This is what our US academies, journalism, and political discussions have been reduced to----a major US once IVY LEAGUE university ---now simply a global corporate patent machine releasing LYING, CHEATING FAKE NEWS while sacking and looting America.
'Donald Trump is behaving like 1930s fascist dictator, explains Yale historian
'We think of Hitler and Stalin as super villains. But they’re not, they could only come to power with some form of consent,' says Professor Timothy Snyder'
We are being told far-right wing, militaristic, authoritarian, extreme wealth extreme poverty brutal FASCIST DICTATORS come to power with CONSENT.
We have shown how CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was pre-Weimar Germany and we have shown how today we are hearing groups having sold HITLER as 'socialist' and working for the 'PEOPLE/WORKERS' doing the same today while simply pushing the same global banking 1% PLAYERS. Doesn't matter if that player is from OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA----or TRIBE OF JUDAH----they are a tag-team both killing 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.
Anyone trying to read PHILOSOPHY books or reviews/analysis will be left not understanding or will be left with myth-making and propaganda about those political philosophies -----we must educate ourselves to attain REAL INFORMATION.
WHAT THE HECK DOES THIS DEFINITION BELOW MEAN?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, see Marxism–Leninism.
Part of a series on
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Marxism uses a methodology, now known as historical materialism, to analyze and critique the development of capitalism and the role of class struggles in systemic economic change.
Marxism has had a profound and influential impact on global academia and has expanded into many fields such as archaeology, anthropology, media studies, political science, theater, history, sociology, art history and theory, cultural studies, education, economics, ethics, criminology, geography, literary criticism, aesthetics, film theory, critical psychology and philosophy.
If we notice MARX and his writings hit mainstream in late 1800s just as colonialism was lifting and we were moving towards ANTI-SLAVERY tied to agriculture. Industrialization was being staged to SOAR in late 1800s----- MARXISM is a political philosophy designed to TRANSFORM SOCIETIES----economic and social----to ACCOMMODATE industrial revolution. Today's Bernie Sanders et al tied to 'OUR REVOLUTION' is not 99% populist because it is global banking 1% and THEIR INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
'It originates from the works of 19th century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels'.
One of the biggest fights between 99% of citizens in 1800s was over the ending of slavery. The ending of colonialism killed SLAVERY as America became a nation of citizens. Don't think global banking 1% was really going to end slavery----they simply created POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to rebrand slavery ---MARXISM -----and made it sound PRO-WORKER/PRO-POPULIST CITIZENS.
THIS IS WHY MARXISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN FAR-RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN-----IT HAS NEVER BEEN LEFT. INDUSTRIALIZATION TRANSFORMATIONS WORK TO EMPOWER AND MAKE WEALTHY THE GLOBAL 1% RICH.
First published Tue Aug 26, 2003; substantive revision Wed Apr 12, 2017
Karl Marx (1818–1883) is best known not as a philosopher but as a revolutionary, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is hard to think of many who have had as much influence in the creation of the modern world. Trained as a philosopher, Marx turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties, towards economics and politics. However, in addition to his overtly philosophical early work, his later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in the philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy. Historical materialism — Marx’s theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, characterized by class struggle, culminating in communism. Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx’s prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal.
1. Marx’s Life and Works
Karl Marx was born in Trier, in the German Rhineland, in 1818. Although his family was Jewish they converted to Christianity so that his father could pursue his career as a lawyer in the face of Prussia’s anti-Jewish laws. A precocious schoolchild, Marx studied law in Bonn and Berlin, and then wrote a PhD thesis in Philosophy, comparing the views of Democritus and Epicurus. On completion of his doctorate in 1841 Marx hoped for an academic job, but he had already fallen in with too radical a group of thinkers and there was no real prospect. Turning to journalism, Marx rapidly became involved in political and social issues, and soon found himself having to consider communist theory. Of his many early writings, four, in particular, stand out. ‘Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction’, and ‘On The Jewish Question’, were both written in 1843 and published in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, written in Paris 1844, and the ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ of 1845, remained unpublished in Marx’s lifetime.
The German Ideology, co-written with Engels in 1845, was also unpublished but this is where we see Marx beginning to develop his theory of history. The Communist Manifesto is perhaps Marx’s most widely read work, even if it is not the best guide to his thought. This was again jointly written with Engels and published with a great sense of excitement as Marx returned to Germany from exile to take part in the revolution of 1848. With the failure of the revolution Marx moved to London where he remained for the rest of his life. He now concentrated on the study of economics, producing, in 1859, his Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy. This is largely remembered for its Preface, in which Marx sketches out what he calls ‘the guiding principles’ of his thought, on which many interpretations of historical materialism are based. Marx’s main economic work is, of course, Capital (Volume 1), published in 1867, although Volume 3, edited by Engels, and published posthumously in 1894, contains much of interest. Finally, the late pamphlet Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) is an important source for Marx’s reflections on the nature and organisation of communist society.
The works so far mentioned amount only to a small fragment of Marx’s opus, which will eventually run to around 100 large volumes when his collected works are completed. However the items selected above form the most important core from the point of view of Marx’s connection with philosophy, although other works, such as the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), are often regarded as equally important in assessing Marx’s analysis of concrete political events. In what follows, I shall concentrate on those texts and issues that have been given the greatest attention within the Anglo-American philosophical literature.
MARXISM was always about changing societies to the benefit of industrial revolutions----now, our US labor unions used to be labor working for US CORPORATIONS. US CORPORATIONS used to be held accountable under US RULE OF LAW. All last century when our US labor unions fought for workers those labor rights and wages were ENFORCED. What changed during Reagan/Clinton sending our US CORPORATIONS overseas to FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---was the end of what Americans saw as US CORPORATIONS. They were made MULTI-NATIONAL and owned by OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----just as if they were 1000AD global EAST INDIA CORPORATIONS. So, these few decades no more corporations being held accountable---no corporations following US RULE OF LAW, no corporations paying attention to US LABOR rights and wages. Sadly, our US labor unions co-opted by global banking 5% labor players went overseas with Clinton neo-liberals and became team OLD WORLD EAST INDIA CORPORATION tied to slavery -----dumping our US standards of labor rights and wages.
