Mary-Alice on Cosmetics & Fashion

Advertisement from around 1950. Cubans today wish they had a refrigerators filled with food.
(Picture Source: The Militant)

The octogenarian comrade Mary-Alice Waters opines on the status of women using a book first published in 1986 as a guide: Cosmetics, Fashion and the Exploitation of Women. She celebrates the new edition, which occasions this series of three articles from and about the book. The original book contains articles by old Party stalwarts, Joseph Hansen and Evelyn Reed. ("Party" refers to the Socialist Workers Party, SWP, publishers of The Militant.)

The first article is the new preface authored by Ms. Waters. The second article is the first chapter, also authored by Ms. Waters. Finally are some short reflections on the book by a Cuban woman, Isabel Moya, given as a speech in Havana in 2011 (back when Cuba still had electricity).

The first sentences of Ms. Waters' preface were for me a disappointment:

Title notwithstanding, Cosmetics, Fashion, and the Exploitation of Women is not a book about cosmetics.

It is about capitalism.

Geez, I'm more interested in cosmetics and fashion. In The Militant every article is about "capitalism." The paper gets interesting only when they talk about something else. Besides which, Ms. Waters knows nothing about how capitalism actually works. 

Fortunately the excerpts cover other topics as well, notably economics, biology, anthropology, psychology and politics. Wow! It's a pastiche of factoids from beginning to end.

Unfortunately, Ms. Waters seems to think all progress in the social sciences ended in 1881, when the "materialist" anthropologist Lewis Morgan died. Or perhaps in 1895 when Friedrich Engels passed. Or maybe into the early 20th Century with Morgan's disciple, Robert Briffault. But nothing since the dawn of jet aircraft, or computers, or the internet, or mobile telephony, or the dramatic progress science has made studying human genomics. None of this crosses her radar screen--because if it did it would readily disprove her thesis. She can win the argument only by plugging her ears and pretending progress doesn't exist.

Her thesis is that humans are distinctive because we "labor." She quotes Evelyn Reed (italics in original):

Beauty has no identity with fashion. But it has an identity with labor. Apart from

the realm of nature, all that is beautiful has been produced in labor and by laborers.

Well? Maybe. Though it seems to me the fundamental human characteristic is not that we labor (beavers also labor), but that we trade. No other species on the planet engages in trade. Indeed, in an era when Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens shared the space, Neanderthal products are always found near where they were made. Human products, on the other hand, are often found hundreds of miles from where they were made. Perhaps labor can be defined as the act of making something for purposes of trade? In other words, labor exists to make the customer happy.

I'm not sure how Ms. Reed defines labor, but I think I disagree with her quote. People often produce beautiful things without any expectation of financial reward. And it is true--they "labor." But if made for personal use, then they don't trade, just like a beaver doesn't trade. Women (and some men) apply cosmetics to make themselves beautiful--and it is not done for any financial reward.

Regards cosmetics, Ms. Waters proposes some serious conspiracy theory.

More than three centuries later, the resources devoted by capitalist enterprises to advertising and the creation of markets — that is, creating “needs” where none yet exist — are still expanding astronomically. Under the profit system, instead of advances in the productivity of social labor breaking down this mystical animation of objects that working people ourselves have made, the working class and lower middle classes are pushed into “needing” more and more things. Everything from each new cell phone release, to the latest model automobile, $500 torn blue jeans, and an exploding array of “cosmetic” surgeries, skin bleaches or tanning salons, designer handbags, and cosmetics-designed-to-make-you-look-like-you’re-not-using-cosmetics.

That is, women buy cosmetics only because they are foisted on them by a rapacious, scheming capitalist class. This is ridiculous! Women buy cosmetics because they want to, not because they've been bamboozled by the bourgeoisie. Working class women are way smarter than our comrade gives them credit for.

As a test, Ms. Waters should go to the dollar store and buy a bunch of cheap cosmetics that she can take with her next time she goes to Cuba (if she ever goes to Cuba again). She can pass them out to local women, whom I hazard will be overjoyed to receive them, without any encouragement from the bourgeoisie. Just a little bit of beauty to brighten their otherwise dark, dreary, boring days.

I'm not going to detail Ms. Waters' description of capitalism, but a few things need clarification. First, the declining rate of profit refers only to commodities, ie, products that compete only on price, such as gasoline. All other products, like most branded products, will compete on factors other than price. A commodity smart phone costs about $50; the latest iPhone will set you back more than $800! The iPhone, which competes on style and functionality, is not a commodity, and the profit margin on that product is huge.

The bottom line is that consumers determine the price for all non-commodity products. Apple will charge whatever consumers are willing to pay. The cosmetics you buy at the dollar store are commodities. The cosmetics you get from L'Oréal are definitely not commodities. 

The second and most important point is that Comrade Mary-Alice is a Luddite. She doesn't think there should be any pleasure in the world. Buying something that makes one more beautiful or more stylish is, in her opinion, just the bourgeoisie messing with your mind. She's wrong. America is a rich country because you can buy refrigerators full of food, shelves full of cosmetics, closets full of clothes, garages with two cars, and vacations to some of the finest beaches in the world. Compare that to consumers in that socialist heaven-state, Cuba, who can't even buy food or fresh water.

The measure of any society is the level of consumption--and Americans are by far the best consumers in the world. That's why everybody on the planet wants to move here. You can't eliminate poverty without increasing consumption--neither the Cubans nor the Chinese have learned that lesson yet.

Ms. Waters, in her preface, lists a whole bunch of bad things that happen to women, eg, "the stoning of women for adultery," and "government dictates that a woman must cover her hair, or face, or entire body, and that even her voice should never be heard in public." Most of the examples are from pre-modern societies (eg, Afghanistan) and do not represent the lives of women in the capitalist world. Nevertheless, our friendly comrade induces from her examples that women are systematically oppressed and are second class citizens.

