__/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/


                   The Chuikov Report # 1


                        Ben Seattle
                     February 10, 2021 
                     (updated: Feb 12)

  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/  __/


Hi folks,

I intend to write about, on a regular basis, my work on what
I call the Chuikov Project, as well as related political 
work.

------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Chuikov Project
   Information wants to be organized
   to serve the proletarian revolution

2. Trump's coup: farce today, tragedy tomorrow 
   A dress rehearsal for imposing martial law and
   suspending the Constitution gives us insight
   into the long-term danger of extreme repression
   amid growing instability and echoes of the 1930's

3. The spectre of social media
   Our ruling class will find itself in deep shit as
   public opinion increasingly gets "out of control"

4. The Thread Manifesto
   and the road to Trinity
   (reply to CB, a WSWS supporter)

5. The Proletarian Blockchain
   It will be under everyone's control because 
   it will be beyond anyone's control

6. Pragmatism and "The Marxist Line"
   The leadership of the working class
   cannot be separated from where
   the working class needs to go

7. The Coming War between the U.S. and China
   A war between the U.S. and China is not
   inevitable, but it is becoming increasingly
   difficult to see how it might be avoided

8. Let me hear from you

------------------------------------------------------------
   Appendix A - Letter from CB
   Appendix B - About Vasily Chuikov

   Update added February 12:
   Appendix C - Taiwan, Self-determination and
                  the struggle against Imperialist War
------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Chuikov Project


Information wants to be organized
to serve the proletarian revolution
 

I am creating a software app that I am naming "Chuikov" (as 
a dedication to the guy who was in charge of the defense of 
Stalingrad).

Personal Information Manager

(1) Chuikov will help users write and organize notes, 
of all kinds, and to combine these notes into other 
notes.  Notes will contain text, images, links, tags, 
tables, scrollable content--and (of course) other notes.

In this way--Chuikov will function as a personal 
information manager.  

Publishing Platform

(2) Users will also be able to use these notes to create 
packages of public content (that I call "nodes") to be 
posted at a location in common with other Chuikov users 
(probably at communism.org). 

In this way--Chuikov will function as a publishing 
platform.

Social Media Platform

(3) Chuikov will help users to easily find, filter, 
organize, read, and respond to other public nodes by 
other people.

In this way--Chuikov will function as a social media 
platform.

A guide to the future evolution
of independent platforms

(4) In this sense, even if it was crude, even if the 
platform was limited to 10 users, Chuikov would have 
potential to show activists that there is a new way of 
organizing and making use of information.

If successful, on these terms, the ideas inherent in the 
platform may help to guide the evolution of an emerging 
generation of prototype platforms that will eventually 
connect with one another and (over time) coalesce into a 
new kind of democratic social media platform, with 
algorithms that are chosen by (or created by) the user.  

In any event, this is my intent.

(5) At the least (if nothing else) Chuikov can serve as an 
experimental platform designed to investigate the 
usefulness of certain kinds of design principles used to 
retrieve, display, recombine, or otherwise leverage 
information.

Time to roll up my sleeves

(6) For many years, I have been advocating to political 
activists that they should be considering the potential of 
a common democratic social media platform.  

(7) A common democratic platform would be built around the 
mission of bringing essential knowledge of the class 
struggle (and every other part of human and natural life) 
to the proletariat--so that the proletariat would 
understand its primary role in the struggle of humanity 
to liberate itself from the terror and the tyranny of 
capital.

(8) For the most part, my words have had little impact on 
few people.  It would seem that there is nothing left for 
me but to roll up my sleeves.  I know what needs to be 
done:

(9) I have made efforts in the past to create software to 
prototype principles along these lines.  My life fell apart 
around me, but I persisted.  Even so, my efforts came to 
naught.  

I have, since then, learned much.  I may have time and life 
enough left to make a second effort--if my focus and 
priorities are clear.

(10) And that, my friends, is why I have named this 
project in honor of the memory of what Chuikov and his 
soldiers did in the decisive days of 1942.  These men were 
focused.  

When I get tired or confused, and am not sure which 
direction is up, I ask myself one simple question: What 
would Chuikov do?

Current status

(11) For 6 weeks in a row, I have put most of my spare 
hours (when I was not busy with my job) into creating 
C# code to: 

  (a) help me create, edit and organize notes and 

  (b) create the html and javascript needed
      to use these notes as the building blocks
      of this webpage.  

At this point, for the first time, I can post content to 
the web without reliance on either a commercial platform 
(ie: WordPress, Facebook, Reddit) or on manual coding of 
html.  

I used Chuikov to put this web page together.  And I will 
be able to use Chuikov to easily create other webpages--so 
I can focus less on writing code and (at least for a 
little while) more on writing words that might move the 
hearts of men and women.

Next steps

(12) The next step, if I can catch my breath, will be to 
eventually give other users the ability to post notes as 
replies to nodes.  

For example, this essay currently has two columns.  The 
formal column is mainly text.  The informal column is 
mainly images.  The next step would be to add a 3rd 
column where comments from users would be posted.

The next step after that would be to give other users the 
ability to create their own nodes.

Potential future development

(13) Even better (although something I would not be able to 
do without help from other software worker activists) would 
be to give Chuikov the ability to import from (and 
export to) mainstream commercial platforms, so that (for 
example) users could have the option of adding notes to 
Chuikov by posting on twitter, and the option of posting 
on twitter, Reddit or Facebook, and so forth, by using 
Chuikov.  

This would mean that a Chuikov user would be able to have a 
single platform from where they would have the ability to 
command and control all of their accounts on all social 
media platforms.

