23 Oct 2017

The US lurches toward military dictatorship

Andre Damon

The militarist diatribe by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, at a White House press briefing last week laid bare an open secret of American politics: behind the façade of democratic rule, the United States increasingly resembles a military dictatorship.
Firing back at criticisms of President Donald Trump’s handling of the October 4 deaths of four US soldiers in Niger, Kelly called members of the US military “the best one percent this country produces.” He then announced that he would take questions only from journalists who were family, friends or acquaintances of soldiers killed in action.
In an expression of undisguised contempt for the civilian government, Kelly denounced Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who had publicly exposed Trump’s callousness in his condolence call to the widow of one of the soldiers killed in the October 4 incident. Kelly falsely accused Wilson of bragging about securing funding for a government building in Miami named after slain FBI agents, saying of her: “Empty barrels [make] the most noise.”
The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders implied at a press briefing that any questioning of the pronouncements of the military was out of bounds. “If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general,” she said, “I think that that’s something highly inappropriate.”
Concerned over the White House’s undisguised contempt for the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military, some military figures sought to verbally distance themselves from Kelly’s statements. ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday led with an interview with retired four-star army general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who declared, “We in uniform…are fiercely protective of the rights of our fellow Americans to express themselves, even if that includes criticizing us.”
Kelly’s remarks evoked such defensive statements not because they challenge nearly 250 years of civilian rule in the United States, but because sections of the US political establishment see it as necessary, at least for the time being, to cloak the massive power exercised by the military over political life with the formal trappings of civilian rule.
This task, however, is increasingly difficult. Shortly after Petraeus’s appearance, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he had an extraordinary exchange with moderator Chuck Todd. Asked whether as Senate Democratic leader he had been briefed on the situation in Niger, Schumer nonchalantly replied, “Not yet.”
When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger, Schumer replied, “Uh, No, I did not.”
Todd pressed him further: “How do you describe it any other way than never-ending war?” Schumer gave a meandering reply that ended with the words, “We have to keep at it.”
In other words, the country’s civilian leadership neither knows where the US military operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not accountable to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the president and his generals, as in the over one dozen African countries where US troops are engaged in combat operations. The ranking member of the nominal opposition party has no problem with this state of affairs.
Should anybody be surprised, then, when Kelly, one of three generals occupying the most sensitive positions in Trump’s cabinet, denounces a member of Congress for daring to question the commander-in-chief?
One need only consider the rest of Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week” interview program. With only the slightest modifications, the entire program could have been produced in a country run by a military junta. In the midst of host Martha Raddatz’s interview with Petraeus, the program cut to a prerecorded segment showing Raddatz on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan as it carried out a war exercise off the Coast of North Korea, with Raddatz declaring enthusiastically, “The Sea of Japan is bristling with warships.”
The segment featured statements by the captain, the commander, a signal officer and a pilot aboard the ship. Raddatz concluded, “With the region remaining on the brink, they have to be ready to fight tonight.” The program then went on to preview an upcoming eight-part miniseries by the National Geographic Channel glorifying the Iraq war.
By this point, three quarters of the program had elapsed and not a single nonmilitary figure had made an appearance on one of the premier political talk shows of the world’s leading “democracy.”
Kelly’s comments triggered statements of concern among some segments of the US press. “A military dictatorship: that appears what the White House thinks the United States is,” declared CNN anchor Erin Burnett. Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker, “Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don’t have to strain your imagination—all you have to do is watch Thursday’s White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump’s phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like.”
But this raises the question: Would the United States really need to have a coup to transition to military rule? Would it really look much different from today’s “democracy”? There would be the same parade of generals serving as talking heads on the news, the same “embedded” reporters interviewing commanders on the front lines, the same members of Congress (most dictatorships do not dissolve parliament) declaring they had “not yet” been briefed on what the military has decided to do.
One could object that a military dictatorship would censor the press. But this has already in large measure been accomplished. The search engine giant Google has announced that it is promoting “authoritative” news content, while it buries links to left-wing sites in search results, almost entirely removing results on Google News for the World Socialist Web Site.
The ever-growing power of the military in the United States is not some accident or fluke stemming from the personality of Donald Trump. Despite being at war for his entire two terms in office, Trump’s Democratic Party predecessor Barack Obama never once went to Congress for authorization to use military force, and he defended his orders for drone assassinations of US citizens as part of the prerogatives of the commander-in-chief.
In the current political furor over the deaths of the soldiers in Niger, the Democrats have not questioned the legality of the deployment of thousands of US troops to Africa, carried out without any public discussion and behind the backs of the population, but instead sought to attack Trump from the right for being insufficiently deferential to the military.
After all, it is the Democrats and newspapers generally aligned with them, particularly the New York Times and the Washington Post, which praised General Kelly, together with fellow generals H. R. McMaster (national security adviser) and James Mattis (secretary of defense) as the “grown-ups” in the White House, with Times columnist Thomas Friedman calling on the generals to “reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration” in the person of the president.
The increasingly dictatorial forms of rule emerging in the United States are the outcome of protracted and deep-rooted processes. Amid levels of social inequality that eclipse even those of the Gilded Age, bourgeois democracy in the US is collapsing, replaced by direct rule by the oligarchy and its partners in the military.
This process has been accelerated through a quarter century of aggressive wars, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which have reached such a pitch that “never-ending war,” in the words of CNN’s Chuck Todd, is the new American reality, presently reaching a higher stage with the looming threat of nuclear war over North Korea.
The move toward dictatorship in the United States, accompanied by the drive to world war, is proceeding at breakneck speed. There is not much time. Workers and young people must mobilize now to oppose it on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program aimed at overthrowing the root cause of war, social inequality and dictatorship—the capitalist system.