This is not generally true, partly because she omits the list of bad things that happen to men, eg, dying by the thousands of the trenches in WW1. Or, quoting Robert Gordon, describing life prior to 1870, "men's work was dirty and dangerous, while women's toil was unremitting drudgery." It's hard to say one sex was more oppressed than the other. Life was hard all the way round.

Women are sometimes subordinated and oppressed. More generally they're not--instead they're protected and cherished. The fundamental error that Marxists (including Ms. Waters) make is that they believe evolution stopped the minute human beings came along. They claim that culture has supplanted biology. But this is false--it's more accurate to say that culture has augmented biology. Indeed, culture is itself a product of evolution, and conversely, culture dramatically influences the reproductive success of various human ethnicities. Thus culture drives evolution. The modern term for this is gene-culture co-evolution.

Men and women are biologically different. We evolved separately for different roles in reproduction. All cultures distinguish between men and women--there is no culture on earth where they are regarded interchangeably. Most of the differences between men and women in today's modern capitalist society stem, directly or indirectly, from those fundamental, biological differences. 

Mary-Alice is wrong to consider all differences to be examples of oppression.

Let me close with a poem (that only a woman could write) by Dulce María Loynaz, quoted by Isabel Loya. I include it here just because I like it.

If you love me, love me whole,
       not by zones of light or shadow …
If you love me, love me black
       and white, and gray and green,
       and blonde and dark …
Love me by day,
       love me by night …
And by morning in the open window!
If you love me, don’t break me
       in pieces:
Love me whole … or don’t
       love me at all!

Further Reading:

• Book Review: Human Diversity 
• Down the Cuba Rabbit Hole With Mary-Alice Waters
• Mary-Alice Waters' Religious View of History

Left Voice & The Election, 2024

 

(Source)

Sybil Davis and Jimena Vergara co-authored an article on Left Voice entitled Neither Harris nor Trump: Only the Working Class Can Fight the Rightward Shift. It's an analysis of the election as of a few days ago, Oct. 25th, that begins this way:

As the election roller coaster barrels on, the Harris campaign has lost some steam. Popular enthusiasm once drove the campaign to new heights and helped raise over $1 billion. Now Harris is struggling to win over undecided votes and is losing support among sectors that have previously strongly backed Democrats — such as Black and Latino men. After riding high on “vibes” after she replaced Biden and generated a huge wave of enthusiasm, Harris has failed to put forward a compelling vision for a country that is contending with inflation, natural disasters, and an increasingly unstable international situation that includes foreign conflicts that many Americans don’t want to be involved in.

In this context, Trump has repositioned himself to potentially win the election. Every poll shows an incredibly tight race in which either candidate can emerge as the winner. It will all come down to a handful of swing states. In this context, we must have as precise an analysis as possible of the situation and think towards what might happen after the election and what our response to the situation needs to be. 

This is remarkably boilerplate. The mainstream media couldn't have phrased it any better. It's surprising that leaders of the Trotskyist Faction (publishers of Left Voice) can't come up with anything different, given the amazing Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Vanguard/Dialectical tools at their disposal. Only the last quoted sentence suggests something unexpected is forthcoming.

Yet there are a few places where our comrades distinguish themselves. The first concerns "Palestine," where they ludicrously claim that Israel is committing "genocide." Without belittling the number of civilian casualties, and even acknowledging the possibility (unlikely, in my view) of war crimes, whatever the Israelis are doing does not rise anywhere near the level of genocide. Even if you take the Hamas figures at face value, under 45,000 people have been killed. This is about 2% of Gaza's population--nowhere close to "genocide." I've covered this before, most recently here. 

Then Comrades Davis and Vergara insist that today's Trump Republicans are "far" right. I guess the adjective depends on where you sit--if you're way off on the far-left Trotskyist fringe, then the Trumpians must seem as if they come from another planet. But no movement that earns roughly half the vote can be "far" anything. Almost by definition, Trump is a mainstream candidate. He has some supporters that might be classed as "far" right--Steve Bannon comes to mind--but Trump himself is not, and neither are most of his supporters.

Of course our authors are here repeating a Kamala talking point--that Trump is the second coming of "Hitler," no less. Whatever else Trump is, he's not a fascist. He has no army of storm troopers. He's not antisemitic. He doesn't hate Black people or Hispanic people ("Latinx" is how the comrades call them). The speaker list at Madison Square Garden included Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Hindus and women. The event was as American as apple pie.

Most recently, Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, has accused Trump of being a "fascist." To which our comrades respond:

Now, whether Trump meets the more precise political-economic definition of a fascist is a complex question that is too big to discuss here. What we can say, though, is that Kelly is correct that Trump is far-right and wants to take more authoritarian measures. But let’s not forget that the people who sent the cops to break up encampments and brutalize students were usually Democrats. The Democrats, too, are moving toward an increased authoritarianism (though not as blatantly and quickly as Trump is).

So even if he's not a "fascist," he's at least an "authoritarian." I'm not sure what that word means--if it means he's gonna use the powers of the office of the president, then he's like all other presidents. There was nothing that happened during his first term that in any way established him as particularly authoritarian. Mss. Davis and Vergara are right to point out that Democrats are equally authoritarian, though the example they give is not a good one. Encampments, blocking traffic and vandalizing property are not protected speech and any government has an obligation to enforce civic order.

Our friends write,

All this is to say: if Kamala Harris wins the election, the election will likely be challenged in court, along with street demonstrations whose character we cannot predict. On Election Day, MAGA supporters might try to intimidate minority voters and prevent them from voting. If Trump wins, the Democratic Party will likely concede. If this is the case, the party of the donkeys will suffer a profound defeat that it will blame on its progressive wing, the movement for Palestine, or Jill Stein. But the blame for any defeat will rest on the Democrats’ shoulders alone: the party is the graveyard of progressive social demands, and broad sectors of the working class, the middle classes, and the oppressed now understand this.

