Philip Giraldi — The War Against Globalism

There have been windows in history when the people have had enough abuse and so rise up in revolt. The American and French revolutions come to mind as does 1848. Perhaps we are experiencing something like that at the present time, a revolt against the pressure to conform to globalist values that have been embraced to their benefit by the elites and the establishment in much of the world. It could well become a hard fought and sometimes bloody conflict but its outcome will shape the next century. Will the people really have power in the increasingly globalized world or will it be the 1% with its government and media backing that emerges triumphant?

Western elites are gearing up for war against Russia and China while facing domestic revolutions at the same time. The historical dialectic in action.

Strategic Culture Foundation
The War Against Globalism
Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer, now Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest and founding member of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Dennis Churilov — Were German Nazis and Soviet Socialists the Same?

There are so many people out there who genuinely believe that financial plutocrats like Soros are communists, and that Wall Street-sponsored Hillary Clinton is a socialist.

Many American self-proclaimed right-wingers seriously assert that the German Nazis were all socialists, simply because “Nazi” is short for ”Nationalsozialismus”, which translates as “National Socialism”. Therefore, they make a conclusion that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were ideologically the same.

Sadly, this is the level of political and historical discourse many people are at at the moment.

German Fascism/Nazism and Soviet socialism were the polar opposites....

Fort Russ
Op-ed: Were German Nazis and Soviet Socialists the Same?

Dennis Churilov

Simon Wren-Lewis — Dani Rodrik talks straight on trade

Short review of Dani Rodrik's latest book, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy.

In that sense the title of the book is rather misleading. Although it is discussed a lot, this is hardly just a book about trade. Indeed the subtitle “Ideas for a sane world economy” conveys a better picture of what it is about. The book is based on a collection of articles written for Project Syndicate and elsewhere, and occasionally the joins show. But that feeling quickly gets lost in a wealth of stimulating arguments and ideas that I defy anyone to find dull. This is a fascinating book to read, and I cannot think of anyone who would not learn a great deal from reading it.

It sounds like this book is in the right ball park, dealing with the global economy as a closed system in terms of the social, political and economic issues this involves owing to national boundaries and regional affiliations. Addressing these issues successfully is the challenge of the age in order to avoid dysfunction and conflict above all, but also to aim at distributed prosperity along with fostering political stability and promoting social harmony.

Mainly Macro
Dani Rodrik talks straight on trade
Simon Wren-Lewis | Professor of Economics, Oxford University

Sputnik — Globalization in Crisis: World Economy Creating 'Few Winners, Lot of Losers'

There are relatively few winners and "a lot of losers" in the world's current form of globalization, anti-globalization activist and analyst Juergen Maier told Sputnik Deutschland.…

Maier said that increasing protectionism, enthusiasm for border controls and nationalism, as demonstrated by the election of Trump and the UK's Brexit vote, is leading to the success of right-wing parties and the failure of progressive parties to adjust to the new reality.

"They often act as if they are also against this sort of globalization, but whenever they are in power – like Mr. Tsipras in Greece or the Red-Green governments of Sweden and Luxembourg – they suddenly agree to everything. I think that above all, a lot of people are quite rightly angry. Social Democrats really have to ask themselves why the working class is voting so strongly for right-wing populism, which has to do with the policy failures of social democracy."

Sputnik International — business
Globalization in Crisis: World Economy Creating 'Few Winners, Lot of Losers'

Andrew Batson — What is the real driver of the Russian revanche?

Important. Another paradox of liberalism. Liberalism creates its own enemies.

Andrew Batson's Blog
What is the real driver of the Russian revanche?
Andrew

Akhilesh Pillalamarri — The Bitter Fruits of Wilsonianism

Theodore Roosevelt's nationalist realism opposed to Woodrow Wilson's internationalist idealism. Historical backgrounder.

The American Conservative
The Bitter Fruits of Wilsonianism

Akhilesh Pillalamarri, editorial assistant at The American Conservative

Richard N. Haass — World Order 2.0

Richard N. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, the public face of the "Masters of the Universe." What he says about is therefore significant as the public agenda of the plutocrats and technocrats.

He begins with describing the old world order as that following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which made national sovereignty the priority. Haas asserts that this order is no longer appropriate for a globalizing world and the new world order needs to be founded on internationalism.

Guess who wants to write the rules for international obligations of states?

Haas bemoans that this view is antithetical to Donald Trump's America First policy.

Battle brewing.

Project Syndicate
World Order 2.0

Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations

Dani Rodrik — Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?

The question in the title is perhaps the most important question we confront, and will continue to confront in the years ahead. I discuss my take in this paper.

More on nationalism versus internationalism.

Dani Rodrik's Weblog
Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?

