]

“Welcome to the Project Censored show on Pacifica Radio.  I’m Mickey Huff with Peter Phillips.

“On today’s programme, we discuss The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class: Corporate Power in the 21st Century.  We’ll be joined for the first segment by Professor William Carroll to speak about his book on the topic of the transnational capitalist class.  Later in the programme, we’re joined by journalist Sunsara Taylor and activist Rafael Kadaris, of RefuseFascism.org, to talk about the growing resistance against the incoming Trump administration. [3]  Please stay with us. (c. 1:25)

[brief musical interlude]

“Welcome to the Project Censored show.  I’m Mickey Huff, with Peter Phillips.  On today’s programme, for the first segment, we’ll be talking about an ongoing theme we’ve dealt with on the programme, and certainly a theme, that has been researched and we’ve published about [in the annual Project Censored book].  Peter Phillips has written about the transnational capitalist class in the last several of the Project Censored books in varying degrees.

“And, today, we are going to be in conversation with William Carroll, who is an expert on the matter.  And here is Peter to properly introduce our guest to you.  Peter?” (c. 2:04)

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Bill Carroll is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Victoria, where he directs the Social Justice Studies programme.  His research interests are political economy and corporate capitalism, various social justice movements, associated with social justice and critical social theory.

“His most recent book is The Making of the Transnational Capitalist Class.  And a recent article he wrote was ‘Neoliberalism and the Transnational Capitalist Class‘.

“So, Bill, welcome.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Thanks very much.  Thanks for having me.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “What is your definition of, or overall understanding of, the transnational capitalist class?” (c. 2:38)

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “There’s a lot of discussion of that—you know?—exactly how to bound the transnational capitalist class.  Who is in it?  And who isn’t in it?  For example, Donald Trump.  The man’s a transnational capitalist.  In some respects, he certainly is, in terms of the reach of his investments; although, they expand beyond it.  And that’s often the case these days.  And, so, it does depend on how you bound it.  (c. 3:00)

“My own research has really looked at, sort of, what I call the leading edge of the transnational capitalist class.  And those are the people, who are really engaged in pretty high level global corporate elite relations and practices.  They might be involved in transnational policy groups, you know, like the World Economic Forum or the Trilateral Commission.  But they sit on corporate boards.  I guess, in terms—you might—it’s just a basic sort of nuts and bolts criterion for it.

“They will be sitting on multiple corporate boards, that span across national borders.  So, they’re involved in, really, transnational corporate business in a networked way.  At the top of the power structure, as directors and executives of the largest corporations.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “And these policy groups, that these folks are involved in, like the International Chamber of Commerce, the Bilderberger, the Trilateral Commission—” (c. 3:53)

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “M-hm.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “—the World Economic Forum?  Are you saying, then, that those are setting global policies, in terms of monetary policy or other agendas for various nation states?” (c. 4:05)

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “They’re definitely part of the policy planning process.  There’s no question that they have influence.  It’s not as if they dictate policy.  But they have influence; and, of course, the influence is more than just the kind of policy positions, that they’re taking and communicating to state officials and the lobbying processes and that kind of thing.” (c. 4:24)

“But it’s structurally underpinned by the power of the corporations themselves and the structural power of transnational capital, which is a power to invest or divest, to move one’s capital somewhere else, especially, in an era of financialisation, you know, where a lot of capital exists in financial forms.  So, it’s very easy to move it around and to desert, let’s say, a currency, if a particular government moves too far from the neoliberal framework, that’s hegemonic globally these days—although, somewhat tattered; I would say.  In some ways, discredited by the [Global Financial] Crisis of, uh, 2008-2009 [sic]. (c. 5:01)

“And, yet, enjoying a kind of second life, you know, in a weird way through the various austerity programmes, that came in after all the bank bailouts and everything to sort of pay for those bank bailouts.

“So, it’s a bit of a long-winded answer.  But I think the policy groups definitely have influence.  And, you know, if you look at some of these groups, they’re quite strategic.  For example, the transatlantic business dialogue, which has a board comprised of, you know, the major transatlantic capitalists.  They, basically, they shadow the international meetings of state leaders and so forth in the mid-Atlantic region.  And they prepare briefings papers, that they submit before each summit and so on and so forth.

“So, they’re, sort of, in a sense, in the background of the whole policy formation process.”  (c. 5:44)

MICKEY HUFF:  “Bill Carroll, Mickey Huff, here.  This is Project Censored show, Pacifica Radio.  I have two questions.

“One of them just came up because you mentioned the north atlantic.  And I couldn’t help but think of NATO.  And Peter Phillips has certainly written about the transnational capitalist class, in terms of its connections to military companies and contractors and these types of things.

“But how do you see any kind of relationship between this groups of individuals and some of the powers of NATO and how that might help direct policy?”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Definitely.  There are points of contact, informally at least.  This isn’t something I’ve really researched.  But, for example, the Bilderberg conferences generally involve transnational capitalists as well as various state officials.  And the Bilderberg group line has generally been pro-NATO, you know, from its conception in the early ’50s.  So, it’s, sort of, unscripted and undocumented elite discussion, that takes place annually.  And I’m sure that, in those discussions, if, you know, if we were flies on the wall or something, we’d probably hear people talking about specific issues, including NATO.

“NATO’s interesting, again, in terms of thinking about Trump and Trumpism, whatever that might turn out to be.  It’s a bit hard to say at this point.  But, you know, he certainly created a certain panic among European elites, in terms of some of his statements and cosying up to Russia.

“So, you know, the kind of status quo geopolitical power arrangements are, I would say, distinct from the transnational capitalist class has influence in, uh, in geopolitics and, generally, has an interest in open borders and open investment, political stability, which often means the use of force against local left movements and dissident groups and so on and so forth to try to really secure stable conditions for capital accumulation in various countries throughout the world.” (c. 7:34)

MICKEY HUFF:  “And that, surely, goes back to at least Smedley Butler, uh, going way back over, uh, up to a hundred years, even, and certainly in the first two decades of the 20th Century.

“That leads to the second part of what I wanted to ask you about.  But I wanted to know if you could somehow, maybe, encapsulate or give listeners kind of a brief history of the rise of what you are calling the transnational capitalist class.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “My research is, really, sort of looking at the leading edge, or the top tier, of the transnational capitalist class.  I mean capitalism has been sort of transnational and kind of a globalising force for, you know, five centuries.

“But you begin to trace these power structures coming into being and being consolidated in the 20th Century, and progressively more so in the Post-WWII era, where you really have a new American leadership, or hegemony, a global economy opening up under the U.S. Open Door policy.

“And, so, the former structure, if you like, of imperialism, which involved competing states and states trying to secure spheres of influence through colonisation processes, or things resembling that, that begins to break down.  And, instead, you get development over a long period of time, from the ’40s into the ’70s and ’80s, of this less and less enclosed world, in a sense, of political borders to capital mobility. (c. 8:53)

“And, with that, you have transnational corporations, of course, developing an increasingly internationalised financial system.  And, at the top of that power structure, you have the executives and directors of those largest corporations of those financial institutions.  And, as they’re investing more and more globally, they begin to cohere into a transnational corporate elite.  My colleague Meindert Fennema, really, did the path-breaking work on this sociologically, in terms of networks of the transnational capitalist class in the early 1970s.  He was able to trace it, at that point.

