Millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money will be used to fund the Conservative government’s bid to smash rail unions so that firms can impose the widespread use of driver-only operated (DOO) trains, rail union RMT warned on January 12.
Research by the union shows that government ministers were inserting new clauses in franchise agreements to allow train-operating companies to claim back any revenue lost to industrial action over the plans to get rid of guards.
This would ensure that operators make a profit of more than £1 billion over the next 20 years, according to the Railway Safety Standards Board.
Private operator Southern Railway’s contract means the company has not lost any revenue as a result of strikes over DOO. The bill, in the region of £60 million, is set to be paid by the taxpayer, according to RMT.
The Northern Rail franchise agreement, which contains a government directive to introduce DOO, also contains a clause promising that public funds will be used “to reimburse or ameliorate net losses of the franchisee arising from industrial action (however caused and of whatever nature).”
RMT general secretary Mick Cash said: “As with Southern, the government is inserting clauses into new franchise agreements which will mean the taxpayer will bankroll [Prime Minister] Theresa May’s war on the unions.
“It is clear that rail disputes are nothing to do with modernising our railway and everything to do with old-fashioned union-busting and cost-cutting.”
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling also condemned Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s support for striking railway workers. Corbyn said he would join rail worker picket lines.
[Abridged from the Morning Star.]1122International News
The Guardian: Another CIA Newspaper?
Can Trump Take Back The Presidency From The CIA?
Paul Craig Roberts
If Trump intends to survive, he must break the CIA into a thousand pieces as President John F. Kennedy intended before the CIA assassinated him. Trump must arrest for treason the neoconservatives and put them on trial. Trump must curtail NSA’s spying, which is in complete violation of the US Constitution, on all communications of all Americans. Trump’s oath of office is to the Constitution, not to war on the American public. Trump must ban all presstitute print and TV media from White House press conferences and only give credentials to the alternative Internet media. The print and TV media are operatives of the CIA and are totally devoid of integrity. Indeed, perhaps the presstitutes should be arrested for treason and put on trial along with the neoconservatives and the CIA.
If Trump fails to take these decisive actions, he is too weak to achieve any change.
The McClatchy news service is the only element in the mainstream media that sometimes reports honestly. Below is a McClatchy report that a Russian tech expert, whose name was used to give credibility to the notorious fake news dossier, says the dossier is a fake report.
“A Russian tech expert whose name and company are mentioned in the now-notorious document alleging connections between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian hackers says no intelligence officers have ever contacted him about the accusations, which he says are false.”
January 11, 2016
Russian tech expert named in Trump report says US intelligence never contacted him
BY KEVIN G. HALL AND TIM JOHNSON
McClatchy Washington Bureau
A Russian venture capitalist and tech expert whose name and company are mentioned in the now-notorious document alleging connections between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian hackers says no intelligence officers have ever contacted him about the accusations, which he says are false.
A report compiled by a former Western intelligence official as opposition research against Trump was made public Tuesday when BuzzFeed posted its 35 pages. The document included unsubstantiated claims of collusion between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin.
It also alleged that global tech firm XBT Holding, with operations in Dallas, was instrumental in the hack of leaked Democratic Party emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton and fellow Democrats.
XBT, owner of Dallas-based enterprise-hosting company Webzilla, is run by a successful Russian tech startup expert, Aleksej Gubarev. In a phone interview from Cyprus, where he said he’d lived since 2002, Gubarev said he was surprised to see his name in the report.
“I don’t know why I was there,” Gubarev said, adding that perhaps a competitor sought to discredit him. “I still don’t understand the true reason for this report.”
The salacious innuendoes in the periodic reports about Trump’s personal life dominated social media headlines. The mention of Webzilla and Gubarev was among the more specific allegations: that XBT and affiliates “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.”
Gubarev said he operated 75,000 servers across the globe and got real-time information if there had been hacking or illicit activity tied to his businesses. There is no evidence of that, he said, adding that no one has contacted him.
“I have a physical office in Dallas. Nobody contacted me,” said Gubarev, adding that 40 percent of his business is handled over the servers it runs in Dallas and the United States accounts for about 27 percent of his global business.
President-elect Trump confirmed Wednesday at a news conference that he had seen the 35-page report, and he blasted it as “fake news” and an “absolute disgrace.”
McClatchy has reported that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., gave the bulk of the report to FBI Director James Comey on Dec. 9. The final pages of the report are dated Dec. 11. McClatchy had the report earlier but couldn’t verify any of its allegations.
A federal law enforcement source told McClatchy that the document was being examined as part of a broader FBI inquiry into Russia’s influence on the U.S. election but wouldn’t characterize its credibility. A source familiar with the former Western intelligence expert who compiled the dossier told McClatchy that the ex-spy has extensive experience in tracking activities in the Kremlin.
The report alleges that Gubarev and another hacking expert were recruited under duress by the FSB, the Russian intelligence-agency successor to the KGB. Gubarev said he had not been threatened or blackmailed, nor had his mother, who lives in Russia.
Gubarev’s Facebook page shows his wife, Anna Gubareva, and him on the bow rail of a fast-moving luxury yacht. His profile picture shows him behind the wheel of a vintage convertible Citroen. He is the public face of a number of tech companies around the globe.
XBT offers an array of tech services, from dedicated hosting of servers and cloud-based storage to developing apps for mobile phones and offering virtual private servers. His company advertises specialized services to software developers, advertisers, gaming companies and electronic-commerce enterprises. It also operates data centers in Russia, Asia, Europe and Dallas.
XBT has been on a buying spree in recent years, accumulating companies in the web-hosting and related fields, including DDoS.com, 1-800-HOSTING, SecureVPN.com, ColocateUSA, Server.lu in Luxembourg, Singapore’s 8 to Infinity, and a site used heavily to host pornography, fozzy.com. It acquired Webzilla about a decade ago, which is a medium-sized web-hosting company.
Although Webzilla operates from Texas, it has a “pretty deep Russian client base,” analyst Carl Brooks of 451 Research, a Boston-based consultancy, said in a December interview. “They don’t have a bad reputation, by any means.”
He said the same went for XBT Holding: “To the best of my knowledge, XBT is not particularly nefarious.” He estimated annual revenues for XBT between $50 million and $200 million.
Gubarev suspected he might have been named in the report because of comments to Bloomberg’s Russia business columnist Leonid Bershidsky. Bershidsky wrote on Nov. 1 that Gubarev questioned allegations that the Trump organization maintained a server found to have communicated with two servers at Russia’s Alfa Bank, which is also named in the 35 pages of unproven allegations.
“Bloomberg asked me my expert opinion,” he said, noting it was the only time he’d ever commented about a U.S. election or U.S. politics.
In that column, Gubarev expressed doubt about the conclusions of outside experts who said they had studied the server connections between Alfa Bank and the Trump organization. These experts, Gubarev said, would not have had access to the complete logs of a server they didn’t control.
The Russian-born Cyprus resident may not be a household name in the United States, but he is tied to millions of iPhones belonging to ordinary Americans. Gubarev was a major investor in the app now called Prism. It was one of the most downloaded of 2016 and uses artificial intelligence to turn ordinary cellphone photos into a wide range of painting styles.
If law enforcement wants to talk with him, Gubarev said, his door is open.
“I’m ready for any investigation. I’m ready to cooperate with everybody, he said.
GREG GORDON AND MCCLATCHY SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT PETER STONE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE.
The post Can Trump Take Back The Presidency From The CIA? — Paul Craig Roberts appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.
Deputy secretary-general of the socialist Awami Workers Party (AWP) Ismat Shahjahan expressed deep concern about the mysterious disappearance of renowned literary figure, university lecturer and progressive activist Salman Haider from the outskirts of Islamabad on January 6.
That night, Haider’s wife received a message from an unknown number informing her that Haider’s car could be picked up from Koral Chowk. The AWP calls on the authorities to use all of the means at their disposal to identify his whereabouts and secure his immediate safe release.
Haider is a faculty member in the Gender Studies Department at Fatima Jinnah Women’s University and is a well-known progressive poet, playwright and theatre actor. He gained widespread fame on social media a few years ago for his satirical poems on social issues. On countless occasions, he has come out in support of the oppressed across Pakistan.
Shahjahan said the AWP demands a transparent investigation into the matter. With all of the investment that the federal government has made in boosting the authorities’ surveillance capabilities in the capital, especially the countless surveillance cameras set up all across the city, it should be possible to trace Haider’s whereabouts swiftly.
The AWP also calls upon the literary community of Pakistan to mobilise support for his immediate and safe recovery, she said.
[Farman Ali is the AWP information secretary.]1122International News
In 2014, Hong Kong was rocked by the “Umbrella Movement” — an ongoing series of mass protests featuring sit-ins against a series of attacks on democratic rights.
Robin Lee, a British left-wing activist living in Hong Kong who is an editor of the Borderless Movement, was interviewed by Green Left Weekly’s Alex Bainbridge about the current situation.
Can you make some comments on the current political situation in Hong Kong since the 2014 democracy uprising?
Hong Kong has been facing an increasingly challenging political situation since the end of the Umbrella Movement. It has been continuing to experience an erosion of its autonomy as Beijing appears to have adopted a more hardline stance towards it.
The movement just over two years ago failed to achieve its aim of genuine universal suffrage. But it did result in the politicisation of large sections of Hong Kong society, which had not been so active in politics before.
This, along with the intervention by Beijing, has led to changes in Hong Kong’s political landscape. Most notably, it has contributed to a rise in localist politics and the emergence of a number of new political groups. These groups do not all share the same positions and there has been a shift to the right associated with this.
In some senses, as we have been witnessing in many parts of the world, we have seen some decline in support for the liberal centre. In this case, this has partially been in reaction to the past failures of the pro-democracy camp, which has been too conciliatory towards Beijing and not done enough to address issues affecting ordinary working people.
Nevertheless, it is the right that has gained the most ground as a result, and this is a worrying development.
What has been the role of China in relation to Hong Kong politics?
China has a huge impact on Hong Kong politics. Officially since the handover from British rule in 1997, Hong Kong has been ruled under the principle of “one country, two systems”.
This means that while the country was reunified with China, Hong Kong was supposed to retain its own economic and political system.
In practice, China has continued to exert an increasing degree of control over Hong Kong and any illusions of autonomy have become more and more diminished. This has intensified since 2012, when Leung Chun-ying was selected as Hong Kong Chief Executive and President Xi Jinping came to power nationally.
One example of the disregard for Hong Kong’s relative autonomy was the incident last year when five Hong Kong booksellers, who had published books critical of Beijing, were abducted and detained by Chinese authorities.
More recently, after Legislative Council elections in September and protests by some of the lawmakers during the oath swearing-in ceremony, China intervened directly with the National People’s Congress, issuing an interpretation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. This interpretation has already been used to disqualify two newly elected right-wing localist lawmakers, and is now being used to challenge four of the more progressive democratically elected representatives.
How important are the issues surrounding, and relative merits of, independence, autonomous and self rule?
The increasing intervention by Beijing, in recent years has angered many Hong Kong people who support democracy in Hong Kong and the right for Hong Kong people to decide their own fate. In this context, the demand for independence has surfaced and gained a degree of support.
The call for total independence from China has most strongly been advocated by groups politically on the right, and has often been accompanied by xenophobia towards people from the Chinese mainland. Some have also previously expressed support for the idea of a return to British rule. It has not been uncommon to see the British colonial flag being carried by some individuals and groups at demonstrations.
On the other hand, there are some more progressive groups that have also been advocating for “democratic self determination”. This has chiefly involved the League of Social Democrats (LSD) along with three other new groups, which formed around individuals involved in the Umbrella Movement and earlier campaigns. They were elected for the first time to the legislature in September at the expense of Hong Kong’s small Labour Party.
With the exception of the LSD, these groups are more to the centre-left and are still in the early stages of their political development. This means that it is still hard to say which direction they might go eventually. For instance, the Demosisto group, founded by Joshua Wong, has sometimes adapted to the far right localists and even marched with them.
What has been the response from civil society to increased intervention by China into Hong Kong politics?
Hong Kong civil society feels increasingly threatened by the greater intervention by China and the decline in freedom of expression, but the responses have been mixed and contradictory.
The liberal centre right is still clinging to its position of demanding universal suffrage within the confines of the Basic Law, although the decision in 2014 by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has already shown that this is a dead end.
Some of the far right localists have gone to the other extreme, and not only demanded independence but have also previously agitated for armed resistance. During the last Chinese New Year holiday, during an incident which has been dubbed the “fishball revolution”, they incited young people to throw bricks at police, resulting in a lot of arrests while some of their leaders ran away.
As for the new forces advocating “democratic self-determination”, they have no previous political experience, and what is more worrying is that they have no clear understanding of the far right and are not sensitive to what it represents.
What is the current situation regarding left-wing organising in Hong Kong?
Partly due to the way that socialism and left-wing ideas are still associated with China, the situation for forming genuine left currents in Hong Kong is very difficult and left-wing voices remain largely very marginalised. This doesn’t mean that left-wing and progressive ideas are not starting to gain some ground, especially among young people in Hong Kong. Many reject the xenophobia of some of the right-wing localist groups, and who have become concerned not only about the political situation and the lack of democracy, but also issues related to Hong Kong’s rising social inequality.
Nevertheless, the problem is that while the remnants of the old leftists from the 1970s have been so weakened to the extent that they do not have much public visibility, the younger leftists are still too inexperienced to respond adequately to new opportunities.
New international talks aimed at ending the Syrian conflict may be unlikely to succeed, but they do mark shifts in the alignment of competing forces.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted on December 31 to support a ceasefire in Syria that started the previous day. The latest round of international peace talks are scheduled for January 23 in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana.
There have been many rounds of international talks aimed at ending the conflict in Syria, which has raged for almost six years, killing half a million people and displacing 11 million. None have been successful.
The latest talks are no more likely to end the conflict, but do reflect changes in both the situation in Syria and the alignment of regional and global powers involved in the conflict.
The location of the talks partly reflects this. Previous rounds were usually held in Geneva under UN auspices, with the US playing a prominent role. The Astana talks are being brokered by Russia and Turkey, who also brokered the December 30 ceasefire signed in the Turkish capital, Ankara. The US was not asked to take part.
However, UN-sponsored talks in Geneva are scheduled for February and UN special envoy on Syria Stefan de Mistura has endorsed the Astana talks, stating: “We hope Astana strengthens the cease of current hostilities and generates favourable conditions for the political dialogue we want to re-establish at the beginning of February.”
As in previous internationally brokered talks, the Syrian parties represented are the regime of Russian-backed Bashar al-Assad and rebel groups loosely affiliated with the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition — only two sides in a multi-sided conflict. The rebel groups have been threatening to boycott the talks, citing ceasefire violations but unhappy at the central role being played by Russia.
However, the ceasefire was signed in the wake of the rebels being driven out of eastern Aleppo, which they had held for more than four years. Their weaker position makes some participation likely. Further, many of the rebel groups are materially dependent on Turkey, a key sponsor of the talks.
Foreign forces were decisive to the Assad regime’s victory in Aleppo. Russian air strikes were most significant, but ground forces included Iranian troops, Iranian-backed militias from Iraq and fighters from the Lebanese group Hezbollah.
Outside forces have helped shape Syria’s civil war from the start. The decisive shift in Aleppo stemmed, in part, from the dramatic warming of the relation between the authoritarian rulers of Russia and Turkey, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Talks between Russia and Turkey on the eve of the regime’s victory in Aleppo appear to have included agreement that Turkey would ask armed groups it supported to leave Aleppo and cut aid to those who refused.
Outside forces helped militarise the uprising against Assad in 2011, although it was Assad’s resort to military force against peaceful protesters, and the defection of some of his military to form the Free Syrian Army in response, that started the conflict.
Because Syria was a major ally of Russia and Iran, and had supported Hezbollah's resistance to Israel in Lebanon, the West was willing to funnel arms to opposition groups. For the same reason, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have fought to keep Assad in power.
Outside forces were also significant in fracturing the opposition, although the FSA was always an umbrella covering a number of independent military units.
Western aid channelled through regional allies run by Islamist regimes led to Islamist groups proliferating among the armed opposition.
The Syrian conflict became a magnet for Islamist extremists worldwide: veterans of other conflicts were joined by alienated youth from the West. Western support for the rebels became more lukewarm, as policymakers tried to distinguish between “moderate” and “extremist” Islamists — the distinction based entirely on their attitude to the West.
Turkey’s goals in Syria changed after the grassroots democratic, feminist social revolution in Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) in 2012 because of that revolution’s ideological affinity with the Kurdish freedom movement in Turkey and broader Turkish progressive opposition. Turkish policy in Syria became intertwined with Erdoğan’s attempts to strengthen his rule and crush opposition at home.
One result was the rapid rise of ISIS. The unspoken secret behind ISIS's rapid rise to become a major military force in Syria and neighbouring Iraq, and the world’s most notorious terrorist group, was Turkish aid — in the aftermath of other Turkish-backed Islamist groups failing to crush the Rojava revolution.
The rise of ISIS changed Western goals in Syria. ISIS’s 2014 invasion of northern Iraq, along with its extreme violence, support of terrorist attacks in the West and stated objective of world domination, made it an easier enemy than Assad to sell to a war-weary Western public.
The West continued to provide arms and diplomatic support to the rebels (now affiliated with the SNC), but the air strikes launched by a US-led coalition since September 2014 have targeted ISIS.
Since the defeat of the ISIS siege against the Rojava town of Kobanê in 2014, the US-led coalition has been coordinating its air strikes with the armed forces of the Rojava revolution — the People’s and Women’s Defence Units (YPG/J). However, in 2015 it welcomed NATO-member Turkey as a partner in the “coalition against ISIS”, ongoing Turkish support for ISIS notwithstanding.
US policy has been contradictory: recognising the YPG/J as the only force willing and able to beat ISIS in ground combat, while politically supporting the SNC.
The Rojava revolution has spread beyond the Kurdish areas where it began. During the siege of Kobanê, the YPG/J forged an alliance with armed groups based outside the Kurdish community, including some FSA groups. As the revolution spread, more groups joined the alliance.
The US has recognised the YPG/J-led Syrian Democratic Forces as its main military ally on the ground against ISIS. Yet it has worked to exclude it from peace talks.
Meanwhile, as the Assad regime lost territory to its multiple enemies, Russian support for the regime increased. Russia began air strikes in 2015, like the West using ISIS as a pretext but directed mainly against SNC-affiliated rebels and other Islamist groups.
Turkey and Russia
In November 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian jet, hoping that fuelling NATO-Russia conflict would force the US to see the SNC-affiliated groups as more important allies than the SDF. It had the opposite effect, fuelling an increasing perception by the Obama administration that Erdoğan was an erratic and unreliable ally.
SDF victories against ISIS continued and the long-held aspiration of liberating the whole of Rojava got close. Achieving this would give the SDF control of a contiguous strip of territory along the Turkish border.
Erdoğan changed his strategy. Unable to rely on ISIS to crush the Rojava revolution, he decided to commit Turkish ground forces. First he made efforts to improve relations with Russia, apologising to Putin for shooting down the Russian plane.
He gained immediate benefits. The first was a diplomatic card to play with the US, naturally disconcerted by seeing a NATO member draw close to Russia. The US supported Turkish forces invading northern Syria last August.
The Turkish force occupied the border town of Jarabalus with little resistance from ISIS, suggesting possible collusion.
For years, both Russia and the US have hinted at partitioning Syria. Assad has never been keen on this idea. However, the retaking of eastern Aleppo with the confinement of rebels to an enclave around Idlib and the Turkish-occupied area around Jarabalus would make it more palatable.
In the final analysis, if Russia agrees to partition, Assad has no choice.
On January 3, the Turkish pro-government Daily Sabah reported that Russia and Turkey were coordinating air-strikes against the strategic northern Syrian town of al-Bab, which both the SDF and Turkey wish to take. Reuters reported that the US provided Turkey with air support.
The war in Syria is not ending, but its configuration is changing. Previously it centred on two conflicts, sometimes parallel, sometimes intersecting — between the regime and the rebels, and between the Rojava revolution and ISIS.
The rebels are now being reorganised as auxiliaries of the Turkish army or defeated. Particularly in Idlib, there is resentment among rebels at Erdoğan’s betrayal. However, to what extent they’ll accept their new allotted role fighting against the SDF on behalf of a Turkish regime that abandoned them to their enemies remains to be seen.
ISIS is close to being defeated in Syria. In the wake of its defeat, the Rojava revolution has spread to become a revolutionary force in broader areas of northern Syria. Behind the SDF is the revolutionary system of “democratic self-administration” pioneered in Rojava.
On November 30, the Constituent Assembly of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria — the areas under “democratic self-administration” — declared their system “to be a democratic solution for the future of Syria and a system to guarantee an exit from the current crisis and to prevent social collapse.
“In addition, the administration experience we have achieved since the July 19 revolution that occurred with the participation of all peoples has posed an example for all of Syria.”
The Constituent Assembly changed the name of the federation from Democratic Federation of Northern Syria-Rojava, removing “Rojava”. This emphasised that their aim is a democratic Syria, not Kurdish separatism.
Stopping this democratic Syria is the aim that unites Erdoğan and Assad and this will define the next phase of the conflict.1122International News
This year will be the year of the showdown between Catalonia and the Spanish state over whether the Catalan people have a right to vote on self-determination in relation to Spain.
The year starts with the final battle lines already drawn in the contest between the right-wing Spanish-patriotic People’s Party (PP) government of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and the pro-independence Catalan government, headed by Carles Puigdemont.
The Rajoy government justifies its stance by falsely claiming the 1978 Spanish constitution prevents it from granting Catalonia a Scottish-style referendum. Puigdemont claims the Catalan administration is simply acting on democratic grounds, given that more than 80% of Catalans support their right to decide via referendum.
On January 11, Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria said about the Catalonian government’s 46-point list of complaints about Madrid’s treatment of the region: “I call them 45 points plus one, which is the referendum — we can’t negotiate about that.”
Catalan treasurer Oriol Junqueras, also leader of the centre-left Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC), says Saenz de Santamaria had told him that “we will do everything possible to stop you holding a referendum”. He replied: “Well, we’ll do everything possible to hold it.”
The PP’s leader in Catalonia, Xavier Garcia Albiol, said on January 5 that no referendum would take place. The Spanish government and other anti-independence forces had learned from their failure to block the “participatory process” on Catalan statehood that was carried out by 37,000 volunteers on November 9, 2014 (known as 9N).
Garcia Albiol told Europa Press: “They fooled us once but they won’t get away with it again … What happened on 9N was an unprecedented case of improvisation. However, in 2017, the government and the constitutionalist parties have got things very clear…
“That’s why there won’t be any repeat of what we went through then. No one will be setting up illegal ballot boxes in public buildings.”
The heart of the approaching struggle is over the validity of a referendum declared and run unilaterally by Catalonia. How to ensure that it will not be a repeat of 9N, which was largely ignored by anti-independence Catalans with 2.3 million people participating as against 4.1 million in the September 27, 2015 Catalan regional election?
How, above all, to ensure that the referendum actually takes place in the face of a gamut of threats, including placing the Catalan police force under the direct command of the Spanish government?
A December GESOP poll indicated what a plausible result of a unilateral consultation would be: 64% of the electorate (around 3.4 million) would vote — more than in all previous referenda — and the vote for independence would be 79%.
The percentages of supporters of parties opposed to a unilateral referendum who would still take part if it happened would be: PP 12%; Citizens 29% and Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSC) 33%.
Seventy-five per cent of supporters of the left coalition Catalonia Yes We Can (CQSEP, which includes Spanish-wide left party Podemos and supports self-determination but not necessarily independence) would also take part.
The legitimacy of such a result would be unquestionable.
As a consequence, having rejected the negotiated referendum that would actually give it the best chance of stopping the Catalan rebellion, the Rajoy government must now use all possible means to stop a unilateral consultation.
In a taste of what is to come, the Spanish judiciary is prosecuting former Catalan premier Artur Mas and three of his ministers. They face charges of ignoring a Spanish Constitutional Court order to stop 9N from going ahead.
These charges are part of more than 400 investigations so far launched by Spanish courts and prosecutors against elected officials and local councils in Catalonia.
The intensifying Catalan conflict increasingly demands clarity from all political forces in the Spanish state. This includes the Catalan left that supports a right to decide but not necessarily independence, and from the all-Spanish left in Podemos and the United Left.
While supportive of a Catalan right to self-determination, these forces have issued mixed messages over the unfolding fight.
On December 19, Podemos political secretary Inigo Errejon told Catalan Nacio Digital that “it is very hypocritical for the Spanish government to be demanding a stop to unilateralism when it is offering no alternative”.
Errejon said: “If you close the door on any sort of bilateral relation, you are leaving the door open to unilateralism. Catalonia cannot wait.”
By contrast, Podemos’s secretary for relations with civil society Rafael Mayoral told Europa Press on January 8 that only a referendum negotiated with the Spanish state would have authority, stating: “I believe if we really want to find an effective way to decide how our country fits together territorially, it has to be based on an agreement.”
Mayoral felt he was supporting a January 3 statement by Xavier Domenech, the leader in the Spanish parliament of the radical Catalan coalition Together We Can (ECP), which includes the Catalan affiliates of Podemos and the United Left.
To the surprise of many, Domenech had called for early elections in Catalonia, saying that “a unilateral referendum would be no different from 9N, which had no binding political or legal impact”.
The next day, Domenech, politically close to Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau, backed away from the call for an early poll. He said that, to be effective, the referendum would have to meet three conditions: participation by a majority of the population, international recognition and fulfilment of appropriate political and legal criteria.
On January 11, Colau, who had taken part in a December 23 government-convened summit of all forces supportive of a referendum, said: “The question is not whether it is negotiated or not, but whether it is real.”
She added that a judgement could not be made until the Puigdemont government produced a specific proposal.
The Puigdemont administration is based on a pro-independence majority of 72 seats in the 135-seat Catalan parliament. However, this majority is not ironclad, institutionally or socially, as its parliamentary majority corresponds to 47.7% of actual votes cast.
In parliament, the government has the unconditional support of the 62 pro-independence MPs belonging to the Together For The Yes (JPS) bloc.
JPS is composed of the ERC, the conservative nationalist Catalan European Democratic Party (PDECat) — formerly the ruling Convergence for Catalonia (CDC) — smaller pro-independence groups, and a range of non-aligned figures. Most of the non-aligned MPs hold left positions on social issues and several are Puigdemont government ministers. Puigdemont himself belongs to PDECat.
The other 10 pro-independence seats were won by the left-nationalist People’s Unity List (CUP). A bloc of radical nationalist and anti-capitalist forces, the CUP has swung between agreement with and opposition to the JPS government.
In November 2015, the CUP signed agreements with JPS outlining the road-map for the creation of a sovereign Catalan Republic as well as its social goals. Yet in January last year, the CUP forced the resignation of Mas as a condition for supporting a JPS government. In July, it voted to reject the JPS government’s 2017 budget entirely.
But the CUP returned to voting support when Puigdemont brought on a motion of confidence in his government in September.
In December, the CUP joined JPS in rejecting the budget amendments of all other parties but submitted its own €760 million set of amendments. These would set up 11 special funds to finance a guaranteed minimum income, increased public housing, improved public education, support for cooperative economy, and struggles against climate change and gender violence.
However, the CUP’s amendments — like those of the left alliance Catalonia Yes We Can (CSQEP) — clash with the debt reduction strategy of the JPS government as well as with the instincts of the more conservative parts of the PDECat voting base.
It is unlikely that many of the CUP’s amendments will be acceptable to the government. This will leave the left-nationalist force having to decide at the end of this month whether to pass a budget that improves spending on public services, but still leaves it below pre-economic crisis levels.
The alternative for the CU P, which all polls show could have its parliamentary presence cut by up to half, would be to trigger an early election.
This dilemma confronts the CUP as the aggression of the Spanish government increases daily and only a fortnight after reaching an agreement with JPS on legislation that will cover Catalonia’s shift from Spanish to Catalan legality.
That bill, which is being kept secret to prevent it being ruled unconstitutional, will be brought before parliament when the pro-independence camp judges the time is right to declare disconnection from the Spanish legal system.
It would aim to provide a legal framework for a unilateral referendum as well as shelter in law for the Catalan police and for any public servants transferred from Spanish to Catalan jurisdiction.
At the same time, the Catalan government is intensifying its appeals for international support for Catalonia’s right to decide. There have been many international expressions of concern at Spanish intransigence and its use of judicial weapons to settle political issues.
Within Catalonia, the government is launching its campaign to convince doubters of the need for the referendum and the benefits of independence. One feature will be a TV series in which the Catalan premier fields questions from doubtful or hostile citizens.
As 2017 progresses, political forces across Europe will increasingly have no choice but to say where they stand on Catalonia’s right to determine its future.
[Dick Nichols is Green Left Weekly’s European correspondent, based in Barcelona. A more detailed version of this article will be published on Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal.]1122International News
Donald Trump may have won the US elections with demagogic, strongman promises to “Make America Great”, but, in the lead up to his inauguration, the hollowness of such claims is clear as he stocks his Cabinet with oligarchs collectively worth billions.
Last year’s presidential election was marked by deep divisions in both the Democratic and Republican parties, on top of a stalemate in Congress between the twin parties of US capitalism.
The election occurred with the nation deeply polarised over race, economics and many other issues. There was no mass working-class party that could have championed an alternative to the status quo.
In this context, Trump won by presenting himself as a strongman who could set things right. Exactly how was left largely unexplained.
The background for this disarray was the Great Recession that began in 2007. Financial institutions were bailed out, but the mass of workers were hit by high unemployment, foreclosures on their homes and wage cuts.
In the slow recovery that followed over the next eight years, profits rose while working class living standards did not. Ninety-five percent of households have not seen their incomes regain 2007 levels. Wealth and income inequality have grown.
This eight-year period coincided with the years of the Obama administration. During this time, the administration did little to counter this reality.
In fact, when the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and moved hard to the right, the Democrats were pulled to the right in their wake, agreeing to large cuts to social programs.
The Democratic and Republican establishments paid little heed to the growing despair and anger in the working class. But the two candidates who ran anti-establishment campaigns — Bernie Sanders in the Democrats and Donald Trump in the Republicans — tapped into this anger.
The demagogic Trump promised — with few actual proposals — to bring well paid jobs back. He blamed other countries, especially China and Mexico, for the fact that US-based corporations outsourced labour-intensive aspects of their production to countries where wages were very low. He vowed to use tariffs to counter this.
Such a nationalist stance was combined with racist scapegoating of Blacks, Latinos and immigrants for the loss of white working class jobs.
In the Republican primaries, Trump smashed his establishment Republican opponents with unparalleled denigration and insults, presenting himself as a “winner” capable of remaking a corrupt government — unlike his “loser” opponents.
Trump captured the Republican Party, which is now beholden to him. Most Republicans in Congress, with a few old establishment has-beens bleating in the wings, are so far to the right that Trump fits right in. Moreover, whatever disagreements they have with Trump are overridden by their knowledge that they will rise or fall with Trump.
For the Democrats, the primaries quickly boiled down to a contest between Sanders and the Democrat establishment figure Hillary Clinton.
Sanders ran as the opponent of the 1%, proposed steps to give working people some relief and styled himself as a democratic socialist. His proposals included raising the minimum wage to US$15 an hour, national health insurance for all and free college.
To the surprise of the Democratic establishment, Sanders’ campaign caught on with workers and youth, including Black youth. In fact, during the primaries, more people under 30 voted for Sanders than Clinton and Trump combined. Sanders held large and enthusiastic rallies as opposed to Clinton’s modest events.
The establishment rallied around Clinton to discredit Sanders, as documents released by WikiLeaks showed. When Sanders lost, he threw his weight behind the Clinton campaign, despite having blasted her as Wall Street’s candidate.
Sanders’ Achilles heel is his strategy to reform the Democratic Party, one of the ruling class’s two main parties, rather than building a new, independent party based on his pro-working class platform.
In the lead up to the November 8 elections, both Clinton and Trump had majority negative ratings among the population. In the end, although Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the undemocratic Electoral College.
Trump’s base was among open racist elements in the white middle and working classes. They rallied around his attacks on Mexicans and Latino immigrants; his threats to “deal” with Black communities with even greater police repression; his proposals to entirely ban Muslim immigration and create a watch list of all Muslims living in the country; and his anti-Semitic dog whistles.
His many attacks against women, including his defence of his open bragging about sexual assaults, were also embraced by this base.
Every brazen insult or bigoted statement was greeted at his large rallies with loud cheers and chants, as were his fomenting of violence against any protesters present. His attacks on Clinton were greeted by loud chants of “Jail her! Jail her!”
Open racists among whites of all classes are a minority, but a significant one. Not all who voted for Trump are open racists. Many naively hope that Trump will strong-arm the system to create decent jobs.
But in voting for him, they were willing to put aside Trump’s overt racism, misogyny and bullying. Many whites also feared, even if unconsciously, being driven down into the second class status of non-whites.
Trump can rely on Republican control of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of state legislatures. Many state legislatures are already carrying out some of Trump’s proposals, attacking unions, women’s rights and other democratic rights — and they will be emboldened by Trump’s election.
Trump also inherits a strong state from past administrations, both Democrats and Republicans. The vast NSA spying apparatus, the CIA, FBI and other similar agencies will now be in his hands. Trump will also be the Commander in Chief of the most formidable military the world has ever seen.
Trump’s choices for cabinet and other posts give a glimpse into what to expect from his regime.
From his court in Trump Tower in New York City, the president-elect brought in a large number of people for private interviews, ostensibly to consider a wide range of candidates and opinions. This became a daily media circus, with a wide range of figures essentially grovelling before him like loyal subjects before a monarch.
It is revealing to look at his choices. Many have noted that his proposed cabinet is largely composed of billionaires and multi-millionaires, who together are worth more than $9.5 billion. Key posts are to be filled by generals, bankers, fossil fuel moguls, authoritarians and racists.
Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, comes from the extreme white Christian evangelical movement. As a Congressperson, Pence opposed federal funding for HIV treatment unless the government also funded programs against same-sex relationships. As Indiana governor, Pence signed one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the US.
Some examples of Trump’s choices are:
• for attorney-general, the racist Jeff Sessions, will be Trump’s domestic “law and order” enforcer. Like Trump, he backs the police against Black Lives Matter, supports the “War on Drugs” and mass incarceration, and anti-immigrant measures.
• for Homeland Security is retired General John Kelly. Along with Trump, he charges that immigrants bring in drugs and terrorists.
• Steve Bannon will be Trump’s chief strategist. He is the former owner of Breitbart News, a key voice for the “alt-right” — a euphemism for white supremacists. He advocates an authoritarian presidency.
• Trump’s national security advisor will be retired Lieutenant-General Michael Flynn. He attacks Islam as a religion, claims Iran is the greatest threat to the US and says Sharia law is gaining in the US.
• Secretary of Defense is slated to be retired General James Mattis, a central commander in the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. He famously “joked” that it was “fun” to kill Afghans who resisted the US invasion.
• The Treasury and Commerce departments will be headed by Steven Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross, billionaire hedge fund managers who made huge profits from mortgage foreclosures in the Great Recession.
• As Secretary of State, Trump proposes Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, a climate change denier, whose international expertise is limited to the oil and gas giant’s vast holdings around the world.
Trump has also made a series of nominations designed to undermine the agencies they will head. These include:
• Ryan Zinke for interior secretary, responsible for managing the nation’s public lands and waters. As a Montana congressperson, he proposed gutting protections of public lands and waters.
• Rick Perry for energy secretary. He has proposed abolishing the department — as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. A former Texas governor and climate change denier, he has close ties to fossil fuel giants.
• Andrew Puzder for Secretary of Labor, the strongly anti-union head of a big fast food chain. An opponent of any minimum wage, he is known for attacking the Labor Department, which he will now head.
• Scott Pruitt for the Environmental Protection Agency. A close ally of the fossil fuel moguls and climate change denier, he has built his career fighting environmental regulations.
• Ben Carson to head the Housing Department. A millionaire neurosurgeon who knows nothing about housing, he opposes programs to help homeowners, especially those with low incomes.
• Betsy DeVos as education secretary. She opposes public schools and supports privatisation schemes and pushed this agenda in Michigan. From a family of billionaires, her brother Erik Prince helped found the notorious Blackwater mercenary army hired by the US military to carry out dirty tactics in Iraq.
• Tom Rice, representative from Georgia, for head of Health and Human Services. He waged a crusade against Obamacare (calling it socialised medicine) and will help overthrow it and replace it with something even worse.
How far Trump will get with his agenda — made clear by these nominations — depends on the opposition his administration faces.
Trump will be a “law and order” president. He will increase police powers to keep a lid on the Black and Latino communities. There will be no more federal oversight (already weak) of police violence in these communities. There will be further militarisation of the police.
There will be no rollback of the “War on Drugs” or mass incarceration; instead these will be stepped up. The stocks of private prison companies jumped immediately following Trump’s election.
He will increase already huge border control measures with Mexico, but not Canada. The huge deportations under Obama will be greatly stepped up.
Military spending will significantly rise. The US arsenal of nuclear weapons, already being “modernised” by Obama at the cost of about $1 trillion, will increase.
Trump will prevent, under one formula or another, most Muslims from immigrating to the US, including millions of desperate refugees from Washington’s wars.
Big tax cuts for the rich are certain. Regulations on the financial firms will be relaxed. Regulations on oil, coal and natural gas including on fracking will be abolished or severely weakened, as will regulations of other industries such as finance. The stock market soared after Trump’s win.
Trump will appoint a candidate for the Supreme Court who will vote to overturn Roe v Wade, which made abortions legal, and who will back Trump if he encounters legal problems, as is likely. States will be encouraged to pass more restrictions on abortions.
Trump has also projected major infrastructure projects. But he presents contradictory proposals on how to fund this, and the Republican Congress has been reluctant to support spending for such projects.
He will likely raise tariffs on imports, targeting China especially. Business with Russia is likely to improve. But he will follow a general protectionist and economically nationalist agenda.
Throughout his campaign, Trump constantly attacked the corporate media as “scum” or worse. He will continue to do so in a bid to domesticate the major media. He will hold few press conferences and will continue to use Twitter and other measures to go over reporters’ heads.
Trump will attack democratic rights in general, as is already in the works in Republican-controlled states. How this works out remains to be seen, but we can expect more restrictions on the right to assemble and protest, and more police violence at protests.
On foreign policy, much remains to be seen. Secretary of State nominee, Tillerson, is a friend of authoritarian Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Trump’s campaign pledges to downgrade NATO may, or may not, be forgotten.
Trumps pledges to wage a trade war on China were given a boost when he nominated Peter Navaro as his White House trade guru. Navaro is known for extreme views against trade with China, which in the words of the Financial Times implies “tearing up the rule book” concerning “the world’s most important bilateral economic relationship”.
This could spill over into a deeper split between China and the US in all areas.
Trump’s appointment of David Freidman as ambassador to Israel rips away Washington’s fig leaf of the “two state solution”. Freidman has close ties to illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank and opposes any Palestinian state. He supports Israel annexing the West Bank. Trump says he will move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, ratifying Israeli claims to all of the city.
Small wonder Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks forward to working with Trump — and has gone full steam ahead on new settlements.
Nature of Trump’s regime?
Some on the left have noted Trump’s racism, misogyny, authoritarianism, demagogic claims to support workers, and anti-democratic stands to label him a fascist.
But, historically, fascism represents a mass, organised, and armed movement ready to fight the workers’ movement (parties and trade unions) in the streets before taking power, to crush it with mass violence after taking power, and to establish a totalitarian state to do this. The capitalist ruling class does not resort to such extreme solutions unless its rule is threatened. There is no such threat in the US at present, to say the least.
It is certainly true that white nationalist groups joined the Trump campaign. They openly brag that he has made their message more mainstream and they have grown as a result. But they remain small, fragmented and are unable to unite behind one leader. The appointment of the far right Bannon as Trump’s main advisor is significant, but is also a bone thrown to the “alt-right.”
This is not to say Trump, and his regime, will not be an extremely dangerous and authoritarian one, that will aim to curtail democratic rights to the greatest extent possible on behalf of oligarchic corporate interests.
The scale of the danger comes from the sheer global power of the US. The danger will be even worse if Trump consolidates dictatorial like powers.
What can stop him from realising his ambition?
It appears Trump will inherit an economy experiencing modest growth. In any case, he will likely have a “honeymoon” period where many will hope he can improve workers’ lives.
But given the experience of the Great Recession and the past eight years, and major problems in the world economy, it is likely there will be another crisis during Trump’s administration. Workers who voted for him may feel betrayed, undercutting his support.
Could sections of the ruling class also become exasperated with his likely reckless policies, potentially moving against him at some point?
The organised working class is weak in size, strength and leadership. But hopefully workers will not rely on the Democrats, but rather their own power to counter the Republicans’ continued attacks on the unions.
It will not be easy for Trump to carry out his planned attacks on two large, mostly working-class sectors — African Americans and Latinos, who will likely fight back. Women, Native Americans, environmentalists, civil libertarians and others will also resist. It is among such forces that hope lies.
[A longer version of this article can be found at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal.]1122International News
As Invasion Day approaches, Murri leader Sam Watson told Green Left Weekly that January 26 was “only a date when a motley collection of boats made landfall on Gadigal country to establish the colony of NSW”.
“It is important to mobilise and march [on Invasion Day] to remind everyone that an illegal invasion took place on this soil.
“They came here to launch a war of genocide against the 500 sovereign nations of this land.
“They came to invade as a fully-armed military force. They massacred and slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people.
Watson told GLW that already this year Aboriginal people in Brisbane have observed the January 5 memorial for Dundalli — a senior resistance leader of the tribes of south east Queensland.
He was executed in 1855 while hundreds of Aboriginal people paid respects on the slopes of Wickham Terrace. Many white people fled town that day fearful of the consequences of murdering the Aboriginal hero.
Watson explained that Dundalli had “been charged with responsibility by the senior leaders to carry out a war of resistance against the white invaders”.
There were a number of massacres and terrible crimes against Aboriginal people right across the area, Watson said. These included rape and poisoning of local Indigenous people. Dundalli's actions were a response to these, yet he faced an unfair British court and was sentenced to death.
Dundalli fought an honourable war, Watson said.
“We need to honour the tens of thousands of men, women and children who died in the struggle to hang on to their sacred homeland,” Watson told GLW.
“You can walk right through the city of Brisbane and not find a single plaque or memento that acknowledges the terrible crimes against humanity committed against the Aboriginal people.”
“This is despite the fact that Campbell Newman, when he was lord mayor of Brisbane, promised there would be a plaque established.”
“White Australia has shrines and war memorials right across the countryside celebrating their heroes who died in foreign wars,” said Watson. “But there is nothing to commemorate those Aboriginal people who died on home soil.”
“So that's a struggle we're going to fight again this year,” Watson said, referring to ongoing efforts to get adequate recognition for Dundalli and other resistance fighters.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum which allowed the federal government to make laws regarding Aboriginal people and to count them in the census. It will be important to recognise this anniversary, Watson said.
Also important according to Watson, is the campaign against the new Stolen Generation. “This year is the 20th anniversary of the Stolen Generations report” Watson said. “Yet far more of our kids are taken from their homes than ever.”
As the February 13 anniversary of then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations approaches, we need to “stand and honour those generations of Aboriginal children who were taken away by white authorities”, at the same time as we campaign against the record numbers being removed from their families today, said Watson.
In response to the decision by Fremantle City Council to reject the January 26 date for national celebrations, Watson said “the people of Fremantle are making a stand and we salute them”.
The date of January 26 has “nothing to do with setting up the so-called Australian nation” he said.
“I've always said it should be June 3 — which is Mabo Day, the first time ever that a British colonial court has ever acknowledged Aboriginal people.”
Watson is a staunch fighter for the rights of his people: “We start 2017 stepping up to the line and ready to continue the struggle, ready to take on the challenges that are before us.”1122Australian News
Udo Ulfkotte: “German Politicians Are US Puppets”
Udo Ulfkotte: Mainstream Media Is A CIA Operation
“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”
When Fremantle councillors voted in August last year to end the Australia Day fireworks display that it had been running for the last eight years, I fully expected a conservative backlash. But even I was surprised to see the decision featured in news bulletins for months on end.
On one level the whole thing is bizarre. Local governments are not obliged to do anything special on January 26 and most of them don't.
What drove the conservative media and Coalition politicians into a frenzy was the council's reason for doing dropping the fireworks display.
They are not too fussed by academics and progressive minded people acknowledging that modern Australia was founded on the violent dispossession of its Indigenous peoples when talking among themselves.
They do not care if Indigenous people themselves describe it as Invasion Day.
But an arm of government – even one as small as the City of Fremantle – disrupting the happy-clappy nationalist and racist narrative that they cling to was just too much.
If they had any smarts they would have taken the "ignore it and it will go away" approach. But they couldn't help themselves.
It had to be nipped in the bud and smashed to stop the contagion spreading. An example had to be made of the heretics. Thankfully, the full-throttle outrage has backfired on them.
The frothing of the Murdoch press was predictable.
The West Australian tried a slightly more subtle approach, with patronising editorials chiding us for our “well-meaning but misguided approach”. When that failed they resorted to cartoons ridiculing Mayor Brad Pettitt, portraying him as a naive little boy.
Despite being vilified and ridiculed the council has stood its ground and the longer the conversation has gone on, the more the it has shifted in favour of a re-examination of January 26. It has popping up everywhere, some of it prompted by the Fremantle Council decision, in other places we just helped it along.
Confirmation that the tide was flowing in the right direction was the Gruen segment on “selling the impossible” which chose changing Australia Day as the theme. Other examples are the petition for Triple J to change the date of its Hottest 100 and the Adelaide brewery that's released a beer under the label “First Nations – Change the Date”.
For its part, the City of Fremantle has replaced the fireworks with a free community concert on January 28 called “One Day in Fremantle” and including artists such as John Butler, Dan Sultan and Mama Kin. It does not pretend to be the new “Australia Day”, it is just a nice day in January for some inclusive events.
Importantly, the day will begin with a Nyoongar cleansing smoking ceremony at the Roundhouse, the place where many hundreds of Aboriginal prisoners were held on their way to Wadjemup (Rottnest Island), mostly to die.
Dropping January 26 as Australia Day, by itself, does not change the structural causes of Indigenous disadvantage or reverse the horrors of the past. But unless we can have an honest discussion about the past we will not be able to create a better future.
The national days of other countries, no matter how much they may be manipulated by politicians, often mark truly historic advances for humanity. Examples are the French revolution, South Africa’s Freedom Day and, for so many countries, their hard fought independence from a colonial occupier.
What about Australia Day?
Should we propose a different date or is the very purpose of such a day simply to cultivate mindless nationalism? Perhaps we should put it a different way.
Australia Day – or whatever it might be called – should be on the day that Australia becomes a republic.
A republic founded on a treaty (or treaties) with its Indigenous people that recognise that sovereignty was never ceded.
A republic with a bill of rights that recognises people’s right to housing, education and a livelihood.
A republic that recognises that human society needs to live in peace with the planet.
Our purpose in dropping January 26 should be to focus on the changes we need to make if want a more just and inclusive society for all.
[Sam Wainright is a member of the national executive of the Socialist Alliance and a Fremantle City Councillor.]1122Comment and Analysis
[Dortmund, 30.1.2017] Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen (BGE) – ein kontroverses Thema. Vortrag und Diskussion mit Mag Wompel
“Realisierbar ist, wofür wir kämpfen – Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen (BGE) – eine unkapitalistische Forderung gegen den Fetisch Lohnarbeit. Der Weg soll das Ziel sein und sich zugleich nach dem Ziel ausrichten. Der Weg der Forderung nach einem BGE kann zwar im Kapitalismus nicht von Erfolg gekrönt sein – eben weil es die Lohnabhängigkeit abschafft. Aber selbst der Weg der Forderung nach einem BGE allein birgt zweifelsfrei viele emanzipatorische Gewinne. Darüber wollen wir mit Mag Wompel – Journalistin, Industriesoziologin und Redakteurin von LabourNet, dem Internetportal “für Ungehorsame, mit und ohne Job, basisnah, gesellschaftskritisch” – an diesem Abend diskutieren.” Info von und bei RLS Nordrhein-Westfalen zur Veranstaltung am Montag, 30.01.2017 ab 19:00 Uhr im Literaturkaffeehaus Taranta-Babu, Humboldtstr. 44 in 44137 Dortmund. Siehe zur Vorbereitung einige Artikel von Mag Wompel zum Thema:
- Mag Wompel: Das Linksradikale an der Staatsknete
- Realistisch ist, wofür man kämpft. Ein Gespräch zehn Jahre nach dem Existenzgeld-Kongress. Interview von Ingo Stützle mit Jörg Nowak, Meike Bergmann, Harald Rein und Mag Wompel, erschienen in ak – zeitung für linke debatte und praxis vom 17.4.2009
- Mag Wompel: Bedingungsloser Kapitalismus
- BGE – Großer Nutzen und kein Schaden einer unkapitalistischen Forderung gegen den Fetisch Lohnarbeit. Kann der Kampf gegen die Lohnabhängigkeit ohne BGE gewonnen werden? Artikel von Mag Wompel vom September 2007
Tillerson Dodges Discussing Who Knew What When about ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Deceive the Public on Climate Change
Instructions following a joint meeting of the Council for Culture and Art and the Council on the Russian Language
Vladimir Putin approved a list of instructions following the December 2, 2016 joint meeting of the Council for Culture and Art and the Council on the Russian Language.
Instructions following a joint meeting of the Council for Culture and Art and the Council on the Russian Language
Vladimir Putin approved a list of instructions following the December 2, 2016 joint meeting of the Council for Culture and Art and the Council on the Russian Language.
Quito. Einstimmig hat die Nationalversammlung in Ecuador ein neues Gesetz zur Freizügigkeit von Menschen verabschiedet. ... weiterlesen auf amerika21.de.