(14) How much of this will I actually be able to do?  
Certainly a lot less than I would like.  But if something 
is important, and needs to be done, there will eventually 
be plenty of other people helping.  My role is not to do 
everything by myself--but simply to do what I can:

        If you want to build a ship, don't drum up
        people to collect wood and don't assign
        them tasks and work, but rather teach them
        to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

        -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Spartacus Ex Machina

(15) I wrote a somewhat detailed description of how 
everything would look if I actually had time to turn my 
ideas into code.  My description appears in Appendix B of 
"Spartacus Ex Machina", and I have written further in 
nodes 4002, 4005 and 4012 (please see the links in 
the next column).

The flow of information

(16) I have spent 50 years studying, in one way or another, 
how information is organized in our brains, so that after 
half a billion years of evolution, information can flow in 
such a way that billions of cells can function as part of 
a larger organism.  

Modern life and technology have laid the basis for the next 
step: billions of proletarians combining their actions as 
part of a social class with the mission and destiny of 
the liberation of humanity from the rule of capital.

The right to choose our algorithms

(17) The algorithms that determine what words and images 
you see and hear, and what words and images of yours that 
others see and hear--must be controlled by each user.

These algorithms must be liberated, so that information 
can be free to bring light and consciousness to the 
proletariat.  Only in this way can we break free from all 
restrictions on the vital flow of information our class 
needs.

(18) Putting the choice of the algorithms we use in the 
hands of greedy corporations or (worse) governmental 
institutions (which are all controlled by our ruling class) 
is a recipe for the eternal perpetuation of ignorance on 
on a mass scale.

Algorithms are the essential and decisive modern tool that 
amplifies our ability to learn what is important--and 
amplifies our ability to speak our mind.

Just as we must have the right to read what we want and 
the right to say what we want, so we must also have the 
fundamental right to choose the algorithms that make 
these first two rights meaningful in the age of social 
media.  

A platform that serves our needs

(19) A gazelle on the African savanna that is scanning the 
horizon for dangerous lions does not have its attention 
broken up by ads for grasses and leaves, nor by the latest 
news on which gazelles have been spotted together at trendy 
nightclubs.  Rather--the central nervous system of the 
gazelle serves the real needs of the gazelle, 100%.

In a similar way, activists must create a common 
democratic platform--where users control the algorithms 
rather than algorithms controlling the user.

The century of information war

(20) My work exists on the boundary between:

       (a) the independent movement of
           the working class that will 
           eliminate the rule of capital and

       (b) the software and algorithms that
           people can use to create, organize,
           package and post shareable content.

The working class will organize information and 
communicate this organized information in order to 
transform it into consciousness and action.

At this time, software workers and political activists are 
largely two separate communities.  As our current century 
of information war continues to unfold, both of these 
communities will recognize that they very much need one 
another.

The algorithms that will be used to organize and 
communicate information are associated with the names of 
people like Turing and Shannon. The independent 
movement of the working class is associated with the names 
of Marx and Lenin.

I am a student of all of them, at least in the realm of 
theory. In the realm of practice, I will do what I can to 
be a student of Chuikov.

2. Trump's failed coup attempt


Trump's proto-fascist MAGA movement stages
a dress rehearsal for imposing martial law

On January 6, a crowd that Trump had summoned to Washington 
D.C., possibly as large as 10 thousand, stormed the Capitol 
building, in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 
election.  

The assault was led by the neo-fascist Proud Boys, and 
included other fascist and neo-fascist gangs that Trump has 
encouraged, as well as supporters of the bizarre QAnon 
conspiracy theory, which holds that Democratic Party 
politicians are cannibalistic pedophiles that Trump had 
been sent by god to arrest and execute.  

Some in the crowd were yelling "Hang Mike Pence".  Early 
reports claimed that kill-capture teams had lists of 
politicians they were looking to execute, although this now 
appears to be an exaggeration, based on the spear carried 
by infamous QAnon Shaman.

Eight people died as a result (one woman was shot by the 
police, one cop was beaten to death with a fire 
extinguisher, one woman was trampled to death by the crowd, 
there was one heart attack, one stroke and, so far, at 
least 3 suicides in the aftermath).

1 - Echoes of the 1930's

The assault on the Capitol had plenty of support among 
high-ranking security officials who--in the days before 
the storming of the Capitol--repeatedly refused requests by 
lower-level officials for more realistic security 
preparations--on the excuse that this would be "bad 
optics".

One out of seven of those arrested were current or former 
soldiers, and the stormtrumpers included many current and 
former cops as well as senior business executives.

Trump may have been inspired by Mussolini's March On Rome 
in 1922, but the result was a confused and poorly organized 
imitation of Hitler's failed Beer Hall putsch in Munich 
in 1923.  The right-wing gangsterism embodied in the calls 
to hang Trump's Vice President bring to mind the atmosphere 
in 1930's Japan, where Japanese militarists began to 
systematically assassinate politicians who refused to 
abandon constitutional government and go along with 
military rule.

2 - Ruling class pulls the plug on Trump

The result of all this has been a fiasco for Trump and his 
MAGA movement.  The ugliness of the white supremacist and 
neo-fascist thugs was shown in a way that was hard for 
anyone to deny.

Trump's support among Republicans dropped, and support from 
corporate and other big-money donors evaporated.  
Right-wing talk radio stations told their broadcast 
personalities that they would be immediately fired unless 
they stopped promoting the lie that Trump actually won the 
election.

And the main big-tech outlets which had been amplifying 
Trump's racist poison, Twitter and Facebook, finally 
had enough and shut him down.  Further actions were taken 
by Reddit, which closed one of the main Trump groups for 
incitement of violence.  Google and Apple pulled 
Parler (a right-wing social media platform known for 
incitement of racist violence) from their app stores for 
phones.  And Amazon shut down web services hosting for 
Parler.

3 - We need to take this seriously

Zeynep Tufekci, writing in the Atlantic [Link 2.1] noted 
that it is a serious mistake to dismiss a coup attempt on 
the grounds that it is inept and disorganized.  She 
describes two coup attempts in Turkey, one in the early 
1960's and the other in 1980.  The first attempt, she 
notes, was a farce, a spectacular failure with tanks being 
sent to the wrong place at the wrong time, and so forth.  
The second attempt was a tragedy for Turkey: hundreds of 
thousands detained, more than 100 tortured to death, and a 
new period of repression.

