31 Jan 2019

Six dead as record-breaking Arctic air mass hits US Midwest

Niles Niemuth

A blast of historic cold temperatures hit the US Midwest, with record lows for both daily high and low temperatures expected Wednesday and Thursday across the region. Wind-chills in parts of northern Minnesota and North Dakota reached negative 60 degrees Fahrenheit (negative 51 Celsius) and even lower. The US Postal Service suspended mail deliveries in ten states Wednesday and Thursday out of concern for the safety of mail delivery personnel.
Two-thirds of the population in the continental United States, 212 million people, are expected to experience freezing temperatures before the end of the week. Approximately 83 million people, one-quarter of the US population, will experience temperatures well below zero degrees Fahrenheit, as the weather pattern known as the polar vortex makes its way east.
The onset of extraordinarily frigid temperatures has once again exposed the criminal failure of American capitalism, which is unable to maintain the social infrastructure required to withstand extreme weather events and puts the most vulnerable populations, including the elderly and homeless, at increased risk of injury or death.
School was called off for millions of students and many businesses were closed, with heating systems struggling and in many cases failing to overcome the frigid temperatures. Thousands of flights have been cancelled or delayed and Amtrak stopped all train service to and from Chicago.
On Wednesday night, Consumers Energy, one of the main energy providers in Michigan, sent out an emergency appeal to customers throughout the state to reduce their heat as much as possible to avoid a critical gas shortage. A fire Wednesday morning disabled one of the utility’s facilities that accounts for 64 percent of its natural gas supply.
President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly denied the scientific reality of manmade climate change, used the onset of deadly cold weather as an opportunity to once again question the reality of global warming. “What the hell is going on with Global Waming [sic]? Please come back fast, we need you!” Trump flippantly tweeted Monday.
The North Polar Vortex is an extremely cold counterclockwise spinning mass of air which usually sits over the Arctic Sea, but as global warming has melted Arctic Sea ice and warming air makes its way into the Earth’s northernmost regions, the vortex is disrupted, causing the cold air to split up and some of it to move further south. This process previously played out in 2014, when a mass of Arctic air drifted south, breaking temperature records across the US and causing the deaths of at least 21 people.
So far, at least six deaths have been attributed to this week’s cold temperatures. This figure will undoubtedly increase significantly once it becomes possible for emergency responders and social workers to make a more detailed accounting.
A 22-year-old man in Rochester, Minnesota died of frostbite and hypothermia after he was locked out of his home early Sunday morning. The temperature in the city had fallen to -10 Fahrenheit, nearly 20 degrees below average. The body of a 55-year-old man was found frozen in his garage Tuesday in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, after he apparently collapsed while shoveling snow. Milwaukee’s daily high of 7 degrees was more than 35 degrees below average. A 70-year-old man was found Wednesday frozen to death outside a neighbor’s house in Detroit, where the high temperature barely reached -2 Fahrenheit.
In addition to increasing the risk of dying from exposure, the dramatic drop in temperatures has left those living in substandard and older houses at an increased risk of losing their homes or lives in a fire, as many rely on faulty space heaters and other cheap but dangerous forms of heating to keep warm. More than 2,000 people die every year across the US in residential fires, with faulty heaters a significant factor in these disasters.
A mother and her three children were killed Wednesday morning as a fire engulfed their home in Akron, Ohio. A 16-year-old and a 24-year-old man were killed in a house fire on Chicago’s southside after they were trapped in an attic by the blaze. A 12-year-old child died after a heat lamp likely sparked a fire in a Pulaski County, Kentucky home. And in Fort Wayne, Indiana, a family was displaced from their home when a fire was sparked after multiple space heaters overloaded the building’s electrical system.
Power and gas outages were reported from Minnesota to New Jersey, leaving thousands without heat in their homes for hours at time as utility workers worked to restore services in sub-zero temperatures, which officials warned could result in frostbite after even a few minutes of exposure. More than 5,000 people in the Twin Cities were without power Tuesday night, as the temperature fell to -25 degrees Fahrenheit.
Homeless shelters were filled to more than capacity in Omaha, Nebraska. At the Open Door Mission, which has 917 beds available for homeless men on any given night, dozens were forced to sleep on the floor after every bed was filled. “We don’t turn people away,” CEO Candace Gregory told KETV News, “We just don’t want any deaths. Because this weather is life or death for those that we serve.” In addition to providing meals for the homeless, Open Door reported that it served 100 hot lunches to children who were left without a meal after the city’s schools closed for the day.
Such conditions were repeated across the country as warming centers, homeless shelters and soup kitchens filled to over capacity from major urban centers like Chicago and Detroit to smaller cities like Reading, Pennsylvania and Lexington, Kentucky. Officials in Chicago struggled to provide shelter for the city’s homeless population, estimated at some 80,000 people, temporarily adding a mere 500 beds to the city’s shelter system this week. In Lexington 723 people sought shelter Tuesday night, including in freight trailers modified into sleeping quarters.

