V. I. Lenin The Nascent Trend of Imperialist Economism[8] Written: Written in August-September 1916 Published: First published in the magazine Bolshevik No. 15, 1929. Signed: N. Lenin. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 23, pages 13-21. Translated: M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and Others Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2002 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. • README The old Economism[9] of 1894–1902 reasoned thus: the Narodniks[10] have been refuted; capitalism has triumphed in Russia. Consequently, there can be no question of political revolution. The practical conclusion: either “economic struggle be left to the workers and political struggle to the liberals”—that is a curvet to the right—or, instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution. That curvet to the left was advocated in a pamphlet, now forgotten, of a Russian Economist of the late nineties.[11] Now a new Economism is being born. Its reasoning is similarly based on the two curvets: “Right”—we are against the “right to self-determination” (i.e., against the liberation of oppressed peoples, the struggle against annexations—that has not yet been fully thought out or clearly stated). “Left”—we are opposed to a minimum programme (i. e., opposed to struggle for reforms and democracy) as “contradictory” to socialist revolution. It is more than a year now since this nascent trend was revealed to several comrades at the Berne Conference in the spring of 1915. At that time, happily, only one comrade, who met with universal disapproval, insisted on these ideas of imperialist Economism right up to the end of the Conference and formulated them in writing in special “theses”. No one associated himself with these theses.[12] Subsequently two others associated themselves with this comrade’s theses against self-determination (unaware that the question was inextricably linked with the general line of the afore-mentioned “theses”).[13] But the appearance of the “Dutch programme” in February 1916, published in No. 3 of the Bulletin of the International Socialist = Committee,[14] immediately brought out this “misunderstanding” and again compelled the author of the original theses to restate his imperialist Economism, this time, too, as a whole, and not merely in application to one allegedly “partial” issue. It is absolutely necessary again and again to warn the comrades concerned that they have landed themselves in a quagmire, that their “ideas” have nothing in common either with Marxism or revolutionary Social-Democracy. We can no longer leave the matter “in the dark”: that would only encourage ideological confusion and direct it into the worst possible channel of equivocation, “private” conflicts, incessant “friction”, etc. Our duty, on the contrary, is to insist, in the most emphatic and categorical manner, on the obligation thoroughly to think out and analyse questions raised for discussion. In its theses on self-determination[1] (which appeared in German as a reprint from No. 2 of Vorbote[15]), the Sotsial-Demokrat[16] editorial board purposely brought the matter into the press in an impersonal, but most detailed, form, emphasising in particular the link between self-determination and the general question of the struggle for reforms, for democracy, the impermissibility of ignoring the political aspect, etc. In his comments on the editorial board’s theses, the author of the original theses (imperialist Economism) comes out in solidarity with the Dutch programme, thereby clearly demonstrating that self-determination is by no means a “partial” question, as exponents of the nascent trend maintain, but a general and basic one. The Dutch programme was laid before representatives of the Zimmerwald Left[17] on February 5–8, 1916, at the Berne meeting of the International Socialist Committee.[18] Not a single member of the Zimmerwald Left, not even Radek, spoke in favour of the programme, for it combines, indiscriminately, such points as “expropriation of the banks” and “repeal of customs tariffs”, “abolition of the first Senate chamber”, etc. The Zimmerwald Left unanimously, with practically no comment, in fact merely with a shrug of the shoulders, dismissed the Dutch programme as patently and wholly unsuitable. However, the author of the original theses, written in the spring of 1915, was so fond of the programme that he declared: “Substantially, that is all I said, too [in the spring of 1915],[2] “the Dutch have thought things out”: “with them the economic aspect is expropriation of the banks and large-scale production [enterprises], the political aspect is a republic and so on. Absolutely correct!” The fact, however, is that the Dutch did not “think things out”, but produced an unthought out programme. It is the sad fate of Russia that some among us grasp at precisely what is not thought out in the newest novelty.... The author of the 1915 theses believes that the Sotsial Demokrat editors lapsed into a contradiction when they “themselves” urged “expropriation of the banks”, and even added the word “immediately” (plus “dictatorial measures”) in § 8 (“Concrete Measures”). “And how I was reproached for this very thing in Berne!” the author of the 1915 theses exclaims indignantly, recalling the Berne debates in the spring of 1915. He forgets or fails to see this “minor” point: in §8 the Sotsial-Demokrat editors clearly distinguish two eventualities: I. The socialist revolution has begun. In that event, they say: “immediate expropriation of the banks”, etc. II. The socialist revolution has not begun, and in that event we shall have to postpone talking about these good things. Since the socialist revolution, in the above-mentioned sense, has obviously not yet begun, the Dutch programme is incongruous. And the author of the theses adds his bit of “profundity” by reverting (he always seems to slip on the same spot!) to his old mistake of turning political demands (like “abolition of the first chamber”?) into a “political formula for social revolution”. Having marked time for a whole year, the author returned to his old mistake. That is the “crux” of his misadventures: he cannot solve the problem of how to link the advent of imperialism with the struggle for reforms and democracy— just as the Economism of blessed memory could not link the advent of capitalism with the struggle for democracy. Hence—complete confusion concerning the “unachievability” of democratic demands under imperialism. Hence—ignoring of the political struggle now, at present, immediately, and at all times, which is impermissible for a Marxist (and permissible only for a Rabochaya Mysl[19] Economist). Hence—the knack of persistently “sliding” from recognition of imperialism to apology for imperialism (just as the Economists of blessed memory slid from recognition of capitalism to apology for capitalism). And so on, and so forth. A detailed examination of the errors the author of the 1915 theses commits in his comments on the Sotsial-Demokrat self-determination theses is impossible, for every line is wrong! After all, you cannot write pamphlets or books in reply to “comments” if the initiators of imperialist Economism spend a whole year marking time and stubbornly refuse to concern themselves with what ought to be their direct party duty if they want to take a serious attitude to political, issues, namely: a considered and articulate statement of what they designate as “our differences”. I am therefore obliged to confine myself to a brief review of how the author applies his basic error and how he “supplements” it. He believes that I contradict myself: in 1914 (in Prosveshcheniye[20]) I wrote that it was absurd to look for self-determination “in the programmes of West-European socialists”,[3] but in 1916 I proclaim self-determination to be especially urgent. It did not occur (!!) to the author that these “programmes” were drawn up in 1875 1880, 1891![21] Now let us take his objections (to the Sotsial-Demokrat self-determination theses) point by point. §1. The same Economist refusal to see and pose political questions. Since socialism creates the economic basis for the abolition of national oppression in the political sphere, therefore our author refuses to formulate our political tasks in this sphere! That’s ridiculous! Since the victorious proletariat does not negate wars against the bourgeoisie of other countries, therefore the author refuses to formulate our political tasks in relation to national oppression!! These are all examples of downright violation of Marxism and logic, or, if you like, manifestations of the logic of the fundamental errors of imperialist Economism. §2. The opponents of self-determination are hopelessly confused in their references to its being “unachievable”. The Sotsial-Demokrat editors explain to them two possible interpretations of unachievability and their error in both cases. Yet the author of the 1915 theses, without even trying to give his interpretation of “unachievability”, i. e., accepting our explanation that two different things are confused here, persists in that confusion!! He ties crises to “imperialist” “policy”: our expert on political economy has forgotten that there were crises before imperialism! To maintain that self-determination is unachievable economically is to confuse the issue, the editors explain. The author does not reply, does not state that he considers self-determination unachievable economically; he abandons his dubious position and jumps over to politics (unachievable “all the same”) though he has been told with the utmost clarity that politically a republic is just as “unachievable” under imperialism as self-determination. Cornered, the author “jumps” again: he accepts a republic and the whole minimum programme only as a “political formula for social revolution”!!! He refuses to defend the “economic” unachievability of self-determination and jumps to politics, maintaining that political unachievability applies to the minimum programme as a whole. Here again there is not a grain of Marxism, not a grain of logic, save the logic of imperialist Economism. The author wants imperceptibly (without stopping to think, without producing anything articulate, without making any effort to work out his programme) to jettison the Social-Democratic Party minimum programme! No wonder he has been marking time for a whole year!! The question of combating Kautskyism is again not a partial, but a general and basic question of modern times: the author does not understand this struggle. Just as the Economists turned the struggle against the Narodniks into an apology for capitalism, so the author turns the struggle against Kautskyism into an apology for Imperialism (that applies also to §3). The mistake of the Kautskyites lies in the fact that they present in a reformist manner such demands, and at such a time, that can be presented only in a revolutionary manner (but the author lapses into the position that their mistake is to advance these demands altogether, just as the Economists “understood” the struggle against Narodism to mean that the slogan “Down with the autocracy” was Narodism). The mistake of Kautskyism lies in projecting correct democratic demands into the past, to peaceful capitalism, and not into the future, to the social revolution (the author, however, falls into the position of regarding these demands as incorrect). §3. See above. The author bypasses also the question of “federation”. The same old fundamental mistake of the same old Economism: inability to pose political questions.