21 Oct 2017

Echidna Global Scholars Program (Fully-funded to Brookings Institution, Washington D.C USA) 2018

Application Deadline: 13th November 2017
To Be Taken At (Country): Washington D.C., USA
About the Award: The Echidna Global Scholars Program is a visiting fellowship hosted by the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institution. The program aims to build the research and analytical skills of NGO leaders and academics who have substantial experience and ties to developing countries. Echidna Global Scholars spend four to six months at Brookings pursuing research on global education issues, with a specific focus on improving learning opportunities and outcomes for girls in the developing world. Upon completion of their fellowship, CUE supports the scholars in implementing an action plan that applies their new skills and expertise in the developing country where they have demonstrated substantial ties.
Type: Short Courses, Research
Eligibility: 
  • Education /Experience Requirements: The program selects professionals with substantial experience in and ties to developing countries, a demonstrated intent to return to a developing country, and a passion and demonstrated commitment to girls’ education. Applicants should have a background in education, development, economics, or a related area, with at least 15 years of professional experience in either research/academia; non-government and civil society; government; or business.  Master’s degree required; Ph.D. or research background strongly preferred.
  • Knowledge/Skills Requirements: Strong analytical and writing skills. Successful applicants will have an intimate understanding of education development issues and/or issues related to development and gender.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Applicants selected for the fellowship will receive a living stipend of USD $5,000 a month (subject to U.S. tax withholding), paid housing for the four-and-a-half-month term, and round-trip travel expenses.
Duration/Timeline of Program: 
  • Results finalized: April, 2018
  • Tentative Residency Term: July 3, 2018 to November 16, 2018
How to Apply: Brookings requires that all applicants submit a cover letter and resume. Please attach your cover letter and resume as one document when you apply. Successful completion of a background investigation is required for employment at Brookings.
Award Providers: Brookings Institution
  • Please note that this position is a part- time resident fellowship at Brookings (it is not an employee position).
  • Brookings is an equal-opportunity employer that is committed to promoting a diverse and inclusive workplace. We welcome applications from all qualified individuals regardless of race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, physical or mental disability, marital status, veteran status, or other factors protected by law.

Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University Early Career Research Fellowships 2018

