
We’re almost a full year into the Obama regime, and over a year past his election. There is significant disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. I was widely pilloried for not joining in the choruses of “hope and change.” While I acknowledge that most Americans voting for a Black man for President represents something, I disagree with most people about what it represents. If nothing else, having a Black President highlights what Black people living in urban areas run by Black Democrats already know- Black Democrats are dangerous hustlers, charlatans of the highest order who prey on their own people. Illusions in Obama quickly shatter in light of the reality. Despite repeated attempts by craven apologists of Obama to represent him as some kind of significant break from the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush trajectory, the evidence is clear: Barack Obama is a political gangster, with few convictions outside of what is best for his corporate paymasters and the military-industrial complex.
If one were grasping at straws- as shameless apologists for the Democratic Party are wont to do- one might site Obama allowing photos of caskets as a clear break with Bush-era policy. That is, in fact, more likely a case of fait accompli. Everyone knows about soldiers coming home in caskets by the boatload. Sadly, showing pictures of the coffins isn’t going to shock anyone much at this point. However, more interesting is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates- a holdover from the Bush Administration and architect of the genocidal “surge” strategy in Iraq, a man who reports directly to Mr. Obama- barring the release of torture photos. I’m not terribly interested in seeing pictures of Americans torturing people imprisoned without right of habeas corpus. If such pictures were released, I would do anything in my power to avoid seeing them. However, I know, as does Mr. Gates, that the reaction of masses of Americans to such pictures would be that of disgust, revulsion, and outrage. Were Mr. Obama even the meager reformer his defenders claim he is, this would be a no-brainer. But he isn’t. In fact, American capitalism long since stopped being capable of the types of reforms championed by “progressive” Democrats.
Oh, and that troop buildup Obama’s gonna drop any day now (on top of his extant buildup which tops Bush)? Gates came up with that on George Bush’s watch.
Mr. Obama has also come out against a full and transparent investigation of the Ft. Hood massacre. I’m not an Alex Jonesite. I don’t think Barack Obama is trying to hide evidence of his birth certificate or secret Muslim hit squads infiltrating the Army. Mostly I’m just reminded that Bush gave us a similar line of horse shit surrounding the 9/11 attacks. It was part of a long series of blocked investigations by the Bush Administration. Obama has followed in his foot steps by moving to block torture investigations. But specifically, what I suspect he is trying to block by coming out against a Ft. Hood investigation is a full and candid exploration of atrocities committed by American soldiers abroad, the PTSD epidemic among returning soldiers, and the highest military suicide rate in recorded history.
Ten prisoners from Gitmo, some of whom have been, quite literally, almost constantly tortured over the last several years, are being brought to the United States to stand in what can only be called show trials. This includes a young Canadian national who was 15 when he threw a grenade at invading American soldiers. If anyone can tell me how chucking a grenade at an invading army violates the laws of war, I’d love to hear about it. The treatment of this young man is nothing more and nothing less than another attempt by the United States to terrify the rest of the world into total submission. The “verdict” in the criminal trials is a foregone conclusion and a mockery of justice.

And on the domestic front? Well, there’s trillions of dollars to bailout the banks who caused the financial crisis. What is being done to address the financial crisis effecting millions of Americans, the crisis of jobs and living standards? Fucking zero. Except for some rhetoric, which I suspect the man himself considers “compassionate,” from Mr. Obama telling the American working class to suck it up, and some straight up lies telling us that the job market is going to get better any day now. Guess what? It isn’t. In fact, the job market is going to stay in its present state for the foreseeable future, unless things really go in the shitter. The fact that Mr. Obama considers speculative wealth to be “economic growth” and unemployment to be a “lagging indicator” should probably tell you everything you need to know about him. Mr. Obama’s recent announcement of a “jobs summit” is a total fraud. He has repeatedly shown his willingness to write blank checks for Wall Street and the Pentagon, while showing a reticence toward helping ordinary Americans bordering on pathologically compulsive.
