Thursday, October 24, 2019

Socialist Action Splits!

A couple of days ago Socialist Action published a long post entitled Anatomy of the Recent Split in Socialist Action. It contains a short introduction by Jeff Mackler, followed by the Political Resolution Adopted by the Socialist Action National Committee Plenum, October 6, 2019, detailing the political differences that resulted in divorce. It comes to nearly 11,000 words.

The bottom line is that 29 comrades have left the organization, including the former editor of their newspaper (whom I believe is Michael Schreiber). It's a bit under a third of the total membership. They are referred to in the Resolution as the Permanent Revolution Faction (PRF), and I will use that terminology. I will call those remaining in Socialist Action, specifically the authors of the resolution, the Majority. The PRF has since gone on to found a new organization called Socialist Resurgence. I have not yet had time to study their webpage and so do not know their response to the Majority's resolution. I'll get to that in a later post.

The first topic of disagreement is trans liberation. Here is what the Majority claim:
We begin with our stance of full support to and respect for transgender people’s fundamental right to self-identify and for the full, unequivocal inclusion of trans people in every aspect of society. Gender is a social construct, which is formed by economic, cultural, historical, biological, and class factors. In matters of gender identity, as with sexual orientation, an individual knows best what is right for them. We reject any assertion that their identity is in any way inauthentic or invalid. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. 
That trans people should be assured the civil and human rights is incontrovertible--even I support that! But then they go off the rails. The "social construct" theory is just factually wrong, touted only by ideologues in academic women's studies departments. Nobody who has ever raised children can take it seriously. The final claims--e.g., "trans women are women,"--are also false. If they said trans women are women with an asterisk, where the size and content of that asterisk varies considerably by individual, they'd be a whole lot closer to the truth.

An effort toward radical clarity leads them to oversimplify the whole issue--the trans phenomenon is not so easily dealt with. People with an interest in truth as opposed to mere revolutionary chic will not be able to take the Majority's position seriously. Beyond which, one wonders why the trans issue is so important, concerning, as it does, less than 1% of the population.

The Majority's position on Syria is similarly simplistic and counterfactual. The essential problem supposedly is "U.S. imperialism."
With few, if any exceptions these “rebels” have almost from the beginning been armed, trained, promoted and supported by U.S. imperialism and its NATO and Gulf State monarchy “coalition” as well as the Turkish government.
It's a real stretch to claim that the rebels have been significantly financed by the US, and certainly not since Trump took office. Further,
In Idlib today, the remaining “rebels,” who regularly launch missiles into Syria’s cities, exist only because of the support of the U.S., its NATO imperialist allies, and Turkey. These “rebels,” significantly, but decreasingly, control and dominate, via terror, the population of Idlib.
There are 3 million people in Idlib, including 1.1 million displaced from elsewhere in Syria. They are all Sunnis who potentially face slaughter at the hands of Assad's army. Beyond which, Assad, with Russian assistance, is barrel-bombing Idlib hospitals in the hope of driving the population out of the country. The Majority doesn't tell that side of the story, and the side it does tell isn't accurate.

The Majority presents a hypothetical:
In the course of this monstrous U.S. imperialist war, SA tragically finds itself divided. In Syria, we have explained, we would be on the side of the Syrian government. In Syria, the minority explains, they would be on the side of the nondescript “Syrian masses.”
This is very funny. If the Majority and PRF were both Sunni, then they'd all be refugees somewhere. If they were both Alawite then they'd all support the Syrian government. The notion that some theoretical distinction about "U.S. imperialism" might make any difference is absurd.

Apparently the PRF aren't the only people who speak for the masses. The Majority claims
The only way for serious revolutionaries to win the hearts and minds of the Syrian masses is to be in the front lines of the battle against imperialist intervention and invasion. [emphasis mine]  
In Syria there are no "masses." There are Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Palestinians, Druze, Assyrians, Kurds, and others--all fighting just for survival. The country--always artificial--hangs together now only by force of arms.

The Majority's error is again to oversimplify things to the point of complete falsehood. Surely Syria is more complicated than some kooky story about "U.S. imperialism." Whatever the PRF's opinions, there is at least some recognition of reality.

As a final example, the Majority's position on Venezuela is similarly reality-deprived. They write
The U.S. imperialist beast has sanctioned and embargoed Venezuela, the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world, since the Obama administration and before. These sanctions have led to mass starvation and the death of some 50,000 Venezuelans.
This is simply not true. It is correct that some US sanctions have been in place since 2008 (pdf).
In 2008, the Treasury Department imposed financial sanctions on two individuals and two travel agencies in Venezuela for providing financial support to the radical Lebanon-based Islamic Shiite group Hezbollah.
Two individuals do not an economy destroy. Subsequent sanctions were similarly narrow, in 2014 levying penalties on 89 people. It was only under Trump beginning in 2018 that economy-wide sanctions were imposed. By that time the Venezuelan economy had already imploded.