'and takes a dialectical view of social transformation'
The word DIALECTICAL simply means two groups communicating and educating while debating a single issue. MARXISM is discussed from both the ECONOMIC standpoint----AND the societal structures tied to industrialization. TWO SIDES does not mean one side was standing with 99% WE THE PEOPLE. It simply means two sides of discussion were needed in TRANSFORMATIONS of industrial revolutions. There was nothing more TRANSACTIONAL then these few decades of ROBBER BARON sacking and looting America. Now comes TRANSFORMATIONAL----two dialectical discussions tied to MARXISM.
TRANSACTIONAL BECOMES TRANSFORMATIONAL.
FORBES is writing about both TRANSACTIONAL and TRANSFORMATIONAL----two MARXIST terms because FORBES is global banking 1% ---making the rich extremely rich----nothing 'LEFT' tied to MARXISM.
Oct 25, 2013, 12:17pm
Moving From Transactional To Transformational -- Why Employee Engagement Matters
Larry Myler Contributor i
I write about B2B sales strategies.
Are you stuck in the trap of transactions, unable to transform your company?
I had the privilege of speaking at the Greater Baton Rouge Society for Human Resource Management (GRBSHRM) conference recently. The theme of the conference was a timely message that will be of interest to any leader. It was about getting out of the transaction trap, and moving toward transformational leadership. When asked why they chose this theme, GBRSHRM president elect Don Howard explained, “Transformation is a pivotal skill that is needed by many leaders and managers today to make a bigger impact on their organizations.” It’s thinking like this that has caused GBRSHRM to gain over 100 new members in the last year alone. Good job, GBRSHRM!
Of course, every leader should exert transformational influence on the organization, but deep and lasting change will have an even better chance when enough employees also want to help positive change take root. Enlisting the workforce to embrace and foster forward progress is the desired outcome that should drive all employee engagement efforts.
True transformation doesn’t come from a one-time push, however. This type of change will only be sustained by creating a culture of transformation. If you want to learn from one company that has figured out how to do this, read on.
Big Ass Fans is a rather irreverent company that makes ceiling fans that are, well, really big. I first saw one of their fans back in 2005. It was perched about 40 feet above my head in the atrium of an office building. Upon seeing it, the first words out of my mouth were, “Wow, that thing is huge.” To which my host replied, “Yeah, that’s our big ass fan.” “Really? You call it that?” I asked. “No. The manufacturer calls it that. It was made by the Big Ass Fan Company.”
Fast-forward eight years.
Imagine my surprise when a reader contacted me a few weeks ago to tell me about a company whose employees are more loyal, engaged, and intrapreneurial that any he’s seen, and that I should write an article featuring…wait for it…Big Ass Fans! After doing a little research and discovering that the company’s logo is the north end of a southbound donkey, I knew I was in for an amusing and unusual interview.
“We have a lot of fun here, but we’re dead serious about engineering, manufacturing, quality, and service,” proclaims Carey Smith, CBA (Chief Big Ass). In 1999 Smith had six employees, sold 143 fans, and did less than $500,000 in total revenue. This year the company, with 450 employees, will gross about $125M in sales. Talk about a transformation. How did Carey Smith create 30 percent annual growth over 14 years? I asked the CBA himself.
“The key to success is our people,” Smith explains. “When we hire, we’re making a deal. I’m taking part of their life. They have to value that, and they have to know we value that.” As a result of that valuation, the company pays their people substantially more money than the national average for comparable jobs. Add to that the bonuses, phantom stock “dividends,” and career path opportunities that come from fast and profitable growth, and you can start to understand why these people are so loyal and committed. But it’s not all about the money. Every Wednesday Carey takes six different employees (and their significant others) to dinner at a nice restaurant. He’s been doing this for the past three years, and it has had a transformational effect on company culture and employee engagement.
Looking back on the history of the company, it is evident how central employee engagement has been to the strategic transformations it has gone through. In the early days, their only market was dairy farms. Because cows will eat more, produce more milk, and live longer if they’re physically comfortable, there was an instant and willing market for large fans that could move a lot of air efficiently. Expansion opportunities for the cooling of people soon followed, and Big Ass Fans began selling their high-capacity air movers to industrial plants where, as it turns out, humans will work longer between breaks, have fewer accidents, like their jobs more, and generally produce more when they’re physically comfortable. In the end, cows are a lot like people.
New products for commercial spaces and homes came next, as engaged and intrapreneurial employees continued to innovate and adapt for these new markets. Fact: Big Ass Fans currently makes the most efficient home ceiling fan in the world. That’s innovation. That’s intrapreneurship. That’s employee engagement at its best. Congratulations to Carey Smith and company for transcending mere transactions, and transforming a simple idea into a very Big success.
P. S., Carey Smith wanted his company to participate in the Intrapreneur Index research project. With Carey’s permission, I’m happy to report that Big Ass Fans currently ranks number one among all companies in the study.
MARXISM and its two stages TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL ------begins by using an ANTI-CAPITALIST stance ---we need to collectivize all that is land and economy and those few decades of collectivizing end with TRANSFORMATION---as we describe in RUSSIA'S PERESTROIKA AND AMERICAN PERESTROIKA-----all that was Russian economy and land ownership---all that capitalism was collectized during Trotsky/Lenin/Stalin-----to be TRANSFORMATIONAL in being handed back in privatization to ONLY the global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS of Russia---just as is now happening in Europe and North America. TRANSACTIONAL is that movement of all that is COLLECTIVE WEALTH pretending to be our 99% WE THE PEOPLE wealth and becoming TRANSFORMATIONAL----in the hands of global 1% MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE-----THIS NEXT INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Absolutely none of MARXISM has anything to do with the welfare of 99% WE THE PEOPLE. It's goal is to move ALL COMMON/PUBLIC WEALTH and POWER back into the hands of global 1%.
THIS IS WHY MARXISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY====JUST AS IS MOVING FORWARD TODAY.
We are afraid that Australia's JOEY is full of baloney when saying MARX explained but did not endorse capitalism.........INDUSTRY IS CAPITALISM for goodness sake....................................'Joey Moloney'
The Marxist critique of capitalism: explained but not endorsed
By Joey Moloney
September 16th, 2013
Few thinkers have been as influential as Karl Marx. Joey Moloney examines the key ideas proposed by capitalism’s most effective critic.
This article aims to provide a brief explanation of some of the key fallacies that Karl Marx observed as inherent in capitalism. The motivation to write this piece was not to endorse the subject matter, but was rather born from a proclivity to explore influential ideas. Before the concepts are presented, there are two important points to be made.