There are many problems with this paragraph.

1. The Trump campaign is MUCH better run today than in 2020, and their campaign has been almost error-free. In particular they have competent lawyers who are filing the lawsuits before the election (and winning some of them) which will make the election much fairer than in 2020. Accordingly, I think any argument that the election was stolen will be much weaker this time around.
2. The Trump campaign is trying very hard to recruit minority voters to their side. Far from trying to "intimidate" them, they're working to get them out to vote--especially Black and Hispanic men.
3. The so-called "movement for Palestine" is a disgrace. It's really a movement for Hamas--if there ever was a fascist movement, Hamas is it. 
4. Obviously if the Democrats lose, the fault will fall on the Democrats--though Republicans will surely take some credit for that outcome. 
5. How our comrades can claim that the Democrats are the "graveyard of progressive social demands" is beyond me. After all, Left Voice's program is 100% identical to that of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party--antisemitism included. So if one is a graveyard, then so is the other.

Comrades Davis and Vergara include these remarks in their final paragraph.

Whoever wins, we will need to fight to protect our rights and win our demands. Hopefully from this united front, a new political party can emerge. A party of workers and the oppressed that fights for socialism. The need to build a political alternative to the current parties is paramount, but so is the fight in the here and now. ... The vanguard and the socialist Left must embrace a revolutionary program and join together to lay the foundation for a new political party of the working class — one that raises high the banner of socialism.

Big words, that. I think Trump will likely win the election, including the popular vote. Which means he'll get at least 75 million votes, and the Democrats only slightly less. Approximately 50 people attended the most recent Left Voice congress. Trotskyists of all denominations have been calling for a labor party since the 1930's, always to no avail. No reason to think our comrade's call today will have a different outcome.

Further Reading:

• Oberlin, 2024
• The Trotskyist Faction on Haiti
• Malik Miah Defends Harvard

The End of Cuban Civilization

 

A little bedtime reading in Havana (source: EFE / AAP) 

The Militant, in an article which they must now find slightly embarrassing given the island-wide blackout last Friday, reproduces part of a report delivered to the UN General Assembly and released to the press last Sept. 12th. The dignitary responsible for the missive is Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez. The excerpt appears in The Militant under the title Cuba: ‘End Washington’s economic, trade war against our revolution!’.

I do have to give The Militant some credit here. None of the other so-called Trotskyist papers on my beat even mention Cuba. For example, the most recent article about the island in Left Voice was posted in February, 2022! And yet I believe all my Trotskyist friends believe Cuba to be a socialist/workers' state and a step toward our progressive, human future. But it appears none of them have any courage of their convictions. Except The Militant.

Mr. Rodriguez has the courtesy to admit that "All the difficulties faced by the Cuban society are not exclusively due to the blockade...", but the rest of the article condemns the US policy in no uncertain terms. And he does have a point, or perhaps a few of them.

• The US made it much more difficult for Cuba to respond to the pandemic by imposing restrictions on imports of ventilators and oxygen from third countries, among other things.
• The US "continued its pursuit of fuel supplies to Cuba." I assume that means the US tried to deny Cuban access to fuel on the world market.
• The US worked to "curtail the recovery of the Cuban tourism sector" post-pandemic, dealing a mortal blow to the country's main source of income.
• The US has refused to let Cuba use global financial networks, almost all of which go through US banks.
• The US--specifically the Biden administration--has refused to lift the Trump-era's "arbitrary inclusion of Cuba in the State Department’s unilateral list of alleged countries sponsoring terrorism."

I can't vouch for Mr. Rodriguez's facts, but he is certainly right that the US has not been a friend of Cuba. The question is: Why?

The problem begins in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis. The island allowed the Soviet Union to place nuclear-tipped warheads in Cuba, aimed at the United States. Now I know there are arguments on both sides, but the hard fact is that when somebody aims nuclear weapons in your direction--that somebody isn't gonna be a best friend. The Cuban government has never so much as apologized for that act. And more, until the Soviet collapse in 1991 they remained a staunch ally of the Soviet Union--and since then an ally of Russia.

Cuba sent troops to Angola to fight against American interests. Again, I know there are arguments on both sides, and I'm not sure America really had any interests in that war (besides oil). Still, when one of our nearest neighbors goes halfway around the world just to poke Uncle Sam in the nose--don't be surprised if Uncle Sam returns the favor.

In more recent years Cuba has aligned itself with the so-called "axis of evil," ie, that loose, anti-American alliance between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Venezuela used to be part of that group, but that country has long since committed economic and social suicide and is no longer a global player of any consequence. These countries work to resist US influence globally--and Cuba's alignment with them means they'll get no benefits from us.

Speaking of suicide--it looks like the Cuban power system may have breathed its last. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 18th,

Electricity went out across Cuba on Friday just hours after its cash-strapped government ordered the shutdown of nonessential businesses to save power as millions of residents were already suffering from widespread outages.

The country’s Energy Ministry said that a failure at the largest power plant sparked a nationwide blackout affecting the island’s 11 million residents. Utility workers were working to restore service, the ministry said on X.

An update today from Reuters tells us

Cuba's power-grid operator said it had restored electricity to parts of the capital Havana on Monday following a fourth major grid failure in 48 hours, while Tropical Storm Oscar lashed the island's eastern end.

They've made fantastic progress! The same article reports that

Cuban energy officials said they were providing to the grid around 700 megawatts, or one-fourth of a typical day's demand, by mid-morning. Authorities said they had restored power to 56% of Havana by midday. 

Note that "one-fourth of a typical day's demand" seems kind of silly. Even in normal times power is out for 20 hours per day for much of the island. One fourth of that says the power is available for only one hour per day. Such are the benefits of socialism.