It's really easy to break stuff. The de-civilization of Venezuela began in 2006 when Hugo Chavez took money from the PDVSA (the state-owned oil company) and used it to buy services for the poor. The NY Times wrote
Critics see the spending as a reckless exercise in populist decadence intended to burnish Chávez's image while embarrassing the Bush administration, his principal obsession since American officials gave tacit support to a failed coup against him in 2002.
It was worse than "populist decadence." Essential maintenance on the oil infrastructure was not performed, and today it will require billions in new capital to repair the damage. In a word, Chavez killed the golden-egg-laying goose. It will be generations (if ever) before Venezuela recovers its previous living standard.

The PRF's sin apparently is pointing out the obvious fact that Maduro is substantially responsible for the disaster. The reward for truth-telling is expulsion.

Socialist Action had about one hundred comrades--now they're down to seventy. This because the so-called Vanguard Party, the sole inheritors of Revolutionary Truth, are unable to say anything truthful or coherent about the major issues of the day. It's not clear to me why I should continue writing about them--it could be they fall off the radar screen in a few months.

It seems they've fallen off their own radar screen. The supposedly important Jeff Mackler for President campaign hosted ZERO events in October, and has absolutely nothing scheduled for November. The idiots can't even ride down an escalator.

Further Reading:

Sunday, October 20, 2019

Talking Tulsi

I think I understand Tulsi Gabbard.

Enlightenment came from Scott Adams (695) who suggested her appeal is partly sexual, proposing that a lot of men (disproportionately Republicans) are "in love" with Tulsi. At age 38, she is by far the most attractive candidate, and a lot of guys just want to see more of Tulsi on TV. I can relate to that, and I was rooting for her.

So I was disappointed by her performance during the October debate. She got very little air time, and while she tried to land a punch, she never connected. Pete Buttigieg argued her to a draw during their exchange, not least because her description of Syria as a "regime-change war" isn't accurate.

So now comes Hillary Clinton who said
I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians. [...]

They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that's assuming [Green Party politician] Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset. She's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate.
Tulsi--who obviously is at least as smart as she looks--didn't miss the opportunity:
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
It's a wonderful set of tweets. Look how she reduces the campaign to a race between her and Hillary--between a person of integrity and the "personification of rot". Between the real voice of the Democratic Party and the sick, warmongering pretenders. Note how she indirectly tars the other candidates with the sick, warmonger label, among whom Hillary is the leader.

Mr. Adams thinks Hillary is just stupid (698), which seems to be the consensus opinion. And that could be true. But Hillary might not be as dumb as she sounds--it's possible she has a strategy.

It's a given that she really wants to be president, which means she has to win the Democratic nomination. The odds are long no matter what she does, but steady-as-she-goes is definitely not gonna work. So she has to shake the box (as Mr. Adams would put it). Her comments do that--they're way over the top, and they've definitely gotten attention. She's borrowed the Trumpian tactic that there's no such thing as bad publicity--there is only publicity.

Ms. Clinton's comments are provocative in exactly the same way that Mr. Trump's Muslim ban was. It was never realistic, but it definitely got everybody talking.

Then follows an astute analysis of the campaign. Biden is on his way out--he has no chance. Bernie's support is self-limiting, and will gradually shrink over time. He's not a serious candidate. But if Bernie's voters migrate over to Liz Warren, then she becomes nearly unstoppable.

So the trick is to draw the Sanders' brigade over to Tulsi. There are at least three reasons to think that might happen. First, Tulsi endorsed Bernie in 2016, so there's a link there. Second, Tulsi's campaign has that radical, transgressive flavor that attracted people to Bernie in the first place.

And third, Bernie's Bros are obviously men. They're disinclined to support an aging harridan like Liz anyway, and if given half a reason will readily plump for sexy Tulsi. Like us Republicans, they'll "fall in love."

The other candidates are easily dismissed: Kamala is a loser; Mayor Pete is the windbag mayor of the fourth largest city in Indiana; Castro has a tin ear; Corey is a nice guy who finishes last, etc. So by turning Bernie's Bros into Tulsi's Toys, Hillary splits the Left Lane three ways. By locking down the middle lane for herself, she has as good a chance as any of winning the nomination.

It's a long shot, but it's all she's got. That Tulsi invited Hillary to join the campaign is an added bonus.

Further Reading:



Saturday, October 12, 2019

Our President is a Pacifist

A few days ago President Trump suddenly pulled all US forces out of Syria, resulting in a Turkish offensive against the Kurds.

