Trump Visits Texas

President Donald J. Trump visited the areas of Texas ravaged by Hurricane Harvey and announced his absolutely fabulous recovery and prevention plan.   Said Trump:

We will build a wall, a wall so high you can't get over it; a wall so wide you can't get around it; a wall so deep you can't get under it. 

 We will build this high, wide, and deep wall out of coal,  putting thousands of miners back to work.  

We will build this high, wide, and deep wall out of coal to protect our borders. And......we'll make the Gulf of Mexico pay for it.   

It will be beautiful, believe me.  

S.Artesian
August 30, 2017

Go Figure

Go Figure.

After a five month silence, Insurgent Notes produced another e-volume of its online journal, which, strangely enough remained silent about the causes of the five month silence.  Certainly the conflicts and disagreements that paralyzed IN were described in the lead editorial, but they were not examined. And there is a difference.

That IN slipped into its near catatonic state directly upon the heels of its "peak" moment, its post-Trump election conference; that there is significant disagreement among the IN participants on the appeal of Trump to the US working class (if such an appeal exists), and if that appeal is something other than that of racism, did not impress upon the editors the need to devote considerable time to a) the presentations of the differing analyses b) the resolution of those differences through the construction and elaboration of a single IN explanation of this moment, the moment that almost uncreated them.

Then came Charlottesville.  Charlottesville was different, and no Charlottesville was not unforeseen, unique, or an aberration.  But it was different.  How different?  Murderously different.  This different:

That's a picture in Charlottesville, maybe of so-called aggrieved white workers, or maybe aggrieved white petit-bourgeois, or maybe not so aggrieved just white racist sacks of shit stomping an African-American educator who had the audacity to tell them to fuck off.

Now that's different.  Not unique.  Certainly not unknown in US history.  But different, for the right here, right now.   Really, who do they think they are?  The LAPD?
And that is the point.

Charlottesville was, and is, different because it represents the convergence of  extra-state terrorism with the state terrorism that has been practiced for years against immigrants, people of color, women, -- all those sections, fractions, components that make up the class of workers.

The winks and the nods and the hand signals and the codes have done their bit, and in so doing, have been jettisoned.

The night-riders have returned, and because they have champions in the federal government, in all branches of the federal government, they ride by day.

Clearly the terms of engagement have changed.  Clearly there are lessons to be learned, and learning to be applied if we are to win this struggle and turn the stomping around. It was and is  absolutely vital that any organization claiming to be revolutionist, Marxist, communist, whatever-ist, recognize, identify, clarify what is different, and what the difference this day has made.  I urged that the comrades at IN issue a statement about this difference, utilizing the space provided in IN's "comments" field:

"Not for nothing, comrades, but do the editors at IN feel compelled to say something after Charlottesville? 

I mean the whole issue of Trump supporters and their dance with racism has, by your own admission, effectively paralyzed IN for 5 months. 

You’ve got a dialogue running between Amiri and Noel about “whiteness”– in the abstract, I guess; now whiteness in the concrete makes its, or another, play and….?????? 

Do I expect IN’s statement to change the course of history? Of course not. No more than I consider the statements made by the IWW, or Anti-Capital, or all the antifa groups put together will change history. 

But Charlottesville itself is a change– where fascists collectively and explicitly have undertaken a campaign of terrorism like that undertaken by the KKK and the Knights of the White Camelia in support of redemptionism. 

Worth a paragraph or two, don’t you think, given the significance of historical materialism to Marxist theory and practice? Charlottesville is historical and it is material"

John Garvey,  one of the two main editors of IN responded, but not in the public IN comments area, but in a private email, in which he wrote:

In response to your comment on the IN page, I promise we'll say something when we know what to say.

 

In the meantime, check out one of the bad guys' point of view.  It's from Matt Parrot of the Traditionalist Workers' Party: 

https://steemit.com/altright/@mattparrott/catcher-in-the-reich-my-account-of-my-experience-in-charlottesville-by-matt-parrott. 

Have you read or written anything yet that's an adequate response to that? 

John

Huh?   Read the nazi account of the bravery and glory of being nazis?    Odd, no?  Odd yes.
It brought the following reply, posted to IN along with Garvey's email:

Hey John, I don’t have to read “the bad guy’s point of view.” I know what the issues are. That’s what historical materialism equips us to do. You should try it some time. 