Fascists march in Auschwitz

Clara Weiss

On January 27, on the 74th anniversary of the liberation of the death camp of Auschwitz by the Soviet Red Army, between 50 and 100 Polish fascists marched through the doors of the camp, where more than 1 million European Jews were gassed by the Nazis during World War II. The fascists sang the Polish national anthem and shouted anti-Semitic slogans. The leader of the demonstration, Piotr Rybak, infamous for burning an effigy representing a Jew in 2015, stated that “It’s time to fight against Jewry and free Poland from them!”
Such a demonstration of far-right anti-Semitism at the Auschwitz memorial, which is universally seen as a symbol for the horrific crimes perpetrated by fascism, is historically unprecedented. This outrageous event is the outcome of political processes that have been unfolding in Poland and throughout Eastern Europe since the dissolution of the Stalinist regimes and the restoration of capitalism.
This year will mark the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Eastern European regimes through their Stalinist bureaucracies in 1989. Shortly thereafter, in December 1991, the Soviet bureaucracy destroyed the Soviet Union and fully restored capitalism in Russia.
The destruction of the deformed workers states in Eastern Europe, which had been established in the aftermath of World War II, and the dissolution of the USSR were made possible through decades of Stalinism which had betrayed the internationalist and socialist principles of the October Revolution and disoriented the working class. As Leon Trotsky had warned, unless overthrown in a political revolution by the working class, the Stalinist bureaucracies would transform themselves into a new ruling class. This is exactly what happened.
This counter-revolutionary process was hailed and justified by bourgeois ideologists as a “democratic revolution.” The result, workers were told, would be democracy, peace and prosperity for all. The opposite has been the case.
The restoration of capitalism has given rise to obscene levels of social inequality throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and immiserated tens of millions of workers. It has also transformed the region into a center stage for the systematic preparations of imperialism for another world war. Virtually all of these countries are now ruled by rabidly nationalist regimes that are preparing for war, promoting anti-Semitism, and enacting police state measures.
The fascist protesters express what is the official state policy in Poland. In early 2018, the Polish government, led by the far-right Law and Justice Party (PiS), outlawed any mention of crimes perpetrated by Poles against Jews during the Holocaust. Since then, numerous historians working on Polish anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish pogroms have been fired from their jobs.
In November, prominent state officials, including the Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who participated in the official Auschwitz commemoration ceremony on January 27, marched alongside fascists from Poland and other European countries on Polish independence day.
The resurgence of fascism in Poland and other Eastern European countries is a particularly sharp expression of what is an international process.
In Germany, the Grand Coalition has deliberately made the neo-fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD) the principal opposition party and has adopted key aspects of its policies and rhetoric. While hundreds of thousands have demonstrated against the far-right over the past year, Jörg Baberowski, the Humboldt University academic, who has publicly stated that “Hitler wasn’t vicious,” is allowed to relativize crimes of Nazism with the backing of the leading political parties and media at the prestigious Humboldt University in Berlin.
In France, president Emmanuel Macron, who has presided over a violent crack-down on the yellow vest movement, recently hailed the fascist dictator Philippe Pétain as a “great soldier.”
In Ukraine, the celebration of Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera and his movement, which engaged in mass murder of Poles, Jews and Ukrainian civilians during World War II, has become official state policy since the US-backed far-right coup in February 2014.
In the United States, the Trump administration has systematically whipped up fascistic sentiments, a policy that has already resulted in the largest ever assault on Jews on American soil in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting last October.
The state build-up of fascist forces is the response by the bourgeoisie to the crisis of world capitalism. Faced with economic crisis and growing militancy within the international working class, bourgeois governments everywhere are resorting toward the promotion of nationalism and the far-right to divide the working class and prepare the conditions and forces for war and counter-revolution. Historically, the promotion of anti-Semitism, in particular, has been a central ideological tool by the bourgeoisie to counter the rise of the socialist workers movement.
It speaks to the complicity of the capitalist media in this process that the fascist march in Auschwitz, much like the rehabilitation of Hitler by leading academics and the growth of the far-right in Germany, has gone almost completely unreported.
The International Committee of the Fourth International warned in the recent perspectives document The Strategy of International Class Struggle and the Political Fight Against Capitalist Reaction in 2019
Fascism is not yet, as it was in the 1930s, a mass movement. But to ignore the growing danger would be politically irresponsible. With the support of sections of the ruling class and the state, right-wing movements have been able to exploit demagogically the frustration and anger felt by the broad mass of the population. In this situation, the fight against the resurgence of extreme right-wing and fascistic movements is an urgent political task.
The sight of a rabble of Nazi trash desecrating the memory of those who perished in Auschwitz is sickening and must be answered. But the response must be informed by an understanding of the inextricable link between capitalism, the crisis of bourgeois democracy and fascist reaction. Fascism cannot be defeated with mere moral denunciations or with appeals to the capitalist political parties to defend democracy. The fight against fascism is a political struggle that requires the mobilization of the working class on the basis of an uncompromising internationalist and socialist program.
The social basis for such a struggle is now emerging: In Matamoros, Mexico, 70,000 autoworkers have launched what is the biggest strike on the North American continent in two decades.
Strikes by autoworkers have also erupted in Hungary. Teachers in the United States have gone on several strikes against the attacks on public education in defiance of their unions. In India, tens of millions of workers joined a two-day general strike and tens of thousands are still on strike in Tamil Nadu. These struggles need to be expanded, unified and armed with a Marxist program to turn them into a conscious revolutionary movement by the working class against capitalist reaction. This is what the International Committee of the Fourth International is fighting for.

30 Jan 2019

Moremi Initiative for Empowerment And Leadership Development (MILEAD) Empowerment and Leadership Fellowship 2019 for Young African Women

Application Deadline: 22nd February, 2019.

Eligible Countries: All African countries


To be taken at (country):  Ghana and Candidate’s home country.

About Scholarship:The MILEAD Fellows Program is a long-term leadership development program designed to identify, develop and promote emerging young African female leaders to attain and thrive in leadership in their communities and Africa as a whole. The program targets dynamic young women interested in developing transformational leadership skills that help them address issues facing women and girls across communities in Africa. The MILEAD Program equips Fellows with the world class knowledge, skills, values and networks they need to succeed as 21st century women leaders.