[4] §4. “From self-determination follows defence of the fatherland,” the author obstinately repeats. His mistake here is to make negation of defence of the fatherland a shibboleth, deduce it not from the concrete historical features of a given war, but apply it “in general”. That is not Marxism. The author has been told long ago—try to think up a formula of struggle against national oppression or inequality which (formula) does not justify “defence of the fatherland”. You cannot devise such a formula, and the author has not challenged that. Does that mean that we reject the fight against national oppression if it could be interpreted to imply defence of the fatherland? No, for we are opposed not to “defence of the fatherland” “in general” (see our Party resolutions),[5] but to using this fraudulent slogan to embellish the present imperialist war. The author wants to pose the question of “defence of the fatherland” in a basically incorrect and unhistorical way (but he cannot; he has been trying in vain for a whole year...). His reference to “dualism” shows that he does not under stand the difference between monism and dualism. If I “unite” a shoe brush and a mammal, will that be “monism”? If I say that to reach goal a we must (c)–>a<–(b) travel to the left from point (b) and to the right from point (c), will that be “dualism”? Is the position of the proletariat with regard to national oppression the same in oppressing and oppressed nations? No, it is not the same, not the same economically, politically, ideologically, spiritually, etc. Meaning? Meaning that some will approach in one way, others in another way the same goal (the merger of nations) from different starting-points. Denial of that is the “monism” that unites a shoe brush and a mammal. “It is not proper to say this [i. e., to urge self-determination] to the proletarians of an oppressed nation”—that is how the author “interprets” the editors’ theses. That’s amusing!! There is nothing of the kind in the theses. The author has either not read them to the end or has not given them any thought at all. §5. See above on Kautskyism. §6. The author is told there are three types of countries in the world. He “objects” and snatches out “cases”. That is casuistry, not politics. You want a concrete “case”: “How about Belgium”? See the Lenin and Zinoviev pamphlet[22]: it says that we would be for the defence of Belgium (even by war) if this concrete war were different.[6] You do not agree with that? Then say so!! You have not properly thought out the question of why Social-Democrats are against “defence of the fatherland”. We are not against it for the reasons you believe, because your presentation of the question (vain efforts, not really a presentation) goes against history. That is my reply to the author. To describe as “sophistry” the fact that while justifying wars for the elimination of national oppression, we do not justify the present imperialist war, which on both sides is being waged to increase national oppression—is to use “strong” words without giving the matter the least bit of thought. The author wants to pose the question of “defence of the fatherland” from a more “Left” position, but the result (for a whole year now) is utter confusion! §7. The author criticises: “The question of ‘peace terms’ is not touched upon at all.” Strange criticism: failure to deal with a question we did not even raise!! But what is “touched upon” and discussed is the question of annexations, on which the imperialist Economists are utterly confused, this time together with the Dutch and Radek. Either you reject the immediate slogan against old and new annexations—(no less “unachievable” under imperialism than self-determination, in Europe as well as in the colonies)—and in that case you pass from concealed to open apology for imperialism. Or you accept the slogan (as Radek has done in the press)—and in that case you accept self-determination of nations under a different name!! §8. The author proclaims “Bolshevism on a West-European scale” (“not your position,” he adds). I attach no importance to this desire to cling to the word “Bolshevism”, for I know such “old Bolsheviks” from whom God save us. I can only say that the author’s proclamation of “Bolshevism on a West-European scale” is, I am deeply convinced, neither Bolshevism nor Marxism, but a minor variant of the same old Economism. In my view it is highly intolerable, flippant and non-Party to proclaim for a whole year the new Bolshevism and leave things at that. Is it not time to think matters out and give the comrades an articulate and integrated expose of “Bolshevism on a West-European scale”? The author has not proved and will not prove the difference between colonies and oppressed nations in Europe (as applied to the question under discussion). The Dutch and the P.S.D.[7] rejection of self-determination is not only, and even not so much, the result of confusion, for Gorter factually accepts it, and so does the Zimmerwald statement of the Poles,[23] but rather the result of the special position of their nations (small nations with centuries-old traditions and pretentions to Great-Power status). It is extremely thoughtless and naive to take over and mechanically and uncritically repeat what in others has developed over decades of struggle against the nationalist bourgeoisie and its deception of the people. Here we have a case of people taking over precisely what should not be taken over. Notes [1] [PLACEHOLDER FOOTNOTE.] —Lenin [2] Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by Lenin) have been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated.—Ed. [3] [PLACEHOLDER FOOTNOTE.] —Lenin [4] “We are not afraid of disintegration,” the author writes, “we do not defend national boundaries.” Now, just try to give that a precise political formulation!! You simply cannot do it and that’s where the trouble lies: you are hampered by Economist blindness on questions of political democracy. —Lenin [5] [PLACEHOLDER FOOTNOTE.] —Lenin [6] [PLACEHOLDER FOOTNOTE.] —Lenin [7] Polish Social-Democratic Party.—Ed. [8] This article and the two that follow it were directed against the un-Marxist and anti-Bolshevik attitude of the Bukharin-Pyatakov-Bosh group which began to take shape in the spring of 1915, when preparations were being made for publication of the magazine Kommunist. It was to be put out in co-operation with Sotsial-Demokrat. Y. L. Pyatakov (P. Kievsky) and Y. B. Bosh undertook to finance tile magazine and N. I. Bukharin was made one of its editors. Lenin’s differences with the group were accentuated after the appearance of No. 1–2 of Kommunist in September 1915. In their theses “On the Self-Determination Slogan”, which they sent to Sotsial-Demokrat, Bukharin, Pyatakov and Bosh opposed Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution, rejected the struggle for democracy in the imperialist era and insisted on the Party withdrawing its demand for national self-determination. The group did not confine itself to theoretical differences and openly attacked the Party’s policy and slogans. It sought to use Kommunist in furtherance of its factional aims and tried to dictate terms to the editors of Sotsial-Demokrat. Pyatakov and Bosh insisted on the Central Committee Bureau Abroad recognising them as a separate group not accountable to it and authorised to maintain independent connections with Central Committee members in Russia and publish leaflets and other literature. Though this demand was turned down, the group attempted to establish contact with the Central Committee Bureau in Russia. Lenin was sharply opposed to the Pyatakov-Bosh-Bukharin theses, saying that “we can take no responsibility for them, either direct or indirect—even for harbouring them in the Party, let alone granting them equality”. In letters to N. I. Bukharin, Y. L. Pyatakov, G. Y. Zinoviev and A. G. Shlyapnikov, Lenin trenchantly criticised tile group’s views and anti-Party, factional actions and condemned the conciliatory attitude of Zinoviev and Shlyapnikov. On his proposal, joint publication of Kommunist by tile Sotsial Demokrat editors and the group was discontinued. The “Nascent Trend of Imperialist Economism” was written when the Sotsial-Demokrat editors had received Bukharin’s comments on the theses “The Socialist Revolution and tile Right of Nations to Self-Determination”. The article was not published at the time. [9] Economism was an opportunist trend in Russian Social-Democracy at the turn of the century, a Russian variety of international opportunism. The Economists limited the tasks of the working-class movement to the economic struggle for higher wages, better working conditions, etc., maintaining that the political struggle should be left to the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the leading role of the working-class party. Making a fetish of the spontaneity of the working-class movement, they belittled the importance of revolutionary theory and, by denying the need for a Marxist party to bring socialist consciousness into the working-class movement, cleared the way for bourgeois ideology. They championed the existing disunity, confusion and parochial amateurish approach in the Social-Democratic ranks, and opposed the creation of a centralised working-class party. Comprehensive criticism by Lenin of the Economist standpoint will be found in his “A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats”, “A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy”, “Apropos of the Profession de Foi” and “A Talk with Defenders of Economism” (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 167–82, 255–85, 286–96, and Vol. 5, pp. 313–20). Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? brought about the ideological rout of Economism (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp.347–529). A major part in the struggle against the Economists was also played by the newspaper Iskra. [10] Narodniks—followers of a petty-bourgeois trend, Narodism, in the Russian revolutionary movement, which arose in the sixties and seventies of the nineteenth century. The Narodniks stood for the abolition of the autocracy and the transfer of the landed estates to the peasantry. At the same time, they believed capitalism in Russia to be a temporary phenomenon with no prospect of development and they therefore considered the peasantry, not the proletariat, to be the main revolutionary force in Russia. They regarded the village commune as the embryo of socialism. With the object of rousing the peasantry to struggle against the autocracy, the Narodniks “went among the people”, to the villages, but found no support there. In the eighties and nineties the Narodniks adopted a policy of conciliation to tsarism, expressed the interests of the kulak class, and waged a bitter fight against Marxism. [11] Reference is to the article “Who Will Perform the Political Revolution?” in the symposium Proletarian Struggle No. 1, published by the Urals Social-Democratic Group in 1899. The article was re published as a pamphlet by the Kiev Committee. The author, A. A. Sanin, an Economist, was opposed to an independent working-class political party and political revolution, believing that Russia’s socialist transformation, which he considered an immediate task, could be accomplished through a general strike. [12] Reference is to the Conference of R.S.D.L.P. groups abroad, held in Berne between February 14 and 19 (February 27–March 4), 1915. Convened on Lenin’s initiative, it assumed the character of a general Party conference, since neither a Party congress nor an all-Russia conference could be convened during the war. The Conference was attended by representatives of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, the R.S.D.L.P. Central Organ, Sotsial-Demokrat, the Social-Democrat Women’s Organisation and delegates from R.S.D.L.P. groups in Paris, Zurich, Berne, Lausanne, Geneva, London and Baugy. All members of the Berne group and several members of the Lausanne and Baugy groups attended as guests. Lenin was delegated by the Central Committee and Central Organ and directed the work of the Conference. The main item on the agenda, the war and the tasks of the Party, was introduced by Lenin, who amplified the propositions set out in the Central Committee Manifesto, “The War and Russian Social Democracy”. The resolutions tabled by the Montpellier, and especially the Baugy groups and adopted by the Conference revealed that some Party members had failed to grasp the implications of Lenin’s proposition on civil war. They objected to the slogan of the defeat of one’s “own” government and advanced their own slogan of peace, and failed to appreciate the need and importance of combating Centrism. All these questions were thrashed out in the debate, and Lenin’s theses were unanimously approved. Only Bukharin persistently supported the erroneous views of the Baugy resolution and objected to the slogans Lenin had formulated for the Party and the international Social-Democratic movement. Bukharin opposed the right of nations to self-determination and the mini mum-programme demands in general, contending that they were “contrary” to socialist revolution. However,no one supported Bukharin at the conference. [13] Reference is to Bukharin’s theses “On the Self-Determination Slogan”, written in November 1915 and submitted to the editors of Sotsial-Demokrat over the signatures of Bukharin, Pyatakov and Bosh. [14] This refers to the “Programm-Entwurf der R.S.V. und der S.D.A.P. Hollands” (“Draft Programme of the Revolutionary-Socialist League and the Social-Democratic Labour Party of Holland”) compiled by Henriette Roland-Holst and published on February 29, 1916 in No. 3 of the Bulletin of the international Socialist Committee over the signatures of Henriette Roland-Holst, J. Visscher, D. Wijnkoop and J. Ceton. The International Socialist Committee—the executive body of the Zimmerwald group elected at time first International Socialist Conference in Zimmerwald, September 5–8, 1915, and composed of Robert Grimm, Oddino Morgan, Charles Name and A. Balabanova. Its headquarters were in Berne. Shortly after the Zimmerwald Conference, on Grimm’s suggestion, a larger International Socialist Committee was formed, composed of representatives of all the parties subscribing to the Zimmerwald decisions. The R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee was represented on it by Lenin, Inessa Armand and Zinoviev. It published the Internationale Sozialistische Kommission zu Bern. Bulletin (Bulletin of the international Socialist Committee in Berne) in German, French and English language editions. Six issues appeared between September 1915 and January 1917. [15] Vorbote (The Herald)—theoretical organ of the Zimmerwald Left, published in German in Borne. Two issues appeared, in January and April 1916. The official publishers were Roland-Holst and Pannekoek. Lenin had an active share in founding the magazine and, after the appearance of its first issue, in organising a French edition to reach a wider readership. A keen discussion was conducted on its pages by Left Zimmerwaldists on the right of nations to self-determination and the “disarmament” slogan. [16] Sotsial-Demokrat—illegal Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. published from February 1908 to January 1917. After unsuccessful at tempts to issue the first number of the paper in Russia, publication was arranged abroad. Nos. 2–32 (February 1909–December 1913) were put out in Paris and Nos. 33–58 (November 1914–January 1917) in Geneva. Altogether, 58 issues appeared, five of which had supplements. From December 1911, Sotsial-Demokrat was edited by Lenin and carried more than 80 of his articles and shorter items. Lenin directed all the affairs of the paper, decided on the con tents of the current issue, edited the various contributions and looked after the production side. During the First World War, Sotsial-Demokrat played an outstanding part in combating international opportunism, nationalism and chauvinism, in popularising the Bolshevik slogans and in awakening the working class and the working people generally for struggle against the imperialist war and its instigators, against the tsarist autocracy and capitalism. Sotsial-Demokrat also played a major part in uniting the internationalist forces in the Social-Democratic movement. [17] The Zimmerwald Left was formed on Lenin’s initiative at the International Socialist Conference in Zimmerwald in September 1915. The group consisted of eight of the Conference delegates, representing the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, Left Social-Democrats in Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Germany, the Polish Social-Democratic opposition and the Latvian Social-Democrats. Led by Lenin, it combated the Centrist conference majority. Its draft resolutions and draft Manifesto condemning the war, exposing the treachery of the social-chauvinists and emphasising the need for active struggle against the war were rejected by the Centrist majority. However, the Zimmerwald Left did succeed in including in the adopted Manifesto a number of important points from its draft resolution. Regarding the Manifesto as a first step in the struggle against the imperialist war, the Zimmerwald Left voted for-it, but in a special statement pointed out its inadequacy and inconsistency. At the same time, the group stated that while it would remain part of the Zimmerwald movement, it would continue to disseminate its views and conduct independent work internationally. It elected a Bureau, which included Lenin, Zinoviev and Radek, and published its own organ, Vorbote (see Note No. 8). The Bolsheviks, the only ones to take a correct and consistently internationalist position, were the leading force in the Zimmerwald Left. Lenin corn bated Radek’s opportunist vacillations and criticised the mistakes of other members of the group. The Zimmerwald Left became the rallying point for internationalist elements in the world Social-Democratic movement (see also Note No. 36). [18] This meeting, held in Berne, February 5–9, 1916, was attended by 22 representatives of internationalist socialists in Germany, Russia, Italy, Norway, Austria, Poland, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Rumania and several more countries. The composition of the meeting was indicative of the changed alignment of forces in favour of the Left, though most of the delegates, as at the original Zimmerwald Conference, were Centrists. The meeting adopted an appeal to all affiliated parties and groups (Rundschreiben an alle angeschlossen Parteien und Gruppen), in which were included, as a result of pressure from the Bolsheviks and other Left forces, amendments in line with the Zimmerwald Left policy. The appeal condemned socialist participation in bourgeois governments, denounced the slogan of “fatherland defence” in an imperialist war and approval of war credits. It stressed the need to support the labour movement and prepare for mass revolutionary actions against the imperialist war. However, the appeal was inconsistent, since it did not call for a break with social-chauvinism and opportunism. Not all of Lenin’s amendments were adopted. The Zimmerwald Lefts declared that though they did not consider the appeal satisfactory in all its points, they would vote for it as a step forward compared with the decisions of the first Zimmerwald Conference. [19] Rabochaya Mysl (Workers’ Thought)—a newspaper published by a group of Economists in Russia from October 1897 to December 1902. A critique of the paper as representative of the Russian variety of international opportunism will be found in Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? [20] Prosveshcheniye (Enlightenment)—a monthly theoretical, legal Bolshevik magazine, published in St. Petersburg from December 1911 to June 1914. Its circulation reached 5,000 copies. While in Paris, and later in Cracow and Poronin, Lenin directed the magazine, edited articles published in it and regularly corresponded with the members of the editorial hoard. Among his own articles published in Prosveshcheniye are the following: “Fundamental Problems of the Election Campaign”, “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism”, “Critical Remarks on the National Question”, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, “Disruption of Unity Concealed by Shouts for Unity” and “The Methods of Struggle of the Bourgeois Intellectuals Against the Workers”. [21] Lenin is here referring to the programme of the French Workers’ Party adopted in 1580, and to the programmes of the German Social-Democratic Party adopted in Gotha in 1875 and in Erfurt in 1891. [22] Reference is to the pamphlet Socialism and War (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 295–338). [23] Reference is to the Declaration of the Polish Social-Democrats at the 1915 Zimmerwald Conference. The Declaration protested against the oppressive policy of the tsarist and German and Austrian governments which “deprive the Polish people of the opportunity to shape their own destiny,regard the Polish lands as a pawn in future bargaining over compensation....” “And this,” the Declaration said, “brings out with especial crudity the very essence of the policy of the capitalist governments which, in sending the masses to the slaughter, are at the same time arbitrarily shaping the destinies of nations for generations to come.” The Polish Social-Democrats, the Declaration said, are convinced that only participation in the impending struggle of the international revolutionary proletariat for socialism—“in the struggle that will tear the fetters of national oppression and destroy alien domination in whatever form or shape—will assure the Polish people, too, the opportunity for all-round development as an equal member of the alliance of the nations”. < backward forward > Works Index | Volume 23 | Collected Works | L.I.A. Index