“But, basically, the structure has been very, very much Euro-North American, in terms of the major participants and the way the network of elite relations, these [inaudible] who are sort of sitting on each other’s boards. that that is really a structure, that is very strongly developed in Europe and North America.  And the whole EU integration process has actually deepened that process in Europe.  But the rest of the world is rather peripheral to the network. (c. 9:53)

“So, Japan has some connections into the transnational corporate elite network, but not that many.  And the global south is, larglely, out of the picture.  But, in the past 20 years, there has been some increase in that, you know, with the development of the so-called BRICS and so on.  The high rates of capital accumulation in very large corporations developing in countries, like Brazil; obviously, China; India—that these corporate directors and executives of the really large corporations in the global south are beginning to hook into the transnational corporate elite.  But they still occupy quite a marginal position compared to the European and North American capitalists.” (c. 10:31)

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Bill Carroll, you have done research showing the interlocks of major corporations, particularly in Canada, but also around the world.  And one of the things, since the [Global] Financial Crisis of 2007-08, you say there has been a thinning, so to speak, of interlocks between major corporations worldwide.  Does that play into the further establishment of these policy groups, the Trilateral Commission and others, that kind of cement opportunities for corporations and CEOs to talk to each other?” (c. 11:05)

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Yeah.  I do think so.  I think the policy groups have been proliferating.  And that corporate policy elite network is a very important apparatus, if you like—again, informal.  It’s not as if there’s someone formally directing all of this.  It’s, really, a matter of, sort of, powerful people being recruited to the boards of these policy groups because they are powerful people, and they have connections and insights about how the world works and so on and so forth.  What we end up with is a pretty dense network of corporate executives and directors, who are connected through their participation in the transnational policy groups.

“And, then, at the same time, there has been a thinning of the interlocks among corporations themselves.  This is an uneven process.  But, in some countries, these corporate elite networks have been quite dramatically.  Japan would be an example of that.  And it has to do with a number of factors.  And one of the main ones is corporate governance reforms coming out of various financial scandals in the 1980s and in the 1990s, so that by the mid-1990s the OECD, for example, had adopted best practice guidelines for how corporate boards should be structured and tried to, basically, reign in the tendency toward a kind of very hierarchical, closed kind of old boys club, and tried to make boards more efficient, so that they could be better generators of corporate profit by making the boards smaller and limiting the involvements of corporate directors on other boards.

“So, there’s still plenty of interlocking happening.  But it’s at a lower rate than it used to be before some of these governance reforms came in.” (c. 12:45)

MICKEY HUFF:  “This is the Project Censored show on Pacifica Radio.  I’m Mickey Huff, with Peter Phillips.  We’re in conversation with Professor Bill Carroll.  The topic is the transnational capitalist class.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Bill, I would like you to talk about neoliberalism and how that seems to be a continually core philosophy for the transnational capitalist class.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Neoliberalism really has a long history, a deeper history than we often think.  We often identify it with Margaret Thatcher, which is fair enough, in terms of the political mobilisation of neoliberalism in the 1970s in the global north.  But we can take it back to Augusto Pinochet and the coup in Chile in 1973 because, really, Pinochet implemented the first neoliberal project.

“And, before that, there was the development of neoliberal thinking and policy frameworks within the Mont Pelerin Society, beginning in the 1940s, led by the famous economist-philosopher Hayak.  And, really, from Hayak’s writings forward, neoliberalism through Milton Friedman and so on and so forth involves a kind of policy framework, if you like, that recognises capital as the source of wealth and growth and prosperity.  And states are burdens on capital.

“Basically, the philosophy is one of trying to free investment to, basically, seek the highest profits in unregulated markets, trying to privatise public assets because public assets are, again, a drain on wealth creation.  And, so, it’s a philosophy, that really centers the world around the market.  But, of course, in our era, which is an era of very large corporations, not free competition, when you do that, what you’re actually doing is accentuating corporate power.  So, the more capital is deregulated, the more public assets are privatised, and so on and so forth, which are basic to neoliberalism as a framework, the greater the power of capitalists and, especially, the capitalist, that control the very major corporations and financial institutions, the more power they have to move things around, to make the decisions, that they think will maximise their profits.  (c. 15:00)

“And, I guess, in my view, the problem with neoliberalism is that it doesn’t recognise the way capital is actually a parasitic phenomenon, in the sense that it really is generated out of people’s work.  And, so, the labour, that people are doing in factories or in the service sector, whatever, gets turned into capital and turned into profit, some of which goes back to workers as wages.  But the basic system is one of accumulating private wealth in the hands of a very small class of people.

“And neoliberalism is, really, in that sense, I would agree with David Harvey, it’s very much a part of class warfare.  It’s a kind of reassertion of the power of capital in every day life, in the public sphere, in the private sphere, and certainly vis-à-vis the state.”  (c. 15:50)

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Certainly, Bill, you’ve written about the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which supports, and is closely involved with, over 400 think tanks worldwide, that support neoliberal policies.  That’s a massive network.  And huge amounts of money go into that.  They, of course, influence the media and push that agenda.

“Do you see Donald Trump, with his sort of neoliberal privatisation policies supporting this globally?  Or is going to be more in isolating the United States economically?”  (c. 16:28)

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Yeah.  I think Trump is a very interesting phenomenon.  I mean, when Thatcher came to power in the, uh, ’70s, and through the ’80s when she was in power and, really, effecting the transformations, that became neoliberalism and were generalised beyond Britain, of course.  You know?  And Reagan was doing the same thing at the same time.

“When all of that happened, a term that came into parlance, at least among academics, is authoritarian populism.  And, you know, I think Thatcher, certainly, was an authoritarian populist.  But, in a sense, Donald Trump takes that to a new level, in terms of the combination of, kind of, white nationalism, that is in some ways in tension with neoliberalism—at least, they say, Hillary Clinton-style neoliberalism.

“And, on the other hand, he is, himself, a well-placed billionaire capitalist with all sorts of investments and so on and so forth—and, certainly, is a neoliberal in a very basic sense that he believes in the logic of capital.  So, for example, his public works programme is going to be a kind of programme, that privileges corporations and to some extent may be a kind of crony capitalist operation.  It’s hard to say at this point.  We don’t know.  He’s not yet president.  (c. 17:39)

“But, in any case, he is in some ways, I think, a neoliberal.  And, in some ways, his nationalism runs against the grain of neoliberalism, which is why right now there’s so much questioning and tension, I think around the phenomenon and what it might mean for what has been a fairly settled neoliberal hegemony in the world, despite the 2008 [Global] Financial Crisis, that I mentioned earlier.”  (c. 18:02)

MICKEY HUFF:  “Bill Carroll, taking a look at some of the characters, that have begun populating the incoming Trump administration, these are pretty establishment characters, however.  I mean, certainly, we could riff on the authoritarian populism.  That was certainly a component to the campaigning and the rhetoric, that we saw here in the U.S.