We're told that "utility workers were working to restore service." I don't believe that. Utility workers in the United States can earn six figures. In Mexico it might be half as much. Even in poor countries like Guatemala and Honduras I'll suggest utility workers earn what counts for a living wage.

But not in Cuba. In Cuba the employees are paid in scrip and given a now increasingly useless ration card. This is no way to live.

According to Times Radio, in two years, 2022 & 2023, Cuba's population has declined from 11 million to 8.5 million, or a 23% drop. This is due to emigration--people are fleeing the island as fast as their little row boats can carry them. Do you really think many utility workers are still left in Cuba? Why would they stay when they can't even earn enough to feed themselves?

I think the Cuban electricity grid is down for the count. They don't have the fuel, they don't have spare parts, and now they likely no longer have the workforce. Cubans are just gonna have to get used to living without electricity--just as they did in the 19th Century when they were a Spanish colony.

Of course no electricity means no food, no water, no medical care, and for that matter, no schools. The link is to a video by Joe Blogs which appeared two weeks ago, ie, just before the great blackout. It looks like everything he predicted is coming true.

A Socialist Workers Party (publisher of The Militant) leader Mary-Alice Waters used to make frequent trips to Havana (eg, here) where she gave sitting-room only speeches to an audience of petty-nomenklatura. I doubt she'll be making such trips in the future. The island is too far gone.

Secretary Rodriguez can complain and moan and cry about the injustice of it all. And maybe he's right? Perhaps the US really is a scoundrel and has treated Cuba wrong? And it's likely the General Assembly will pass yet another meaningless resolution condemning the US behavior.

The US may be wrong, but it has behaved in a way that is totally predictable. If you want trading relations with the United States (and by extension, with the rest of the world), you have to be a US ally when it comes to foreign affairs. You can't side with the "axis of evil."

For many decades Castro gained political favor by blaming the US for everything. But those days are long gone. The only solution to Cuba's problems today begins with disavowing America's enemies, pledging to be a loyal partner in the Caribbean and in Latin America, and allowing the (mostly) free inflow of capital to help rebuild the economy. Because capital and expertise is what America has, and what Cuba needs.

Further Reading:

• Book Review: The Low Point of Labor Resistance is Behind Us
• A Tale of Two Conferences
• The Philippines

Kamala vs. Trump: The Decline of America?

Left Voice author Sou Mi (who I think is female; apologies if I have that wrong) has written a think piece entitled Kamala Harris Wants to Revive an Empire in Decline. It's a well-written, worthwhile read that in my view is wrong in important ways. 

The confusion starts at the top. This is the "hook" paragraph--that's supposed to tempt you into reading the rest of the article.

As November pulls closer and the specter of another Trump presidency looms large, Harris is trying to present a different project for the future: one based in restoring a “rules based order” where the rules are fundamentally set by U.S. imperialism.

Only the last word grates--"imperialism" is a meaningless word that adds nothing to the paragraph. The paragraph would be better if she just omitted it, eg, rules are fundamentally set by the U.S. 

"Imperialism" occurs 22 times in the article, and all such mentions should be deleted, either as I illustrated above, or by substituting real institutions like "US foreign policy." Because foreign policy at least comes with an address (Foggy Bottom) and has somebody in charge (Antony Blinken). Unlike "imperialism," which is at best a vague conspiracy theory.

Otherwise she is quite correct--that Trump and Harris represent a decision point for American foreign policy. This observation is not original to her--it's been widely discussed in the mainstream media.

She paints the choice between the two this way. She says Harris

...has not only positioned herself as the heir to an administration that put diplomacy back on the table, but also presented a vision for the future: one based in the realization of an American leadership that will restore a “rules based order” through both diplomacy and might, and where the rules are fundamentally set by the U.S. imperialism.

This seems true. Kamala aspires to take us back to the good ol' days when America ruled the waves, owned the foreign exchange medium, and guaranteed world peace. 

Sou Mi accurately summarizes Trump's position, which I'll describe in my own words. Labelled "America First," it suggests that the US should withdraw from global affairs, mind it's own business, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, let the devil take the hindmost. When the enemy gets within 12 miles of our shores, then and only then will the world's greatest superpower be roused to action.

I exaggerate slightly. Trump is not quite as hands off as I've described, but only because he's forced to compromise with reality. The US really does have trade relations with other countries that need to be protected, notably with Mexico and Canada, but also with Europe and S.E. Asia. Those trade routes will require US policing. And more, the US has cultural and religious allegiances beyond our shores, eg, Israel, which even though it is of no strategic value whatsoever, we are bound to protect. (It does have economic value.)

But at his core, Trump is a pacifist. He does not want America involved in any war. He follows in the tradition of two prior pacifists, Nixon and Reagan, both of whom described the American strategy as having the biggest, baddest, meanest military the world has ever seen--and then never using it. "Peace Through Strength" is how previous generations (and Sou Mi) put it. It's Trump's strategy to a tee.

So the debate is between "The War Party," represented by Kamala, Liz Cheney, the journalists at The Bulwark, the CIA, and most college faculty. And "the Peace Party," championed by Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, journalists at ZeroHedge, and (apparently) most of America's working class.

I'm not sure which side Sou Mi is on: is she pro-War or pro-Peace? I don't think she knows, so befuddled is she by all those imaginary "imperialists" floating around in her head. I also don't really know what side I'm on--I can see virtues in both points of view. But I'll be voting for Trump.

So why now? Why is this choice presented to the American public in this election? Sou Mi has an answer (my emphasis).

Harris’s proposals... come amidst the growing tensions of an empire in decline, especially amidst the retreat of globalization when the United States, based on the export of manufacturing and exploitation of cheap labor in the global south (and particularly through the restoration of capitalism in China), and debt-fueled consumption, was able to rearticulate a unipolar order behind it.

