588 Petras castigates anti-Stalinist Left for fall of Communism and dismantling of welfare state

Petras castigates anti-Stalinist Left for fall of Communism and
dismantling of welfare state

Newsletter published on 4-3-2013

(1) Chossudovsky a (Neo) Stalinist?
(2) Petras castigates anti-Stalinist Left for fall of Communism and
dismantling of welfare state
(3) Conflicting definitions of "neo-Stalinist"; was Khrushchev one?
(4) Chossudovsky on HAARP: yes, it really is a Weather Modification weapon
(5) Chossudovsky: Occupy Wall Street is a "Colored Revolution"
manipulated by the Elite

(1) Chossudovsky a (Neo) Stalinist?

Subject: Re: Chomsky, Trots & Anarchists ignore Lobby humiliation of
Hagel. AIPAC demands aid to Israel be exempt from Sequestration
From: Ben Steigmann <blissentia@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013
01:20:40 -0800

Globalresearch is a Stalinist site? I know some of the support of
Marxism on that site, but can you quote Chossudovsky giving his support
to Stalin?

Reply (Peter M, March 4, 2013):

As political designations, a distinction is generally made between
"Stalinist" and "Neo-Stalinist".

Strictly, I should have called Chossudovsky and Petras "Neo-Stalinist".

"Neo-Stalinist" would apply to someone who, while critical of Stalin and
Soviet repression (eg of the Prague Spring in 1968) mostly took the
Soviet side during the Cold War, upheld the Soviet Union as a model even
if flawed, regretted its fall, supported some or all of the Soviet
satellites, eg Castro's Cuba, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Syria, Gaddafi's
Libya and Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and was not a supporter of Trotsky.

Khrushchev would count as a "Neo-Stalinist" because, although he exposed
Stalin's sins, he maintained the system in a less draconian way,
suppressing the Orthodox Church at home and the 1953 and 1956 rebellions
in East Germany and Hungary.

The Soviet Union remained "Neo-Stalinist" until Gorbachev dismantled
that regime both at home and abroard.

In Australia, the term "Neo-Stalinist" would apply to Ted Wheelwright.
He was a Maoist, implying some criticism of the Soviet Union, but after
its fall he said to me, "Now we're back to 1917"; and his body language
indicated that this was a disaster.

Gavan McCormack was branded a "Neo-Stalinist" by Robert Manne. An expert
on the Korean War, McCormack presented the case for the North, i.e. left
open the question whether the war was instigated by the South/USA, and
drew attention to American atrocities, including Germ Warfare using
results gained from Japan's biological weapons facility Unit 731 in
Manchukuo (Manchuria). Both the US and the USSR used the results of
experiments there.

He later became a Green and a New Leftist in the wake of Prague 1968 and
the atrocities of Pol Pot.

I apply "Neo-Stalinist" to Michel Chossudovsky, James Petras, and
Thierry Meyssan of Voltairenet.

None of the above five writers have written much about the Soviet Union.
Their attention was always outwards, on the crimes of Capitalism,
Globalization, and US Imperialism.

James Petras blames the anti-Stalinist Left (Trots and others) for the
fall of Communism and, in turn, for the dismantling of the welfare state
in the West. As long as the Communist bloc existed, he argues, Western
governments could not treat workers and the people too badly, lest they
swing their support to the Communist side.

Here's Petras on the anti-Stalinist Left; note that this attack on the
anti-Stalinist Left is on Chossudovsky's website.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-western-welfare-state-its-rise-and-demise-and-the-soviet-bloc/31753

{quote} The Western trade unions and the 'anti-Stalinist' Left (Social
Democrats , Trotskyists and every sect and intellectual current in
between), did yeoman service in not only ending the collectivist system
(under the slogan: 'Anything is better than Stalinism') but of ending
the welfare state for scores of millions of workers, pensioners and
their families.

Once the collectivist-welfare state was destroyed, the Western
capitalist class no longer needed to compete in matching social welfare
concessions. The Great Rollback moved into full gear. [...]

The entire army of impotent 'anti-Stalinist' leftists, comfortably
established in the universities, brayed till they were hoarse against
the 'neo-liberal offensive' and the 'need for an anti-capitalist
strategy', without the tiniest reflection over how they had contributed
to undermining the very welfare state that had educated, fed and
employed the workers.
{endquote}

Chossudovsky, Petras and Meyssan play a very significant role today,
extending well beyond Left circles.

Unlike Chomsky, Trotskyists, Anarchists and the Green Left generally,
these writers portray the Jewish Lobby as a Fifth Column manipulating
the US, and argue that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yesterday (March 3), I reported the results of searches for the word
"hagel" on leading Trotskyist, Anarchist and Green Left sites - with
none of them mentioning the Lobby's humiliation of him and attempt to
block his confirmation.

Today (March 4), I searched Chossudovsky's site
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/> for the word 'hagel'. The result: "About
2,420 results".

Articles on the Lobby's humiliation of Hagel were prominent:

eg.
“Israel Firsters” on Parade in Chuck Hagel Nomination:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-firsters-on-parade-in-chuck-hagel-nomination/5324221

and
America Shamed Again: Are US Lawmakers “Owned” by the Israel Lobby?
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-shamed-again-are-us-lawmakers-owned-by-the-israel-lobby/5323415

There's no comparison with those other "Left" sites, or with Chomsky's
disgraceful performance.

Chossudovsky even claims that HAARP is a weather-modification system,
capable of producing droughts and floods, although he concedes that
there is no evidence of it having been used.