Firstly, put politics to one side. To objectively accept or reject the Marxist critique of capitalism, it is vital that one comprehends it in isolation from the failure to construct a viable socialist alternative in practice.
Secondly, it is important to acknowledge that Marxist methodology is almost a polar opposite of neo-classical methodology. It is historical, concrete, empirical and idiographic. It aims to understand capitalism as something observably shaped by history – an experience, not an abstract ideal – and something not necessarily nomothetic. In other words, it treats economics as more of a social science, and less of a natural science.
The Labour Theory of Value
This idea underpins much of why Marx saw capitalism as an unjust system, and many of his other ideas stand or fall on its validity. The idea itself predates Marx, it is generally credited to David Ricardo, but Marx embraced it and built on it. It basically holds that the total value designated to a given commodity is ultimately traceable to the labour needed to produce it.
It comes with three key footnotes;
1) value is defined by socially necessary labour, reflective of the general standards of productivity and technology available in a given time and space;
2) that the indirect labour expended to gain the skills necessary to apply direct labour is taken into account;
and 3) that the indirect labour expended supervising or managing the direct labour is also taken into account.
For Marx, the key take-away from the Labour Theory of Value was that it implies that the price of labour is reflective of the quantity of labour necessary to produce it. That is, a given wage is equivalent to the cost of sustaining the ability to work a given job, and is not a direct function of the value produced by that work.
The Under-Consumption Paradox
Marx saw an employer’s primary goal as extracting surplus value from the worker, surplus value being the product of labour above what is returned to the worker as a wage. Conversely, he saw an employee’s primary goal as wage maximisation, which by nature hinders the employer’s ability to extract surplus value.
Marx saw this contradiction in the relations of production as a destabilising force in an economy – a perpetual conflict with no tendency towards any equilibrium. If employer’s gain the upper hand then surplus value is produced, but cannot be transformed into profits as lower wages translate to lower consumption capacity. If employee’s gain the upper hand, consumers have the capacity to consume, but surplus value is not produced adequately in the first place.
What is important is that Marx essentially identified a contradiction between microeconomics and macroeconomics. A firm’s inclination to minimise wages to reduce marginal costs is rational. But if all firms do this, workers have lower disposable income, translating to a shortage of aggregate demand and therefore, economic adversity. Some have argued that this rejection of methodological individualism, in the context of market rationality, planted the seeds for Keynes’ macroeconomic theories. 
Surprisingly, Marx conceded that capitalism was an exceptionally strong force when it came to continued productivity growth and technological innovation.
However, he also claimed that capitalism is path-dependent – where it goes next depends on where it last came from. While it is not necessarily a problem that exponential technological and productive gains would be immune from undoing, Marx also argued that monopolisation from the centralisation and concentration of capital grows congruently with such phenomena, and is problematically also immune from long-term reversals. 
The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall
Marx viewed production as a circuit accumulating capital for the producers. In order to best accomplish this, the natural tendency over time for a firm is to increase constant inputs and reduce variable inputs (labour).
If the Labour Theory of Value holds, the gradual reduction in variable inputs means the real value of goods produced declines over time. Profits slowly decrease and the capital accumulation circuit gradually loses momentum. At some point, the forecast for the next circuit is a loss. The circuit is not undertaken, and the economy stalls. 
Marxism rejects static models that produce a simultaneous outcome. Marx proposed that the vast time constraint disproportionality between supply and demand is a critical factor in the instability of capitalism. Specifically, he argued that supply side decisions are based on probabilistic assumptions about future demand.
Much like Keynes, Marx stressed the importance of uncertainty. Imperfectly rational humans operate the capital accumulation circuit, hopeful of the realisation of what are fundamentally uncertain expectations.
Thus, if over-confident forecasts of demand are made, then investments are not rewarded, firms stop hiring and demand falls further. Here, Marx saw a structural imbalance that transforms itself into an economic crisis by way of vicious circular and cumulative causation.
Money as a Commodity
Marx saw money as more than just a medium of exchange. He purported that it is a commodity within itself, with the value to the holder being the power of the separation of time and space of a transaction. Such a property was thought to give money a constant excess demand.
The crucial implication of this is that the primary motivation of production is not to accumulate use-value commodities, but to accumulate the commodity of money.  Furthermore, due to money fostering separation of buyer and seller in time and space, it cultivates undesirable situations in which the ‘proletariat’ is at the mercy of producers who are pessimistic and unwilling to invest, because their preferences are slanted towards prolonging that separation. 
Many of the tools Marx used to explain capitalism have been adopted and refined by other heterodox economics schools. Path-dependence and circular and cumulative causation are central tenants of Old Institutional Economics, and the role of uncertainty is emphasized by Post-Keynesians.
Post-Marx economic thought has, more or less, rejected the Labour Theory of Value – principally because it pays inadequate attention to consumer preferences. Marx viewed capitalism as immoral because he saw a system in which workers were exploited by capitalists, who unjustly extracted surplus value for their own gain. If the Labour Theory of Value doesn’t hold, neither does this contention.
It would be wise for the author to advise that this short article probably does not do justice to the complexity of Marxist economics. The main mission of this article was to point out that ideological blinkers should not prevent one from exploring ideas that have had a definitive impact on our world.
'What is a 'Transaction'
A transaction is an agreement between a buyer and a seller to exchange goods, services or financial instruments'.
The economic term 'transaction' is easy to understand. A buyer (consumer) sees a product they like and purchases it from a seller (business). When we think TRANSACTION on a global scale ----who becomes the CONSUMER and who becomes and SELLER? What happened in US these few decades of TRANSACTIONAL MEETS TRANSFORMATIONAL -----is global banking 1% became the only CONSUMER AND THE ONLY BUSINESS in town---Wall Street becomes global Wall Street capturing all of America's economy away from SOVEREIGN CITIZENS. This happened these few decades because CLINTON era deregulated banks, sent our US corporations overseas, and allowed our local, domestic economies to FAIL.
MARXISM is dialectical ----it occurs in two stages----global banking 1% first COLLECTIVIZES all wealth and land pretending our 99% WE THE PEOPLE are participating in capitalism---then privatizes to global 1% keeping 99% of citizens out of the economy by installing the second diaectical stage of MARXISM ---the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are extremely poor while the global 1% are extremely rich.
BOTH DIALECTICAL STAGES OF MARXISM ARE FAR-RIGHT WING BECAUSE ALL THIS IS CONTROLLED BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---NOT OUR 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
Most of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE understand that these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA moved all economic transactions and wealth accumulation to fewer and fewer hands today completely out of hands of our US citizens---no matter black, white, or brown......we have only PATRONAGE economics thrown at those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players for a short time.