Application Deadline: Monday 13th November 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): UK
About the Award: Applications are invited for two Early Career Research Fellowships:
1)      In Economics; History and Philosophy of Science; Human, Social and Political Sciences; Land Economy; Law; Philosophy; or History.
2)      In a branch of the Sciences (including Mathematics and Engineering). This will be a Henslow Fellowship, funded by the Cambridge Philosophical Society.
Applications will be more likely to succeed if they do not overlap with the areas in which the College’s existing Research Fellows are active: British History; Astrophysics; Computational and Molecular Biology; Applied Mathematics; Archaeology. The Fellowships will normally be tenable for three years from 1 October 2018. The Fellowships are open to graduates of any University, with no age limit, but will normally be awarded to candidates who have recently completed their PhD or are close to completion.
Type: Research, Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Early Career Research Fellowships are open to graduates, women and men, of any university who have recently or are about to complete their doctorates.
  • Candidates would normally be expected to have completed no more that 5 years full time equivalent post-doctoral research. Research Fellowships will not normally be awarded to people who have held comparable post-doctoral positions.
  • Successful candidates will normally have submitted their theses by the commencement of the Fellowship.
  • The statements of research should be no more than 1,000 words outlining the work candidates would submit in support of their applications, if requested, and the research they propose to do if elected. Please note that it will be read by people outside, as well as within, the candidate’s own discipline and should therefore be intelligible to scholars in other subjects.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • The 2017-18 pensionable rates are: pre-PhD £18,777 – £21,585, post PhD £20,411 – £22,876. These rates will be reviewed annually from 2018 in line with stipends generally within the College. A stipendiary Fellow already holding an award from another organisation, such as a Research Council or similar body, will be paid a stipend from the date such an award expires. Rent-free single accommodation will be offered in College, with a charge to cover services. An allowance, which is currently £3,340, is paid to any Research Fellow not resident in College, and study facilities are made available.
  • The College operates a housing loan scheme which is designed to assist Fellows with the purchase of a residential property in the Cambridge area.
  • Research Fellows are entitled to all meals (either lunch or dinner) at College expense whenever the kitchens are open. Up to three of these meals each week may be assigned to guests; and further meals (for the Fellow and guests) are available at the Fellow’s expense. There is also a small tax-free allowance to cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the entertainment of students.
  • An annual allowance of £1,000 is provided for use for academic purposes including the purchase of books, and computing equipment or attendance at conferences. Unused allowances may be carried forward for up to three years.  Additional grants may sometimes be made to assist with certain approved research expenses which are not covered by departmental, faculty or other sources.
How to Apply:  Churchill College, Fitzwilliam College, Murray Edwards College, St Edmund’s College, Selwyn College and Trinity Hall operate a Joint Application Scheme for Early Career Research Fellowships. Applications will be considered by all Colleges offering Fellowships in the relevant subject. A total of eleven Fellowships is offered but candidates are advised that competition is likely to be intense; last year over 1000 applications were received.
Candidates are warned that they are responsible for checking their eligibility to take up the post under UK immigration rules.
Award Providers: Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge

African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management (AIFMRM) PhD Student Fellowship 2018

Application Deadline: 15th November 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa
About the Award: The African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management (AIFMRM) in the Faculty of Commerce at  the University of Cape Town is a postgraduate institute committed to increasing the extent and depth of  expertise in the African financial service industry. The institute conducts rigorous scholarly research and  takes a critical and quantitative approach to the study of financial markets, risk management, and financial  innovation.
Field of Study: AIFMRM key research areas are:
  1. Financial Technology: The research in financial technology focuses on two broad areas: artificial intelligence in finance and  distributed ledger technologies. In artificial intelligence, we are particularly interested in applications of deep learning, including: AI and algorithmic trading; robo-advisors; and process automation. However, we are also interested in foundational research in artificial intelligence, specifically around strategic interactions between AI and humans. For our second focus area around distributed ledger technologies, we are particularly interested in applications of blockchain to remittances, payment systems, but also in the broader question of how distributed ledgers will affect the financial system. A PhD student in
    financial technology could work closely with computer scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, and we explicitly encourage applications from good Master’s students from these fields.
  2. Mathematical and Quantitative Finance: Our research in mathematical finance focuses mainly on the theoretical and quantitative modelling of financial markets and instruments, as well as the techniques from numerical analysis, optimization,
    simulation, stochastic analysis and statistics on which these models are founded. Current research topics include, among others, volatility modelling, multi-factor and multi-curve interest rate modelling, efficient computation of solutions of stochastic differential equations, model risk and uncertainty, calibration methods, optimal hedging strategies for exotic instruments, valuation adjustments and counterparty credit risk, applications of filtering techniques to finance, and the pricing of insurance linked securities.
  3. Macroeconomics & Finance: Our research broadly involves empirical and theoretical analysis of linkages between financial markets and the macro economy; and agency relationships and their impact on firm financial and investment
    decisions. Current research topics include financial intermediation, micro- and macro-prudential supervision, systemic risk, economic policy, international capital flows, and firm financing choices.
Type: PhD, Fellowship
Eligibility: AIFMRM is looking for enthusiastic PhD students with a Master’s degree in economics, finance, computer science, statistics, financial mathematics, or closely related fields.
Value of Award: AIFMRM offers a three-year, fully funded fellowship of R190 000 per annum. Research support is available, e.g. for conference travel and publication costs. We encourage and actively support PhD Students to undertake internships either in the financial industry or with regulatory authorities and central banks during their PhD. AIFMRM has an extensive set of collaborations with leading universities in Europe and the USA and we encourage students who want to
broaden their academic horizon to spend a semester abroad during their PhD.
Duration of Program: 3 years
How to Apply: To apply, please send the following:
  • A letter of motivation
  • A complete CV including the names and contact details of two references
  • Academic transcripts
to Co-Pierre Georg (cogeorg@gmail.com, African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa).
Award Providers: African Institute of Financial Markets and Risk Management

