Paul Craig Roberts
Editor’s Note: This is a provocative essay, quite typical of Paul Craig Roberts, and speaking for myself, and not a consensus of the TGP editors, among whom we find great diversity of positions regarding Trump, I must say he does carry a great deal of truth in his scathing critique. Some things, however, need to be fine tuned. For starters, the author inadvertently and no doubt innocently somehow misidentifies the problem. In the current tsunami of criticism of Donald Trump prior to and after the election, almost all of it fielded by the Democrats and their numerous shills (MoveOn, AVAAZ, Daily Kos, NPR), not to mention the entirety of the mainstream media, a sector of the old genuine “left” has climbed on the bandwagon (i.e., the Communist Party, plus a variety of Marxist and social democrat organizations). Under such conditions, most of the people arguing about the merits and demerits of the Trump presidency continue to refer to Democrats, and liberals in generals, as “the left.” This is common in the United States, where a rump political spectrum has existed for many decades, but common does not make it right. For a variety of reasons too long to discuss in this introduction, the real, hard left in the United States is puny, a force normally outside the mainstream debate and consigned to an informational ghetto. The Internet has loosened some of the real left’s chains, but its ideas and analyses are still a long way from reaching the ordinary citizen. The object of Dr Roberts’ critique therefore is not so much the real American left, much of it Marxian, assuming such a thing exists in any meaningful form, but what in America passes for the left, which is both center-right and center left liberals, all of them with their feet firmly planted in the mainstream. Thus, from Obama on the center right to the editors of Mother Jones on the center left, we are talking here about the actions, betrayals and omissions of liberals, not real leftists, and liberals, as we know, are all by definition supporters of capitalism and the corporate plutocracy it inevitably engenders. Second, it was the Democrats who pioneered —and momentarily, as history shows—profited handsomely—by the idea of embracing identity politics at the expense of class struggle. While advancing the rights of racial or gender victims of the status quo has an inherent inestimable value to the targets of persecution and discrimination, and that is an undeniable good to the nation and humanity, the ruling class, per se, suffers little damage to its privileged position of near absolute power. This is particularly so in the case of the LBGT community, whose gains come at negligible cost to the ruling class, as opposed to lessening the level of oppression on Black and Latino segments of the population, which imply a heftier economic and political price. That said, the sleight of hand performed by the corporate Democrats, via the substitution of identity politics for class struggle (what people used to call “wedge issues”) inexorably opened the gates to an enormous strengthening of capitalist power and wealth, virtually at the expense of almost everyone, resulting in a situation so toxic, so riddled with inequality throughout the world, including the “First World”, that the whole system is now in virtual crisis. By contrast, a true left program, by definition, would have BOTH class struggle and full equality and protection for all members of society in its agenda, from working class whites to all LBGT, Black and Latino members. The real left is about justice, and justice, if true, is blind to accidents of class, gender, sexual identity, or race. I said almost two decades ago in an essay devoted to the nefarious consequences of co-optation of the label “Left” by the liberals, that as long as this imposture lasted, the idea of the left itself, and its inherent promise, would be continually hurt by the betrayals of affluent, predominantly white, establishment-invested liberals. This essay by Dr Roberts proves my point. —PG
On several occasions I have asked in my columns the rhetorical question: What became of the left? Today I answer my question.
The answer is that the European and American left, which traditionally stood for the working class and peace (bread and peace) no longer exists. The cause championed by those who pretend to be the “left” of today is identity politics. The “left” no longer champions the working class, which the “left” dismisses as “Trump deplorables,” consisting of “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts.” Instead, the “left” champions alleged victimized and marginalized groups—blacks, homosexuals, women and the transgendered. Tranny bathrooms, a cause unlikely to mobilize many Americans, are more important to the “left” than the working class.
All white-skinned peoples except leftists, including apparently victimized women, are racist by definition. Racism and victimization are the explanations of everything, all of history, all institutions, even the US Constitution. This program of the left cuts the left off from the working class, who have been abandoned by both political parties, and has terminated the left’s connection to the people.
The collapse of the left as an effective and real political force followed the Soviet collapse. The underclass had resisted their exploitation before the publication of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital in 1867. But Marx raised the exploitation of labor to a fighting cause on whose side was History. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia seemed to validate Marx with its overthrow of the existing order and proclamation of Soviet Communism.
Soviet practices deflated left-wing hopes and expectations, but nevertheless an alternative system which continued to speak against capitalist exploitation existed. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, neoconservatives and neoliberals declared that History had chosen capitalism over the working class, and Marx’s prediction of the triumph of the working class had been proven wrong.