Additionally, ten states are facing total budget collapse. Obama to country? Drop Dead. There will be no financial assistance to California or any of the other states facing massive budget crises. Once again, bankers who caused the current financial crisis are lavished with rewards, while average Americans are told to take a bite out of a huge shit sandwich. But hey- at least the rich are buying conspicuous consumption goods again, right?… Right?

The differences between workers under capitalism and the serfs and slaves of old are becoming increasingly trivial. There is nothing “democratic” about our system. Our political process is controlled by Wall Street with an iron grip. They have a “good cop” party and a “bad cop” party, and the difference between the two is increasingly difficult, if not impossible to tease out. But more fundamentally, no one asked me if I wanted to work this year and where I wanted to work. No one asked the people getting thrown out of their homes what they wanted, or how they wanted the crisis as a whole dealt with. No one asked people in cities with crumbling social services which hospitals they wanted closed- if any. Our system works just fine. It is set up for the benefit of the top .1% and their toadies who mostly occupy similar echelons of the socioeconomic pyramid. But the system does not work for us. Indeed, it isn’t even supposed to. The current economic crisis is laying bare the lie of American democracy. It gives me hope that more and more people are starting to see capitalism for what it is.











Posts
It’s as if I’m being hanged. Work (as it exists for many people) is the noose around my neck. America is the chair I’m standing on, and capitalism is about to kick that chair away, leaving me lifeless.
| November 14, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
The Corporate Cronyism you see in this country today is NOT Capitalism.
Get that straight. True capitalism hasn’t existed in this country since the turn of the 20th century.
This article reeks of Marxist-fueled condemnation.
Lest we forget: we have seen the utter failure of communism time and time again.
The blueprint to making the Free Market work is strict Federal adherence to the Constitution (especially the Tenth Amendment), “referee”-style Government regulation (opposed to interventions) and EXTREMELY STRICT ENFORCEMENT and BEEFING UP of FRAUD laws and ounishments for corporate crime.
| November 14, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Oh yeah.
And this is, BY NO MEANS, a defense of Obamarama, but rather a defense of Capitalism which seems to be the collateral damage in this article.
I am glad I can say I wasn’t fooled by the Pied Piper Obama.
Now we gotta concentrate on getting the sheeple tp see past the 2-party facade.
| November 14, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
The Corporate Cronyism you see in this country today is NOT Capitalism.
Get that straight. True capitalism hasn’t existed in this country since the turn of the 20th century.
What, pray tell, is “true capitalism?”
This article reeks of Marxist-fueled condemnation.
Considering that I am open Marxist, and that many of my links come from a Marxist website, this shouldn’t be terribly shocking.
Lest we forget: we have seen the utter failure of communism time and time again.
We’ve certainly seen the failure of Stalinist bureaucracies and attempts to “build socialism in one country,” both of which I see as abandonments of a Marxist perspective.
| November 14, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Considering that I am open Marxist, and that many of my links come from a Marxist website, this shouldn’t be terribly shocking.
Yeah, well. I stumbled onto your site through disinfo.org links. I certainly will “stumble back out.” I have no desire to take part in conversation with fiery collectivists.
Your anarcho-pessimism is truly humorous considering Collectivism is truly the most idealistic and therefore UNrealistic philosophy for any society. As long as mankind exists, greed, sloth and envy will exist, thus eliminating any potential for harmonious, Marxist Utopia.
Unless the people of this country decide that the Constitution of the United States of America is unfit, we must fight for this contract with the Government! We must take to the streets and BIND our Representatives to it and vote them out when they betray us! We must fight like hell for strict adherence to the 10th amendment and we must embrace the Free Markets but create EXTREMELY tough penalties for corporations, politicians and authority figures that commit fraud against Constitutionally-sound laws.
But I’m sure my thoughts are wasted on a self-proclaimed Marxist.
Rest-assured though, there are those of us that believe the blueprint and principles of a sound Republic are still there (even though they have been drug through the muck) and will be fighting the establishment from a different angle.
| November 14, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Yeah, well. I stumbled onto your site through disinfo.org links. I certainly will “stumble back out.”
