Gramsci’s “Passive Revolution” as Applied to Latin America does not Serve to Demonstrate that Pink Tide leaders (Maduro, AMLO, Lula, etc.) are Sellouts

In spite of concessions to business groups and retreats on other fronts, Pink Tide leaders from Lula to Maduro are still progressive. Writers on the left who call Pink Tide leaders a sell-out display a monochromatic vision of the world, a far cry from what Marx and Engels had in mind.

The following is an article of mine published in Monthly Review that attempts to refute the notion that Gramsci’s concept of “passive revolution” is applicable to Latin America’s Pink Tide.

https://monthlyreview.org/2024/10/01/applying-misapplying-gramscios-passive-revolution-to-latin-america/

 

The Senatorial Race in Maryland: Democracy gets Mocked

In the Senate race here in Maryland, I have received propaganda in the mail, and seen ads on TV and internet, perhaps 100 altogether. All of the ads favoring the Republican candidate Larry Hogan bashes his rival Angela Alsobrooks for having claimed a tax credit on her property that she allegedly was not entitled to. And all of Alsobrooks ads attack Hogan for claiming to support reproductive rights even though he has in the past opposed it. Not one ad out of 100 or more talks about the candidates own positions on different issues.

 

Hogan’s super PAC is spending $18.3 million dollars to discredit Alsobrooks, but they’re doing it only on the basis of calling her out for one tax credit that she has claimed over the years. Out-of-stater Kenneth C. Griffin from Chicago, who is worth 35 billion dollars, has donated 10 million dollars to Hogan’s super PAC. Is this what democracy is supposed to look like? Given this perversion of what democracy is, what right does the U.S. have to shove democracy down the throats of other countries, eg. Cuba, Venezuela, etc.?

 

 

In the Context Global Economic Instability and Endless Wars, Dependency Theory is Making a Comeback

Dependency theory which emerged from the struggles for change in Latin America in the 1960s, is now making a comeback. The rise of the left-leaning governments in Latin America known as the Pink Tide (Chávez, Evo Morales, Lula, López Obrador, etc.) provided fertile ground for antisystem theoretical ideas such as dependency theory. In addition, at the global level, seemingly endless wars, economic instability, and growing inequality also explain the receptivity to thinking along these lines. This is what I argue in the following article published this year in Latin American Research Review. 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/latin-american-research-review/article/dependency-theory-and-its-revival-in-the-twentyfirst-century/33333A2BF1108CF2276DE2415DD38C87 

 

Trump’s position on Ukraine is just as bad as Harris’ but for different reasons

At first I was pleased that Trump (as much as I dislike him) at Tuesday’s presidential debate refused to call for a victory for Ukraine over Russia. But upon thinking through what both candidates stand for, I realize that both are war mongers but in different suits.

The Biden administration is standing aside while Ukraine pushes into Russian territory. Kamala Harris is on board with this. Now, Washington is floating the idea of deep strikes into Russia. Not only does that move us to the edge of a nuclear confrontation, but it also invites Russia to escalate air attacks on Ukraine with devastating consequences for civilians. The Biden administration and Zelensky could care less. Unless Kamala Harris disassociates herself from these policies, she is as much responsible as Biden for the waste of U.S. tax dollars and for the suffering that the war has caused. Biden hasn’t raised a finger to support a negotiated solution which sooner or later is going to happen. The real strategy behind Biden’s policy is to weaken Russia militarily and Putin politically and to isolate Russia from the rest of Europe. These goals come at an immense price both economically and on human lives.

Trump calls for a resolution to the conflict but his roadmap is to assert U.S. authority. We’re the bully on the block and all sides have to listen to us. But what would happen if they don’t? What would happen if a negotiated solution that Washington proposes is turned down by Moscow? As the strong-man, a President Trump would end up threatening Moscow, since otherwise we would look weak. But what would happen if Moscow didn’t step down? This is brinkmanship, a dangerous game, and it’s brinkmanship that underpins Trump’s foreign policy. This is exactly why my vote goes to Jill Stein.  

 

WHY DID KAMALA HARRIS CHOOSE TIM WALZ OVER JOSH SHAPIRO AS HER RUNNINTG MATE?

 

Harris needs to rein in those voters who are discontent as a result of Biden's pro-Israel, hawkish policies with regard to Gaza and the West Bank. Choosing Shapiro who is an ardent supporter of Netanyahu and his genocidal actions would have guaranteed the loss of all those uncommitted voters. And in Minnesota the uncommitted delegates got 19% of the vote, the highest in the nation. North Carolina, which is a battleground state, came in second place with 12.7%.

 

Waltz had a decent position on the protesters. He clearly stated that they had a right to protest especially in light of the atrocities that are being committed against the Palestinian people. In contrast Shapiro all but embraced Netanyahu. Actually, he did, figuratively speaking.

 

Thus the protests against genocide on campuses and streets throughout the country made a difference. I’m proud to that I was one of those voters who voted for only the uncommitted delegates in the state of Maryland. That’s not to say, however, that I’m going to vote for Harris. But I sure hope she wins!

 

 

Kamala Harris Shouldn’t Commit the same Mistake as Hillary Clinton in Focusing on Trump’s Authoritarian Personality

Harris needs to refute Trump’s claims of representing the working class. As a starter she needs to point to his reduction of corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% in 2018, which big business and the Republicans want to extend beyond 2025. Then she needs to remind voters that Trump’s promise of tax exemption on social security pension makes no sense unless the government eliminates the cap on income subject to social security tax which is currently at $168,000. She also needs to emphasize union issues which is one reason not to choose Mark Kelly as her running mate. Kelly hasn’t signed on to the Pro-Act legislation which would facilitate union organizing and increase fines on companies for unfair labor practices, such as coercing workers to attend employer meetings designed to discourage union membership. 

Of course the mainstream leadership of the Democratic Party would prefer to focus on Trump’s fascist tendencies because shifting the emphasis to economic issues would have to be accompanied by a clarification and hardening of the party’s positions on economic issues affecting working people. One more way in which identity politics sometimes diverts attention from the real issues which most U.S. voters are most concerned about. Stressing these issues is the only way to defeat the Republicans, and particularly the populist right faction headed by Trump.

 

New York Times: No Pretense of Objectivity in its Reporting on Venezuela

Two articles in today's New York Times on the upcoming presidential elections in Venezuela. Maduro is an autocrat and if the photo that accompanies one of the articles is any indication, he has little support. In contrast Maria Corina Machado, the main opposition leader, has massive support. But not one word about the crippling sanctions and the blackmail of the U.S. government: vote for the main opposition candidate and we'll lift the sanctions; elect Maduro and the sanctions continue. Furthermore, the word "autocrat" is misleading; you have to make a distinction between electoral fraud, which the articles don't accuse Maduro of carrying out, and electoral manipulation which we have here in the states and everybody knows it. There's not even the pretense in the NY Times reporting on Venezuela of presenting the other side of the story. No objectivity whatsoever.