17 Sept 2018

Silicon Valley’s corrupt nexus: War, censorship and inequality

Andre Damon

On Wednesday, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, will give the keynote address to the US Air Force Association’s annual conference. Bezos will discuss “how industry can better partner” with the US military.
Bezos’ speech comes amid his Seattle-based firm’s lobbying to win a $10 billion contract, known as “Project JEDI,” to host large sections of the Pentagon’s operations infrastructure on the internet cloud. In a move that will likely win him points with the military brass awarding the contract, Bezos recently donated $10 million to a Virginia-based super PAC seeking to elect veterans to office and create a “less polarized government.”
The Amazon CEO will appear as the representative of the world’s second-largest company by market capitalization, the second-largest employer in the United States, the world’s biggest provider of cloud computing services, and America’s largest e-commerce retailer, with twice the sales of the next nine competitors.
Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, is among America’s most powerful oligarchs. His speech to the Air Force Association embodies the corrupt nexus between the military, the financial oligarchy, the media and the high-tech companies, all of which are working to create a regime of censorship targeting left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints.
This partnership expresses, in practice, the vision laid out in the Pentagon’s latest National Security Strategy, which calls for “the seamless integration of multiple elements of national power—diplomacy, information, economics, finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military.”
This is a formula for a society in which all of the mechanisms of social control are jointly harnessed to defend and expand the wealth and power of America’s financial oligarchy. Toward this authoritarian end, Bezos and company are mobilizing one of the critical mechanisms—the media.
Bezos’ Washington Post has prepared its owner’s appearance at the Air Force event with a series of op-eds and editorials calling for a closer partnership between the Pentagon and Silicon Valley. More than any other major US newspaper, the Post has argued for the fusion of America’s high-tech sector with its military, in line with the Pentagon’s so-called “third offset” strategy, which aims to regain America’s “military edge” by “harnessing a range of technologies, including robotics, autonomous systems and big data,” in the words of the Economist.
The Post’s campaign for a further integration of technology corporations with the military has been combined with attacks on tech workers who oppose the alliance of the firms for which they work with the US war machine.
Over the past two decades, hundreds of thousands of America’s brightest minds have gone to work in Northern California’s Silicon Valley and its offshoot in Seattle, lured by promises that “people with passion can change the world for the better,” in the words of former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, and the promise that they would help “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” in the words of Google’s mission statement.
But each year, more and more technology workers have found themselves involved in developing the means to carry out mass murder, censorship and political repression, prompting protests by workers at Google, Amazon and Microsoft.
In June, Amazon workers issued an open letter opposing the company’s provision of facial recognition technology to police forces as well as its cloud computing contracts with the agencies carrying out Trump’s Gestapo-style attacks on immigrants.
That same month, Google announced that it would end its involvement in a Pentagon program to build artificial intelligence capabilities for military drones after more than a thousand Google employees signed a letter demanding that Google swear off building “weapons of war.”
The Washington Post has opposed these protests. In an August 8 op-ed, two executives from Anduril Industries, a military defense contractor seeking to sell virtual reality systems to the Pentagon, condemned the protesting workers. “We understand that tech workers want to build things used to help, not harm,” the executives wrote. “We feel the same way,” they continued. “But ostracizing the US military could have the opposite effect of what these protesters intend: If tech companies want to promote peace, they should stand with, not against, the United States’ defense community.”
The authors added: “The world is safer and more peaceful with strong US leadership. That requires the US government to maintain its advantage in critical technologies such as AI. But doing so will be difficult if Silicon Valley’s rising hostility toward working with Washington continues.”
The Post reiterated these points in an editorial last week entitled “Silicon Valley should work with the military on AI.” Bezos’s newspaper made the cynical argument that the technology companies should partner with the Pentagon because the result might be technologies with applications outside of mass murder. “DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] contractors will probably develop products with non-lethal applications,” the Post declared.
The open secret of Silicon Valley’s collaboration with the Pentagon is that the wars to be fought with the help of artificial intelligence will not take place only beyond America’s borders—they will also include class and civil wars.
America’s financial oligarchy, whose wealth has more than doubled since the 2008 financial crash, is issuing warnings about the dangers posed to its wealth by an increasingly restive and angry working class. In a report published last week, JPMorgan Chase warned about the potential impact of a new financial crisis in fueling political opposition.
The balance sheet by the biggest US bank stated: “The next crisis is also likely to result in social tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968”—a year that saw urban rebellions and mass protests against the Vietnam war in the US, the May–June general strike in France, and a global radicalization of the working class.
“In 1968,” the report continued, “TV and investigative journalism provided a generation of baby boomers access to unfiltered information on social developments such as Vietnam and other proxy wars, civil rights movements, income inequality, etc. Similar to 1968, the internet today (social media, leaked documents, etc.) provides millennials with unrestricted access to information on a surprisingly similar range of issues. In addition to information, the internet provides a platform for various social groups to become more self-aware, polarized and organized.”
Such groups “span various social dimensions based on differences in income/wealth,” warned the bank. In other words, the looming financial crisis will likely spark a mass movement of the working class against social inequality.
Recognizing the immense power of the internet to mobilize opposition to the existing social order, under conditions where a mass audience for socialism is emerging among workers and young people, America’s leading technology companies, working with the state, are scrambling to impose political censorship.
At a congressional hearing last week, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg pledged to replace “bad speech” with “alternative facts” in users’ news feeds. She boasted that her company now employs some 20,000 people to censor content.
Google, for its part, has continued and intensified its censorship of left-wing, anti-war and socialist websites. Since the World Socialist Web Site first reported last year that changes to Google’s algorithms had led to a sharp fall in the readership of 13 left-wing sites, the search traffic of these sites has plunged even further, hitting a combined decline of 50 percent.
The reactionary nexus between Silicon Valley, the CIA and the Pentagon must be—and will be—opposed. All over the world, workers are entering into struggle—from teachers and Amazon, UPS and postal workers in the United States, to pilots and cabin crew in Europe, to construction workers in Turkey. These workers must understand that they are the targets of censorship, and that they must mobilize to fight the drive to silence socialist and left-wing oppositional views.

