Check out this link from PAME:

http://www.pamehellas.gr/fullstory.php?lang=2&wid=2313

via  http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

Suppose your favorite basketball team leads by twenty points at half-time, with more rebounds and steals and far fewer turnovers than its opponent. The athletic director rushes into the locker room and announces to the coach and players that unless they radically change the game plan, they will suffer a devastating defeat. Your first thought would likely be that the athletic director has taken leave of his senses. Or that he or she has been bought off by the rival.

Yet this is exactly like the advice that The World Bank and the Development Research Center urged upon The Peoples’ Republic of China on Monday, February 27. In a report entitled “China 2030,” the two entities—one a notorious cheerleader for free markets, privatization and meager social spending and the other an arm of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China—concede that the PRC has enjoyed 30 years of an average of nearly 10% annual growth. Besides this stunning achievement, the PRC negotiated the treacherous shoals of the world-wide economic crisis far better than any other large economy.

One would think that the study would probe the basis for this remarkable achievement and urge its continuance. Perhaps The World Bank would even suggest a similar approach for other countries. But instead, the authors of the report issue dire warnings of rough times ahead and prescribe urgent changes.

They warn that the average growth rate for the next 19 years will only be 6.6%. Assuming that the projection has some theoretical justification (World Bank predictions have fallen on hard times), the PRC economy would, at this rate, double in GDP every 11 years. Indeed, the report notes that it would become the world’s largest economy before 2030. Apparently, the authors of China 2030 are not impressed.

This warning is even more puzzling when we remember that most mainstream developmental economists project a declining growth rate as economies mature. Following W. W. Rostow’s heralded theory, high growth rates are only a feature of economies experiencing a “take-off.” Necessarily, growth slows, they agree, after the initial rapid expansion. Such a theory justifies the relatively low growth rates of the most advanced capitalist nations.

The PRC’s “friends” evade these questions by raising the dangers posed by the “middle-income trap,” a theoretical construct first suggested by economists in 2007. Noting the difficulties that many emerging market economies had in the 60’s and 70’s, they offer a muddled explanation of their failings, ignoring their political turmoil, dependencies, resource deficiencies, etc. Of the rare thirteen proclaimed “successes”—countries that elevated to the high-income category – four are now spiraling into the low-income ghetto. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain dutifully followed the prior prescriptions of The World Bank and The International Monetary Fund and are now choking on the Kool-Aid. The authors of China 2030 see no irony in this.

The report comes at a particularly opportune time, a week before the PRC’s annual meeting of the National People’s Congress. Media reports signal a heightening of tension between political leaders who wish to press forward with privatization and market de-regulation and those who want to preserve or even expand the socialist elements still extant in the economy and social life. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal (Fate of Two Chiefs Gives Clues on China, 3-3/4-12) embodies this struggle in the views of two rising leaders, Bo Xilai and Wang Yang. Clearly, China 2030 is ammunition for the rightists typified by Wang Yang.

While the Western media anticipated a lambasting of the state-owned sector, a boost for privatization, reduced government intervention and more doors open to Western corporations (see New Push for Reform in China, WSJ, 2-23-12 for a lengthy discussion), the report complied in somewhat veiled, measured econ-speak. Its primary recommendation was to implement structural reforms to:

…strengthen the foundations for a market based economy by redefining the role of government, reforming and restructuring state enterprises and banks, developing the private sector, promoting competition, and deepening reforms in the land, labor, and financial markets. As an economy approaches the technology frontier and exhausts the potential for acquiring and applying technology from abroad, the role of the government and its relationship to markets and the private sector need to change fundamentally. While providing relatively fewer “tangible” public goods and services directly, the government will need to provide more intangible public goods and services like systems, rules, and policies, which increase production efficiency, promote competition, facilitate specialization, enhance the efficiency of resource allocation…

In case the point was not made emphatically enough, the report goes on:

In the enterprise sector, the focus will need to be further reforms of state enterprises (including measures to recalibrate the role of public resources, introduce modern corporate governance practices including separating ownership from management, and implement gradual ownership diversification where necessary), private sector development and fewer barriers to entry and exit, and increased competition in all sectors, including in strategic and pillar industries. In the financial sector, it would require commercializing the banking system, gradually allowing interest rates to be set by market forces, deepening the capital market, and developing the legal and supervisory infrastructure to ensure financial stability and build the credible foundations for the internationalization of China’s financial sector.

