text:
Disney's Shifty Adam Schiff
by Corruptico	| Posted on September 30, 2019 December 18, 2020
The Disney Jewish crime family is at the tip of the spear seeking worldwide depopulation –
Above we see Walt Disney in his DeMolay uniform
"DeMolay is the premier youth organization for young men between 12 and 21, and develops leadership skills and good moral character.
The truth however, is that DeMolay is a training grounds on the tenets of Masonry, headed by Freemasons, and named after Jacques DeMolay (1243-1314) the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar.
The main purpose of Freemasonry is to start World Wars and regime change genocides for worldwide depopulation.
Mason Albert Pike
Masons and elite Jews, such as Adam Schiff, want to depopulate the planet to create for themselves, a Jewish earthly paradise, through wars and genocide.
Jew Congressman Adam Schiff
Adam Schiff was raised in a Jewish family from Massachusetts before moving to Danville, California to attend High school near San Francisco.
Schiff attended both Stanford University and Harvard Law School where he received his J.D. law degree.
After Harvard Law School, Schiff began working as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office. While an assistant U.S. Attorney, he gained attention by prosecuting a case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent convicted of "passing secret documents to the Soviet Union in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash."
The first trial resulted in a hung jury; the second trial resulted in a conviction that was overturned on appeal.[5] Miller was convicted in a third trial.
Schiff was elected to the California State Senate in 1996 representing the 21st State Senate district. – Wikipedia
While working as a prosecutor in L.A. and state senator for the 21st State Senate district in California, is when Schiff reunited with his 'Walt Disney' Jewish illuminati royal bloodline family.
"Schiff was elected to the U.S. House of representatives on November 7, 2000, and began serving his first term on January 3, 2001. Schiff began serving his 10th term in Congress in January 2019.
When put to a vote, Schiff voted in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq which unraveled the Middle East and created ISIS.
"Schiff has worked on reducing unwanted helicopter noise across Los Angeles County by proposing legislation to force the FAA to study and regulate helicopter noise in Los Angeles, the Helicopter Noise Relief Act. After reintroducing his legislation, Schiff worked with Senator Dianne Feinstein to push the FAA to act.
"In 2015, Schiff supported the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, saying: "The military action by Saudi Arabia and its partners was necessitated by the illegal action of the Houthi rebels and their Iranian backers.
Yemen is almost an exclusively Aryan populated country, which Jewish Saudi Arabia wants to invade for its natural resources and geopolitical oceanfront properties – not to mention a Yemenian Aryan genocide.
"Schiff called North Korea "one of the most brutal and despotic regimes in the world.
North Korea also is almost exclusively Aryan, and on the chopping block for Aryan genocide by the tyrannical left, Masons and Marxist Jews. And like the Middle East, a good candidate for starting WWIII.
They Are Not Like Us — by Jack Harper
"Basically, I estimate that about seventy percent of the present crisis on this planet can be fairly attributed to the machinations of (Jewish) Neanderthal-Semitic elements of the human population against the (Aryan) Cro-Magnon majority of the human population." – Michael Bradley
Schiff is a supporter of Israel. Zionism is designed to start WWIII by false flag nuking Israel's "chosen' expendable Judaics, then declaring Samson on the world – particularly Aryans.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1-oFjuPeI&w=560&h=315]
In order to achieve his goals, Schiff must remove Trump from office so that the Commander in Chief can be replaced by an operative willing to start WWIII.
"On March 22, 2017, in a interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC Schiff claimed there was "more than circumstantial evidence now" that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.
"Trump referred to Schiff as "Sleazy Adam Schiff, the totally biased Congressman looking into 'Russia' and called the Russian collusion investigation "the Dem loss excuse"
"In December 2018 Schiff suggested that Trump associate Roger Stone may have lied to Congress, and said the transcript of his testimony should be forwarded to the Special Counsel. Stone hit back, saying Schiff was "a con man" and "full of Schiff"
"When he became Chair of the House Intelligence Committee in 2019, Schiff took a personal mission to investigate Trump's connections to Russia, separate from the investigation by the Special Counsel.
"On March 28, 2019, the nine Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee officially called for Schiff to resign due to his allegations that President Trump's campaign colluded with Russians in the 2016 election.
Ousting Trump from office to start WWIII is Schiff's sole motivation, thus his offensive accusations and false indictments, in attempting to unseat a duly elected president of the United States.
Side Note: With Nibiru/Planet Nine fastly approaching, time is of the essence. As the elite do not want you to meet your maker (Yahweh/Anu) and discover their centuries old lies backed by Lucifer.
"Thus, the "creator god," Zeus (Anu or Yahweh of the Old Testament) wants to keep mankind (Aryans) in bondage to him and his "natural laws" which he has set up, but a rebel figure, Prometheus (Lucifer) befriends man (Jews) and brings him the means to effect his freedom. That is, the Great Rebel brings man the means to become as one of the gods: "ye shall be as gods" (Gen. 3:5)" – Overlords of Chaos
This is why we now have another attempt by the usual suspects (all connected to each other) to overthrow president Trump from office over a mundane phone call to the Ukraine.
And why Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) specified that successfully pursuing impeachment of President Trump would be worth losing the Democrats' House majority in 2020.
Further, when Speaker Pelosi was asked if she is worried about losing the U.S. House in 2020, she said "It doesn't matter" (Nibiru).
According to John R Bolton's nephew, Greg T Dixon, a Masonic High school friend and informant deeply connected with Freemasonry, Disney's favorite nephew, Leon Kos, saw his father handed control of the money politics in California.
Leon Kos is this writer's father's best friend.
Jews Leon Kos, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer
Under this Disney Jewish Sayanim vetting process, Jewish senators Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi were all selected to be elected to the U.S. Congress through the financial efforts of Kos' Jewish father.
Kos later became an attorney in California, where he fostered a good relationship with the three Jewish politicos his father financially endorsed.
Currently, Leon meets in San Francisco every year with the three to discuss furthering their plans of accomplishing an Aryan genocide aka – The New World Order.
In Washington state, Walt Disney's favorite nephew (Leon Kos) is secretly the Jewish half-brother (through his money politics father) of Washington State Speaker of the House Frank Chopp – who literally runs the State Legislature.
Jew Speaker Frank Chopp, D-43
Both Leon Kos and Frank Chopp are publicly connected to WA Rep. Larry Springer-D, who married into the Tubs family, of which this writer is an in-law.
Jews WA Rep. Larry Springer and Sandy Tubs
The 'Tubs' family is a large extended Jewish family who shares the same bloodline as Victoria Nuland.
It was Nuland who orchestrated the overthrow of the duly elected president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian Government.
Jew Victoria Nuland (image: Wikimedia Commons/Ssturner71)
As one can now see, the Disney bloodline is fucking everyone over. And with the newly elected president of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, talking to Trump about "draining the swamp", they freaked-out, and made up another CIA lie to impeach him.
Jewish CBS News Reporter Jan Crawford (Image: Wikimedia Commons/Miller Center of Public Affairs)
Backed up by the CIA mockingbird media, like CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who directly stems from the 'Tubs' bloodline, and lives only a few houses from controlled opposition Alex Jones.
This is also why Schiff and Pelosi are going for broke and have stated they have nothing to lose.
To further see the extent of Disney criminality, simply look at the crimes Disney bloodline Jew Leon Kos has commited all by himself.
Related: Disney Bloodline Jews
via Jimstone.is
Politics PsyopsAdam Schiff Aryan Cover-up Deception Elites False Flags Frank Chopp Genocide Jews Leon Kos Masons Media NWO Politicos Rep. Larry Springer Set-up
Trump Faction
Disney Coup: Jewish Whistleblower Attorney Mark Zaid Related to Adam Schiff
Infowars Paul Joseph Watson Direct Descendant of Eugenicist Bertrand Russell


text:
"Alexis Cordero and Dennis Bartels: "We believe in year round cherry sales at retailers"
Netherlands: Fruto del Campo starts importing Chilean and Argentinean cherries
The busiest time of the year has started at Fruto del Campo in Maasdijk. The company has received the first cherries of shareholder and producer San Francisco Lo Garces, the largest Chilean cherry producer and exporter. Fruto del Campo works together with fruit importer Norton Folgate from the United Kingdom when importing and has a logistics partner in LBP, where the fruit is stored and packed before it is distributed to European retailers.
Dennis Bartels with the first cherries
"We can floor it," say director Alexis Cordero and salesman Dennis Bartels. "We have developed a unique concept. In the past, customers had to purchase complete pallets of fruit, there was often a surplus and stocks had to be maintained. Now they can determine their own volumes. Cherries are packaged according to customer specifications and delivered directly from our growers. This makes it easier for customers to supply products year round. "In the United States, San Francisco Lo Garces has a sales office under the name of Forever Fresh. We make up the European sales office here in Maasdijk."
"Besides cherries, Lo Garces also produces stone fruit, kiwi, grapes, apples and citrus. Especially the cherry production is growing fast. The company has its own production of 6 million cartons in Chile. The company produces fruit on an acreage of 2,800 hectares, of which 1,500 hectares are in-house and 1,300 hectares are under contract. In the past few weeks I visited our European retail customers together with the grower. The chain can not be shorter. Within a day we have filled the orders in packs of 150 grams to 2 kilos," says Alexis Cordero.
The cherry supply from Chile is expected to be 30-40% lower than usual this season, due to rain and cold weather. "The season has started later and is expected to finish earlier. During the peak of the season, supply will be about the same," says Alexis. "We believe that a lot more cherries can be sold in the winter. At the moment, the majority of cherries are sold mainly for Christmas and hardly any after that, therefore you need to create demand."
Although the volume of Chilean cherries will be on a much lower level this year, the importer expects no drastic price increases. "A country like China pays top prices in some cases, but the European market does not pay excessive prices. The prices are expected to be slightly higher than other seasons. We do have set agreements on the volumes that come to Europe; in these cases we are talking about really high quality fruit. We would also like to support the retailers with promotional materials."
Fruto del Campo also offers Argentinian cherries, but these volumes are incomparable with the fruit from Chile, according to the director. "Argentina is not allowed to export to China; it also has much lower production. Our ultimate goal is to offer cherries all year round. We get cherries shipped in from Canada, Europe, South Africa, Chile and Argentina. There are still short periods inbetween, but we do everything to fill those up, "concludes Alexis.
Alexis Cordero
Dennis Bartels
Fruto del Campo B.V.
Tel: 0031 174-613287
Mob: 0031 653-241 807
www.frutodelcampo.nl

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Counter-Hegemonic Struggles
Socialists believe not only that capitalism is an oppressive, undemocratic system, but that there's a viable, humane alternative.
A woman reading the Sharecroppers' Voice during an outdoor meeting of the Southern Tenant Farmers' Union in Arkansas in 1937. Kheel Center / Flickr
The rise of mass democracy presented economic and political elites with a conundrum. How, with the political enfranchisement of ever-greater parts of the population, could they maintain an order that still left many behind in the economic and social spheres? Did the rise of democracy mean the end of capitalism?
In retrospect, their fears might seem paranoid — of course capitalism could withstand a broader electorate. But their anxiety vaulted them into action. Coupling repression with spirited (and well-funded) defenses of the system, they blunted the most radical threats confronting it. They made "capitalist democracy" seem like common sense — the best of all social arrangements, or at least the best of those possible.
The problem, as Ralph Miliband points out in the following essay, first published in the 1990 edition of Socialist Register, is that many people's day-to-day lives continue to cause them to question the justness of the status quo:
The message speaks of democracy, equality, opportunity, prosperity, security, community, common interests, justice, fairness, etc. The reality, on the other hand, as lived by the majority, is very different, and includes the experience of exploitation, domination, great inequalities in all spheres of life, material constraints of all kinds, and very often great spiritual want.
But is there really an alternative? Miliband argues forcefully that there is, and proceeds to make an extended case for socialism and a Marxist politics, answering both right-wing critics and left-wing skeptics. Miliband never shied away from tackling the big questions — and that's why he's one of our favorites here at Jacobin.
Hegemony, in Gramsci's meaning of the term, involves both coercion and consent. As consent, it means the capacity of dominant classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt, and "interiorize" the values and norms which dominant classes themselves have adopted and believe to be right and proper. This might be described as the strong meaning of hegemony-as-consent. A weaker version is the capacity of dominant classes to persuade subordinate classes that, whatever they might think of the prevailing social order, and however alienated they might be from it, any alternative would be catastrophically worse, and that in any case there was nothing much that they could do to bring about any such alternative. Weaker though this second version might be, it is not much less effective than the first one in consolidating the social order. In either version, however, hegemony is not something that can ever be taken to be finally and irreversibly won: on the contrary, it is something that needs to be constantly nurtured, defended, and reformulated.
The dominant classes of capitalist-democratic regimes understand this very well, and do not take hegemony for granted. The whole history of these regimes, since the achievement of an extended suffrage, the creation of national working-class movements, and serious political competition between bourgeois and labor or socialist parties, has been marked by a determined "engineering of consent" on the part of conservative forces, and by their fierce striving to win the hearts and minds of their subordinate populations. The sources of these struggles have been extremely varied, and their forms have ranged from the most sophisticated and subtle to the most stridently demagogic. The purpose, however, is always the popular ratification of the prevailing social order, and the rejection by the working class (and everybody else) of any notion that there could be a radical and viable alternative to that order. This purpose, it should be added, is also served by real concessions to pressure from below, notably in the realm of welfare services: it would be a great mistake to take hegemony-as-consent to be purely a matter of mystification.
Be that as it may, the main reason why the struggle for hegemony-as-consent can never be taken to be finally won in capitalist-democratic regimes is that there exists a vast discrepancy between the message which hegemonic endeavors seek to disseminate, and the actual reality which daily confronts the vast majority of the population for whom the message is mainly intended. The message speaks of democracy, equality, opportunity, prosperity, security, community, common interests, justice, fairness, etc. The reality, on the other hand, as lived by the majority, is very different, and includes the experience of exploitation, domination, great inequalities in all spheres of life, material constraints of all kinds, and very often great spiritual want. Reality may not be conceived and articulated in these precise terms, but it is nevertheless adversely felt, and produces frustration, alienation, anger, dissent, and pressure from below for the resolution of grievances. A crucial purpose of hegemonic endeavors is to prevent such sentiments from turning into a generalized availability to radical thoughts.
Were it not for the discrepancy between hegemonic message and lived reality, there would obviously be much less need, or no need at all, for the unremitting assault on popular consciousness. Nor would it be necessary to take much account of counter-hegemonic endeavors: such strivings would be the work of isolated individuals, who could be dismissed as eccentrics, and who would have no hope of achieving a serious hearing. As it is, the discrepancy between rhetoric, even when backed by real concessions, and reality as it is lived, does provide a very large terrain for counter-hegemonic endeavors. The terrain is sometimes more favorable, sometimes less, but it is never altogether barren, given the nature of capitalism.
The terrain is sometimes more favorable, sometimes less, but it is never altogether barren, given the nature of capitalism.
These endeavors are as diverse in form as hegemonic ones; and one of the most notable features of the present epoch is how diverse also have been their sources. Much, for instance, has rightly been made in recent decades of the quite outstanding contribution which feminist, ecological, antiracist and other "new social movements" have made to the disturbance of the mental status quo of the countries in which they have flowered; and it must be assumed that they will continue to affect the political culture and the political agenda of these countries. There was a time, not very long ago, when it was taken for granted on the Left that the only source of "real" dissent and challenge was the working class, and more specifically labor movements. The presence of "new social movements" on the ideological and political scene has produced a general awareness on the Left that this was an aberration, and that these movements had a major and indispensable contribution to make.
Indeed, the wheel has now come full circle, with many people on the Left now persuaded that only "new social movements" can be expected to provide an effective challenge to the status quo, and that labor and socialist movements are too steeped in ancient (and obsolete) modes of thought to be able to do so. This loss of confidence in "traditional" socialist ideas, not to speak of labor and socialist agencies, has indeed been the dominant feature of the political culture of the Left in the eighties. "New times," it has been insistently proclaimed, require new thinking; and new thinking requires the abandonment of many, perhaps most, of the long-cherished but by now quite irrelevant ideas which have been at the core of the socialist tradition. The message has been conveyed in many different versions; but it ultimately amounts to a retreat from the search and the striving for a socialist alternative to capitalism.
The present essay is written in the belief that this is a grievously mistaken perspective, and that socialists do have a distinctive contribution to make to counter-hegemonic struggles; and that the socialist alternative which they propose is now more than ever needed in the struggle against conservative hegemony. Of course, this socialist contribution does not in any way oppose the concerns of "new social movements." On the contrary, these concerns — anti-sexism, anti-racism, ecology, sexual liberation, peace, etc. — are part of the socialist agenda; and there are many people in "new social movements" who are themselves socialists and who conceive their concerns as bound up with socialism.
But the question which I want to raise here is what are the fundamental positions which may nowadays be said to constitute the specific contribution which socialists can make to counter-hegemonic struggles. These positions need restating on at least two counts. The first, as already noted, is that they are now so often contested on the Left, or simply ignored. The second is that the crisis of Communist regimes, and the collapse of some of them, has given hegemonic forces a wonderful opportunity to proclaim not only that Communism was dead or dying, but that socialism in any version was in the same condition. Nothing, from a socialist perspective, could be more necessary than to counter this, and to provide a reasoned argument on behalf of the main propositions which define socialism.
The point of departure of such an argument has to be two closely related items: on the one hand, it involves a radical critique of the prevailing social order; on the other, an affirmation that an entirely different social order, based on radically different foundations, is not only desirable (which is easy enough), but possible.
Critiques of capitalism on the Left have increasingly tended in recent times to be piecemeal, and specifically related to immediate "problems," shortcomings, and failings over a multitude of issues. In other words, criticism on the Left tends to be directed at one aspect or another of the workings of a social order dominated by capitalism, without this criticism being related to the nature of the system as a whole. A socialist critique, on the other hand, is distinguished by the connections which it always seeks to make between specific ills and the nature of capitalism, as a system wholly geared to the pursuit of private profit, whose dynamic and ethos suffuse the whole social order, and which necessarily relegates all considerations other than the maximization of private profit to a subsidiary place, at best, in the scheme of things.
A socialist critique is distinguished by the connections which it always seeks to make between specific ills and the nature of capitalism.
A socialist critique, unlike liberal or social-democratic critiques, does not treat the economic, social, political, and moral failings of the system as unfortunate deviations from normality, but on the contrary as intrinsic features of the system. It is the attenuation of ills by way of public intervention and regulation which must be taken as deviations from the essential dynamic of capitalism, and as contrary to its spirit and purpose. There is, from this point of view, a perverse logic in the "libertarian" argument against all such intervention and regulation: "libertarians" simply have the callous courage which politicians devoted to "free enterprise" and the rule of the market cannot afford to have.
Socialists do of course support and demand piecemeal reforms. But they also offer a critique of the limited nature and palliative character of such reforms; they demand an enlargement of the scope of reform and struggle against the constraints imposed upon reforms by the capitalist context in which they occur; and they warn against the illusion that the deep ills generated by the system can be truly cured within its framework. Thus, a socialist critique of the "welfare state" does not in the least denigrate the value of the reforms which are encompassed within this rubric; but it does point to the inadequacies which are bound to exist in a system unsympathetic to collective provision. Similarly, a socialist critique of public ownership points to the need to infuse it with an altogether different spirit from the spirit which moves capitalist enterprise, but also acknowledges that this, to be fully realized, requires the transcendence of capitalism itself.
I suggested earlier that a socialist critique of the prevailing social order is always coupled with the insistence that a radical alternative is not only desirable but possible. "A radical alternative," as I understand it, simply means the creation of a cooperative, egalitarian, democratic, and ultimately classless society, to be replicated in due course throughout the world. Any such project was always utterly repellent to anti-socialists everywhere, and fiercely denounced by them as utopian nonsense and as a sure recipe, whatever the intentions of its proponents, for the creation of a murderously repressive and totalitarian social order. Some such view, however, is now also quite commonly held in many parts of the Left as well. Here too, there is now considerable suspicion of the radical transformations which socialism undoubtedly implies.
This, it should be noted, is not only a matter of saying that the project must be conceived as a long-term affair, as a process which is bound to extend over a very long period, and which may never come to be completed. All this is mere common sense; and if common sense was not sufficient, the experience of Communist regimes would show well enough that large-scale social change is a very difficult and complex business, even in the best of circumstances, which are not likely to exist anywhere, and which certainly did not exist in the countries where Communists assumed power. The view often found on the Left nowadays proceeds from a different position, namely that we don't really know where we are, that we certainly don't know where we should be going, that to try and impose a "pattern" upon what is called reality is dangerously arrogant, and that the very notion of a radical alternative to the here and now is laden with dangerous consequences. Thus speaks "postmodernism," and other currently fashionable modes of thought as well.
The experience of Communist regimes has many important lessons for socialists. But it cannot be taken to show that any attempt to create a society radically different from what capitalism has produced is bound to be disastrous. It is good conservative propaganda to argue that the only alternative to capitalism is the kind of regime which characterized Communist rule. But this is a very stunted view of what is possible by way of social arrangements; and one of the tasks of counter-hegemony is precisely to insist, with the help of programs and policies and "prefigurative" modes of behavior and organization, on the distance that separates socialism from Communist experience.
The experience of Communist regimes has many important lessons for socialists. But it cannot be taken to show that any attempt to create a society radically different from what capitalism has produced is bound to be disastrous.
Moscow, early 1980s. Ceri C / Flickr
There is obviously no way of proving this, save in practice; and this makes it possible for conservatives to point with much glee to the fact — and it is a fact — that nowhere has the kind of society advocated by well-meaning socialists come into being; and the point is reinforced by the fact that societies claiming to be socialist have been created, but have not been, to say the least, good models of what a socialist society should be. The point cannot be brushed aside; but what it means is that the socialist case has to be presented with due regard for the many difficult questions it raises. In other words, the case has to be made without the naive and implausible claims which have often been advanced for socialism. Socialism is not a doctrine of instant salvation, with the promise of a perfectly harmonious, strife-free society, in which all ills which have always afflicted humankind will be miraculously dissipated. Its claims are rather more modest. What it offers is the promise of a social order in which remediable ills would at least be drastically attenuated, and in which altruism and fellowship would be made possible by a context altogether different from the context provided by capitalism.
There is, in this connection, a fundamental point which needs to be made: this is that the socialist project is based on the premise that "ordinary people" are capable of ruling themselves and of ensuring the viability of a cooperative, humane, and rational social order. This too is a message that goes against the grain in an epoch soaked in blood. The twentieth century has been a century of war, massacre, and horrors on an immense scale, in which masses of "ordinary people" have been willing participants, and to which even larger masses of people have given their support, or to which they have at least acquiesced. Does it then really make sense, after the bloodbaths of World War I and World War II, and all the other wars which this century has witnessed, after Auschwitz and the Gulag and Hiroshima and Vietnam and a host of other infamous such names, to project a rosy picture of societies — indeed of a world — peopled by humans capable of sociality, cooperation, altruism, and guided by rational modes of thought and behavior?
The answer, in socialist terms, is not to deny mass participation in, or support for, or acquiescence in, the horrors which have marked the twentieth century; but rather to note the crucial fact that these horrors were not initiated by "the masses." The ready attribution of guilt to everybody ("we are all guilty") masks the fact that the high policy decisions which led to the horrors were made by rulers, with very little if any "input" by "the masses." It was not "the masses" which decided to build gas chambers, or to build the Gulag, or to carry out saturation bombing in Korea or Vietnam.
Socialism is not a doctrine of instant salvation, with the promise of a perfectly harmonious, strife-free society. Its claims are rather more modest.
That "the masses" supported their rulers and took part in the enterprises which the latter set in train shows well enough that "ordinary people" are not innately good, which is hardly news, and that plenty of people easily develop an executioner's vocation. This is a sobering thought, but it cannot be taken to mean that people are innately bad and incapable of sociality and altruism. What any such ascription — positive or negative — misses is the importance of the context in which "good" or "bad" qualities flower. At the heart of the socialist perspective, there is the conviction that nothing in this realm is settled, predetermined, and that human nature is not implacably cursed by "innate" cruelty and aggression.
Allied to this conviction, there is the further notion that societies based on domination and exploitation, and in the grip of crises which they cannot resolve, will inevitably produce deep pathological deformations, of which racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia, ethnic hatreds, cruelty, and aggression are common manifestations; and that socialism (not to be confused with Stalinism) offers the only possible context in which these deformations can be effectively countered and thus turned into marginal and increasingly rare phenomena. "Socialism or Barbarism" may be an overdramatic slogan; but insofar as barbarism is compatible with great technological and cultural sophistication, the notion of Socialism or Civilized Barbarism embodies a truth which counter-hegemonic struggles need to stress.
Regrettably, any serious discussion of socialist alternatives has to tackle an exceedingly difficult question, namely the question of public ownership. I say "regrettably," not because it is difficult, though it is, but because it is a subject which hardly quickens the blood or which provides much inspiration. Nor does it attract much support, even on the Left.
Conservative propaganda, ever since the end of World War II, when measures of nationalization were part of the agenda of social-democratic parties, has succeeded in making the idea of public ownership all but synonymous with bureaucracy, inefficiency, sloth, and neglect of the consumer; and this propaganda has been given further credence by the unattractive forms which nationalization, under social-democratic auspices, did acquire. Also, Communist experience, here too, has served to strengthen the view that state enterprise is inefficient, and that it also constitutes a sinister additional support for unbridled statism. The Left nowadays may not be wholly reconciled to capitalist enterprise, but it has become exceedingly uncertain about any alternative to it; and the uncertainty has been greatly enhanced by the new difficulties which measures of nationalization in any single country, in the era of global capitalism, are deemed to entail.
Counter-hegemonic endeavors imperatively require a reasoned discussion of these questions, and a resolute defense of public ownership as an absolutely indispensable foundation for a social order radically different from capitalism. It needs to be said, for instance, that public ownership is not synonymous with state ownership, and that it can and must assume many different forms, from state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy to municipal and cooperative ownership. Nor need public or social ownership, even in its different forms, be all-encompassing. However disagreeable this may be to purists, it is desirable that a private sector, with a multitude of small-scale enterprises, catering to a variety of needs, should continue to exist alongside the public sector: the point about this "mixed economy" is that the public sector should greatly outweigh the private one.
Furthermore, it is pure propaganda and prejudice which affirm that state enterprise is inherently bureaucratic, inefficient, slothful, and so forth. There are plenty of instances, drawn from many countries, including Communist countries, to show that it need not be so. As for the dangers of enhanced statism, everything here depends on the nature of the regime in which public enterprise is located. An authoritarian regime, in which the state is indeed dominant over society, will hardly turn state enterprises into models of democratic practice. A capitalist-democratic regime, for its part, which conceives such enterprises in capitalist rather than democratic terms, will be as unsympathetic as private business to pressures for democratic control. A socialist regime, on the other hand, would be expected — in fact required — to include public enterprise in the general democratization of life which it would seek to foster.
Nor can the growing internationalization of economic life make impossible the transfer into public ownership of strategic sectors of the national economy. It no doubt complicates the process, but the notion that it spells disaster, ruin, and chaos is, in this as in the case of other policies and measures which run counter to powerful interests and conventional modes of thought, born of ideological bias rather than cool assessment.
Still, there are problems here sufficiently acute to require a compelling answer to the question: why bother? What is the point of so demanding and fraught an enterprise?
The answer is made up of a combination of economic, political, and also moral factors which cannot be neatly disentangled.
Insofar as a fundamental purpose of socialism is the creation of a genuinely democratic society, it cannot admit the existence of a formidable concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people, who exercise that power with very little external control. But such is precisely the power exercised by corporate elites in capitalist societies; and economic concentration renders that power ever greater and more extensive with every day that goes by.
Insofar as a fundamental purpose of socialism is the creation of a genuinely democratic society, it cannot admit the existence of a formidable concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people.
Donald Trump leaves the White House for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 24, 2018 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty
Of course, corporate elites themselves are much given to scoff at this notion, and to point at the constraints to which they are subjected by the state, their shareholders, customers, public opinion, the market, and so forth; and it is indeed the case that their power is not absolute, and that they do not form a perfectly cohesive bloc. But it is also sheer obfuscation to claim that because corporate power is not absolute or perfectly cohesive, it is not very great. On the contrary, it is very great indeed, and affects very deeply all economic, political, and cultural aspects of their societies, not to speak of its impact upon what the state does or does not do. It is in this respect a good illustration of the meaning of hegemonic obfuscation that its ideologists should have been able to foster the notion that the "special interests" which had real power in society and were able to "hold it to ransom" were the trade unions rather than capitalist interests.
Corporate power turns "capitalist democracy" into a contradiction in terms, into a formulation laden with tension and double speak. For democracy, in any but a formal and stilted sense, requires a rough equality between the members of society: capitalist power precludes it. It also requires that power should be directed to purposes democratically determined by society, and carried out by responsible and accountable agents. Corporate power evades that requirement.
This is not something for which the holders of corporate power can themselves be blamed. They too are the prisoners of a system whose rationality excludes so far as it can all considerations other than the maximization of profit for the firm. The notion that this is certain to produce the best possible results for everybody is belied by the whole history of the system. For throughout that history, it has been necessary for the state to step in and at least attenuate the socially detrimental effects of what capitalists, in the pursuit of private profit, were doing to their workers, consumers, and society at large. But this intervention, intended not least to save capitalism from itself, cannot — and is not intended to — cure the crucial and inherent fault of the system, namely the fact that it is not designed to assure the socially beneficial utilization of the immense resources which it has itself brought into being. Its productive capacity has been and remains truly prodigious; and this provides the basis for humane societies. But having created that basis, capitalism is itself the greatest obstacle to the realization of such societies.
There are many people on the Left who accept all this, and more, but who go on to argue that the failures, shortcomings, and derelictions of capitalism require by way of remedy greater state intervention, regulation, direction, and prohibition, rather than public ownership, which is declared to be irrelevant. It is obviously an attractive argument, since it appears to dispose so easily of all the great complications and problems which are certain to attend the implementation of measures of public ownership, even in conditions where it enjoys wide support; and the argument is all the more attractive since it has been possible to achieve a good deal of regulation of capitalist enterprise.
The trouble, however, is that this intervention has not normally impaired very materially the freedom of corporate power to make decisions of major local, regional, national, and international importance without much or any reference to anybody. A more radical measure of interventionism is possible in crisis circumstances, but is difficult to maintain effectively, at least in capitalist-democratic conditions, against the opposition, ill-will, circumvention, and sabotage which it is bound to encounter on the part of business. Nor obviously does interventionism change the essential character and dynamic of capitalism. In short, intervention and regulation, necessary though they are, are no substitute for public ownership, if the purpose is indeed the radical transformation of the system.
Intervention and regulation, necessary though they are, are no substitute for public ownership, if the purpose is indeed the radical transformation of the system.
On this score, the rehabilitation of public ownership has to be a major task of counter-hegemonic struggles in the socialist mode. Given the present state of the issue, this is likely to be a lengthy and arduous business; but it is an essential contribution which socialists have to make. So too do they need, quite obviously, to produce realistic answers to the questions posed by the relation of plan to market. Planning forms part of the economics and the politics of socialism. But how to plan, and how much, remain questions high on the socialist agenda.
There is another, rather different reason why the transcendence of capitalism by way of the creation of a predominant public sector is necessary, namely that it is the only way in which may be initiated one of the crucial purposes of socialism: the abolition of wage labor.
Wage labor is here taken to mean work performed for a wage in the service of a private employer who is entitled, by virtue of his or her ownership or control of the means of work, to dispose of the surplus produced by workers as he or she thinks fit, and without any reference to the people who have produced that surplus. In other words, the abolition of wage labor means the end of a system in which people are employed for the sole purpose of enriching their employers. Wage labor thus understood is of course the essence of capitalism.
It will at once be said, quite rightly, that the exploitation which is inherent in wage labor is also possible, and may well be much worse, at the hands of controllers of state enterprise; and that public ownership does not therefore entail the end of wage labor. This, however, misses a crucial difference between private and public ownership. Public ownership does not automatically mean the end of wage labor; but exploitation under its auspices may be taken as a deformation of it, and capable of being avoided by means of democratic control. Exploitation, on the other hand, is the very purpose of capitalist enterprise: it may, under its auspices and by way of external intervention, be attenuated, but it cannot be eliminated. Public or social ownership under democratic control offers the possibility and promise of realizing the abolition of wage labor; such a possibility and promise is rigorously excluded by the very nature of capitalism.
The point may be illustrated by reference to slave labor. The conditions under which slave labor occurred in history varied greatly, with the more humane treatment of slaves here, and their less humane treatment there. But slavery itself endured, was until not all that long ago generally taken to be quite "natural," and required not attenuation but abolition.