This viewpoint is commonly found in "New Age" magazines, presented in an
irrational way that damages its credibility. Chossudovsky, on the other
hand, presents it in a scholarly way more difficult for the
establishment to ridicule: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

Chossudovsky claims that the People's Movement has been hijacked:
The Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manufacturing-dissent-the-anti-globalization-movement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110

He wrote an article arguing that the Occupy movement was manipulated and
partly funded by tax exempt foundations and charities. Further, that
covert intelligence agents within such movements initiate violence, to
discredit the movement. This may have happened with Occupy Oakland. The
wearing of masks or hoods, which disguise the wearer during
demonstrations, makes it impossible for organizers to identify infiltrators.

Chossudovsky shows that the clenched-fist symbol is routinely used in
such "Color" movements, as in Occupy.

The point, I think, is not that all such activism is futile, but that it
must be tightly controlled by experienced and reliable leaders, to stop
breakaway groups grabbing the initiative and the headlines.

{quote}
Occupy Wall Street and “The American Autumn”: Is It a “Colored Revolution”?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 13, 2011

[...] The ultimate purpose of “funding dissent” is to prevent the
protest movement from challenging the legitimacy of the economic elites ...

The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the
boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition. In turn, many NGOs are
infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence
agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive
alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding
from corporate foundations and charities.

{endquote}
http://www.globalresearch.ca/occupy-wall-street-and-the-american-autumn-is-it-a-colored-revolution/27053

(2) Petras castigates anti-Stalinist Left for fall of Communism and
dismantling of welfare state

The Western Welfare State: Its Rise and Demise and the Soviet Bloc

By Prof. James Petras

Global Research, July 04, 2012

http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1902
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-western-welfare-state-its-rise-and-demise-and-the-soviet-bloc/31753

Introduction

One of the most striking socio-economic features of the past two decades
is the reversal of the previous half-century of welfare legislation in
Europe and North America . Unprecedented cuts in social services,
severance pay, public employment, pensions, health programs, educational
stipends, vacation time, and job security are matched by increases in
tuition, regressive taxation, and the age of retirement as well as
increased inequalities, job insecurity and workplace speed-up.

The demise of the 'welfare state' demolishes the idea put forth by
orthodox economists, who argued that the 'maturation' of capitalism, its
'advanced state', high technology and sophisticated services, would be
accompanied by greater welfare and higher income/standard of living.
While it is true that 'services and technology' have multiplied, the
economic sector has become even more polarized, between low paid retail
clerks and super rich stock brokers and financiers. The computerization
of the economy has led to electronic bookkeeping, cost controls and the
rapid movements of speculative funds in search of maximum profit while
at the same time ushering in brutal budgetary reductions for social
programs.

The 'Great Reversal' appears to be a long-term, large-scale process
centered in the dominant capitalist countries of Western Europe and
North America and in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe . It
behooves us to examine the systemic causes that transcend the particular
idiosyncrasies of each nation.

The Origins of the Great Reversal

There are two lines of inquiry which need to be elucidated in order to
come to terms with the demise of the welfare state and the massive
decline of living standards. One line of analysis examines the profound
change in the international environment: We have moved from a
competitive bi-polar system, based on a rivalry between the collectivist
– welfare states of the Eastern bloc and the capitalist states of Europe
and North America to an international system monopolized by competing
capitalist states.

A second line of inquiry directs us to examine the changes in the
internal social relations of the capitalist states: namely the shift
from intense class struggles to long-term class collaboration, as the
organizing principle in the relation between labor and capital.

The main proposition informing this essay is that the emergence of the
welfare state was a historical outcome of a period when there were high
levels of competition between collectivist welfarism and capitalism and
when class-struggle oriented trade unions and social movements had
ascendancy over class-collaborationist organizations.

Clearly the two processes are inter-related: As the collectivist states
implemented greater welfare provisions for their citizens, trade unions
and social movements in the West had social incentives and positive
examples to motivate their members and challenge capitalists to match
the welfare legislation in the collectivist bloc.

The Origins and Development of the Western Welfare State

Immediately following the defeat of fascist-capitalist regimes with the
defeat of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and its political allies in
Eastern Europe embarked on a massive program of reconstruction,
recovery, economic growth and the consolidation of power, based on
far-reaching socio-economic welfare reforms. The great fear among
Western capitalist regimes was that the working class in the West would
“follow” the Soviet example or, at a minimum, support parties and
actions which would undermine capitalist recovery. Given the political
discredit of many Western capitalists because of their collaboration
with the Nazis or their belated, weak opposition to the fascist version
of capitalism, they could not resort to the highly repressive methods of
the past. Instead, the Western capitalist classes applied a two-fold
strategy to counter the Soviet collectivist-welfare reforms: Selective
repression of the domestic Communist and radical Left and welfare
concessions to secure the loyalty of the Social and Christian Democratic
trade unions and parties.

With economic recovery and post-war growth, the political, ideological
and economic competition intensified: The Soviet bloc introduced
wide-ranging reforms, including full employment, guaranteed job
security, universal health care, free higher education, one month paid
vacation leave, full pay pensions, free summer camps and vacation
resorts for worker families and prolonged paid maternity leave. They
emphasized the importance of social welfare over individual consumption.
The capitalist West was under pressure to approximate the welfare
offerings from the East, while expanding individual consumption based on
cheap credit and installment payments made possible by their more
advanced economies. From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's the West
competed with the Soviet bloc with two goals in mind: To retain workers
loyalties in the West while isolating the militant sectors of the trade
unions and to entice the workers of the East with promises of comparable
welfare programs and greater individual consumption.

Despite the advances in social welfare programs, East and West, there
were major worker protests in East Europe : These focused on national
independence, authoritarian paternalistic tutelage of trade unions and
insufficient access to private consumer goods. In the West, there were
major worker-student upheavals in France and Italy demanding an end of
capitalist dominance in the workplace and social life. Popular
opposition to imperialist wars ( Indo-China , Algeria , etc.), the
authoritarian features of the capitalist state (racism) and the
concentration of wealth was widespread.

In other words, the new struggles in the East and West were premised on
the consolidation of the welfare state and the expansion of popular
political and social power over the state and productive process.

The continuing competition between collectivist and capitalist welfare
systems ensured that there would be no roll-back of the reforms thus far
achieved. However, the defeats of the popular rebellions of the sixties
and seventies ensured that no further advances in social welfare would
take place. More importantly a social 'deadlock' developed between the
ruling classes and the workers in both blocs leading to stagnation of
the economies, bureaucratization of the trade unions and demands by the
capitalist classes for a dynamic, new leadership, capable of challenging
the collectivist bloc and systematically dismantling the welfare state.

The Process of Reversal: From Reagan-Thatcher to Gorbachev

The great illusion, which gripped the masses of the collectivist-welfare
bloc, was the notion that the Western promise of mass consumerism could
be combined with the advanced welfare programs that they had long taken
for granted. The political signals from the West however were moving in
the opposite direction. With the ascendancy of President Ronald Reagan
in the US and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, the
capitalists regained full control over the social agenda, dealing mortal
blows to what remained of trade union militancy and launching a full
scale arms race with the Soviet Union in order to bankrupt its economy.
In addition, 'welfarism' in the East was thoroughly undermined by an
emerging class of upwardly mobile, educated elites who teamed up with
kleptocrats, neo-liberals, budding gangsters and anyone else who
professed 'Western values'. They received political and material support
from Western foundations, Western intelligence agencies, the Vatican
(especially in Poland ), European Social Democratic parties and the US
AFL-CIO while, on the fringes, an ideological veneer was provided by the
self-described 'anti-Stalinist' leftists in the West.

The entire Soviet bloc welfare program had been built from the top-down
and, as a result, did not have a class-conscious, politicized,
independent and militant class organization to defend it from the
full-scale assault launched by the
gangster-kleptocratic-clerical-neo-liberal-'anti-Stalinist' bloc.
Likewise in the West, the entire social welfare program was tied to
European Social Democratic parties, the US Democratic Party and a trade
union hierarchy lacking both class consciousness and any interest in
class struggle. Their main concern, as union bureaucrats was reduced to
collecting members' dues, maintaining internal organizational power over
their fiefdoms and their own personal enrichment.

The collapse of the Soviet bloc was precipitated by the Gorbachev
regime's unprecedented handover of the allied states of the Warsaw Pact
to the NATO powers .The local communist officials were quickly recycled
as neo-liberal proxies and pro-western surrogates. They quickly
proceeded to launch a full-scale assault on public ownership of property
and dismantling the basic protective labor legislation and job security,
which had been an inherent part of collectivist management-labor relations.

With a few noteworthy exceptions, the entire formal framework of
collectivist-welfarism was crushed. Soon after came mass disillusion
among the Eastern bloc workers as their 'anti-Stalinist'
western-oriented trade unions presented them with massive lay-offs. The
vast majority of the militant Gdansk shipyard workers, affiliated to
Poland's 'Solidarity' Movement were fired and reduced to chasing odd
jobs, while their wildly feted 'leaders', long-time recipients of
material support from Western intelligence agencies and trade unions,
moved on to become prosperous politicians, editors and businesspeople.

The Western trade unions and the 'anti-Stalinist' Left (Social
Democrats, Trotskyists and every sect and intellectual current in
between), did yeoman service in not only ending the collectivist system
(under the slogan: 'Anything is better than Stalinism') but of ending
the welfare state for scores of millions of workers, pensioners and
their families.

Once the collectivist-welfare state was destroyed, the Western
capitalist class no longer needed to compete in matching social welfare
concessions. The Great Rollback moved into full gear.

For the next two decades, Western regimes, Liberal, Conservative and
Social Democratic, each in their turn, sliced off welfare legislation:
Pensions were cut and retirement age was extended as they instituted the
doctrine of 'work 'til you drop'. Job security disappeared, work place
protections were eliminated, severance pay was cut and the firing of
workers was simplified, while capital mobility flourished.

Neo-liberal globalization exploited the vast reservoirs of qualified
low-paid labor from the former collectivist countries. The
'anti-Stalinist' workers inherited the worst of all worlds: They lost
the social welfare net of the East and failed to secure the individual
consumption levels and prosperity of the West. German capital exploited
cheaper Polish and Czech labor, while Czech politicos privatized highly
sophisticated state industries and social services, increasing the costs
and restricting access to what services remained.

In the name of 'competitiveness' Western capital de-industrialized and
relocated vast industries successfully with virtual no resistance from
the bureaucratized 'anti-Stalinist' trade unions. No longer competing
with the collectivists over who has the better welfare system, Western
capitalists now competed among themselves over who had the lowest labor
costs and social expenditures, the most lax environmental and workplace
protection and the easiest and cheapest laws for firing employees and
hiring contingent workers.