End the Republican War on Women; Campaign for Democrats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

Open main menu Wikipedia Search Sense Article Talk Language Watch Edit This article is about the cognitive process of sense together with the sensory systems, sense organs, and sensation. For other uses, see Sense (disambiguation). "Five senses" redirects here. For other uses, see Five senses (disambiguation). A sense is a biological system used by an organism for sensation, the process of gathering information about the world through the detection of stimuli. Although in some cultures five human senses were traditionally identified as such (namely sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing), it is now recognized that there are many more.[1] Senses used by non-human organisms are even greater in variety and number. During sensation, sense organs collect various stimuli (such as a sound or smell) for transduction, meaning transformation into a form that can be understood by the brain. Sensation and perception are fundamental to nearly every aspect of an organism's cognition, behavior and thought. Sensation consists of signal collection and transduction. In organisms, a sensory organ consists of a group of interrelated sensory cells that respond to a specific type of physical stimulus. Via cranial and spinal nerves (nerves of the Central and Peripheral nervous systems that relay sensory information to and from the brain and body), the different types of sensory receptor cells (such as mechanoreceptors, photoreceptors, chemoreceptors, thermoreceptors) in sensory organs transduct sensory information from these organs towards the central nervous system, finally arriving at the sensory cortices in the brain, where sensory signals are processed and interpreted (perceived). Sensory systems, or senses, are often divided into external (exteroception) and internal (interoception) sensory systems. Human external senses are based on the sensory organs of the eyes, ears, skin, nose, and mouth. Internal sensation detects stimuli from internal organs and tissues. Internal senses possessed by humans include the vestibular system (sense of balance) sensed by the inner ear, as well as others such as spatial orientation, proprioception (body position) and nociception (pain). Further internal senses lead to signals such as hunger, thirst, suffocation, and nausea, or different involuntary behaviors, such as vomiting.[2][3][4] Some animals are able to detect electrical and magnetic fields, air moisture, or polarized light, while others sense and perceive through alternative systems, such as echolocation. Sensory modalities or sub modalities are different ways sensory information is encoded or transduced. Multimodality integrates different senses into one unified perceptual experience. For example, information from one sense has the potential to influence how information from another is perceived.[5] Sensation and perception are studied by a variety of related fields, most notably psychophysics, neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and cognitive science. Definitions Human sensation Nonhuman animal sensation and perception Plant sensation Artificial sensation and perception Culture See also References External links Last edited 17 days ago by Mspandana Wikipedia Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Terms of Use Desktop

