Wednesday 30 June 2021

For all the talk of 'Stalin's successes,' the Soviet Union smashed the Nazis in spite of his harsh leadership, not because of it

 

30 Jun, 2021 09:22

For all the talk of 'Stalin's successes,' the Soviet Union smashed the Nazis in spite of his harsh leadership, not because of it
When it comes to politics, nothing is sacred – not even the past. World War II is no exception, and the inconvenient truths about how Nazi Germany was crushed have been a frequent target for those who seek to rewrite history.

A recent example has been a Twitter controversy caused by Professor Asatar Bair who has tried to make the case for, in his words, Stalin’s “successes as a leader,” in particular with respect to the Soviet-German war of 1941-1945.  

Here’s why that’s completely mistaken. As in upside-down wrong. And how that’s an error with a long, dark history that needs to end already.

ALSO ON RT.COMSoviets worked with West to bring down Nazi legacy – but now NATO expansion risks tearing Europe apart once again, Putin says

First, it is important to make a clear distinction: the question of Stalin’s contribution (or not) to the victory over fascism in World War II is not at all the same as that of which country made the single greatest contribution to this outcome. That question has long had a very clear answer: it is impossible to dispute that it was the Soviet Union which ripped the heart out of fascism’s mid-20th century efforts to form a brutal Eurasian empire. Both in terms of the sacrifices its people made and the scale of German military losses its armies inflicted, the USSR was crucial to smashing the Third Reich.

That Soviet victory was all the more striking given that, in the first months of the invasion – codenamed Operation Barbarossa – things went very badly for the Soviet side. And yet, between the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941 and the Battle of Kursk, two years later, everything had changed.

Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, by 1945, the Red Army was hoisting the hammer and sickle over Berlin. Adolf Hitler’s forces, who had fought with tremendous cruelty to establish an ethnically cleansed slave empire in what the Germans then termed “the East,” were not only defeated but wiped off the map.

However, in the Cold War-era West, historical memory stopped short of fully acknowledging the USSR’s role in this victory. It was inconvenient in more than one way. Did it mean that the Soviet system and its values, even in its Stalinist form, could triumph over a capitalist economy like the Third Reich’s? Did the grim determination of the country to win the war despite all odds show that its economy, wasteful as it was, could be a formidable force when mobilized for war? And was the Soviet Union still a force to be reckoned with were a putative war to break out with the West?

Western bias led to absurd stereotypes, still often regurgitated, featuring “primitive” Soviet soldiers dragooned into battle at every step, against their will, by machine-gun-toting NKVD troops. In more than one Western account of the Battle of Stalingrad, where the Soviets turned the tide of the war and struck a blow for the Allies on all fronts, more empathy has been lavished on the Germans than the Soviets.

In mainstream popular culture, a mix of denial and amnesia mostly prevailed. During the wartime alliance with the Soviet Union, it was Hollywood that made some of the most disingenuous pro-Stalinist propaganda movies of all times – such as 1943’s ‘The North Star’ and ‘Mission to Moscow’. But by 1962, a big-budget, all-star feature like ‘The Longest Day’ was focusing on the Western front instead. By exclusively elevating the 1944 D-Day landings in France, the film left a strong – and historically misleading – impression that they had been the real turning-point of the war, more than two years after the decisive Battle of Stalingrad. It was produced with massive support from several NATO states and their militaries.

Yet Western Cold War warriors were not the only ones who rewrote history. So did Stalin and his sympathizers, including some Western communists. In essence, their story was simple: the victory over Nazi Germany – the greatest and most life-or-death triumph not only in Soviet but Russian history – was Stalin’s work.

ALSO ON RT.COMVictory Day belongs to the Russian people: Westerners must realize it celebrates destroying the Nazis, not honoring Stalin’s USSR

His genius, so this great-man-makes-history-on-steroids tale goes, saved the homeland, defeated fascism, and secured unprecedented international power for the Soviet Union. The contribution of normal people who suffered in factories and on the front line was greatly downplayed, most egregiously by massively deflating the number of Soviet casualties.

The communist leader, in reality, did what he could – which was a lot – to steal a personal victory from the Soviet Union’s population. When the war was finally over, a combined total of about 27 million civilians and soldiers lay dead, and that was only a part of the general devastation. They faced a government that became one horrendous disappointment. Instead of continuing the (relative) liberalization measures of wartime, the authorities tightened the screws again. Instead of truly honoring the dead and those whose bodies and souls were scarred forever by horror and loss, it told the survivors to fawn over Stalin’s wise strategies.

This lie did not survive for long after Stalin’s death. In his very public “Secret Speech” of 1956, Khrushchev attacked not only some of his predecessor’s domestic repressions, but also his record as a war leader. As with Khrushchev’s approach to revising the former leader’s reputation in general, the criticism was incomplete and contradictory. But the gist was clear – Stalin was dethroned as military genius and even blamed for the abysmal cost of the victory.

And rightly so. Stalin’s mistakes before and during the war against Nazi Germany were terrible and too numerous to be fully spelled out. Perhaps the single most bizarre instance was his initial disbelief towards the scores of credible warnings of the German attack. But there was more: Stalin decimated the Soviet officer corps in his prewar purges, thereby psychologically hobbling those who were left. He meddled in military questions he did not understand, such as how best to deploy tanks. In international politics, he bizarrely misinterpreted the Spanish Civil War as, most of all, yet another place to fight the shadow of Trotskyism. And, moreover, he was decisive in the insane Comintern policy of targeting other socialists as “social fascists,” thereby sabotaging broad anti-fascist coalitions until it was too late.

During the first trying days of collapse and rout that followed the start of Nazi Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union, Stalin almost gave up. He retreated to one of his dachas and, apparently, expected his inner circle to remove, punish, and quite likely kill him. Yet, instead, they asked him to return to the helm, which he did. After that though, he continued to meddle in military decisions, creating more costly mistakes.

But, over time, he also seems to have done one thing that his chief opponent Hitler signally failed to do. Stalin came to tacitly accept the expertise of generals who knew better than he did, as long as they were politically submissive and provided he could claim the laurels of victory. That is very little to say in his defense, and there really isn’t much else to add to his credit – even if some historians, both in the West and the former Soviet Union, have said otherwise. They risk committing the fallacy of mistaking archival evidence supporting the fact Stalin was there to lead for proof that he was “indispensable” to the war effort. Remaining at the helm and steering the ship in the right direction are two very different skills.