What is a 'Transaction'
A transaction is an agreement between a buyer and a seller to exchange goods, services or financial instruments.
In accounting, the events that affect the finances of a business must be recorded on the books, and an accounting transaction will be recorded differently if the company uses accrual accounting rather than cash accounting. Accrual accounting records transactions when revenues or expenses are realized or incurred, while cash accounting records transactions when the business actually spends or receives money.
Breaking Down the 'Transaction'
Transactions in terms of sales between buyers and sellers are relatively straightforward. Person A gives person B a certain amount of money for a good, service, or financial product. .
Transactions can become more complex in the accounting world since businesses may sometimes make deals today which won't be settled till a future date, or they may have revenues or expenses that are known but not yet due. Whether a business records income and expense transactions using the accrual method of accounting or the cash method of accounting affects the company’s financial and tax reporting.
Recording Transactions With Accrual Accounting
In accrual accounting, a company records income when completing a service or when shipping and delivering goods. If inventory is required when accounting for a company’s income, and the company typically has gross receipts over $1 million annually, the company normally uses the accrual method of accounting for sales and purchases.
Accrual accounting focuses on when income is earned and expenses are incurred. All transactions are recorded regardless of when cash is exchanged. For example, a company selling merchandise to a customer on store credit in October records the transaction immediately as an item in accounts receivable (AR) until receiving payment. Even if the customer does not make a cash payment on the merchandise until December, the transaction is recorded as income for October.
The same concept applies to goods or services the company buys on credit. Business expenses are recorded when receiving the products or services. For example, supplies purchased on credit in April are recorded as expenses for April, even if the business does not make a cash payment on the supplies until May.
Recording Transactions With Cash Accounting
Most small businesses, especially sole proprietorships and partnerships, use the cash accounting method. Income is recorded when cash, checks, or credit card payments are received from customers. For example, a business sells $10,000 of widgets to a customer in March. The customer pays the invoice in April. The company recognizes the sale when the cash is received in April. Likewise, expenses are recorded when vendors and employees are paid. For example, a business purchases $500 of office supplies in May and pays for them in June. The business recognizes the purchase when it pays the bill in June.
The cash basis of accounting is available only if a company has less than $1 million in sales annually. Because no complex accounting transactions, such as accruals and deferrals, are necessary, the cash basis is easier than the accrual basis for recording transactions. However, the typically random timing of cash receipts and expenditures means reported results may vary between unusually high and low profits from month to month.
The transactional MARXIST period of ROBBER BARON few decades moving all US wealth to the same global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS had the nail in the coffin with OBAMA era----and his $20 trillion in national debt tied to US Treasury frauds-----
OBAMA talking points were all about TRANSFORMATIONAL----it made EXCEPTIONAL all those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES------that is the transformational stage of MARXISM.
REAGAN/CLINTON era was TRANSFORMATIONAL as it killed all our real US domestic free market capitalism----making way for TRANSACTIONAL sacking and looting moving all economic activity to only global rich----for 300 years America had a thriving LOCKEAN SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALIST economy------LOCKEAN does not have that MARXIST sack and loot transactional stage -----LOCKEAN does not have that MARXIST TRANSFORMATIONAL stage bringing extreme wealth extreme poverty. LOCKEAN had both right wing and left wing economics because it was FREE MARKET and open to opportunity and access for all-----MARXISM captures all economic opportunity and access to only the global 1 % rich---ergo, MARXISM is FAR-RIGHT WING -----not left socialism.
Academics understanding what MARXIST philosophy really meant knew Reagan/Clinton era we were heading down MARXIST path----as too did ROBERT BOROSAGE and the global banking 1% neo-liberal media outlet THE NATION.....being a PROGRESSIVE writer means far-right wing making the rich progressively richer----it does not mean left social progressive
'Robert L. Borosage THE NATION
Robert L. Borosage is a leading progressive writer and activist'.
Was Barack Obama a Transformational President?
Despite his bold promises, the president put more energy into rescuing, rather than changing, the old system.
By Robert L. Borosage
December 9, 2016 THE NATION
Will Barack Obama be remembered as a “transformational president”? has he been a president who—as Obama himself put it in 2008, in reference to Ronald Reagan—“changed the trajectory of America” and “put us on a fundamentally different path”?
In his last year in office, Obama and his aides have rolled out a campaign to make that case. “He put the history books ahead of the news cycles,” asserts former head speechwriter Jon Favreau. He decided to “resist smaller incremental politics to do big transformational things,” reports former senior adviser David Axelrod.
The question is, and will be, contested. In January 2015, New York magazine offered up 53 historians and pundits whose views on Obama were all over the place. Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hailed his presidency as a “historic success.” Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat concluded that the Obama “realignment” signals that “the age of Reagan is officially over.” On the left, Tavis Smiley argued that Obama failed the “[Martin Luther] King test”: “He’s gotten a lot done,” Smiley conceded, “but on racism, poverty, and militarism, we lost ground.”
As the first African-American president, Obama is inescapably historic. And there is no question that his presidency—despite facing scorched-earth obstructionism by congressional Republicans—has been consequential.
But transformational presidents—like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan—do more than simply govern well. They challenge and change the direction of the country. They indict the old order and summon Americans to a new vision. They forge what becomes an enduring majority coalition, forcing realignments so that successors can carry on the fight.
No president can be expected to complete the revolution. Obama describes the office as a “relay race,” with each president tasked to carry the country forward and then pass the baton. By definition, success or failure depends significantly on whether his (or, perhaps one day, her) successors consolidate the realignment, and on whether the opposition adjusts to the new reality. Dwight Eisenhower succeeded Roosevelt and Harry Truman while embracing Social Security and the New Deal’s economic reforms. Clinton convinced Democrats that they must tack to conservative winds after the so-called Reagan Revolution. Obama’s hopes to be remembered as transformational surely were deflated by the stunning victory of Donald Trump, running explicitly on the promise to repeal or reverse many of Obama’s signature achievements.
Obama came to office amid calamity: an economy in free fall, a debacle in Iraq, the shame of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. Calamity created opportunity. The conservative era of market fundamentalism, imperial arrogance, and scorn for government was exposed as bankrupt. There was, as even the archdruid of neoliberalism, former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, conceded, a “flaw” in that worldview. Obama has racked up some notable achievements; the country is on a more solid footing now than it was when he took office. Yet for all his accomplishments, he may end up being remembered more for rescuing the old system than for changing it.