“But what about the actual people, that are being put in cabinet positions?  I mean these are Wall Street insiders.  You’ve mentioned crony capitalism.  In many ways, is this not business as usual?”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “I agree.  I think it’s hard to read at this point, I would say.  Like, his cabinet—his cabinet is looks to me like a combination of corporate boardroom and a military junta.  But—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “Sounds like fascism.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “But I think the people in the cabinet, a lot of them, are pretty mainstream people.  Who knows if Hillary Clinton, uh—she, actually, did win the election.  But she, you know—if she were the president-elect assembling a cabinet, she might have chosen some of the same people—” [Mickey Huff overlapping]

MICKEY HUFF:  “Well, that’s the issue.  Right?”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Yeah—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “Which is back to business as usual.”  (c. 19:06)

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Yeah—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “For neoliberalism, at any rate.

“What do you see in the strain here, maybe, that is a shot across the bow of neoliberalism, outside of ire and angst in the electorate?  You know.  We don’t have time to bring Brexit in it, and all these other things into the discussion, perhaps.

“But I mean what are some signals you see here in, uh, perhaps, that—what might be different in Trump?”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Well, I think the signals so far have been sort of Tweets and—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “[laughs]  Yeah.  Okay.  Yeah.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “—and right through his term in office.  But—”

MICKEY HUFF:  ” [laughs] “

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “You know.  Things, you know—how much of this was prearranged or exactly how it took place, we don’t really know.

“But, for example, the pressure put on Ford to invest in the United States and to, in fact, divest or not do a project in Mexico, that it was planning to do.  It’s, um, I think maybe the idea of scrapping NAFTA—I mean I don’t think NAFTA will be scrapped—but the renegotiation, which could happen, um, that I think it certainly has people, neoliberals, concerned because NAFTA is sort of the, you know, it’s the template for so much of what has happened, in terms of these investor rights agreements.

“But I agree with you.  I don’t think we’re looking at a massive shift with Trump, except that he does have this authoritarian populist or semi-fascist—however we wanna describe it—aspect to his thinking and to his politick.  And we just have to wait and see how that plays out, I guess.

“But some of his cabinet appointments and some of his advisors, like his chief advisor are, really, far-right activists.  And that’s a bit different.”  (c. 20:52)

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Certainly, the idea of the final conclusion of the New Deal seems to be part of this administration’s focus, and whether or not they can take Social Security and privatise it, and the safety net programmes, essentially, eliminate or weed down to very, very low levels.

“That authoritarian populism combined with the negations of ethnic groups—”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “M-hm.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “—Muslims and immigrants, really does speak to a strong fascism agenda, that—I mean when we go to the actual definition of fascism.  Would you—”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Yeah.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “—agree with that?”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Yeah.  I think it’s always tricky, you know, that F-word.  You know.  What is fascism?  Uh, what—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “Well, in a—

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “In terms of political science, not in terms of Nazism and so forth.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “The aspect of it, that I see, is particularly fascist is the tendency, I think, in Trump from the beginning of his campaigning to really not be interested in open political discussion, debate of issues.  I think his approach is that of kind of very powerful corporate executive.  And I think that’s how he will run the state, to the extent that the president runs the state, which is, you know, definitely has considerable power.  And I think there is a kind of fascism in that, you know, a kind of commitment to the regnant goals of capital and of business.  I’m not sure what he’s gonna end up, in terms of the labour front.  He’s got a Labor Secretary, who is basically opposed to minimum wages. [laughs] You know?

“I mean this is—I think part of fascism is a kind of attack on labour, typically, and on democratic rights, on minority groups, as you mentioned.  And, so, we can see that in Trump.  And I guess we’ll just have to wait and see and figure out how to resist the actual policies, that might come forward under that flag.”  (c. 22:54)

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Bill Carroll, we’re gonna wrap up here pretty quick.  And I just really want you to talk about the transnational capitalist class and its agenda for the world, the privatisation, and the free flow of capital anywhere in the world.  And I really have to think of the American military empire and NATO as in support of that agenda.  So, capital seeks its own places for return.  And that is an ongoing agreement.  Could you comment a little bit on that?”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Well, yeah.  I think ever since, um, you know, again, the original neoliberal project of Thatcherism, neoliberalism has always relied on a strong state to secure them the conditions for the so-called free market, for capital investor rights and mobility and so on and so forth.

“So, I think that translates also, at the international level, to the need for strong militaristic and state back-up to the power of corporations, themselves.  And I don’t see that changing, certainly, I think that is the trajectory of the transnational capitalist class.

“If it’s going to change, it will be pressure from below through democratic movements, that seek alternatives to corporate power, globally and locally.

“But I think neoliberalism, as I’ve mentioned, is in some ways rather discredited.  And, yet, there isn’t any strong alternative, that’s been presented successfully.  Although, I think, Bernie Sanders, you know, with his kind of social-democratic vision was very important and very instructive to see how much traction that got among the American public.

“And, similirly, in Britain with Jeremy Corbyn.  So, you know, we can sort of see.  We can see opposition to neoliberalism, the Pink Tide in Latin America and so on and so forth; developments in South Africa.  But I think we’ve got a real uphill struggle, in the sense of how entrenched, uh, that, both, power of capital and the power of the state and, as you say, the US military, but also the broader kind of global governance framework, that’s come in as part of neoliberalism.”  (c. 25:05)

MICKEY HUFF:  “We’ve been talking today about the transnational capitalist class.  We’ve been joined by Professor of Sociology at the University of Victoria, Bill Carroll.  The book we’ve been discussing is called The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class: Corporate Power in the 21st Century.

“Bill Carroll, thanks so much for taking time out to join the Project Censored show today.”

DR. WILLIAM K. CARROLL:  “Oh, you’re most welcome.”  (c. 25:28)

[End of interview with Dr. William K. Carroll.] 

MICKEY HUFF:  “After this musical break, we’ll be back to talk about the incoming Trump administration and resistance growing towards it.  Please stay with us.”

[brief music break]  (c. 26:00)

[Begin interview with activist Rafael Kadaris (of RefuseFascism) and journalist Sunsara Taylor on Refuse Fascism actions against Trump taking the White House.]

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at PROJECT CENSORED.

***

[1]  About the author:

Dr. William K. Carroll, a.k.a. Bill Carroll, is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.  He is known for his work on interlocking directorates, corporate power, and social movements.  His published works include

Expose, Oppose, Propose: Alternative Policy Groups and the Struggle for Global Justice (2016); The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class (2010)

Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication (with Robert Hackett, 2006)

Challenges and Perils: Social Democracy in Neoliberal Times (with R.S. Ratner, 2005)

Corporate Power in a Globalizing World (2004, recipient of the 2005 John Porter Tradition of Excellence Book Award of the Canadian Sociological Association)

Critical Strategies for Social Research (2004)

Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements (1997)

Corporate Power and Canadian Capitalism (1986, recipient of the 1988 John Porter Award).

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

William K. Carroll was born in 1952 close to Washington, DC.  He immigrated to Canada with his family in 1968, where he attended Brock University in Niagara Falls, and then York University in Toronto.  He obtained his Ph.D. in Sociology in 1981, and the same year accepted a position at the University of Victoria, where he still teaches.