You’re welcome to stay as long as you like. Though I’d prefer if you check your straw at the door.
I have no desire to take part in conversation with fiery collectivists.
I have no desire to debate Randroids or their bizarre fantasies. Basically anyone who uses “collectivist” as a political epithet isn’t worthy of a great deal of energy, IMHO.
As long as mankind exists, greed, sloth and envy will exist, thus eliminating any potential for harmonious, Marxist Utopia.
And this exists in “the sheeple” as you put it. It’s not that you’re projecting like the guy at the movie theater. There are, by the way, many good arguments for socialism that stem from a recognition of inherent human greed. Jack London explores them in The Iron Heel. In any event, I’m unconvinced. Working class people- and I grew up around a boatload of them- show an incredible amount of self-sacrifice.
Marxism isn’t utopian. In fact, it is a reaction to the utopian socialism of the time. Those interested in an exploration of this are directed to Engels’s classic work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. For those not interested in reading a book:
“I do not write cookbooks for the future.” – Marx
We must take to the streets and BIND our Representatives to it and vote them out when they betray us! We must fight like hell for strict adherence to the 10th amendment and we must embrace the Free Markets but create EXTREMELY tough penalties for corporations, politicians and authority figures that commit fraud against Constitutionally-sound laws.
Right. Because “our” elected officials serve “us” and not the interests of a narrow ownership class. And the state is a class neutral device which anyone can use, not a method of class oppression used by one against another.
Who’s the utopian?
Rest-assured though, there are those of us that believe the blueprint and principles of a sound Republic are still there (even though they have been drug through the muck) and will be fighting the establishment from a different angle.
I fail to see how fighting to turn the clock back to the 19th century is “fighting the establishment.” Seems more like fighting weather to me than anything. Classic petty bourgeois politics. If only those big, mean, highly efficient capitalists would get out of their joint stock companies and banks out of the way you small time guys could show everyone what a little gumption does.
The days of the small capitalist went out with the steam engine.
| November 15, 2009 @ 1:22 am
19th Century Capitalism wan’t any dream. Railroads conspired with politicians to get “free” public land. Monopolies formes crushing competitors and workers anybody remember Carnegie’s United Steel or Rockefeller’s Standard Oil aka the robber barons.
Crippling unemployment, government openly on the take (graft), blacklists to bar employment for anyone who resisted, and regular cycles of economic crisis. Add brutal acts of repression against workers for example Homestead, PA 1892, St Louis in 1877 and Chicago and Milwaukee in 1886. Throw in war and racial warfare against immigrants in the industrial north and against blacks in the agrarian south. Sounds like Hell on earth.
| November 14, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
As I said in an earlier post, you’re never going to get through to them because Marxists and Randists define their terms differently- especially Capitalism. When they say capitalism, they mean “free markets”; the free market being a utopian ideal. While naturally-occuring markets do exist, and tend to be at their worst (see the old Soviet Union) in centrally-planned systems, markets are, for the most part, a man-made and created tool of distribution, and not one that stands contrary to socialism (at least not in all it’s forms).
(All these arguments in this thread, though, remind me of what I’ve come to love about Asian policy writers and intellectuals- whether from China, India, or ASEAN- they think outside of ideological blinders. They’re concrete, pragmatic, and not afraid to throw the whole Western gameplan out the window whenever it suits them- because they were never really part of it to begin with. When I compare the level and civility of discussion among Asians and Europeans in Shanghai with the completely blinkered ideological hatefests in America, it blows my mind. And deeply saddens me that Americans are so stupid, short-sighted and frivolous by comparison.)
| November 15, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Well Spinoza you’ll just have to write up an article or two on you Shanghai experiences.