Staving Off the PitchforksObama swept into office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in the midst of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. He helped rescue the economy with the largest stimulus in history. He passed the biggest health-care reform in half a century and the most ambitious financial reform since the 1930s, and he slowed America’s rising inequality with the first steps toward progressive tax reform.
Unlike Roosevelt or Reagan, however, Obama chose not to “relitigate the past.” His signature appeal, he believed, was that he could transcend partisan and ideological divides. He was mentored by Robert Rubin, architect of much of the financial deregulation under Clinton. His leading economic appointees—Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Larry Summers—were tribunes of continuity.
Consider these hallmarks of the conservative-era consensus: the assault on government, deregulation and financialization of the economy, corporate-defined globalization, and growing inequality. All of them characterized the status quo when Obama was elected president in 2008, and all of them remain in place as he prepares to leave office.
Transformational presidents do more than simply govern well. They challenge and change the direction of the country.
Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package was unprecedented in size, but still too small to drive a robust recovery. And as Republicans assailed its “failure,” Obama stunningly surrendered the ideological debate. In his first year in office, with unemployment in double digits and Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushing a new jobs bill through the House of Representatives, the president embraced austerity. Bowing to conservative and Wall Street alarms about debt, Obama argued that the government, like families, must “tighten [its] belt.” He appointed the risible Simpson-Bowles commission to focus national attention on deficit reduction, a move that deprived Democrats of a coherent economic argument and contributed to the loss of both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections. Obama then flirted with a reactionary “grand bargain” with former House speaker John Boehner, which was thwarted only by the intransigence of the Republican right. The opportunity to rebuild America and put people to work was squandered. This became the first “recovery” in which government jobs were cut.
The president’s financial reforms were similarly compromised. In 2009, he told 13 major bankers: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” And so it was. After Bush, Obama, and the Federal Reserve bailed out the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crisis, the banks emerged more concentrated than ever. Only one major banker went to prison for what the FBI called an “epidemic” of fraud. Big banks were required to build up more capital, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created. But Obama leaves office with executive-compensation rules still unwritten and with federal regulators warning about the dangers of banks that are too big to fail and too weak to survive a downturn.
Obama’s historic health-care reform has extended insurance to 20 million Americans and requires coverage of pre-existing conditions. But the White House ducked taking on the pharmaceutical companies and abandoned the public option that might have provided a check on insurance-company abuses. The reforms initially slowed the pace of rising prices, but now double-digit price hikes by insurance companies facing less and less competition in the various exchanges are making adequate health care unaffordable for more and more people. This only emboldens Republican efforts to “repeal and replace” it.
At the end of his presidency, Obama joined with the business lobby to try to push another corporate trade deal—the Trans-Pacific Partnership—through a lame-duck session of Congress. Even treaty advocates now accept that our corporate globalization policies have devastated American workers and helped hollow out the middle class. The president calls the TPP central to his legacy, but Donald Trump made tearing it up a centerpiece of his campaign.
In the run-up to his 2012 reelection campaign, in the wake of Occupy Wall Street, Obama declared income inequality to be “the defining challenge of our time.” Jason Furman, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, now argues that the president’s policies on health care, taxes, and the economy constitute a “historic achievement in reducing inequality.” Obama did raise taxes marginally on the wealthy and decreased them for low-wage earners. But the president’s reforms are a minor correction to decades of upward after-tax redistribution. More important, little was done to alter the economic structures that generate extreme inequality in incomes before taxes.
For example, Obama now argues that unions “should play a critical role” in reducing inequality, but he abandoned campaign pledges to make labor-law reform a priority. He raised the minimum wage for federal employees, but he refused to require preferences in federal contracts for good employers that respect the right to organize. And he remained largely on the sidelines as public-sector unions—the last remaining areas of worker strength—came under furious assault.
Although Obama grew skeptical of the “Washington playbook” on foreign policy, he failed to offer an alternative.
After eight years, Americans are suffering from a second “recovery” in which most lost ground. The wealth gap has grown wider for African Americans, who, targeted by the banks, were the biggest victims of the housing collapse. The new jobs—disproportionately contingent, precarious, and part-time—add to the insecurity. Student debt is soaring. Our trade deficits are ruinous. And our public infrastructure is deteriorating, as the share of GDP devoted to domestic spending has plummeted to levels not seen since the Eisenhower era. It is hard to argue that this constitutes a transformation.
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize during his first year in office, largely on the promise that he would transform America’s relations with the world. He vowed to end the war in Iraq, heal the breach with the Islamic world, and reset relations with Russia. He pledged a new commitment to nuclear disarmament while avoiding “dumb wars.” He also pledged to address climate change, forestalling the “rise of the oceans.” Obama, who lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, would bring US policy back in accord with the Constitution and with international norms.
In foreign policy as in economics, Obama achieved some real successes, notably the nuclear agreement with Iran and new relations with Cuba. Most important, he made the clear and present danger of catastrophic climate change more central to US policy at home and abroad. The agreement with China and the subsequent Paris climate accord provide at least the promise of bolder action on global warming.
Yet despite the achievements and alarms, Obama’s administration has not forced a sea change in American policy. His appointments—Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Tom Donilon—ensured continuity, not a new direction. Although Obama grew skeptical of the “Washington playbook” on foreign policy, he failed to offer Americans an alternative vision. “Don’t do stupid shit” was his commonsensical doctrine, which might have served had he followed it.
Obama will leave office having made war longer than any US president in history. Efforts to extract the United States from Afghanistan and Iraq have been frustrated. The misguided intervention in Libya left behind a failed state. The administration became enmeshed in Syria and stood behind the savaging of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Obama allowed neoconservatives to drag him into rising tensions with Russia over Ukraine, even while moving to confront China in the South China Sea.
If anything, Obama has expanded executive national-security prerogatives. While he sensibly repudiated torture as a national policy, he escalated the back-alley War on Terror, using secret drone strikes in several nations while professing to be “troubled” by the president’s power to “carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate.” He has prosecuted more whistle-blowers than any president in US history, and he defended mass surveillance while refusing to hold officials accountable for lying to the American people and to Congress. Guantánamo remains open, a glaring insult to common decency. Obama is also the first president to maintain a “kill list,” and the first to target an American citizen for assassination.