Sou Mi's view is that, with the "empire in decline," there are two possible responses. One is, in spite of that, to double down and re-establish our weight in the world. This is what Kamala proposes to do. The other is to retreat into a shell and acknowledge defeat--the Trump strategy. Or, instead of War Party and Peace Party, we can think of them as the Recovering America's Greatness Party and the Surrender Party (which weirdly reverses the terminology the parties use to describe themselves).

I dispute that America is an empire in decline. For good reasons during the Cold War, the US served as the world's policeman, and provided the world with a reserve currency by running huge trade deficits. This enabled an unparalleled period of global economic growth, including, most notably, in China (bringing 400 million people out of poverty). Sou Mi ludicrously describes it as an act of "exploitation," which it definitely wasn't. It was, instead, an act of great generosity (albeit extended only to America's allies--and not to miscreants such as Cuba).

The question thus arises, can America continue to be so generous? Trump says no; Kamala responds yes. The problem is that, while America has certainly gotten richer over the past 70 years, the rest of the world has gotten richer faster and caught up. So Sou Mi is partly right: in relative terms, the US has declined, and is therefore no longer able to finance global trade as it once did. While in domestic terms our trade deficit has not yet declined, today as a fraction of total global trade it is too small a percentage to finance global trade.

In finance parlance, this is known as a shortage of eurodollars--and countries that don't have enough eurodollars (eg, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa, and on the cusp, China) are no longer able to import basic necessities such as food and fuel.

Whatever Kamala's intentions, she will not be able to reverse this relative decline in eurodollars, and the result will be a crimp in globalization. As there is no other reserve currency on the horizon, despite this shortage the Eurodollar will remain the world's reserve currency for the foreseeable future. The only country that can literally "print" eurodollars is the United States--we're sitting in the catbird seat.

Then there is our role as the global policeman. We guaranteed European borders, allowing European countries to all but defund their militaries. And likewise for Canada, Japan and the Philippines, among others. This, by itself, made people richer. We made the same guarantee to countries in the Middle East, fighting wars over Kuwait.

But being the world's policeman is expensive! And US taxpayers have to pay the bill. Trump has decided we don't need to do that anymore. For example, our efforts to keep the Red Sea open have come to naught--we're using million dollar missiles to shoot down the Houthi's thousand dollar drones, obviously not a sustainable operation. Technology has changed the nature of warfare. 

There's no reason for us to police the Red Sea--that's a job for the Europeans. We no longer have much interest in defending European borders. If Russia invades the Baltic states, we're probably not going to rise to their defense. We're not patrolling the Indian Ocean--India, Japan and China can fight over that one.

More, the Middle East is on its own. We still have an outpost in Qatar, but I predict that's not long for the world--Trump will bring them all home. The US has no dog in any fight over the Persian Gulf--we don't import any of their oil, and we have no reason to defend their sea lanes. That's up to the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese to work out. Good luck!

That's Trump's plan. Kamala says we're still gonna be the world's policeman. That's popular within the intelligence community and in the faculty lounge--but not among many common voters. It's one reason why I think she'll lose the election.

Sou Mi's article is worth reading. Apart from the gratuitous use of the word "imperialism," hers is an intelligent point of view.

Further Reading:

• The Eurodollar
• The Professor's Congress: The International Situation
• James P. Cannon Was Spectacularly Wrong

Sam Karlin Makes a Mess of the Middle East

 

Left Voice calls this "genocide"
(https://www.anera.org/how-big-is-gaza/)

Left Voice author Sam Karlin contributes a piece entitled The Demand for a Ceasefire Has Met Its Limits. He's got it all wrong. The article is a mess from top to bottom.

The major thesis is that the primary demand of leftist radicals--Ceasefire Now--is no longer useful. It is inconceivable, says Mr. Karlin, that Israel will ever agree to a ceasefire (by which he means unilateral Israeli surrender).

He may have written his piece a day or two early, but the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has recently announced that Hamas is destroyed as a military entity. Hence there already is something of a ceasefire in Gaza, and Israel has moved its forces to the Lebanon front. There is still some fighting in Gaza, but it is now reduced to individuals and small groups acting without any coordination.

Of course the huge civilian project remains: reconstructing Gaza and creating a political environment that will allow the enclave to thrive. That means defeating the ideology that requires the murder of all Jews, and replacing it with some win/win arrangement that serves the interests of both peoples. This will take a very long time--and may not succeed at all. In the latter case Gaza will remain an open-air prison as it has been for past decades.

But that's not Mr. Karlin's goal. His goal is

An end to the genocide, a full withdrawal of the U.S. military from the Middle East, the dissolution of the settler-colonial Zionist state, and full right of return for Palestinians and a free, secular, socialist Palestine from the River to the Sea are still achievable goals. They must be achieved, however, not through appeals or pressure on imperialism, but on international class struggle against imperialism.

The genocide has never happened--Gaza's population has been growing by over 2% annually--a birth rate higher than almost anyplace in the world. Prior to the war, life expectancy in Gaza was 75.7 years, which is above the global average (73.3 years). When it comes to genocide, the Israelis are pathetic failures. 

His goal of a "free, secular, socialist Palestine" is manifestly impossible. No party to the conflict wants a secular state: the Jewish rabbinate in Israel doesn't want that, and neither does Hamas, which insists on an Islamic state. Mr. Karlin needs to tell us who (beyond the 50 people in Left Voice) regard secular as a plausible outcome? Socialist is equally unpopular and desired by precisely nobody.

Then Mr. Karlin has this cockamamie picture of global politics.