Hitler's attempted putsch in 1923 was also a farce.  Ten 
years later, the German ruling class, feeling threatened 
by the growing popularity of working class parties and the 
possibility of revolution, played the Hitler card and 
installed him in power.  It was not a good gamble.  Hitler 
set Europe ablaze, killing 40 million people.

4 - We cannot rely on
the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party has impeached Trump a 2nd time, and an 
impeachment trial will soon take place in the Senate.  It 
would be good if Trump and other politicians and high 
officials were held accountable for at least some of their 
crimes.  This would help open the eyes of millions of 
people who have been deluded by Trump's lies, and would 
also help isolate the neo-fascist gangs.  This would also 
act as a deterrent to similar (and more competent and 
successful) efforts in the future to toss aside the 
Consitution and impose strong-man rule.

But don't count on it.

The Democratic Party may wish to preserve (at least 
somewhat) the Trump/Maga card in order to (1) use it as a 
foil--to make themselves look good in comparison--and (2) 
as a counterweight against the vocal reformists (such as 
"the squad") in their ranks--to provide a "bipartisan" 
excuse for inaction on a range of issues.

More than this, the ruling class as a whole may also wish 
to keep this card for use, so speak, on a "rainy day" 
(ie: when the working class wakes up and learns how to 
organize itself in a major way--see the section below on 
how the ruling class makes use of fascism when it becomes 
desperate).

Millions of people would like to see the Democratic Party 
stand as a bulwark against the racist, pro-business and 
anti-people movement that Trump has championed and that has 
seized hold of much of the country.  But we need to keep in 
mind that it was the treachery of the Democratic 
Party--and its support for similar policies under the 
banner of neo-liberalism and austerity (ie: the open 
subservience of Clinton and Obama to Wall Street) that 
made it possible for an obvious demagogue like Trump to 
become so popular in the first place.

5 - U.S. imperialism has long history
of using coups to overthrow elections

Democratic Party politicians are voicing hypocritical 
outrage about Trump's attempt to overturn the election by 
means of a violent assault on the Capitol.  But we need to 
remember that, for more than a century, using coups to 
overthrow election results has been standard operating 
procedure for U.S. imperialism.

Both ruling class parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
have a long and bloody history of organizing or assisting 
coups to overthrow elections in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America.  There are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples.  
The most well-known are Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), 
Congo (1960), Indonesia (1965), Chile (1973), and 
(more recently) Egypt (2013) and Bolivia (2019).

The coup in Indonesia led to the slaughter of between half 
a million and a million people.  The coup in Bolivia (and 
two associated massacres) appears to have been supported by 
celebrity billionaire Elon Musk.  There was also a notable 
failed attempt to overthrow Erdogan in Turkey (2016) and 
two failed attempts to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela 
(2019 and 2020).  (Both Erdogan and Maduro are despots, but 
things are never improved when U.S. imperialism replaces a 
despot with an obedient puppet.)

Why does U.S. imperialism organize coups in other countries 
so that it can fatten its profits?  Because it can.  And 
because coups are cheaper and easier than military action.

6 - Elections have always been rigged
to reflect ruling class interests

Trump lies when he claims that votes were miscounted, but 
elections have always been rigged against the popular 
interest in order to reflect the needs of our ruling class.

Originally, in the U.S., voting was limited to landowning 
males (about 6% of the population).  Over time (and the 
course of popular struggle) voting rights have expanded to 
include non-landowners, freed slaves, and women (who could 
vote in the Soviet Union before they could vote in the 
U.S.).  There are still a thousand ways that the election 
system is stacked against the working class and oppressed:

** Elections are based on big money and support from the 
big corporations.  Biden and Trump raised $2 billion each 
for the recent election, and money for congressional 
elections totalled $10 billion.

** The electoral college system is rigged in favor of small 
rural states which typically vote Republican, and 
presidential elections are generally decided by a handful 
of votes in key "swing states".  If elections were based on 
the popular vote (as is normal in other countries) Trump 
would have lost the 2016 election by 3 million votes.

** More than this, we live under an economic and political 
system dominated by corrupt institutions and corporate 
media that manipulate the truth and lie to us at every 
turn.  For example,  Bernie Sanders was far more popular 
among Democratic Party voters than Joe Biden, but got 
dumped in backroom manipulations because his tame and 
timid reformism was not acceptable to the big money that 
runs the Democratic Party.

7 - Elections promote 
illusion of "democracy"

The role of elections in capitalist society is to 
legitimize the rule of the representatives of capital, by 
creating the illusion of "democracy", in which the 
actions of the powerful supposedly represent the will of 
the working class and oppressed.  Every 2 or 4 years we get 
to vote on who will rule us and fool us.

Within this framework we can and must struggle to show our 
discontent and reduce our pain.  I am not arguing that 
there is never any point in participating in elections.  
Elections can be important because they can be connected to 
mass movements in either positive or negative ways.  But if 
we make them our main focus--we are lost.

We need to cast off the illusion that we live in a 
"democracy" (where the actions of "our" leaders supposedly 
reflect our will).  We must instead create a class 
independent movement which is not restricted by alliances 
with "the lesser evil".  Our movement must aim at 
mobilizing millions to get rid of the rule of capital 
which is the ultimate source of all the misery in the 
world.

8 - The reasons for increasing instability

It should be clear that the world is becoming more 
unstable, with right-wing, nationalist demagogues coming to 
power on every continent.  Since this is a worldwide trend, 
it is obviously taking place for deeper reasons than the 
personalities or special abilities of any particular 
strongman.  It is important to understand the deeper, 
structural reasons for this.