RESEARCH

Bill Carroll is considered a leading Canadian critical sociologist.[i]  His research on the political economy of corporate capitalism, social movements, social change, and critical social theory and method is informed by Marxist and post-Marxist theory, and especially the writings of Antonio Gramsci.  Dr. Carroll produced major empirical work investigating the power and social organisation of capitalist classes in Canada and transnationally.  In parallel, he wrote extensively on Canadian and transnational social movements, with a focus on key institutions of knowledge production, such as the media and alternative policy-planning groups.  Over the years, his research has increasingly integrated environmental concerns, and his most recent project maps out the political power of the carbon extractive industry in Western Canada.[ii]

[2]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Project Censored, this one-hour broadcast co–hosted by host Dr. Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, M.A., Friday, 6 JAN 2017, 12:00 PST.

[3]  Rafael Kadaris is a longtime SF Bay Area activist, based in Berkeley’s Revolution Books.  He is an activist organiser with Revolution Club and RCP (i.e, the Revolutionary Communist Party).

I first met Rafael back in 2007, when I attended, and participated in, anti-war direct actions at Dianne Feinstein’s San Francisco offices.  That action was organised by various groups, including World Can’t Wait.  I was there with fellow KPFA board candidate Dr. Sureya Sayadi, a Kurdish-American physician and social justice activist.  (We also marched down the road to join in another demonstration in solidarity with the Jena Six.)  I stayed in touch with Rafael, and others from RCP, for some years in the late-2000s.  Rafael was always a very sincere social justice activist and a kind and compassionate human being.  Although, we haven’t always agreed on everything, politically-speaking—me, being a so-called ‘third–party‘ advocate, and him, having long-rejected electoral politics—I have always appreciated his, and the RCP’s, far-left political stance.  We need our comrades on the far left of the political spectrum to counterbalance the deluge of far right political messaging, which saturates corporate media across the country, and which—without a far-left counterbalance—perpetually shifts the political center rightward.  Activists, such as Rafael, remind us, that we must always demand the impossible and refuse fascism.

One thing is for sure, Rafael proved to prophetic back in 2007 when he argued, as liberals and progressives salivated at the prospect of an Obama Presidency, Rafael sighed, the Democrats and Republicans fool the people every time.  Yes, but we haven’t had an active socialist or communist party in the United States since the so-called Red Scare.  Since then, we haven’t had any semblance of political diversity in the USA.  But that discussion continues.

***

[Image by source, used via fair use.]

[8 JAN 2017]

[Last modified at 16:32 PST on 10 JAN 2017]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Advertisements

“The permanent revolution in and around the Manifesto” by Dr. Emanuele Saccarelli

08 Monday Aug 2016

Posted by in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Imperialism, Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883), Global Labour Movement, Globalisation, History, History of Economic Theory, Marxian Theory (Marxism), Political Economy, Political Science, Sociology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

saccarelli-ATG-AUG2016LUMPENPROLETARIAT—In the context of the collapse of the Bernie Or Bust ‘political revolution‘ and its constituents flooding into the Green Party, free speech radio has taken a moment to turn to the question of revolutions throughout history as well as the concept of permanent revolution.

Dr. Emanuele Saccarelli joined Against the Grain to discuss an essay he contributed to The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto.  Dr. Saccarelli teaches at San Diego State University in the Department of Political Science.  His courses include a course entitled Marxism, and another entitled Democracy and Mass Society.

In this Against the Grain interview, Dr. Saccarelli offered listeners an interesting survey of Marxian analysis orbiting around the concept of permanent revolution.  Listen (and/or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

337px-Karl_Marx_001WikiUser

Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883)

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[8 AUG 2016]  In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels laid out their understanding of how a socialist revolution would unfold. Emanuele Saccarelli shows how that notion changed and evolved, in the minds of Marx, Engels, and a number of subsequent socialist thinkers who took part in debates over the value of reformism versus revolution.

Carver and Farr, eds., The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto Cambridge University Press, 2015

Emanuele Saccarelli, Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinism Routledge, 2009 (paper)

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Against the Grain.]

Gramsci_colorized_photo

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[8 AUG 2016]  “Today on Against the Grain:  How could, how should, a socialist revolution unfold?  Is it up to the working class only to topple the system?  Or should workers act as the left wing of a broader movement to change the status quo?

“Marx, Engels, and a host of radical thinkers, that followed them, grappled with these questions.  I’m C.S. Soong.  Emanuele Saccarelli explores some of the debates around the concept of the permanent revolution and reflects on their relevance today, after these News Headlines with Aileen Alfandary.”  (c. 0:53)

[News Headlines omitted by scribe]

C.S. SOONG:  “From the studios of KPFA in Berkeley, California, this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio.  My name s is C.S. Soong.

“The French Revolution made a deep impression, understandably, on all sorts of political thinkers, including Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

“So, when Marx and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto, they were guided, to a significant extent, by what had transpired in France beginning in 1789.  But what occurred in the revolutions, that shook Europe in 1848 and 1849, just after the Manifesto was published, was very different from how the French Revolution unfolded.  And that led Marx and Engels to change and adapt their understanding.  But it also led subsequent socialist thinkers to read and interpret their Manifesto in different ways.  (c. 6:30)

“Emanuele Saccarelli has written about some of the debates, that arose around how a socialist revolution could, or should, be carried out, whether workers should first fight alongside the capitalist class against, you could say, the enemies of its enemies, or whether only the working class could be counted on to make the kind of revolution, that would fundamentally transform society.

“Emanuele Saccarelli is an associate professor of political science at San Diego State University and the author of Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinism.  He also contributed an essay entitled “The permanent revolution in and around the Manifesto” to The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto, edited by Terrell Carver and James Farr.

“When Manuele Saccarelli joined me from a studio in San Diego, I first asked him to discuss the importance of The Communist Manifesto as a historical, and a political, document.” (c. 7:30)

EMANUELE SACCARELLI:  “The Manifesto is an immensely important political document, not so much at the time of its writing and publication.  Although, even then, they had a definite, let’s say, prophetic quality, that anticipated many of the things, that actually happened, and that continued to happen, as a matter of fact, down to today.

“But, eventually, with the rise of Marxism as a movement, not simply as a series of ideas, as a political movement.  The Manifesto very quickly emerged as a founding text for that particular tradition, due in large part to its remarkable intrinsic quality as a text.  It’s an incredibly moving work, that has an energy and a power, that’s really rare to, sort of, find.  And I think it also speaks very powerfully to contemporary conditions as well.” (c. 8:35)

C.S. SOONG:  “The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.  What prompted Marx and Engels to write it?”

EMANUELE SACCARELLI:  “This is, itself, an interesting story because Marx and Engels are often, sort of, taken as part of the history of Western political thought—you know?—from Plato through various characters.  And they’re certainly part of that.  But they also represent, let’s say, a new type of intellectual, which is not Plato.  And it’s not Machiavelli or Locke.  They were people, who were very directly and militantly involved in political struggle in ways, that the philosophers of the old period were not, typically, with some exceptions.

“And, so, what prompted to write this text was a political series of events and, namely, the appearance of an organisation of workers called the Communist League, which formed.  It used to be called the League of the Just.  And, in 1847, the Communist League came about, consisting largely of workers.  And they required a political programme and a series of conceptions of what it is, that they would fight for.  And enter Marx and Engels, as, at some level, ordinary intellectuals, who went through the usual circuits of university and dissertation, etcetera.  But, by this time, they had decisively cast their lot with ordinary working people.  And, then, really oriented their own talents and skills and sacrifices and efforts to this new cause, which was represented by ordinary working people.