The United States remains committed to defending 80 nations across the world and to patrolling the seas, skies, and outer space. We sustain a global network of over 700 military bases, and US Special Forces were active in more than 100 countries last year. Our military budget—about $600 billion a year—constitutes approximately one-third of all global military spending, more than the next 10 nations combined. Obama has signed off on more than $200 billion in arms sales since 2009, more than three times as much as George W. Bush in his eight years in office. Early progress on nuclear disarmament has ground to a halt, even as the president committed to a $1 trillion program to modernize the US nuclear arsenal.
As foreign-affairs analyst Stephen Walt concludes, for all of his expressed skepticism, Obama embraced the “broad establishment consensus about American exceptionalism and its alleged indispensability as the provider of global order.” Despite its repeated failures, the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment remains securely in place, and Washington has yet to engage in serious debate about America’s proper role in the world.
The Limits of Social Liberalism
The White House glowed like a rainbow on June 26, 2015, the day the Supreme Court ratified same-sex marriage—a warm symbol of the advance of social liberalism in the Obama years. The wedge issues that Republicans had wielded effectively for decades—race, gay rights, crime, guns—began to favor Democrats. LGBTQ activists, Black Lives Matter organizers, and Latino Dreamers argue correctly that Obama was more laggard than leader in their fights. However, his election and reelection not only symbolized and accelerated social change; his core message—that there is but one America—legitimized the arguments for change, and his White House responded when movements opened up the political space.
Despite Donald Trump’s summoning of the dark side, America is becoming more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and inclusive. Republican governors learned the costs of standing against equal rights for gays and lesbians. Conservative legislators acknowledged that too many Americans have been incarcerated for too long and for too little. Republican strategists pleaded with their party to champion immigration reform and to reach out to minorities and the young. Trump trashed those efforts, but they will surely be revived if the GOP is to survive as a viable national party.
The ideological advance doesn’t signal the end of discrimination or bigotry; the continued black casualties of police violence demonstrate that. Women’s rights remain a battleground in a prurient culture. Gun control—one of Obama’s central causes—actually lost ground. Continued economic distress could easily deepen the ugly social divisions that Trump exploited in his campaign. But this is the one area where the message and the new majority were wedded together, and it marks a significant turn.
Obama is the first Democratic president since FDR to be elected and reelected with a majority of the popular vote. He personifies our emerging majority-minority nation, the kaleidoscopic America. He helped to forge a new, potentially growing majority coalition of people of color, single women, millennials, and professionals.
The scope and durability of this coalition, however, have proved uncertain. Obama energized this coalition around his person—but unlike Roosevelt or Reagan, he failed to inspire it with a historic mission, to instill deeper understandings of a new role for government at home and abroad. These voters failed to turn out in the midterm elections, and the Democrats suffered historic reverses. White blue-collar workers felt abandoned in both politics and policy. Hillary Clinton’s stunning defeat in 2016 was caused in part by white working- and middle-class voters rebelling against an establishment that had failed them. Obama will leave office with Republicans in control in Washington and in 25 states to the Democrats’ five. Under Obama, Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats across the country.
Obama’s first campaign was propelled by creative new energy in social media, unleashing the power of small donors and volunteers. But he scorned the public financing offered presidential candidates, raking in record big-money contributions. Young people—the motor force of his coalition—grew cynical or more radical. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s designated successor, paid a huge cost politically for her reliance on deep-pocket donors.
Obama in History
The tawdry presidential campaign of 2016 suggests how much we will miss the eloquence, decency, and steadiness of Barack Obama. Few of us will forget the electricity of that glorious Election Day evening in Grant Park, his family onstage amid a sea of exultant supporters. He brought America back from the brink, but it is hard to conclude that he put it on a new path.
Harvard sociology professor Theda Skocpol argues that Obama might be seen as a “pivotal” president, if not a transformational one. On his watch, the United States began to recognize its corrosive inequality, the power of big money to rig the rules, and the way the deck was stacked against the vast majority. The endless wars without victory, combined with the hollowing-out of America, still mandate a change in course. By 2016, both parties were roiled by populist movements and candidates, as the utter failure and intransigence of the political establishment became more apparent. If this populist energy continues to build, perhaps historians will see his administration as the turning point. Obama’s health-care plan, progressive financial and tax reforms, and focus on climate change might be seen as the first steps toward a larger 21st-century New Deal. Perhaps his skepticism about the use of force abroad will inform a more realist, less imperial foreign policy.
But Trump’s victory stands as a repudiation. Trump campaigned against Obama’s agenda and vowed to reverse many of his signature programs. Democrats may be able to limit much of the rollback—and Trump could prove a transitory setback, as neither he nor the Republican Congress have answers for the workers who helped elect him. But even if the populist movements join with Obama’s rising American electorate to forge a new reform era, it will come long after Obama has left office, with another leader forging the way.
OBAMA was called the NEW REAGAN-----being TRANSFORMATIONAL ----because of MARXIST two stages of economic philosophy----REAGAN was the TRANSACTIONAL stage OBAMA was the TRANSFORMATIONAL stage. REAGAN set the stage for sack and loot------the Russian PERESTROIKA meets the AMERICAN PERESTROIKA of MARXISM-----followed by TRANSFORMATIONAL stage OBAMA MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE-----extreme wealth extreme poverty societal TRANSFORMATION.
BOTH STAGES OF MARXISM ARE FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING----NOTHING LEFT POLITICS IN MARXISM.
Industrial economics will never be LEFT----it is always driven by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. The 300 years of LOCKEAN social progressive capitalism was both right wing and left wing because it was REAL domestic, local free market capitalism with corporations held accountable controlling that wealth and power.
Obama Is the New Reagan
A former Reagan speechwriter says Obama is like The Great Communicator in his style, oratory, and temperament.
11.04.08 6:34 AM ET
Now Barack Obama has been elected, he can begin to work as the transformative president he said he wanted to be. When he declared that ambition on the primary trail, he found himself vilified by Hillary Clinton for comparing himself to Ronald Reagan.
But that comparison is apt, as is becoming evident by the hour. The inspiring, elevated, ambitious victory speech he gave in Chicago last night confirmed that he has taken on the mantle that Ronald Reagan laid down after two terms. Obama hopes to change the country for the better, as Reagan did, and already he seems heading in the right direction.
Effective government is what we need. Call it New Deal II. And Roosevelt’s oratory, his Fireside Chats, helped to inspire people to support his programs. Roosevelt, Reagan...Obama.