Wiki Aquitectura Student (WAS) Awards for Architectural Students Worldwide 2018

Application Deadline: 8th January 2018
Winners will be announced 26th February 2018
Eligible Countries: All
About the Award: The WAS awards are a place to share, win, learn and keep growing as architects.
If you are or have been enrolled as an architecture student during 2017 this is your chance to win valuable prizes for work you’ve already done.
The WAS awards are free to join and will not only give you the opportunity to win some really cool prizes but they’ll also allow you to see where your work stands against other students from other schools in different countries and get feedback from industry professionals outside of your school.
The call is now open for the three categories:
  • Housing,
  • Residential buildings and
  • Facilities.
Unlike other architecture awards and competitions for students the selection process for the WAS awards will take as long as it’s needed, there will be no shortlists and every single project will be reviewed equally.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: Each student is allowed to submit their best work to each of the three categories but can only submit one project per category
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award:
  • A check for 600€ for you to spend as you like. We recommend traveling!
  • Project featured on WikiArquitectura’s home page for 30 days (over 2M impressions)
  • A 3Doodler Create 3D Printing Pen to help you take your models to the next level
  • A free Membership Pro at Build Academy. Get your AIA certified diploma for free
  • Subscription to L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui magazine
  • Subscription to The Site magazine. Because built matters
  • Subscription to OPENHOUSE – The life we share magazine
  • 3 SCALAE paperback issues of your choice
  • Subscription to ARCHITECKTÚRA & URBANIZMUS magazine
How to Apply: JOIN NOW!
Award Providers: Wiki Aquitectura Student (WAS) Awards

University Duisburg-Essen Research Fellowship Program for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 19th November 2017.
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Germany
About the Award: The Centre for Global Cooperation Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen is one of ten Käte Hamburger Kollegs sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Established in 2012, the Centre is an interdisciplinary and international learning community that seeks to enhance understanding of the possibilities and limits of global cooperation and to explore new options for global public policy. The working language at the Centre is English.
In the period March 2018-February 2019 the Centre invites fellowship applications from across the humanities and social sciences (including psychology, law and economics) in relation to the first two main themes, as detailed below. Preference is for fellowships of twelve months, but shorter periods will also be considered. We particularly encourage female researchers and scholars from the Global South to apply. Applications from scholars at risk are welcome.
Fellows are expected to have:
  • Personal research and publication in the Centre’s thematic areas
  • A contribution to the Centre’s own publications (e.g. Global Cooperation Research Papers or Routledge Global Cooperation Series)
  • Active participation in seminars and other Centre events
  • Collaboration with other fellows in interdisciplinary exchange
  • Work in residence at the Centre in Duisburg, Germany
  • A completed PhD (for postdoctoral fellows)
Fields of Research: The Centre’s work in the first year of its second funding period will focus on the themes ‘Pathways and Mechanisms of Global Cooperation’ and ‘Global Cooperation and Polycentric Governance’. We especially invite fellowship applications that address these themes, as described below. In addition, empirical focus on climate change, digital spaces, migration, or peacebuilding is particularly welcome.
Type: Research, Fellowship
Eligibility:  The following criteria must be met in order for applicants to be eligible for the scholarship:
  • In the period March 2018-February 2019, we invite fellowship applications from across the humanities and social sciences (including psychology, law, and economics) in relation to the first two main themes, as detailed below. Preference is for fellowships of twelve months, but shorter periods will also be considered. We particularly encourage female researchers and scholars from the Global South to apply. Applications from scholars at risk are welcome.
Nationality: Applicants from global south (i.e., Africa, Latin America and the developing countries in Asia) are eligible to apply for this fellowship programme.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • An intellectually stimulating and vibrant interdisciplinary learning community
  • Excellent infrastructure with fully equipped offices, library facilities, and administrative support (also with finding accommodation)
  • Travel expenses and funds to organize workshops (subject to approval)
  • Either a monthly stipend commensurate with experience or salary reimbursement to the home institution
Duration of Program: 12 months between March 2018 – February 2019. Please indicate in the cover letter your preferred start and end date of the fellowship.
How to Apply: Applications (in English only) should include:
  • cover letter
  • concise research proposal (3-5 pages)
  • CV
  • list of publications
  • text of one relevant publication
Please submit applications here
Award Providers: University Duisburg-Essen