Israel serves the vital role of an enforcer of U.S. interests in the Middle East. While the U.S. benefits from having Israel as a regional attack dog, Israel benefits from its relationship with the United States; an ally in the world’s main imperialist power allows it to project strength well beyond its size and population. For this reason, neither country can afford to seriously abandon the relationship, even in the current context, in which Israel is creating conditions that greatly harm U.S. imperialism’s broader interests.

The boogeyman in this scenario is something called "U.S. imperialism," an entity that doesn't exist. It's a meaningless word, and it explains precisely nothing about the relationship between the US and Israel. Israel is important to the US primarily for cultural and religious reasons, but also because it is a vital link in global trade, contributing much of the software for Silicon Valley. For those reasons it's more important to the US than any other country in the Middle East.

Consider the competition: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, and increasingly also Egypt, are all failed states, with unstable governments and rapidly declining economies. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are absolute monarchies, which lends them a patina of stability and good governance, but absent the oil wealth it's all a house of cards. The only politically stable countries in the region are Turkey and Iran--both of which exist on high, unassailable plateaus that have protected them from invasion throughout the centuries. But "stable" doesn't mean successful, and neither of those countries has a solid economic future.

The USA, especially as expressed by presidential candidate Donald Trump, just wants to wash its hands of the whole mess. We don't need the oil. We don't need the cotton. We don't lack for sand or camels. The Middle East (outside of Israel) is worth nearly nothing to us. Not even the oil is important--that's problem for Europe, China and Japan, not the USA.

The only thing we import from the Middle East are problems and terrorists.

Gaza is of no economic or strategic value to any country, least of all the United States. Israel would gladly transfer ownership of it to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Neither country wants it, and Egypt would be hopelessly destabilized by taking it. So Israel--for both practical and humanitarian reasons--will now be responsible for rebuilding Gaza.

Apart from the temporary deployment of the US Navy in the region, the US has about 34,000 troops in the Middle East. If you believe Mr. Trump, that's about 33,999 too many. The presence of the US military there will only shrink. Not because of the demise of "US imperialism," but rather because of the demise of the region's countries as partners in a global economy.

The problem in Lebanon is that Hezbollah has made much of northern Israel uninhabitable, and the Israeli government needs to get those citizens back in their homes. Not all northerners are Jewish; recall the Hezbollah rocket that killed 12 Druze children in the Golan Heights. Israel rightly regarded that as an attack on its citizens and responded appropriately. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets that it fires indiscriminately at Israeli civilians--and not just in the north.

As even Mr. Karlin must realize by now, Hezbollah (along with Hamas) is a cat's paw of Iran. For whatever reason Iran has a thing against Israel--they've been chanting Death to Israel for decades now, and they obviously mean it quite literally. Israel has to defend itself from Iran, and also from Hezbollah. Unlike the indiscriminate rocket fire from Hezbollah, Israel has very cleverly and successfully eliminated Hezbollah's officer corps. Now it has to eliminate the rocket stash--and then people on both sides of the border can return to their homes and live peacefully.

Mr. Karlin makes some implausible claims:

As anyone with a shred of credibility has pointed out for a year now, Netanyahu has everything to gain from prolonging the Israeli offensive in Gaza; he literally faces the possibility of going to prison as soon as he leaves office.

Mr. Netanyahu may or may not have legal problems, but the defense goals of his government have near universal support within Israel. There is no way the prime minister's legal issues have any influence.

This has fully emboldened the Israeli Far Right to pursue their long standing goal of expanding their settler-colonial regime to the West Bank and now Lebanon.

The "settler-colonial" phrasing is just an antisemitic slur. And nobody suggests Israel is going to annex southern Lebanon--that makes no sense at all. They just need to destroy Hezbollah's rockets.

Our author greatly exaggerates the importance of the Biden administration's efforts at a ceasefire. I think there are two possible reasons for their efforts, neither of which are particularly serious.

1) The administration wants to help Kamala win the election, for which she desperately needs the Arab votes in southeastern Michigan. Many of these voters are descendants of Maronite Christian immigrants from Lebanon and Syria--I wonder how much sympathy they have for Hamas? 

2) Antony Blinken--probably the most incompetent secretary of state this country has ever had--is lusting after a Nobel Prize, which would be his if only he could negotiate a unilateral Israeli surrender. To Mr. Netanyahu's credit, that has not happened.

It's got nothing to do with "US imperialism," whatever that is. Mr. Karlin has no clue.

Further Reading:

• The Trotskyist Faction on Haiti
• Left Voice and the Intifada
• "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"

 

A Woman's Place Is....

(By janeyhenning - Flickr: stirring, CC BY 2.0)

Allegedly we Trump-supporting, MAGA-types will finish the title sentence with: A woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The Trotskyist retort is that we want deny women their Constitutional rights--and even their humanity--by forcing her back in the kitchen. We're not gonna force her to do anything.

But now comes The Militant (published by the Socialist Workers Party--SWP) with a feature article entitled Fight for women’s rights expanded when millions joined the workforce, authored by Maggie Trowe. I'm not clear how Ms. Trowe will complete the sentence. How about

A woman's place is on the construction site, wearing steel-toed boots and pregnant?

Or perhaps the boots should be replaced by steel-toed high heels? Either way our young lady needs to be pregnant. The working class depends on it. Ms. Trowe's lede paragraph:

The falling birth rate and rising obstacles workers face to being able to afford to raise children have become key issues in the 2024 presidential campaign. Decades of employer attacks on wages and working conditions have made starting a family much more difficult for workers and produced conditions that reinforce the second-class status of women under capitalism. 

And, later on, she writes

The U.S. birth rate in 2023 was 1.62 births per woman, down from 3.65 in 1960, and below the rate required to maintain the population.

Capitalist pundits who used to write articles warning of the dangers of “overpopulation,” now sound alarms about the “increasing burden of too many old people.” Their real concern is that with fewer young, healthy workers the capitalist class can’t count on a sufficient supply of labor to exploit.