Offered Since: 2004

By what Criteria is Selection Made? The MILEAD Fellowship will be awarded to outstanding young women who have exhibited leadership potential in their community, organization, and/or profession.

Who is eligible to apply? To be eligible for the one-year program, an applicant must:
  • be African, living on the continent or in the Diaspora;
  • agree to participate in all required activities related to MILEAD – including a three-week residential Summer Institute in Ghana;
  • commit to a community change project
  • be between 19 – 25 years of age.
Number of Awards: The MILEAD Fellowship will be awarded to 25 outstanding young women

What are the benefits? The MILEAD Program equips Fellows with the world class knowledge, skills, values and networks they need to succeed as 21st century women leaders.

Duration of Fellowship: One year

How to Apply: Applications are available online at www.moremiinitiative.org or by request via email. Download the full 2019 Application Package and Forms below.
Completed application forms must be submitted along with a CV and two recommendation lettersAll applications and supporting documents must be submitted via email.

Visit the Fellowship Application page

IITA Fellowships to Generate Evidence On “Youth Engagement In Agribusiness And Rural Economic Activities In Africa” 2019

Application Deadline: 15th March 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries


To be taken at (country): The research will be carried out in the following countries: Benin, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Senegal, and Zambia.

About the Award:  IITA is pleased to announce 30 research fellowships for 2019 under the framework of the CARE project. The fellowships are action-oriented and target young academics and professionals, and graduate students at the post-course work/research stage of their programs. The fellowship program seeks to contribute to policy development on youth engagement in agribusiness and rural economic activities in Africa.. It is designed to provide opportunities for the youth by improving the availability and use of evidence for inclusive and “youth friendly” policies on youth engagement in agribusiness and rural economic activities. The fellows will be provided by providing them with funding, technical support and the expertise of IITA’s socio-economics scientists, skills and competencies in social and economic research, and a network of other fellows with whom to exchange ideas.
This is not a one-time invitation for applications, but rather a continuing call for research on this topic till 2020.

Type: Research, Fellowships

Eligibility:
  • Applicants must be young Africans.
  • The research will be carried out in the following countries: Benin, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Senegal, and Zambia.
  • Applicants must not be more than 40 years old at the time of application.
  • Applicants must be young scholars at a research institute or university in Africa or a student registered in a PhD or Master’s program in recognized universities in Africa, majoring in agricultural economics, agribusiness, or economics or a related social science field, and must have finished their university course work.
Number of Awards: 30

Value of Award:
  • Awards for Research Grants are up to $10,000 (Proposals with a reasonable higher budget can also be selected depending on the quality of the research proposal).
  • Grantees will be supervised by IITA’s socio-economics scientists in close collaboration with their national/university supervisors.
  • Grantees will be offered training on research methodology, data management, and scientific writing.
  • Grantees will be offered training on production of research evidence for policy-making
Duration of Programme: The duration of the research should not exceed 6 months.

How to Apply: 
Application Requirements: To apply for the Research Fellowship, applicants must submit the following:
  • • Completed application form (download application form here).
  • • Copy of the passport or other statement of citizenship.
  • • Curriculum Vitae (CV), which includes work history and education. CVs should be no longer than two pages.
  • • Proof of registration at an accredited university for MSc and PhD programs (for students).
  • • Proof of employment at a research institute or university in Africa (for young academics and professionals)
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

IUSSP Fellowships on Family Planning, Fertility and Urban Development 2019 for Early-career Researchers in Africa and Asia

Application Deadline: 15th April 2019

Eligible Countries: Countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia


About the Award: The International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) is pleased to announce the second call for policy-relevant research proposals from early career researchers to:
  • contribute to the evidence base needed to better meet the family planning (FP) and related reproductive health (RH) needs of the most vulnerable in urban areas of countries of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and
  • increase the attention paid to FP, fertility and population growth in urban development policy initiatives at local, national and international levels.
Type: Research

Eligibility:
  • The proposal must focus either on a single city, or represent comparative work on multiple urban areas, of any country of sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia.
  • Applications to study settings with high fertility, high unmet need for FP and high rates of urbanization are particularly encouraged.
  • Eligibility will be limited to citizens of countries in sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia, currently working in established institutions in those countries (not necessarily a citizen of the country where proposing to do research).
  • Contracts will ideally be made with individual fellows but can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if their home institution has special requirements. Institutional overhead charges can be no more than 15% of the total budget.
  • Applications may be submitted in either English or French.
Selection Criteria:  Applications will be assessed on several criteria including quality of candidate, research quality, innovation, policy relevance, relevance of setting and subpopulation, and feasibility. Priority will be given to innovative research questions of direct policy or programmatic value in urban settings, and potential for influencing urban policy beyond the demographic and public health communities. The interdisciplinary IUSSP panel overseeing the project, comprised of demographers, experts on urban poverty and health, economists, and policy and programme specialists, will assess the relevance of the issue to be addressed and the evidence gap it will fill, as well as the significance of research for decision-making and for informing policy and programmes.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Award:
  • The research project duration will be 12-24 months. All research activities and reporting must be completed before the agreed upon project completion date.
  • A typical budget we expect to receive is US$30,000 to $40,000 for a two-year project though higher awards will be considered for proposals of exceptional quality. This is for direct costs including computer hardware and software, primary data collection, research assistants, and the fellow’s time.
  • The fellow’s salary support will be provided when required to give her or him partial or total release from other duties for the project duration. (Costs for dissemination and communications, such as participation in conferences to present the work and workshops with policy makers of the city studied to present the results, will be provided from a separate fund.)
How to Apply:  Applicants should submit a 600-word concept note summarizing the research topic by 15 April using the online application. Those with promising proposals will be invited to submit a full proposal by 1 July 2019. Annexed below are the content required for the concept note, and the list of main sections all applicants will be required to address in their full application (if invited to submit one)
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Akina Mama wa Afrika (AMwA) Feminist and Transformational Leadership Development Programme 2019 for African Women