Unfortunately, more than half a century after Khrushchev’s “Secret” Speech, some have still not caught up with historical reality, in Russia and elsewhere. No, Stalin cannot be redeemed by the claim that he made an important contribution to the victory over fascism. The Soviet people did that, as the greatest novelist of the war, Vasily Grossman, stressed.

The communist leader, if anything, made it only harder and costlier. And on top of all that, he then tried to deprive them of the memory of their enormous sacrifice and their historic achievement. If you still want to credit Stalin for winning the war, you perpetuate his lie. 


 The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Automation of Space Warfare

 

 



A “Space Warfighting Operations R&D”—being acronymed “SWORD”—laboratory “will be working in the area of autonomy to enable space systems to automatically detect and respond to threat conditions faster than a human operator could achieve,” declared Colonel Eric Felt at its opening last month.

The laboratory, in Albuquerque, is an arm of both the new U.S. Space Force and the U.S. Air Force. Colonel Felt heads the “Space Vehicles Directorate” of the laboratory and made the comments in what was described as a “keynote speech” at a “ribbon-cutting ceremony” at it.

The $12.8 million facility “is dedicated to the research and development of space military technology,” notes executivegov.com, a site which reports on U.S. government activities.

Felt’s statement about the laboratory developing “autonomy” in space warfare had a strong reaction among peace activists.

“The automation of war—surrendering human control to computers and Artificial Intelligence—is frightening and appears to hardly register a blip with our so-called elected officials who are consumed with begging for war-bucks while on their bended knees,” protested Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

“The U.S. imperial war project, now marching headlong into the heavens, is on autopilot. The public knows virtually nothing about it as the corporate owned media shares little news with the taxpayers other than cheer-leading these dangerous and provocative developments,” he said.

Herbert Hoffman, past president of the Veterans for Peace chapter in Albuquerque, stated: “Essentially Felt is supporting abandoning responsibility for making war to a pile of electronic wires, relays, chips. He is advocating abandoning rationality, assessment of error, etc. to an unthinking, no feeling ‘black box.’”

Bob Anderson, a U.S. Air Force Vietnam War combat veteran, co-director of the Albuquerque group Stop The War Machine and a member of the board of the Global Network, emailed the city’s mayor, Tim Keller. “As our mayor, I am greatly concerned about your support for SWORD,” he wrote. He cited the “autonomy” statement and said: “A war in space would be as bad or worse than a nuclear war and it could be triggered by computers here at SWORD. Are you OK with this?”

Also, Anderson a retired professor of economics and politics, wrote: “Some people once thought that a nuclear war was winnable.  They have been replaced now with people who think that a war in space is winnable.”

Drawing attention in recent times to a technological mistake that nearly resulted in nuclear war was the Danish documentary, “The Man Who Saved The World.”

As Wired magazine said about the film released in 2013: “A Soviet ballistics officer draws the right conclusion— that a satellite report indicating incoming U.S. nuclear missiles is, in fact, a false alarm— thereby averting a potential nuclear holocaust.” Sept. 26, 1983: The Man Who Saved the World by Doing … Nothing | WIRED

“Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was duty officer at Serpukhov-15, the secret bunker outside Moscow that monitored the Soviet Union’s early-warning satellite system, when the alarm bells went off shortly after midnight,” Wired related. “One of the satellites signaled Moscow that the United States had launched five ballistic missiles at Russia….Petrov could have been forgiven for believing the signal was accurate. The electronic maps flashing around him didn’t do anything to ease the stress of the moment. But Petrov smelled a rat. ‘I had a funny feeling in my gut’ that this was a false alarm. For one thing, the report indicated that only five missiles had been fired. Had the United States been launching an actual nuclear attack, he reasoned, ICBMs would be raining down on them….Petrov was initially praised for his cool head but later came under criticism…”

A subsequent investigation “found that the satellite in question had picked up the sun’s reflection off the cloud tops and somehow interpreted that as a missile launch.”

Petrov years later would receive honors in the west including the World Citizen Award “in recognition of the part he played in averting a catastrophe” and, posthumously, in 2018, the Future of Life Award. This, as noted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, came while just “blocks away” at the UN “politicians’ were discussing North Korea’s nuclear arsenal yet “none mentioned the greater threat from the many thousands of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russian arsenals that have nearly been unleashed by mistake dozens of times in the past in a seemingly never-ending series of mishaps and understanding.”

The U.S. military “has three designations for nuclear accidents,” John R. Kotson, who “spent 35 years developing electronic systems for military ground, air and space programs,” wrote in an article last year.

“Broken Arrow…accidents involving nuclear weapons; Faded giant…accidents involving non-weapon reactors; and NUCFLASH…accidents that may lead to war.” One NUCFLASH, he said, “occurred when a bear climbed over a security fence” at a U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command base near Duluth “setting off ‘intruder alarms’ at other SAC bases. A wiring error at one base illuminated “Nuke Russia now.” Nuclear armed B52 bombers were on the runway awaiting take-off when the error was discovered.”

Kotson asserted: “We need verifiable nuclear treaties with our adversaries to avoid mistakes.”

Colonel Felt also said in his May 20th address at the opening of the SWORD laboratory: “One of the reasons we stood up the U.S. Space Force was to ensure our nation has the capabilities to deter any threats in space. Our job in the SWORD lab will be to continue to develop resilient and innovative technologies that will protect our nation and allies from threats by our adversaries.”

Also at the event and speaking was Brigadier General Heather L. Pringle, commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) of which the SWORD laboratory will be a part. AFRL is based at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio.

“What happens next,” she said, “is we’ll have our AFRL researchers, students and industry working side by side thinking of new ways to benefit our space warfighters to get our most important technologies out the door to support them. I am very excited to be part of this SWORD lab.”

Meanwhile, the new U.S. Space Force is seeking more funds from Congress. Donald Trump said as he called in 2018 for it to be established: “When it comes to defending America it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.”

President Joe Biden has not rolled back the formation of the U.S. Space Force. Also, in passing enabling legislation to create the Space Force in 2019, fellow Democrats in Congress largely voted with Republicans to establish in 2019 the sixth branch of the U.S. military. The Space Force is asking Congress for $17.4 billion as its 2022 budget. The $2 billion increase from this year is “for the domain that’s increasingly important to future conflicts and joint war fighting,” says C4isrmet, a website that describes itself as providing Media for the Intelligence Age Military.”