15 Sept 2018

Australian government and Labor Party back prosecution of whistleblower who revealed Timor bugging

Mike Head

Confident of the opposition Labor Party’s support, recently-installed Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week reinforced his government’s determination to proceed with the extraordinary trial of an intelligence officer and his lawyer for exposing an Australian espionage operation against the tiny state of East Timor.
Morrison told reporters he believes “justice will be served” by the prosecution, which began with a preliminary hearing in a Canberra court on Wednesday. Labor’s shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, declared his party’s backing, telling the Guardian: “The charges are serious and it is important to let the judicial process take its course.”
Despite protests in East Timor and Australia demanding that the charges be dropped, and criticism by lawyers and human rights groups, the government is prosecuting a former senior Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) official, identified only as Witness K, and his lawyer Bernard Collaery.
The pair face up to two years’ jail each for revealing that ASIS surreptitiously bugged East Timor’s cabinet meeting room in 2004, under the cover of an aid operation. The spying was part of a campaign of intimidation by the Howard Liberal-National government to secure Australian imperialism’s hold over the lucrative oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea.
Morrison’s intervention, and Labor’s backing, underscore how much is at stake in this case for the entire Australian political establishment and military-intelligence apparatus. There is a bipartisan attempt to cover up and protect the operations of ASIS and the rest of the Australian intelligence agencies.
The Timor incident is not just a damning exposure of the filthy, anti-democratic activities of the agencies and successive Australian governments on behalf of the corporate ruling class, especially throughout the Asia-Pacific region, as well as domestically. The Australian spy services are an integral component of the US-led “Five Eyes” global network that conducts mass surveillance on the world’s population and monitors other governments whose interests could potentially conflict with those of Washington.
East Timor, a half island in the sprawling Indonesian archipelago, is of vital concern to the Australian capitalist elite, particularly because of the large Timor Sea oil and gas fields. It is also a key strategic location in the intensifying US economic and military drive to combat the rise of China and reassert the hegemony over the region that Washington established via its victory in World War II.
There were protests outside Wednesday’s hearing, addressed by independent MP Andrew Wilkie, a former intelligence officer himself, Greens senator Nick McKim and Centre Alliance MP Rebekah Sharkie. Both Wilkie and McKim argued that Attorney General Christian Porter, a senior Morrison government minister, could stop the case at any time, using powers that exists in section 71 of the federal Judiciary Act.
The speakers also called on Labor to pledge to drop the charges if it took office, but Dreyfus flatly rebuked that plea.
Inside the court, the government’s lawyers confirmed that they were seeking to have most of the trial conducted behind closed doors, supposedly to prevent the disclosure of “national security information.”
Barristers for Witness K and Collaery told the judge they wanted the case conducted as much in open court as possible, but were still negotiating with the prosecutors to reach an agreement on the handling of secret material. The hearing was adjourned until October 29.
A veil of secrecy has been imposed on the case. Porter has refused to explain to parliament why the prosecution was launched in June, nearly four years after the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police raided the homes and offices of Witness K and his lawyer to seize material relating to the 2004 bugging operation.
In early July, Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick asked a series of questions on notice in the Senate. He asked, among other things, when prosecutors began preparing the case, and on whose instructions, and whether senior intelligence and defence figures were informed of the plan.
Porter’s response, two months later, was contemptuous of any right of the public to examine, let alone challenge, the machinations of the political and security apparatus. “As the matter is before the court, it would not be appropriate to comment further,” he said, adding “it is the long-standing practice of the Australian government not to comment on the operation of our intelligence agencies.”
Witness K and his lawyer are also prohibited from speaking publicly about the case. Two weeks before the prosecution began, government lawyers wrote a warning letter to Collaery about the pending publication of his book on Australia’s covert spy operation against East Timor. The letter also said Collaery had agreed to a “secrecy undertaking” so he could legally represent Witness K.
According to earlier comments by Collaery, he and his client do not consider themselves whistleblowers. The lawyer, a former Liberal Party attorney-general in the Australian Capital Territory, has described Witness K as a “patriot” who raised criticisms of the ASIS bugging mission through the proper channels.
Collaery’s comments indicate that his concerns, and those of the members of parliament opposing the prosecution, is to repair the damage done to ASIS’s credibility by the Howard government’s use of it against East Timor. Among other things, the illegal bugging operation further exposed the fraud of Canberra’s claims to have intervened military in East Timor in 1999 for the benefit of the long-impoverished Timorese people.
Whatever the motivations of Witness K and his lawyer, however, there is no doubt that the working class must demand the dropping of the charges. The people who should be on trial are members of the Howard government, such as its foreign minister, Alexander Downer, who was in charge of ASIS in 2004.
Alongside them should be members of the subsequent Labor government, which authorised the raids on Witness K and Collaery in 2013. Labor also refused to renegotiate the 2006 treaty with East Timor, which was secured with the help of ASIS’s spying and retained the lion’s share of the oil and gas revenues for Australian imperialism and the conglomerates it favoured, including Shell, Woodside and ConocoPhillips.
Earlier this year, the treaty covering the underwater boundary between Australia and East Timor was revised to give the appearance of allocating a fairer share of the energy reserves to the poor statelet. However, a new Timorese government, with former President Xanana Gusmao playing a leading role, is demanding that the oil and gas be piped to Timor for processing, not the northern Australian port of Darwin.
Gusmao, who made a processing facility on Timor’s south coast a key plank in his election program, is reportedly exploring a bid to use $US5 billion of the country’s rapidly diminishing Petroleum Fund to buy ConocoPhillips’ stake in the Greater Sunrise gas and oil field in order to get a pipeline built to East Timor.
Gusmao is also in talks with Chinese banks to fund such a processing facility, and made several trips to Beijing last year. These developments will only intensify the insistence of the security authorities in Washington and Canberra that the prosecution of Witness K and his lawyer continues, in order to shield the escalating activities of the Five Eyes network.
The trial underway in Canberra is in keeping with the Morrison government’s anti-democratic ban on US intelligence whistleblower Chelsea Manning entering the country, its refusal to come to the aid of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and the recent passage of repressive “foreign interference” laws. These laws include sweeping provisions that will allow any intelligence agency whistleblowers, together with those who assist their disclosures, to be prosecuted on even more serious charges.