During the primaries, Obama said Reagan had set politics on a new trajectory, and that Bill Clinton, for example, had not. He was right, but was severely criticized by Democrats for saying something positive about Reagan.
In fact the two men have a great deal in common. Temperament, to be sure. And like Reagan, Obama will be a transformative president. And like Reagan, Obama is a Great Communicator, his oratory energizing people for change.
The first time most people became aware of Obama was when he made that great speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. We knew then we would hear from him again. He might prove to be the next great orator in American politics after Ronald Reagan. In a parallel way, most Americans became aware of Reagan when he made what came to be known as The Speech in 1964, supporting Barry Goldwater.
Effective government is what we need. Call it New Deal II. And Roosevelt’s oratory, his Fireside Chats, helped to inspire people to support his programs. Roosevelt, Reagan...Obama.
As it happens, early in 1968 I found myself in Sacramento working as a speechwriter for Reagan. William F. Buckley had been visiting Reagan at his place in Pacific Palisades, and it became evident that Reagan was thinking of running for the Republican nomination.
In 1962, following his narrow 1960 loss to Jack Kennedy, Richard Nixon had run for governor of California, losing to Edmund G. (“Pat”) Brown. Nixon gave his angry “last press conference.” In 1966, Reagan had defeated Brown by a million votes. Buckley persuaded Reagan that he needed me for a speechwriter, even though I had never written a political speech.
I quickly educated myself in what a political speech must do. It’s not primarily about information but about communion—with the target audience. But Reagan didn’t need a speechwriter. He was a good one himself. He wanted themes, paragraphs, memorable sentences. I did, however, help him a great deal on a speech about education.
In person, Reagan was a great deal like Obama, in his self-confidence and his equanimity under pressure. One morning, a member of staff asked the governor whether had read that day’s column by Herb Caen, a hostile San Francisco journalist. “Yes,” Reagan replied. “What’s the matter with that guy?” (Nixon, for whom I soon became a speechwriter, probably would have said, “We’ll get him. Put him on the list.”)
Reagan’s sense of humor disarmed even people who disagreed with him. At a press conference he was asked by a reporter, “Governor, have you seen all those anti-war pickets marching around the capitol?” Reagan asked, “Do you mean the ones carrying signs that say “Make love not war?” “Yes, governor.” Reagan: “Well, since you ask me, I don’t think they could do much of either.”
But he could also be steely, as in his confrontation with the air traffic controllers who were on strike, or in hitting Lybia’s Qaddaffi hard in the Gulf of Sidra affair. That was foreshadowed at a press conference. “Governor, the Black Panthers in Oakland are threatening a blood bath.” Reagan: “If they want a blood bath they can have a blood bath.”
Reagan’s “What’s the matter with that guy” came to my mind when Reagan destroyed Carter in a 1980 debate with “There you go again.” And in 1984 when he dismissed his age with a joke in a debate with Mondale: “I’m not going to hold my opponent’s age and inexperience against him.”
Reagan’s self-confidence enabled him to negotiate successfully with Gorbachev, even earning the Russian leader’s respect. The Soviet Union was crumbling economically, but Reagan gave it a push with the Star Wars missile defense shield (SDI), which the Soviets couldn’t afford even to test. Margaret Thatcher did exaggerate a bit, but she was essentially right when she said that “Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot.” In foreign policy Reagan set the country, and the world on a new trajectory by pushing the Soviets on the path to demise.
Domestically, he understood that marginal tax rates were too high. And as president he lowered marginal tax rates and stimulated the economy. But that didn’t mean that taxes should be lowered under any conditions. And Reagan understood that many federal programs were counter-productive. The Aid the Families With Dependent Children program actually encouraged the man to leave the household.
Today, our problems are not those Reagan faced, and today’s Republican party is not the party of 1980. It was irrelevant for John McCain to claim he had been a “foot soldier in the Reagan army.” The problems of the Republican party today demand entirely new thinking about what that party must be if it is to govern again. Symbolic of its problems is the fact that not since the 1920s has the theory of evolution been controversial in politics. The Republican party cannot be a tool of the evangelical movement, on evolution, stem cells and a host of other issues.
Obama arrives at a pivotal time for America. He faces problems at home and abroad that only someone who can carry the nation with him would be capable of solving.
Obama takes over from Bush, who has combined Lyndon Johnson with Herbert Hoover, two wars Bush couldn’t end and a recession reeling toward a global Depression. Iraq has cost a trillion dollars so far, and now ten billion a month, plus carnage, with a favorable strategic result unlikely. Almost certainly what will emerge is a Shiite Iraq allied with Iran.
Obama will have to look back to the transformative New Deal, which created millions of jobs building infrastructure—bridges, TVA, roads, tunnels—infrastructure now crumbling and often dangerous. Investment there will create jobs, as will the building of alternative sources of energy.
President Clinton once said, “The age of big government is over.” But not quite. Effective government is what we need. Call it New Deal II. And Roosevelt’s oratory, his Fireside Chats, helped to inspire people to support his programs. Roosevelt, Reagan...Obama.
No one pushes the idea that MARXISM is FAR-LEFT politics then the FAR-RIGHT WING. While Africa as other third world nations as Asia and Arabia have never installed LOCKEAN SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM------always bouncing back and forth from TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL MARXISM since late 1800s----early 1900s when MARXIST philosophy started to be installed by force----far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS always create population tension in order to MOVE FORWARD ---MAKE THAT GREAT LEAP FORWARD ----as we see below selling the idea that MARXISM with a goal of enslaving 99% of citizens is revolution against WHITE PEOPLE. Who is global banking 1%-----WHITE PEOPLE.
All of the continuous wars of last century were centered in these two stages of MARXIST philosophy. All of the continuous wars occurred because global banking 1% paid for 5% civil unrest/civil war players to create those tensions. Both ROYALIST CORPORATE FASCISTS called 'right wing' and MARXIST rebels CALLED POPULIST WORKER/CITIZENS left work for those same OLD WORLD ROYALISTS-----those dastardly 1000BC pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA-----OLD WORLD KINGS. It is the fact that North America has kept MARXISM at bay last century with strong left social progressive capitalism that America has not been embroiled in continuous wars. REAGAN/CLINTON bringing US CITIES AS FAILED STATES started the conditions for MARXIST two stages killing LOCKEAN free market opportunity and access capitalism.