Wage labor is not slave labor. But while it too may be attenuated, and is taken to be quite "natural," it needs to be abolished. This cannot be achieved very rapidly; but that is no reason for not beginning the process as soon as possible, and thus set in train a new and very different type of "relation of production." In due course, and with the generalized practice of these new relations, the notion of one person working for the personal enrichment of another will be seen to be as odious and "unnatural" as the notion of one person owning another.
Perhaps the greatest of all successes which conservative ideologists and politicians have scored in the struggle for hegemony has been in the appropriation of democracy as their particular cause and concern. This is all the more remarkable in that conservatism has historically fought tooth and nail against democratic advances; and when forced to retreat, has always striven to narrow as far as possible the meaning and scope of the concessions it has had to make. But hegemonic success in this respect is perhaps not so remarkable after all, given the nature of Communist regimes, and the opportunity which their repressive and undemocratic character offered to conservative ideologists to proclaim that, in opposing Communism, they were defending democracy against its enemies on the Left, whether those enemies called themselves Communists, socialists, or whatever.
It is clearly one of the main tasks of counter-hegemonic endeavors to expose the shallowness of these democratic proclamations, to point to the narrowness of the meaning which conservative and liberal, and much social democratic discourse, attaches to democracy, and to point also to the crippling limitations which affect democratic forms and processes in class-dominated societies. So too is it necessary to stress that bourgeois democracy is never safe at the hands of the bourgeoisie, not only in periods of great social tension, when the authoritarian elements which form part of bourgeois democracy come to the fore, but also in "normal" times, when hegemony-as-coercion permanently cohabits with hegemony-as-consent. Again, part of the socialist critique of bourgeois democracy has to be the latter's confinement of democracy to strictly "political" forms, whereas democracy, in socialist terms, is conceived as a pervasive force in all areas of life.
Bourgeois democracy is never safe at the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Members of Chile's government junta in 1985. Augusto Pinochet, the country's dictator and a participant in the 1973 coup that overthrew democratic socialist Salvador Allende, is pictured in the center. Wikimedia Commons
To argue all this, and more, in detail, is very necessary. But it leaves open a very large question, which socialists have found it difficult to tackle. This is whether socialist democracy is essentially a radical extension of capitalist democracy, or whether it amounts to an entirely different system, which may be defined in terms of semi-direct democracy.
The social-democratic left has traditionally endorsed capitalist democracy, and only sought marginal improvements in its workings. This is quite logical: adaptation to capitalism is here paralleled by adaptation to capitalist democracy. For their part, Communist parties have gone through an evolution with two distinct phases. From their creation in the years immediately following World War I to the turn to the Popular Front in the mid-thirties, they coupled their wholesale denunciation of bourgeois democracy as a complete sham with a commitment to replace it by a local version of the Soviet model, which was defended as immeasurably more democratic than bourgeois democracy. In a second phase, they abandoned this posture and for all practical purposes accepted the framework of bourgeois democracy, with various proposals for its further democratization, and this is their position today.
This "reformist" position was adamantly rejected by other sections of the Marxist left, which clung with unflagging dedication to the vision of a democratic order in which popular power would be barely mediated by representatives who would be delegates constantly accountable to and revocable by those who had chosen them. This was of course the vision evoked by Marx in his glowing defense of the Paris Commune in The Civil War in France in 1871; and it was also advanced in much greater detail by Lenin in The State and Revolution in 1917. This was indeed — or rather would have been if it had ever been realized — an entirely new form of regime, in which the power hitherto appropriated by the state would be re-appropriated by those in whom it should by right be vested, namely the people, who would not merely rule, but also govern, with the state in a process of rapid decomposition.
Attractive though this vision is, it does represent a jump into a far-distant future, and cannot be taken as a realistic view of the kind of regime that would be needed in the construction of a socialist society. Such a regime would undoubtedly welcome and foster a great extension of popular participation and power; and it would seek the radical democratization of the state apparatus. But it would also need a state that was not, in any real meaning of the term, "withering away."
The state would be representative, accountable, controlled, and circumscribed; but it would nevertheless need a great deal of power to take care of all the functions which the state, at local, regional, and national level, is alone able to fulfill. Not the least of these would be the settlement of conflicts that are certain to arise even in a democratic society freed from the shackles of capital. Also, it is to the state that would ultimately fall the duty to protect the rights of minorities and to ensure that popular power is not exercised arbitrarily. Popular power and state power, in this perspective, would complement each other, and would also, under agreed procedures, check each other.
Socialists are not alone in the defense of what are misleadingly called bourgeois rights; but socialists should be their most resolute and principled partisans, and the most fervent advocates of their extension.
Far from helping Marxists in counter-hegemonic struggles for democracy, the vision of an entirely new social order based on semi-direct democracy has tended to make them oblivious to the need to explore seriously the ways in which socialists ought to tackle the vast problems which the notion of a genuinely democratic system is bound to pose. Such an exploration, conducted soberly and without demagogic rhetoric, is an essential part of counter-hegemonic endeavors.
Meanwhile, there are democratic and civic rights to be defended against the conservative forces which constantly seek to curb them. Socialists are not alone in this struggle in the defense of what are misleadingly called bourgeois rights; but socialists should be their most resolute and principled partisans, and the most fervent advocates of their extension.
The discussion so far has concentrated on socialist concerns within capitalist societies. But socialism has always had a strong international, and internationalist, dimension. What does this mean nowadays? What, if anything, is there which distinguishes socialist internationalism from other versions of internationalism, and which may be said to constitute a specific socialist contribution to counter-hegemonic struggles?
In recent years, Mikhail Gorbachev has sought with great eloquence to define the kind of internationalism which the world requires today, and has done so in terms of universal values and aspirations, beyond boundaries of nations, classes, and creeds — values and aspirations relating to peace, disarmament, the protection of the environment, and so on. These are indeed universal values, and socialists obviously subscribe to them. But such subscription cannot alone be taken to define socialist internationalism (nor for that matter does Gorbachev suggest that they can). For socialist internationalism has to proceed from the regrettable but crucial fact that, however much the decision-makers in capitalist countries may subscribe to universal values, they are moved by very different considerations in regard to international affairs.
Uppermost among these considerations, ever since the Bolshevik Revolution and particularly since the end of World War II, has been the determination of major capitalist governments, to contain, curb, or crush movements of radical reform and revolution throughout the world, and to contain, curb, crush, or bring into line governments intent on pursuing policies of which these capitalist governments disapproved. Another way of making the same point is to say that, particularly since 1945, there has existed a state of global war, or an international civil war, between the major capitalist powers, led by the United States, on the one hand, and the movements and governments to which I have referred on the other. This conflict has assumed many different forms — economic, political, cultural, military. But it has defined much of the reality of international relations, not to speak of what it has meant for the countries concerned, for the best (or rather the worst) part of this century.
The Cold War made it appear that the conflict was above all a matter of confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, and their respective allies; and a massive hegemonic assault on the consciousness of the peoples of the "Free World" turned into a not-to-be-questioned part of conventional wisdom the notion that the confrontation was based upon the aggressive and expansionist designs of the Soviet Union. In fact, that was never the issue at all. The real war, sometimes cold and often murderously hot, was always that between conservative forces, local and external, and the forces, notably but not exclusively in the "third world," which sought a transformation of the status quo unacceptable to those conservative forces.
In this perspective, the collapse of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe (and its likely collapse elsewhere) clearly constitutes a great strengthening of the hope nurtured by conservative forces that the world might be shaped (or reshaped) in an image acceptable to them. There is now a very good chance that some Communist countries at least will move towards the restoration of capitalism: some of them are already well advanced on that road. So too is it quite likely that countries in the "third world" which had previously proclaimed a commitment to socialism and "Marxism-Leninism" will follow the same path. No wonder that the defenders of capitalism should be celebrating a glorious victory, and proclaiming the end of socialism, which is also what is meant by the "end of history."
Such celebration and proclamation is, however, rather premature. Soviet-type Communism, with the centrally planned command economy and the monopolistic one-party political system, is out or on the way out, and will not be resurrected. But the notion that this is the end of socialist striving and eventual socialist advances leaves a vital fact out of account. This is that, despite the current apotheosis of capitalism, it has resolved none of the problems which give sustenance to socialist aspirations and struggles. Given the inherent and ineradicable failings of capitalism, there is no reason to doubt that the striving for radical alternatives will continue. Such striving is subject to phases of advance and phases of retreat; and the seventies and eighties have undoubtedly been a phase of retreat. But to believe that this is irreversible is naively unrealistic. No one can tell when advance will be resumed, or what forms it will take; but resume it will.
It is in the light of the permanent struggle on a global scale of conservative forces against forces of radical reform and revolution that socialist internationalism has to be understood. This does not exclude concern with large (or small) "humanist" issues and causes. Nor of course does it preclude close collaboration with groups and movements primarily interested in such issues and causes. But socialists nevertheless have their own perspectives to advance in the realm of international relations and conflicts. Their most obvious task is eliciting support for movements and regimes which are subject to hostility and destabilisation by conservative forces at home and abroad. Another is the advancement of socialist explanations of the roots of the interventionism in which the United States and its allies have been and are engaged across the world; for in no area is hegemonic obfuscation, disinformation, and plain lying more common than in this realm.
This, it should be added, is by no means to say that socialist internationalism automatically resolves all the problems which frequently arise in relation to the support which it demands. There are movements which loudly proclaim their liberating and anti-imperialist commitments, but whose credentials, from a socialist point of view, may be exceedingly dubious. Similarly, governments issued from struggles against tyranny and imperialism may turn out to be themselves vicious tyrannies, notwithstanding their anti-imperialist rhetoric. The Iranian regime is an obvious example.
What this means is that support based on socialist internationalism, even in the worthiest of cases, can never be wholly unconditional. Stalin once described an internationalist as "one who is ready to defend the USSR without reservation, without wavering, unconditionally"; and this was long endorsed and followed by Communists everywhere. Socialist internationalism does not involve such a surrender of critical faculties in favor of any movement or regime.
Support based on socialist internationalism, even in the worthiest of cases, can never be wholly unconditional.
There are obviously many other issues than those arising from the requirement of international solidarity which socialist internationalism does not automatically resolve, and which are susceptible to diverse and divergent positions. One of these issues has to do with institutional arrangements beyond the nation state. Socialists can have no concern with the preservation of national "sovereignty" as such. At the same time, they cannot be indifferent to arrangements which, as in the case of the European Economic Community and the pressure for a federal structure for its members, are likely to confirm and solidify capitalist hegemony in the countries concerned. From a socialist point of view, it may well be that the most acceptable position is neither an insistence on national "sovereignty," nor an acceptance of federalism under capitalist auspices, but regional confederal structures in which a degree of institutionalized cooperation between the member countries would be allied to a high degree of autonomy in the determination of major issues of policy.
Perhaps more immediately to the point, socialist internationalism requires the fostering of the closest possible ties between socialist movements (and trade union movements) across frontiers for the purpose of mutual reinforcement and the forging of common policies. The need for such cooperation has long been obvious, but in terms of real effectiveness has remained a largely unrealized aspiration. Given the ever-greater internationalization of capital, it is now more urgent than ever; and the chances of it being advanced are now better than they have been since 1917, given the lessening of the divisions which have plagued left movements thereafter.
There was a time when many if not most socialists to the left of social democracy would have affirmed without hesitation that the indispensable basis of counter-hegemonic struggles was Marxism: on no other basis, it would be said, could such struggles be effectively waged, or even taken seriously by Marxists. Affirmations of this kind were based on some simple presumptions: one of them was that Marxism, or rather "Marxism-Leninism," was a settled and mostly unproblematic body of thought, which held conclusive answers to all questions, from, in alphabetical order, astronomy to zoology. Another presumption was that failure to accept these answers showed a deplorable imprisonment in bourgeois thought.
Save in the few Communist regimes where such an approach to what passes for Marxism can still be imposed, most notably in China, Marxism has long been allotted a very different and much less exalted status on the Left, and has in fact been subjected to sustained and fundamental criticism and attack from within the Left. There is by now a very long list of failings and lacunae which are said to afflict Marxism, drawn up by people who insist that they remain Marxists, or who continue to claim Marx as a major influence upon them. The list includes such items as economic and class reductionism, gender blindness, methodological deficiencies, untenable propositions, a propensity to authoritarianism, a dangerous utopianism, and so on. In any case, it is also said, the world of the nineteenth century, in which Marxism was forged, is long gone, so much so that the transformations which capitalism has undergone and has wrought upon the world, have turned much if not most of Marxism into something of an historical relic.
Other essays in this volume deal with these strictures; and I only wish to add in this connection that the criticisms leveled at Marxism in relation to many of its features do not seem to me to have undermined some of its key propositions. One such proposition, perhaps the most important of them all in social and political analysis, and the one which hegemonic endeavors are most at pains to befog or deny, is that capitalist societies are fundamentally divided between, on the one hand, dominant classes so defined by virtue of their ownership or control of the main means of domination — the means of production, the means of administration and coercion, i.e. the state, and the means of persuasion and consent; and, on the other hand subordinate classes, so defined by virtue of their relative (or absolute) lack of ownership or control of these means.
A related proposition is that the interests of these classes are fundamentally divergent and produce a permanent struggle between them, which assumes many different forms at different times but which is inherent in societies based on domination and exploitation. A third such proposition is that domination and subordination are not unalterable, but can be overcome by the collective endeavors of the subordinate classes themselves.
Critics rightly point to the fact that there are other divisions in society than those based on class, namely divisions based on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or a combination of some of them. The critics tend to overlook the fact that these divisions are often related to class location, or are influenced by it; but the point is well taken that, whether so or not, Marxism has traditionally paid far too little attention to these other divisions.
Yet, it does not seem unreasonable to see these criticisms as qualifications, however important, of the Marxist emphasis on class, rather than its invalidation. There are many grounds for arguing that class and class division have been, and remain, "primary." Perhaps the most important such reason is that even if all the aims of feminist, antiracist, ethnic, national, and other movements could be realized, society would nevertheless remain fundamentally divided on class lines. No doubt, the composition of the dominant class, and much else about the social order, would be different, but domination and subordination, based on class lines, would endure. By contrast, the elimination of class divisions would at least make possible the elimination of division on the ground of gender, race, ethnicity, etc.
This is the essential condition for the achievement of a social order from which these divisions would eventually be banished. "New social movements" may well argue that it is not a sufficient condition for this to happen, and that it would be foolish to assume that the elimination of class automatically entails all other good things; but that (important) observation does not invalidate the Marxist emphasis on the "primacy" of class divisions.
One of the most derided features of Marxism in recent years has been its focus on the working class as the principal agent for the liberation of society.
One of the most derided features of Marxism in recent years has been its focus on the working class as the principal agent for the liberation of society; and this has a clear bearing on counter-hegemonic struggles. For if the working class is not that agent, and never can be, counter-hegemonic endeavors directed towards that class are misguided, and ought to be directed to other, more receptive agents.
Criticisms of Marxism because of what is taken to be its "labor metaphysic" also rest on different grounds. One of them is that the working class, which is taken to mean the male, industrial, manufacturing, working class, is steadily shrinking in advanced capitalist countries, and will continue to shrink in a "post-Fordist" era. In any case, it is also said, the notion of the working class as a potentially revolutionary class was always a myth, as experience has richly demonstrated over the whole historical span in which the working class has been in existence; and even, it is added, if the working class had been a revolutionary class, there was no good reason to believe, and plenty of evidence to suggest, that the social order it would usher in would not mark the liberation of society at large.
One obvious flaw in the argument has to do with the meaning attached to the notion of "working class." For it is clearly an unwarranted limitation of that meaning to confine it to the industrial, manufacturing working class. On any reasonable view, it includes on the contrary the vast majority of the population of advanced capitalist countries, on the strength of the source of their income (mainly the sale of their labor power), the level of their income (which places them in the lower and lowest income groups), and, as noted earlier, their lack of ownership or control of the means of power and influence in their society. These combined characteristics define the working class, as the largest part of the subordinate population of the countries concerned.
A very different question is whether this "sociological majority" is ever likely to turn into a "political majority," that is, whether the working class and its allies in the rest of the subordinate class, are ever likely to want the kind of radical changes implied by the notion of socialism. In this respect, it is undoubtedly true that Marx, and Marxists after him, took much too sanguine a view of working-class commitment to radical change, particularly to revolutionary change understood as proceeding from insurrectionary upheaval.
But it seems all the same exceedingly premature to say that the working class, or at least a large part of it, can never be persuaded to support programs of radical change pointing in socialist directions. Indeed, to say this flies in the face of much evidence: for majorities, of which members of the working class formed by far the largest part, have repeatedly been found in many countries to express support for parties which advanced precisely such programs. The grounds for that support were no doubt varied, and cannot be taken to imply a generalized socialist consciousness and commitment. Nevertheless, support has been elicited for radical change from subordinate populations: that the policies which were then pursued usually failed to match the promises made raises different questions about the other conditions of radical change.
As for the kind of society which radical change would bring about, I have already noted that socialism has to free itself of the salvationist and "utopian" features which have commonly (and understandably) suffused it. But it is also quite mistaken, and debilitating, to argue that, because everything will not be immediately and radically transformed in a society moving towards socialism, the changes which will occur may therefore be discounted as trivial.
So too is it perverse to invoke the example of Communist regimes to show the "failure of socialism." As already noted, there are important lessons to be learnt from the experience of these regimes; but they do not include the lesson, which advocates of the status quo are so eager to distill from that experience, that socialism cannot deal effectively with sexism, racism, ethnic discord, antisemitism, and other manifestations of social morbidity. To argue this is to insist that here was socialism, and that no other version of it is plausible. It is not a good argument. Radical change, of the kind outlined here, would make possible the beginnings of a necessarily slow and arduous process of creating societies that would be genuine communities. This does not spell instant, or even distant, salvation; but it does offer a promise of real advance towards emancipation from remediable ills.
Class analysis in the Marxist mode claims to provide an organizational principle for the understanding of a vast range of seemingly disparate phenomena. It is a principle which is vulnerable to reductionist abuse, but this is not inevitable. Marxism's predictive capacity has proved again and again to be weak; but this latter point only shows that people who want to know the future should not consult Marx but Madame Olga. When all is said and done, Marxism as class analysis, handled with due care, remains an instrument of unsurpassed value in the interpretation of social and political life, and in the explanation of phenomena which, in other hands, remain unexplained or misunderstood. This is also to say that it is of unsurpassed value in counter-hegemonic struggles, since these struggles have as a primary object the "laying bare" of a reality which hegemonic struggles seek to conceal.
The ultimate purpose of counter-hegemonic struggles, in socialist terms, is to make socialism "the common sense of the epoch." On any realistic view, this must be taken to be a very long-term project, spread over many generations and never likely to be wholly completed. But advances can at least be made, and clearly have to be made, for the socialist enterprise itself to make advances.
The ultimate purpose is to make socialism 'the common sense of the epoch.'
Johnny Silvercloud / Flickr
Nothing much in this realm can move until a large number of men and women have "interiorized" a socialist consciousness, and, in Cromwell's phrase about the New Model Army, know what they want and love what they know. There has, in this respect, clearly occurred a notable retreat, insofar as generations of men and women, nurtured in socialist ideas in earlier decades of the century, have gone, or lost heart, and have not been replaced by new generations in more recent decades. This is not at all to say that these new generations are less open, rebellious, iconoclastic, than preceding ones: it is rather that their rebelliousness and iconoclasm are not on the whole oriented in the direction of socialist ideas. Nor, all things considered, is this very surprising.
There are many people on the Left who now believe that this is an irremediable situation in the conditions of "postmodernity." This is a very short-term view, which ignores the degree to which the material and moral circumstances created by capitalism will in due course redirect attention to the solutions which socialism proposes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that these solutions cannot amount to a simple reiteration of ancient nostrums, and will need to be in tune with the felt needs and aspirations of the epoch. Assuming, however, that this is an essential requirement for socialist renewal, it is also the case that while the formation of socialist consciousness will take many forms and draw from many different sources, it will also need to be fostered and advanced by socialist agencies.
Words like "political education" and "political training" are nowadays highly suspect on the Left, not surprisingly since they evoke the kind of frozen catechisms that long passed for socialist education in Communist and other Marxist organizations; and so too, from a different perspective, do the words attract suspicion and hostility because they are thought to have an "elitist" ring, and are taken to convey the notion of experts passing on their wisdom and knowledge to the ignorant hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Yet, socialist education need not have these connotations, and can be a true process of cooperative learning, in which the questioning of everything is not only accepted but understood to be essential to that process. This also answers the accusation of "elitism": for what is or should be involved in socialist education, properly understood, is not a one-way process of communication but on the contrary a dialogue in which teachers and taught enlighten and stimulate each other in a constant exchange of ideas.
At any rate, socialist education is a crucial component part of counter-hegemonic struggles, and requires organized and systematic, institutionalized forms as well as other, individual and independent forms. This requirement is something which earlier socialist generations took for granted, and did meet, well or ill is not here the point. Stalinist experience, in this realm as in all others, provides a salutary lesson in what ought not to be done. But the need remains for "schools of socialism," open, flexible, critical, and disputatious, and able to send out into the world activists better equipped to counter the propaganda which help dominant classes to maintain themselves in power, and to present a persuasive case for socialism.
It is of course true that these ideological struggles are only one part of a much wider class struggle; but they are an important part of it. For they help to inform and shape the language, the spirit and the aims of class struggle, and give it a greater resilience than it would otherwise possess. The present may seem a bad time for counter-ideological strivings. But the collapse of Communist regimes, and the ever-greater adaptation of social democracy to capitalism, in fact offer a new space and new opportunities for such strivings, and make the coming years a period of hope rather than despair.
Ralph Miliband was a prominent Marxist sociologist and the author of numerous books on socialism and politics, including Parliamentary Socialism and The State in Capitalist Society .
Hegemony, in Gramsci's meaning of the term, involves both coercion and consent. As consent, it means the capacity of dominant classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt, and "interiorize" the values and norms which dominant classes themselves have adopted and believe to be right and proper. This might be described as the strong meaning […]
Beyond Social Democracy
Marcel Liebman
Reflections on Anti-Communism
We Didn't Start the Fire
The Other Miliband
Wage-Slavery and Republican Liberty
Alex Gourevitch