Further, C4isrmet ran an article last week headlined: “Space Force seeks $832 million in classified spending, new missions and more in annual wish list.” This, it was explained, as it seeks to “develop a war fighting punch.”

The forming of the U.S. Space Force has come despite the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, formally titled “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” It was put together by the U.S., the United Kingdom and then Soviet Union, and as of this year has been signed on to by more than 100 nations.

It provides that: “The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind…Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means…States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.”

There have been repeated efforts at the UN over the last several decades to expand the Outer Space Treaty with a “Prevention of An Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS) treaty that would not only prohibit the deployment of “weapons of mass destruction” in space but bar the placement of any weapons in space. Canada, China and Russia have led in advocating the PAROS treaty but the U.S., through a series of U.S. administrations, has essentially vetoed passage of it at the UN.

“Despite the existence of the Outer Space Treaty that was created to ensure peaceful use of space, the United States has inserted the new U.S. Space Force which has one clear goal—control and domination of the heavens,” said Gagnon of the Maine-based Global Network (www.space4peace.org). “A key solution to this growing peril of war in space is the creation of a new, expanded treaty, the PAROS treaty. But, sadly, the U.S. is heading in the opposite direction and now, with automation being added, an enormous new danger is being inserted into the challenge of keeping space for peace: automation of space warfare.”

As to the opening of the SWORD laboratory, “this illustrates for me,” said Gagnon, “how local communities, in need of economic development, come groveling to the Pentagon for any kind of weapons production no matter the ethical and real-world dangers these factories of destruction present.” Meanwhile, “The aerospace industry and its associated agents have become blinded by the quest for profit and power. The wake-up call is being sounded but those in power can’t hear.”


Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and the Beyond Nuclear handbook, The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/11/automation-of-space-warfare/

Air Attack: Sound as Police Weapon

 


 
Graphical user interfaceDescription automatically generated with low confidence

LRAD promotional material, from Genasys website.

The human ear is defenseless. Unable to keep sound out, it must take in all it hears. The beeswax earplugs Odysseus supplied his crew saved them from the Sirens, even as he self-torturingly enjoyed their song after being bound to the mast by his men.

News this week that police had deployed the LRAD (Long-Range Acoustic Device) against protesters resisting the Line 3 pipeline in northern Minnesota reminded us again of the potential of sound as weapon. “Device” is a euphemism: a gun, by this formulation, is merely a bullet-delivery-device. The manufacturer’s own descriptions of its range of LRAD products stresses the contraptions capacity for “communication.”

A year ago this sound cannon was used quell protests in Portland. On the local CBS station news on June 6, 2020 the city’s police explain that the weapon, used to combat protesters the previous night, is only dangerous when used improperly. Trust the authorities with tools of sounding warfare at your peril.

History’s most infamous musical assault exploited the defenselessness of the ear. The massively distorted music blasted at the Branch Davidians in Waco in 1993 by the FBI wore down the compound dwellers over the seven-week siege like a battleship pounding the shore. The final firestorm was prepared by sleep-preventing decibel levels themselves amplified by horrifying aesthetic crimes, the most heinous being Nancy Sinatra’s “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’.” The G-men viciously varied their playlist, jumping from sing-along Christmas carols in saccharine 1950s-style arrangements to Tibetan chants and cavalry bugle blasts. (Historical-philosophical aside: condemned by Plato as effeminate and corrupting, the Mixolydian mode starts on the note of G. Plato’s rant against the mode takes on absurdly convincing contours when one pictures the long-time chieftain of the G-Men—i.e., Mixolydian Men—J. Edgar Hoover dancing round FBI headquarters in a ball gown, never mind that that claims of his cross-dressing have been debunked by skeptics.)

Just how seriously perpetrators of sonic violence take their music can be judged by the care with which they assemble their repertoires of destruction and despair.

Cult leader David Koresh, himself a failed pop singer, had begun the high-decibel musical exchange in Waco by first bombarding the FBI with recordings of his own happy-clappy pop.  This siege-busting tactic ceased when the federal forces cut the compound’s power supply.

Waco was not the first instance of musical warfare. A few years before, the U. S. had tried to ferret out opera-lover Manuel Noriega from his Panama City redoubt with a non-stop heavy metal bombardment: Madame Butterfly and La Traviata were no match for Black Sabbath and Judas Priest.  The sonic assault was finally halted under pressure from the Vatican.

In Guantanamo Bay and other prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq the British rights group Reprieve claimed that interrogation techniques involved the uses of extremely loud music by AC/DC, and Metallica as well as theme songs from children’s television shows like Barney & Friends.  These horrors were detailed by Andy Worthington in Counterpunch in 2009.

Unfettered by earplugs, anti-noise headphones or other defensive technologies, the ear is helpless to protect itself. The eyes have lids, the ears don’t.  In A Clockwork Orange when the violent sociopath and Beethovenian fanatic Alex is re-programmed to harmless passivity, his eyes must be propped open so he can be forced to witness acts of violence on the screen while being infused with a nausea-inducing drug. By contrast, the glorious strains of Alex’s beloved 9th symphony of Ludwig Van that accompany the images enter unimpeded into his body.

As Plato and many other writers have known, music works directly on the soul. There is nothing more uplifting nor potentially devastating.

Fifteen years ago New York University Professor Suzanne Cusick began writing about the militarizing effort to harness the power of sound: “On November 18, 1998, now-defunct Synetics Corporation [was contracted] to produce a tightly focused beam of infrasound–that is, vibration waves slower than 100 vps–meant to produce effects that range from ‘disabling or lethal.’ In 1999, Maxwell Technologies patented a HyperSonic Sound System, another ‘highly directional device … designed to control hostile crowds or disable hostage takers.”’ The same year Primex Physics International patented both the “Acoustic Blaster,” which produced “repetitive impulse waveforms” of 165dB, directable at a distance of 50 feet, for ‘antipersonnel applications,’ and the Sequential Arc Discharge Acoustic Generator, which produces ‘high intensity impulsive sound waves by purely electrical means.’”