Dani Rodrik | Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

Heiko Khoo — Collapse of Anglo-US model highlight of 2016

It was a dramatic year in world politics. After a long period of slowly-accumulating social and economic contradictions, a new and tumultuous era has opened up, heralding a time of sudden transformations, social and cultural upheavals, and ideological flux.

In June 2016, the British people voted to leave the European Union, thus reversing the trend towards globalization. Similarly, the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President signals the end of American-backed multilateralism. In consequence, the Anglo-U.S. model of Neoliberal Capitalism is dead.

Such developments hide a broader and deeper malaise affecting world capitalism. In order to balance the books and restore "economic credibility" many countries adopted draconian austerity measures following the Great Recession of 2008-9.

In the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and the United States, overall living standards have fallen. Many poor and middle-income countries experienced catastrophic social consequences.

This is leading to a revolt at the ballot box, against what is often called "the political class" or "the establishment."

It also exposes the falseness in four long-promoted "commonsense" myths: that enriching the few eventually benefits the many; that countries will increasingly integrate and collaborate; that wealthy capitalist democracies assist poor countries to develop; and that these same wealthy countries are international guarantors of peace, justice and human rights....

Western soft power had a tough year.

One thing is certain, none of the central problems in society will be resolved by the solutions proposed by the present rulers of Europe or the U.S. And this is because of the structural foundations of the system.

Politics is like a theatrical performance whose function, at root, is to help the biggest companies maximize their profits. Control over the political script and the performance on stage is normally guaranteed.

Deeply entrenched economic interests dominate politics. In this system - no matter what shade of government is in power - the interests of the largest privately-owned profit-seeking companies, shape the contours of the world's economy....

 Pretty good analysis and commentary "with Chinese characteristics." Definitely nowhere near as crude as it was years ago. And it's informative to see how others see you.

China.org.cn
Collapse of Anglo-US model highlight of 2016
Heiko Khoo, columnist with China.org.cn

Pepe Escobar — Could Trump Pull Off a Post-Party Coalition?

Teaser: 

This all implies Trump should become well versed in the national economy ideas of Friedrich List – whose tariff-protected Zollverein League was essentially the founding method of Prussia to build the German nation.

This election is potentially turning into a battle between the financial and industrial elites. Whatever the outcome, this is only the beginning of it.

Disraeli’s Coningsby was never more appropriate; “So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

Sputnik
Could Trump Pull Off a Post-Party Coalition?
Pepe Escobar

Bill Mitchell — The struggle to establish a coherent progressive position continues

There was an interesting article from Spanish political scientist (and economist) Vicente Navarro (August 4, 2016) – Is The Nation-State And Its Welfare State Dead? A Critique Of Varoufakis – which contested the former Greek finance mininster’s claims that the “nation state is dead” and so pan-international movements are required to restore democracy and provide a bulwark against global capitalism. I have a lot of sympathy for Navarro’s argument given that the topic is closely related to current book manuscript I am working on with Italian journalist Thomas Fazi on the reasons that the Left have vacated the progressive space and adopted neo-liberal economic positions that guarantee its steady demise as a political force. So in that context, the work of the former finance minister in trying to revive a Left narrative is admirable but, as Navarro notes, is misguided. DiEM25 is not likely to form a basic of a progressive manifesto for the future…

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The struggle to establish a coherent progressive position continues
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Andrew Batson — When “It’s the economy, stupid” falls short

Economists see everything in economic issues. reality is more complicated, and complex, than that simple point of view.

The US Seventh Fleet is massing battle units in the vicinity of China to force a Chinese withdrawal of territorial claims and an imminent US/NATO coordinated attack on eastern Ukraine is being prepared to pressure Russia, the choice being either capitulation or fighting NATO. 

This is actually contra the economic interests of most nations and about the projection of imperial power. It is political, that is, about who controls territory. This precedes economics.

Andrew Batson's Blog

When “It’s the economy, stupid” falls short
Andrew

Bill Mitchell — The impossibility theorem that beguiles the Left

Some years ago (June 27, 2007), Harvard economist Dani Rodrik outlined what he called his “impossibility theorem”, which said that “democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full”. In his brief article – The inescapable trilemma of the world economy – he made the case that “deep economic integration required we eliminate all transaction costs … in … cross-border dealings” and that “Nation-states are a fundamental source of such transaction costs”. Ergo, if you want ‘deep’ integration then the Nation-state has to surrender. His “trilemma” guides his view of how the “international economic system” should be reformed. He think that if “want more globalization, we must either give up some democracy or some national sovereignty”. This view has been adopted by political parties as if the conceptual framework is in some way binding. The trilemma has been skillfully sold as a narrative by right-wing think tanks and others who serve the interests of capital. The so-called progressive politicians have fallen into the trap and have shifted their political parties closer and closer to their right-wing opponents, such that now it is hard to distinguish between the major parties in most nations. The reality is that while the impossibility theorem beguiles the Left – its applicability as a binding constraint on government is limited. It is as vapid as the statements made by these career politicians on both sides of politics that they serve the people.…

Another post we have been waiting for.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The impossibility theorem that beguiles the Left
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Chris Bickerton — Syriza has not been radical enough

The right response to the current crisis is to dismantle the Eurozone. As it stands, there is no way of reconciling national democracy with a continued commitment to Eurozone membership.