Why these “reforms” are necessary and how they will improve prospects is never fully explained, except through blatant appeals to the neo-liberal manifesto. Since the state-owned industries represent 45% of non-agricultural GDP and they almost tripled their contribution to gross industrial output from 1998 to 2009, something beyond dogma is wanted.

The West and its accomplices in the PRC have their eyes on key state monopolies in petroleum, chemicals, electricity, and telecommunications as well as the state-dominated banking system. Under the guise of stimulating competition, the report argues for “breaking up state monopolies or oligarchies in key industries,” the first steps towards privatization. Undoubtedly, foreign capitalist monopoly corporations are lusting after these assets.

As I argued several months ago (The Chinese Puzzle, ZZ’s Blog, 12-14-11), the future of the PRC remains a mystery, with the leadership walking the thin, risky line between emerging capitalism and the remaining socialist institutions. But, clearly, The World Bank and its Chinese allies are determined to influence that direction. And there should be no doubt which direction China 2030 is intended to push those leaders.

Zoltan Zigedy

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

by W. T. Whitney Jr.

The U. S. government continues its pattern of abusing the Cuban Five political prisoners. Authorities have been silent on Rene Gonzalez’ request that he be allowed to visit his sick brother in Cuba for two weeks. Gonzalez, who finished a 13 year jail term on October 7, 2011, is serving parole in Florida. Brother Roberto, a lawyer involved in Rene’s case, is terminally ill with not long to live.

The FBI arrested Rene Gonzalez in September, 1998 along with Antonio Guerrero, Gerardo Hernandez, Fernando Gonzalez, and Ramon Labañino. Cuba’s government had sent the so-called Cuban Five to southern Florida to monitor and report on preparations by violent extremists for attacks against Cuba. Labañino and Guerrero, each with life sentences, ended up on appeal with terms of 30 and 22 years respectively. Gerardo Hernandez is serving two life sentences; Fernando Gonzalez, 19 years.

Rene Gonzalez’ lawyer Phil Horowitz petitioned the Miami Federal District Court in February to allow his client to bid farewell to his brother. The petition stated that, “Over the past nearly five months since his release from incarceration, the defendant has faithfully complied with each and every condition of his supervised release.” Horowitz later assured solidarity activists that “The motion that is being filed is not unusual; it is common for a defendant to seek court permission on an emergency basis, to travel internationally for health concerns of a family member.” Gonzalez, a citizen of both Cuba and the United States, is subject to U.S parole rules.

Gonzalez has had other humanitarian requests denied. U.S. officials never budged over 12 years from preventing Olga Salanueva, his wife, from traveling to the United States to visit him in prison. That’s the situation faced also by Adriana Perez who for 13 years has been unable to visit husband Gerardo Hernandez. International observers, human rights groups included, have roundly condemned the U. S. ban on spousal visits.

And despite widespread condemnation, U.S. judicial authorities denied Gonzalez’ request to return to Cuba directly after serving his jail term. His lawyer, joined by solidarity activists, argued on humanitarian grounds that Gonzalez be allowed to reconnect with family and homeland. Fear has emerged too for his safety in Florida where on parole Gonzalez lives amongst the practitioners of anti-Cuban violence he had been monitoring, and thereby inviting potential retribution.

For his protection, Gonzalez’ location in Florida has not been disclosed. In remarks taken as provocative, influential Miami area Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, commenting on Gonzalez’ release from prison, called him a “villain,” someone “who has American blood on his hands.” Lawyer Horowitz will soon be submitting a request that Gonzalez’ parole period be shortened.

As February closed, U. S. solidarity groups asked Cuban Five supporters to call the offices of President Obama (telephone number 202-456-1111) and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (telephone number 202-353-1555), to urge that Rene Gonzalez’ petition be granted and that he be allowed to see his brother.

Rene Gonzalez’ letter of February 24 to his brother Roberto has circulated. It reads in part:

“Under ordinary circumstances, these things ought to be said personally…It’s not enough that you have to struggle against a terrible sickness, but they’ve added more: You have to deal with a much more deadly kind of human grief, which is hate…hate that keeps me away as our nephews and nieces grow up… hate that doesn’t allow me even to embrace my brother. What do we do with so much hate? I suppose we do what we’ve always done: love life and fight for it… Although you can’t see me, you know I am there, together with your people, who are mine too. You know that this brother, from his strange exile and in pain from forced separation, [and who shares with you] the worthy condition of being a Cuban patriot, is and always will be with you.”