Have I written anything that’s an adequate response to a Nazi explaining the great thrill he gets out of being a fucking Nazi? What? Are you serious? You think that’s what’s important? If so, you don’t know what you are talking about, John, which is exactly what I gleaned from your performance attempting to “moderate” the February 5 conference. 

You don’t write in response to that, to the Nazi glorifying in and of Nazi-ism. You write to organize the destruction of that nonsense And IN’s silence speaks volumes. 

You don’t know what to say? You knew what to say when you claimed Trump supporters had “reasonable grievances,“ that led them to support Trump didn’t you, imposing I guess your own version of reasonable grievances? 

You knew what to say when you wrote that you thought we could, we should win over Trump supporters, didn’t you? Now you don’t know what to say. Priceless. For everything else there’s Mastercard. 

Your question is nonsensical in its very structure, in the very act of posing it.

Really, how long have you been at this... that you still don’t know what to say, and more importantly, who you need to address it to? 

Short version: You don’t have to say anything else. You’ve already said quite enough"

IN has had its share of problems, some brought on by its unwillingness to maintain and enforce a rigorous schedule for publication, but not solely that.  There is/was  publication of the Rectenwald article dismissing the actions of and against the Syriza government in Greece as IN's sole inquiry and exposition into the conflict between revolution and counterrevolution in that country; compounded by Rectenwald's apparent separation from IN and re-emergence in right-wing, or alt-right, circles, without IN acknowledging, explaining, defending, and publicizing the break.    That's bad.
But nowhere near as bad as not yet knowing what to say about Charlottesville.  That's just pathetic.

Ferragosto 2017

Letter from a Friend

Email from my good friend  in London:

"This from my daily NYT mailshot:

Good Monday morning,

Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today:

After a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., led to melees and the death of a 32-year-old woman, the city tried to recover — as the police, in particular, came under criticism. After Charlottesville, will extremist groups return to the margins of politics, or become normalized and enter the national conversation?

normalized!!!??? Return to the margins? Conversation? What planet do those fuckers at the NYT live on?

Indeed, what planet and....what a bunch fuckers.  They live on planet upper east side penthouse. They live on planet building with a doorman.  They live on planet car-service.  They live on planet home-fucking-delivery.  They live on planet commentary, where the virtue in "freedom of speech," "freedom the press" is that they can comment on oppression, exploitation, bigotry, and murder as if the whole world was a Charlie Rose show on PBS.

The live on planet enlightened German bourgeoisie where the "great values" of Goethe, Schiller "won't allow" a short-fingered, overcombed vulgarian like Hitler and his NSDAP goons to take power-- even though we, the erleuchtete deutsche bourgeoisie  think something has to be done to get those communists under control.

They live on the planet "fuck you," and the only sane response is "fuck them."  They are as bad as Murdoch, and nobody, with the exception of Kissinger, is as bad as Murdoch.

S.Artesian
August 14, 2017

After Charlottesville

1. To the comrades fighting in Charlottesville...and Seattle...and Portland...and Minneapolis...and Ferguson...and Cincinnati...and Houston...and New Orleans....and Maricopa County.

You knew, we all knew, this was going to happen, and sooner rather than later.  The knife attacks in Portland, and in Sacramento; the shooting in Seattle told us that much.  Doesn't make it any less painful; any less heartbreaking; any less appalling.  But you knew it and we knew it was going to happen.

The nazi-right, stoked on secret hand signals from Stephen Miller; stroked and groomed by Rupert Murdoch and Fox and Friends; decided to make the removal the statue honoring the traitorous general of the traitorous army of the slaveholder traitors' rebellion the call to arms, with the arms being this time a tricked out retro-new Dodge Challenger ersatz 1960s muscle car, so perfectly representative of the imaginary nostalgia, the longing for a past that never was, that defines so-called modern capitalism.

And why not?  With an attorney general named after two of the great traitors leading the slaveholders' rebellion, why not assemble to protect the legacy of a third.  Sure thing, the nazi-right (indistinguishable, most of the time, from the "ordinary" quotidian right) waxed poetic and patriotic about the Great American that was Robert E. Lee.  Calling Robert E. Lee "a great American" is psychopathology masquerading  as history.  Lee abandoned his position as a commissioned officer in the US Military, and took up arms against the government of the United States in order to defend slaveholders' property; the holding of other human being as property, in bondage.