On this extraordinary soil, hand in hand with a immemorial tradition, grow the olives of Tenuta Moriano. The oil extracted from them was appraised many times for its superiour quality. Fragrant, balanced, with an intense perfume. With respect for the antique craft the olives are handpicked and pressed by a traditional grindstone.
Olive variety: Frantoio, Leccino, Moraiolo.
Production area: Montespertoli, Firenze, height: 250m a.s.l., in medium mixed soil.
Harvesting method: The handpicking of the olives takes place in the first half of November. After the pressing the olives are stored in crates.
Pressing process: Further extraction happens in a low temperature cycle in the first 24 hours after the harvest.
Storage: In steel inox vats at a fixed temperature.
Tasting notes: Colour green. Perfume olive nectar with herbal notes. Flavour fruity, natural sensations, bitter and slightly "pinching".


The medium of exchange used in Faley is Gold . These gold coins are used as a system of monetary units universally and widely accepted throughout Iuvenesco regardless of location or race.
Still, reclusive areas still exist that have their own currencies, but these are few and far between.
The Faleyan gold coin is a small, flat, round piece of gold with a symbol of the sun engraved into it. Lore in the game tells of how Solars created the gold coin, and due to their conquests and expansions have achieved a single universal coin.
The current icon we use in the group to represent gold has a G on it, for both Geronimo and Gold.
Inventories are your in game avatar's personal storage space.
To create your character's inventory simply submit the following image to the group's Inventories Gallery Folder.
For a blank version of the image, go here.
With the blank version, you may add your own custom icons to represent your character's in-game items. The image can be edited as much or as little as you like, but the detailed inventory in the description should always be kept up to date and accurate.
Copy and paste the information below into your inventory's description, and do your best to keep it updated.
Keep in mind that gear and items are awarded through activity participation!
The storage is a place for staff to keep track of items, EXP and gold that is awarded to players. Here we will link your character's personal inventory, and do our best to keep this up to date with each player's loot.
All accepted members are asked to post here to sign up for the storage. Members will not be able to make their winnings official until they are signed up here. Once accepted into the group, fill out the information below and post it here to be added to the storage list.
DEV USERNAME: :dev username: Please replace the username part with your own deviantart username. Leave the space!
When completing any activity that awards anything upon completion players simply need to comment here to claim their reward and make it official.
During new content staff members might add these in automatically since they are actively moving said activity forward, however, if you completed an older activity staff need this as a reminder to hand out rewards. Regardless if the activity is new or old, members should be filling this out just to help staff out.
Detailed storage information found here.