The worldwide battle against U.S. intransigence in refusing to free the remaining four Cuban Five prisoners goes on. A ringing call for their release came recently from the Buenos Aires Federation of University Students, representing 330,000 students

Addressing “Fellow university and college students from the US,” its statement referred to “prisoners being held in both moral unfairness and illegality.” And, “It’s about time the US government takes responsibility… regarding political relations with Cuba [in particular] establish ordinary relations with Cuban authorities, on grounds of mutual, unbiased respect, and send the Cuban Five back home.”

by James Thompson

The lunacy of US electoral politics has been taken to a new low by back-to-back assaults on race and sex by GOP political hacks. Rush Limbaugh, the grotesque spokesperson for the right wing in the USA, may have opened Pandora’s box by his blatantly sexist remarks. During a radio broadcast, he mounted a vicious attack on a Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke advocates making contraception available to all women without charge.

Mr. Limbaugh, twisted her position into a form which fits his perverse worldview. He called Ms. Fluke a “Feminazi” and a “slut” and a “prostitute” claiming that she is advocating for women to be paid to have sex because she advocates that contraception be universally available without charge. In a perverse twist to perversity, Mr. Limbaugh demanded that women receiving free contraception should be forced to make videos of their sexual activities which should be posted on YouTube for all to view. His position is that “if we’re going to pay for something, we should receive something in return.”

Although Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks will likely receive a lot of media attention and much debate over what should be done, the first responders are calling for a boycott of all advertising sponsors of Mr. Limbaugh’s show. Not a bad response, but is this enough?

The upside of Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks is that he has brought the issue of free speech into sharp focus.

The sewer of ideology in the USA, of which Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks are symptomatic, produced further sewage in the form of remarks from a Montana judge. Judge Richard Cebull of Billings, Montana has admitted to forwarding a scurrilous e-mail about President Obama, alleging that The President is the product of a sexual encounter between his mother and a dog. Although the Caucasian judge denied that he is a racist, his action has been recognized by most sensible people as being undeniably racist.

Why would the right wing employ these extremist tactics?

Racism and sexism, epitomized by these two political hacks of the right-wing, have been the age-old tools of the upper-class. By upper-class, this paper is referring to what is popularly termed the 1%. The 1% is made up of the ultra-wealthy who own and control all industrial activity in this country. The upper-class are the true capitalists who oppress, exploit and seek to humiliate and subjugate all working people in order to maximize their own profits. They oppress, exploit and humiliate working people in order to reduce their wages and benefits. Reducing the wages and benefits of working people is the only way capitalists can increase their profits. Marx scientifically proved that capitalists can survive only if they increase their profits. History has taught us that capitalists will go to extraordinary lengths to increase profits. Lenin showed us that when economic crises occur in capitalist systems, the capitalists rush to war. The most recent example of this is the multiple wars in the Middle East. Racism and sexism are also very effective tools used by the ultra-wealthy to demonize segments of the population so that the exploitation, oppression and humiliation of these groups may seem justified. However, most sensible working people recognize that the subjugation of women and various racial groups only serves to reduce wages and benefits in this affects all of us.

What should be the response of working people to such outrageous assaults?

Boycotting the sponsors of all programs which engage in hate speech in all its forms could be a start, but is it sufficient? It is long overdue for this country to outlaw hate speech in all its forms. People who advocate racism, sexism, anti-communism, and religious persecution as well as the exploitation, oppression and humiliation of working people should be subject to criminal prosecution. If found guilty, such individuals should be sentenced to severe penalties such as long-term imprisonment. Working people, in a united way, should advocate for legislation which would stop hate speech in its tracks.

The right to free speech, inherent in a democracy, does not include the right to advocate for the exploitation, oppression and humiliation of any sectors of society. Until such tactics of the right wing are criminalized, can we really say we are a democratic society?