The fact that Lee was never charged with treason, much less hanged for it; that he, like Beauregard was pardoned by Andrew Johnson and lived out his life in relative comfort while Freedmen's Bureaus were attacked and destroyed, while Reconstruction governments were overthrown,  while millions of freed black men and women were compelled  to toil under their ex-masters, a "working relationship" secured by the terrorism of the nazi-right of those days, the KKK, the Knights of the White Camellia, is not just an index to the cowardice of the bourgeoisie even after victory, but a product of the profitable entanglement the bourgeoisie enjoyed with the Redemptionist governments.

The fact that any statue of Lee or the other icons of the slaveholders' rebellion is allowed today is more than an index to how cowardly the bourgeoisie still are. It shows how conveniently  the psychopathology of the "right" serves the bourgeoisie in its permanent, and preemptive, counterrevolution against labor.

2. Next up, of course, the bourgeoisie's current collection of self-greasing slugs called "the government," will establish an "inter-executive committee" to:

a) remove the Statue of Liberty

b) replace the Statue of Liberty with a theme park containing all the statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and PT Beauregard and Nathan Bedford Forrest and others made homeless by elitist city and state governments, a regular US version of Qin Shi Huang's Terra Cotta Army.

c) replace the poem "The New Colossus" at the base of the current statue with the haiku submitted by Stephen Miller:

restrooms are reserved

for English speakers only

and Germans of course

3. We knew this was going to happen because we've endured forty-five years of the bourgeoisie attacking the organizations of labor; forty-five years of the bourgeoisie rolling back the modest steps toward equality made during the 1950s and 1960s; fifty years of the bourgeoisie attacking voting rights, starting within days of the passing of the Voting Rights Act; forty years of fusing Christian fundamentalism with police power, and calling the fusion "social policy;" twenty years of disenfranchising African-Americans on the basis of imaginary voters fraud when the real voters fraud is the disenfranchisement itself; eight years when, indignity of indignity, the country-club fascists and polo-shirted Klan-boys had to suffer the outrage of a black president who wouldn't answer to the word "boy."

We've had two years of Trump urging "Go ahead.  Knock the crap out of him.  I'll pay your legal expenses."

We've had  years of toxic avengers avenging the outrages that never occurred-- like the Bowling Green non-massacre, the Pizzagate pedophile Satanic circle.

We've had 2 plus X number of years of Trump and company establishing World Wide Wrestling as the "go-to" think tank of the Tea Party-Heritage Foundation-American Enterprise Institute-Goldman Sachs-JP Morgan Chase-Conservative Political Action Committee-Breitbart-Fox News coalition. "If it ain't smackdown, it ain't real American."

And X plus 2 years of the Democrats accommodating, acquiescing, participating in all this madness, because the madness is power, and sharing the madness-- like expelling more migrants in eight years than any previous administration-- means sharing the ... money; because the cruelty of capitalism pays. That's all you need to know about Democrats.

4. It's not an accident that this attack occurred in this manner, with an automobile as the weapon. State legislatures in Tennessee, North Dakota, Florida have all debated new laws that would indemnify vehicle drivers who strike protesters occupying or blocking a public roadway.
Whether or not theses bills pass or are defeated becomes more and more irrelevant as the political structures of capitalism become less and less capable of controlling the conflicts generated by and inherent to capitalism.  Then the issue moves from one of authority, to one of license.

We can talk tactics, and we should, because we don't want this to happen again.  We can talk about protecting the rear of the march with "lookouts" equipped with spike chains that can be deployed and be dragged along the entire line of march, but spike chains present their own risks to safety.
We can and should have lookouts (always working in pairs, never alone) protect each flank at every intersection or cross street.

Instant communication between and among the lookouts based on the current messaging platforms for cell phones is easy.

Organizing that protection means organizing the directions that must be issued to and enforced upon the body of the protest and that is not so easy.  That takes a bit of planning.

We can and should equip all those organizing demonstrations with personal body-cams (yes, you can get them on Amazon).

We can and should assemble as a mass;  we can and should operate as cells.

And like generals, we'll then become very good at re-fighting the last war.

The truth is bad tactics sometimes lose battles, good tactics never win wars.

5.  It's not an accident that this attack occurred just eight days after the UAW failed in its drive to unionize a Nissan plant in Mississippi.  Right-to-work, disenfranchisement of African-Americans, that is to say black workers, assaults on migrants, documented and undocumented, are both mother's milk, and the holy body of Christ. Those three components make-up the trifecta of so-called modern capitalism.  There are no accidents in the most perfect world of the "free market."