Living in the former USSR helped reshape my view of the world and it sounds like you’ve had a similar epiphany. I encourage all Americans to get the hell out of the country for a much need reality check. And I don’t mean booking a trip Canada, Western Europe or Mexico during Spring Break. Try going outside you comfort zone people!
| November 16, 2009 @ 12:58 am
great article. i’m usually not in 100% agreement with your post, but i find them to be well argued and intelligent. this one however, i agree fully. keep up the good work.
| November 14, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Why are you an “open Marxist”? Ever been to Laos? Marx foundered on the belief that a unified working class could transcend nationalism. It never happened because humans are as territorial as any basset hound. Anarcho-regionalism is the best solution. As usual, Marxist critique of American capitalism is accurate enough, but no free-thinker could stomach a Marxist utopia: Komrade! You have work-detail this morning! It’s a good thing you are freer than you used to be . . .
| November 15, 2009 @ 1:01 am
Funny thing is whenever people who think China, Cuba, et al are “deformed workers’ states” begins listing them they always forget about Laos. Having grown up around a lot of Laotians, I’m always a little miffed.
Your understanding of how labor would work under socialism is woefully misinformed. It’s not a question of “believing in a utopia.” There are concrete reasons things happened the way they did in the Soviet Union that have little to nothing to do with the person of Joseph Stalin.
Why do anarchists always have the most disgusting and despicable views of human beings? Do you really hate humanity that much?
| November 15, 2009 @ 1:05 am
1.Claiming humans are territorial not the same thing as hating them.
2. There was no scientific analysis of capitalism by Marx. Das Kapital was a sociological lucubration. If you think sociology is science you probably think psychiatry makes useof CAT scans.
3. Marxism, Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Potism Communism—they all lead to the camps, Mr., and naive social plannners and loud mouths like you are always the first to go. Nothing like a 19th century critique of society to guide us into the the 21st.
| November 16, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Congratulations on your sharp, incisive, and above all fresh analysis of Marxism that doesn’t at all sound like something Bill O’Reilly would say could be string a sentence together. My hats off to you, sir.
| November 16, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
“I’m an anarchist.” –Bill O’Reilly
| November 16, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
That’s funny. When I wrote that “there’s nothing like 19th century critique of society to get us into the 21st” I forgot to to ask you if you wear a top hat, too. What are you doing with a website anyway? Isn’t that bourgeois? Don’t you have a workers rag to flog on some street corner?
| November 17, 2009 @ 3:50 am
Marx meant “scientific” in the 19th century meaning of doctrine or organized thought. He was trying to differentiate the theories of the German workers in France from the other strands of socialist thought – utopian, philosophical, religious, etc. How come capitalists never have to apologize for their role in history – the deaths, the wars, the forced labor – by slaves, children and convicts. People are well aware what the authoritarian branch of socialism has done in the 20th century it one of the reasons why I’m an anarchist. I just don’t know why we can’t have an honest debate.
| November 18, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
1. has anarcho-regionalism “happened”?
2. what is marxist critique “accurate enough” for if it is not accurate enough to be prescriptive?
3. do “free-thinkers” avoid “work”?
4. “There was no scientific analysis of capitalism by Marx. Das Kapital was a sociological lucubration.” Is natural selection science?
| November 16, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Wow, Tate. I’m speechless. I may as well chuck my anarchism out the window now that I’ve seen that O’Reilly quote you posted. He’s no fascist that guy, cuz he says he’s anarchist.
Your questions posted above are the weird and creepy kind you get from dumpy guys bundled up in ski hats and ratty sweaters, holding up pictures of deities like Marx and Mao on college campuses across the country.
But here goes anyway:
1. Anarcho-regionalism is basically grass roots living. The idea is that people control their own lives versus getting directions from monopolistic corporations or Marxist committees. Why would anyone ever want to criticize a Marxist committee since that is like criticizing yourself? That person really should go to a place he/she can’t hurt the community anymore. It hasn’t happened on a large scale anywhere I know of. And neither has any worker’s paradise except in Cambodia during the 1970s.