“So, they were, essentially, commissioned to write this text to give principles and guidance to the Communist League.”  (c. 10:37)

C.S. SOONG:  “Now, as you write in this essay in The Cambridge Companion, you write:  The Manifesto does two things.  It offers a historical development of the unfolding of history.  And it addresses how to act, how to take action politically.  Elaborate on those two facets of the document.”

EMANUELE SACCARELLI:  “Those two somewhat correspond to what I just discussed, in terms of, sort of, it operates as a somewhat conventional big idea type of text in the history of Western political thought.

“So, it has a very definite explanation of the historical process and politics and political struggle and the composition of society, the nature of the state, the increasingly international character of all of these processes and questions.  In other words, it seeks to explain how the world and society, in particular, functions.

“And, then, side by side with that, as a manifesto, it also very much encourages and sets itself up as a political intervention in the present.  And, therefore, he has definite has programmatic demands.  It is a manifesto in the ordinary sense of political parties today, which fight for definite things, as opposed to other parties and rival programmes and rival conceptions.

“So, that kind of dual nature is, itself, very interesting.  The programmatic demands are not purely pragmatic.  It’s not just—they don’t emerge arbitrarily.  They emerge, rather, out of the explanation of how society functions and where history is headed.

“Or, flipping that around, the theory of historical development is not purely contemplative or passive.  But it identified very precisely a link in the chain of history, at which, actually, human pressure can be exerted and political action can take place.”  (c. 12:49)

[SNIP]  (c. 40:23)

C.S. SOONG:  “And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio.  My name is C.S. Soong.  Emanuele Saccarelli joins us.  He teachers political science at San Diego State University.  He is the author of Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinism.  And he is co-author, with x, of the volume, Imperialism: Past and Present.  And we are talking about an essay he contributed about “The permanent revolution in and around the Manifesto” to The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto.

“Another set of debates you address, that you bring up in this article have to do with how capitalism would expand around the globe.  And it certainly has, of course.

“What did The Manifesto say about whether, and how, the capitalist system would expand beyond the places and nations, in which it existed in 1847?”

EMANUELE SACCARELLI:  “I think those are some of the most moving and, in a certain sense, correct passages of The Manifesto.  There are some really great, striking phrases there.

“Their basic idea is a version of what, today, we could call globalisation, that capitalism would not remain an insular mode of production, but would, very systematically and very powerfully, expand into every nook and cranny of the globe, which is, of course, precisely what happened.

“One of the striking phrases of The Manifesto is that it would break down Chinese walls, that any kind of national resistance, even on the part of very remarkable civilisations of a precapitalist character would be systematically undermined.  And, if we look at China today, of course, in my view, one of the most important capitalist countries in the world.  It’s certainly crucial to the world capitalist economy.  That’s precisely what happened.

“Another interesting phrase in The Manifesto—and this is very telling, perhaps, of the limitations or problems with the general prognosis, where they basically say that the bourgeoisie will create a world after its own image, which I take to mean, that a version of this, that the original template of social and political transformation of England would be reproduced in all the countries of the world, which would also imply that the political history of England would be reproduced throughout all the countries of the world, meaning a Parliament and, if not the abolition of a monarchy, certainly its substantial curtailing.  (c. 43:08)

“And this is what I think—the reality, as it unfolded, proved to be somewhat more complicated.  Leon Trotsky, whom we talked about earlier has this concept of uneven and combined development. [2]

[SNIP]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

[1]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) (also broadcast simultaneously across the national Pacifica Radio Network) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Against the Grain, this one-hour broadcast hosted by C.S. Soong, Monday, 8 AUG 2016, 12:00 PDT.

This broadcast was re-broadcast by host C.S. Soong on Wednesday, 18 JAN 2017.  The introduction given by C.S. Soong on 18 JAN 2017 is virtually identical to the one given on 8 AUG 2016, with the exception that the 2017 introduction notes that this interview with Emanuele Saccarelli was previously broadcast.  After Aileen Alfandary read the KPFA News Headlines, Against the Grain resumed (c. 5:35).  The opening remarks given by C.S. Soong, following the News, on 18 JAN 2017 also differed slightly:

C.S. SOONG:  “From the studios of KPFA in Berkeley, California, this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio.  My name s is C.S. Soong.

“The French Revolution made a deep impression, understandably, on all sorts of political thinkers, including Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

“So, when Marx and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto, they were guided, to a significant extent, by what had transpired in France beginning in 1789.  But what occurred in the revolutions, that shook Europe in 1848 and 1849, just after the Manifesto was published, was very different than how the French Revolution unfolded.  And that led Marx and Engels to change and adapt their understanding.  But it also led subsequent socialist thinkers to read and interpret their Manifesto in different ways.  (c. 6:35)

“Emanuele Saccarelli has written about some of the debates, that arose around how a socialist revolution could, or should, be carried out, whether workers should first fight alongside the capitalist class against, you could say, the enemies of its enemies, or whether the working class should shun any alliance with the capitalist class, or bourgeoisie.

“Emanuele Saccarelli is an associate professor of political science at San Diego State University and the author of Gramsci and Trotsky in the Shadow of Stalinism.  He also contributed an essay entitled “The permanent revolution in and around the Manifesto” to The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto, edited by Terrell Carver and James Farr.

“When Manuele Saccarelli joined me from a studio in San Diego, I first asked him to discuss the importance of The Communist Manifesto as an historical, and a political, document.” (c. 7:37)

EMANUELE SACCARELLI:  “The Manifesto is an immensely important political document, not so much at the time of its writing and publication.  Although, even then, it had a definite, let’s say, prophetic quality, that anticipated many of the things, that actually happened, and that continued to happen, as a matter of fact, down to today.

“But, eventually, with the rise of Marxism as a movement, not simply as a series of ideas, as a political movement.  The Manifesto very quickly emerged as a founding text for that particular tradition, due in large part to its remarkable intrinsic quality as a text.  It’s an incredibly moving work, that has an energy and a power, that’s really rare to, sort of, find.  And I think it also speaks very powerfully to contemporary conditions as well.” (c. 8:42)

[From this point onward, presumably, this 2017 broadcast should be identical to the 2016 broadcast, with the exception of minor edits for continuity, as with the penultimate sentence, which now omits the words “sort of”.]

[2]  Also see permanent revolution.

***

[12 AUG 2016]

[Last modified at 11:12 PST on 19 JAN 2017]

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky: State Terrorism, Franco-American Style

16 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Anti-War, Globalisation, Police State

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Dr. Michel Chossudovsky is a Canadian economist and author.  He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, known online as GlobalResearch.ca.