Application Deadline: 28th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Countries in Eastern and Southern Africa


To be taken at (country): Nairobi, Kenya

About the Award:  This specific institute is inspired by the adoption of Agenda 2030 commonly referred to as Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2063 of the African Union, and therefore seeks to catalyze a cohort of feminist and transformational leaders who are able to analyze discrimination against women and girls from a feminist perspective and get seized with the courage to dismantle structures and systems that have for long hindered women’s advancement.   
The Akina Mama wa Afrika – African Women’s Leadership Institute was birthed  in 1997 and is based on a long standing model of POT (Personal Mastery, Organising Skills and Taking Action), a framework that provides a powerful and holistic feminist grounding for African women to define, analyse and articulate their experiences of inequalities and devise solutions for sustained change. 

Type: Training

Eligibility: The leadership development programme will be awarded to 25 women leaders, who have exemplified leadership in their organisations, communities and or have stood for elective office. Eligible candidates are African women between the ages of 25-40 years, based in Eastern and Southern Africa, who are able to participate in all activities- beginning with a residential institute scheduled to be held from the 25th- 29th of March 2019, in Nairobi, Kenya and commit to a one year peer mentorship programme.  

Number of Awards: 25 

Value of Award: Programme is fully-funded for all participants

Duration of Programme: 25th- 29th of March 2019

How to Apply: An application form is available at this link.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Trump’s Coup in Venezuela: The Full Story