The LRAD was developed some twenty years ago by American Technology Corporation, which then changed its name to the LRAD Corporation, rebranding again in 2019 as the more indistinct yet ominous-sounding, Genasys Corporation. Early on manufacturer praised its weapon’s capability  for “projecting a ‘strips of sound’ (15 to 30 inches wide) at an average of 120 dB (maxing at 151 dB) that will be intelligible for 500 to 1,000 meters (depending on which model you buy), the LRAD is designed to hail ships, issue battlefield or crowd-control commands, or direct an “attention-getting and highly irritating deterrent tone for behavior modification.”

Wielded by the 361st PsyOps company, the LRAD was deployed to “prepare the battlefield” in the siege of Fallujah in November of 2004. The device was armed with AC/DC’s “Hells’ Bells” and “Shoot to Thrill.”

As Cusick pointed out, the great advantage of sonic weapons and torture implements is that they leave no mark on the victim. The young Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national resident in the United Kingdom, was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and subsequently transferred to various C. I. A. Black Sites. After being held in a Kabul prison for eighteen months in complete darkness, he was transferfed to Guantanamo in 2004.

In a 2009 interview soon after his release from prison and return to Britain, Mohamed described his sonic ordeal: “There were loudspeakers in the cell, pumping out a deafening volume, non-stop, 24 hours a day. They played the same CD for a month, The Eminem Show. When it was finished it went back to the beginning and started again. I couldn’t sleep. I had no idea whether it was day or night.” In contrast to the other forms of torture he suffered—as in the scalpel he claims was used to sliced his genitals—the sonic torture left no physical trace. In 2010 Mohamed received an undisclosed settlement that brought to a conclusion his several suits against the British government for concluding in his detainment and torture.

Meanwhile, the LRAD had been busy not just in foreigner theaters of operation but in the American Homeland. A few months after Mohamed’s was freed from Guantanamo, the LRAD dispersed crowds protesting the G20 summit in Pittsburg in September of 2009—the devices first documented use for such purposes in the United States. It’s dishonor roll of deployment continues to the present: from Occupy Oakland action in 2011, to NYPD measures against 2014 protestors of Eric Garner’s murder, to 2016 anti-Trump rallies in San Diego, to the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, DC, to last year’s BLM demonstrations from Portland to Kenosha—and now at the Headwaters of the Mississippi.

DAVID YEARSLEY is a long-time contributor to CounterPunch and the Anderson Valley Advertiser. His latest book is Sex, Death, and Minuets: Anna Magdalena Bach and Her Musical NotebooksHe can be reached at  dgyearsley@gmail.com

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/11/air-attack-sound-as-police-weapon/

How They Stole $50 Trillion. How We Take It Back

 

 



Between the mid-1930s and mid-1970s worker organizing and unrest created a degree of economic democracy not achieved since. It was quite an accomplishment. After several decades of increased standards of living for most US workers, corporate actors organized a counter-attack that aimed to reverse those gains.

The mid-20 century was no golden age. But, it does stand as a measure of just how much — and just how little — economic democracy the existing order will allow. Black and Brown workers, for example, saw the gains last and least but suffered from the austerity counter-attack first and foremost. While progressive reforms won during those four mid-century decades did help working people, the system still belonged to the bosses and they still called the shots.

Against the backdrop of Cold War anti-communism, the US Congress restricted workers’ rights while top labor “leaders” pledged their allegiance to the empire. New global institutions such as the IMF were the cutting edge of austerity protecting the rule of big money by pitting workers vs. workers worldwide.

The 1970’s: The Great Austerity Begins

The deep multi-faceted crisis of the late 60s and early 70s undermined the existing social contract. Feeling threatened, the elites shifted costs and risks to where they had historically been: the backs of everyday people. Better, they thought, that workers struggle to survive than begin to dream of democracy and organize themselves into political movements. The most effective corporate strategy was wage reduction. Over the next four decades, they cut wages in half for millions and redistributed at least $50 trillion upwards.

The ruling class vision was set out by soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell in his infamous 1971 memo for the Chamber of Commerce. For Lewis, corporate elites should see themselves as a ruling class and act accordingly. While Powell issued the call, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded in 1973, became the vanguard pushing legislative reforms to suit corporate interests.

The crackdown on workers included military reforms. In response to the Vietnam Era peace movement, the politicians and generals replaced mass conscription with the illusion of an “all-volunteer” army. Since 1973 the war machine has had a vested interest in austerity because poverty and insecurity pushed millions of young people into its ranks. They swapped an open form of coercion like the draft for a covert form of coercion: a poverty draft cloaked as “opportunity” for working-class kids.

Prison slavery has a long history. Although it was legalized by the 13th Amendment, unions successfully lobbied to restrict its use during the heyday of the New Deal. By 1979 however, Congress joined the corporate counteroffensive and passed the Justice System Improvement Act and other pet projects of ALEC.

New laws opened the door to the rapid expansion of prison labor to match the rapidly growing ranks of the incarcerated. These corporate reforms also cemented public-private partnerships. Congressional action impoverished families of the imprisoned and drove down wages for all of us by providing the cheapest possible labor for the government and corporations.[1]

The military, penal system, Congress, the Democrats, and Republicans became the agents of austerity and the tools of corporate power.

The Corporate Two-Step

The mid-1970 were pivotal. Workers would face greater insecurity as corporations consolidated their position through a remarkable two-pronged strategy that was decades in the making.

On one hand, the corporations successfully gained political rights and personhood under the 14th and 1st Amendments — gutting the old Constitution and recasting it in their own image. Corporations became “We the People” instead of actual people and their vast wealth became “free speech.” Using the Bill of Rights as their shield, corporations claimed the protection of individuals against the heavy hand of the state. This legal fiction is now the “law of the land.”

At the same time corporations acted more and more like the tyrannical state itself — even while posing as protected persons. Without political power, they simply could not maximize profits. Maximum profits through maximum power became the true goal and true method of neoliberalism.

Two landmark Supreme Court decisions (Buckley v. Valeo 1976 and First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978) set the stage for the “corporate domination of the electoral process” finally completed with the 2010 Citizens United decision.[2]

In 1979, The Federal Reserve — long a bastion of corporate power — moved decisively to fight inflation, raising interest rates to historic heights, forcing recession, and boosting unemployment. The “reserve army” of unemployed workers undermined wages and concentrated power and profits in the hands of big capital just as Karl Marx had observed long ago.