There's a minor technical error here: Ms. Trowe's number is the fertility rate (the average number of children women bear over a lifetime), and not the birth rate (which was about 11 live births per 1000 women in 2021). But her larger point is absolutely correct. As a nation (and also as a working class) we don't have enough babies! More women need to get pregnant, like pronto!

Weirdly, in the same issue The Militant publishes an editorial praising Cuba, where the fertility rate has declined from just under 4.7 in 1963 to 1.57 today. It's been below 2.1 (the rate necessary to sustain the population) since 1978. So when it comes to having babies, the Cubans can't even keep up with the USA, where the fertility rate didn't drop below 2.1 until 2007. Unlike the US, Cuba can't accept immigrants. Indeed, folks are fleeing the island faster than they're being born, and Cuba's population is in absolute decline. Not exactly a role model for a baby boom.

Still, much credit to Ms. Trowe because she is the only Trotskyist on my beat that even mentions declining fertility rates. At least she acknowledges the problem.

She writes,

The average cost of childbirth today is $18,865. For those with insurance, the average off-the-top expense is $2,854. Feeding a hungry newborn can set you back $50 for a can of baby formula at Walmart. A box of Pampers is $35. When you add these to the persistently high cost of rent, food, transportation and child care, is it any wonder young workers have doubts about raising a family or that women are putting off decisions about whether to have children?

And she is right! It's very expensive to raise a child--and always has been. Though I'd argue that it's cheaper now than anytime in prior human history. When my daughter was born we toyed with buying cloth diapers and laundering them, presumably saving money. We quickly gave up on that and went for the disposable kind. Does anybody today still have to launder diapers?

So what's the SWP's solution to the not-as-sorry-state-of-affairs-as-it-used-to-be? For that Ms. Trowe turns to the SWP's presidential candidate, Rachele Fruit, who tells us exactly what we should do. Ms. Trowe describes her view this way,

Such a party [a hypothetical labor party --Ed] would fight for a massive, federally funded jobs program to put millions to work at union-scale pay, for wage and benefit adjustments so that every time prices rise our wages go up automatically...

Another name for this program is inflation. If you increase the money supply (needed to pay the additional wages) without proportionately increasing the quantity of goods sold, then everything just has to cost that much more.

How is this going to make raising a child cheaper?

Chief SWP honcho Jack Barnes describes the Party's economic plan this way:

At the same time, in face of capitalism’s accompanying curse of unemployment, the working class and unions must fight for a shorter workweek, with no cut in pay. And for a massive, government-funded program of public works to provide jobs at union-scale wages building housing, schools, hospitals, child care centers, rural development and other things working people need.

So the number of unemployed construction workers is probably around 1%. As a society we're maxxed out on construction--we can't possibly build all that extra stuff that Mr. Barnes (and also Ms. Fruit) thinks are needed without not building the stuff already under construction.

There's only one way around it--grow the labor force. As Ms. Trowe points out, non-pregnant women are already working, so now we need to get those pregnant ladies out of the kitchen and on the job as well. Girl, put on your hard hat and steel-toed high heels and get your tush busy building that new school that Her Brilliancy Rachele Fruit says we need. Even if you're pregnant. Especially if you're pregnant--who needs a new school if there won't be any children? 

Lay that cinderblock on the wall--from a scaffold 20 ft up in the air. High heels are really good for climbing ladders. Clean out that old asbestos. Girl, you gotta do your share--our socialist future depends on it. Set a role model for your sisters for appropriate choice of footwear. We need the babies and we need the construction workers. Remember, construction work (esp. asbestos removal) is safer for babies than smoking or using cocaine.

A few weeks ago I had a new roof installed on my house. About ten guys came over and did the job in a bit over six hours. No women--it was rampant discrimination. Surely a pregnant lady can climb ladders, not lose her balance on a sloped roof, haul 50 lb bags of shingles around, and handle a nail gun. It's never too early for a baby to start absorbing proletons and learning the benefits of a hard day's work. Pregnant women need to do their share!

Apparently being pregnant isn't hard enough. The SWP's economic plan says they also have to install roofs.

Nobody on my side of the aisle will require a pregnant woman to stay barefoot in the kitchen. But if you're pregnant, it does rather seem like a good idea. Much better than enduring 90 degree heat on a hot roof. The woman in the picture doesn't exactly look unhappy.

It's easy to poke fun at Ms. Trowe's article and the Party's nonsensical economic agenda. But I have to give Ms. Trowe a lot of credit--at least compared to other tendencies on the Trotskyist left. She at least understands that to have a socialist society--or any kind of society--there have to be children. She realizes that "freedom" doesn't reduce to the freedom to kill your baby. There are other more important things in life--like loving your child, and having a husband who can do the dirty, dangerous jobs that men often have to do, and who can earn you a living.

She understands that abortion has to be legal--it's an unfortunate corollary of modern medicine. But it's not a virtue. It's not something to be proud of.

Ms. Trowe is on the right side of a basic issue. And my poking fun at her kinda misses the point--which is to honor and cherish pregnant women. I think Ms. Trowe agrees with me.

Further Reading:

• Whiners & Complainers
• The SWIP Flips to SWOP
• The American Right and Trans Rights

 

Socialism, 2024

The Socialism Conference, apparently an annual event, was held this year in Chicago and attracted 2,000 participants. I was not present, but fortunately Left Voice's intrepid reporter, Ben Marenlensky, was there and covers all the details. The article is Socialism 2024 Conference: We Need to Address the Donkey in the Room. Which is a clever title given our author's concerns about the Democratic Party.