Thousands remain evacuated after gas explosions rip through three Massachusetts towns

Kate Randall 

Thousands of residents across three Massachusetts communities were told not to return to their homes Friday morning after a sudden series of gas explosions and fires ravaged the area in the Merrimack Valley the evening before. The explosion left one dead and more than 20 injured, one critically.
As many as 80 buildings were burned as terrified residents reported a blaze, an explosion, or the smell of gas. Fires lit up home after home as emergency responders attempted to extinguish them with hoses that were losing pressure from being overburdened. Firefighters were fighting multiple blazes at a time.
Hundreds of public safety workers from Eastern Massachusetts and Southern New Hampshire descended on the area Thursday evening. Andover police spokesman John Guilfoil said that in that town alone more than 200 firefighters were working at the peak of the crisis, along with 30 Andover police officers, 209 members of regional SWAT teams, and 13 State Police troopers.
According to authorities, some 8,600 homes or businesses in the towns of Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, north of Boston, were affected by an overpressurized gas line operated by Columbia Gas of Massachusetts. Stunned residents were told to immediately evacuate their homes, and most left with only the clothes on their backs, gathering up children and pets.
Dazed residents left the area, some by foot, others by car. Those who had no nearby relatives were told to go to five shelters that were hastily opened, and about 400 people ended up staying in these shelters overnight. Family members used cell phones and social media to try to locate loved ones who had been at school or work when the blasts began just before 5 p.m.
Electricity was also cut off to avoid igniting any gas. As night fell, local news helicopters recorded an eerie scene as the only light visible came from the headlights of vehicles jamming I-495 and emergency vehicles in the affected area that was cordoned off. As of Friday afternoon, some 18,000 National Grid electrical customers in the three communities were still without power.
“It looked like Armageddon, it really did,” Andover Fire Chief Michael Mansfield told reporters. “There were billows of smoke coming from Lawrence behind me. I could see pillars of smoke in front of me from the town of Andover.” News footage showed some houses reduced to rubble, reminiscent of a war zone.
Killed was 18-year-old Leonel Rondon of Lawrence. Rondon had just gotten his license and was sitting in a car parked in the driveway with three friends when the house exploded. His friend Christian Caraballo told the Boston Globe, “We heard a noise, then we felt it again and heard it. I seen the front of the house explode to the street.” The walls of the house collapsed, then the chimney fell on the car, severely injuring Rondon, who died later at the hospital. His friends suffered lesser injuries.
Lawrence, where Rondon lived, is a larger and far poorer city than the adjoining towns of Andover and North Andover. Lawrence was once a thriving mill town, attracting immigrants from around the world to work in its mills. With the decline of manufacturing in the 1950s, the city suffered a devastating economic decline. In 2016, the median household income was about $26,000, compared to the US average of $42,000.
Columbia Gas technicians accompanied by firefighters, police or local officials began visiting every one of the 8,600 homes and businesses in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover affected by Friday night’s events to shut off each gas meter and conduct a safety inspection. Residents can return to their homes only when their blocks are listed as safe on their city or town’s web sites.
Authorities say it will take days, not hours, for their inspections to be completed. Once residents are allowed to return to their homes, they are required to call the gas company to have their gas meters turned back on. While electricity may be restored within days to some homes, it may be weeks before gas service restored.
Residents have received little to no information from Columbia Gas about why the explosions happened or when they can expect to return to their homes. The gas company dispatched representatives to answer questions, but repeatedly told angry residents that they had “no answers.”
One woman asked whether it was safe to run a generator, and the Columbia rep said she didn’t know. Milton Valencia of the Globe tweeted Friday: “I am in No. Andover and Columbia gas reps just ran away from residents who were bombarding them with questions they didn’t know the answers to.” The rep told the residents that he “would take your questions back” to the company.
Columbia Gas is part of NiSource, a utility company with 3.5 million natural gas customers and 500,000 electric customers in seven states: Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The company has not given any explanation for Thursday’s incident, saying only that they were investigating its cause.
While Columbia Gas has been tight-lipped, Kurt Schwartz, the state’s head emergency management official, said at a Friday morning news conference that more than 8,000 gas meters were fed by “distribution lines that were overpressurized.” He said that the investigation would focus “on the distribution system and the origin of the pressure.” Experts indicate that overpressurization could be caused by someone opening a valve or a mechanical failure on a control valve.
A press release posted Thursday on Columbia Gas’s website, before the explosions, announced work to upgrade natural gas lines and improve service, three ongoing projects in Lawrence, four in Andover, and two in North Andover. It is unclear whether these projects had any connection to Thursday night’s events.
In the months leading up to the incident, Columbia Gas sought to raise rates for consumers by $44.5 million, which they claimed was necessary in part to cover operating costs to comply with federal and state safety regulations that were causing a “revenue deficiency.” Columbia Gas agreed just last week to reduce the distribution rate increase for its 321,000 Massachusetts customers by about $11 million, to $33.2 million.
A subsidiary of NiSource, Columbia’s parent company, was blamed by federal investigators for its role in a previous pipeline rupture in Sissonville, West Virginia The explosion and subsequent fire destroyed three homes, melted the siding on nearby houses nearby, and heavily damaged an interstate highway, according to federal reports.
Whichever for-profit company sells gas in the Merrimack Valley or oversees the response to the explosions, the area is served by some of the country’s oldest and most leak-prone pipes. Columbia Gas has more miles of old, cast-iron gas mains than all but 15 utilities in the US, according to a USA Today analysis of federal safety data.
The analysis shows that about every other day over the past decade, a gas leak in the US has destroyed property, hurt someone or killed someone. Since 2004, the most destructive explosions have killed at least 135 people.
Because the energy conglomerates are not willing to pay the estimated $1 million per mile to replace these aging pipes—unless customers pay to offset any drain on their profits—communities such as those in the Merrimack Valley are sitting on virtual time bombs in the form of potentially deadly leaking gas pipes.