9 - Speculation ahead ...

I will make some observations here to give some background, 
but will also note that normally, I only write about topics 
I know something about.  In this case, however, my 
understanding of these deeper reasons may be shallow.  

So what follows in this section represents an exception to 
how I usually do things, and instead includes some 
speculation, and brief mentions of some of the most common 
ideas for the deepening global instability.  The ideas I 
sketch out below are not mutually exclusive, but rather are 
connected to one another in various ways.

10 - Economic and financial crisis

The most common explanation for growing instability holds 
that it is a product of economic and financial crises which 
are (a) making it more difficult for the ruling capitalists 
to make profits, and also (b) lowering the living standards 
of the working class and oppressed.

11 - Growing inequality

As is shown in the chart, inequality in the U.S. has been 
steadily increasing since 1980.  At that time the share of 
national income that went to the bottom 50% was nearly 
twice the share that went to the top 1%.  Now this is 
nearly reversed.

In simpler words, in 1980, someone in the top 1% made about 
25 times more money than someone in the bottom 50%.  
Today it is closer to 100 times more.

It should be fairly clear that increasing inequality makes 
society more unstable.  Well-known billionaires such as 
Nick Hanauer and Ray Dalio have noted that historically, 
when inequality increases too much, the pitchforks (ie: 
revolution) follow.

Also in this category are things like the loss of better 
paid manufacturing jobs.  This is often blamed on other 
countries "stealing our jobs", but 80% of the job losses 
are due to things like automation (ie: machinery, robots 
and AI software).

12 - Falling rate of profit

Another common explanation for growing instability is 
related to what Marx called the "falling rate of profit".  
Marx taught that, over time, as things like mechanization 
and automation (which Marx called "organic capital") 
increased, the ratio of organic capital to the capital 
spent to hire workers (which Marx called "variable 
capital") increases.  However it is only the variable 
capital which creates profits--so as this ratio increases, 
the rate of profit falls.

As the rate of profit falls, social instability goes up (as 
I understand it) as the capitalists must resort to 
increasingly risky things (like war) in an effort to 
maintain their profit levels.

13 - The long term debt cycle

Ray Dalio (see the video and the chart on "deleveraging" in 
the next column) has given the view that economies 
generally have what he calls "long term debt cycles".  
These lengthy cycles (which usually include several cycles 
of expansion/recession) involve a gradual build-up of 
debt until the weight of excessive debt bogs down the 
economy and can no longer be overcome by normal means (for 
example: you can't lower interest rates below zero without 
making things worse).

Debt is related to what is sometimes called "fictitious 
capital", which can make people with the right connections 
very wealthy.  But eventually the ratio of this counterfeit 
money to the goods, services and real things that it is 
supposed to represent becomes stretched beyond 
practicality.

In simpler terms, there is a limit on how much air you can 
pump into a bubble before it pops.  

At that point capitalist society must make a number of 
painful adjustments, in order to "deleverage" and get rid 
of excessive debt.  Deleveraging, per Dalio, involves a 
combination of: 

    (a) austerity, 
    (b) wealth redistribution, 
    (c) debt default and 
    (d) inflation.

Dalio makes a strong case that conditions in the U.S. and 
the world are similar in many ways to the 1930's.  The 
1930's were a time of growth in social movements in the 
U.S., but were also a time in which fascism came to power 
elsewhere.

14 - The changing world order

Dalio has also written on what he calls the changing world 
order (see the chapter below on China).  Basically, about 
once a century or thereabouts, the ranking top dog in the 
world economic and military order changes.  Over the last 
500 years we have seen the rise and fall of Spain, the 
Netherlands, Britain, and finally the U.S.

It looks like the next top dog will be China.

These changes (more often than not) involve major wars.  
War turns out to be an effective way to settle the question 
of who is more powerful--and gets the lion's share of the 
spoils.

15 - Ruling class reaction 
to the threat of social media

Social media is also making the world more unstable.

It used to be that a ruling class in a powerful country had 
the ability to largely shape the news, perceptions and 
thinking of the majority of the population with a 
more-or-less single unified narrative, or story, on the 
most important topics.  Government officials would make 
statements, and the largely compliant corporate media would 
simply echo them and back them to the hilt.

For example, in 1964 the fabricated story of an attack on 
U.S. warships in the Tonkin Gulf (ie: the pretext for the 
expansion of the U.S. war in Vietnam) was essentially 
unchallenged at the time.  More recently, there was little 
challenge in 2003 to the claim that Saddamn Hussein was 
building "weapons of mass destruction" (ie: the pretext 
for the U.S. invasion or Iraq) even though most experts 
understood that this was a lie.

However, imposing such a single unified view becomes more 
difficult when it is easier for ordinary people to share 
with one another news and opinion of their choice.  Even 
the lapdog corporate media must report the truth more 
often or risk being outflanked by smaller but truthier 
competitors, which face similar pressure from down the 
chain.

When the ruling class is faced with the threat of the 
working class sharing opinions--and figuring out how 
badly they are getting screwed by the rich (and 
organizing to do something about it) the ruling class is 
forced to resort to the tried and true tactic that has been 
used since civilization emerged 5 thousand years ago in 
Mesopotamia: divide-and-rule.

That is what Trump was about: divide-and-rule.

When the working class and oppressed learn to raise their 
consciousness by generating a clear signal--the ruling 
class must resort to drowning out the signal with a 
high-volume of noise.

The beginning of the clear signal was represented by the 
Occupy movement.  Trump represented the noise.

I say more about the increasing power of social media in 
the next chapter.

16 - The need for ruling classes
to step up repression

I have concluded that capitalist rule is unlikely to 
survive this century--as the ability of the working class 
everywhere to organize itself and raise its consciousness 
increases.  

Before the rule of capital is swept off the stage of 
history--it is likely to react violently, with extreme 
repression.

But this may be decades from now.