Eric Draitser

The US-sponsored coup in Venezuela, still ongoing as I write, is the latest chapter in the long and bloody history of US imperialism in Latin America. This basic fact, understood by most across the left of the political spectrum – including even the chattering liberal class which acknowledges this truth only with the passage of time and never in the moment – must undergird any analysis of the situation in Venezuela today. That is to say, the country is being targeted by the Yanqui Empire.
This point is, or at least should be, indisputable irrespective of one’s opinions of Venezuelan President Maduro, the Socialist Party (PSUV), or the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution. Imperialism, and its neocolonial manifestation in the 21st Century, is there to pick clean the bones of the Bolivarian dream and return Venezuela to the role of subservient asset, an oil-soaked proxy state ruled by a right-wing satrap eager to please the colonial lords of capital.
But in providing analysis of the situation, the Left must tread carefully with the knowledge that though it may be weak, disorganized, fragmented, and bitterly sectarian, the Left remains the principal vehicle for cogent analysis of imperialism and its machinations. This historic role that the Left has played, from Lenin and Mao to Hobsbawm and Chomsky, is of critical importance as analysis informs discourse which in turn ossifies into historical narrative.
And with that weighty and historic responsibility, the Left is duty-bound to understand at a deep level what we’re witnessing in Venezuela. Moreover, the Left must beware the pitfalls of shallow, superficial analysis which can lead to poor understanding of material reality, and even poorer anti-imperialist politics.
It’s the Oil…Or Is It?
One could be forgiven for immediately assuming that the blatantly illegal coup, and its near instantaneous recognition by the Trump Administration (among others), is proof positive that the US has instigated the overthrow of the Bolivarian Revolution in a nakedly aggressive action to steal oil resources. Indeed, this would be a near textbook example of the sort of colonial policies visited upon the peoples of the Global South since the dawn of the colonial age.
And there’s no doubt some truth to the conclusion. As Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard noted on Twitter, “It’s about the oil…again,” referencing the parallel to the Bush Administration’s crime against humanity known as the Iraq War which was, in no small part, about enriching Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, and the US oil industry broadly speaking.
And Gabbard is correct to highlight statements by Trump’s National Security Warlock, John Bolton, whose every word oozes the sociopathy we’ve come to expect from this most hawkish of neocons. Bolton stated in a press conference, “We’re in conversation with major American companies now…it would make a difference if we could have American companies produce the oil in Venezuela. We both have a lot at stake here.”
Leaving aside the likely deliberate ambiguity of these statements – What are these “conversations”? Does this mean there was no production plan before the coup was initiated? etc. – it seems obvious that oil is a major motivating factor.
But why, exactly?
As anyone with even basic knowledge of the global oil market can tell you, there are a number of reasons why we should be skeptical of the idea that the US simply wants to rake in profits by stealing Venezuela’s oil, its primary resource and export revenue generator.
First, global oil prices have remained fairly depressed in comparison to the historic highs of just a decade ago. With the price per barrel hovering somewhere between $50 and $60 today, Venezuelan crude remains profitable, but due to its heavy qualities, it requires somewhat more expensive refining technologies, making it less attractive than some other oil reserves, most notably shale.
This is not to say that oil companies would not be interested in looting this natural resource, as evidenced by ExxonMobil desperately trying to control the Essequibo region which continues to be a source of competing territorial claims between Guyana and Venezuela. The USGS estimated roughly 15 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 42 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves lie under the Guyana Suriname Basin, making it 2nd in the world for prospectivity among the world’s unexplored basins and 12th for oil among all the world’s basins – explored and unexplored.
However, from a pure profit perspective, Venezuelan oil remains far less profitable (and stable from an investor perspective) than investing in the Permian Basin in Texas where the fracking boom, also hampered by global oil prices, has continued unabated. Indeed, with the US becoming an exporter of oil, and potentially the most productive oil field in the world in the Permian Basin, the appetite for simply snatching Venezuela’s oil supply would seem to be less.
And yet, here we are. So, what gives?
The View from Washington and Moscow
In fact, the fixation on Venezuela’s oil is only part of the story. The real story is the politics, and geopolitics, behind control over the oil. Put simply, control of Venezuelan oil is part of the broader international conflict with Russia, and perhaps to a lesser degree China.
In 2016, as Venezuela’s economy was in freefall due in no small part to the historic lows in oil price ($35 per barrel in January 2016), the Maduro government took the controversial decision to stake 49.9% of its ownership in PDVSA’s US subsidiary, Citgo, to the Russian state oil company Rosneft in exchange for a $1.5 billion loan. In essence, the Kremlin gave Caracas a very temporary bailout with major strings attached. With this move, the Russians effectively became part owners of Venezuela’s primary asset.
But Russia, being one of the world’s leading oil producers itself, surely had little interest in the oil per se. After all, Russian energy exports remain dominant in Europe, with expanding operations in Asia. Instead, Venezuelan oil was to be a potent lever against the US at precisely the moment the US was applying political and economic pressure on Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine, among other things. It should be remembered that the Obama Administration had imposed sanctions against Moscow in March 2014 over the Russian annexation of Crimea, and later involvement in the civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
With the US and European sanctions, some of which targeted Russia’s oil industry, the Kremlin was desperate for strategies to leverage against the US both to extract a cost for the sanctions, but perhaps more importantly for potential future negotiations. Putin & Co. settled on, at least in part, Venezuela’s oil sector. By providing what amounted to a relatively small loan of $1.5 billion, Russia immediately became a dominant player in Venezuela’s oil, thereby becoming a power player with Washington’s political and economic strategy.
And indeed this strategy, or at least recognition of it, was confirmed by powerful US interests in early 2018 when a still shadowy group of US investors made a move to try to purchase the Russian stake in Citgo.
Essentially, the plan, which was revealed to Reuters by an anonymous investor who is part of the group, called for the investors to pay off Venezuela’s outstanding loan balance and then require Rosneft to terminate its lien and transfer the loan to new investors. As the investor told Reuters:
“The [Trump] administration should recognize that if it doesn’t do something pro-active here, it will face…limited options under almost any scenario, whether it is an attempt to foreclose by the current lienholder, further restrictions on Venezuelan crude oil imports into the U.S., or even in the event there is a positive political change in Caracas… This is a private sector solution to a public policy problem.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than that. US elites clearly felt that Russia’s foray into Venezuela’s oil sector was a strategic calculation designed to counteract US political and economic moves against Russia. Moreover, it seems obvious that there is/was a lack of faith on the part of segments of the ruling class that the Trump Administration would actively block Russia’s geostrategic maneuvers effectively, hence the need for a “private sector” solution.
And yet here we are, less than 12 months after the news of this potential strategy broke, and the Trump Administration is doing precisely what the ruling class demanded, namely targeting Venezuela’s economy, specifically the oil sector. As the recent move by the US Treasury makes clear, the US will use Venezuelan oil revenues as part of a hostage-taking strategy designed to force regime change which would make moot the question of Russian power in Venezuela as the new government would be, for all intents and purposes, a US puppet regime.
One can almost hear the shrill cries of Trump’s apologists on left and right who will cry in the night about the Deep State forcing Trump to do this, that he has no choice as it is the will of the ruling class which has weakened him with the Russiagate hoax.
But, leaving aside the unbearable blitheness of being MAGA-adjacent, the reality is that Trump has warmongered against Venezuela since well before the recent escalation, including in an infamous 2017 meeting at which ExxonMobil’s State Department CEO Rex Tillerson and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster both were “stunned” at the stupidity of Trump’s expressed desire to invade Venezuela. According to the Associated Press:
“Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles …But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to [a] U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.”
So, it seems Trump never needed any help getting to the war criminal perspective on Venezuela. In fact, it could be said that, ironically enough, it was an oil man and a Pentagon man who tried to talk him out of it. So much for the Deep State. Instead, it was simply that Trump needed the right kind of crazies around him to indulge his imperialist insanity; he has them now with a messianic Secretary of State in Pompeo and the aforementioned National Security Warlock Bolton.
Imperialism a la Carte
I’ve tried to highlight the more nuanced analysis of the energy issue, and how it ties to broader geopolitical questions so that, hopefully, leftists can see the full picture of the political context, rather than a one-dimensional, reductionist one. However, it must be said that oil is not the only issue requiring careful analysis.
There is also the question of mineral extraction, and there too Russia figures centrally. In late 2018, President Maduro, desperate to get additional financing amid crippling sanctions, announced that Venezuela had offered Russian mining companies access to gold mining operations in the country. While the Kremlin’s media platforms like RT and Sputnik did their usual spin, presenting this as simply mutually beneficial, friendly, and downright altruistic policy from Putin, the reality is that Russia sees in Venezuela much the same as what US interests see: a cash cow on its knees, easily controlled and exploited.
And of course, in addition to gold, there are plenty of other mining prizes to be had in Venezuela including nickel, diamonds, iron ore, aluminum, bauxite, natural gas, etc. Both Russia and China have a significant interest in all these minerals, and projects necessary to exploit them.
Washington is not necessarily most concerned with Russian and Chinese billionaires enriching themselves in Venezuela, though it is undoubtedly irksome.
Rather, the strategic planners inside the Beltway see in Venezuela today an opportunity to strike a death blow to socialism and anti-imperialist politics in Latin America. While they shed crocodile tears over elections, democracy, and corruption, the reality is that the vultures of Empire are circling around what they feel is a carcass to be stripped clean. No more Bolivarian Revolution means not even the pretense of, let alone substantive movement for, regional integration.
With Chavez gone, and Venezuelan people hurting and desperate, people like war criminal and newly appointed envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, see an opportunity to win a major victory in their endless fight against socialism on the one hand, and petro-capitalist Russia on the other hand. And if they can stick it to China in the process, depriving it of a significant export market and diplomatic foothold in the Western Hemisphere, all the better.
Ultimately, what we’re witnessing is the classic Monroe Doctrine policy from the US, albeit under 21st Century conditions. With a consolidated right-wing front already in place under Duque (and his puppet-master former President Alvaro Uribe) in Colombia, Macri in Argentina, and Bolsonaro in Brazil, Washington sees Venezuela as perhaps the last domino to fall in South America (Bolivia notwithstanding). And with its demise, the region will be America’s backyard once more.
Unfortunately for the Empire, I’ve seen the Bolivarian Revolution with my own eyes, seen the commitment of poor and working-class people to the ideals of Chavez’s vision and of socialism from the ground up. These people, in their millions, are not simply going to watch as the US takes everything they’ve bled for these last twenty years. They’re not going to sit idle and play the victim.
If Trump thinks he will take Venezuela without a bloody fight, he’s even dumber than we thought.