The entire army of impotent 'anti-Stalinist' leftists, comfortably
established in the universities, brayed till they were hoarse against
the 'neo-liberal offensive' and the 'need for an anti-capitalist
strategy', without the tiniest reflection over how they had contributed
to undermining the very welfare state that had educated, fed and
employed the workers.

Labor Militancy: North and South

Welfare programs in Western Europe and North America were especially hit
by the loss of a competing social system in the East, by the influx and
impact of cheap labor from the East and because their own trade unions
had become adjuncts of the neo-liberal Socialist, Labor and Democratic
Parties.

In contrast, in the South, in particular in Latin America and, to a
lesser degree, in Asia , anti-welfare neo-liberalism lasted only for a
decade. In Latin America neo-liberalism soon came under intensive
pressure, as a new wave of class militancy erupted and regained some of
the lost ground. By the end of the first decade of the new century –
labor in Latin America was increasing its share of national income,
social expenditures were increasing and the welfare state was in the
process of re-gaining momentum in direct contrast to what was occurring
in Western Europe and North America .

Social revolts and powerful popular movements led to left and
center-left regimes and policies in Latin America . A powerful series of
national struggles overthrew neo-liberal regimes. A growing wave of
worker and peasant protests in China led to 10% to 30% wage increases in
the industrial belts and moves to restore the health and public
educational system. Facing a new grassroots, worker-based socio-cultural
revolt, the Chinese state and business elite hastily promoted social
welfare legislation at a time when Southern European nations like Greece
, Spain , Portugal and Italy were in the process of firing workers and
slashing salaries, reducing minimum wages, increasing retirement age and
cutting social expenditures.

The capitalist regimes of the West no longer faced competition from the
rival welfare systems of the Eastern bloc since all have embraced the
ethos of 'the less the better': Lower social expenditures meant bigger
subsidies for business, greater budgets to launch imperial wars and to
establish the massive 'homeland security' police state apparatus. Lower
taxes on capital led to greater profits.

Western Left and Liberal intellectuals played a vital role in
obfuscating the important positive role which Soviet welfarism had in
pressuring the capitalist regimes of the West to follow their lead.
Instead, during the decades following the death of Stalin and as Soviet
society evolved toward a hybrid system of authoritarian welfarism, these
intellectuals continued to refer to these regimes as 'Stalinist',
obscuring the principle source of legitimacy among their citizens –
their advanced welfare system. The same intellectuals would claim that
the 'Stalinist system' was an obstacle to socialism and turned the
workers against its positive aspects as a welfare state, by their
exclusive focus on the past 'Gulag'. They argued that the 'demise of
Stalinism' would provide a great opening for 'democratic revolutionary
socialism'. In reality, the fall of collectivist-welfarism led to the
catastrophic destruction of the welfare state in both the East and West
and the ascendancy of the most virulent forms of primitive neo-liberal
capitalism. This, in turn, led to the further shrinking of the trade
union movement and spurred the 'right-turn' of the Social-Democratic and
Labor Parties via the 'New Labor' and 'Third Way ” ideologies.

The 'anti-Stalinist' Left intellectuals have never engaged in any
serious reflection regarding their own role in bringing down the
collective welfare state nor have they assumed any responsibility for
the devastating socio-economic consequences in both the East and West.
Furthermore the same intellectuals have had no reservations in this
'post-Soviet era' in supporting ('critically' of course) the British
Labor Party, the French Socialist Party, the Clinton-Obama Democratic
Party and other 'lesser evils' which practice neo-liberalism. They
supported the utter destruction of Yugoslavia and US-led colonial wars
in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia . Not a few
'anti-Stalinist' intellectuals in England and France will have clinked
champagne glasses with the generals, bankers and oil elites over NATO's
bloody invasion and devastation of Libya – Africa's only welfare state.

The 'anti-Stalinist' left intellectuals, now well-ensconced in
privileged university positions in London , Paris , New York and Los
Angeles have not been personally affected by the roll-back of the
Western welfare programs. They adamantly refuse to recognize the
constructive role that the competing Soviet welfare programs played in
forcing the West to 'keep up' in a kind of 'social welfare race' by
providing benefits for its working class. Instead, they argue (in their
academic forums) that greater 'workers militancy' (hardly possible with
a bureaucratized and shrinking trade union membership) and bigger and
more frequent 'socialist scholars' forums' (where they can present their
own radical analyses … to each other) will eventually restore the
welfare system. In fact, historic levels of regression, insofar as
welfare legislation is concerned, continue unabated. There is an inverse
(and perverse) relation between the academic prominence of the
'anti-Stalinist' Left and the demise of welfare state policies. And
still the 'anti-Stalinist' intellectuals wonder about the shift to
far-right demagogic populism among the hard-pressed working class!

If we examine and compare the relative influence of the 'anti-Stalinist'
intellectuals in the making of the welfare state to the impact of the
competing collectivist welfare system of the Eastern bloc, the evidence
is overwhelmingly clear: Western welfare systems were far more
influenced by their systemic competitors than by the pious critiques of
the marginal 'anti-Stalinist' academics. 'Anti-Stalinist' metaphysics
have blinded a whole generation of intellectuals to the complex
interplay and advantages of a competitive international system where
rivals bid up welfare measures to legitimate their own rule and
undermine their adversaries. The reality of world power politics led the
'anti-Stalinist' Left to become a pawn in the struggle of Western
capitalists to contain welfare costs and establish the launch pad for a
neo-liberal counter-revolution. The deep structures of capitalism were
the primary beneficiaries of anti-Stalinism.