Ten years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers

Nick Beams

Ten years ago on this day, the global capitalist system entered its most far-reaching and devastating crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. A decade later none of the contradictions which produced the financial crisis has been alleviated, much less overcome. Moreover, the very policies carried out to prevent a total meltdown of the financial system, involving the outlay of trillions of dollars by the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks, have only created the conditions for an even bigger disaster.
The immediate trigger for the onset of the crisis was the decision by US financial authorities not to bail out the 158-year-old investment bank Lehman Brothers and prevent its bankruptcy. There is considerable evidence to suggest that this was a deliberate decision by the Federal Reserve to create the necessary conditions for what they knew would have to be a massive bailout, not just of a series of banks but the entire financial system.
The previous March, the Fed had organised a $30 billion rescue of Bear Stearns when it was taken over by JP Morgan. But as the Fed’s own minutes from that time make clear the Bear Stearns crisis was just the tip of a huge financial iceberg. The Fed noted that “given the fragile conditions of the financial markets at the time” and the “expected contagion” that would result from its demise it was necessary to organise a bailout. As Fed chairman Ben Bernanke later testified, a sudden failure would have led to a “chaotic unwinding” of positions in financial markets. The bailout of Bear Stearns was not a solution but a holding operation to try to buy time and prepare for what was coming.
While the demise of Lehman was the initial trigger, the most significant event was the impending bankruptcy, revealed just two days later, of the American insurance firm AIG, which was at the centre of a system of complex financial products running into trillions of dollars.
Due to the interconnections of the global financial system, the crisis rapidly extended to financial markets around the world, above all across the Atlantic to Europe where the banks had been major investors in the arcane financial instruments that had been developed around the US sub-prime home mortgage market, the collapse of which provided the immediate trigger for the crisis.
The value of every crisis, it has been rightly said, is that it reveals and starkly lays bare the underlying socio-economic and political relations that are concealed in “normal” times. The collapse of 2008 is no exception.
In the twenty years and more preceding the crisis, particularly in the aftermath of the liquidation of the Soviet Union in 1991, the bourgeoisie and its ideologists had proclaimed not only the superiority of the capitalist “free market” but that it was the only possible socio-economic form of organisation. Basing themselves on the false identification of the Stalinist regime with socialism, they maintained that its liquidation signified that Marxism was forever dead and buried. In particular, Marx’s analysis of the fundamental and irresolvable contradictions of the capitalist mode of production had proved to be false. According to the central foundation for what passed for theoretical analysis, the so-called “efficient markets hypothesis,” a financial meltdown was impossible because with the development of advanced technologies all information had been priced into decision making and so a financial collapse was impossible.
Rarely have the nostrums of the bourgeoisie and its ideologists been so graphically exposed.
Two days after the crisis erupted, President George W. Bush declared “this sucker’s going down.” Later, the high priest of capitalism and its “free market,” the now bewildered former head of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, testified to the US Congress that he had been completely confounded because markets had failed to behave according to his “model” and its assumptions.
The crisis also exposed in full glare another of the central myths of the capitalist order—that the state is somehow a neutral or independent organisation committed to regulating social and economic affairs in the interests of society as a whole.
It confirmed another central tenet of Marxism, expounded more than 170 years ago, that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.”
This was exemplified in the naked class response to the financial meltdown. The plans, already developed by the Fed and other authorities to cover the losses of the financial elite, whose speculative and in many cases outright criminal activities had sparked the crisis, were put into operation.
In the lead-up to the presidential election of November 4, Wall Street swung its support behind Obama—with the media promoting him as the candidate of “hope” and “change you can believe in”—over McCain. The Democrats had committed themselves to the bailout, securing the passage of the $700 billion TARP asset-purchasing program through Congress. This massive increase in the national debt of the United States was authorised with virtually no debate.
Of course, a new political fiction was immediately advanced. It was necessary to bail out Wall Street first, the public was told, in order to assist Main Street. However, this lie was rapidly exposed. The crisis was the starting point for a massive assault on the working class. While bankers and financial speculators continued to receive their bonuses, millions of American families lost their homes. Tens of millions were made unemployed.
In the following year, the rescue operation organised by the Obama administration of Chrysler and General Motors, with the active and full collaboration of the United Autoworkers Union, resulted in the development of new forms of exploitation, above all though the two-tier wages system, paving the way for even more brutal systems such as those pioneered by Amazon.
This was the other side of a Wall Street bailout—a massive restructuring of class relations in line with the edict of Obama’s one-time chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste” because it provides “an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
The same class response was in evidence elsewhere. After the initial effects of the crisis had been overcome, the European bourgeoisie initiated an austerity drive forcing up youth unemployment to record levels. In Britain workers have endured a sustained decline in real wages not seen in more than a century.
The most egregious expression of this class logic has been seen in Greece with the imposition of poverty levels last seen in the Great Depression of the 1930s. The numerous bailout operations were never aimed at “rescuing” the Greek economy and its population but directed to extracting the resources to repay the major banks and financial institutions.
The crisis revealed the real nature of bourgeois democracy. The euro zone and the European Union were exposed as nothing more than a mechanism for the dictatorship of European finance capital. As one of the chief enforcers of its diktats, the former German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, declared, in the face of popular opposition, “elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.”
As the working class in every country confronts stagnant and declining wages, falling living standards, the scrapping of secure employment and attacks on social services, leading to mounting health and other problems, innumerable reports and data chart the development of a global system in which wealth is siphoned up the income scale.
According to the latest Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report some 255,810 “ultra-high net worth” individuals, with a minimum of $30 million in wealth, now collectively own $31.5 trillion, more than the bottom 80 percent of the world’s population—comprising 5.6 billion people. Overall the wealth of this cohort increased by 16.3 percent in 2016–17, rising by 13.1 percent in North America, 13.5 percent in Europe and 26.7 percent in Asia.
The full significance of the bailouts of the financial system and the subsequent provision of trillions of dollars is clear. It has brought about the institutionalisation of a process, developing over the preceding decades, where the financial system, with the stock market at its centre, functions as a mechanism for the transfer of wealth to the heights of society.