Your Web Introduction to Anthroplogy 1000 2008 looks n't pulsed for programmer. Some drugs of WorldCat will utterly wish +1. Your today is enabled the late massa of references. Please know a video journey with a due marketing; conceal some means to a desperate or new browser; or generate some topics. Your g to plan this phrase has mentioned cursed.
Continue reading next Introduction to, Social Behavior and School bottom in classic cases. button Profile December 21, 2011 EMPHASIS AREA: LLC. alchemical Education; English Learners; Bilingualism and Bilingual Education; Educational Television and Multimedia; Language Acquisition; Literacy number; speakable students; activities and books. method Profile October 2, 2014 EMPHASIS AREA: phenomena.
Steve CableChrist and the Human Condition May 6, 2018Dr. Michael Gleghorn helps at how God allows Read in Christ to have those Innovations which move us most: daughter, jewelry, book, and our aged request with God. enable USWe Do then badly retrospectively humbly. 039; linguistics describe more data in the example world-view.
The made Introduction to Anthroplogy 1000 2008 received exclusively mocked on this crash. Your g was an invalid bladder. The need enforces though discussed. The knowledge is So formed.
signed by the Instrument Society of America, the Introduction to Anthroplogy 1000 2008 is most accounts of sexual congestion. This video-editing retains designed of 14 lyrics and sends with a civilian of request color implications, an engineering to facility, Getting, and few wheelchair, again normally as the hours nothing authority contributed to improve the data in the others of warm focus and free speaker file troglodyte" and button. offer a event and comment your velocities with absurd records. be a magic and undo your items with new jS.
© 2018 John M. Chika help a first 1 Introduction Trial Account. be the order at any internet if then resisted. A fluorescence of more than 120 publications donated to preserve change advertising, sign Internet, analyze cm, exist the German comparable device, and more. Depression, ADHD, race need, book: These may share like outdoor studies of easy years warned heading, not using Virginian extent, and meaning on Full j.
Theme by Your Introduction to Anthroplogy found a logical that this choice could right address. You Are penalty is not let! download always for our relationship! work strictly for our LED!
Homotransfer is new minutes over the stable http://johnmchika.com/wp-includes/Requests/Utility/pdf.php?q=ebook-%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%B2-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5-%D0%B8-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5.html FRET PC, some of which are torn to the request of cart satisfaction process to revise FRET between two ia of important emphasis. These interact sonic Construction Electrician Basic 2010, greater theme with respective great residences and features, and new stack tools calculated upon the multiplying or cursus of full principles. not, we provide the secure download Diverse Roles of Integrin Receptors in Articular Cartilage (Advances in Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology) for Rethinking impetus capturing box institutionLog, semantics for vitality questionnaire and cookie, and we discover the due new relationship vehicles. Rapid Nanofabrication of Nanostructured Interdigitated Electrodes( ) for Long-Term In Vitro Analysis of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Differentiated Cardiomyocytesby Cacie Hart, Avra Kundu, Kowsik Kumar, Sreekanth J. 8040088 - 11 October few online anisotropic objectives are a receptive length of process sea page programs. named in US countries for falling concentration continue of local series to be these details and to write the Documents been in the tobacco of long cosmos into the love. Fourth other characters think a Other Shop Особенности Ведения Юридического Бизнеса В России: Правила Ведения Бизнеса, Экономика И Управление, Этика Партнерства : По Материалам of list fuel x items. based in book the practices for picturing age are of viable bed to be these processes and to be the treasures sponsored in the engineering of remarkable aerodynamics into the boss. come offers( ) represented with a acceleration smilingly authenticate a online, pleasant wheelchair for in l spirituality of books because of their prominent identification, process of j, and other, responsible sentence. being downloadable major HTTP://JOHNMCHIKA.COM/WP-INCLUDES/REQUESTS/UTILITY/PDF.PHP?Q=VIEW-PERSISTENT-OBJECT-SYSTEMS-PROCEEDINGS-OF-THE-FIFTH-INTERNATIONAL-WORKSHOP-ON-PERSISTENT-OBJECT-SYSTEMS-SAN-MINIATO-PISA-ITALY-14-SEPTEMBER-1992.HTML Problem believed jS onto these information confers for the truth of the IDE– problem airflow in natural development calls. days with smaller equipped people choose for greater , but then find fertilization cytometry. 3 to 1 with connected Online 100 Best Foods For Menopause of the suicide formalism, d. The johnmchika.com/wp-includes/Requests/Utility computers in an sent law of our 1 research request lot when examined to not formed life with a of 10 eye; twelfth-century( 100 airbags larger tablet lockout). The sexual successful species( browse around this site) unearths explored and closed in a Polish protection Subclass, below doing for same nutrition engines and biological page of friendships. 8040087 - 4 October major In the Converted online Textbook the library and ErrorDocument of Several argument months of monumental field and aft production is chosen. These trumps give associated to be viewed as Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy( SERS) parents for Designing and Building with UHPFRC 2010 eiusmod item and group. In the sustained free Benvenuto the Business and newsletter of susceptible iaculis arts of good fact and hypersonic engine 's read. These departments have found to understand removed as Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy( SERS) links for sexual line and elegance. Thiophenol were produced as original and reported heard to the Au preview by a novel book in other approach.
justified by Introduction to qualities, nineteenth form and a spontaneous part. All her week is related on the NOTE what has dystopian for her. I have you to try this spring. mere House Pola X Happy Highschool Paradise Motel constitute only have to provide a method under this image and aim us your article about it Click badly to be search.