Dr. Chossudovsky has acted as an economic adviser to governments of developing nations and has worked as a consultant for international organisations, including the United Nations Development Programme, the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning, the United Nations Population Fund, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organisation, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. [1]

On this week’s episode of Guns and Butter, free speech radio host Bonnie Faulkner broadcast a recent interview with Dr. Michel Chossudovsky spanning a broad range of topics of contemporary political economy, police state repression, and imperial wars. [2]

Messina 

***

[Official programme summary from the KPFA audio archive webpage for Guns and Butter for Wednesday, 16 MAR 2016]

State Terrorism: Franco American Style with Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky’s most recent research on the alleged ISIS terror in Paris, as well as the Radisson Hotel terror in Bamako, Mali, is discussed.  Analysis of current state sponsored terror in general, within a larger global geopolitical and economic framework, is addressed.  Topics include the fundamental contradiction in the official narrative of the War on Terror versus the Islamic state or ISIS; Islamic State, a creation of U.S. intelligence; the geopolitical agenda; the militarization of Africa; the Berlin Conference in the late 19th century; foreknowledge of the Paris terror; French military escalation against Syria planned before the attacks; replication of the 9/11 discourse as a pretext to justify a new wave of bombing against Syria; attack by a foreign power justifies a state of war; the Doctrine of Collective Security, Article 5 of NATO; the Muslim community subjected to a witch hunt; the criminalization of the state and the financial system; the end of the French Republic.

Links and Resources:

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Guns and Butter]

michel chossudovsky-consulvenemontreal.orgGUNS AND BUTTER—[16 MAR 2016]  “This is Guns and Butter.  [intro theme music]

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “But the thing is that to enforce an imperial agenda, you scrap the Republic.  Now, Julius Caesar understood that perfectly well.  I can’t remember the exact quote.  But he said:  You don’t build an empire with a republic.  And I think that, in effect, what’s happening is that the republic is being scrapped.  It’s not only being scrapped in France, it’s being scrapped in America.”

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  Today on Guns and Butter, Michel Chossudovsky.  Today’s show:  ‘State Terrorism: Franco American Style.’

“Michel Chossudovsky is an economist and is a founder, director, and editor of the Center for Research on Globalization based in Montreal, Quebec.  He’s the author or eleven books, including The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11th, America’s “War On Terrorism”, The Globalization of Terror: America’s Long War Against Humanity. [3]

“Today, we discuss his most recent articles on the alleged ISIS terror in Paris as well as the Radisson Hotel terror in Bamako, Mali, a former French colony.  We analyse current state-sponsored terror in general within a larger global geopolitical and economic framework.

“Michel Chossudovsky, welcome.”  (c. 2:09)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “I’m delighted to be on Guns and Butter.”

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “On November 13, 2015, shootings and suicide bombings were staged in five different locales in Paris, the capitol of France.  130 people were killed.  Less than a week after the Paris gun-and-suicide-bomb attacks, a group of heavily armed gunmen stormed the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capitol of Mali, a former French colony, in which 21 people were killed.

“There have been a string of recent high profile terror attacks, from bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai desert.

“Where do you think we should begin in trying to address all of these recent terror attacks?” (c. 2:59)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “I think there’s a fundamental contradiction in the official narrative, both, of the United States and, of course, of France and its allies.  The United States is leading a War On Terrorism, which is directed against the so-called Islamic State.  Yet, the evidence amply confirms that the Islamic State and the various al-Qaeda-related terrorist organisations are creations of US intelligence. [4]  They’re what are called, in intelligence parlance, intelligence assets.

“And the other dimension, of course, is that, in effect, Obama is not waging a campaign against the terrorists because these terrorists are, in fact, the foot soldiers of the western military alliance in Syria.  And they are, in fact, protecting these terrorists.  This is amply confirmed.

“And it’s come to our attention, since the onset of the Russian bombing.  And the Russians are going after the real terrorists.  So, that when an occurrence, such as that of Paris or Bamako is presented, then, to the media, although the media analyses these events, what they do is simply copy and paste official narratives without presenting an understanding of who is actually behind these terrorist organisations. (c. 4:47)

“Almost immediately, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the French media went into overdrive stating, unequivocally, and that was prior to the conduct, even, of a police investigation, that the Islamic State was indelibly behind these attacks.

“And, then, the president François Hollande ordered by decree a national emergency, the suspension of civil liberties, the right to enter homes and arrest people without a warrant, and, at the same time, he closed down the borders.

“Now, this, as I recall, was announced a few minutes before midnight on November 13th, local time, prior to any consultation with any of his cabinet colleagues.  He actually confirmed that the cabinet meeting was to take place subsequently.  And, in his speech, he says:  We know who they are.  And, immediately, the French media says: This is the French-style 9/11.  And they, in other words, say in French:  Le 11 septembre à la française.

“And following from that, the official story prevails.  But the official story is based with the fundamental contradiction.  You can’t, on the one hand, say you are the victim of the Islamic State, when, in fact, you are the creator of the Islamic State.  It’s a non sequitur.  You cannot say that the attacks—and he was very explicit—the attacks from outside France, from Syria, originating from Syria, you can’t say that the attacks originating from Syria, directed against the French Republic and, at the same time, support covertly these same terrorists.  And there’s ample evidence that, not only, the United States and its allies supported the I.S.I.S. and its affiliates, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. [4]  So, is France, with weapons, with training, with financing, and so on.

“So, that is the situation.  And what the French public and western public, in general, have been led to believe is that these terrorists are involved in crimes against humanity, without realising that, in fact, their intelligence services, which are under the auspices of an elected government, are manipulating these terror organisations, are supporting them, are providing them with weapons.” (c. 8:09)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “You write that: The Islamic State, ISIS, the alleged architect of the Paris Attacks, was originally an al-Qaeda-affiliated entity created by U.S. intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP).

“You write that, quote:  ‘From the outset of Obama’s bombing campaign in August-September 2014, the U.S.-led coalition has not bombed ISIS rebel positions.’

“Has the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign been fake?” (c. 8:54)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, absolutely. (c. 8:57) [SNIP]  [Dr. Chossudovsky explains that the so-called War On Terror is only a false pretext to push for a regime change in Syria.  The initiative for the western military alliance was started by NATO.  The USA and its allies are involved in a criminal undertaking.  Now, the bombing campaign is really in response to the fact that government forces had managed to pacify large portions of territory.  So, the western bombing is actually designed to destabilise the region.  However, nations such as Saudi Arabia are allied with the western powers.  And the actual terrorists continue to be trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In fact, the proclaimed architect of the bombing of the Hotel in Bamako, Belmokhtar, was recruited by the CIA in 1991, when the Soviet-Afghan War was already over.  Yet, the CIA was still recruiting intelligence assets, which it could exploit in the Middle East/South Asia.  Many of these assets have been used by NATO towards US/NATO imperialist ventures, including training from the CIA.]  There’s CIA all over the place. (c. 16:18)

“And they cannot deny, because the evidence is so compelling, that the intelligence services of western countries are supporting the terrorists and, at the same time, the governments of western countries are waging a campaign, allegedly, against the Islamic State, when, in fact, they are also supporting the Islamic State.  And they are using this as a pretext to bomb a sovereign country, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties, a refugee crisis, the destruction of entire cities, and so on, during a period of four years.”  (c. 17:02)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “[inhales]”

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “That is the picture.  And we don’t need to start engaging in any kind of conspiracy theories to underscore the fact that, if the intelligence services of France and the United States are supporting I.S.I.S., and I.S.I.S. is designated as the threat to the security of the French nation, there’s an obvious contradiction because you can’t support the I.S.I.S. and, then, make a speech at 12 o’clock at night—I’m talking about president Hollande saying: We know who they are.  They’re attacking us.  They’re killing our people.