Big Unions Retreat

By the late 1970s, attacks on workers were codified in labor contracts — most decisively in the 1979 Chrysler bailout.[3] The United Auto Workers — the trendsetter for US Labor since the 30’s — buckled under by not just accepting the terms of the bailout but pitching it as good for workers.

The Carter Administration and the Democrats, (in control of Presidency,  House, and Senate) led the way. They and their Republican allies worked with bankers, business, and union officials on a $1.5 billion bailout for Chrysler. In classic IMF style, the bankers demanded at least $462 million in cuts to wages and benefits. The joint Corporate/Carter/UAW move was an early “too big to fail” bailout and a sure sign that the merger of the corporation and the state was well underway.

What followed was the long disastrous era of “concession bargaining” as workers and union officials surrendered before the onslaught.[4] By the mid-1980s the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers further undermined worker pay and solidarity by agreeing to multi-tiered wage systems. Multi-tiered labor systems were also pioneered in the liberal haven of higher education where low-paid contingent faculty now far exceed the tenured minority.

These multi-tiered agreements created new class divisions within unions (as if the racist, sexist and ageist divisions weren’t bad enough) and paid second-class workers with lower wages. The new lower classes were either new employees or the temporary and part-time workers that are now common everywhere. Needless to say, two-tiered labor systems undermined worker solidarity. They mask the conflict between workers and bosses behind the conflict between different classes of workers. It was classic divide and conquer.

As unions divided their own members and failed to deliver the goods, they simultaneously turned away from large-scale organizing efforts. The slow retreat of labor turned into a demoralizing rout with devastating long-term consequences for the working class.

Chart, line chart Description automatically generated

The Reagan Revolution

It went from bad to worse when Ronald Reagan took office. He fired striking air traffic controllers and staffed the National Labor Relations Board with hacks hostile to workers’ rights. The Reagan Revolution enacted more structural reforms: Republicans and Democrats passed the new tax, budget, money, and debt policies that would complete the groundwork for the ongoing redistribution of wealth. Together, the major parties rigged the economy.[5] Here are a few of their achievements.

+ Dramatic cuts to tax rates for corporations and the rich.

+ Tax on Social Security and Unemployment for the first time — never to be reversed

+ Continue shifting budget priorities toward the military

+ Debt and money policies to favor dividends, interest, and rent — the income sources of the wealthy

The “race to the bottom” and the “race to the top” would continue through the following decades as the US continued structural reforms such as replacing welfare for the poor with corporate welfare. When Clinton ended “welfare as we know it” he flooded the bottom of the labor market with easy to exploit low-wage workers.

The pandemic only accelerated extreme inequality. Congress propped up the rigged economy with the 2020 CARES Act. CARES was a power-play enforcing austerity and inequality for us while subsiding corporations with trillions.[6] The US government also took the unprecedented step of directly purchasing corporate bonds (debt). The government can retire corporate debt alright, just not educational or medical debt.

Austerity was created by structural changes and can only be repealed the same way.

How We Take It Back

History follows a twisted and tangled path. By their relentless resistance to reform, the US ruling class is making revolutionary solutions possible if not inevitable. The ruler’s drive for total domination — at home and abroad — sows the seeds of their own defeat.

Austerity is a form of social control, not an economic necessity. Nothing reveals that more clearly than the simple fact that other wealthy capitalist countries took the path of reform.

We could have labor law reform like the repeal of the Taft-Hartley “slave labor” bill; the passage and enforcement of the PRO Act; a $25 minimum wage effective immediately; national universal healthcare; national month-long paid vacations; shorter workweeks; national sick time; parental leave, the dramatic expansion of social security; free public higher education and debt cancellation for all medical and educational debts. Prison labor could be abolished.

These universal benefits would limit the most predatory effects of US capitalism. Such reforms have long since been achieved by other capitalist countries but are out of reach for our corporate two-party system. For the rulers to call off the class war by eliminating poverty and economic anxiety is to risk losing control. That is the lesson they learned from the mid-twentieth century.

Even if halfway reforms are passed, the problem, as the history of austerity shows, is that any reforms that leave the corporate empire intact will be open to powerful counterattack and cancellation. Since the ruling class refuses real reform they put revolutionary change on the agenda.

True solutions must place people and planet first. How can we restore economic democracy without reverting to the twin environmental catastrophe of infinite economic growth and perpetual war? Industrial expansion and forever wars must come off the table if we want to avoid climate chaos and mass death.

In the end, expropriation and redistribution may be the only practical solution since that would limit the need to produce new wealth. That means we must retake the $50 trillion stolen by the 1% and spread it around equal.

Yes, expropriate the billionaires and convert the industries already deeply intertwined with government into public assets.

When fossil fuels, banking, the Military-Industrial Complex, Big Tech, and Big Pharma are converted into democratically controlled public utilities we will have true structural changes.

When subsidies and political support — similar in scale to that now granted corporations — are directed to worker-owned enterprises we would have workplace democracy as a structural feature. These deep changes are far beyond anything the existing corporate order could envision or deliver.

Big historic problems require big historic solutions.

Call it economic and workplace democracy, call it socialism or revolution, call it love or call it treason — I call it the only game in town. It’s democracy or catastrophe.

Notes.

1/ Heather Ann Thompson/New Labor Forum, “The Prison Industrial Complex: A Growth Industry in a Shrinking Economy” Also see Mike Elk and Bob Sloan/The NationThe Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor

2/ The quote is in Justice Steven’s dissenting opinion in Citizens United. Also, see Ciara Torres-Spelliscy/Brennan Center for a great short review of the judicial roots of corporate personhood.

3/See Lawrence Mishel/Economic Policy Institute, “The Enormous Impact of Eroded Collective Bargaining on Wages.

4/ Kim Moody lays out concession bargaining in “Concession Bargaining and the Decline of Industrial Unionism in the 1980s.”

5/ The Democrats controlled the House for all eight years of the Reagan administration and had both House and Senate the last two years. Kevin Phillips’s old bestseller details the “Reagan Revolution.” The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath (1990)

6/ See Robert Brenner’s “Escalating Plunder” in New Left Review, for an excellent analysis of CARES.


Richard Moser writes at befreedom.co where this article first appeared.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/25/how-they-stole-50-trillion-how-we-take-it-back/

Infrastructure Wars II: On the Human Right to Water and Sanitation

 

 


“Who lived and who died largely came down to two factors:  your race and your income.”