“Instagram Helped Kill My Daughter”: Censorship Tendencies in Social Media

Binoy Kampmark

It is all a rather sorry tale.  Molly Russell, another teenager gorged on social media content, sharing and darkly rebelling, took her own life in 2017 supposedly after viewing what the BBC described as “disturbing content about suicide on social media.”  Causation is presumed, and the platform hosting the content is saddled with blame.
Molly’s father was not so much seeking answers as attributing culpability.  Instagram, claimed Ian Russell, “helped kill my daughter”.  He was also spoiling to challenge other platforms: “Pininterest has a huge amount to answer for.”  These platforms do, but not in quite the same way suggested by the aggrieved father.
The political classes were also quick to jump the gun.  Here was a chance to score a few moral points as a distraction from the messiness of Brexit negotiations.  UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock was in combative mood on the Andrew Marr show: “If we think they need to do things they are refusing to do, then we can and we must legislate.”  Material dealing with self-harm and suicide would have to be purged.  As has become popular in this instance, the purging element would have to come from technology platforms themselves, helped along by the kindly legislators.
Any time the censor steps in as defender of morality, safety and whatever tawdry assertions of social control, citizens should be alarmed.  Such attitudes are precisely the sorts of things that empty libraries and lead to the burning of books, even if they host the nasty and the unfortunate.  Content deemed undesirable must be removed; offensive content must be expunged to make us safe.  The alarming thing there here is that compelling the tech behemoths to undertake such a task has the effect of granting them even more powers of social control than before. Don’t they exert enough control as it is?
While social media giants can be accused, on a certain level, of faux humanitarianism and their own variant of sublimated sociopathic control (surveillance capitalism is alive and well), they are merely being hectored for the logical consequence of sharing information and content. This is set to become more concentrated, with Facebook, as Zak Doffman writes, planning to integrate Instagram and WhatsApp further to enable users “across all three platforms to share messages and information more easily”.  Given Facebook’s insatiable quest for advertising revenue, Instagram is being tasked with being the dominant force behind it.
The onus on production and exchange is on customers: the customers supply the material, and spectacle.  They are the users and the exploited.  This, in turn, enables the social media tech groups to monetise data, trading it, exploiting it and tanking privacy measures in the process.  The social media junkie is a modern, unreflective drone.
In doing so, an illusion of independent thinking is created, where debates can supposedly be had, and ideas formed.  The grand peripatetic walk can be pursued.  Often, the opposite takes place: groups assemble along lines of similar thought; material of like vein is bounced around under the impression it advances discussion when it merely provides filling for a cork-lined room or chamber of near-identical thinking.  All of this is assisted by the algorithmic functions performed by the social media entities, all in the name of making the “experience” you have a richer one.  Far be it in their interest to make sure you juggle two contradictory ideas at the same time.
Instagram’s own “Community Guidelines” have the aim of fostering and protecting “this amazing community” of users.  It suggests that photos and videos that are shared should only be done by those with a right to.  Featured photos and videos should be directed towards “a diverse audience”.  A reminder that the tech giant is already keen on promoting a degree of control is evident in restrictions on nudity – a point that landed the platform in some hot water last year.  “This includes photos, videos, and some digitally-created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully-nude buttocks.”  That’s many an art period banished from viewing and discussion.
The suicide fraternity is evidently wide enough to garner interest, even if the cult of self-harm takes much ethical punishment from the safety lobby.  Material is still shared.  Self-harm advisories are distributed through the appropriate channels.
Instagram’s response to this is to try to nudge such individuals towards content and groups that might just as equally sport reassuring materials to discourage suicide and self-harm.  Facebook, through its recently appointed Vice-President of Global Affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, was even happy to point out that the company had prevented suicides: “Over the last year, 3,500 people who were displaying behaviour liable to lead to the taking of their own lives on Facebook were saved by early responders being pointed to those and people and intervening at the right time.”
This is all to the good, but such views fail in not understanding that social media is not used or engaged in to change ideas so much as create communities who only worship a select few.  The tyranny of the algorithm is a hard one to dislodge.
In engaging such content, we are dealing with narcotised dragoons of users, the unquestioning creating content for the unchallenged. That might prove to be the greatest social crime of all, the paradox of nipping curiosity rather than nurturing it, but instead of dealing with the complexities of information from this perspective, governments are going to make technology companies the chief censors.  It might well be argued that enough of that is already taking place as it is, this being the age of deplatforming.  Whether it be a government or a social media giant, the same shoddy principle is the same: others know better than you do, and you should be protected from yourself.