The Soviet collapse caused communist China and socialist India to change their economic policy and to open their economies to foreign capital. With no rival, capitalism no longer had to restrain itself and allow widespread access to the growth of income and wealth. Capitalists began collecting it all for themselves. Many studies have concluded that the productivity gains which formerly went mainly to the work force are now monopolized by the mega-rich.
One avenue to the concentration of income and wealth is the financialization of the economy (emphasized by Michael Hudson and by Marx in the third volume of Capital). The financial sector has been able to divert the discretionary income of the working class into interest and fees to banks (mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, student loans).
The other avenue is the offshoring of American jobs to which Donald Trump is strongly opposed. Here is what happened:
Wall Street told US manufacturers to move their production to China in order to increase profits from lower labor and regulatory costs, or Wall Street would finance takeovers of the companies, and the new owners would raise the firms’ profitability by moving production offshore. Large retailers, such as Walmart, ordered suppliers “to meet the Chinese price.”
When the jobs were in the US, most of the gains in productivity went to labor. Therefore, real median family incomes rose through time, and the consumer purchasing power this income growth provided drove the US economy to success for ever more people.
When the jobs were moved to Asia, the growth in real median US family incomes stopped and declined. The large excess supplies of labor and lower cost of living in Asia meant that Asian workers did not have to be paid in wages the value of their contribution to output. The difference between the US wage and Asian wage was large and went into corporate profits, thus driving up executives’ “performance bonuses” and capital gains (rising stock prices from higher profits) for shareholders. In my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism published in 2013, I was able to calculate that based on current information at that time, every 1,000 manufacturing jobs moved to China resulted in a labor cost saving for the US company of $32,000 per hour. These hourly savings did not translate into lower prices for US consumers of the offshored production. The labor cost savings translated directly into the incomes of the executives and shareholders.
Thus, jobs offshoring permitted the productivity gains to be monopolized by corporate owners and executives.
Instead of responding to Trump’s support of the working class and his actions in their behalf during the first week of his presidency—Trump’s termination of TPP and his demand to auto manufacturers to bring manufacturing back to America—the “left” has rallied around a victim group—illegal immigrants. The “left” even elevates non-US citizens above the US working class.
Trump was elected by the working class. If the left is defined historically as the champion of the working class, then Donald Trump is their champion and the “left” is their enemy.
Throughout the contest for the Republican presidential nomination and the contest for the presidency, the “left” was allied with the ruling establishment of mega-rich capitalist oligarchs and the warmonger military/security complex against Trump. As Trump’s presidency begins, it is the “left” that wants Trump impeached and delegitimized, precisely the goals of the war- mongers and the mega-rich and their presstitutes.
Even environmental groups, such as NRDC of which I am a member, have joined the identity politics against Trump. Rhea Suh, NRDC’s president, has just sent me an email in which she declares NRDC, supposedly a champion of wildlife and the environment, to be standing with women in the Women’s March on Washington against Trump “in defense of our most basic rights as women.” “Women matter,” Rhea declares, and proceeds to blame Trump for Flint, Michigan’s polluted water.
I am convinced that it is a mistake for Trump to emphasize jobs at the expense of the environment. Whether or not global warming is a hoax, environmental destruction is not. It is real, and the working class, as in Flint, are suffering from it as well as from the offshoring of their jobs.
The Democratic Party died during the Clinton regime when Clinton allied with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) founded in 1985 by Al From. I have often wondered who funded the DLC. It could just as well have been the Koch brothers as the DLC turned the Democratic Party into a second Republican Party.
The DLC convinced Democrats that the defeat of the presidential campaigns of George McGovern and Walter Mondale proved that economic populism is not politically viable. Democrats had to turn away from the left and embrace “mainstream values” and “market-based solutions.” The DLC was a big supporter of NAFTA. Reportedly, the DLC’s Will Marshall regarded pacifists and Iraq war protesters as anti-American and advised Democrats to keep their distance.
In short, the message was: compete with the Republicans for the big corporate and financial sector money. It certainly worked for the Clintons, but not for the Democratic Party.
As “market-based solutions” offshored US manufacturing jobs, the Democratic Party’s finances declined with union membership and power. Today Democrats and Republicans are dependent on the same interest groups for campaign funds. Thus ended the Democratic Party’s connection with the working class.
The question is: Can Trump stand for the working class when both political parties and the presstitute media, the think tanks, universities, environmental organizations, military/security complex, Wall Street, and courts stand against the working class?
Who is going to help Trump help the working class? [Assuming he does want that.]
Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com
We apologize for this inconvenience.
=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
A starker and probably more accurate definition of warring factions comes (of course one could almost say) from abroad, which puts the right light on neo-liberalism versus
neo-nationalism at the core of the conflict and how people get terminally confused is by C. J. Hopkins on CP today (“The Resistance and its Double”)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/30/the-resistance-and-its-double