– Jonathan Mahler

In May 2021 I ventured into public debates over the meaning of the word “infrastructure”, suggesting broader and more radical theories .  Particularly around values and visions for our commons, as well as moving beyond the announced Biden infrastructure agenda.  Now I want to talk about water.

Spring turned to summer, under looming imperatives for action to implement “Green New Deal”-style federal policies, for recovery from the pandemic crash, and for general purposes of surviving increasingly grim prospects for democracy.  Crucial months were consumed in patently fruitless negotiations between the Biden administration and the GOP death cult.  Now the idea of broader frames is truly emergent.

The debate over “infrastructure” was rapidly enclosured – reframed by corporate power for their profits – as if it were merely about evaluation of the Biden administration.  To be meaningful, which it really should be – this being our lives, our water and all – the conversation (as I argued in “Infrastructure Wars”) simply has to be broader and deeper than that!  So let’s try again.

The painfully real, basic and dialectical facts are: 1) Timing and context are everything; 2) This past year has changed us all in profound ways; and 3) The biggest thing that has not changed is probably Biden’s anticipated failure becoming actual failure to accomplish much of anything.  Any progressive expectations for the former senator from MBNA and life long organization man were always delusional.  So let’s figure out where we’re really at and act accordingly.

If you think about it for more than a few seconds – please – consider the definite possibility that in historical and generational terms we are experiencing an emerging new mass critical consciousness against structurally violent racial capitalism.  Under many diverse trending signifiers, leaders, labels and memes, intensified massively by crisis since 2020, such deep historical and intergenerational shifts in consciousness don’t simply ‘go away’.  We change with them.

This keys dramatically into the new demographics of the US polity, threatening a People of color majority in the near term, and therefore plagued by constant lies about election integrity abused for the sake of voter suppression. All of this intimately embedded together with the other democracy deficits and crisis-related ‘mental health’ explosions we face, under the structurally corrupt failures of the dominant corporate racial capitalist brands and ideas to fix anything.  Thus debates about the meaning of ‘infrastructure’ as a way to obstruct the necessary changes.

Think about everything that goes into this crazy, violent alt-civil war situation for a little while, and please consider: all this heavy stuff we’re going thru collectively may be much more important in historical and political terms than Biden’s inevitable failure.  No disrespect to the man or the imperial cipher, that’s just true anyway!  This may partly explain how formerly marginalized causes get traction in our times: the Movement for Black Lives, human rights for LGBTQ Folks, the myriad shifts in consciousness that are so often misrepresented and defamed as ‘identity politics’, the bizarre debate over defining ‘infrastructure’ under discussion here, and so many other Gramscian “morbid phenomena”.  To varying degrees folks campaigning for such transformative revolutionary reforms recognize this pending new reality we call our lives in more realistic new terms!  Therefore their messages register.  Historic change flows from this process. Always.

With these thoughts and the future government of our water foremost in mind, a radical proposal: Under these circumstances, our strategic approach to “infrastructure” should articulate and build on the fact that everything we need to reallocate People, resources and our work and vital needs to protect and enrich our commons is our basic infrastructure.  We should decide for ourselves what we want to do, and then do it.

We should deal with the question of defining “infrastructure” like socially determined gender identity, critical race theory, socialist political economy or other frame-breaking concepts.  We will transform our infrastructure, on our terms and for our benefit.  The things we’ve learned about our own lives in this fundamental breakdown of US-centered racial capitalism will help chart the development of our infrastructure of survival.

Recovery and transformation, not uninterrogated ‘normality’, must be our praxis.  “We just know, in a whole new way, how much we need each other.” (Laurie Penny)  We better act like it!  Without that I see no way forward.  With it, in the context of resistance and rebellion that feeds study, understanding and direct action challenging racial capital, in order to ultimately transform it and our commons future, we are in the struggle.  I like to say freedom school is always in session, because it fits so many political fights that will follow for sure.

What ‘power-over’ agency, human and social capacities, life goals, values, visions and options can we collaborate into existence now, for surviving, commoning and democratizing the massive crisis that’s already engulfing us?  Debates about infrastructure in this time and place of the collapse of a modern industrial social system will miss the whole transformative point, unless we start by fighting for our own vital interests here and now.  We must center human rights- and commons-based political economic direct actions aimed at resisting and rebelling against “normal” racial capitalism, as the most viable response to our crisis situation, at least as a transitional step toward the “movement which abolishes the present state of things” in beloved community, which is the only thing that will save our water.  This is a time to be radical.

The incredible chief editor of Counterpunch Jeffrey St. Clair evokes “the fundamentals” driving Biden’s political existence: US-based imperial racial capitalism in action.  Biden told favored donors during the 2019 primary that “nothing would fundamentally change.” St. Clair calls “The fundamentals … something deeper (than the status quo), embedded in the functional structure of the Republic. … those core functions that maintain the inequities of power and money in the US system…”  He strikes an astonishingly rich infrastructural vein:

“The fundamentals didn’t change and won’t change. The ever-expanding military budget will remain sacrosanct, corporate behavior will be deregulated, fossil fuels will power the economy until they’re depleted, health care will remain a for-profit industry, the poor will be mercilessly policed, immigrants will be exploited for cheap labor and detained and deported when they become inconvenient, the nuclear arsenal will be continually and provocatively upgraded, working-class people will be kept buried in debt, wages will be kept as low as possible, the public commons will be turned over to extractive industries at subsidized rates, Israel will be kept stocked with weapons and get out of jail cards and Cuba will be slowly strangled with sanctions until it renounces its revolution and pays reparations for kicking the CIA’s ass at the Bay of Pigs.”  ‘Normal’.  Sick.

Wolfgang Streeck’s “How Will Capitalism End?” concisely theorizes many diverse “ways in which the tension … between demands for social rights and the workings of the market express itself today”. (emphasis added)  The ‘fundamentals’ demand that imperial corporate leaders reproduce class power within racial capitalism by sacrificing People’s social rights for the benefit of ‘the market’, i.e., ‘the 1%’, because that’s what they do.  That’s fundamental.  It has to change.

All of which is by way of introducing frames for transforming our society’s policies, customs and practices around how we treat water.