PHill1917@comcast.net

To: CubaNews@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 27, 2012 6:19:24 PM
Subject: [CubaNews] Rene Gonzalez: Motion seeking permission to travel to Cuba for two weeks

(From his attorney, Phil Horowitz.
Quickly reformatted from the PDF.)
========================================

COMES NOW the Defendant RENE GONZALEZ by and through his undersigned counsel and moves this Court for the entry of an order modifying his probation to allow him to travel to Cuba for two weeks and as grounds therefore would state as follows:

On October 7, 2011, the defendant completed the fifteen (15) year incarcerative portion of his sentence and commenced his three year term of supervised release. The defendant. a dual citizen of the United States and Cuba, was ordered to remain in the United States and to commence his term of supervised release.

Over the past nearly five (5) months since his release from incarceration, the defendant has faithfully complied with each and every condition of his supervised release.

Well prior to his release from federal prison, the defendant brother Roberto Gonzalez was diagnosed with lung cancer. Over the past two year his lung cancer was in remission due to radical treatment that he received in Cuba and in Mexico. Unfortunately in on May 12, 2011, just prior to his brother’s release, Roberto Gonzalez was additionally diagnosed as having a malignant tumor in his brain.

He continued to receive chemotherapy and radiation therapy both in Cuba and in Mexico and once again, appeared to be regaining strength and vigor. He also received radiotherapy for the brain tumor in Mexico. He was able to celebrate his brother’s release from custody but returned to Cuba on October 26, 2011 to continue his treatment which had rendered him glycemic and bloated. He was also diagnosed with pneumothorax in December 2011. Ultimately with with his blood sugar and bloated condition under control, once again Roberto Gonzalez began to shows signs of recovery and was allowed to return to his home in Havana by late January 2012. Unfortunately, less than two weeks ago, Roberto Gonzalez took a turn for the worse and has been hospitalized in Havana since approximately February 9, 2012.

Doctors in Cuba have discovered a severe blockage in the artery that allows blood to travel to his brain. The onset of these circulatory problems stem from the massive amounts of chemotherapy and radiation that Roberto Gonzalez has been subjected to over the years. He is now unable to travel to Mexico to continue his treatment there. According to the doctors in Havana, the prognosis for Roberto Gonzalez is not good as he is not responding to treatment and his condition continues to worsen. The original cancerous tumors that was found is his lung is growing again and is pressing against vena cava cutting of his circulation. The prognosis is not optimistic and Rene Gonzalez seeks permission of the court to travel to Cuba as soon as this court allows for a period of two (2) weeks. This will allow his to spend time with his seriously ill brother.

As this court may recall, Roberto Gonzalez is an attorney in Havana. During the trial in this case that was held in this case for more than seven months from November 2000 until June 2001, Roberto Gonzalez was a fixture during the trial rarely missing a single day in order that he could be there to support his brother. Due to the breaking events as it pertains to Roberto Gonzalez’s medical condition, the undersigned is filing this motion for permission to travel without supporting medical documentation. The undersigned has made a request from Roberto Gonzalez’s treating physician for a report which includes Roberto Gonzalez’s medical diagnosis and for his prognosis to support the filing of this motion should this court require. This motion will be supplemented with those records as soon as they are received and translated.

In order to best document the nature of Roberto Gonzalez’s current condition, the undersigned has attached the translation of February 23, 2012 medical report signed by three physicians including the internal medicine treating physician, the head of the intensive care unit and finally the hospital director confirming the current, serious nature of Roberto Gonzalez’s illness and his short term prognosis. If this court were to grant this motion, the defendant would be residing with his wife and children and will promptly return to the United States when this court requires. In light of the serious nature of Roberto Gonzalez’s illness, it is respectfully requests that the defendant be given permission to travel to Cuba for two (2) weeks as soon as possible.

On February 23, 2012, the undersigned spoke with the defendant’s supervising probation officer who has informed the undersigned that the defendant has been fully compliant during his term of supervised release during the past five (5) months and though these types of request have been granted in the past as to this type of international travel, he would defer to the court in this matter. WHEREFORE, the Defendant RENE GONZALEZ respectfully requests that this Court enter an order permitting his to travel to Cuba for two (2) weeks as requested.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record this 24th day of February 2012. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. HOROWITZ Attorney for Defendant RENE GONZALEZ Suite #1910 – Two Datran Center 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Tel.: (305) 670-1915 Fax.: (305) 670-1901 E-Mail: mailto:HorowitzDefense%40aol.com /s/ Philip R. Horowitz By: PHILIP R. HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 466557 Case 1:98-cr-00721-

By James Thompson

In the book “Henry Winston: Profile of a U.S. Communist” by Nikolai Mostovets (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1983) can be found a recounting of a historic speech by Henry Winston at the 15th Convention of the CPUSA which was held in Harlem. The speech was later developed into a pamphlet entitled “What it means to be a Communist.”