Torturing the Poor, German-Style

THOMAS KLIKAUER

Ever since the social-democratic and green coalition government of 1998-2005, Germany’s once mighty social welfare state has been moved towards neoliberal deregulation and its planned destruction. Historically, the rudimentary origins of Germany’s welfare state date back to Bismarck (1815-1898). It really took off in the years after World War I when the “betrayed revolution” of 1918/19 ended with a class compromise between capital and labour. Engineered by Germany’s main reformist social-democratic party (SPD), this compromise allowed not only capitalism to continue unabated, it also paved the way for the integration of labour into capitalism’s institutional apparatus. Relying on the ideology of “Blair’s Third Way” (Great Britain), however, Germany’s chancellor Schröder (SPD) –known as the “Comrade of the Bosses”– no longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat or precariate. These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s.
The neoliberal programme means mass poverty and tormenting the poor. It allows, for example, for $3.80 (3.20 Euro) as an hourly wage for a hairdresser.  Starvation wages can be supported through hand-outs. A state-run job centre told an unemployed teacher, for example, to apply for a job as a sales assistant in a sex shop. Failure to take up the position results in the government’s harsh sanctioning regime. This means deduction of already minuscule payments. The teacher said that she had been forced to put up with a lot but “This is too much”. It is how neoliberalism is tormenting the poor. Beyond that, Germany’s version of neoliberalism also creates the poor and particularly the working poor as Germans increasingly need two jobs to get by. In the year 2003, roughly 150.000 people in Germany had two jobs. In March this year it was well over 3 million.
Yet people are fighting back against Schröder’s neoliberal slashing of the welfare state that Merkel seamlessly continued. Berlin’s “Centre for Unemployed”, for example, offers brochures on “how to defend your rights against the Job Center” – an initiative launched by Germany’s protestant church. It is one possible response to Germany’s neoliberalism. The initiative sees that people are distressed feeling powerless against the neoliberal bureaucratic behemoth. Today, many of Germany’s poor, working poor, underemployed and unemployed are viewing the state as a clear and present danger to their livelihood as it operates with humiliation, threats and torment.
Being poor, however, is not confined to the working poor and unemployed. Increasingly, cuts in the welfare state create large scale poverty among Germany’s pensioners. Many are ashamed to even recognise their (deliberately engineered) “plight”(!) let alone discuss their financial misery. Some of Germany’s retirees are forced to exist on less than $600 (€500) a month at a time when renting an apartment often means spending $300 (€300) a month. Together with the rising cost of living, many feel the pain of the deliberately shrunk welfare state on a daily basis: less food and less heating during the long and often harsh winter months.
Typically for Germany’s neoliberal punishment regime is precarious part-time work. A cleaner earning $400 (€340) a month is not uncommon. The cleaner explained, ‘I’ve had a letter from the Job Centre saying I haven’t declared my income and have to pay back $300 (€250). They made a mistake”. But it is hard to fight these so-called “mistakes” as they are part of a structure designed to torment the poor way beyond simple stigmatisation. It is a first class “blame the victim” policy – blame the poor for being poor.
Much of Germany’s farewell to the welfare state is called Hartz. It is textbook style neoliberalism following the ideological rulebook written by Hungarian aristocrat Hayek. It features labour market de- or better pro-business re-regulation in favour of capital, the annihilation of trade unions, and the elimination of the welfare state. Its German manifestation is inextricably linked to its main engineer, the former Volkswagen manager Peter Hartz. As a failed HRM director – his illegal doings included bribing with cash, tropical holidays and prostitutes – Hartz received a two-year “suspended” sentence and was fined €500,000. If you are a highly paid manager and government advisor, a slap on the wrist is all you get. Just do not steal bread when you are poor because the full force of the law will rain down on you. In capitalism, rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under the bridge.
Hartz’s main hit on the welfare state was merging social and unemployment benefits. This marked the downward trend to poverty creating welfare payments of $485 per month (2017) for a single person. According to textbook style neoliberal ideology, this encourages the unemployed (Orwell’s Oldspeak), now called “customers” (Newspeak) to seek underpaid and inappropriate jobs quickly. Tormenting the poor also means that such payments are strictly linked to an utmost coercive monitoring and surveillance regime.
Today, almost six million Germans depend on such payments. This includes the officially as well as the unofficially unemployed and those statistically cleansed by being placed in training and coaching schemes and mini-jobs. They make up the core of Hartz’s victims. Beyond that, these statistics also include 1.6 million children meaning that one in five children is exposed to poverty. This what 21st century social-democracy can achieve. Meanwhile, Germany’s tabloid press accuses the poor of being “Hartz parasites”.
It is not at all surprising that “anti-Hartz” protesters hold up signs saying “slaveholder state” and are fighting against social-democratic neoliberalism’s plan that started in the late 1990s when Schröder adopted Tony Blair’s “The Third Way” ideology from Great Britain. After two decades of social-democratic neoliberalism, Schröder’s poverty creation policies show that Hartz’s full-frontal attack on the welfare state marked the most important break in the history of the German welfare state since Bismarck. The landmark deal for moving Germany’s welfare state onto a tormenting state occurred in August 2002 when Schröder announced his plan. He called it “a great day for the unemployed’. This also marked the merger of hypocrisy and cynicism.
The Schröder/Hartz plan was a marvel of managerial double talk peppered with the ever popular “Denglish”, a twisted mix of German and English. Using Managerialism’s key buzzwords such as controlling, change management, bridge system for older workers, voluntary work and job centres with improved customer service, etc. it ideologically camouflages what is in store for German workers and the poor.
Hartz in fact meant lower wage costs for employers with so-called mini-jobs paying between $480 and $530 a month, the use of temporary labour, etc. With this clear signal from Germany’s social-democratic party’s “comrade of the bosses” (Schröder) employers became insatiable. They foresaw a supply of cheap labour through Schröder’s new job centres. Soon German capital started to convert regular full-time jobs with regular wages into precarious jobs. Combined with Germany’s high productivity, declining wages engineered economic success. Schröder’s neoliberalism assisted German bosses – not the workers. Soon the number of people in temporary employment began to rise. Their jobs rose from 300,000 (2000) to nearly a million in 2016. This is the success of social-democratic neoliberalism for the bosses – just not for the working class.
Rather quickly, the number of working poor also rose from 18% to 22%. In many ways, the excesses of Schröder’s neoliberalism were so severe in driving down wages, that Schröder’s successor Merkel was forced to introduce a minimum wage. This was the first time that Germany needed a minimum wage. Traditionally, German trade unions had set what might be called a minimum wage at the lower end of collective bargaining agreements. But since the weakening of trade unions showed effect, German firms increasinlyg left employer federations while workers are increasingly non-organised. As a consequence, the introduction of a minimum wage at about $10 per hour in 2015 (now increased to $10.50) was needed. This, however has not affected neoliberalism’s march towards mass poverty. Today almost 5 million workers survive on so-called mini-job that pay them $530 per month. In short, Germany’s neoliberalism has converted unemployed workers into paupers while others became the working poor. Mass poverty is spiced up by the fact that anyone non-compliant with the state’s harsh new rules will be tormented.
In actual fact, Hartz is a precarious employment service where unemployed workers –now called customers– are in perpetual danger of falling into neoliberalism’s punishment trap. It is not unusual for highly skilled workers in their 50s to be told by Schröder’s job centre to turn up at 4am in the morning for a construction job with a pair of safety boots or face the punishing torment of the job centre. In some cases, these orders are deliberately issued so that there is no time to appeal. Non-compliance leads to immediate punishment, the cutting of financial support by the state which means the loss of money anywhere between 10% and 100% of income support.
In Schröder’s world of social-democratic neoliberalism, nobody is safe from the tormenting powers of the state and this also includes children. Job centres can cut monthly allowances even for children that are still at school. It can “advise” (Orwellian Newspeak) a child to look for work in any industrial sector deemed to have a labour shortage. The state can even stop allowances if children miss work or centre appointments. This became legitimate as corporate media engineered an ideological offensive against the poor.
To avoid the infamous “Blind Spot of Western Marxism”, the ideological groundwork for demonising the working class and tormenting the poor has been laid by corporate media. As in many countries, Germany too has its Berlusconis, its Rupert Murdochs, Hearsts, Turners, Sabans, Carlos Slims, etc. Capitalism’s extremely right-wing, racist, pro-business, and xenophobic media mogul in Germany was Axel Springer, once owner of Germany’s largest tabloid, The Bild Zeitung. What such tabloid newspapers often do when writing against workers, trade unions, and the poor is “framing”. Framing establishes a mental framework in which new information is interpreted.
To achieve its anti-workers and pro-capital goals, several frames are established by the media. These frames can be divided into “wealth and the wealthy”, “workers and the poor” and “trade unions”. Today, we basically see what Karl Marx has described in the “Germany Ideology”: The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.
The ruling elite is well aware of media’s ideological powers and it knows there is class war. As one of the world’s richest men, Warren E. Buffett, explains, “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” To win the class war, eliminating trade unions, eroding workers solidarity and tormenting the poor may well be part of the old “divide and conquer” politics pitching workers against workers. This is where media framing comes in to establish a positive frame for the wealthy and negative frames for the workers, the poor, and trade unions.
Media framing for the wealthy means, for example, establishing a consensus frame (the wealthy are like everyone else), an admiration frame (the wealthy are generous and caring people; it glorifies wealth), an emulation frame (the wealthy personify something to emulate), a price-tag frame (like the wealthy, you too should believe in the gospel of materialism), a sour-grapes frame (some of the wealthy are unhappy and dysfunctional), a success frame (individual hard work leads to success) and the infamous and often applied bad-apple frame (some wealthy people are scoundrels and some are bad but the majority is good).
Meanwhile workers and the poor receive a very different media framing. The thematic frame is used to present the poor as statistics (not real people); the negative frame presents the poor as deviant, welfare dependent, shamed and suspicious while the exceptionalism frame pretends that if this person can escape poverty, you can do likewise. The episode frame tells us that poverty is a short episode in life disconnected from capitalism. Some of these frames are linked to the charitable frame that provides media audiences with a way to feel good about themselves. At times, the poor are placed in a historical frame to pretend that the working class is an out-dated concept. We are all middle class now. In other cases, corporate media uses the caricatures frame portraying workers as white-trash and trailer park trash often presented as buffoons, bigots, and slobs.
Finally, trade unions also receive negative framing as they can represent a direct attack on capital. As a consequence, trade unions’ actions are framed, for example, as senseless (trade unions’ and workers’ struggles are pointless, selfish, avoidable). This is can be linked to the goal frame (union goals are unachievable and detrimental to society). There is also corporate media’s greedy frame (unions are made to appear greedy) and the wage-bonus frame where corporate media focuses on workers’ wages, not on management’s bonus. Perhaps more dangerous is the impact frame (it focuses on the impact of a strike – not on the reasons for it). Once there is a strike, corporate media switches to the neutrality frame presenting the corporate state, police, courts, army, etc. as neutral and independent. Strikes can also be linked to the harm frame (under-reporting of the harm done to workers) as well as the anti-solidarity frame (media’s general unwillingness to cover workers and union solidarity).
Perhaps the final frame is one of the keys to understand the destruction of the welfare state in Germany and elsewhere. Once de-solidarisation has taken hold through a daily barrage of negative images portraying workers and the poor as a menace while favouring hyper-individualism, the step towards eradicating the welfare state can be made. Indeed, in many countries this step has already been made or is well on the way.

Chinese Dreams and American Deaths in Africa

Brian Cloughley

On October 18, when President Xi of China was getting his nation together to look to the future and declaring that “The Chinese dream is a dream about history, the present and the future,” his opposite number in the United States was sending malevolent tweets about the insensitive comment he had made to the widow of a dead soldier, Sergeant La David Johnson.  The contrast between dignity and vulgarity could hardly be more marked.
The Washington Post reported on October 18 that “the day four US Special Forces soldiers were gunned down at the border of Niger and Mali in the deadliest combat incident since President Trump took office, the commander in chief was lighting up Twitter with attacks on the ‘fake news’ media.”
What had happened was that on October 4 in Niger in north-west Africa four American special forces soldiers were killed in an ambush by “fifty fighters, thought to be associated with ISIS [Islamic State], a US official said.”  In the course of the attack, one US soldier — Sergeant Johnson — was left behind when the others withdrew, and was subsequently found dead.  Nigerien soldiers were also killed, and it is interesting to examine how US media outlets recorded this aspect of what was obviously a disaster for US Africa Command, AFRICOM, the organization headquartered, bizarrely, in Germany, that has 46 military bases (that we know of) in that continent. (Niger, incidentally, is twice the size of Texas and about the same size as Peru.)
ABC News reported that “a soldier from Niger also died from the attack” while CBS thought that “four Nigerien soldiers died,” and Stars and Stripes went with “several.”  CNN’s tally was five but the New York Times didn’t mention Nigerien soldiers at all. Fox News, surprisingly, said that four were killed, as did the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, which even expanded to record that there had been eight Nigerien soldiers wounded.
It isn’t to be expected that the US media would ever concern themselves with deep research into how many foreign soldiers are killed in any of the countries in which the US is involved in armed conflict, but the sloppy reporting is a good indicator of the shrug factor.
And the western media continues to shrug about the deep involvement of the US military and the CIA in countries all round our globe.
President Donald Trump claims he would win an IQ contest against his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson (how bizarre and nationally demeaning that a President of the United States of America can stoop to such childish yah boo behavior), but it’s a fair bet he would not be able to identify on a blank map of Africa the countries in which his armed forces are at present engaged in various degrees of conflict.  As recorded by Alexis Okeowo in the New Yorker, “Publicly, Africa may not be on the radar of the Trump Administration, but it is a priority for the US military.  At the moment, seventeen hundred members of the Special Forces and other military personnel are undertaking ninety-six missions in twenty-one countries, and the details of most are unknown to Americans.”
It is intriguing that the US military — the Pentagon — so rarely informs the public of their global operations, yet much of the world knows about them down to the last detail.  For example, it’s obvious that the Taliban in Afghanistan are well aware of all the crash-and-bash US special forces assaults in villages, because they have become more expert in avoiding them and then concentrating on defeating the weak, corrupt, and increasingly ineffectual Afghan armed forces (as they did on October 18, completely destroying an Afghan army base and killing at least forty soldiers). Not only that, but they reap massive propaganda benefit from publicizing the fact that the wham-bam kick-the-doors-down infidels have once again struck a blow for Islamic State recruiting efforts.  In Africa, it’s much the same game, with no publicity until that becomes unavoidable because there has been a major disaster involving the deaths of US soldiers. (Injuries are never mentioned, no matter how terrible, but some observers keep an eye on casevac [casualty evacuation] flights arriving for attention of the caring saints at the US military hospital in Landstuhl in Germany. The numbers are interesting.)
The United States military and the CIA have a large presence in Africa and, as recorded by Nick Turse in April, “A set of previously secret documents, obtained by TomDispatch via the Freedom of Information Act, offers clear evidence of a remarkable, far-ranging, and expanding network of outposts strung across the continent . . .  AFRICOM lists 36 US outposts scattered across 24 African countries.”