2. I don’t know what a fancy and hip Marxist jargon word like “prescriptive” means. You mean an outline for that Marxist utopia where we all wear overalls? But maybe I was too hasty: what I meant was a critique of society that accounts for the disparities between the rich and the poor. There’s really nothing Marxist about keeping your eyes open and putting two and two together.
3. Your third question blew my mind. “Do free-thinkers work?” Wow. Now I know I’m in the presence of the real thing! Of course, it depends on how you define work. Do you mean calorie expenditure or your responsibilities to the People’s Plenum that have, through their beneficence, given you full employment as the bus driver or janitor that the people need? People that don’t work are social parasites, Komrade, and need to be sent to a place where they can get over their revisionist delusions.
4. “Is natural selection science?” That could only be a trick question. Something a good Marxist would champion since Marx was gaga for Darwin. Natural selection is a fact not a science. Genetics is a science that relies on fundamentals of natural selection. So does agriculture. As scientist Theodore Dobzhansky wrote years ago, “Nothing in science makes sense without natural selection.”
in Cuba it’s illegal to be unemployed.
| November 17, 2009 @ 5:08 am
well, golly fuckin willikers, marty, you’ve introduced me to a whole new universe of insult, what with your masterful use of sarcastic words like “wow” and “deities” and “overalls”! you seem to have really pegged me here! it’s like you’ve taken a picture of my soul, really taken it deep down inside of yourself, then shat it out and smeared it on your face, then taken a another picture, this one of youself, and uploaded it to the internet! that’s how well you know me! bravo!
i feel sorry, a little ashamed really, of all those stupid people out there, cravenly donning ski hats and sweaters for the winter season! ho, ho! what idiots! if only they knew how stupidly marxist they looked dressing appropriately for the weather! true revolutionaries wear spandex jumpsuits, leather chaps, propeller beanies and a grille! or something!
oh, and fuck those homeless people over there! you can tell by their “dumpiness” that they have no capacity for free-thought! you can corroborate that hypothesis by observing they are asking questions! and talking about things! don’t they know that talking about things and asking questions about things is equivalent to sniveling, groveling worship? free-thinkers don’t bother with successful communication! it gets in the way of their freedom of thought! come to “think” of it, communication is exactly like self-censorship of one’s internal monologue! or something!
1. the point, of course, is that just because something hasn’t happened, doesn’t mean something can’t happen, which was the gist of your earlier statement.
2. let me get out my marxian secret decoder book and look up the definition of “prescriptive” for you. let’s see here…precipice…pregnant…premonition…ah, here it is. “Prescription”…doo-da-doo…”to designate or order the use of as a remedy.” So as you can see, what Marx meant when he used this word was…oh, excuse me, i’m sorry. marx wrote in german. i guess i got my marxian secret decoder book confused with merriam websters.
hey, “wow”! i guess “prescriptive” is AN ENGLISH WORD. but as dictionary definitions are often decided by “committees,” does that make me a “totalitarian”? how un-free-think-ening of me!
in fact, i guess the less sense you make, the more free your thought! i refuse to be a slave to meaning and context! as my shordurpersav used to say: “gakbl;jeiajfkldsa;fjei;a;fjeiafjkia;lj!” how liberating to contemplate!
3. my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? this laughter hurts so! make it stop! please, please, please, god, i swear on your gaping vagina i’ll worship you if you just make the laughter stop! for a bit, you minx!
4. drat! you caught me tricking out my questions! you weren’t supposed to notice i’d installed hydraulics, a full wetbar, a gun turret and ejector seats! and, yes, as you are probably wondering, my pimped-out questions do attract the ladies, just like marx did. ’cause, like darwin in the field of biology, he really had the staying power (if you know what i mean) to elaborate a theory of history without recourse to metaphysics. just as darwinism is a materialist explanation of biological history, marxism is a materialist explanation of social history. not mystifications like “whatever hasn’t happened can’t ever happen” or pat falsifiable chauvinism like “humans are too territorial to cooperate.”