Mostovets tells us:

“In his speech, Henry Winston denounced some Party leaders who were showing bureaucratic inclinations. He especially elaborated on the work Communists were to conduct in the unions. Party members were to educate the working-class politically, organize the unorganized and secure a close interrelationship between the economic and the political aspects of working-class struggle. Winston stressed that economic struggle alone led to opportunism and collaboration with the monopolies. That was important because recently some left and Communist union leaders and activists have forgotten the importance of political struggle and been caught in the quagmire of opportunism.

Winston also touched on the major aspects of the Party’s cadre policy. he emphasize the importance of establishing and maintaining close contact between the party leadership and rank-and-file union members: ‘the job of leadership is not alone to guide and direct the work of others-it is also necessary to learn… from the members and the workers. Separation from the membership, from the workers can result only in bureaucracy, and placing oneself above the Party, above the interests of the workers.

‘Secondly, it is necessary to show the utmost vigilance and noting and checking the corrupting influences of our present-day society on the thinking and living habits of some comrades, to expose these influences in the interests of the comrade himself, but primarily in the interest of the party as a whole.

‘Thirdly, it is necessary to eliminate all self complacency, cliquish and ‘family circle’ atmosphere in relationship between Communists, especially rooting out all elements of false praise and flattery. For, as one wise comrade put it, flattery corrupts not only the flattered but the flatterer as well. Fourthly, it is necessary to apply criticism and self-criticism in the molding of Party cadres. Criticism and self-criticism are not to be applied on occasions-on holidays-so to speak. They must be applied daily, as indispensable weapons in the examination of the work of our Party and the individual cadres… Only by learning the lessons from mistakes can our Party cadres develop Communist methods, habits, and qualities of leadership.

‘Finally, only those leaders can withstand the pressures of enemy ideology, can relentlessly fight against opportunism in practice, who constantly strive to master Marxism Leninism-the great liberating science of the working-class which alone gives us the confidence in the inevitable victory of the working-class, headed by its Communist vanguard. Those who see only backwardness, immobility and disunity in the working-class are bound to ignore the essential truth that it is the working-class that possesses all the necessary qualities to bring about the transformation of society and build Socialism.'” (PPS. 46-47)

At the end of the book, there are several tributes to Henry Winston:

“The Soviet people know and deeply respect Henry Winston, a staunch revolutionary and Marxist scholar, a sincere friend of the USSR and other socialist countries, and a dedicated champion of friendship between the Soviet and the American people, of peace throughout the world.

On February 4, 1977 the Learned Council of the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of US and Canadian studies conferred a doctorate honoris causa on Henry Winston. Pravda wrote in this connection: ‘Henry Winston, a prominent figure in the international communist movement, has been awarded this degree for his outstanding contribution to the national liberation struggle theory, for his profound scholarly analysis of practical revolutionary struggle by the working people of the United States for a democratic and social transformation of society, against imperialism and racial discrimination.’

Henry Winston was in Moscow during the 26th Congress of the CPSU is a member of the CP USA delegation.

Upon his return to the United States he declared: ‘I am proud that I have witnessed a historic Congress. The Soviet Communists have advanced a program of further raising the people’s well-being and a comprehensive platform of struggle for peace, détente and disarmament. Only this road of concrete and constructive negotiations and accords to curb the arms race can save mankind from the threat of nuclear catastrophe. This isn’t glaring contradiction to the policies of the current Republican administration. The latter not only dooms millions of Americans to poverty and unemployment but also pushes the world to the brink of catastrophe accelerating war preparations and fomenting anti-Soviet hysteria. Common sense demands acceptance of the Soviet proposals. Today, we American Communists view efforts to publicize and explain the new Soviet peace initiatives to our people as one of our foremost tasks.’