According to the Pentagon “US forces are in Niger to provide training and security assistance to the Nigerien Armed Forces, including support for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance efforts, in their efforts to target violent extremist organizations in the region.” In fact, as CNN reports, “There are about 800 US troops in Niger and the US military has maintained a presence in the northwest African country for five years, with small groups of US Special Operations Forces advising local troops as they battle terrorist groups, including, Islamic State in Greater Sahara, the ISIS-affiliated Boko Haram and al Qaeda’s North African branch, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”  The place is a war zone, and citizens of the US and Europe have little idea about what’s going on in their names — and at their expense in cash, international credibility and growing distrust and hatred of the West.
Mind you, it’s unlikely that very many Chinese citizens are aware of the deep involvement of their country in the African continent, either.  But the difference between ephemeral US policy and long-term Chinese strategy is that Washington seeks domination, while China seeks trade, gradual influence and trust.
While attending the UN General Assembly in September President Trump addressed the leaders of several African nations at lunch.  He didn’t mention drone strikes or Special Forces or CIA interrogation cells but made clear his enthusiasm for their countries by declaring that “Africa has tremendous business potential, I have so many friends going to your countries trying to get rich. I congratulate you, they’re spending a lot of money. It has tremendous business potential, representing huge amounts of different markets. It’s really become a place they have to go, that they want to go.”
It’s a pity he hadn’t read the Financial Times in June, when it sagely pointed out that in Africa “In the past 15 years the level of engagement by Chinese state-owned enterprises, political leaders, diplomats and entrepreneurs has put centuries of previous contact in the shade . . .  While Europeans and Americans view Africa as a troubling source of instability, migration and terrorism — and, of course, precious minerals — China sees opportunity. Africa has oil, copper, cobalt and iron ore. It has markets for Chinese manufacturers and construction companies. And, perhaps least understood, it is a promising vehicle for Chinese geopolitical influence.”
Trump doesn’t read the FT or any other source of balanced information, but gets his news and forms his opinions from US television channels and his daily intelligence brief, which suits the military-industrial complex very well, as it can count on being unhindered by the White House as it expands its counter-productive military operations across the world.
Not that China has avoided Africa militarily.  Far from it. The United Nations records that China has some 2,600 troops in Africa — all of them firmly under command of UN peacekeeping missions in Congo, Liberia, Mali, Sudan and South Sudan. (The US contributes a total of 48 military personnel and 19 police to worldwide peacekeeping.)  The duties of Trump’s soldiers in Africa are, in the words of their chief, General Thomas Waldhauser, to conduct “joint operations, protection of US personnel and facilities, crisis response, and security cooperation.”
General Waldhauser postulates  that “Just as the US pursues strategic interests in Africa, international competitors, including China and Russia, are doing the same.  Whether with trade, natural resource exploitation, or weapons sales, we continue to see international competitors engage with African partners in a manner contrary to the international norms of transparency and good governance.  These competitors weaken our African partners’ ability to govern and will ultimately hinder Africa’s long-term stability and economic growth, and they will also undermine and diminish US influence — a message we must continue to share with our partners.”
But the US doesn’t have any real partners in Africa.  On the other hand, China has created many.  As noted by Forbes, “In December 2015, President Xi Jinping ushered in a new era of ‘real win-win cooperation’ between China and Africa. This strategy aims to create mutual prosperity, allowing investors to ‘do good while doing right.’ China has backed this proposal up with a commitment of $60 billion of new investment in major capital projects, which are tied to developing local economic capacity. This level of commitment contrasts starkly with the action, or lack thereof from the West.”
The message is clear.  The US military-industrial complex has overtaken and indeed supplanted State Department diplomacy in Africa, as elsewhere in the world, and is intent on escalating its military presence while China is quietly winning friends and influencing people by engaging in massive, well-planned economic projects.  No prizes for deducing who is winning in Africa.