Defeating the attacks on demonstrations means defeating the bourgeoisie's trifecta.

We oppose all right-to-work laws not because we think the ability to organize unions is the ends, or even the means to the ends, but because restricting the power of workers to act collectively as a class is fundamental to capitalism, to the maintenance of bourgeois power; opposing all restrictions on the ability of workers to act collectively is the means to the end.

We oppose all voter suppression/voter ID laws/gerrymandering  not because we think the franchise can overthrow capitalism, but because these laws are designed to perpetuate fragmentation of the working class, to maintain the ineffectiveness of the class as a class.

We oppose all voter suppression/voter ID laws/gerrymandering not because we want to elect a "better" fraction of the ruling class, but because we want to eliminate the fractional-ization of the working class; not because we want to elect "better" state, and federal, governments, but because we want to do away with state and federal governments and replace them with councils of workers and poor, seizing assets and control of the conditions of social existence-- health care, education, industry, communications, transportation.

We oppose all attacks on migrants because all such attacks are attacks on migrant workers. The bourgeoisie engage in such attacks in order to increase the strength of the police; to immobilize so-called "native-born" workers; to expand the ranks of the marginalized, those who can be exploited and disposed of, rather than provided with the means of sustaining themselves as a class. 

The polo-shirted beady-eyed white-boy Klan fans aren't going to stand and fight an organized working class that fights for itself by fighting for each other (and  for almost everyone else) by fighting against the coalition that perfectly defines so-called modern capitalism: redemptionists, ante-bellum nostalgists,  bankers, hedge-fund goons, industrialists, and cops.

(originally published on)

Anti-Capital 

August 13, 2017

(Assisted Living) THUNDERDOME!

TWO ALTE KAKERS ENTER; ONE ALTE KAKER LEAVES 

Over on Michael Roberts' blog, Mr. Roberts, no relation as far as I know to the Lt. (JG) Douglas A. 'Doug' Roberts of the movie Mister Roberts, posted an article on the "tragedy" of Venezuela which article was mildly, modestly, moderately critical of the Maduro government.

Despite the mild nature of the criticism, the fact that it was criticism at all and not blind cheer leading provoked the Trotskyist answer to Rex Reed, Louis Proyect to opine that Mr. Roberts had allied himself "with the anti-Maduro left."

Then tearing himself away from the latest screening of whatever movie comps him, Proyect decided to appear, live (as far as I can tell) and in person (virtually, which is what "in person" means these days) to take up the defense of Maduro.

Said Louie:

Michael, I value your analysis of the capitalist economy very highly but I think that your analysis of the problems of building socialism needs some work especially after I clicked the link in the article above to your one on China. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky et al believed that socialism was a world system just as capitalism before it. The notion of building socialism in a single country was an “innovation” of Joseph Stalin that in the long term proved unworkable. The USSR had immense natural resources, a powerful military and buffer states against the West. If Hugo Chavez or Maduro for that matter had taken the sort of steps that Fidel Castro took in 1960, the country would have suffered the same fate as Nicaragua in 1990. The USA tolerated Venezuela to some extent because it understood that “21st Century Socialism” was basically an attempt to create something not that different from Costa Rica in the 40s to the 70s until neoliberalism sank in. Although this article was answering another critic of Chavismo, some of what I wrote applies here...

Always in the Hollywood state of mind, Louie included a link to his vitally important article in the vitally important Counterpunch, defending the bona fides of the vitally important Chavismo, Bolivarianismo, whatever-is-currentismo, (and always in the anti-Hollywood state of mind, I won't include that link).

To which comment, I replied:

So says the unapologetic endorser and fan-boy of Syriza. The shorter version of Mr. Proyect’s homily for Chavez-ism is derived, not from Marx, but from Thatcher: “There is no alternative.”

And then he said:

When Marx was writing his great works capitalism was not a world system of any kind, not even close.
—
“Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?”
Engels answered: 

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. 

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

Never missing a trick, Louie included a link to an article in his own blog about the difficulties of advancing a revolution in Greece ( always willing, eager to block that trick, I have eliminated that link).