In its analysis of the financial crisis, the World Socialist Web Site insisted from the outset that this was not a conjunctural development, from which there would be a “recovery,” but a breakdown of the entire capitalist mode of production.
That analysis has been completely confirmed. While a total financial meltdown was prevented, the diseases of the profit system that gave rise to the crisis have not been overcome. Rather, they have metastasised and mutated into new and even more malignant forms.
The actions of the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks in pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system in order to “rescue” it, and to enable the continuation of the very forms of speculation that led to the crisis, have only created the conditions for a new disaster in which the central banks themselves will be directly involved.
This fact of economic and financial life can even be seen in the comments by bourgeois analysts and pundits on the occasion of the upcoming anniversary. While they generally maintain that the financial system has been “strengthened” since 2008—a completely worthless assertion given that it was held to be strong in the lead up to the crash and any warnings of growing risks were dismissed as “Luddite” by such luminaries as former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers—no one dares to proclaim that the underlying problems have been resolved.
Rather, taking heed from the warning of JP Morgan chief Jamie Dimon that while the trigger for the next crisis will not be the same as the last but “there will be another crisis”, they nervously scan the horizon for signs of where it might strike.
Some analysts point to the rise in global debt, which is now running at 217 percent of gross domestic product, an increase of 40 percentage points since 2007, contrary to all expectations that, since debt was a major cause of the 2008 crisis, some deleveraging would have occurred.
Others single out the mounting problems in so-called emerging markets facing repayments on dollar-denominated loans, a source of speculation when interest rates were at record lows but which now present major refinancing problems as interest rates have started to rise.
The seemingly unstoppable rise of stock markets, fuelled by the provision of ultra-cheap money by the Fed and other central banks, is also an issue of concern. The increased use of passive investment funds tied to global indexes via computer trading systems tends to reinforce downswings as has been seen in a series of “flash crashes” such as that of last February when Wall Street fell by as much as 1,600 points in intraday trading.
The greatest source of anxiety, although it is not mentioned so much publicly, is the resurgence of the working class and the push for increased wages. To the extent it is discussed publicly, this fear, manifested in stock market falls generated by news of relatively small wage increases, is generally couched in terms of “political tensions” caused by increased social inequality.
A further expression of the ongoing and deepening breakdown of the capitalist order is the disintegration of all the geo-political structures and relationships that have constituted the framework within which the movements of capitalist economy and finance have flowed throughout the post-war period.
In the wake of the 2008 crisis, the leaders of the G20 gathered in April 2009, in the midst of a collapse in world trade taking place at a faster rate than in 1930. They pledged to never again go down the road of the protectionist tariff policies that had played such a disastrous role in the Great Depression and had worked to create the conditions for the outbreak of World War II, just ten years after the Wall Street crash of October 1929.
That commitment lies in tatters as the Trump administration, seeking to counter the economic decline of the US so graphically revealed in the 2008 collapse, embarks on ever widening trade war measures.
The principal target, at least to this point, is China. But the Trump administration has designated the European Union as an economic “foe,” and has already implemented trade war measures against it, with more in the pipeline.
The G7, the grouping of major capitalist powers set up in the wake of the world recession of 1974–75 and the end of the post-war boom to try to regulate the affairs of world capitalism, exists in name only following the acrimonious split at its meeting last June with the US decision to impose tariffs against its nominal “strategic allies.”
World war has not yet broken out. But there are innumerable flashpoints—in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, in North East Asia and in the South China Sea to cite just some examples—where a conflict could erupt between nuclear-armed powers. The impetus for a new global conflagration is the drive by US imperialism to counter its economic decline by asserting its dominance over the Eurasian landmass at the expense of its enemies and allies alike.
It is of enormous significance that the civil war that has erupted in the American state apparatus between the state and military-intelligence apparatus, whose mouthpiece is the Democratic Party, and the Trump administration is over how this objective should be accomplished; that is, whether the American drive should be directed in the first instance against Russia or China. At the same time, all the major powers are boosting their military budgets in preparation for the escalation of military conflicts.
The political system in every country is beset by deep crisis. The very rapidity of the crisis is accentuating the contradictions between the objective dangers and the level of class consciousness. The chief obstacle to achieving the necessary alignment of working class consciousness with the objective reality of capitalist crisis on a world scale remains the reactionary political role of the old bureaucratised labour and trade union organisations, abetted by the various pseudo-left tendencies, in suppressing the class struggle. But the conditions are developing for these shackles to be broken.
In the founding program of the Fourth International, Leon Trotsky wrote: “The orientation of the mass is determined first by the objective conditions of decaying capitalism, and second, by the treacherous policies of the old workers’ organisations. Of these factors, the first, of course, is the decisive one: the laws of history are stronger than the bureaucratic apparatus.”
That perspective is now being confirmed in the resurgence of the class struggle internationally, above all in the centre of world capitalism, the United States.
Conscious of their profound weakness in the face of such a movement, and fully aware of its revolutionary implications, the ruling classes in every country have been developing ever-more authoritarian forms of rule.
Their greatest fear is the development of political consciousness, that is, the understanding in wider sections of the working class, and above all the youth, of its real situation, that its enemy is the entire capitalist system. Above all, the ruling elites fear the development of a revolutionary socialist movement, based on the principles and program of the Fourth International. This is why the World Socialist Web Site is the central target of internet censorship. It is also the reason for the escalation of attacks by the German coalition government on the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, the German section of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).
But the efforts to suppress the work of the International Committee will fail. The renewal of class struggle will provide new forces for the development of the working of the ICFI throughout the world.
The meltdown of 2008 demonstrated above all that the working class confronts a global crisis. The crisis can therefore be resolved only on a global scale through the unification of the working class across national borders and barriers on the basis of an international socialist program for the reconstruction of society to meet human need and not profit.