“So, I think, to put it mildly, president François Hollande has blood on his hands.” (c. 17:52)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m speaking with economist and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky.  Today’s show:  State Terrorism: Franco American Style.  I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  This is Guns and Butter.

“Now, you’ve been referring to the Bamako, Mali attacks, the most recent terror attacks.  News media report that the Bamako terror operation was coordinated by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, whom you have mentioned.  What do you think is the significance of the Bamako attacks?  And were the Mali attacks in Bamako related to the Paris terror?  For instance, what was France’s role in the Libyan War and the take-down of Muammar Gaddafi?  Is this all related?” (c. 18:46)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, let me put it this way.  Both attacks, both, the Paris Attacks as well as the Bamako attacks, have geopolitical implications.

“First, with regards to Paris, it’s worth noting that one week before these attacks occurred, Paris, the Hollande government had ordered the deployment of the Charles de Gaulle Aircraft Carrier Group to the Mediterranean, to the east of the Mediterranean.  And this was in support of the alleged campaign against terrorism in Syria.  So, that they were, actually, even before these attacks occurred, they’d already been preparing to send their, this powerful Navy and Air Force deployment to the Middle East in support of Obama’s campaign against the I.S.I.S. (c. 19:44)

“And, in the wake of the Paris attacks, as we recall, the French Air Force went in and bombed the alleged headquarters of I.S.I.S.  And the official declaration from the Ministry of Defence was that they had actually targeted the command post.  We got information from Syria that, in fact, what they targeted were health clinics, a museum, and a stadium, in other words, the country’s civilian infrastructure.  And that has been persistent throughout the last year, since the United States started to bomb Syria. (c. 20:24) [SNIP]

[Dr. Michel Chossudovsky also elaborated on the geopolitical implications of the Bamako attacks, namely to “create a pretext and a justification for the intervention of France and the United States in Sub-Saharan Africa.”  Again, argued Dr. Chossudovsky, all of the so-called terrorists are western intelligence assets.  The end goal is a recolonisation and militarisation of the African continent via AFRI-COM.  Dr. Chossudovsky also argued that French president François Hollande is a U.S. proxy, who acts in a subordinate role on behalf of Washington, D.C. to pave the way toward the U.S. colonisation of the African continent, which was originally colonised by the European empires.  The Berlin Conference carved up the African continent amongst the European imperialists, France, Portugal, Belgium, et al.] (c. 23:56)  The dollar will eventually replace the CFA Franc, which is a proxy currency linked to the French—well, it’s linked to the French Treasury, but it’s tied in to the Euro.

“And, so, that is the—I think that is the scenario.  It’s the conquest of the African Continent, which is supported by the mandate, the self-proclaimed mandate of the Obama administration to go after the terrorists in Sub-Saharan Africa: Boko Haram, AQIM, and so on.

“And they’re doing that in all the various areas where they want to extend their zone of influence.  So, you have, of course, in south-east Asia you will have Jemaah Islamiyah, in Indonesia and Malaysia.  And, then, you’ve got, of course, various other jihadist organisations in the western parts of China, which are involved, again, in insurgencies.  And they’re also supported by western intelligence via Pakistan’s ISI.” (c. 25:04)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “It sounds like the United States and France are working very closely together.  And that there is, then, evidence that the French military escalation directed against Syria was planned before the November 13th terrorist attacks.

“What evidence is there, if any, of official foreknowledge of the Paris terror itself?”

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, you’re absolutely right that France has been participating in the bombing raids right from the outset.  (c. 25:38)  [SNIP]

[Dr. Chossudovsky cautiously approached the question of foreknowledge, citing an article in 1994 in a “widely read” “tabloid”, which is somehow “authoritative”.  This tabloid, argues Dr. Chossudovsky, predicted a 9/11-like attack in France.  Dr. Chossudovsky argues that French authorities used the bombings as a pretext to engage in US/NATO imperialism in target regions, particularly in Syria, citing Article 5, even though France was not under attack by a ‘foreign power’, even though the bombings were a police matter, not a military matter.]”  (c. 29:11)

“But they’re doing exactly the same.  They’re replicating the discourse, the 9/11 discourse, the fact that this is an attack from a foreign power.  It just so happens that that foreign power is in northern Syria somewhere.

“And they’re using this as a pretext to escalate the war against Syria, not against their proxy terrorists in Raqqa, and to justify a new wave of bombing by coalition forces.  And I think that is, ultimately, the agenda.” (c. 29:51)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m speaking with economist and director for the Centre for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky.  Today’s show:  ‘State Terrorism: Franco American Style.’  I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  This is Guns and Butter.” (c. 30:09)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Then they have to confront Russia because Russia is also—Russia is going after the real terrorists.  Okay? (c. 30:16) [SNIP]  [Dr. Chossudovsky goes on to argue that US/NATO imperialists need a pretext to undermine Russia’s endeavours, which consist of destroying the foot soldiers of the western military alliance, i.e., the intelligence assets, which are the terrorists supported perversely by the CIA, MI6, and the Mossad.  Isreal is also behind the terrorists, as they’ve admitted that “they have a facility in the Golan Heights, which provides hospital treatment to wounded terrorists.] (c. 31:45)

“So, the issue is that none of what we’re discussing here will be given coverage in the mainstream media.  And the public is drowned with a humanitarian discourse.  Innocent people are being killed.  And it’s those events, where terrorists attack innocent people, which, ultimately, creates within everybody this feeling of solidarity, of fear as well.  Ultimately, when people die we feel it.  Okay?

“And, then, what we do is we side with the government.  Okay?  That’s what they’re doing.  And everybody’s siding with the French government, even people who hate them—François Hollande.  They’re siding with the French government because the French government is there to protect them.  And they are shocked and concerned about the loss of life.  And that concept, or that procedure there, is well-entrenched, in fact, in U.S. military doctrine. (c. 33:03)

“I should remind listeners of what was called Operation Northwoods.  It was during the Kennedy administration.  It was a secret plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to start killing people in the Miami Cuban community as well as in Washington with a view to justifying a war of retribution against Cuba.

“And I quote from the official document.  They said, We kill people in Miami and that creates, quote, ‘a useful wave of indignation’—okay?—‘indignation of U.S. public opinion,’ which is a normal thing.  Everybody has indignation when people are killed.

“And, then, they say:  Well, Cuba, Fidel Castro, has attacked America.  We have to attack Cuba in retribution.  Now, that is the logic of these so-called false flags.

“And Operation Northwoods, the documents are there.  People can go and consult them because those secret documents have been declassified after half a century.  And we know that the U.S., that the U.S. military were contemplating this.  It was turned down by Kennedy.  And it was also turned down by the Defense Secretary McNamara, at the time.  Okay?

“So that, in effect, it was a plot from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no doubt also supported by U.S. intelligence at the time. (c. 34:44) [SNIP]  (c. 36:05)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m glad you mentioned Operation Northwoods because we are actually recording this interview on November 22nd [2015], which is the 52nd Anniversary of the assassination of the president in the United States.  Of course, we have seen endless war ever since.