On April 2, 1981 Henry Winston turned 70 years old. The Central committee of the CPSU sent him the following message to mark the occasion:

‘Dear Comrade Henry Winston,

‘The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union since you warm fraternal greetings and heartfelt congratulations on your 70th birthday.

‘You are well known as a prominent leader of the US Communist Party who has devoted all the long years of his sociopolitical activities to a courageous struggle for the interests of the working class and all the working people of his country, against racism and reaction, for genuine equality, democracy and social progress. Your unwavering loyalty to the ideals of Marxism Leninism and proletarian internationalism has gained you prestige with the world Communist movement. The Soviet people value highly your tireless efforts in the name of peace, disarmament, understanding and peaceful cooperation between the peoples of the United States and the Soviet Union.

‘We wish you, dear Comrade Winston, good health and success in your work for your people, peace and progress.’…

Henry Winston received messages of congratulations from other Communist parties, progressive organizations and individuals. Among them was a message from Fidel Castro:

‘On your 70th birthday, we wish to extend greetings from our Party and reiterate the admiration of our people feel for a life dedicated to the Communist cause.

‘We Cuban Communists heard in your voice the message of solidarity from the most just people in North America at the Second Congress of our Party. We wish you knew success in your indefatigable struggle for social justice and peace.’

And another message:

‘On the occasion of your 70th birthday, please accept the Portuguese Communists’most sincere wishes of good health, fruitful work and personal happiness, as well as our tribute to a lifetime wholly dedicated to the cause of liberation of the working people.
Alvaro Cunhal
General Secretary
Communist Party of Portugal’…
Gus Hall… had written in an article to mark Winston’s 60th birthday: ‘the bonds that unite us are something more than political ties. We are brothers in regard each other with particular wants, typical of soldiers fighting for a, and in just cause. In this sense we happen to represent the common destiny which unites white and black workers in a close brotherhood of class, in a union for national liberation and working-class struggle. They are involved together in a single worldwide revolutionary process which embraces all nations and all races and which is aimed at freedom and prosperity for all mankind.'” (pps. 130-132)

Two more tributes can be found on the back cover of this book:

“The life of Comrade Henry Winston is a proud page in the history of our Party. It is an illuminating page in the history of the working-class, in the history of Black Americans fighting against racial and national oppression. It is a page of leadership, of courage, of dedication. It is commitment to the full measure.”
Gus Hall
General Secretary, CPUSA

“The spirit that animates Henry Winston infuses the courageous and beautiful people who are fighting imperialism. It is the spirit of people who know deep down within themselves which side they are on, and who know, to, that their side-our side-is invincible.”
John Abt

This article is a reaction to the article posted at the link:

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/say-no-to-protectionism/

A sense of humor is essential to balance the humbuggery of much of the political commentary that surfaces today. “Astonishment” is the best word for a recent “provocative discussion” (Say No to Protectionism) posted on the Political Affairs website and authored by Peter Mandelson–“Lord Mandelson” to his UK peers. In the past, Political Affairs was the source of timely, informative articles that expressed the views of advocates of the Marxist-Leninist perspective, authors like Jacques Duclos, Palmiro Togliatti, William Z. Foster, Henry Winston, Herbert Aptheker, Paul Robeson, and many other committed Communists.

But today Political Affairs embraces a far wider spectrum of opinion including now, for undoubtedly the first time, a “lord” from the prestigious UK House of Lords, Lord Peter Mandelson. Unlike Foster, Winston, and Robeson, Mandelson has established his credentials by championing the “third way”, a position to the right of traditional social democratic doctrine.

Mandelson, a pal of George Bush’s subservient buddy, Tony Blair, argued that the UK Labour Party should transform into a market-friendly, classless party located somewhere in the narrow political space occupied by the US two-party farce.

While advocating the vacuous, yet successful ideological fakery of Tony Blair, he managed to cash in on the new opportunities afforded by the “third way”. Undeterred by the media scandals—the multiple resignations from government positions forced by shaky financial dealings—Mandelson persevered with his personal program. Like his US counterparts in governing, he managed to accumulate a fortune and achieve a tainted celebrity.

Mandelson’s subservience to capital has earned him—besides a “lordship”—a consultancy firm, an advisory position with the banking firm, Lazard Freres, and participation in the elite Bilderberg conference: all dubiously supportive of his leftist credentials.