The demise of the legal order of the collectivist states has led to the
most egregious forms of predator-gangster capitalism in the former USSR
and Warsaw Pact nations. Contrary to the delusions of the
'anti-Stalinist' Left, no 'post-Stalinist' socialist democracy has
emerged anywhere. The key operatives in overthrowing the
collectivist-welfare state and benefiting from the power vacuum have
been the billionaire oligarchs, who pillaged Russia and the East, the
multi-billion dollar drug and white slave cartel kingpins, who turned
hundreds of thousands of jobless factory workers and their children in
the Ukraine, Moldova, Poland, Hungary, Kosova, Romania and elsewhere
into alcoholics, prostitutes and drug addicts.

Demographically, the biggest losers from the overthrow of the
collectivist-welfare system have been woman workers: They lost their
jobs, their maternity leave, child care and legal protections. They
suffered from an epidemic of domestic violence under the fists of their
unemployed and drunken spouses. The rates of maternal and infant deaths
soared from a faltering public health system. The working class women of
the East suffered an unprecedented loss of material status and legal
rights. This has led to the greatest demographic decline in post-war
history – plummeting birth rates, soaring death rates and generalized
hopelessness. In the West, the feminist 'anti-Stalinists' have ignored
their own complicity in the enslavement and degradation of their
'sisters' in the East. (They were too busy feting the likes of Vaclav
Havel).

Of course, the 'anti-Stalinist' intellectuals will claim that the
outcomes that they had envisioned are a far cry from what evolved and
they will refuse to assume any responsibility for the real consequences
of their actions, complicity and the illusions they created. Their
outrageous claim 'that anything is better than Stalinism' rings hollow
in the great chasm containing a lost generation of Eastern bloc workers
and families. They need to start counting up the multi-million strong
army of unemployed throughout the East, the millions of TB and
HIV-ravaged victims in Russia and Eastern Europe (where neither TB nor
HIV posed a threat before the 'break-up'), the mangled lives of millions
of young women trapped in the brothels of Tel Aviv, Pristina, Bucharest,
Hamburg, Barcelona, Amman, Tangiers, and Brooklyn …..

Conclusion

The single biggest blow to the welfare programs as we knew them, which
were developed during the four decades from 1940's to the 1980's, was
the end of the rivalry between the Soviet bloc and Western Europe and
North America . Despite the authoritarian nature of the Eastern bloc and
the imperial character of the West, both sought legitimacy and political
advantage by securing the loyalty of the mass of workers via tangible
social-economic concessions.

Today, in the face of the neo-liberal 'roll back', the major labor
struggles revolve around defending the remnants of the welfare state,
the skeletal remains of an earlier period. At present there are very few
prospects of any return to competing international welfare systems,
unless one were to look at a few progressive countries, like Venezuela,
which have instituted a series of health, educational and labor reforms
financed by their nationalized petroleum sector.

One of the paradoxes of the history of welfarism in Eastern Europe can
be found in the fact that the major ongoing labor struggles (in the
Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and other countries, which had
overthrown their collectivist regimes, involve a defense of the pension,
retirement, public health, employment, educational and other welfare
policies – the 'Stalinist' leftovers. In other words, while Western
intellectuals still boast of their triumphs over Stalinism, the real
existing workers in the East are engaged in day-to-day militant
struggles to retain and regain the positive welfare features of those
maligned states. Nowhere is this more evident than in China and Russia ,
where privatizations have meant a loss of employment and, in the case of
China , the brutal loss of public health benefits. Today workers'
families with serious illnesses are ruined by the costs of privatized
medical care.

In the current world 'anti-Stalinism' is a metaphor for a failed
generation on the margins of mass politics. They have been overtaken by
a virulent neo-liberalism, which borrowed their pejorative language
(Blair and Bush also were 'anti-Stalinists') in the course of
demolishing the welfare state. Today the mass impetus for the
reconstruction of a welfare state is found in those countries, which
have lost or are in the process of losing their entire social safety net
– like Greece , Portugal , Spain and Italy- and in those Latin American
countries, where popular upheavals, based on class struggles linked to
national liberation movements, are on the rise.

The new mass struggles for welfarism make few direct references to the
earlier collectivist experiences and even less to the empty discourse of
the 'anti-Stalinist' Left. The latter are stuck in a stale and
irrelevant time warp. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the
welfare, labor and social programs, which were gained and lost, in the
aftermath of the demise of the Soviet bloc, have returned as strategic
objectives motivating present and future workers struggles.

What needs to be further explored is the relation between the rise of
the vast police state apparatuses in the West and the decline and
dismantling of their respective welfare states: The growth of 'Homeland
Security' and the 'War on Terror' parallels the decline of Social
Security, public health programs and the great drop in living standards
for hundreds of millions.

(3) Conflicting definitions of "neo-Stalinist"; was Khrushchev one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Stalinism

Neo-Stalinism is a political term referring to the promotion of positive
views of Joseph Stalin's role in history, the partial re-establishing of
Stalin's policies on certain issues, and nostalgia for the Stalin
period. The term is also used to designate the modern political regimes
in some states. This is usually done by critics of those states, who
argue that their political and social life bears similarities to
Stalin's regime.

Contents

[edit]Definitions

There are two definitions of the term.