Republicans beat down on the 99% for the 1%

Banning abortion is murder

End Rape

The Salt of the Earth ( movie )

https://youtu.be/FE1oKQCwwo4

Why Capitalism is Leaving the US in search of profit ? It has for 125 years !

It has since the end of the 19th Century/ beginning of the 20th Century when it became an imperialist country by Lenin’s definition in _Imperialism_, specifically exporting _capital_ to the colonies instead of goods ; and reaping superprofits. US has been doing that ever since with the latest phase being termed “transnational capitalism “ and more popularly “globalization “. Wages are higher in the US than outside the US so transnational corporations seek higher profits outside the US. OF COURSE ! And Neo-liberalism is better termed Reaganism in the real political class struggle, which is electoral On Jul 28, 2023, at 9:00 AM, Bill Totten wrote: Why Capitalism is Leaving the US in Search of Profit by Richard Wolff https://www.counterpunch.org (July 21 2023) https://www.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IMG_0398-1536x1024.jpeg Container ship on the lower Columbia River, heading toward the Pacific. Photo: Jeffrey Saint Clair Early US capitalism was centered in New England. After some time, the pursuit of profit led many capitalists to leave that area and move production to New York and the mid-Atlantic states. Much of New England was left with abandoned factory buildings and depressed towns evident to this day. Eventually, employers moved again, abandoning New York and the mid-Atlantic for the Midwest. The same story kept repeating as capitalism's center relocated to the Far West, the South, and the Southwest. Descriptive terms like "Rust Belt", "deindustrialization", and "manufacturing desert" increasingly applied to ever more portions of US capitalism. So long as capitalism's movements stayed mostly within the US, the alarms raised by its abandoned victims remained regional, not becoming a national issue yet. Over recent decades, however, many capitalists have moved production facilities and investments outside the US, relocating them to other countries, especially to China. Ongoing controversies and alarms surround this capitalist exodus. Even the celebrated hi-tech sectors, arguably US capitalism's only remaining robust center, have invested heavily elsewhere. Since the 1970s, wages were far lower abroad and markets were growing faster there too. Ever more US capitalists had to leave or risk losing their competitive edge over those capitalists (European and Japanese, as well as US) who had left earlier for China and were showing stunningly improved profit rates. Beyond China, other Asian, South American, and African countries also provided incentives of low wages and growing markets, which eventually drew US capitalists and others to move investments there. Profits from those capitalists' movements stimulated more movements. Rising profits flowed back to rally US stock markets and produced great gains in income and wealth. That chiefly benefited the already rich corporate shareholders and top corporate executives. They in turn promoted and funded ideological claims that capitalism's abandonment of the US was actually a great gain for US society as a whole. Those claims, categorized under the headings of "neoliberalism" and "globalization" served neatly to hide or obscure one key fact: higher profits mainly for the richest few was the chief goal and the result of capitalists abandoning the US. Neoliberalism was a new version of an old economic theory that justified capitalists' "free choices" as the necessary means to achieve optimal efficiency for entire economies. According to the neoliberal view, governments should minimize any regulation or other interference in capitalists' profit-driven decisions. Neoliberalism celebrated "globalization", its preferred name for capitalists' choosing to specifically move production overseas. That "free choice" was said to enable "more efficient" production of goods and services because capitalists could tap globally sourced resources. The point and punchline flowing from exaltations of neoliberalism, capitalists' free choices, and globalization were that all citizens benefited when capitalism moved on. Excepting a few dissenters (including some unions), politicians, mass media, and academicians largely joined the intense cheerleading for capitalism's neoliberal globalization. The economic consequences of capitalism's profit-driven movement out of its old centers (Western Europe, North America, and Japan) brought capitalism there to its current crisis. First, real wages stagnated in the old centers. Employers who could export jobs (especially in manufacturing) did so. Employers who could not (especially in service sectors) automated them. As US job opportunities stopped rising, so did wages. Since globalization and automation boosted corporate profits and stock markets while wages stagnated, capitalism's old centers exhibited extreme widening of income and wealth gaps. Deepening social divisions followed and culminated in capitalism's crisis now. Second, unlike many other poor countries, China possessed the ideology and organization to make sure that investments made by capitalists served China's own development plan and economic strategy. China required the sharing of incoming capitalists' advanced technologies (in exchange for those capitalists' access to low-wage Chinese labor and rapidly expanding Chinese markets). The capitalists entering the Beijing markets were also required to facilitate partnerships between Chinese producers and distribution channels in their home countries. China's strategy to prioritize exports meant that it needed to secure access to distribution systems (and thus distribution networks controlled by capitalists) in its targeted markets. Mutually profitable partnerships developed between China and global distributors such as Walmart. Beijing's "socialism with Chinese characteristics" included a powerful development-focused political party and state. Conjointly they supervised and controlled an economy that mixed private with state capitalism. In that model private employers and state employers each direct masses of employees in their respective enterprises. Both sets of employers function subject to the strategic interventions of a party and government determined to achieve its economic goals. As a result of how it defined and operated its socialism, China's economy gained more (especially in GDP growth) from neoliberal globalization than Western Europe, North America, and Japan did. China grew fast enough to compete now with capitalism's old centers. The decline of the US within a changing world economy has contributed to the crisis of US capitalism. For the US empire that arose out of World War Two, China and its BRICS allies represent its first serious, sustained economic challenge. The official US reaction to these changes so far has been a mix of resentment, provocation, and denial. Those are neither solutions to the crisis nor successful adjustments to a changed reality. Third, the Ukraine war has exposed key effects of capitalism's geographic movements and the accelerated economic decline of the US relative to the economic rise of China. Thus the US-led sanctions war against Russia has failed to crush the ruble or collapse the Russian economy. That failure has followed in good part because Russia obtained crucial support from the alliances (BRICS) already built around China. Those alliances, enriched by both foreign and domestic capitalists' investments, especially in China and India, provided alternative markets when sanctions closed off Western markets to Russian exports. Earlier income and wealth gaps in the US, worsened by the export and automation of high-paying jobs, undermined the economic basis of that "vast middle class" that so many employees believed themselves to be part of. Over recent decades, workers who expected to enjoy "the American dream" found that increased costs of goods and services led to the dream being beyond their reach. Their children, especially those forced to borrow for college, found themselves in a similar situation or in a worse one. Resistances of all sorts arose (unionization drives, strikes, left and right "populisms") as working-class living conditions kept deteriorating. Making matters worse, mass media celebrated the stupefying wealth of those few who profited most from neoliberal globalization. In the US, phenomena like former President Donald Trump, Vermont's independent Senator Bernie Sanders, white supremacy, unionization, strikes, explicit anti-capitalism, "culture" wars, and frequently bizarre political extremism reflect deepening social divisions. Many in the US feel betrayed after being abandoned by capitalism. Their differing explanations for the betrayal exacerbate the widely held sense of crisis in the nation. Capitalism's global relocation helped raise {1} the total GDP of the BRICS nations (China + allies) well above that of the G7 (US + allies). For all the countries of the Global South, their appeals for development assistance can now be directed to two possible respondents (China and the US), not just the one in the West. When Chinese entities invest in Africa, of course, their investments are structured to help both donors and recipients. Whether the relationship between them is imperialist or not depends on the specifics of the relationship, and its balance of net gains. Those gains for the BRICS will likely be substantial. Russia's adjustment to Ukraine-related sanctions against it not only led it to lean more on BRICS but likewise intensified the economic interactions among BRICS members. Existing economic links and conjoint projects among them grew. New ones are fast emerging. Unsurprisingly, additional {2} countries in the Global South have recently requested BRICS membership. Capitalism has moved on, abandoning its old centers and thereby pushing its problems and divisions to crisis levels. Because profits still flow back to the old centers, those there gathering the profits delude their countries and themselves into thinking all is well in and for global capitalism. Because those profits sharply aggravate economic inequalities, social crises there deepen. For example, the wave of labor militancy sweeping across nearly all US industries reflects anger and resentment against those inequalities. The hysterical scapegoating of various minorities by right-wing demagogues and movements is another reflection of the worsening difficulties. Yet another is the growing realization that the problem, at its root, is the capitalist system. All of these are components of today's crisis. Even in capitalism's new dynamic centers, a critical socialist question returns to agitate people's minds. Is the new centers' organization of workplaces - retaining the old capitalist model of employers vs employees in both private and state enterprises - desirable or sustainable? Is it acceptable for a small group, employers, exclusively and unaccountably to make most key workplace decisions (what, where, and how to produce and what to do with the profits)? That is clearly undemocratic. Employees in capitalism's new centers already question the system; some have begun to challenge and move against it. Where those new centers celebrate some variety of socialism, employees will more likely (and sooner) resist subordination to the residues of capitalism in their workplaces. b>Links: {1} https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/07/10/its-hard-for-americans-to-engage-in-china-bashing-without-tripping-on-contradictions/ {2} https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-24/brics-draws-membership-requests-from-19-nations-before-summit#xj4y7vzkg Richard Wolff is the author of Capitalism Hits the Fan (2012) and Capitalism's Crisis Deepens (2016). He is the founder of Democracy at Work. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/07/21/why-capitalism-is-leaving-the-us-in-search-of-profit https://billtotten.wpcomstaging.com/ https://www.ashisuto.co.jp/ --- To unsubscribe: List help:

Russian President Vladimir Putin courted leaders from Africa at a summit on Friday, hailing the continent's growing role in global affairs and offering to expand political and business ties.