FREEMASONRY and GREEK culture is completely tied to global banking 1% and OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----they don't like LOCKEAN social progressive capitalism with all that REAL free market opportunity and access. They are PATRONAGE economics.
August 25, 2018, 12:05 am
And it’s reminding us how deadly it remains.
Plaas Moorde, that is Afrikaans (the language of South Africa) for “farm murders.” The hills of Polokwane, in South Africa’s Limpopo Province, are dotted with over 2,000 makeshift white crosses. A cross is added for every South African farmer who is murdered. This has occurred since the memorial’s founding in 1994. Thus far, 75 crosses have been added over the last 13 months — and this year has seen the lowest incidence of farm murders.
For nearly 25 years, the government of South Africa has striven to overcome the taint of Apartheid by engaging in forced land redistribution. The basic theory behind forced land redistribution is that the black South Africans will be unable to recover economically from the bleak days of Apartheid unless they can own land. With nearly 73 percent of the arable land in South Africa being owned by white South Africans, the government has steadily tried to cleave private property from whites and redistribute it to black South Africans.
Since 1994, when the first free elections involving the previously oppressed black South Africans were held (as well as when the first land redistribution programs were enacted), black ownership of land has increased. According to the South African farm lobbying group, Agri-SA, in 2017 black South Africans in smaller towns owned more agricultural land than whites did. In the aforementioned Limpopo Province, for instance, black South Africans possessed 52 percent of all arable land.
The media isn’t wrong in a technical sense: 2,000 murders of men, women, and children over 25 years does not necessarily qualify as a genocide. However, given the political climate and the declining economic conditions — as well as the rapid imbalance in demographics — South Africa is clearly on the road to a genocide of its white farmers. After all, the first step toward dehumanizing a minority group — the white South Africans are a minority in that country — is to deprive such groups of their property. From there, it becomes increasingly easier to reduce such groups to nothing in the eyes of the rest of the country’s populace.
What’s more, there is an ethno-political component to these massacres that cannot be ignored. The murders began in 1994: the same year that the initial land redistribution programs in South Africa were implemented. Presently, some of the worst killings have been perpetrated in places like Limpopo Province.
Further, a dangerous admixture of socialism, populism, and nationalism has gripped South Africa for the last few years. This has coincided with the general decline in economic prosperity there. According to Genocide Watch in 2015, “the murder rate among South African white farmers is four times higher than among other groups of South Africans.” Plus, a succession of South African leaders has routinely referred to the white South African farmers as “settlers.” In other words, the white South Africans are viewed as little more than foreigners by the same government that is charged with protecting their property rights.
Bubbling up along with these trends has been the rise of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). A neo-Marxist revolutionary group led by the firebrand populist Julius Malema, this growing national movement has pushed the country’s politics to the far Left. This is especially true as Malema’s movement places increasing pressure on the ANC (Nelson Mandela’s former party) to either act on the radical notions of ethnically driven land redistribution or lose power.
For his part, Malema has vowed to die for the cause of forced land redistribution (should it come to that). He has also spun wildly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about “Jewish agents” training white farmers in terrorism tactics, so as to gin up the rabid anti-Semitism that dominates most Marxian movements. Malema vehemently denies that a white genocide is taking place — as do the ANC leaders running South Africa today. In Malema, in the words of the Australian Broadcasting Service, South Africa has “a shameless populist offering old-fashioned communist remedies.”
Reflecting on the recent torture and murder of his parents, white South African farmer Jo-An Engelbrecht explained of the perpetrators of the farm murders: “Not only do they kill, but the way they kill, they torture you. This is hate. This is political hate.” And, at EFF rallies, Malema can be heard ending his fiery speeches with the old ANC war-song: “We have taken our land back! Shoot to kill!” Other “classics,” such as “Shoot the Boer” have been heard at similar political rallies since 2012.
ABSOLUTELY------SPAIN AND PORTUGAL are top gun in installing far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth and extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM----where the global 1% of Spanish are allowed to do ANYTHING they want to accumulate wealth and power---while keeping 99% of SPANISH and Portuguese citizens down. Global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA----huge in Spain and Portugal. What our 99% of Spanish and Portuguese citizens did these several decades after FRANCO was to allow those global banking 1% kill Latin American 99% of citizens these few decades of continuous wars. No doubt those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players in Portugal and Spain gained some wealth---but here comes WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND---LAWS OF PHYSICS---you know, GOD'S NATURAL LAWS.
So, now we are seeing this term NEO----attaching to MARXISM. We will take this week to discuss in detail how all this MATTERS to US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens and how it is no way is UNSTOPPABLE.
STOPPING MOVING FORWARD IS EASY PEASY----PIECE OF CAKE.
Is Portugal Becoming a Bastion of Neo-Marxism?
by Tiago S. Freitas
July 26, 2018 at 4:00 am
- It is time for the people of Portugal to take a break from their concern over soccer scores to wake up to the dangerous attempt -- within their own parliament -- to turn their lovely sunny country into a bastion of neo-Marxism.
On one hand, this is not surprising, given Portugal's long-standing socialist tradition; like many European countries, it has managed to balance a free-market economy with heavy government taxation and powerful labor unions.
On the other hand, the ruling coalition now has the contribution of a toxic partner -- the "Bloco de Esquerda" ("Left Bloc") -- which has been demanding implementation of its extreme social, economic and foreign policy agenda in exchange for political support. Since its formation in 1999, through the convergence of the neo-Marxists, Trotskyists, feminists and environmentalists, this bloc entered the scene like a political Trojan Horse, and gradually took root in academia and other cultural institutions, to the point at which it now wields actual parliamentary power.
This power has taken the form of an intensification of a neo-Marxist agenda, ranging from a near-successful attempt to legalize euthanasia, disproportional defense of animal rights, gender modification for anyone 16 and older, and a series of draconian anti-private-sector measures. Yet, not a word from Portuguese media platforms.
While other European countries are at a crossroads, seeking to regain control of their social structure and borders following years of extreme liberalism, Portugal is backtracking -- falling prey to a group that organizes youth camps with indoctrination seminars, and holds conferences on topics such as: "Private Property is Theft: The Need for the Socialization of Productive Assets," and "Boycott Israel; Free Palestine."
It is time for the people of Portugal to take a break from their concern over soccer scores to wake up to the dangerous attempt -- within their own parliament -- to turn their lovely sunny country into a bastion of neo-Marxism.