According to historian Roy Medvedev the term describes rehabilitation
of Joseph Stalin, identification with him and the associated political
system (Stalinism), nostalgia for the Stalinist period in Russia's
history, restoration of Stalinist policies, and a return to the
administrative terror of the Stalinist period while avoiding some of the
worst excesses.[1]

According to former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev the term refers to moderated Stalinist
state, without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political
opponents and total control of all political activities in the country
[2][3]

[edit]History of the term

The American Trotskyist Hal Draper used "neo-Stalinism" in 1948 to refer
to a new political ideology – new development in Soviet policy, which he
defined as a reactionary trend whose beginning was associated with the
Popular Front period of the mid-1930s, writing that "The ideologists of
neo-Stalinism are merely the tendrils shot ahead by the phenomena –
fascism and Stalinism – which outline the social and political form of a
neo-barbarism”[4]

Frederick Copleston, S.J. portrays neo-Stalinism as a "Slavophile
emphasis on Russia and her history": "what is called neo-Stalinism is
not exclusively an expression of a desire to control, dominate, repress
and dragoon; it is also the expression of a desire that Russia, while
making use of western science and technology, should avoid contamination
by western 'degenerate' attitudes and pursue her own path."[5]

Political geographer Denis J.B. Shaw considers the Soviet Union as
neo-Stalinist until the post-1985 period of transition to capitalism. He
identified neo-Stalinism as a political system with planned economy and
highly developed military-industrial complex[6]

During the 1960s, the CIA distinguished between Stalinism and
neo-Stalinism in that "The Soviet leaders have not reverted to two
extremes of Stalin's rule – one-man dictatorship and mass terror. For
this reason, their policy deserves the label 'neo-Stalinist' rather than
Stalinist."[7]

Katerina Clark, describing an anti-Khrushchevite, pro-Stalin current in
Soviet literary world during the 1960s, described the work of
"neo-Stalinist" writers as harking back to "the Stalin era and its
leaders... as a time of unity, strong rule and national honor."[8]

[...] In February 1956, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev denounced the
cult of personality that surrounded his predecessor, Joseph Stalin, and
condemned crimes committed during the Great Purge. In 1956 Khrushchev
gave a four-hour speech condemning the Stalin regime. Historian Robert
V. Daniels holds that "neo-Stalinism prevailed politically for more than
a quarter of a century after Stalin himself left the scene,"[18]
Following the Trotskyist comprehension of Stalin's policies as a
deviation from the path of Marxism-Leninism, George Novack described
Khrushchev's politics as guided by a "neo-Stalinist line," its principle
being that "the socialist forces can conquer all opposition even in the
imperialist centers, not by the example of internal class power, but by
the external power of Soviet example,"[19] explaining that

"Khrushchev's innovations at the Twentieth Congress... made official
doctrine of Stalin's revisionist practices [as] the new program discards
the Leninist conception of imperialism and its corresponding
revolutionary class struggle policies."[19]

American broadcasts into Europe during the late 1950s described a
political struggle between the "old Stalinists" and "the neo-Stalinist
Khrushchev."[20][21][22]

In October 1964, Khrushchev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who
remained in office until his death in November 1982. During his reign,
Stalin's controversies were de-emphasised. Andres Laiapea connects this
with "the exile of many dissidents, most notably Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn,"[23] though whereas Laiapea writes that "[t]he
rehabilitation of Stalin went hand in hand with the establishment of a
personality cult around Brezhnev,"[23] the political sociologist Victor
Zaslavsky characterizes Brezhnev's period as one of "neo-Stalinist
compromise," as the essentials of the political atmosphere associated
with Stalin were retained without a personality cult.[24] According to
Alexander Dubcek, "The advent of Brezhnev's regime heralded the advent
of neo-Stalinism, and the measures taken against Czechoslovakia in 1968
were the final consolidation of the neo-Stalinist forces in the Soviet
Union, Poland, Hungary, and other countries."[25] Brezhnev described the
Chinese political line as "neo-Stalinist."[26] American political
scientist Seweryn Bialer has described Soviet policy as turning towards
neo-Stalinism after Brezhnev's death.[27]

Mikhail Gorbachev took over in March 1985. He introduced the policy of
glasnost in public discussions – in order to liberalize the Soviet
system. The full scale of Stalinist repressions was soon revealed, and
the Soviet Union fell apart. Still, Gorbachev admitted in 2000 that
"Even now in Russia we have the same problem. It isn't so easy to give
up the inheritance we received from Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism, when
people were turned into cogs in the wheel, and those in power made all
the decisions for them." [28] Gorbachev's domestic policies have been
described as neo-Stalinist by some Western sources.[29][30][31] ...

This page was last modified on 26 February 2013 at 13:44.

(4) Chossudovsky on HAARP: yes, it really is a Weather Modification weapon

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate
Change

by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

Third World Resurgence, January 2001

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 4
January 2002

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a
partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating
impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's
climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated
"non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed
capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency
Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars")
Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests
that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially
triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military
standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it
constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively
destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used,
surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of
"environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of
greenhouse gases ...

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific
and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however,
that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department
of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP
program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric
modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as
disrupting enemy communications and radar.9

[...] More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's
electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons"
which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". (12)

[...] The use of HAARP -- if it were to be applied -- could have
potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate. Responding to US
economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify
climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization
of agricultural and ecological systems.
...

(5) Chossudovsky: Occupy Wall Street is a "Colored Revolution"
manipulated by the Elite

http://www.globalresearch.ca/occupy-wall-street-and-the-american-autumn-is-it-a-colored-revolution/27053

Occupy Wall Street and “The American Autumn”: Is It a “Colored Revolution”?

Part I

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, October 13, 2011

There is a grassroots protest movement unfolding across America, which
includes people from all walks of life, from all age groups, conscious
of the need for social change and committed to reversing the tide.