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin courted leaders from Africa at a summit on Friday, hailing the continent's growing role in global affairs and offering to expand political and business ties. Addressing the two-day day Russia-Africa summit, Putin emphasized that Moscow will closely analyze a peace proposal for Ukraine that African leaders have sought to pursue. “This is an acute issue, and we aren't evading its consideration,” Putin said, emphasizing that Russia is treating the African initiative with respect and “looking at it attentively.” Putin also reaffirmed his pledge that Russia will maintain steady supplies of grain and other agricultural products to the continent after its withdrawal from a deal allowing grain shipments from Ukraine that fueled concerns of global food crisis. “Russia will always be a responsible international supplier of agricultural products and will continue to support the countries and region in need by offering free grain and other supplies,” the Russian leader said. He declared at the summit's opening Thursday that Russia intends to ship up to 50,000 tons of grain aid to Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea and Central African Republic in the next three to four months. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres responded Thursday that such donations of grain can't compensate for the impact of Moscow’s cutoff of grain exports from Ukraine, which along with Russia is a major supplier to the world market. Guterres said the U.N. is in contact with Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and other countries to try to reestablish the deal that saw Ukraine export more than 32,000 tons of grain, allowing global food prices to drop significantly. Both Russia and Ukraine are major grain suppliers. The deal brokered a year ago by the U.N. and Turkey reopened Ukrainian Black Sea ports blocked by fighting and provided assurances that ships entering them wouldn't be attacked. Russia declined to renew the agreement last week, complaining that its own exports were being held up. Putin used the summit to repeat his accusations against the West for obstructing the export of Russian grain and fertilizers, including proposed no-cost supplies of fertilizers to Africa. The Russia-Africa summit marks a renewed Kremlin effort to bolster ties with a continent of 1.3 billion people that is increasingly assertive on the global stage. Africa’s 54 nations make up the largest voting bloc at the United Nations and have been more divided than any other region on General Assembly resolutions criticizing Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Only 17 heads of state were at the summit, compared to 43 at the first Russia-Africa summit in 2019, a sharp drop in attendance that the Kremlin has attributed to what it described as “outrageous” Western pressure to discourage African countries from showing up. Putin hailed Africa's role in the emerging “multipolar world order,” noting that “the era of hegemony of one or several countries is receding into the past, albeit not without resistance on the part of those who got used to their own uniqueness and monopoly in global affairs." “Russia and Africa are united by an innate desire to defend true sovereignty and the right to their own distinctive path of development in the political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres,” he said. He said that Russia plans to expand trade and economic ties with Africa and continue efforts to relieve their debt burden by writing off another $90 million in their debts. Putin noted that Moscow also stands ready to bolster defense ties with African countries by helping train their military and expanding supplies of military equipment, some of them on a no-cost basis. ___ Vladimir Isachenkov contributed to this report from Moscow.

Prometheus means Forethinker : Planner

Prometheus, in Greek religion, one of the Titans, the supreme trickster, and a god of fire. His intellectual side was emphasized by the apparent meaning of his name, Forethinker. In common belief he developed into a master craftsman, and in this connection he was associated with fire and the creation of mortals.

The God bound Prometheus / Planner to a rock , torchered him

. "The Best laid plans of mice and men often go astray " - Bobbie Burns |||

Prometheus is the Ancient Greek myth of human origin, corresponding to the Garden of Eden. It was Homo Erectuses 1.5 million years ago who first invented controlling fire , so I tell my classes that Prometheus was a Homo Erectus .

Kamala Harris to travel to Florida and speak out against state's new Black history standards

FOLLOW NBC NEWS F EXCLUSIVE WHITE HOUSE Kamala Harris to travel to Florida and speak out against state's new Black history standards The standards, approved Wednesday, teach students that some Black people benefited from slavery because it provided them with useful skills. US Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a meeting with civil rights leaders and consumer protection experts to discuss the societal impact of artificial intelligence, in the Eisenhower Executive Office building in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2023. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks in the Eisenhower Executive Office building in Washington on July 12.Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images file SAVE July 20, 2023, 8:40 PM EDT / Updated July 20, 2023, 11:01 PM EDT By Zoë Richards Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to travel to Florida on Friday to deliver critical remarks in response to the state Board of Education's approval of new standards for how Black history will be taught in schools. The trip to Jacksonville will highlight efforts to "protect fundamental freedoms, specifically, the freedom to learn and teach America’s full and true history," a White House official said in an announcement first shared with NBC News. Harris, whose mother was a civil rights activist, will also meet with parents, educators, civil rights leaders and elected officials, the official said. Her last trip to Florida was in April. In remarks Thursday, Harris blasted efforts in some states to ban books and “push forward revisionist history.” “Just yesterday in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefited from slavery,” she said at a convention for the traditionally Black sorority Delta Sigma Theta Inc. “They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us, and we will not stand for it.” The Florida Board of Education approved new standards Wednesday in a 216-page document detailing how public schools should approach Black history, including teaching students that some Black people benefited from slavery because it taught them useful skills that could be used for their “personal benefit.” Changes to the curriculum were required by a 2022 law known as the “Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act,” or “Stop WOKE Act,” NBC South Florida reported. Recommended 2024 ELECTION DeSantis set to start using new fundraising vehicle as campaign faces staff cuts The new framework has been sharply criticized by the Florida Education Association, a statewide teachers’ union representing about 150,000 teachers, as a “step backward.” William Allen and Frances Presley Rice, who are members of Florida’s African American History Standards Workgroup, defended the new standards in a statement, calling them “rigorous and comprehensive” and saying they aimed to show “that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted.” The topic of voting rights, gun violence and women’s choices about their own bodies, will also be addressed during Harris’ visit, the White House official said. Harris has played a more prominent role in recent months in the administration’s efforts to cast gun safety measures and abortion protections as a bid to protect fundamental freedoms. In April, she traveled to Nashville after state GOP lawmakers ousted two Black Democratic legislators, who have since been reinstated, for protesting against gun violence on the chamber floor. Zoë Richards Zoë Richards is the evening politics reporter for NBC News. SPONSORED / SMART IPHONE SECURITY iPhone Users Don't Forget To Do This Before Thursday HEAR.COM / SPONSORED This Is The Highest Rated Hearing Aid In The US TOP TRAVEL NURSING JOBS | SEARCH ADS / SPONSORED Average Nurse Salary In 2023 Is Just Mind Blowing! (See List) BUZZDAILY WINNERS / SPONSORED Casinos Hate When You Do This, But This is Not Cheating BUZZDAILY WINNERS / SPONSORED Casinos Hate When You Do This, But They Can Do Nothing More From NBC News NBC NEWS / SHOP Are Apple AirTags actually worth it? We say yes. NBC NEWS / NEWS Wife of radiologist who drove Tesla off Calif. cliff with family inside said he did it 'on purpose,' unsealed docs reveal NBC NEWS / NEWS 11-year-old Florida girl arrested after prank-texting 911 to say her friend was kidnapped as part of a YouTube challenge NBC NEWS / POLITICS Some Senate Democrats urge Biden to prepare to invoke the 14th Amendment to tackle the debt limit TIPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / SPONSORED Military glasses make their debut in the US and become a fever among fishermen and drivers WOLF & SHEPHERD / SPONSORED Thousands of Men Wear These Shoes For Its First Class Comfort NBC NEWS / POLITICS Judge recuses himself from Disney suit against DeSantis and accuses governor of 'rank judge-shopping' ABOUT CONTACT HELP CAREERS AD CHOICES PRIVACY POLICY YOUR PRIVACY CHOICES CA NOTICE NEW TERMS OF SERVICE (UPDATED JULY 7, 2023) NBC NEWS SITEMAP ADVERTISE SELECT SHOPPING SELECT PERSONAL FINANCE © 2023 NBC UNIVERSAL ­