This evening on the NewsHour's Shields and Brooks, David Brooks opines
It's complete incoherence. I think Donald Trump — the logical thing is, Donald Trump spoke to somebody on the phone, he made a decision. It was a terrible decision, an immoral decision, and just bad for our foreign policy. I mean, who's going to fight ISIS, or I.S., if we're out?
Who's going to guard the 10,000 prisoners who the Kurds — we have been relying on the Kurds to guard? And the Kurds are going to turn to Russia or Iran or somebody. And so it will further strengthen Russia and Iran. So it's a terrible decision.
And then they get a little bad publicity, the administration does, and so then Mnuchin and various other people in the administration come out and say, oh, this is terrible. 
And so it's not a foreign policy. It's a foreign policy by what Donald Trump's latest emotion is.
This is bizarre. Mr. Trump campaigned on pulling US forces out of the Middle East, specifically Syria. His former defense secretary, Jim Mattis, resigned on precisely that issue. John Bolton left his job over similar concerns. The president has been considering this move for at least four years now--nobody can seriously claim it comes as an "incoherent" surprise except in the narrowest, tactical sense.

In Mr. Trump's mind, the original sin was the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, embroiling us in a series of "endless wars." President Obama partially corrected the error with his precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Arguably that was a huge mistake, leading to the rise of ISIS and the Syrian civil war. Our departure likely permitted more than half a million deaths and many millions more refugees. Mr. Obama has definitely not lived up to the hopes of the Nobel Committee!

Mr. Trump apparently doesn't believe in "tripwire" tactics. We only had a thousand troops in Syria--not an intimidating force. But behind those troops stood the full faith and credit of the US military--namely a promise that we'd bring in the cavalry if so much as a hair on the head of one US soldier be harmed. Our presence in Syria was effectively a promise of US protection.

Mr. Trump has long said he doesn't want to extend that promise, especially in a country where the stakes for the US are so low. Much better to retract it now than wait for a crisis later on. Of course there are humanitarian consequences--take away the policemen and disorder will ensue. Though it is unlikely that Mr. Trump's withdrawal will be as catastrophic as Mr. Obama's.

Of course the war party is up in arms about this. "War party" is Mr. Trump's pejorative name for advocates for the Iraq war, for the preservation of our force in Iraq, and now for the continued presence of a tripwire in Syria. These people are mostly Republicans--though I think the war in Iraq was more bipartisan than people now let on. Apart from defending their own reputations, they believe strongly in the traditional tools of American power and diplomacy: strong alliances, an international perspective, and credibility.

I'm sympathetic to the war party. I supported the war in Iraq at the time, and I deeply opposed Obama's withdrawal in 2009 (still do). At the same time, I'm skeptical of high-sounding verbiage like "strong alliances." I increasingly agree with Trump that "alliances" are a means and not an end. Without a definite purpose, what's the point of an alliance? (NATO no longer has much of a purpose.)

Ultimately, once you scrape away all the highfalutin language, the war party's argument is humanitarian. For just as Obama's decision led to the complete destruction of two whole countries, so too will Trump's move destroy the Kurds (or at least force them into other alliances). It's heartrending! Why can't the US be a policeman--especially since the cost (a thousand troops) is so cheap?

But it's not cheap, if only because we have too many tripwires. There's the famous one in Korea--Trump has promised to bring those troops home. Then we still have 30,000 troops in Germany--there to ensure Europe's internal borders. They're coming home, too (and no, they aren't moving to Poland). Every tripwire is like writing an insurance policy--and some day we'll have to pay a claim. That likely involves us in a major war, and inevitably that will eventually happen. Think World War I.

But we need to answer Mr. Brooks' questions.

  • Who is going to fight ISIS?  Everybody and nobody. ISIS used to be a caliphate that controlled extensive territory, including the city of Mosul. Driving them out of that territory was a military objective--and one that Trump accomplished in short order. The caliphate is now gone, and ISIS is reduced to being a loose ideology connecting adherents around the world. Confronting them now is a matter for the police and other civil authorities. They are not a military target. The thousand troops in Syria weren't protecting us against ISIS, but instead they were protecting the Kurds against Turkey. In the unlikely event the caliphate ever resuscitates itself, then we can send the Marines back in. 
  • Who is going to guard the 10,000 prisoners? Probably nobody. As I understand it, a large fraction of those prisoners are European nationals. The Europeans have not repatriated them, leaving them for the Kurds, and indirectly, for the Americans to guard. The Americans have no dog in the fight--this is between the Europeans and the Kurds. The former are incapable, and the latter have more serious problems. My prediction is the prisoners will be killed, if not by the Kurds, then by the Turks or the Iranians or Russians. Or somebody.
President Trump has turned down many opportunities to go to war. His retaliation against Syria (for chemical weapons violations) was destroying an empty "research facility" in the middle of the night. When Iran shot down a drone, it turned out that he didn't want to kill any Iranians. He rejected John Bolton's desperate pleas to invade Venezuela. He wants to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. He has studiously ignored all the provocations coming from Pyongyang.

The man, of German ancestry (who, reputation notwithstanding, tend toward pacifism), studied at Fordham and Penn (two institutions in the larger Quaker tradition). He attended the New York Military Academy in high school, and apparently enjoyed the military lifestyle. But he never joined the military.

The man is a pacifist. It's that simple.

Further Reading: