Month: November 2021

Monopoly Capitalism In Crisis

As the Western capitalist system continues to expose its own ineptitude at leading an effective struggle against the Coronavirus pandemic, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is sinking its teeth deeper into the global economy. Severe disruptions in global supply chains are the main culprits for the economic woes of most industries, which can only be honestly blamed on the anarchy of market production and distribution.

Shortages of transport drivers in the US and UK have significantly contributed to food crises, as store shelves contradictorily remain bare while farmers destroy their unsaleable products. A strangulated supply of semiconductors, spawned by widespread Coronavirus cases in Southeast Asia, have forced Western factories producing automobiles and electronics to remain idle. Vaccine producers are even facing an acute shortage of supplies because of defective supply chains.

While it may seem as if the sorry state of the global economy equates to bad news for everyone, a select few are not only raking in super-profits – they are also the harbingers of the economic anarchy negatively affecting the lives of billions of people. They are called monopoly capitalists and they hide their misdeeds behind the short-sightedness of mainstream Western economists, as well as the veil of what the law considers “business as usual.”

The title of most-well-known-monopoly-capitalist could likely be bestowed upon casual space traveller and former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, whose company made billions and essentially perfected its monopolization of the online retail industry throughout the US’ pandemic lockdowns. But other lesser-known companies pervade throughout other sectors of the economy.

The roots of the above-mentioned driver shortage in the US extend as far back as the 1970’s, when deregulation sparked an industry-wide race to the bottom in terms of costs and, consequently, wages, as well as an essential monopolization of the industry under Federal Express (FedEx) and the United Parcel Service (UPS). As a result, the field of transportation gradually hemorrhaged people willing to do hard work for low wages – with no national economic plan that would have otherwise mobilized the state to step in on behalf of workers.

In the sphere of vaccine production, the current supply chain bottleneck can be directly attributed to monopolization within the Single Use Bioprocessing Equipment industry during the past 15 years. Thanks to their monopoly position, the four dominant companies permitted by the US Federal Trade Commission and European Union competition authorities (Merck, Danaher, Sartorius, and Thermo Fisher) have claimed essential medical equipment as their own intellectual property through patents. The practice of blocking potential competitors from entering the industry combined with resistance to the standardization of these companies’ equipment, meaning customers have little other choice but to continue buying from the initial seller, comprise the key factors contributing to supply chain issues connected to vaccine supplies.

Energy at the Core

However, the most devastating and all-encompassing global crisis right now, with large parts of the most powerful American monopoly capital at stake, is that of energy. Coal prices have soared 106% this year with a number of countries connected to the international markets, including China, facing massive blackouts due to shortages. Lebanon’s nation-wide electrical grid even went down for 24 hours.

On the other hand, the price of natural gas has skyrocketed 600% since the beginning of 2021, primarily due to the same supply-chain bottlenecks that have formed in other industries under the international monopoly capitalist system. The primary specificity of the natural gas industry is that the majority of other economic sectors in Western countries, especially those aggressively pursuing transitions to green energy, are highly dependent on it to function properly – most notably food production.

For many years, the European Union (EU) has imported the vast majority of its natural gas, with Russia being its largest importer. Moscow has maintained a flawless track-record of fulfilling contracts throughout its business dealings with the EU, and yet Washington has relentlessly insisted that Europe begin purchasing large quantities of more expensive American Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

Now that the price of natural gas has reached crisis-level, American monopoly capitalists in the energy industry are trying to sink their claws into European markets by exploiting the chaos. In order to compensate for their competitive weakness, they have mobilized both politicians bought-out along the campaign trail and talking heads of America’s corporate media to lamely scapegoat Russia. Their narrative blames Moscow for the astronomical rise in natural gas prices and claims that Europe is being held at economic gunpoint to fast-track the approval of Russia’s newly completed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline – a consequence of the Russians’ alleged refusal to send more fuel to Europe.

But the facts paint a different picture. Russia’s state oil and gas company, Gazprom, has said it does not want to pump more gas through its pipeline in Ukraine – a country which is hostile to Russia and demands tolls for gas transport. Gazprom has also repeatedly assured the EU that it is ready to significantly increase natural gas supplies to the continent via the cheaper Nord Stream 2 alternative. The problem is that Europe’s biggest economies – Germany, France, etc. – are, for undeclared reasons, not requesting new orders.

Considering the “free market” principles and “democratic values” the US claims to promote around the world, it should seem elementary for Western liberals that Brussels would buy gas from its neighbor at a lower price, instead of having it shipped across the Atlantic Ocean at a higher price, especially in a time of crisis, right?

Not Accepting New Members to the Monopoly Capitalist Club

Nope. In fact, Washington’s capitalist crusades have always been waged to establish one set of rules for the crusaders and another set of rules for the conquered. When the USSR was dissolved by opportunist politicians and “democracy” came to Russia 30 years ago, masses of Russians imagined a dreamy future of unrestricted travel, friendly foreign relations with the United States, and a standard of living generally portrayed in Hollywood movies.

Instead, what they received was a new capitalist elite content with selling the nation’s industrial capital, built up over decades in the USSR, to the West for pennies on the dollar, which quickly put a damper on the Russian liberal dream of the good Western-style life. Foreign relations with Washington were great, until Russian President Vladimir Putin came to power, put an end to the Western monopoly capitalists’ profits made through plunder, and began asserting Russia’s national sovereignty in the face of Western aggression. As for travelling abroad, most Russians cannot afford to do so even today, in large part due to the progressive devaluation of the ruble on the international financial markets.

In light of Washington’s most recent political moves to keep Russia excluded from the international club of monopoly capitalists, Putin announced that the West’s capitalist model is not working at this year’s assembly of the Valdai Discussion Club – a Moscow-based discussion forum usually featuring a keynote speech by Russia’s president. This part of his speech was mainly an indication that it is becoming painfully clear to anyone paying attention; the contemporary capitalist system has only two types of actors – those who take from those who are forced to give and those who give to those who use force to take.

Under Putin’s administration, though, Russia has pursued a middle-ground position of equal partnership with the West, rejecting the overtly-ideological position taken up in its soviet past. The Russian president’s speech at the Valdai Discussion Club even included an outright denunciation of the Bolsheviks, as well as their “dogma of Marxism.” However, as disappointing as it might be for the Russian president, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin’s work Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism is as relevant now as it was in the early 20th century.

Over 100 years ago, Lenin described our contemporary monopoly capitalist system in its embryonic form, under the historical conditions of World War I:

“Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of “advanced” countries. And this “booty” is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan), who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty.” – Vladimir Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

The end he proposed was of course socialist revolution.

Whatever the solution, the main shortcoming of Russia’s current leadership is a refusal to admit that the West will never voluntarily accept it as an equal partner. A refusal to understand that there is no middle-ground for the monopoly capitalists – one either forces them into a position of mutual respect or one becomes an object of their exploitation.

Featured in Revolution Report №9 – October 2021

Originally published on The Revolution Report and uwidata.com.

The Most Misunderstood Country On Earth

The territory of North Korea, officially called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), encompasses about half of the relatively small Korean Peninsula. It is one of the few countries on Earth that has never invaded another nation, and yet the DPRK’s very existence has been threatened with economic sanctions, military invasion, and even nuclear annihilation from the year of its foundation in 1948 to the modern day.

Although the country has built a strong military and nuclear program for self-defense over the years, its leaders have nearly always sought peaceful reconciliation with their enemies. Pyongyang’s signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact in 1985, and willingness to even give up its nuclear weapon ambitions by signing the 1994 Agreed Framework with the Clinton Administration, are two of many testaments to the DPRK’s desire to function as a peaceful member of the international community.

However, Washington and U.S. mainstream media have managed to convince the American people that the DPRK is, in fact, the aggressor. As the politicians criticize Pyongyang’s latest nuclear missile test, they fail to inform their audience of the annual U.S.-led joint invasion simulations that, for decades, have kept the DPRK believing a war could break out at any moment. As the so-called “experts” and handsomely-paid defectors showcase their vague Google Maps images and disturbing drawings, claiming the North Koreans have violated every human right on record, they simultaneously assert that the mysterious “hermit kingdom” is one of the most difficult places on which to find reliable information. As the talking heads ridicule the DPRK state media’s (KCTV) bombastic reports surrounding the country’s leaders, they set the scene for Washington’s political circus, passionately and unconditionally defending the policies of one of the two ruling center-right parties as if every passing day was a decisive battle of good against evil.

TheRevolutionReport YouTube channel’s miniseries on the DPRK explores these U.S. policy double standards in detail and provides historical context invaluable in understanding how the current situation on the Korean Peninsula arrived at where it is today. But before dedicating time and effort towards understanding a society entirely different from our own, it is important to comprehend – why?

Korea certainly has a fascinating history, rich culture, and unique language, which have enthralled many history buffs, linguists, and Juche enthusiasts. These niche interests, however, are unlikely to ever gain mainstream appeal and, in isolation, lack relevance to the primary reason why anyone hoping to change their American homeland for the better should explore the topic of North Korea: understanding the DPRK helps us understand the United States more objectively, free from the delusion of American exceptionalism.

Taking a Look In the Mirror

In June 2018, The Daily Show premiered a skit satirizing selections of Fox News coverage pertaining to the then-President Donald Trump. Following clips of the anchors’ overwhelming praise for Trump’s apparently unprecedented presidential accomplishments or their display of the utmost respect for his supposedly outstanding courage, appeared snippets from KCTV reports giving nearly identical praise to Korean Workers’ Party Chairman Kim Jong Un. Of course, the liberal “comedy” show’s intent was to portray Trump’s media supporters, and perhaps Trump supporters in general, as equally as fanatical and brainwashed as North Koreans apparently are. But could not the same comparison be made about the liberal media and, thereby, all of mainstream American media as well?

At around the same time that The Daily Show was ridiculing conservatives for their likeness to North Koreans, Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show on the unapologetically liberal mainstream media outlet MSNBC, was shedding cringe-worthy crocodile tears on live television for immigrant children being locked up in cages. To say nothing of the hypocrisy of liberals like Maddow turning a blind eye to those very same draconian immigration policies under Barack Obama’s, and now Joe Biden’s, administration, this publicity stunt came just several years after the entirety of American mainstream media had looked upon KCTV’s primary news anchor and millions of other North Koreans, hysterically crying over the death of their former leader Kim Jong Il, with condescension and critical disbelief.

Interestingly enough, cognitive dissonance is not only an affliction of America’s media – its presence can be felt in nearly every institution of the U.S. political establishment. In many American schools, children are taught that the first President George Washington, often called “Father of his country” not unlike Kim Il Sung in the DPRK, was incapable of telling lies. Apart from this claim obviously being false, there is even no evidence that the story connected to this myth, Washington saying, “I can’t tell a lie” after damaging his father’s cherry tree with a hatchet, took place. Nevertheless, the people who grew up in this very education system, are encouraged by their country’s political and media institutions to join in the mockery of ridiculous claims like archeologists discovering a “unicorn lair” or the Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il never having to defecate, that KCTV apparently makes. More absurd is the fact that there is not even evidence, aside from the hearsay of defectors, that its state media actually made those outlandish assertions.

North Koreans have erected magnificent statues to honor their highly revered leaders – Americans have carved the faces of their most noteworthy Presidents into the side of Mount Rushmore. In the DPRK, portraits of the country’s leaders can be found in every home and in public places; in the U.S., the stars and stripes exert their omnipotent presence upon nearly every street. North Korea and the United States are both intensely patriotic countries. In many aspects, it is hard to believe that Americans find their country to be SO different from that of the DPRK.

Psycho-Political Projection

On the other hand, the biggest differences between the two countries can be found hiding in plain sight – as Washington’s most cliche threats and criticisms directed at the DPRK, more aptly describe their author than anything else. The U.S. political establishment’s fear mongering about a potential North Korean nuclear strike on the American homeland is nothing new. We constantly hear about alleged threats made by Pyongyang to reduce the Western world to a smoldering ruin, and are consequently encouraged to hate North Korea. Except, the United States has threatened the DPRK with nuclear annihilation since the beginning of the Korean War up until the latter developed nuclear weapons.

Hand in hand with Washington’s glaring nuclear double standard is the overused trope that North Korea spends all its money on its military while ordinary people starve. There was indeed a historical period called the Arduous March, when millions of North Koreans died of starvation as a result of devastating famines caused by natural disasters and trade difficulties – but that time has passed. On the part of the United States, neither creating the most powerful and well-funded military on Earth nor establishing military bases across the globe have managed to feed its own people. According to a 2011 New York Times report, the United States ranks the worst in terms of food security out of the entire developed world. At the same time, the prevalence of food insecurity for US households nearly doubled since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Children are especially vulnerable, with 12 million American children in food-insecure homes according to nokidhungry.org.

Another example of this psycho-political projection concerns the prison systems of both countries. Almost as often as Americans hear stories of tomorrow’s nuclear tipped North Korean missile launch, DPRK defectors gruesomely illustrate the horrors of their homeland’s alleged concentration camps – the existence for which they have never presented evidence.

Here’s what we do have evidence for:

• The United States has both the largest prison population and the highest incarceration rate in the world.
• The United States has engaged in torture in the past, tortures its prisoners today, and will likely engage in torture in the future – most cases taking place under the guise of protecting national security.
• American corporations make enormous profit by exploiting both private and public prison labor in the United States.
• Washington has no problem with arbitrarily arresting or demanding the incarceration of journalists – PressTV’s Marzieh Hashemi and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange being two examples.

North Korea Achieves What the US Could Not

Still, the most embarrassing aspect for Washington, concerning its treatment of the DPRK, centers around the fact that it has, as a consequence of its belligerent foreign policy, created a country which has not only successfully defended its sovereignty, but has achieved what the US could not. Despite facing crippling economic sanctions and persistent military threats, the DPRK has managed to build a formidable education system. The country’s many universities, primary schools, and secondary institutions have managed to educate the entire nation’s youth for free – even with a GDP comparable to lower income countries like Swaziland. A generation of North Korean scientists has emerged that designed and launched the DPRK’s own Kwangmyongsong satellite into orbit, on its Unha-2 rocket system. More recently, that same generation of scientists successfully test launched Hwaseong-8 – the DPRK’s first hypersonic missile. These achievements have come only half a century after the country had a mostly illiterate population.

Thanks to DPRK’s education system, the country, moreover, has enough doctors to operate the hospitals and clinics which constitute its free socialized medical system. While it is no doubt plagued by deficits of medical equipment resulting from the above-mentioned sanctions, its focus on preventative medicine has succeeded in establishing a relatively high life expectancy of 72 years of age for its people. In fact, North Korea has accomplished so much of what the developed world now takes for granted in the field of medicine, that the World Health Organization described the DPRK’s medical system as, “the envy of the developing world” in 2010.

On the other hand, America’s healthcare system remains simultaneously the most expensive on Earth and one of the lowest quality in the developed world. Its for-profit education system creates debt slaves just as often as it produces educated professionals, with student debt amounting to 10% of the U.S. national debt and what many politicians have described as a crisis. The brightest of America’s youth are entering an economy with few to no prospects of serious professional development – and the media tells us only to continue fearing North Korea. Perhaps, Washington should take a long look in the mirror before it markets itself as what the world’s freedom loving people should strive for.

This article was originally published on TheRevolutionReport and United World International

CALEB MAUPIN: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to address this important panel. Last week I was not able to participate due to my health. I was getting over a bad cold that took away my ability to speak. So, the ability to come here today and give this presentation, despite my being unavailable last week is greatly appreciated.

This is really one of the most important topics we can be discussing. This really gets to the essence of the problem going on here. I come at things from a Marxist perspective, rooted in dialectical and historical materialism. One thing I have observed is that what calls itself Left in our current world and in the current global political discourse is a complete distortion of what Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, leaders of the Soviet Union, the various Marxists of the world—whether they be in the Bolivarian countries of Latin America, whether they be in Cuba, Vietnam. All over the world, you have people who believe in Marxism. But in the West, the United States and Western Europe, we have a current that believes pretty much the opposite of Marxism, and rather has embraced the theories of Malthusianism.

Let me just quickly, because I know our time is limited, make the point of what Marxism actually teaches, as opposed to what Malthus taught. Frederick Engels, Marx’s close collaborator, wrote an essay called “The Role of Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man.” He wrote, “The animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence. Man, by his changes, makes it serve his ends and masters it.” This is final essential distinction between man and other animals. Once again, it is labor that brings about this distinction. And what defined human beings was that unlike other animals, they were constantly changing and reinventing the way they interacted with their environment, and more effectively forcing the environment to serve them. And that the relationship between human beings and their environment is constantly changing. The majority of human history was hunter/gatherer civilization, where people lived in tribes of 20-30 people, and hunted and gathered. But we had the first social revolution with the dawn of agriculture. The dawn of agriculture gave birth to the slave, and eventually feudal civilizations that defined the world. You had people domesticating animals and growing their own food. And it was out of the Enlightenment, and out of the emergence of capitalism that we got the overthrow of the feudal system, and we moved toward what we can call the modern world. The American Revolution and the French Revolution, the English civil war and other events where the old feudal aristocracies were overturned and replaced by the modern capitalist class. The factory owners, and in the age of capitalism in its monopoly stage or imperialism, by the bankers. Those who have the wealth dominate, and we live in a system of production organized for profit of capitalism.

The problem that Marxists have generally laid out with capitalism is that capitalism holds back human creativity, and holds back human productivity. That it restricts, it puts artificial restraints on the development of the productive forces. Engels also wrote, “In every crisis, society has suffocated beneath the weight of its own productive forces and products, which it cannot use, and stands helpless, face-to-face with the absurd contradiction that producers have nothing to consume, because consumers are wanting.” This is often told with a little fable. They tell the story of a coal miner. He’s in the home with his son, and his son says, “Father, it’s so cold. Why can’t we heat the stove?” And the father says, “We can’t heat the stove, because we can’t afford any coal.” And the son says, “Father, why can’t we afford any coal?” The father says, “Because I lost my job at the coal mine; I don’t have a job, so we can’t go and buy any coal.” The son says, “Why did you lose your job at the coal mine?” He says, “Because there is too much coal.” That is capitalism; capitalism is production organized for profit. Nothing gets done under capitalism. The means of production only function as preliminary transformation into capital. As a result of that, you get a situation where people are homeless not because there is not enough housing, but rather because there is too much housing. You get a situation where people are hungry not because there is not enough food, but rather because there is too much food. This is the irrationality of production organized for profit. The goal is to overcome this. The Marxist understanding was that with the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with. Simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systemic, definite organization and the struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man in a certain sense is marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions to an existence of really human ones. The idea was to overcome the irrationality of a system based on profits. The banks, factories, and industries and the major centers of economic power should be seized by all of society and organized rationally so that human growth and creativity can expand, and we can get to an even higher state of abundance.

Now, Lenin developed the Marxist theory of imperialism. The Marxist theory of imperialism argued that capitalism, in its monopoly stage of imperialism, was holding back human productivity, and especially going to the developing world and preventing countries from economically developing. Keeping them as captive markets; grinding them into poverty. This is what Lenin referred to as the export of capital; imperialism. Capitalism in its highest monopoly stage. The idea was that revolutionary energy wouldn’t come from Western Europe and the developed capitalist countries. It would come from countries in the developing world, like Russia, like China, countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that were struggling to break out of the domination of Western corporations, and struggling to break free from that so that they could fully develop.

Now one important point that Karl Marx made repeatedly in his writings was that the highest stage of communism, the ultimate ideal of a classless, stateless world, was only possible when a huge amount of increase had taken place. And a society in which scarcity had been abolished. In his “Critique of the Gotha Program,” Marx wrote, “In the higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life, but life’s prime want. After the productive forces have also increased with the all around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly, only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety, and society inscribe on its banners ‘From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.’|” Marx was making clear that until you reach a stage of vast material abundance, until human productivity has reached far higher stages, until then, any talk of building a stateless, classless world is simply foolish. You can’t do it.

It’s this understanding that was lost during the Cold War. We saw in the final years of Stalin’s life in the Soviet Union, they argued that somehow the Soviet Union was reaching the early stages of communism. That clearly was not the case; they had not even reached the level of productivity of the Western capitalist countries. But most especially in China, during the Gang of Four period, during the time of the Cultural Revolution, there became this feeling that somehow they could achieve communism in poverty. They could reach what they called the higher stage in poverty. When you attempt to build an egalitarian society on the basis of scarcity, that results in all kinds of big problems. The market reforms and the triumph of Deng Xiaoping was largely repudiating this kind of thinking, and arguing that the only way to build an egalitarian society is raising people out of poverty; eradicating scarcity, which is the basis of inequality, which is the basis of social hierarchies.

Vietnam has had market reforms; Cuba has had market reforms. While these are still socialist societies, with the state planning out the economy, we don’t have the anarchy of production. At the same time, they do have a market sector, and the goal of the state is to maximize material abundance in society; not try to create some kind of equality in a state of poverty.

At the time that Karl Marx was alive, Malthus’ writings and theories were very widely circulating. In his book, The Theories of Surplus Value, which is considered to be the fourth volume of Marx’s Kapital, Marx vehemently critiques Malthus and shows that Malthus’ idea that overpopulation is the cause of economic problems, and overpopulation is the root of the world’s problems, is a very dangerous idea. Marx wrote, “Malthus’ book on population was a lampoon directed against the French Revolution and the contemporary ideas of reform in England. It was an apologia for the poverty of the working classes. The theory was plagiarized from Townsend and others. His Essay on Rent was a piece of polemic writing in support of the landlords against the industrial capital. Its theory was taken from Anderson. His Principles of Political Economy was a polemic work written in the interest of capitalism against the workers and in the interest of the aristocracy, the church, the tax eaters, the toadies, etc. against the capitalists. Its theory was taken from Adam Smith, and where he inserts his own inventions, it is pitiable.”

Frederick Engels, writing to Karl Marx about Thomas Malthus and his ideas, wrote that Malthus’ idea was “the crudest, most barbarous theory that has ever existed. A system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about ‘love thy neighbor’ and world citizenship.” The Marxist understanding is that human beings are constantly striving to advance; to reinvent the way they interact with their environment; to achieve a higher level of material abundance; to eradicate scarcity and lay the basis for a world in which people only because they feel like working; in which everyone has enough; in which social hierarchies and inequalities can fade away.

But nowadays, what we hear from many voices calling themselves leftist is something different. We hear these claims that humanity has gone too far; that we’re destroying the environment. We hear these claims that pre-capitalist societies and countries around the world that have not achieved industrial development are somehow more pure. That that’s what leftists should strive for. And in the name of left-wing ideas, we have very dangerous ideas coming out that essentially argue that human progress is bad; that human beings are a cancer on Mother Earth; that we need to reduce the human population. This is not Marxism; this is a complete distortion of Marxism. Marxism’s central world view is one of historical progress. And the success of Marxism has been in China; it has been in Vietnam; it has been in other countries that have used systemic control of the means of production to raise people out of poverty, to eradicate scarcity, and to get to a higher level of prosperity. So, what these elements, and you can talk about the role—I know your organization has done a lot to document the role of Congress for Cultural Freedom and other British intelligence operations that are trying to distort Marxism and mobilize the Left to serve some of the wealthiest interests in our society. But, what is being largely pushed, this Malthusian message that we heard at the COP26, this is not Marxism. If you want to hear Marxism, go and read President Xi Jinping and the leaders of China. If you want to hear Marxism, go and read the leaders of Vietnam; go and read what the leaders of Cuba are having to say. These are forces that believe in human productivity, they believe in historical advance.

If we’re faced with the issue of global warming, the answer is obviously not to move backward. The answer is to move beyond fossil fuels. Something like fusion energy; something higher, something more effective. Something that is more likely to increase productivity. We can’t move backward. Human beings never solve problems by moving backward. They solve problems by moving forward. And this pessimistic worldview that is being peddled in the name of Marxism and Leftism is very toxic and dangerous. It’s leading to depression and hopelessness. But rather, the slogan that we’ve put forward at the Center for Political Innovation is that we need a government of action that will fight for working families, that will mobilize to rebuild the United States, to make the United States friendly with Russia and China, and to cultivate a culture of creativity. Striving for a higher state of civilization; raising people out of poverty; eradicating scarcity; and moving toward a goal of a society of equality and abundance. Thank you very much.

---

SPEED: Caleb, do you have any response?

MAUPIN: Sure! I do want to add that I just got back from Nicaragua. I was there for the elections. The U.S. government has declared these elections to be illegitimate, but I was there as an election observer. I saw firsthand that the votes are being counted in the places that they are cast. That all parties are able to monitor the voting process. They claimed in the U.S. media that a number of candidates were not allowed to participate, but that was simply false. These were not candidates, these were individuals tied to USAID and tied to George Soros and tied to activist NGOs that were trying to destabilize the country. They were arrested for real crimes, like going around the world lobbying for sanctions against their own country. They were not arrested to keep them from participating in the elections. I watched the people of Nicaragua come out in big numbers to vote for the Sandinistas, the socialist government of Nicaragua. The reason they voted for them was very apparent. We drove across the country; we were in Chinandega, some people were in Leon, some people were in other parts of the country. The roads were paved; the roads were better in Nicaragua than they are in the United States of America. The streets of New York City are full of potholes and falling apart and constantly under repair. The streets of Nicaragua are paved and smooth.

They have done so much to eradicate poverty. When the Sandinistas came back to power in 2006, the country was only 52% electrified. Now, it is 99% electrified—even some of the most remote regions up in the mountains have been electrified. At this point, they’re giving people ownership of the land that they live on, and many people who lived almost as property of landowners and such, now have the ownership of the very land that they’ve lived on.

And I actually got to meet the son of the President of Nicaragua, Laureano Ortega the son of Daniel Ortega, who’s the President. And when I spoke with him, one of the things we discussed was how, in Nicaragua they have invested in the population. They essentially view the population as an asset. They see drawing people into a productive economy, as the source of the economic strength of Nicaragua. And they have been very successful in doing that: eradicating poverty, eradicating illiteracy, and increasing productivity in the country: It’s been very successful.

But not surprisingly, the U.S. government has declared it to be a brutal dictatorship, has just imposed new sanctions on Nicaragua. This is the same thing that was done during the Cold War. There was an effort to stifle the Soviet Union, in their socialist development; there was an effort to destabilize and attack China. And then later, with Henry Kissinger, there was attempt to manipulate China and the Soviet Union against one another, to maintain the dominance of Western banks and corporations.

And what Wall Street and London fear the most is countries rising up out of poverty, because human history will continue to advance, new inventions will be created, people will rise out of poverty: That’s going to happen. And when that happens, that spells the end. You can almost imagine a game, “King of the Mountain.” Remember the game, “King of the Mountain”? Where imagine that one kid gets to the top of the mountain and he announces “game over!” That’s what the Western capitalists and financiers of Wall Street and London have done. They’re at the top of the mountain, and now they say “game over, human progress must end.”

Well, no, human progress must not end. Yes, there need to be changes in the way we interact with our environment, we need to do so in a more sustainable way. Yes, there are certainly issues that need to be addressed. But claiming that human progress must end, claiming that human beings and their drive to advance is itself the problem, is just completely foolish, because the very nature of human beings is to advance. Human beings seek to advance to reinvent their relationship with the environment. And on these issues, though I come at things from a Marxist perspective, I don’t see things in terms of the American System, I see things in terms of socialism versus capitalism, I think you were correct in that most of the left is not putting out an optimistic, progressive or leftwing worldview, and that we need to put forward real policy solutions, about cooperation with China, and about building infrastructure, and advancing productive forces; real policy solutions, actual, concrete solutions are the way to get beyond the foolish, left vs right, Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dum dialogue that we’re seeing in politics right now, which is particularly destructive and problematic.

On November 11, 2021, the sixth plenary session of the 19th Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee concluded its meeting with the adoption of multiple resolutions and the release of a communiqué. One of the resolutions passed called for the convening of the 20th National Congress of the CPC to be held in Beijing sometime in the second half of 2022.

The most important and historic resolution passed by the CPC plenum, entitled “Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century,” assesses the past century of Chinese history. This historic resolution is another landmark resolution in the century-long history of the CPC.

In 1945, the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party” was adopted by the sixth Central Committee of the CPC. This resolution dealt with the New-Democratic Revolution, the opposition to imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism, and working for the nation’s independence and the people’s liberation. It ultimately paved the way for the seventh National Congress of the CPC, which advanced the Chinese revolution and eventually led to victory in 1949.

In 1981, the Party adopted the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China” at the sixth plenary session of the 11th CPC Central Committee. This resolution, during the initial phase of reform and opening-up, provided assessments on the history of the CPC, the PRC, and the course of socialist revolution and development up to that point.

It upheld both Chairman Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought as correct while simultaneously correcting the errors of the past. This resolution provided the Party with the necessary unity it needed to undertake the tremendous task of reform and opening-up, and a socialist modernization on a scale unparalleled in history.

Quoting Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping in his opening remarks, President Xi Jinping summarized the need for this landmark resolution in his speech to the CPC plenum of the 19th Central Committee. He explained the need to “revisit the Party’s century-long journey in pursuit of happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation.” President Xi went on to say that both “the Party and the people are inextricably connected and rise and fall together.”

Xi stressed the need to “follow the methodology of dialectical and historical materialism,” looking at the Party’s history from a “concrete, objective, and holistic perspective while recognizing that it is interconnected and evolving.” For Xi, the Party must take a clear stand against “historical nihilism” and clear up “confusion and misunderstandings over certain major questions in the Party’s history.”

What unites all the above-mentioned resolutions is the fact that the Party has united the people of China in a century-long endeavor to build a moderately prosperous socialist nation in all respects that would no longer be bullied or abused by others. In Xi’s words, “the Party and the people have created miracles which will go down in the annals of the Chinese nation, world socialism, and human society.”

The resolution was divided into seven major sections and marks four distinct periods in the CPC’s history, the “Great Victory in the New-Democratic Revolution,” “Socialist Revolution and Construction,” “Reform, Opening up, and Socialist Modernization,” and lastly, “A New Era of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.”

Moreover, the sixth plenary session reaffirmed the Party’s commitment to upholding Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development as well as fully implementing Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

Ultimately, this resolution cements the history of the past century of the CPC with a positive assessment that the Party has accomplished, in Xi’s words, “the First Centenary Goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects.” Now the Party must realize the Second Centenary Goal which, according to Xi, is to turn “China into a great modern socialist country in all respects, continuing to advance toward the ultimate goal of national rejuvenation.”

This historic resolution is a momentous occasion in the history of China, the world, and the worldwide socialist movement. China has shown its people and the world that socialism does in fact work, and that the leadership of the Communist Party has proven itself, through a century of struggle, to truly be the vanguard of the working class.

The significance of this resolution is world historic, ushering in a new era of socialist development and transformation in China which is unparalleled in world history. Communists, socialists, and Marxist parties around the world look to China as a model to emulate, as we continue our historic work to build socialism and provide for the prosperity and development of all people around the world.

This article was originally published on CGTN.

The Center for Political Innovation is pleased to announce the re-election of Daniel Ortega. Director Caleb T. Maupin and Lead Analysts Keaten Mansfield and Lily Goldklang have been in Nicaragua since yesterday, November 6th, observing and verifying the legitimacy of Nicaragua’s elections. Despite the false information propagated by biased corporate media such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and others, the Center for Political Innovation can attest to the validity and integrity of a fair election process in Nicaragua. US President Biden has already released his statement of condemnation against the “pantomime” election in Nicaragua, despite the election result not yet finalized and votes still being counted. The re-election of incumbent President Daniel Ortega is a clear and definitive victory for the working families of Nicaragua. The people look forward to another presidential term of progress, development, and innovation. The rejection of a return to Neoliberalism in Nicaragua comes as a surprise to few based on the national polling data as well as individual reports collected by the Center for Political Innovation. The future of Nicaragua appears bright as the people once again choose Daniel Ortega to represent their voice in the national government.

Since 2016, US media has been filled with talk of “foreign meddling” and “foreign influence” possibly affecting the results. The focus has been on the claim that somehow Hillary Clinton’s e-mails were handed over to Wikileaks and Julian Assange by a Russian operative. The claim is still unproven and many intelligence experts have expressed doubt about it, but that has not resulted in the issue being dropped.

Anyone familiar with US and UK foreign policy since the end of the Second World War must be shaking their heads at such rhetoric. The claims that somehow Russia or other foreign actors bought ads on Facebook or helped circulate videos on social media pales in comparison to covert and overt activities across the planet from the two western powers known for their “special relationship.”

According to the Daily Mail “the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), a majority UK-government funded organization, has spent over £750,000 to “strengthen democracy” in Venezuela since 2016, according to documents obtained by Declassified.” At the same time talk of “foreign meddling” filled the US-UK airwaves in response to Brexit and the electoral victory of Donald Trump, a well-funded operation pushing for the ouster of Venezuela’s elected leader, Nicholas Maduro was under way.

The sanctions from the US and UK have also been key in making it difficult for Venezuela to import food, medicine, and other vital commodities. Various banks across the planet have frozen Venezuelan state assets at the behest of the US and UK, resulting in billions of dollars being inaccessible to the Latin American state. Juan Guiado has declared himself the interim President and had recognition conferred on him by the United States and United Kingdom, in direct opposition to what the Venezuelan public has voted for and the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice has affirmed.

The blatant efforts aim not only influence the elections in Venezuela, but discredit them and economically strangle the socialist government. The campaign to do so has not been hidden or concealed. US and UK leaders are very open about their goal of bringing down the United Socialist Party (PSUV) and Maduro. They follow the pattern of western interventions and destabilization, such as when Nixon declared it as time to “make the economy scream” in order to set the stage for the military overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973.

In hopes of further strangling Venezuela’s economy, the United States has extradited diplomat Alex Saab from Cape Verde. Describing the case, Business Weekly declared “For the U.S., Saab is the key that unlocks the Venezuelan monetary mystery—that is, how a country facing sanctions from the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union—is still able to export things like gold and oil.”

The hope is to intimidate anyone who would dare trade with Venezuela, using the threat of abduction and torture. The intended result is making it even more difficult for Venezuela to import needed goods, intensify the humanitarian crisis in the country, and continue to exacerbate internal difficulties in the hopes of toppling the government. The alleged boosting of internet memes by supposed Russian operatives pales in compares to this massive “Foreign Meddling” from the United States. The sanctions on Venezuela, which Saab is accused of trying to maneuver around, have cost tens of thousands of lives.

Saab’s arrest violates diplomatic norms and the conditions of his detention in Cape Verde prior to extradition amounted to torture. Many international voices, including UN bodies, have spoken up for Alex Saab, demanding his immediate release.