The grassroots of this movement constitutes a response to the “Wall
Street agenda” of financial fraud and manipulation which has served to
trigger unemployment and poverty across the land.

Does this movement constitute in its present form an instrument of
meaningful reform and social change in America?

What is the organizational structure of the movement? Who are its main
architects?

Has the movement or segments within this movement been co-opted?

This is an important question, which must be addressed by those who are
part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement as well as those who, across
America, support real democracy.

Introduction

Historically, progressive social movements have been infiltrated, their
leaders co-opted and manipulated, through the corporate funding of
non-governmental organizations, trade unions and political parties. The
ultimate purpose of “funding dissent” is to prevent the protest movement
from challenging the legitimacy of the economic elites:

“In a bitter irony, part of the fraudulent financial gains on Wall
Street in recent years have been recycled to the elites’ tax exempt
foundations and charities. These windfall financial gains have not only
been used to buy out politicians, they have also been channelled to
NGOs, research institutes, community centres, church groups,
environmentalists, alternative media, human rights groups, etc.

The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the
boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition. In turn, many NGOs are
infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence
agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive
alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding
from corporate foundations and charities.

The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people’s
movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic.” (See Michel Chossudovsky,
Manufacturing Dissent: the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the
Corporate Elites, Global Research, September 20, 2010)

“Manufacturing Dissent”

At the same time, “manufactured dissent” is intent upon promoting
political and social divisions (e.g. within and between political
parties and social movements). In turn, it encourages the creation of
factions within each and every organization.

With regard to the anti-globalization movement, this process of division
and fragmentation dates back to the early days of the World Social
Forum. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Manufacturing Dissent: The
Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, Global
Research, September 20, 2010)

Most of the progressive organizations of the post-World War II period,
including the European “Left” have, in the course of the last thirty
years, been transformed and remoulded. The “Free Market” system
(Neoliberalism) is the consensus of the “Left”. This applies, among
others, to the Socialist Party in France, the Labour Party in Britain,
the Social Democrats in Germany, not to mention the Green Party in
France and Germany.

In the US, bi-partisanship is not the result of the interplay of
Congressional party politics. A handful of powerful corporate lobby
groups control both the Republicans and the Democrats. The “bi-partisan
consensus” is established by the elites who operate behind the scenes.
It is enforced by the main corporate lobby groups, which exert a
stranglehold over both major political parties.

In turn, the leaders of the AFL-CIO have also been co-opted by the
corporate establishment against the grassroots of the US labor movement.

The leaders of organized labor attend the annual meetings of the Davos
World Economic Forum (WEF). They collaborate with the Business
Roundtable. But at the same time, the grassroots of the US labor
movement has sought to to carry out organizational changes which
contribute to democratizing the leadership of individual trade unions.

The elites will promote a “ritual of dissent” with a high media profile,
with the support of network TV, the corporate news as well as the internet.

The economic elites — which control major foundations — also oversee the
funding of numerous civil society organizations, which historically have
been involved in the protest movement against the established economic
and social order. The programs of many NGOs (including those involved in
the Occupy Wall Street Movement) rely heavily on funding from private
foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Tides
foundations, among others.

Historically, the anti-globalization movement which emerged in the 1990s
has opposed Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by
Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller,
Ford et al have, over the years, generously funded progressive
anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big
Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various
activities.

“Colored Revolutions”

In the course of the last decade, “colored revolutions” have emerged in
several countries. The “colored revolutions” are US intelligence ops
which consist in covertly supporting protest movements with a view to
triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy movement.

“Colored revolutions” are supported by the National Endowment for
Democracy, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House,
among others. The objective of a “colored revolution” is to foment
social unrest and use the protest movement to topple the existing
government. The ultimate foreign policy goal is to instate a compliant
pro-US government (or “puppet regime”).

“The Arab Spring”

In Egypt’s “Arab Spring”, the main civil society organizations including
Kifaya (Enough) and The April 6 Youth Movement were not only supported
by US based foundations, they also had the endorsement of the US State
Department. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, The Protest Movement
in Egypt: “Dictators” do not Dictate, They Obey Orders, Global Research,
January 29, 2011)

{photo}
Egyptian dissidents, Fellows of Freedom House in Washington DC (2008)
{end photo}

“In a bitter irony, Washington supported the Mubarak dictatorship,
including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its
detractors,… Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents
and opponents of Hosni Mubarak (see above) were received in May 2008 by
Condoleezza Rice … and White House National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Protest Movement in Egypt:
“Dictators” do not Dictate, They Obey Orders, Global Research, January
29, 2011)

The following year (May 2009), a delegation of Egyptian dissidents was
received by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (See below)

{photo}
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks with “Egyptian activists
promoting freedom and democracy”, prior to meetings at the State
Department in Washington, DC, May 28, 2009.
{end photo}

Compare the two pictures. Part of the 2008 delegation meeting Condoleeza
Rice is part of the 2009 delegation meeting Hillary Clinton

OTPOR and the Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS)

Dissidents of Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement, which, for several years,
was in permanent liaison with the US Embassy in Cairo, were trained by
Serbia’s Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS),
a consulting and training firm specializing in “Revolution” supported by
FH and the NED.