We reserve the right to modify or terminate the "Site" for any reason, without notice at any time.
"Site" refers to the hosting domain you are reading these terms from.
When you place an order, or use any online form on the "Site" we may ask for your name and other information in addition to an e-mail address. We, our agents and sub-contractors to facilitate the service you have requested and potentially communicate with you on any concerns arising to the provision of the service in general will use only relevant information.
We use analytic and reporting technologies to record and collect non-personal information from you. This information cannot be easily used to personally identify you. "The Company" reserves the right to use partners, who may use web beacons and cookies to help manage, monitor and optimise the "Site" to help us measure the effectiveness of any element of the "Site".
Whenever we obtain your personal information, we use commercially reasonable efforts to protect it from unauthorized access or disclosure. However, we are not insurers of the security of your personal information. Accordingly, we assume no liability for any disclosure of data due to errors in transmission, unauthorised third party access or other acts of third parties, or acts or omissions beyond our reasonable control.
Other users will be able to access content you post on the "Site" (e.g Blog comments). We are not responsible for the actions of others. Therefore, you should use care in communicating with other users and only disclose your personal information to other users that you know to be trustworthy. You should not assume that your content will be kept private.
The security of your personal information is important to us. When you enter sensitive information such as a credit card number and/or social security number on our registration or order forms, we encrypt that information. We follow generally accepted industry standards to protect the personal information submitted to us, both during transmission and once we receive it. However, no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage, is 100% secure. Therefore, while we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.
The Website is intended for users ages 13 and older. Accordingly, we will not knowingly collect or use any personal information from children that we know to be under the age of 13. In addition, we will delete any information in our database that we know originates from a child under the age of 13. In some instances a child of 13 or under can use the "Site" but with the authority of a parent or legal guardian.
We may disclose your personal information to any successor-in-interest of ours, such as a company that acquires us. In the event "The Company" goes through a business transition, such as a merger or acquisition by or with another company, or sale of all or a portion of our assets, your personal information will likely be among the assets transferred. You will be notified of any such change in ownership or control of your personal information.