and let me make a bit of a silly suggestion. if you’re going to try to sneak in logical positivism to justify your snobbery with an air of scientific authority, you should really define your terms with a bit more rigor. making sure you know what you’re talking about might help.
good luck, marty, on all your future efforts to insult others while simultaneously backpedaling on your former statements and dodging direct questions. maybe one day that will work out for you.
| November 18, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
I’d also add that Marx was able to do something no anarchist ever did- come up with a cohesive, scientific analysis of capitalism. Anarchism wears its petty bourgeois class origins on its sleeve and doesn’t even know it.
| November 15, 2009 @ 1:08 am
I know as an anarchist it’s fun to shove around the Marxists and hang on them every crime that anyone claiming or accused of being Marxist has commited. But the Marxists can play the same game right back. And we the anarchists have a mixed record at best with organizing opposition to the state and capitalism. And Nick just because a number of our founders have included skilled workers and small independent businessmen like printers and clockmakers in the 19th century don’t throw around Marxist jargon in an attempt to make sound like supervisors and bank managers. It’s a silly fight to keep having.
| November 15, 2009 @ 2:46 am
i have to take issue with the “dangerous hustlers” comment.
the vast majority of black americans poll democratic (85-95%), and the majority of black americans live in urban areas. black america voted overwhelmingly for barack obama (95%).
black america is a intensely focused political bloc. current loyalty to the democrats is largely due to lbj’s shepherding of civil rights legislation and the resulting defection of white supremacist democrats to the republicans. loyalty to obama is obviously for more specific reasons.
i imagine african american loyalty to the democratic party is at a historical high.
the current lack of support among african americans for revolutionary politics is historically anomalous, though, and has a lot to do with the decimation of labor movements generally.
it is true however that while african americans vote overwhelmingly democratic, african american political discourse tolerates a much broader array of left-political perspectives than mainstream political discourse. it also tends to be more historically based. in fact, this tolerance is itself historically based, since anti-racism goes hand-in-glove with anti-imperialism.
| November 16, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
I fail to see how any of this is incompatible with my statement. If anything, the fact that Black support for revolutionary politics is at historically low levels is proof that Black Democrats- that is to say, office-holders- are indeed “dangerous hustlers.” Just as when I attack UAW I am attacking those in power in the institutions and not the rank-and-file, when I attack Black Democrats I’m not attacking the little old lady who drives her neighbors to the polls every October. I’m talking about Al Sharpton and legions of city-level Democratic Party politicians who are the modern day masters of the plantation party. They are worthy of intense scorn because they enrich themselves off perpetuating the oppression of a super-exploited branch of the population which they are themselves, despite their ability to sometimes “pass” socioeconomically speaking, a part of.
| November 16, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
i wasn’t referring to just the “black democrats are dangerous hustlers” part but rather the whole sentence, the thrust of which is that urban blacks necessarily know this. it seems to me that african americans are rather invested in the democratic party at this particular moment.
| November 16, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Nick should have probably said “black leaders” but his point is valid. There have always been power hungry individuals try to ride the discontent of the lower classes and channel that power by offering their services to the establishment. There used to be alot of black leaders who were staunch Republicans who hated the Democrats as the party of the South and of the Klan. But FDR made inroads during the depression and when the “Dixiecrats” left and went to the Republicans in the 1960’s. The situation reversed itself. I find it interesting that Republicans are trying to go after Hispanics and Jewish groups and bring them into the fold as these had been groups formerly very sympathetic to the left.
| November 17, 2009 @ 12:52 am
The majority of black people tend to be working class and poor. They are in more danger of imprisonment because of increased contact with the cops. And they tend to by the first out the door in times of economic trouble. The company I worked for laid off over 200 employees. Our shop only had a little over 20 black workers and now I belive there are only 2 left and the company axed the only black supervisor. They are often in more dire straights than other workers and people wonder why they’re loyal to the Democrats (the good cop) is because they at least throw them a bone. That’s why racism is an important topic and shouldn’t get back seat treatment by the left or anyone serious about change.
| November 17, 2009 @ 1:01 am