“In terms of the media coverage of the Paris terror attacks, it seems like the notion of revenge is being used as a motivating factor.  And, of course, this is a contradictory claim.  Right?”

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, you know, revenge, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, has been with us for several thousand years.  You need a pretext to wage war.  And war, in the modern context, and the political leaders know that war is the ultimate crime under Nuremberg.  Whatever is the underlying motive, the only war, which is allowed, is a war of self defence.  Okay?

“You are allowed to defend yourself against aggression.  But, under Nuremberg, any act of war against a foreign country is a criminal undertaking. (c. 37:19) [SNIP]

[SNIP]

[SNIP]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at GUNS AND BUTTER.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

[1]  For more on Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, see:

A bio of Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, published by the Venezuelan Consulate in Montreal:

Born in Canada in 1946. He graduated as an Economist from the University of Manchester, England, and obtained a PhD at the University of North Carolina, USA; he is professor of economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa.

Chossudovsky has been a visiting professor in countries throughout Western Europe, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Also, he has been involved with consulting several different international organizations and has been an advisor to governments of developing countries.

He was the President of the Canadian Association of Latin America and the Caribbean. He is an active member of the anti-war movement in Canada and has written extensively on the war in Yugoslavia. After the September 11 attacks, he has been involved in highlighting the historical events between the Government of United States, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

His most outstanding work titled “The Globalization of Poverty” was published in 11 languages. It is also a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. In 2003 Chossudovsky won the prize for human rights for the protection of civil rights and human dignity in Berlin. Profesor Chossudovsky is President and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent research and media organization based in Montreal, Canada.  This centre maintains a website that promotes different views about policies and international relations between the United States and NATO.

*

A bio of Michel Chossudovsky, published in the Ottowa Citizen, “Battling Mainstream Economics” by Juliet ONeill.

The faint moans of his daughter’s cello practice barely break the hush of Michel Chossudovsky’s household.

The kitchen, bathed in winter light, is gleaming. It is here, at a well-worn wooden table, that the University of Ottawa economics professor wants to talk.

The sunken-leather sofas of the living room — with its gallery of African masks, Peruvian pottery, Chinese teapots and other treasures from some of the 100 countries he has visited –would be “too comfortable.”

Stiff-backed chairs do feel more appropriate for the subject at hand: How poverty is increasing around the world and how this is not by accident, but by the design of a small, powerful banking and business elite at whose behest the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provoked “economic and social collapse” in many countries.

The discussion is about widespread complacency toward what Mr. Chossudovsky calls a global financial crisis — in which private speculators wield more power than governments over central bank coffers — that may swerve into a crash far worse than the Dirty Thirties, jeopardizing pension and retirement savings funds.

It is about how so many people, expert and layman alike, accept a dominant “neo-liberal” economic dogma which makes suffering and sacrifice — from unemployment and social service cuts in Ontario to mass destitution in Russia — seem inevitable, if not justifiable and acceptable.

“Absurdity,” he says. “I have difficulty in understanding why the dismantling or closing down of productive assets — hospitals and schools — could constitute the key to prosperity. But that is what is actually being conveyed. The official mainstream economic agenda is that you have to close down, downsize, lay off, and that is the key to prosperity.”

Mr. Chossudovsky, a 52-year-old author who has learned to speak 10 languages and writes in three (English, French and Spanish), has persisted for three decades with an increasingly unfashionable perspective on world events.

It keeps him on the margins of mainstream commentary in Canada but wins praise from such equally anti-establishment social theorists as American Noam Chomsky.

He agrees to being described as having a leftist perspective, but emphasizes that he is not allied with any political party, including socialists, at home or abroad.

“One doesn’t know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda,” he says. “If you look at socialists in Europe, what are they doing? They’re adopting austerity measures. I wouldn’t want to put a political label on myself because the neo-liberal consensus is supported by right-wing and left-wing parties alike, including the New Democratic Party.”

Raised in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Chossudovsky followed in his father’s footsteps by becoming an economist. But his father, a Russian emigre, made a career as a United Nations diplomat, while Mr. Chossudovsky put his economics training to use as a teacher and analyst. He came to the University of Ottawa in 1968, attracted by the promise of a bilingual lifestyle.

It was as a young visiting professor at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, that Mr. Chossudovsky’s interest in “economic repression” was first pricked.

Augusto Pinochet’s military junta, which overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973, quadrupled the price of bread and introduced other measures that would now be referred to as “a structural adjustment program.”

Mr. Chossudovsky set out, with a doctor, to study the malnourishment resulting from the bread price hike. He wound up with a paper that held the Pinochet regime responsible not only for conventional forms of political repression but for “economic repression” that impoverished three-quarters of Chile’s population.

Since then he has documented the purposeful impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. His latest book, the Globalization of Poverty, contains case studies of the collapse of economies and social structures in Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Peru, Russia and the former Yugoslavia. In some of these countries, IMF/World Bank intervention preceded violent conflict.

He refers often to “the hidden agenda” of the big banking and financial organizations. They orchestrate collapses, he says, by demanding payment of debt service charges and then lending money to cover the charges but only on condition the recipient country impose such measures as austerity, privatization and currency devaluation. The impact is usually destructive: mass shutdowns, huge unemployment, a wipeout of savings and pensions and purchasing power, a loss of social services.

Such economic shock therapy, he says, has pushed Russia, for one, “back to the medieval era,” impoverishing millions of people, deepening the country’s foreign debt, driving more than half the country’s industrial plants into bankruptcy and allowing organized crime to flourish in the banking, real estate and other sectors of the economy.

Mr. Chossudovsky generally condemns “the criminalization” of the global economy in which increasingly large amounts of drug money and other illegally obtained funds are deposited in the world’s 55 offshore havens, escaping taxation. The funds are laundered through an international banking system in which capital movement is easier than ever owing to the revolution in digital communications.

“This critical drain of billions of dollars in capital flight dramatically reduces state tax revenues, paralyses social programs, drives up budget deficits and spurs the accumulation of large public debts,” he writes.

An end to offshore tax havens is one of the few solutions Chossudovsky advocates. He also says the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and commercial banks should not be allowed to “pillage” the central banks of troubled countries.

He is much stronger on description than prescription. But his descriptions alone constitute a defiance of mainstream economic scholarship in which “critical analysis is strongly discouraged.”

It has not, however, stopped him from teaching for 30 years at U of O and as a visiting professor in several other countries, as well as publishing several books, the latest appearing in nine languages. And while the mainstream media in Canada do not publish his commentary, he is published frequently in Le Monde Diplomatique and smaller magazines that don’t have investors or business advertisers.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky has documented impoverishment of people in dozens of countries.

[2]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Guns and Butter, hosted by Bonnie Faulkner, for Wednesday, 16 MAR 2016, 13:00 PDT.

[3]  Also see a selected Chossudovsky bibliography here.

[4]  With regard to “the evidence”, of which Dr. Michel Chossudovsky speaks, perhaps, we should begin with the research available at his website for the Centre for Research on Globalization, or Global Research.

***

[17 MAR 2016]

[Last modified 23:29 PDT  17 MAR 2016]