Water, Money & Racial Capitalism

When she spoke in Detroit in spring of 2014 and advised us to file our formal UN human rights complaint against the city for their mass water shut offs, Maude Barlow expressed a basic truth underlying today’s infrastructure wars: “If we understand what’s really happening with our water and deal with it appropriately, it will help us solve all our other problems.”  That’s how our new, broad understandings of the real roles of infrastructure in our lives should proceed.  Following the lead of the water protectors, we will move from the necessity to make changes for survival, to transformation of our local, regional and world systems.

In Streeckian tension, between demands for social rights and the workings of the market, the governing authorities of southeastern Michigan faced and accomplished regional restructuring challenges around our water in 2013-14.  The tensions between Wall Street’s financial oligarchy and oppressed Detroiters’ human right to water and sanitation were brutally resolved.  500 shut off notices issued per week, attacking thousands of Detroiters to demonstrate the requisite austerity, dedication to bondholders over everyone else, and the other quasi-privatized elements of the Great Lakes Water Authority’s (GLWA) regional takeover of our water.  In essence, the duly constituted government authorities of the  state of Michigan, the city’s leadership under emergency management, and the three suburban counties of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne facilitated long term 50-year-with-option-to-renew leases of the regional water infrastructure. Impressed by (among other opaque swaps and sweetheart financial deals) the mass water shut offs ordered in the spring of 2014, Wall Street bondholders financed this restructuring at relatively advantageous interest rates.  This is hailed as a triumph of regional collaboration.

That’s where it flows today; the deadly consequences of the 2019-21 Covid pandemic proved the advocates like Maude Barlow of the human right to water and sanitation were right all along.  As Jonathan Mahler observes in his timely and insightful June 2021 New York Times Sunday magazine feature, quoted at the beginning of this piece, access to life-sustaining infrastructure under deeply inequitable capitalist social relations is a matter of life or death.  The human right to water and sanitation always was essential.  We may know, in a whole new way, how much we need each other, but that didn’t just become important in the pandemic.  It was always true.  Crucially we must act on it going forward.

Mahler’s perspective on reopening New York City in 2021 tells us a lot about our water challenges.[i]  The Detroit water shut offs are on moratorium until 2022, while GLWA’s Hydra-headed regional Hydro-thority, serving a suburban consortium of member-partners (formerly known as wholesale customer communities), decides how to move forward with their continuing campaign to restructure our water and sewer systems, using as much federal covid recovery money as they can get.  What can we do about it?

First we have to understand how Wall Street debt-financed water infrastructure affects our water commons:  Wolfgang Streeck uses the ironically named supposed virtue of credit – ‘liquidity’ – to explain the basic power dynamic involved, which is both taboo in mainstream discussions and ultimately determinative:

“By providing its customers with liquidity, the financial industry established control over them, as is the very nature of credit.  Financialization turns the private sector into an international private government disciplining national political communities and their public governments, without being in any way democratically accountable.  The power of money … takes the place of the power of votes.” (How Will Capitalism End? P. 24) (emphasis in original)

Mahler locates the proximate cause of giant, rich and sophisticated New York City’s excessive vulnerability to the covid pandemic – the brutal siege of mass death, ambulance sirens and mobile morgues that brought the city to its knees in the winter of 2020-21 – in the perfect place: the city’s restructuring in the face of near-bankruptcy in the mid-1970s.  The quasi-privatized neoliberal-investment-program-cum-class-struggle-dynamic that created the infamous “tale of two cities”, one thriving, white and rich, one oppressed, of color and poor, characteristic of the neoliberal turn.  After exposure of that model’s fatal contradictions by the nightmares of 2020-21 we know in a new way how much we need each other.  Going forward we must start to act like we understand this essential aspect of our communities!

The very same New York 1970s precedent – a reverse-Robin Hood looting operation, based on the same bogus ‘solutions’, was expressly sold to Detroit, Flint and the rest of urban Michigan by Rick Snyder, Jones Day and all the horses they rode in on after the Great Recession crash of 2008.  The cause of New York’s covid debacle was the same suite of policies they are using to regionalize and finance our water.  Truth finally enters the blather of corporate conversation about development, re-newal, -structuring, -surrection, ‘vibrancy’, middle class aspirations and society-without-class-struggle that’s still being pursued by predatory nonprofits like “Detroit Future City”.  Our next step must be to initiate the necessary deep structural changes to address the inequitable ‘tale of two cities’ dynamic, and create “a more equitable city”.  The way to get there flows thru the water.

Mahler provides a perceptive and favorable view of the “neat accounting trick” involved in a Harlem community land trust public investment to preserve affordable housing.  Ironically, the narrative has transformed here in 50 years, from the New York City restructuring-model bill of goods sold to Detroit, to cooperative land tenure innovation of the kind being pursued by visionary organizers like Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, and the Peoples Platform in Detroit!  Mahler’s key point is valid in Detroit as well as New York: “It feels possible to think very differently about how the city works and for whom; about how it approaches development, education, health care, criminal justice, transportation, even its cultural institutions.”  After 600,000 covid deaths and counting, it’s about time!

Water Affordability Beyond Mere “Assistance”

Like community land trusts, structurally affordable, income-indexed water and sewer rates for the poor, to maintain service and protect public health, social justice and the commons, is a transformational policy whose time has come.

We need a new common sense that fits our time.  Streeck argues persuasively (following Karl Polanyi) that further commodification of capital’s three “fictitious commodities”, labor, land and money (People, Water and Commons?) is unrealistic and counterproductive.  The ability to leverage our essential assets for a better interest rate does not change the urgent human rights and structural survival challenges that are constitutive of our crisis.  After the Hydra-headed abuses of poisoning Flint and the mass shut offs in Detroit, one simply wonders what is disputed or even controversial about the failure of current policy.  The need for new policies is obvious and urgent.

What does it mean to think differently about our water?  Like New York struggling to redefine its legacy as an imperial financial center and immigrant-friendly community where anything is possible, it means Detroit reasserts our incredible legacy as a movement city that changes the world.  Our water justice movement’s decades-long policy demand to protect the human right to water and sanitation, via water rates limited by income for the poor, is being used today as a model in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago and elsewhere.  It has come of age.

Our unique position in the very midst of the planet’s greatest resources of fresh water, in the context of our history of class struggle, racial justice and movement culture, in this moment of urgently necessary transformation of fundamental policy, demands new thinking and new laws.  Authorities’ adoption of the income-based rates approach to the human right to water and sanitation for low income working People will further mass collective recognition that we’re talking about real survival here, not merely political economic theory.  This time there really is ‘no alternative’ to Detroit’s movement for water justice, human liberation and transformation of everything, led by rising youth whose generational ship just came in.