Obamaism is the start of the reversal of Reaganism

Teamsters claim big win with 5-year tentative pact with UPS By Mark Gruenberg WASHINGTON—The Teamsters claimed a big win on July 25 when, within hours of bargaining restarting for the first time in three weeks, UPS agreed to a five-year tentative contract with the union. The pact gives workers substantial raises, eliminates many part-time jobs by raising the positions, and the workers in them, to full-time, and effectively kills the hated two-tier wage system at the nation’s largest package delivery company, which employs 340,000 Teamsters. “We’ve changed the game,” union President Sean O’Brien exulted. Had bosses not settled, they would have forced the workers to strike and cost their own company hundreds of millions of dollars a day. Had the union been forced to walk, it would have been the largest private-sector strike against a single company in U.S. history. The current contract expires at midnight July 31. Before the July 25 session, UPS honchos had walked out of bargaining at 4:15 am on July 5 after presenting what O’Brien called “an insulting” wage offer. “Rank-and-file UPS Teamsters sacrificed everything to get this country through a pandemic and enabled UPS to reap record-setting profits,” O’Brien declared in the union’s extensive press release. “The union went into this fight committed to winning for our members. We demanded the best contract in the history of UPS, and we got it. UPS has put $30 billion in new money on the table as a direct result of... READ MORE >> Nicaragua celebrates 44th anniversary of Sandinista Revolution By Jamal Rich U.S.-backed coup attempt of 2018 has only strengthened FSLN’s popular support. READ >> Mass Israel chaos over Netanyahu court coup draws mostly silence in U.S. By Mark Gruenberg Only a handful of U.S. trade union leaders and lawmakers condemned the PM’s moves. READ >> Connect with People's World Contact us 3339 S. Halsted Street | Chicago, Illinois 60608 773-446-9920 | contact@peoplesworld.org Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser Unsubscribe or Manage Your Preferences

Gender is determined by objective physiological characteristics, not subjective feelings: Stand with Kellie-Jay Keen and Natural Women

Gender is determined by objective physiological sexual characteristics and behaviors , not subjective feelings .

GOP voters are following Trumpy into 2024 Pickett’s z charge

Monopoly capitalism: “One capitalist always “kills “ many other capitalists, just like Karl Marx predicted

Just seven stocks -- Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla and Meta Platforms -- make up close to $11 trillion in market value and contributed about 75% of returns of the S&P 500 in the first half of 2023, according to a recent Bank of America report. Big Tech is soaring to new heights -- by quickly gobbling up any potential competition. That worries the Federal Trade Commission and the Biden administration. The so-called "magnificent seven," they fear, could become monopolies that buy and squash any new innovation so they can remain on top. The question is whether the FTC and White House have the power to stop that. What's happening: Two years ago, Lina Khan, 34, became the youngest and perhaps most progressive leader of the FTC's 100-plus year history. Khan's tenure was heralded as the start of a new era of antitrust governance in the US that would challenge decades of loose policy towards mergers and acquisitions, which allowed tech titans to swallow up their competition and emerge as companies with trillion-plus dollar market caps. So far, those challenges haven't made a huge impact. Apple is now worth $3 trillion, the only company ever to reach that milestone. Khan, meanwhile, was unable to successfully block Microsoft from closing its $69 billion deal purchase of videogame publisher Activision Blizzard last week. The FTC is appealing, but lost a similar case earlier this year when it was unable to prevent Meta Platforms from purchasing virtual reality startup Within Unlimited. Earlier this month, Khan sat before Congress for more than three hours while facing a barrage of criticism from Republican policymakers who accused her of "harassing" businesses during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. "You are now zero for four in merger trials," Representative Kevin Kiley, a Republican from California, said to her. "Why are you losing so much?" But Khan appears undeterred, and late last week, the FTC and President Joe Biden released a set of long-anticipated draft updates to the nation's merger guidelines, introducing potentially comprehensive changes to the way the US government reviews mergers and acquisitions for the first time in more than a decade. The proposed changes could lead to major shifts in how the US government identifies — and tries to block or alter — deals it believes are anticompetitive, reports my colleague Brian Fung. Some members of the business community aren't happy about that. But on Monday, Khan defended her record and actions at The Economic Club of New York. "In federal court, we have lost two merger cases. We have brought somewhere between 13 and 20, depending on how you count," Khan said. "In the scheme of our merger enforcement program, losing two is OK." The FTC, she said, doesn't have any specificity about how big or small a business should be. "Congress, when passing the antitrust statutes, was setting out a policy preference, in many cases, for competition over monopoly," Khan said. "That said, the statutes don't prohibit being a monopoly. They only prohibit becoming a monopoly through illegal tactics. And so that's the sort of thing that we look at." What's next: Khan, who first garnered attention when she wrote a 98-page article about Amazon's anticompetitive behavior for the Yale Law Journal, is undeterred. She's preparing to take on Amazon headfirst in the coming months with a big antitrust suit. Khan's FTC has already put forward three cases against Amazon, but according to a Bloomberg report, they are getting ready to take them on once again. The suit, reported Bloomberg, will focus on Amazon's core marketplace business -- alleging that Amazon uses its power to reward merchants that use its logistics services and punishes merchants that don't. Tech earnings also begin this week. Alphabet and Microsoft report on Tuesday afternoon followed by Meta on Wednesday.

UnAmerican Republican attacks on Black elected officials: Here is a rebuttal of Laura Berman’s article on proposed lease of Belle Isle by the State, which in many ways is a gift , not a lease

UnAmerican Republican attacks on Black elected officials  The history of Republican attacks on Black elected officials by unAmerican, unpatriotic , extra-Constitutional means: depriving President Obama of Supreme Court appointment, Detroit, Flint, etc. Emergency Financial Dictator (taxation without representation is tyranny) examples. From: c b Date: October 4, 2013 at 3:40:25 PM EDT To: charles brown Subject: Here is a rebuttal of Laura Berman’s article Here is a rebuttal of Laura Berman’s article on proposed lease of Belle Isle by the State, which in many ways is a gift , not a lease. First, if anybody in this situation is comparable to the Tea Party Republican Senator Eduardo Cruz of Texas, it would be Governor Snyder. He has been carrying out the Michigan Tea Party’s agenda of usurping Detroiters fundamental right to have their elected officials run the City.  The proposed Belle Isle deal was agreed to by Snyder and the Emergency Manager, who serves at Snyder’s pleasure. Hardly an arms length transaction; and the City’s interests are vulnerable to being pushed aside in favor of those of the State. Council woman Watson’s analogy to being taken advantage of by force is quite apt. Governor Snyder is the real demagogue by the prevarications and half-truths he has used to justify Emergency Management takeover of Detroit, of which the Belle Isle gift to the State is just one part (The proposed deal does not provide for the State to pay fair market value to the City, so it is more of a gift than a lease in the legal senses of those words.).  The mixed metaphor of “pulpit and hothouse” is a bit overwrought and , again, wrong. Watson merely speaks the truth before God in exposing the sweetheart deal between the Governor and a gubernatorial appointee.  The proposed Belle Isle lease specifies no amounts to be allocated by the State to the City of Detroit.  A lawyer paid to protect the City’s interests would not meet his or her fiduciary duty to the City if the lease payments amounts are not in _writing_ in the document. Because , the lease lacks these figures, the agreement is more of a gift than a lease. ^^^^^^^ Ms. Berman reveals her contempt for the People of Detroit by her caricature of them as “dug-in” and “clinging”. They’re just living here, trying to make ends meet , and enjoy life some by doing things like picnicking on Belle Isle.   With the imposition of a literal ,not figurative , tyrant over the city , usurping the powers of Detroiters to elect those who steward their tax dollars – taxation without representation is tyranny in the famous words of the American Revoluton– the State is indeed acting like an evil invader. The City of Detroit did not vote for Snyder in their majority.  In usurping Detroiter’s fundamental rights of self-governance, and seizing and diverting to non-Detroiters our jobs, wages, benefits, assets, property and anything and everything of value, the Governor represents interests other than those of Detroiters against Detroiters. Evidently, Ms. Berman is ignorant of the fact that the City has a Master Plan for revitalizing Belle Isle from several years ago. All the State of Michigan has to do is return to Detroit some of the tax money Detroiters pay to the State , and the Master Plan for Belle Isle can be executed by the City itself. What has the State of Michigan done for the People of Detroit in the last twenty years ?  Not much. Which is why many Detroiters have no trust in the State’s promise to fix-up Belle Isle for Detroiters ; and suspect the plan is to change the demographics of those who enjoy it. And Detroiters do much enjoy it as it is today, though no one would mind improvements pursuant to the Master Plan. In summary, Ms. Berman’s column misses the mark badly in her thoughts about the proposed Belle Isle deal. In fact , her little verse is pretty much the reverse of the truth, before God