Then I said:

Well, yeah, it was a “world-system’ by the time Capital, The Civil War in France were written. The Civil War in the US, the reaction against Reconstruction proved that. The impact of the Suez Canal, the Meiji period, the cultivation of cotton in India, and Egypt; the “concessions” “won” from the Ottoman Empire, pretty much make it painfully clear to the most casual observer how “worldly” capital already was– a “worldliness” that increase during the long deflation 1873-1895– which saw the movement of US capital into Mexico (railroads, hemp plantations); a period of tremendous displacement and migration of rural populations throughout the world do to rising agricultural productivity in the US, Argentina, Australia, etc. 

Of course a revolutionary wave does not take place in one country alone, but it gets manifested in individual countries with individual particularities. In any case, the revolution very well can begin in one country, but cannot be sustained, without expansion into other countries. Kind of the most obvious meaning of the Russian Revolution, no? 

But to use that as an excuse for arguing “there can’t be a revolution” or “that this is all we can expect” for supporting an Allende, a Lula, or Correa, or Tsipras (all that “how will Greece survive without the Euro?” blubbering) or Maduro– for endorsing programs and policies that lead to….exactly what they have led to over the last 40 years has to be the nastiest trick of the pseudo-Marxists.

And then Proyect wrote:

(t)he impossibility of ‘socialism in one country’ as an explanation of failure is a metaphysical abdication of genuine historical analysis, a phrase that explains away every socialist historical movement by explaining nothing, and allows its propagator to bathe in the righteous glow of a superior self-satisfied ‘I told you so!’
—
Oh, sure. Building socialism in Greece, Venezuela, Vietnam and Nicaragua was eezy-peezy. But instead of applying a correct revolutionary program based on the proletariat, all these pseudo-leftist leaders decided that they preferred capitalism when push came to shove. Instead of such sell-outs, we need courageous, determined, principled revolutionaries of the sort that post comments on blogs such as this.  

The joke is that there is a direct proportional relationship between Internet windbags and their actual record of activism. It is a Walter Mitty complex that reveals a sputtering, phrase-mongering crowd that operates on a strictly idealist basis. The problem with a Daniel Ortega or a Hugo Chavez is that they lacked a correct “program”, not that the relationship of class forces constrained the possibilities of what could be done. 

What was the last “successful” proletarian revolution? Cuba, obviously. What was the relationship of class forces? There was a Soviet Union that was willing to arm Cuba, defend it even if poorly, and that was willing to buy sugar at above world market prices. And what was the program of the July 26th Movement? It was more Marti than Marx, after all.

And then I wrote:

(LP) “Oh, sure. Building socialism in Greece, Venezuela, Vietnam and Nicaragua was eezy-peezy. ”

(SA)Nobody said that. Period. What was, and is, being said was that cheerleading support for Tsipras, Ortega, Chavez was counter to “building socialism;” and would lead to the collapse of the SOCIAL MOVEMENT that could form the basis for a revolutionary transformation of Greece, Nicaragua, Venezuela… as support for the KMT, the Popular Front, the Unidad Popular led to the crushing of the possibility for social revolution in China, Spain, Chile… ad nauseum.

(LP) "But instead of applying a correct revolutionary program based on the proletariat, all these pseudo-leftist leaders decided that they preferred capitalism when push came to shove. Instead of such sell-outs, we need courageous, determined, principled revolutionaries of the sort that post comments on blogs such as this.”

(SA) Nobody said that here. YOU, othoh, did say something very close to that on other platforms, like your marxmail list and/or your blog– when you argued that the role of Marxists vis a vis Syriza was to “keep them honest” and if Syriza did not keep its “promises,” ally with the left wing of Syriza to replace the unprincipled capitulators with the authentic revolutionaries in Syriza’s left wing. 

(LP)“The joke is that there is a direct proportional relationship between Internet windbags and their actual record of activism. ”

(SA) Says the ultimate internet windbag.

(LP) "The problem with a Daniel Ortega or a Hugo Chavez is that they lacked a correct “program”, not that the relationship of class forces constrained the possibilities of what could be done.”

(SA)Again, nobody said that. Except you. Others, not quite so prone to windbaggery and misdirection, began the criticism of Ortega or Chavez with the recognition that the relation of class forces constrained the possibilities of what THEY– Chavez, Ortega, the “Bolivarians” the FMLN– COULD DO, and that the Bolivarian movement and/or the FMLN was and would remain fundamentally incapable of changing that relationship of class forces, BECAUSE of their collaboration, accommodation, of sections of the bourgeoisie, and to the bourgeois relations of production.
Interesting to see that our internet windbag no longer considers the defeat of the US in Vietnam to be a successful proletarian revolution..