Trump's coup failed because our ruling class has no need 
at this time to toss aside the constitution and place a 
"good sword" in charge.

But this situation may eventually change.

17 - Is there a danger of fascism ?

There has been a great increase of interest in the topic of 
fascism in recent years for obvious reasons:

** The rise of far-right, repressive demagogues in 
   Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America

** Trump's 2016 election on an openly racist platform,
   his open encouragement of violent white supremacist
   gangs, and the resulting attacks on and occasional
   murders of anti-racist and anti-fascist activists

** Trump's attempt in June to invoke martial law (which
   was initially supported by the "liberal" New York Times)
   in response to Black Lives Matter protests in Washington
   D.C., and the January 6 storming of the Capitol

** The phenomenon in which nearly half the population
   of the U.S. was deluded by "the big lie" tactic
   common to demagogues everywhere

For many, the scariest part of the whole Trump presidency 
(other than the global pandemic) was the fact that friends, 
family members and loved ones could not see through the 
lies of a obvious conman.

It may be a source of amusement if a small fringe of people 
want to believe the earth is flat.  It is something else if 
half the population is deluded by someone who appears to 
idolize Mussolini.

It was 99 years ago that Mussolini marched on Rome and 
brought the word "fascism" into common usage.  17 years 
later, fascism led to a world war that killed an estimated 
70 million people.  Today, the destructive power of modern 
weapons dwarfs those used in the second world war.  And the 
surveillance and control capabilities made possible with 
modern technology are approaching that described by George 
Orwell in "1984".

So fascism is scary.

I have no deep knowledge on the question, but it may be 
helpful to quickly sum up one or two things.

18 - First - what is fascism?

The word "fascism" is used in an informal sense, of course, 
like when Seinfeld had an episode called "the Soup Nazi" 
about a soup-to-go stand in New York with strict rules.  
But the person it was based on had family from eastern 
europe that had survived the nazi occupation.  He did not 
think there was anything funny about the word.

From a scientific perspective, the term fascism refers to a 
situation where the ruling bourgeoisie (ie: what was called 
the "1 percent" during the Occupy movement) is no longer 
able to maintain the normal functioning of society by the 
usual means--and decides to act decisively to crush the 
workers movement completely--at whatever cost is necessary.

19 - Police and military 
can become unreliable

In other words, passing repressive laws, and enforcing 
these laws with police or even military forces pressed into 
temporary service is not sufficient--because in the face of 
sufficient popular unrest--the police and even military can 
become unreliable.  

Example # 1 -- during the 1979 Iranian revolution, 
soldiers were ordered to shoot into crowds of tens of 
thousands of protesters.  The movement in Iran had grown 
very large, and many of these soldiers had family or loved 
ones in the crowds.  The soldiers finally got fed up with 
this--and instead shot their officers.  

That was the end for the Shah.

Example # 2 -- Here in the U.S., during the war in 
Vietnam, some units of the national guard were training to 
suppress anti-war protests.  So half the guardsmen were 
assigned to play the role of protesters, while the other 
half trained in how to herd them into arrest formations.  
But this turned into a fiasco, as most of the guardsmen had 
joined the guard to escape the military draft, and were 
sympathetic to the antiwar protests.  So the guardsmen 
training to do the arrests had no enthusiasm whatsoever, 
while the guardsmen playing the role of protesters--got 
really into their assigned role.  

You can imagine how that turned out.

The tendency of police and military forces to become 
unreliable in these circumstances is the subtext in the 
public warning given to Trump this summer (when Trump and 
the lapdog New York Times wanted to use the military 
against Black Lives Matter protesters) by his assistant 
secretary of defense, Mick Mulroy, who said:

    “The decision to use active military forces
     in crowd control in the United States should
     only be made as a last resort.  Active Army
     and Marine Corps units are trained to fight
     our nation’s enemies, not their fellow Americans.
     American cities are not battlefields.”

20 - Ruling class has its back 
against the wall

This is why the ruling class is essentially forced to 
create special armed groups, indoctrinated with rabid 
ideologies and trained to suppress workers, political 
activists and popular unrest--in the way certain breeds of 
dogs are trained to hunt.

German fascism in the 1930's had the brownshirts and SS.  
Trump's racist bully boys aspire to play a similar role 
but, as is shown in an article by Louis Proyect (discussed 
below) they have a long way to go before they can goosestep 
in those boots.

The ruling bourgeoisie very much prefers the relative 
stability of normal bourgeois "democracy" (it is much 
better for the smooth running of the economy and the 
expansion of capital) and only resorts to extreme measures 
during emergencies, which it hopes are temporary.  There 
is a useful article on this by Left Voice that was helpful 
to me in writing this chapter. [Link 2.2]

21 - The relationship of fascism
 to Bonapartism

Fascism is related to a phenomenon called "Bonapartism" 
(after Napoleon) where a strongman comes to power and, in a 
departure from how things normally work, has a fair amount 
of independence from the ruling class.  This is relatively 
rare and takes place when the ruling class has limited 
choices: the ruling class puts the bonapartist in power 
because it needs a "good sword" against the working class 
and oppressed--but the nature of the power arrangement 
leaves the ruling class with very limited control of the 
situation.

Many have argued that Trump was a Bonapartist.  That is not 
my view.

My view is that, from the perspective of our ruling 
class--Trump was a bit of an accident as well as a bit of 
an experiment; something like proto-fascism (like 
dipping a toe in the water to feel its temperature) that 
they can study and learn from so they will be more prepared 
when the day comes that they need to take the plunge.

It appears to me that Trump was always on a leash of 
sorts, although a longer one than usual.

The clearest expression of this was the moment when he 
finally reached the end of this leash, after ordering his 
minions to unleash their fury on the Capitol.  The 
Republican leadership, right-wing talk radio, his corporate 
sponsors, and the big tech companies with their social 
media platforms all finally pulled the plug on their 
creation.