While there may be a donkey in the room, I can't help but notice the elephant in the room--namely the oversized Hamas flag decorating the dais. I don't know for sure how the conference participants interpret this flag, but it's unambiguous what Hamas means by it: that all Jews in Israel/Palestine should be killed and/or driven into exile. And if you take another of their slogans seriously--Globalize the Intifada--then all Jews around the world should be murdered.

Our conference participants--to avoid being accused of antisemitism--have watered this down slightly. For the word Jew, they substitute the term Zionist. The idea is that Jew is an ethnicity or religion, while Zionism is a political belief. Therefore--in their mind--the murder/exile of all Zionists in Palestine/Israel is A-OK. Go for it. No more ballots. Only bullets. Zionism is a capital offense.

Of course within Israel, 95% of all Jews are also Zionists, so this seems to be a distinction without much difference. In the US the populations don't overlap as exactly--while most Jews are Zionists, so are a large number of other Americans. But no matter--they all deserve to die.

But don't you dare accuse any of the participants of antisemitism. Quite the contrary--they love the Jews, and claim to have their best interests at heart. Bullshit.

Mr. Marenlensky opening paragraph reads, (links in original

The Socialism Conference is an annual event hosted by Haymarket Books in Chicago. This year, it brought together about 2,000 left-wing activists and academics of various tendencies, especially social democrats and Trotskyists, but also Stalinists, Maoists, anarchists, national liberationists, and social justice groups. This year’s conference took place in the context of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, and a U.S. election in which both major parties repeatedly declare their unwavering support for Israel. Attendees of Socialism, in contrast, were united in support for Palestine, and there was a genuine desire for ideas about how to best combat Zionism and U.S. imperialism.

Fortunately, the dishonest term "genocide" appears only twice in Mr. Marenlensky's piece. Unfortunately, "genocide" was a major topic of discussion at the conference--practically every speech was about that. I've taken it on in many posts, eg, here, so I'm going to ignore it for now.

So enough about the elephant; let's get back to the donkeys, ie, the Democrats.

Mr. Marenlensky follows the standard Trotskyist position, namely there is a sharp class line running through society. There are bourgeois organizations, and then there are labor organizations--and never the twain should meet. The picture is muddied a bit (actually, a lot) by the existence of petty bourgeois groupings, that at bottom are really just stalking horses for the bourgeoisie. The Socialism Conference appears to be one of those.

A fundamental Trotskyist principle is to Never Cross the Class Line, ie, under no circumstances should one support bourgeois organizations or parties. Therefore it is fine to team up with unions--those are working class groups. But the Democratic Party is (in Trotskyist sociology) a bourgeois party and one should never support it no matter what.

Forming a coalition with working class organizations is called a united front. Forming a coalition with a bourgeois party is called a popular front. The Stalinist communist parties were big on popular fronts--and that is why (in the Trotskyist imagination) they lost so many battles (eg, the Spanish Civil War). So Mr. Marenlensky, being a Trotskyist, is adamantly opposed to any alliance with any part of the Democrat party. That's a popular front that crosses the class line, and is therefore doomed to failure.

The problem for Mr. Marenlensky is that the Socialism Conference is, inherently, a popular front. The comrades in that movement want to work with Progressive Democrats, including voting for Progressives Democrats in elections. That crosses the class line and is an absolute no-no.

So his first task is to criticize the way the conference is organized. He writes, referring to the Democratic party,

So much energy on the U.S. Left is wasted trying to galvanize support for a party that presents itself as the most responsible manager of capitalism. That energy could be spent campaigning for a workers’ party that fights for socialism. The Socialism Conference should have been an opportunity for both sides of this debate to confront the question in a constructive, comradely way. Unfortunately, this opportunity was largely squandered for a combination of political and structural reasons.

The "political and structural" reasons reduce to this: the Conference's participants want to have some impact on the real world. In the real world, Progressive Democrats have money and power and the ability to win elections. Trotskyists have none of that. Despite (or more likely, because of) their stand on high principles, Trotskyists never have any power or influence at all. All they do is kibbutz from the sidelines. So teaming up with Progressive Democrats just makes nothing but sense.

At least that's the way the conference organizers see it, and probably also a large majority of the participants. For these people the whole point of the conference is to tighten the alliance with segments of the Democratic Party, and to win over as many as they can to their ideas. What Trotskyists see as crossing the class line is seen by Conference attendees as practical politics.

And the attendees are not wrong. Progressive Democrats do occasionally win some real victories, notably in Blue States. All sorts of progressive policies are in place in California and New York, eg, rent control, prevailing wage laws, decriminalization of marijuana, social welfare efforts and social justice efforts. One can criticize them for only winning half a loaf--but the Trotskyists have never won any loaf--they've never succeeded in winning even a few crumbs.

As a political movement, Trotskyism is a proven failure. It's never been a success anywhere in the world, which is why the Socialism conferees don't have time for Trotskyists. For example, compare the Socialism Conference (2000 attendees) with Left Voice's recent convention (50 attendees; my review here). Would Left Voice--at their convention--allowed outsiders to discuss the virtues of forming popular fronts? Not likely--that conversation would not be allowed.

Likewise the Conference leaders and attendees are not interested in "forming an independent labor party," which is the rallying cry of all Trotskyists, including Left Voice. And for good reason: it's never happened, and it never will. There's no point in putting it on the agenda.

In his final paragraph, Mr. Maralensky puts it this way, claiming that Lenin (1870 - 1924) offered a useful guide to modern American politics.

In his seminal pamphlet, What Is To Be Done, Lenin describes a “marsh” of collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and that our task is to “fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!” In other words, it’s not enough to struggle against collaboration with the class enemy, but also against those who want to turn toward, accommodate, or coddle the collaborators. The Socialism Conference needs to be organized in a way that facilitates this struggle, and Marxists need to be willing to wage it.

He is spitting into the wind. 

Further Reading:

• Is Trotskyism Dead?
• Nazis
• Unions and Work From Home