And then he said:

...Here’s the point, Sartesian. You are a 70+ year old man who has spent the past 15 years at least spouting revolutionary rhetoric but have not done a single thing that qualifies as activism. You are basically an Internet troll. 

You are fond of denouncing me as a pseudo-leftist traitor. Okay, I am a pseudo-leftist traitor but at least I have acted on my beliefs. What actions have you taken? What risks? You are an armchair revolutionary just like every other Internet troll. Talk is cheap, as they say.

And then I said:

I’m not going to waste everybody’s time with responding on this platform to Louis’ evasion of content, and his attempt to turn this into a pissing match.

Anyone who wants the details can contact me privately at my email address, or via The Wolf Report, and I’ll be happy to provide them.

Proyect and I have a deep, noble, and entertaining, so I’ve been told, history of mutual dislike, and that’s putting it mildly.

Well, having promised, or at least hinted at,  something I like to deliver, so here's the response I spared those reading Mr. Roberts' blog.

First of all, Proyect is projecting, or proyecting.  I'm not yet 70, much less 70+.  He is.  I look forward to becoming 70+, as I look forward to becoming 80+, 90+, 100+, and 100 ++.   But not yet and not that it matters, other than the matter of simple accuracy.

As for "activisim;" I don't know that anybody's really interested in Louie's record of activism that begins I think with his hiring on as a "peace pig" for the SWP-YSA.  In that capacity, Louie risked life and limb (a regular starker our alte kaker once was),  bravely defending the right of US senators and other government officials,  to speak at anti-Vietnam war rallies on the platforms provided by the SWP's front alliances (various "Mobilization"s ).

Louie manned up against the more rude, more militant,(and more astute), anti-war participants and activists who objected and wanted to put an end to the strategic hypocrisy of allowing representatives of the institutions responsible for the war protect, and reinforce those institutions of war by announcing their individual "opposition" to policy, as if the issue were one of policy and not of institutions, of class, of modes of production.

And I don't know that anyone is interested in Louie's charitable missions to Nicaragua with the Technica project, determined to deliver modern information technology to the Sandinistas, so Ortega could put it to good use... doing what?

Proyect's getting in touch with his inner Bernstein here-- you know where "movement," or activism is everything; where everything is a "quantity"-- without quality; with zero content; or rather with the content of securing the continued dominance of the institutions that continue to dominate-- exactly as he did in peace pig days. You know, "capitalism with a human face," because that's all that is possible.

The careful reader will note that nowhere does Louie engage with any of the substantive issues raised, nor with the accuracy of the criticism lodged against activist Louie.

Did he support Syriza? He sure did.  Did he say that if Syriza didn't deliver, it would be necessary to appeal to the "left wing" of Syriza to break with the government, and replace Tsipras?  He sure did-----UNTIL of course Syriza didn't deliver.  Then he didn't call for a break, period.  He defended the Tsipras government with the nonsense about how hard it would be to exit the Euro, how difficult it would be to cancel the debt, how tough it is to........be ACTIVELY anti-capitalist.  Then it was "Give me the armchair.  And the internet.  And the Syriza government."

Proyect takes risks?  Along with his inner Bernstein, Louie is getting in touch with his inner bond trader.  Right, he takes risks.  Sure thing.  And just like the bond trader, he takes those risks with other people's money, or other people's struggles against capitalism.    The problem not for Proyect, but that Proyect inflicts on others, with his "activism"  has been, is now, and will probably always be activisim in defense of capitalism, all be it, capitalism with human face. Like Dorian Gray's human face.

Since we're concerned about records, let's set the record straight.  I have never denounced Proyect as a "pseudo leftist traitor." He should use his mighty internet powers and resources and let me know if he can find any reference I have ever made to him as a "pseudo leftist traitor."

Nope, on the contrary.  I think Proyect is  authentic, REAL.  I think Proyect is a REAL LEFTIST. I think Proyect is a REAL LEFTIST....  LOYALIST;  loyal to Chavez, Maduro, Correa, Syriza, Podemos, Allende, popular fronts of all types, and loyal to the ideology that says There Is No Alternative, repeating that mantra as a justification for repeating the defense of movements designed to preempt, obstruct, prevent social revolution.

S. Artesian
August 4, 2017