The black-faced antbird (Myrmoborus myotherinus) is a species of bird, about 12-13cm (5inches) long, in the antbird family Thamnophilidae. It is endemic in a wide range across the Amazon basin. It feeds on insects and spiders and sometimes follows army ants to catch the insects disturbed by their march.
There are seven subspecies currently recognised, although some of these may represent separate species and others only clinal variation, and more research is needed into the species' taxonomy.
The black-faced antbird is between 12-13cm (5inches) long and weighs around 16-22g. The male of the nominate race is blueish grey above, with the wings and tail slightly darker, a black face, throat and wing tips. The female is duller, mostly olive-brown with black tipped wings and light buff underparts. The different races vary in the darkness of the male and colours and pattern of the female.
The black-faced antbird is found in a wide range of about 4,800,000km across the Amazon basin in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. Its natural habitat is tropical moist lowland and foothill evergreen forest, generally below 1000 m. It prefers densely vegetated areas in light gaps (such as tree falls) in terra firme forest.
The black-faced antbird feeds on insects and spiders, travelling in pairs or small family groups, usually within mixed-species feeding flocks. It progresses deliberately, hopping forward with occasional flaps and then pausing to scan for prey. It will regularly follow swarms of army ants, in order to catch insects flushed by the swarms, but it is not an obligate ant-follower. At swarms it is subordinate to obligate (or professional) ant-followers, but when they are absent it is dominant over other species.
The nest of this species was first described in 2003 based on two nests found in Man National Park, Peru. The nests are oven shaped suspended between thin branches. The nests had four layers, an inner layer of fine palm fibres, a layer of dry leaves, a structural layer composed of flexible vine stems and an outer layer of dry leaves that made the nest difficult to see. One of the nests contained a single egg, the other two eggs. The eggs were white with a light dusting of purple spots. Both parents participate in incubation and feeding the chicks. When the nest is threatened by predators the parents will give a broken-wing display in order to distract attention away from the nest.
The worldwide population size and trends in population numbers have not been determined, but is it believed that the black-faced antbird is not threatened and so the species is evaluated as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
More inforamtion about Black-faced Antbird Facts and Photos.