Though Mandelson’s career has been tarnished by opportunistic changes of heart, charges of corruption, and political expediency, those facts do not necessarily diminish his argument. In other words, it doesn’t follow that Mandelson is wrong simply because he is a scoundrel.

So what does Mandelson have to say?

Put bluntly, Mandelson offers a simple, lordly scold to the Left: Say “no” to protectionism; say “yes” to globalization. In his words, “The most important focus for the left should be on equipping people to live in an uncertain economic world, not shutting that world out.”

But let us be clear: in the tortured language of modern day media punditry, Mandelson isn’t scolding the traditional Left of Marx, Lenin, or even the Left of Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich, as the editor of Political Affairs might want us believe. Instead, Mandelson means the tepid, slippery left of Barack Obama and Francois Hollande, the Left defined by its ever-so-slight distance from the Center and its merely rhetorical commitment to common folks. One might better call it the “corporate Left” for its refusal to decouple any popular reform from the promotion of corporate interests. That is, Obama and Hollande are really “third way” Left poseurs like Mandelson’s pal, Tony Blair. Hollande, the Presidential candidate of France’s misnamed Socialist Party, says as much in a recent interview in the UK Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/francois-hollande-uk-city-london ) where he heaps lavish praise upon Blair as well as associating himself with Obama’s policies.

While monopoly capital has little to fear from these third-wayers, Mandelson knows that in the heat of both Obama and Hollande’s electoral campaigns, they may well reach deep into their bags of campaign tricks and pull out a calculated populist promise to be tossed to the masses. His concern is that some may take them at their word and actually expect a mild rebuke to the corporate agenda.

For Mandelson, the great fear is that his ideological compatriots might back away from a fully enthusiastic commitment to “globalization”. Now “globalization” is one of those unfortunate and lazy terms that rise to the surface of popular discourse while masking more than it reveals. For decades, talk of free trade, the sins of protectionism, and the enhancement of international competitiveness have been a cover for the exploitation of labor markets. In the end, all the speeches, legislation, and agreements have been constructed to allow capital to flow freely and easily to centers of cheap labor—no more, no less.

It should be obvious that regions, countries, sections, and cities differ vastly in terms of resources, infrastructure, technologies, and capital. But the one element that they all share, the one element that can flexibly change to meet competition, is the cost of labor-power; workers can always be convinced or forced to work for less. A country or region cannot choose to compete globally in the energy market if it has no energy resources, but any country can compete to offer cheaper labor for production or services. Thus, behind all the promised benefits of globalization lies a profit-driven motive: cheap labor. Of course capitalists are not concerned that this process inevitable results in a wage death spiral.

The big lie proffered by Mandelson and his ilk is that global, unfettered competition can produce a world of winners. Yes, even the most apathetic sports fan knows that competition is about winners and losers; someone loses when someone else wins. Perhaps when David Ricardo wrote nearly two centuries ago about countries enjoying relative advantages, the idea of winning some competitions and losing others made some sense. But in today’s world of huge trans-national monopoly enterprises rushing from one low wage area, then to another, the ancient argument dissolves. Only a fool does not see this. And Mandelson is no fool.

He writes that: “The banking crisis discredited certain kinds of financial capitalism and financial regulation and not capitalism in general…we still have to have faith in the basic model of an open and competitive economy.”

And faith is all that Mandelson offers. Only a “lord” in the church of market fundamentalism could disconnect the financially-triggered crisis from the trajectory of global capitalism. Vast wealth and income inequalities, spawned in large part by the “globalization” so dear to Mandelson’s heart, generated a vast ocean of capital seeking investment opportunities. Capitalists found a haven for this enormous glut of surplus value in the banks and other financial institutions, a haven promising strong returns through speculative ventures. Of course this was not a random series of events, but another logical step in the evolution of monopoly capitalism driven by the insatiable thirst for profit.

If over four years of global economic turmoil, four years of mass unemployment and declining living standards, does not “discredit… capitalism in general”, one wonders what would. With even conservative institutions like the IMF and the OECD projecting 5 to 10 more years of pain and suffering in Europe, one wonders what stands behind Mandelson’s vote of confidence.

Perhaps Lord Mandelson’s advice to the left will advance his career and earn him the prestigious knighthood. Certainly he has served the ruling class well.

Zoltan Zigedy

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2012/02/stern-advice-to-left-from-house-of.html