(22) In any event, Bonapartism is not the same thing as 
fascism.  What they have in common is the disruption to the 
normal way of doing things, and the fact that the executive 
has greater independence from the ruling class than 
usual.

For example, the German ruling class eventually found they 
had a big problem after Hitler was put in charge, 
especially once he started losing the war he had initiated 
and there was no way to get rid of him (they tried in 
July 1944, by blowing up his headquarters, and Tom Cruise 
eventually turned it into a movie).

(23) It is important to remember that it makes a big 
difference whether a strongman comes to power:

     (a) from the inside, by co-opting
         a popular revolution that has failed
         because it has exhausted its strength, or 

     (b) from the outside, as a result of crushing
         a popular revolution at the direction of
         the revolution's open enemies.

Both Napoleon and Stalin came to power by the first 
route, while Hitler, on the other hand, came to power by 
the second.  When a strongman is placed into power for the 
purpose of crushing a revolution--his role and his rule 
will be vastly more reactionary.

(24) I am making an effort to sketch out a quick overview 
of some of these topics, and hopefully I have not gotten 
over my head in doing so.  

Some of the best analysis I have seen on the topic of 
bonapartism is from the blog of Louis Proyect.  
Unfortunately, I read one of Louis' best articles on this 
several years ago but did not have an effective system to 
create reference notes, and now I cannot remember *which* 
essay by Louis I read (because he writes a lot on these 
topics).  So I did a quick internet search just now and 
have created links to some of his related articles, some of 
which are likely better than others [Link 2.3].

25 - Proyect's conclusion:
The U.S. is a long way from Weimar

Proyect's wrote a good article [Link 2.4] on why the 
comparisons between the U.S. today and the Weimar republic 
in Germany that led to Hitler's coming to power--are (at 
least at this point in time) much overdone.

(a) Proyect notes that the objective conditions in Germany 
were far more severe.  In 1932 the unemployment rate was 30 
percent (twice that of the U.S.) and unemployment insurance 
had been cut down by austerity after the 1929 markiet 
crash.

(b) The Proud Boys or Boogaloos in the U.S. are miniscule 
in comparison to Hitler's brownshirts, who numbered 400,000 
men in 1932 and had years of experience attacking working 
class demonstrations and rallies.  By contrast, the murders 
committed by Kyle Rittenhouse, or the Nazi who drove his 
car into an antiracist demo in Charlottsville and killed 
Heather Heyer, are relatively rare.

(c) Between 1918 and 1922, rightwing militias such as the 
Freikorps murdered 354 leftist political figures in 
Germany.  The Freikorps was a predecessor of sorts to 
Hitler's brownshirts and numbered more than 1.5 million 
men, who joined for the sole purpose of beating up or 
killing leftists.

(d) The relationship between the desperation of the ruling 
circles and the right-wing terror they unleashed can be 
seen in the timeline of events.  This is a key point.  
Proyect notes that, by 1925, conditions in Germany had 
stabilized and the Freikorps had outlived its usefulness.  
But only four years later, as a consequence of the Great 
Depression, millions of Germans were plunged into poverty 
to the point that they'd rally behind any group, right or 
left, that promised to "make Germany great again."

(e) The battles for control of the streets between the 
Nazis and the reds after 1929 resulted in 155 deaths and 
426 injured in Prussia.  Most of the deaths and injuries 
were of reds, who had to face the combined forces of cops 
and fascists.

(f) Finally, in this period both the fascists and the two 
main German working class trends (the social democrats and 
the communists) had a massive presence in Germany's 
parliament, roughly equal in size to Germany's conservative 
and liberal parties.

(g) One more point here.  Proyect does not bring this up in 
his article but I consider it relevant history: The German 
ruling class installed Hitler into power at the time they 
did because the popularity of Hitler's Nazi party had 
started to collapse, and the popularity of the working 
class trends was steadily growing.  So, for the German 
ruling class, it was a "now or never", "use it lose it" 
moment to play the Hitler card.

26 - On the other hand:
Weimar may be closer than we think

On the other hand, if we take a longer term perspective, 
Weimar may be closer than we think.

The Weimar government in Germany ruled from the end of WW1, 
in 1918, until Hitler was installed into power, in 
1933.  Based on Proyect's article, we can see that Weimar 
had three main stages:

    (1) the period of instability from 
        the end of the war in 1918 to 1925
        (this includes the workers'
         uprisings of 1919 and 1923)

     (2) the period of relative stability from 
         1925 until the Wall Street crash of 1929

     (3) the period of instability from 1929
         until Hitler was put in power in 1933

The U.S. may seem frighteningly unstable today--compared 
to recent history--but we can see that it is in a period of 
relative stability corresponding more closely to the 
1925-1929 period in Germany--than the other two periods 
above.  

Louis is correct to say that the U.S. is not in period like 
Germany was in from 1929-1933.  But what happens if (or 
when) the ever-increasing mountain of debt on which the 
U.S. economic machine depends for its smooth 
running--collapses like a house of cards?

Many people today are predicting economic upheavals on a 
par with 1929.  These kinds of topics, naturally, bring 
forth a fair amount of uninformed commentary.  But I did 
read one thing which rang true and that I found somewhat 
scary.  It said that no one knows (or can know) how 
close we are to the point where a single additional 
dollar of debt, so to speak, breaks the camel's back.

We are in uncharted territory.

27 - "Middle road" leads nowhere

There is one more striking similarity with Weimar that we 
must confront in a sober way.  In retrospect, we can see 
that Weimar was doomed.  As the financial crisis 
intensfied and instability increased--popular discontent 
was bound to make itself felt one way or the other.  
Either the working class will rise up and overthrow the 
ruling class--or the ruling class will first make a 
preemptive strike. 

In the big picture, the social democratic (ie: reformist) 
attempts to reform the Weimar goverment--and transform it 
into the solution the workers needed--failed to recognize 
that this "middle road" would ultimately lead nowhere.