Leftist anti-white supremacist LEADERSHIP

Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to travel to Florida on Friday to deliver critical remarks in response to the state Board of Education's approval of new standards for how Black history will be taught in schools. The trip to Jacksonville will highlight efforts to "protect fundamental freedoms, specifically, the freedom to learn and teach America’s full and true history," a White House official said in an announcement first shared with NBC News. Harris, whose mother was a civil rights activist, will also meet with parents, educators, civil rights leaders and elected officials, the official said. Her last trip to Florida was in April. In remarks Thursday, Harris blasted efforts in some states to ban books and “push forward revisionist history.” “Just yesterday in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefited from slavery,” she said at a convention for the traditionally Black sorority Delta Sigma Theta Inc. “They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us, and we will not stand for it.” The Florida Board of Education approved new standards Wednesday for how public schools should approach Black history, including teaching students that some Black people benefited from slavery because it taught them useful skills that could be used for their “personal benefit.” Changes to the curriculum were required by a 2022 law known as the “Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act,” or “Stop WOKE Act,” NBC South Florida reported. The new framework has been sharply criticized by the Florida Education Association, a statewide teachers’ union representing about 150,000 teachers, as a “step backward.”

Charles Brown

class="separator" style="clear: both;">

Well, Mom is gone: SO LONG , FAREWELL, ADIOS, LOVE YOU MORE, MOM

Cordelia Elizabeth Hinkson Brown was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 5th, 1922 to Cordelia Sander Chew Hinkson and Dr. DeHaven Hinkson, Jr. Nicknamed Betty, she enjoyed and cherished her youth growing up with a loving extended family and good friends.

After graduating from the prestigious Philadelphia High School for Girls, she went on to receive her Bachelor’s Degree in Romance Languages from Cornell University in 1944 and pursued graduate studies at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City in 1946 – 48.

While working as a teaching assistant in Spanish at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Betty met Charles Shelton “Chuck” Brown, a Law student and veteran of combat in Italy in World War II. They married in 1949 and soon began a family with the birth of their con Charles in 1950. In 1953, the Browns moved to Detroit, where their son Phillip was born in1955.

Betty was a proud progressive and political activist and in 1960, became the statewide campaign scheduler in Michigan for the Democratic Party, including for the appearances by Governor G Mennen Williams who was running for reelection and then presidential candidate Senator John F. Kennedy. Daughter Beverly was born that same year 1960 in Lansing.

In 1961, Betty, Chuck settled the family into what became their permanent home in the Detroit neighborhood of Lafayette Park. Betty thrived in the vibrant social and civic life of the early years and exemplified the social activism of the original “Parkers.” Betty, who lived on Joliet Place in the Mies Van der Rohe townhouse she loved for 61 years until her death, was a caretaker of precious shared memories and, was thought of by the close-knit community as the conscience and grandmother of Lafayette Park   Betty taught for more than 20 years in the Detroit public schools, originally as one of the first head start teachers in the country, and later as one of Detroit's first Spanish-English bi-lingual teachers. Throughout her career, Betty was among the legions of teachers in this country who work tirelessly despite the lack of resources and in spite of administrative and political obstacles to educate the children for whom she cared so deeply. Betty lived a life driven by deep social consciousness and was actively engaged in community affairs up to the end. She loved history and spent decades researching and documenting her family’s genealogy, Betty was an active member of the Democratic Party, the Detroit Study Club and the Fred Hart Williams Genealogical Society.  For many years, she was a docent at the Charles Wright Museum and a member of Tent 3 of the Daughters of Union Veterans.

Her sister Mary Hinkson Jackson, who predeceased her, said that in their youth, Betty was the life of every party and was always the first and last person on the dance floor.  She was indeed the life of her 100th birthday party in November, 2022 delighting in the company of family, friends and neighbors.

In addition to her sister, Mary, Betty was preceded in death by her husband, Charles.  She is survived by her sons Charles and Phillip (Kim), daughter Beverly (James); her grandchildren, Alexander, Cordelia and Sonitra; her great grandchildren, Serenity and Kevin; her niece Jennifer (Jonathan), nephew Lawrence (Robin); several great nieces and nephews; and her extended family of friends in Philadelphia and Lafayette Park- Detroit.

Arrangements for Ms. Brown are as follows: In lieu of flowers, Betty asked that donations be made to one of the following organizations:

·         Habitat for Humanity

·         Planned Parenthood

·         Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund

·         Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières

·         The Library Company of Philadelphia

·         Fred Hart Williams Genealogical Society

Services and Celebrations: Memorial Service*

Saturday, July 22, 2023 Christ Church

960 Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM 
(Family hour 10:00 AM)
 Lafayette Park Community Celebration 
Sunday, July 23, 2023
12:00 Noon
Picnic in Joliet Place – Playground
Detroit, MI 48207

My mother passed in December, but we are having the memorial this Saturday! Same time as Councilwoman’s !

       SO LONG , FAREWELL, ADIOS,  LOVE YOU MORE, MOM   Well, Mom is gone. I’ve never been like this before,  that is without her in the world.

She lived with such grace and beauty; and she left us all so gracefully. On the Saturday before her Thursday passing, I heard her say happily when waking, “I feel like I’m floating away ! You know the song : So long, farewell, da, da , da ,da, da, da ,da . And the other one is “What a wonderful world !” . She joyfully sang goodbye to us ,commending and praising Life and this World to us. Telling us to live in this wonderful world. That is a very graceful parting word. For she was very much aware and concerned about the problems of our world. But in her summary about it all, she emphasized the positive, and held her tongue on her criticisms of the world.

 Which criticisms she had many in her long life, believe me.  Her criticisms of the world were in sympathy with those in oppression and suffering. She was a social and political thinker and activist. She was a secular Mother Superior,  very, very virtuous and ethical. She lived a life of caring labor for others, true love as sacrifice for people, especially children.  She certainly took care of and raised me , my brother and sister especially well.  I wrote a poem upon my graduation from high school; it still is pretty true today:           

In Laurem Parentis (In Praise of Parents)

                               All that I am , I owe to a Grace…Mother

                               All that I am , I owe to a Strength…Father  

(footnote: She would , however, chastise me for being immodest in praising her so ; Mom was and taught us to be modest and honest to a fault; I’ve tried to learn how to not quite  take it to a fault, so I praise her honestly here) ( Dad used to say Mom spoke in footnotes; SMILES )  

She and Dad did a tremendous job in raising Phillip and Beverly ! Phil is my Super Star in caring for others. Bev is a True 21st Century Daughter of Cordelia  ; true daughter of our Cordelia Grandmothers, Mom’s mother and Great-grandmother. Thank you to Bev for putting together these perfect celebrations,  Memorial  now and Birthday  last November.

Mom’s sister Mary DeHaven, Bunny,  was her Soulmate in Life , and a second mother to we children. We were so proud of her Prima Ballerina artistry, bon vivant style,  and loved to visit her in the Big Apple, New York City.

Mom really achieved the women’s movement 20th Century ideal of both mother and a careerist .  She taught Headstart pre-school and Bi-lingual education . The latter because she had gone to school in Mexico , becoming fluent in Spanish. She had a college degree in French, graduate work in Spanish, and a graduate degree in education. Our house at 1365 is filled with her books, research documents and notebooks.  

She was once called the Conscience and Grandmother of Lafayette Park. She was one of the Consciences of America.

My philosophy is to practice Filial Piety and Ancestor Veneration, practicing a moral life as I learned from my mothers and fathers . In obedience to the Biblical Commandment I promise to  “Honor my  father and  mother, so that I  may live long in the land the LORD my God is giving me,” And thereby, MOM LIVES !   For I am Cordelia, Phil is Cordelia, Bev is Cordelia….and all her grandchildren and great-grandchildren are CORDELIA ELIZABETH HINKSON BROWN, BETTY BROWN, BET , MOM !