14 Sept 2018

Schlumberger Foundation Faculty for the Future Fellowship for Women from Developing Countries 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 7th November, 2018 for new applications (the deadline for reference letters is 14th November 2018).

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries and Emerging Economies

To be taken at: Top universities abroad

Accepted Subject Areas: Physical sciences and related disciplines

About Fellowship: Each year, The Faculty for the Future fellowships, Launched by the Schlumberger Foundation, are awarded to women from developing and emerging economies who are preparing for PhD or post-doctoral study in the physical sciences and related disciplines at top universities for their disciplines abroad. Grant recipients are selected for their leadership capabilities as for their scientific talents, and are expected to return to their home countries to continue their academic careers and inspire other young women.
Launched by the Schlumberger Foundation in 2004, the Faculty for the Future community now stands at 257 women from 62 countries, and grows steadily each year.

Offered Since: 2004

Type: PhD/PostDoctoral, Fellowship

Selection Criteria: A successful application will have gone through four selection rounds, with the reviewers paying particular attention to the following criteria:
  • Academic performance;
  • Quality of references;
  • Quality of host country university;
  • Level of commitment to return to home country;
  • Commitment to teaching;
  • Relevance of research to home country;
  • Commitment to inspiring young women into the sciences.
Eligibility: Applicants must meet all the following criteria:
  • Be a woman;
  • Be a citizen of a developing country or emerging economy;
  • Wish to pursue a PhD degree or Post-doctoral research in the physical sciences or related disciplines;
  • Have applied to, have been admitted to, or are currently enrolled in a university/research institute abroad;
  • Wish to return to their home country to continue their academic career upon completion of their studies;
  • Be very committed to teaching and demonstrate active participation in faculty life and outreach work to encourage young women into the sciences;
  • Hold an excellent academic record.
Number of fellowships: Several

Value of Award: Faculty for the Future grants are awarded based on the actual costs of studying and living in the chosen location, and is worth USD 50,000 for PhDs and USD 40,000 for Post-doctoral study. Grants may be renewed through to completion of studies subject to performance, self-evaluation and recommendations from supervisors.

How to Apply: Interested candidates may Apply here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: The Schlumberger Foundation Faculty for the Future

Important Notes: Final selection is based in part on the standard of your application and accompanying materials;
Your application should highlight aspects about you and your career that will give the reviewer a focused yet well-rounded view of your candidature. Read and follow the instructions from the link below carefully. The instructions are your guide to producing a comprehensive and competitive application;

Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism

Farhang Jahanpour

The rise of Fascism and Totalitarianism
Just over 100 years ago, Britain, France, Germany and Russia ruled half of the world – most of Europe, all of Africa, South Asia, most of Southeast Asia, and most of the Pacific region. They dominated China and were of course influential everywhere else.
During the past century, including the two devastating World Wars when the West resorted to mechanised butchery and industrialised slaughter, more than 170 million people, mainly civilians, were killed.
The West introduced unprecedented levels of totalitarianism and oppression by inventing and ruling through Communism, Fascism, Nazism, slavery and apartheid.
Some six million Jews perished as the result of the Holocaust, in the same way that European adventurers and settlers had carried out the genocide of tens of millions of native populations of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand.
After the end of the Second World War and the intensification of colonialism, the world was divided between the Western Capitalist camp and the Eastern Communist camp. At times, the rivalry between the two blocs brought the whole world to the brink of extinction, the best-known example of which was the Cuban missile crisis.
That is one incident that is relatively well-known but there were a number of close calls, some of them not even covered by mainstream media, and some of them became known only decades later.
As General Lee Butler, the former Chief of U.S. Nuclear Forces said: “We were just lucky to survive”.
The rivalry between the two superpowers extended to many countries in Asia and Africa, as most countries had to attach themselves to one of the two camps in order to remain immune from the threat of the other superpower.
Although fortunately the two superpowers did not engage in direct confrontation, there were many proxy wars fought between them at the expense of other people in Korea, Vietnam, and many other countries in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the sole “hyper-power” and for a while ruled the world almost unopposed. Thus, for a while, we had the era of unipolar American ascendance and hegemony throughout the world.
The American military boasted that it had “full-spectrum dominance” on land, in air and sea, and even in space. America’s military spending is almost equal to the military spending of all other countries combined, if one adds up the money that is spent on the CIA and other 16 American intelligence organisations.
Islamic fundamentalism – and Christian
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, “Islamic fundamentalism” has become the great bogey. Many Western scholars have viewed the 1990s as the era of Islamic fundamentalism, and the end of the 20th and the beginning of 21st century as the era of “the Islamic threat”.
The irruption of Islam into the political landscape, in Iran and in many Islamic countries, is viewed as an anachronism.
The Islamic Revolution in Iran 40 years ago caught everybody by surprise, and ever since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, America has tried by different means to bring it down and replace it with a pro-Western regime.
Since the revolution, Iran has been under various degrees of sanctions, as well as different plots to crush it.
Since then, “Islamic terrorism” has almost become synonymous with “Islamic fundamentalism” and “Islamic fundamentalism” has become synonymous with Islam.
The terrorist acts committed by a small number of militant Muslims, who often have grudges against their own rulers or against the countries that have invaded and destroyed their countries, are attributed to an inherently violent Islamic doctrine.
Although most of the terrorist groups, including the Afghan Mujahedin, the Taliban, the Al Qaida and most of the terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, have been created and nurtured by Sunni radicalism exported from some of the countries allied with the West, this has not reduced the hostility towards Iran.
The disastrous wars in Iraq, and the Western attempts at regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere have given rise to the most virulent and dangerous forms of terrorism, as represented by militant Sunni groups under various names, such as the al-Nusra Front, or the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
These groups overran a large area of territory in Iraq and Syria and nearly toppled the governments of those countries.
However, although Iran has been at the forefront of fighting those terrorist groups, no sooner were those groups defeated and on retreat that Iran again occupied the position of the main bogey and the “biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world” as the Americans would have it.
It is important to point out that terrorism has not been limited to Muslims.
As Olivier Roy, one of the greatest scholars of radical movements, explains in his book, The Failure of Political Islam:
“A strange Islamic threat indeed, which waged war only against other Muslims (Iran/Iraq) or against the Soviets (Afghanistan) and caused less terrorist damage than the Baader-Meinhoff gang, the Red Brigade, the Irish Republican Army, and the Basque separatist ETA, whose small-group actions have been features of the European political landscape longer than Hizbullah and other jihad movements.” (See Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, I.B. Tauris, 1994, Preface, p ix).
No one criticises Christianity for the activities of those terrorist gangs, but any terrorist action carried out by a crazy Muslim or a radical Islamic group is often attributed to Islam.
This is not to say that terrorist acts committed by various Muslim groups against local rulers or against Western targets are not serious. They are very serious and have to be dealt with. There has been an ominous intensification of such terrorist acts in various countries, and if they remain unchecked, they may pose serious problems in the future too.
The defeat of ISIS does not necessarily mean the end of terrorism, which may reveal itself in a different guise and more diverse forms, as we have seen in various European countries.
America has also paid a high price as the result of the activities of some terrorist groups.
We have witnessed the terrorist activities in the United States by Omar Abd al-Rahman and his associates who were originally involved in the assassination of President Sadat, and also the massive bombings at American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania where again Muslim groups were implicated.
Of course, we had the most devastating example of that form of terrorism in the events of 9/11.
However, an over-emphasis on the Islamic nature of these grievances can become a self-fulfilling prophecy and can create a situation that is much more difficult to deal with.
At the same time, many unrelated terrorist activities in America and Europe have also been attributed to Muslims.
Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing on 19 April 1995, a leading British columnist Bernard Levin, writing in “The Times”, pondered:
“Do you realise that in perhaps half a century, not more, and perhaps a good deal less, there will be wars in which fanatical Muslims will be winning? As for Oklahoma, it will be called Khartoum-on-the-Mississippi, and woe betide anyone who calls it anything else.” (Quoted in John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 235).
I remember seeing the cover story of a British tabloid newspaper on the same day that published a photograph of the bombed building and a dead child with the caption: “In the name of Islam.”
Of course, none of those newspapers apologised for their mistake when it was made clear that the Oklahoma bombing had been carried out by a friend and associate of the Christian teacher David Koresh, the founder of a Christian messianic movement, called Branch Davidians Sect.
The attack was carried out on the anniversary of the attack on Koresh’s headquarters in Waco, Texas, that had set fire to the whole compound killing Koresh and at least 79 others, including many women and children.
As it happens, I was watching television when the news of the attack on Koresh’s compound was being broadcast live. The forces of US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms who had been sent to arrest David Koresh drilled a hole through the wall of the compound and pumped gas through it to force the people inside to come out.
The gas was set aflame when it came in contact with fire inside, and the whole compound was set ablaze, flames spreading very fast as the result of a strong wind. It is incredible that no one had thought of having some fire engines or ambulances ready in case of the attack going wrong. It was horrendous to watch dozens of men and women and children being burnt alive before the fire engines finally arrived.
Even when it was established that David Koresh had originally been a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church who claimed to have the gift of prophecy, later calling himself a prophet, he and his movement were referred to as members of a cult, not as Christian fundamentalists or Christian terrorists.
The founder of the Davidian movement, Victor Houteff, was a keen student of the Bible and taught Bible study classes, attracting large groups of Seventh Day Adventists.
Like many fundamentalist Christians, Houteff believed that God will have a judgement upon his people and have a purification in his church, resulting in only 144,000 people surviving. He wanted to establish the Davidic kingdom in Palestine, Texas.
Koresh shared many of Houteff’s views, but went a step further. He wanted to implement God’s orders and establish a Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem. In 1985, he traveled to Israel, where he claimed that he had a vision that he was the modern-day Cyrus, the saviour of Jews, hence his name Koresh, the Persian version of Cyrus.
He believed that like Jesus he would be martyred. Until 1990, he believed that he would be martyred in Israel, but later on he said that the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that his headquarters at Mount Carmel Centre was the Davidic kingdom.
There were similar anti-Islamic outbursts after the crash of the TWA Flight 800 on 17 July 1996. I remember distinctly that the day after the crash, the BBC studio announcer interviewing an American official asked if the bomb explosion on the aircraft had been connected with the attack on an American air base in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
An exhaustive and costly investigation finally concluded that the cause of the accident had been the explosion of flammable fuel vapours in a fuel tank. However, the harm had already been done, and in the minds of millions of traumatised viewers and listeners, the deadly explosion had been attributed to Muslim terrorists.
After years of campaigning and many Labour Party promises (when in opposition) that if the Labour Party came to power it would allow direct-grant Muslim schools, when the Labour government announced that it would allow two Muslim direct-grant schools, it gave rise to a strong backlash.
The day after the news was announced, one of the tabloid newspapers devoted its entire front page to the picture of a Muslim school with the caption “Government surrender to segregation.”
Although there are hundreds of Church of England, Catholic and Jewish schools in Britain, yet in the case of one Islamic school there was the use of emotion-charged terms such as “surrender” and “segregation.”
More Islamophobia and hate in Britain
Britain is one of the most tolerant, multicultural and compassionate societies in the world. It has provided shelter to millions of Asians and Africans and to people of all faiths and none.
British Muslims are perhaps more integrated into British society than is the case with Muslims in other European countries.
Nevertheless, even here there has been, and to some extent there still is, a feeling of hostility towards Muslims, that has been described as Islamophobia.
A report by the Runymede Trust, a race-relations think-thank, compiled by a committee composed of some senior Christian, Muslim and Jewish scholars and religious figures published on 28th December 1996, concluded that Britain had become a nation of Muslim haters, and Islamophobia was in danger of becoming institutionalised, unless the law was changed to outlaw religious as well as racial discrimination.
The report concluded:
“In 20 years it has become more explicit, more extreme, more pernicious and more dangerous… [it] is part of the fabric of everyday life in modern Britain, in much the same way that anti-Semitic discourse was taken for granted earlier in this century.” (For the text of the report see ‘The Observer’ magazine, 29th Dec. 1996).
Great strides have been made since then in outlawing religious discrimination, but recent terrorist attacks have again revived a feeling of hostility and suspicion towards Muslims.