Ever since it was created, the common currency has served to sharpen the differences between national economies in Europe. Diverging rates of competitiveness were masked by easy access to credit, something which ended in 2009. We are left with a situation where national populations are expected to bear the full brunt of adjustment whilst governments have no freedom of manoeuvre in either monetary or fiscal policy. 

These sorts of expectations about internal adjustment to wages and prices are what brought the Gold Standard to an end, precisely because it became incompatible with national democracy. Only the involution of national democracy and the abandonment by the Left of its belief in national self-determination has allowed the Eurozone to survive thus far. It should be dismantled in order that national populations across Europe have a greater control over their fate.…

the current moment
Syriza has not been radical enough
Chris Bickerton

Alex Andreou — Where Is My European Union?

I am not in the deluded camp who think that national sovereignty is a magic bullet that will restore some nationalist utopia which only ever existed in our minds. Governments have been captured by corporate interests, so completely and at every level, that all EU exit changes is the field on which necessary battles must be fought. No flag provides protection from that, however tightly we wrap ourselves in it.

Neither do I want to suggest that the project hasn't been a success. Before it was captured by this fatal monetarist fever, it achieved decades of unprecedented peace and prosperity, extraordinary advances in working and consumer rights, and a mingling of cultures and populations which has enriched us all. But I know, in my heart, it is now irrevocably damaged...

The side which supports saying "yes" to the disgraceful agreement being offered, in exchange for staying in the Euro, paint it in two ways: First, as a battle between certainty and uncertainty. But that is misleading. Because, by examining our country's trajectory over the past five years, the certainty being offered by a "yes" is a certainty of more misery, more poverty, more humiliation, more degradation. Those recommending "yes" to taking more of the medicine being extended to us, do so in the full knowledge that this medicine is poison.

Second, the choice is being painted as one between emotion and reason. It is, of course, not unusual for the established to be presented as reasonable and the radical as emotional. It is pretty much the whole basis of conservatism. But fear is also an emotion. And what drives the "yes" camp seems to be a very clear terror of the notion that the unknown might be even worse. It is the logic of locking yourself inside your cabin on the Titanic, because the lifeboats are small and the ocean frozen....

Sad but a good read.

Byline

Where Is My European Union?

Alex Andreou

ht Don Quijones at Raging Bull-Shit

Mark Adomanis — Russian Support For Democracy Just Hit The Lowest Level In More Than 20 Years

The invaluable Levada Center, Russia’s only genuinely independent polling agency, regularly conducts a survey about Russians’ attitudes towards the government, the economy, and the proper relationship between the state and its citizens. The 2015 results were just released, and it makes for rather depressing reading [to Western liberals].

Basically, right across the board, Russians have become substantially more statist and nationalist in their views.....

It should seem obvious, but you need to pay attention to what the Russian public thinks. It might be nice to assume that it wants exactly the same things that we do, but all of the evidence suggests that this isn’t true.

Turns out that most Russians are very conservative rather than liberal. The odds of a liberal regime coming to power are very low.

Forbes
Russian Support For Democracy Just Hit The Lowest Level In More Than 20 Years

Mark Adomanis, Contributor

Reuters — Europe 'Fiscal Union' Proposal At Forefront Of Crisis Debate

It is generally agreed that fiscal union is required to create a stable system in the EZ, which is otherwise too asymmetric for a currency union to survive socially, politically and economically. The question is whether tighter fiscal union, which means tighter political union and further abandoning national sovereignty is more workable. In light of the American experiment, which endured one civil war and is in the process of toying with another culturally based on the same issues, one must take pause at the suggestion that Europe is now ready to become the United States of Europe.

Given the entrenched nationalism on the continent, and the separation of the British Isles from the continent, a united Europe seems somewhat of a wishful fantasy. The consequences may turn out to be far worse than those resulting from a failing currency union, which the UK at least had the prescience to foresee and avoid. The United States of Europe could become a failed state, especially if it takes a direction toward a Fourth Reich, as seems to be a danger. The Eurocrats would do well to ponder this deeply and not gloss over either the history or the deep and numerous contemporary challenges.

Read it at The Huffington Post
Europe 'Fiscal Union' Proposal At Forefront Of Crisis Debate

by Noah Barkin and Daniel Flynn