We have, today, a limited amount of time and 
opportunity to create an alternative for the working 
class that is real.  For us, also, this is a case of "use 
it or lose it".

Make hay while the sun shines.

28 - What is a serious alternative ?

The most important thing of all to understand about fascism 
and extreme repression is that in the long term the only 
way to prevent it us by giving the working class and 
oppressed an alternative that is based on reality--with 
a solid theoretical foundation.

Nature abhors a vacume, and so does political life.  If 
mainstream politics (both liberal and conservative) offer 
the masses lies and excuses while making deals with the 
powerful--then it is only natural that ordinary people will 
be attracted to any trend that denounces the lies and 
excuses (and those who make them) and promises change that 
is real.

The overwhelming majority of "the left" (in the U.S. and 
elsewhere) is enmeshed in what I call "food-chain 
politics".  Usually this is called "reformism" or 
"incrementalism" or (to use more precise language) social 
democracy.  There is nothing wrong with fighting for 
reforms, of course.  The problem comes up when the path to 
these reforms involves making alliances with political 
trends that are higher up on the "food chain" and closer to 
power.

For example, in 2016, a group called "Socialist 
Alternative" advocated that its followers look to Bernie 
Sanders for inspiration and leadership.  Bernie, of course, 
ended up promoting Hillary.  Hillary, after she lost the 
election, said we need to "give Trump a chance".  You see 
the problem?  At the bottom of this food chain is 
(supposedly) something called "socialism".  But if you 
follow the chain of influence, you will see that at the 
top of this chain is Wall Street.

If the left cannot unite around a genuine alternative that 
refuses these kinds of compromising and subservient 
alliances, then as our capitalist rulers continue to bring 
misery to the masses--ordinary people will, sooner or 
later, embrace charlatans who will burn them--and maybe 
half the world.

There are left trends that reject food chain politics, of 
course.  But these trends overwhelmingly embrace what I 
call "cargo-cult" thinking and practices (otherwise known 
as sectarianism) in which their little grouplet entertains 
a messianic vision of its role and is unable to engage in 
the necesssary principled cooperation with other groups.

I have come to the conclusion that a good way to break this 
cycle of self-deception and abuse is to take modest and 
reasonable steps to bring the work, ideas and platforms of 
all revolutionary trends to a common democratic 
platform--a database of articles, discussion and 
debate that would represent a level playing field that 
would bring transparency to our movement.  

All the corruption, all the hypocrisy, all the subservience 
to ruling class institutions, as well as all the 
subservience to cargo-cult religions--would be exposed to 
the light of day on such a level playing field.

On the other side of this equation--all of the good and 
dedicated work, analysis and gathering of facts and news by 
all of these trends--would be indexed and easy for anyone 
to find and to compare.

So if anyone is interested in finding either the good work 
or the "dirt" on any leftist or working class 
organization--there would be a place to go.

I discuss this proposal (which I call "the thread 
manifesto") below.

3. The growing crisis
of social media


Our ruling class will find itself 
in deep shit as public opinion 
increasingly gets "out of control"

The ruling class in the US is beginning to recognize that 
they have a big problem on their hands.  Here is one of 
their experts, Yale law professor Robert Post:

   "The formation of public opinion is out of control
   because of the way the internet is forming groups
   and dispersing information freely"

Before the advent of the internet, Post noted:

   "People were always crazy, but they couldn't find
   each other, they couldn't talk and disperse their
   craziness. Now we are confronting a new phenomenon
   and we have to think about how we regulate that
   in a way which is compatible with people’s freedom
   to form public opinion." (see links in next column)

The storming of the Capitol by a mob made up of (1) white 
supremacists, (2) people who believe that Trump won the 
election, and even (3) many who believe that the Democrats 
eat children for breakfast--has reinforced a fear that has 
been growing for a while.

It was not that long ago that our ruling class was laughing 
at the problems that countries like China, Russia and Iran 
would have when the internet gave people the right to learn 
about and share ideas.  They are not laughing now.

Built on a mountain of lies
The problem is that modern capitalist society is built on 
mountains of lies, at every level.  This was not that much 
of a problem when a handful of trusted gatekeepers 
controlled the information that was available to most 
people.  The worst and biggest lies were rarely effectively 
challenged.  When I grew up there were only 3 TV networks.  
And most people got news that had been approved by people 
who bought ink by the barrel.

I have been writing about the future impact of social media 
since long before it was called "social media".  This 
report is already too long, so I will get to the point:

These lies are flammable
The impact of social media is steadily growing, and there 
is no end in sight.  Our society is structured on 
lies--which will increasingly be challenged.  These lies 
are flammable, and will burn.

Ben's Law
I have concluded that the impact of social media is growing 
in an exponential way, and there is an analogy here to 
"Moore's Law" (which was an observation, rather than a law) 
which holds that the number of transistors on a 
semiconductor chip doubles about every two years.  In an 
analogous way, I have observed that the social and 
political impact of social media is doubling about every 
decade.

Fasten your seatbelts
As decade rolls after decade, it will become inceasingly 
obvious that humanity is entering new territory.  The war 
of ideas in society has never been on a level playing 
field.  That is what's going to change.  

All of the lies of our ruling classes, all of their tricks 
and servants, are going to be exposed, like Harvey 
Weinstein was when the internet made it possible for his 
victims to share their stories.  It will be like 
that--times a million.  

So, if you think the impact of social media is big 
now--fasten your seatbelts.


[this section updated: March 6]

4 - The Thread Manifesto 
and the road to Trinity


Reply to CB
(a supporter of WSWS/SEP

         Note to readers: This letter is part of 
         an ongoing correspondence with a supporter
         of the "Socialist Equality Party" (better
         known as the "World Socialist Web Site").
         The letter from CB (as well as links to all
         relevant material) is in Appendix A (below).