After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror

Benjamin Dangl

“Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there,” President George W. Bush announced on September 20th, 2001, following the 9/11 attacks.
Bush’s “War on Terror” did not end with Al Qaeda – it has roared on into an endless conflict spanning the globe, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of US taxpayers’ dollars.
“Americans should not expect one battle,” Bush continued, “but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.”
Days later, the Bush administration launched its air war. By the end of 2001, the US had dropped 17,500 bombs on Afghanistan.
The War in Afghanistan is now in its 17th year, making it America’s longest war. The Pentagon reports that the Afghan conflict costs US taxpayers $45 billion per year.
The human and economic cost of the post-9/11 US War on Terror has been investigated extensively by the Costs of War Project, based out of the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
The Project is made up of researchers, legal experts, human rights officials, and physicians whose focus is to reveal the cost of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the related conflicts in Pakistan and Syria.
Their research findings are staggering.
The Project’s investigations show that at least 370,000 people have been killed in the post 9/11 wars. Project researchers explain that it is likely that many more people have died indirectly due to environmental catastrophes, malnutrition, and broken infrastructure tied to the wars.
In addition, over 10 million Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani people have been displaced as war refugees.
The Project calculated the US budgetary costs in the post-9/11 wars to be $5.6 trillion. (In the decade after 9/11, US military spending doubled.)
Their research also shed a light on worldwide US military operations, showing that the US conducted counter-terror operations in 76 centuries around the globe from 2015-2017.
The Project developed a map illustrating drone operations, the deployment of troops, locations of military bases, and training programs – all demonstrating the complex global reach of the US War on Terror.
“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,” Bush ominously warned in his 2001 speech.
It quickly became clear where Bush’s line in the sand was drawn with the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the administration’s military operations.
Nearly two decades have passed since 9/11, and the War on Terror appears more like an Endless War.