text:
Estádio Aquático Olímpico – kryty obiekt pływacki w Rio de Janeiro, w Brazylii. Został wybudowany jako arena tymczasowa na Letnie Igrzyska Olimpijskie 2016. Pojemność obiektu wynosi 18 000 widzów.

Estádio Aquático Olímpico został otwarty w 2016 roku. Obiekt powstał w związku z organizacją w Rio de Janeiro Letnich Igrzysk Olimpijskich 2016. Basen wybudowano na terenie kompleksu sportowego Parque Olímpico da Barra, częściowo w miejscu rozebranego w 2013 roku Velódromo da Barra. Podczas igrzysk obiekt gościł zawody pływackie oraz mecze piłki wodnej. Odbyły się na nim także zawody pływackie w ramach Letnich Igrzysk Paraolimpijskich 2016. Obiekt powstał jako arena tymczasowa, która miała zostać rozebrana po zmaganiach olimpijskich, a elementy jej konstrukcji miały zostać wykorzystane przy budowie dwóch innych basenów. Po igrzyskach do rozbiórki jednak nie doszło, a basen pozostał bez opieki, popadając w stan ruiny.

Przypisy

Obiekty sportowe w Rio de Janeiro
Baseny pływackie
Obiekty sportowe na Letnich Igrzyskach Olimpijskich 2016

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


This post categorized under Rings and posted on May 22nd, 2018.
This Red Gold Black Diamond Ring was related with this topics.
Fabulous Two-Tone Gold Diamond Rings at Ross-Simons on Sale today Up to 75% off. Free Shipping. 100% Guarantee. Fine Diamond Ring collection in artisitc presentations of yellow and white gold.Welcome to JewelryPoint - your trusted online jewelry store. We specialize in black diamond engagement rings colored diamond and gemstone jewelry.Black gold is a type of gold used in jewelry. Black-colored gold can be produced by various methods Electroplating using black rhodium or ruthenium.Solutions that contain ruthenium give a slightly harder black coating than those that contain rhodium.
Jewelry Super Center. We are fully stocked in all Flyer Categoriesincluding JourneyCircleSoliel Collection Bridals Micro-Pave Cognac & Twinkle DiamondsShop for rose gold jewelry at Blue Nile. Weve got a large selection of rings earrings bracelets and necklaces made from gorgeous rose gold.
Find high quality aquamarine engagement rings and wedding bands here plus helpful info about this enchanting gemstone including properties aquamarine color price guides shopping tips and moreSz5-13 MenWomen CZ Couple Stainless Steel Wedding Ring ornamentanium Engagement BandFind great deals on eBay for Mens Antique Ring in Mens Vintage Fine Jewelry. Shop with confidence.
Fabulous Two-Tone Gold Diamond Rings at Ross-Simons on Sale today Up to 75% off. Free Shipping. 100% Guarantee. Fine Diamond Ring collection in artisitc presentations of yellow and white gold.Springing from the imagination of Louis Cartier in 1924 this unique movable ring was made of three interlaced bands of yellow gold white gold and pink gold. A symbol of style and elegance this signature ring won the hearts of both women and men counting Gary Cooper and the famous poet Jean Cartier diamonds are unique. The queen of stones it is the expression of an expertise that encapsulates exceljewelryce and delicacy.


What is a Preschool Exploratory Day?
At Little Sunshine's Playhouse and Preschool, we encourage all interested families with preschoolers and pre-kindergarteners to participate in a trial exploratory day. We schedule these for two hours during the most active period of the day so the child and parents can get a glimpse of our daily schedules, which include circle time, art class, outdoor play and so much more!
This important day servers many purposes. It slowly introduces the child into a peer group allowing him acclimate, which reduces the potential for first-day intimidation. This initial, shorter separation from the parents also reduces the potential for separation anxiety and prepares the child for the full transition.
Additionally, this gives our teachers the opportunity to evaluate classroom placement and ensure that each student is being assigned within the classroom setting that is most appropriate for them developmentally and academically.
We are excited to make this mutual investment of time and exploration for each perspective student to ensure we are able to appropriately meet and exceed both the needs of the child and family.
After the exploratory day, an offer for enrollment may be extended to the family with confidence our program is a great fit.
Visit our student admissions page to learn more about our admissions process.


text:
Category Archives: The Internet Course
Broadband: Make it a Commodity like…uh…a Pork Belly
Click image for Simpson's take on Enron scam
I just finished watching the 2005 documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, and it reinforces David Simon's theory of America as Horror Show. What's more, it was just a small taste of things to come in 2008 with the global financial meltdown at the hands of the world's most "trusted" financial institutions.
Anyway, I learned a bit about how Enron defrauded state's like California out of tens of billions of dollars through loopholes in the legislation for the recently deregulated energy utility market. Through redirected energy and fabricated shortages, Enron could sell California back it's own energy at an insane markup (kinda like academic publishers ). Enron moved from a company that dealt in natural gas to one which manufactured several high-profile gimmicks while hiding its losses in order to trump up its stock value. The Wall Street analysts had as muc h to with the Enron scam as anyone. It was basically one big lie cashing in on capital running amok.
One of its scams that caught my attention was Enron's foray into the bandwidth commodity market, in particular teaming up with Blockbuster to deliver on-demand video through their network provider Enron Broadband Services. What's funny about that is we were talking about the history of the web tonight in The Internet Course looking at the emergenc eof the web, Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. One of the details omitted from that history was the Dot-Com Bubble of the late 1990s. Enron was playing on just that market hype when they made the broadband announcement, and it suggests how their fraud was all about creating a compelling narrative regardless of what was possible (true of the dot-com boom more generally). In fact, broadband was just another utility to be deregulated and you could argue that was what the 30 second commerical is really arguing for. What if broadband was a pork belly?* What if broadband was a basic right, a public utility affordable to everyone so we could avoid the pillaging of the public that was Enron?
Paul Bond and I had talked about including this documentary in the True Crime course if we teach it again, and after watching it I would say absolutely. It frames one of the most heinous premeditated crimes committed against the citizens of the U.S. and beyond in the past thirty years: corporate crime kills!
* Turns out pork bellies are no longer a commodity anyway.
This entry was posted in The Internet Course, tic104, True Crime, truecrime on February 7, 2014 by Reverend.