The mainstream is corrupt and bankrupt.  In conformity with the Biden-identified approach of framing every issue as an opportunity for bankers, the federal government is now proposing a new Low Income Water Assistance Program (LIWAP) that would use some of the covid relief money to assist low-income customers with water bills.  That is, the familiar band-aid ‘assistance’ model, in lieu of affordable rates for the poor.  Structurally unaffordable bills get paid by an elite-controlled fund one time, and the unsustainable debt cycle starts all over again.

Here is the failure to think in new ways.  The “short-term emergency relief program designed to help eligible low-income households pay down arrearages and retain water service” they propose in the teeth of ongoing catastrophe totally misconceives the issue.  It proposes a transparently fake “solution”, just so the back water bill gets paid one time.  It’s a sleight-of-hand way to reproduce the mass violation of the human right to water and sanitation that contributed significantly to Detroit’s excessive and adverse vulnerability to the covid pandemic, i.e., to reality.  Anybody who doesn’t understand we need to change that has not been paying attention.  Generally they’ve been paid pretty well for their attention to the debt relations controlling our water.

Like the mass water shut offs for the benefit of bondholder ‘comfort’ that ushered in the  GLWA via bankruptcy court in 2014, the latest LIWAP ‘solution’ of throwing money at water utilities, so they can continue to impose structurally unaffordable rates on poor People, is just another one of the “ways in which the tension in democratic capitalism between demands for social rights and the workings of free markets expresses itself today.” (Streeck, P. 88) “…[B]lind compliance with financial investors is propounded as the only rational and responsible behavior.” (P.93)  The coming generations will not tolerate this.

Policy responses must be grounded in reality rather than outmoded dogma backed by raw class and racial power – or they lack legitimacy.  The initial LIWAP proposal appears on its face to be grounded in exploitation of racial capitalism and a destructive neoliberal “normality” that is so abnormal as to be really perverse.  Instead of flushing the emergency relief money down the big LIWAP toilet of “assistance” without adequate relief from structurally unaffordable water and sewer services for low-income People, these funds must be used as a down payment, to wipe out arrearages, and implement income-based water affordability rates for those who can demonstrate need going forward.  Anything less is not only totally unacceptable; it will pave the way for even greater disasters.

Streeck describes the way we misconceive standard, ‘normal’ mainstream capitalist economic thinking – such as GLWA’s adamant insistence on playing the bond  markets to fund our water and sewer systems, essentially borrowing money for the purpose from the rich and paying them back with interest instead of charging them fairly the full rates – creates and reproduces injustices for our less well-off brethren and sistren:

“…[S]tandard economics is basically the theoretical exaltation of a political economic social order serving those well-endowed with market power, in that it equates their interest with the general interest.  It represents the distributional claims of the owners of productive capital as technical imperatives of good, in the sense of scientifically sound, economic management.” (P. 76)  How convenient that this allegedly neutral, quantifiable and data-driven paradigm of Wall Street power jibes so comfortably with free-riding white privilege and middle-class illusions of suburban dominance over urban bankruptcy.  Let the water shut offs commence – Not!

Streeck summarizes the fundamental results of innovations like GLWA as a powerful form of privatization of democracy and public finance: “Privatization of investment in physical and social infrastructure gives rise to a growing private industry operating in what used to be the public sector. … [in] the shift from a redistributive towards a neoliberal state that abandons to civil society and the market its responsibility to provide for social equity and social cohesion.” (P. 138)

The Trojan Horse LIWAP assistance funding is only an early cut in a major lobbying war – a corporate/state financial free for all – now underway over “pots of money” for pandemic relief funds and our subject of “infrastructure”, how to define, fund, and transform it.  A trillion or more dollars will go to someone for something.  Our margin of error is gone.  The money must go to those who really need it to survive.  It will come from the rich.  In the process we’ll transform racial capitalism into a human rights-based society that protects and enriches our commons, or we’ll die trying.  Water is a key example of what Streeck describes as “political goods”, those “collective goods which are indivisible and must be produced, or at least decided upon, by those who benefit from them, and indeed by their collectivity: social solidarity, distributive justice and the general rights and duties that constitute citizenship.” (P. 107)  GLWA passed on their opportunity to do that in 2014, and now we have the urgent need to get it right.  Therefore, if we solve our water challenges it will teach us how to proceed.

The alternative to our desperately needed transformations is ‘normality’ of our grotesquely unequal and unjust white racial plutocracy, reproduced by an ugly and corrupt lobbying battle for funds that will inevitably kill any decent new policies regarding our precious water.  No way! What’s at stake is the end of racial capitalism, and transformation of our social systems, for the project of pursuing and implementing revolutionary reforms that are needed for our very survival.  All the things we must do to survive our intersectional crises, redefined as resistance and rebellion against this corrupt, evil, self-serving racist system, are our infrastructure for transforming it.  The water will show us the way.

Notes.

[i] Mahler’s piece brilliantly summarizes the ways the unsustainable, racist and unjust ‘tale of two cities’ dynamic is created (in Detroit as well): “ The roots of today’s divided New York can be traced back to the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. With manufacturing and tourism in decline, the city’s tax base was shrinking, prompting cuts to services like policing and garbage collection. Middle-class New Yorkers began fleeing to the suburbs. Immigration was slowing, further limiting economic growth. New York was going broke. The city’s sprawling network of public institutions, subsidized housing and mass transit were no longer the tent poles of a great working-class city; they were unaffordable emblems of the excesses of big government.

Washington refused to bail the city out. Instead, it was the private sector that came to the rescue. In the 1930s, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia spent his Sundays driving around New York, thinking of things his government could build. Fifty years later, the city’s leaders left it to private actors, offering generous incentives to anyone who would build something, employ someone or help repair some public institution. By the most visible measures, the plan worked. Old single-room-occupancy hotels became luxury co-ops; new glass skyscrapers like Trump Tower rose; neighborhoods were rediscovered and reinvented. Central Park was reborn. People from all over the world again flocked to the city, to visit and to live. But there was a problem. What had been a blueprint for emergency action had become the playbook for managing the city.” (emphasisadded)'

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/25/infrastructure-wars-ii-on-the-human-right-to-water-and-sanitation/