The Private Wealth Within Nations, Now and in the Future

Eric Zuesse

The annual Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report is the gold-standard for estimates of private wealth around the world. The latest is Global Wealth Report 2018. It’s at:
Some aspects of this report (as in previous years) raise more questions than answers, but any informed estimations of where things stand economically within the world’s nations and even globally, has to take seriously what it reports. Following are key excerpts from — and my thoughts about these excerpts of — the current report:
page 6 of 60:
The report’s only mention of “Libya” is here: The “Change in household wealth per adult 2017–18” in Libya was +$22,000 per household, second only to the #1 largest, which was U.S., +$23,000. Unfortunately, no indication is given anywhere in the report as to what the percentage-increase was in either (or any) country. That’s the far more important figure. Though that figure cannot be calculated for Libya, it can be calculated for U.S., the country that was shown here to rank #1. On p. 40 of this report is shown that in the U.S., the “Wealth per adult over time” was rising at the same high percentage during 2012-2018 as it had been during 2002-2006, and is now a bit over $400,000. (The report says nothing whatsoever about Libya except what was just mentioned here, and the figures from which they calculated even that weren’t cited, much less mentioned.) The U.S. Census says that the average U.S. “household” is 2.58 people. If that’s 2 adults and .58 children, then the mean average U.S. household owns around $800,000, which would be the house etc. and other assets minus debts. If the comparable figure in Libya is, say, $80,000 (it’s just a guess, and probably way too high), then in 2018 the average Libyan household’s wealth during 2018 rose around 25%-30%, whereas in the U.S., it rose around 3%. Consequently, either something absolutely stunning happened in Libya during 2017-2018, or else this report made a huge error somewhere. That same page (40) asserts, as perhaps explaining America’s continuing rise: “The United States has a high proportion of assets (72%) reported as financial.” Around 30% of assets were real estate, which typically is comprised of the household’s house. (However, this would be only the value of the real estate that’s in excess of any existing mortgage or other debt upon it.) The assumption that the economists who wrote this report are making is that one of the reasons why the average mean wealth in U.S. is rising a higher dollar-amount than any other country’s is that an unusually large percentage of the privately held wealth in U.S. is in the form of investment securities such as stocks and bonds, and an unusually low percentage of it is in houses. They are assuming that the way to grow an economy is to “financialize” it. They are economists, and that’s the way most economists think, because economic theory supports that viewpoint. But is economic theory itself supported by the empirical evidence in economics? It is not. This was shown, for example, in the crash of 2008. But economists apply that theory anyway.
  1. 9:
Wealth inequality [worldwide]
While the bottom half of adults collectively owns less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 85% of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for almost half of all household wealth (47%). The shares of the top 1% and top 10% in world wealth fell significantly between 2000 and 2008: the share of the top percentile, for instance, declined from 47% to 43%. However, the trend reversed after the financial crisis. The share of the top 10% was little affected. But in 2016 the share of the top 1% rose back above the level we estimate for 2000. The trend in the share of the top 1% partly reflects the trend in the share of financial assets in the household portfolio, which fell during 2000–08 and then began to rise after the global financial crisis, raising the wealth of many of the richest countries, and of many of the richest people. 
The share of financial assets peaked in 2015 and has been declining since then. In previous reports, we predicted that wealth inequality would follow suit – possibly with a slight lag – and there is evidence that this is now the case. The share of the top decile and the top 5% remains at the same level as in 2016, while the share of the top 1% has edged down from 47.5% to 47.2% according to our best estimate.
That “edge” “down from 47.5% to 47.2%” is far too tiny to constitute any ‘evidence’ confirming that “wealth inequality would follow suit” from “The share of financial assets … declining since” 2015. The economists who did the report are simply hoping there, that economic theory isn’t trash and can be relied upon for making economic predictions. But that is hoping upon something that has already been empirically proven to be false, many thousands of times.
Further informative on this page is “Figure 5: Share of top 1% of wealth holders since 2007, [eleven] selected countries, % of wealth”:
Russia has the world’s highest inequality of the eleven countries analyzed: 55% to 65% of private wealth being owned by the nation’s richest 1%
Second-worst is India: 49-54%
Third is Brazil: 38%-45%
Fourth is U.S.: 39%-41%
Fifth is Germany: 29%-34%
Sixth is China: 28%-33%
Seventh is Canada: 24%-26%
Eighth is UK: 20%-25%
Ninth is Italy: 18%-24%
Tenth is France: 17%-23%
Eleventh is Japan: 17%-18%
However, here’s a better indication of these nations’ total inequality, and not merely the top 1% versus everybody: it’s the mean average wealth per adult, divided by the median average wealth per adult. Inequality is shown by the mean even if (as in Germany, for example) the inequality is more the result of the top 10% than of the top 1%. These ratios, of the mean divided by the median, will be shown here as calculated by me from pages 40-54 in this report. The higher this ratio is, the more the given nation is unequal in per-person wealth:
Russia=7.3
India=5.4
Brazil=3.9
U.S.=6.6
Germany=6.1
China=2.9
Canada=2.7
UK=2.9
Italy isn’t shown on these numbers.
France isn’t shown on these numbers.
Japan=2.2
  1. 11:
Our estimates suggest that the lower half of the global population collectively owns less than 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own 85% of all wealth and the top 1% account for almost half of all global assets. Since the global financial crisis, wealth inequality has trended upward, propelled in part by the rising share of financial assets, and a strengthening US dollar. These underlying factors appear to be waning, so that it seems more likely that wealth inequality will fall in the future rather than rise. 