CANVAS was established in 2003 by OTPOR, a CIA supported Serbian
organization which played a central role in the downfall of Slobodan
Milosevic in the wake of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Barely two months after the end of the 1999 bombings of Yugoslavia,
OTPOR was spearheaded into playing a central role in the installation of
a US-NATO sponsored “caretaker” government in Serbia. These developments
also paved the way towards the secession of Montenegro from Yugoslavia,
the establishment of the US Bondsteel military base and the eventual
formation a Mafia State in Kosovo.

In August 1999, the CIA is reported to have set up a training program
for OTPOR in Bulgaria’s capital Sofia:

“In the summer of 1999, the head of the CIA, George Tenet, set up shop
in Sofia, Bulgaria to “educate” the Serb opposition. Last August. 28
[2000], the BBC confirmed that a special 10-day class had been given to
the Otpor militants, also in Sofia.

The CIA program is a program in successive phases. Early on, they
flatter the Serbs’ patriotism and spirit of independence, acting as if
they respect these qualities. But after having sown confusion and broken
the unity of the country, the CIA and NATO would go much further.”

(Gerard Mugemangano and Michel Collon, “To be partly controlled by the
CIA ? That doesn’t bother me much.”, Interview with two activists of the
Otpor student movement, International Action Center (IAC), To be partly
controlled by the CIA ? October 6, 2000. See also “CIA is tutoring
Serbian group, Otpor“, The Monitor, Sofia, translated by Blagovesta
Doncheva, Emperors Clothes, September 8, 2000 )

“The Revolution Business”

OTPOR’s Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS)
describes itself as “an International network of trainers and
consultants” involved in the “Revolution Business”. Funded by the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), it constitutes a consulting
outfit, advising and training US sponsored opposition groups in more
than 40 countries.

OTPOR played a key role in Egypt.

Egypt Tahir Square: What appeared to be a spontaneous democratization
process was a carefully planned intelligence operation. View video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8

{photo}
Egypt. The Logo of the April 6 Movement

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement,” the same fist logo, Source Infowars
{end photo}

Both the April 6 Movement and Kifaya (Enough!) received prior training
from CANVAS in Belgrade “in the strategies of non-violent revolution”.
“According to Stratfor, The tactics used by the April 6 Movement and
Kifaya “were straight out of CANVAS’s training curriculum.” (Quoted in
Tina Rosenberg, Revolution U, Foreign Policy, February 16, 2011 )

It is worth noting the similarity of the logos as well as the names
involved in CANVAS-OTPOR sponsored “Colored Revolutions” The April 6
Youth Movement in Egypt used the clenched fist as its logo, Kifaya
(“Enough!”) has the same name as the Youth Protest movement supported by
OTPOR in Georgia which was named Kmara! (“Enough!”). Both groups were
trained by CANVAS.

Georgia’s Kmara (“Enough!”)

The Role of CANVAS-OTPOR in the Occupy Wall Street Movement

CANVAS-OPTOR is currently involved in the Occupy Wall Street Movement
(#OWS).

Several key organizations currently involved in The Occupy Wall Street
(#OWS) movement played a significant role in “The Arab Spring”. Of
significance, “Anonymous“, the social media “hacktivist” group, was
involved in waging cyber-attacks on Egyptian government websites at the
height of “The Arab Spring”.(http://anonops.blogspot.com, see also
http://anonnews.org/)

In May 2011, “Anonymous” waged cyberattacks on Iran and last August, it
waged similar cyber-attacks directed against the Syrian Ministry
Defense. These cyber-attacks were waged in support of the Syrian
“opposition” in exile, which is largely integrated by Islamists. (See
Syrian Ministry Of Defense Website Hacked By ‘Anonymous’, Huffington
Post, August 8, 2011).

The actions of “Anonymous” in Syria and Iran are consistent with the
framework of the “Colored Revolutions”. They seek to demonize the
political regime and create political instability. (For analysis on
Syria’s Opposition, see Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The
Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian
Intervention” Global Research, May 3, 2011)

Both CANVAS and Anonymous are now actively involved in the Occupy Wall
Street Movement.

The precise role of CANVAS in the Occupy Wall Street Movement remains to
be assessed.

Ivan Marovic, a leader of CANVAS recently addressed the Occupy Wall
Street protest movement in New York City. Listen carefully to his
speech. (Bear in mind that his organization CANVAS is supported by NED).

Click link below to listen to Ivan Marovic’s address to Occupy Wall
Street in New York City

Ivan Marovic addresses Occupy Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkM3BBtc7N0

Marovic acknowledged in an earlier statement that there is nothing
spontaneous in the planning of a “revolutionary event”:

“It looks like people just went into the street. But it’s the result of
months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you reach a
certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If
it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a
matter of weeks.” (Quoted in Tina Rosenberg, Revolution U, Foreign
Policy, February 16, 2011)

This statement by OTPOR’s spokesperson Ivan Marovic would suggest that
the protest movements in the Arab World did not spread spontaneously
from one country to another, as portrayed by the Western media. The
national protest movements were planned well in advance. The chronology
and sequencing of these national protest movements were also planned.

Similarly, Maravic’s statement also suggests that The Occupy Wall Street
movement was also the object of careful advanced planning by a number of
key organizations on tactics and strategy.

It is worth noting that one of OTPOR’s tactics is “not try to avoid
arrests”, but rather to “provoke them and use them to the movement’s
advantage.” as a PR strategy. (Ibid)

{photos}
Occupy Wall Street Clenched Fist on http://occupywallst.org

PORA; Its Time!

KMARA Enough!

OBORONA Defense

KELKEL New epoch
{end photos}

PART II of this article will examine the mainstay of the Occupy Wall
Street movement, including the role of NGO organizers.

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2011