So, here they are saying that in addition to “the share of financial assets in the household portfolio” causing wealth-inequality to rise, a “strengthening US dollar” has also been causing wealth-inequality to rise. The strength of the U.S. dollar, as against all other currencies, is — and ever since the 1970s has been — propped up by the Sauds setting the value of oil in dollars. Consequently, the economists who wrote this report are here alleging that the private agreement, between Nixon and King Saud (and sustained by both governments ever since), has helped to cause the soaring wealth-inequality globally after 1980. This is a very interesting assumption. But one hopes that the report’s data are less unreliable than the report’s assertions (such as that) are.
  1. 41:
[China] Growth champion 
While the United States is still far ahead in terms of total household wealth and the number of citizens in the top wealth categories, China has advanced so rapidly this century that a wealth gap that once appeared unassailable could vanish within a generation. It is China, rather than the United States or Japan, to which much of the developing world looks for a model, inspiration, and often assistance, in wealth creation.
Whereas financial assets were 72% in U.S., they were only around 35% in China. Would the economists who did this report be therefore assuming that China’s future economic growth will be hobbled by its relatively low percentage of private assets that are financial? If so, might that assumption be based upon flaws in existing economic theory?
  1. 43:
[Russia] Changing Fortunes
According to our estimates, the top decile of wealth holders owns 82% of all household wealth in Russia. This is a high level, greater even than the figure of 76% for the United States, which has one of the most concentrated distributions of wealth among advanced nations. Also interesting is that it is higher than the top decile share of 62% in China. The high concentration of wealth in Russia is also reflected in the fact that it is estimated to have 74 adults who are billionaires, despite its modest level of wealth per adult. 
(According to Forbes, there are 585 Americans who are billionaires.)
Normally, extreme wealth-concentration is found in kingdoms and other dictatorships. For a nation to depend mainly upon the aristocracy (the extremely wealthy) for growth is to produce an economy that will fail and whose only significant possibilities for growth are conquests of foreign lands. (Of course, for aristocrats to steal more from the public in their own country would be another way to do that, but it wouldn’t increase their country’s growth; and, besides, it would greatly increase the likelihood of a revolution in their country, which might kill them; so, foreign conquest does have an inevitable appeal to any aristocracy — the appeal of “take it from people elsewhere” instead of “take it from your own countrymen.” Ever since at least 1898 in the U.S., foreign conquests by the military or by coups have increasingly been the aristocracy’s chief method for growth.)
Wealth-inequality started soaring in the U.S. when Ronald Reagan became the President in 1981 and has continued soaring ever since, so that the U.S. now is among the least-equal countries. And yet, American growth also continued, despite the growing inequality, and it has continued because increasing portions of that growth are now in financial assets, and also because the U.S. dollar has remained the world’s reserve currency. Being the reserve currency means that the U.S. Government can have huge deficits and soaring debt, and that the economy can have enormous trade-deficits every year, all without the foreign-exchange-rate of the dollar being adversely affected. This globally unique advantage that the U.S. and especially its aristocracy have is the foundation-stone of America’s current leadership in the world. This unique advantage exists because in the 1970s Richard Nixon switched the dollar off the gold-standard and onto the oil-standard, in that agreement with the King of Saudi Arabia — the global oil-champion. That model of national economic growth is dependent upon the world’s wealthiest person’s, the Saudi King’s, continued alliance with America’s aristocracy. It has caused America’s wealth-concentration to soar. And, since virtually only the aristocracy and their millions of hirees (such as lobbyists, bankers, lawyers, accountants, and propagandists) have the wherewithall to ‘invest’ (gamble) in financial assets, the U.S.’s soaring inequality in both income and wealth is the result.
America’s increasing wealth-inequality is unlikely to reverse as the authors predict. Instead, the tendency toward revolution, which has accompanied the increased inequality, can only continue. And any further efforts by America’s aristocracy to extract even more from their fellow Americans will only increase yet further that revolutionary tendency. In fact, this is the reason why America’s billionaires need, even more than before, to conquer foreign lands, and to extract from people abroad even more advantageous terms. It’s safer that way, for any aristocracy which is approaching the limit of what it can extract from its own public without sparking a revolution. This is why the frequency of America’s coups and invasions is likelier to rise, before America’s median wealth will rise (such as the report’s authors assume). Unless America increases its coups and invasions in order to increase its mean wealth, America’s median wealth will, at best, only stay stuck where it is, or else go down (which would produce a revolution here).
The difference between America and Russia, then, is that Russia’s currency, even after the year 2000, isn’t the world’s reserve currency. Russia isn’t even aiming to make it so. However, if the world now is bifurcating into a U.S. bloc and a China bloc, then Russia might serve, at least at the start, as being China’s Saudi Arabia. China would then receive natural resources from Russia, and would pay in its currency, and Russia would buy gold on the open market, with that currency. Beyond this initial period, non-carbon energy-sources might be booming, and gold might again become the world’s natural reserve-currency. Then, at that stage, if not earlier, Russia should be concentrating increasingly upon developing its human capital. And, beyond that human-capital-buildup stage, Russia would then be the high-tech and arts and sciences leader of the world. All of this is, of course, presuming that neither WW III nor global warming will have intervened to prevent it.
The biggest down-side to America’s having the world’s reserve currency is that it has produced an aristocracy of unequalled arrogance. Therefore, in the short term, America is likelier to become increasingly violent and more overtly a police-state than a more equal — and more equal-opportunity — society. Because of America’s aristocracy, America’s glory-days are over. As any sort of “city on a hill,” America’s best days are in its past, rough though those were. America’s long-term future is bleak. It starts that now already with the world’s highest percentage of its people in prison— the highest percentage in prison of any nation on the planet. If this means that it’s a police-state, then it already is leading the world as being that.