Hi CB,

First, since it has been 2 months, I would like to 
apologize for the delay in replying to you.  I first had to 
write (and debug) the code that I used to create this 
webpage.  After I got that done, I got up the next morning 
at 5 am, with a clear mind and determined to complete all 
writing by noon.

Unfortunately, at that point, Trump turned his hordes loose 
on the Capitol, and it was necessary to write about 
that--including related matters (such as the nature of 
bonapartism and fascism) that a lot of people are confused 
about.  Then the demands of my day-job kicked in, and I had 
to put political work on the back burner for a few weeks so 
that I could remain gainfully employed.  But now (at last) 
I have carved out a few hours to focus completely on you.

1 - A clear focus is encouraging

I will start by making clear that I am encouraged by your 
response, because you have focused on the key issue:

     > what I had hoped to see was an explanation
     > of how your proposal would advance any of
     > the struggles the working class currently 
     > faces, which I don't feel you have done.

That is a damn good question.  I will sketch out some 
thoughts here that I hope will at least begin to address 
it.  Hopefully you can follow up with more questions so 
that I can be specific in ways you may find helpful.

2 - The struggles of the working class

The working class, of course, faces thousands of 
struggles, some more important than others. 

  (1) Some struggles are for specific partial
      (and practical) demands:

      For example:
      emergency money to pay for rent or 
      food during the Covid pandemic, or
      for the punishment of cops who murder
      people with impunity. 

  (2) Other struggles are for less immediate and
      more long-term demands:

      For example:
      Action to reduce global warming. 

  (3) Some struggles are for things that are somewhat
      more abstract, and not necessarily tied to
      any single set of partial demands:

      For example:
      the struggle for a class independent party, 
      or the struggle for consciousness so that
      they can understand how this world came to be,
      and how the real solution to all the problems
      of our time will require that the world be run
      by the proletariat as a class rather than by
      the needs of capital.

      Within the general category of consciousness,
      there is also the struggle of the working class
      to gain confidence in itself and in the power
      of mass struggle, and to learn who are its
      friends--and who are its enemies (such as
      social democratic misleaders, or trade union
      bureaucrats who make a career out of selling
      out struggles).

3 - All revolutionary activists
need to get on the "same page"

You ask how my proposal would advance any of these 
struggles.  I want to be clear about what my proposal is, 
because it appears that this is a source of many 
misunderstandings.

My proposal to is make use of the internet and digital 
technology to put all revolutionary activists on, so to 
speak, the "same page".  

Obviously there will need to be an intense process of 
sorting out the genuinely revolutionary elements from the 
elements which simply claim to be revolutionary.  This 
intense process must take place on a level playing field 
and in conditions of full transparency--without any 
self-appointed group having the ability to silence or 
suppress their critics.

The above is the essence of what I propose, but it is too 
abstract for many to understand.  To make it more concrete, 
I am putting together what I call "the thread manifesto":



4 - "The Thread Manifesto"

The thread manifesto is based on a common database of 
articles from all groups which claim to be revolutionary 
-- as well as associated means of democratic discussion 
and democratic moderation.

In my humble opinion, it is mind-bogglingly absurd that 
such a database and associated democratic discussion does 
not exist already.  We are in the 21st century.  There is 
no excuse for this.

5 - Ignorance rules -- because
we lack the democratic forum we need

Yes, there are plenty of "marxist" or "socialist" 
discussion forums.  But the moderation on all of the 
large forums stinks, to put it charitably.  Good posts 
are deleted and good activists are banned--because they ask 
intelligent questions that need to be asked--and say 
intelligent things that need to be said.  

The result of all this is a level of ignorance that calls 
itself "marxism" that is so astoundingly immense--that in 
comparison--it makes the QAnon theories look like a model 
of sober and scientific inquiry.

You have complaints about the moderation of r/socialism?  
Join the club.  All of the forums are fucked up, to put it 
bluntly.  (The "forum" maintained by your group in the form 
of comments on your online articles is no better, as my 
experience having my comments deleted for supposedly being 
"off topic" makes clear.)

By putting on one page links to all discussions about all 
articles, the thread manifesto proposes a step that would 
make it impractical for any group of moderators with 
their heads up their asses to silence their critics.

6 - Everyone with resources must help

The need for something along the lines of what I am 
proposing is so great that I have come to the conclusion 
that at least some work along these lines is the 
responsibility of all groups that have significant 
resources and are genuinely revolutionary in character.

This is why I asked your group, the WSWS, to assist in work 
along these lines.  In makes no difference whether (or not) 
I expect your group to behave in a revolutionary way.  
Standard UFT hold that I should propose that you "do the 
right thing".  The rest is up to you.  

Your group had just written an article bragging about the 
high technical level of its web resources and your database 
hosting hundreds of thousands of cross-referenced and 
indexed articles.  Your article had bragged about how your 
little group was going to use these resources to raise the 
consciousness of millions of workers--but you neglected to 
recognize that you have any obligation to make use of any 
of the work of any of the many other similar groups in 
the world.

I pointed out (in a diplomatic way, as a comment in 
response to your article) that you could reduce this kind 
of arrogant hypocrisy by working (in a very modest way) to 
give workers a chance to get knowledge from broader 
sources.  

Did any other readers like my comment?

No.  Because they never saw it.  Because you guys decided 
to make the conversation more "productive" by censoring my 
criticism, on the bullshit excuse (I found out after months 
of inquiry) that my comment was supposedly "off topic".

7 - Returning to your question

But I must return to your question, CB:

     > how your proposal would advance any of
     > the struggles the working class currently 
     > faces

In my view, this proposal would not advance "any" of 
these struggles.

Rather, it would advance "all" of them.

Pick your struggle:

(1) struggles and actions for partial demands - would 
become known to wider circles of people - and by this 
means would enjoy more support.  More than this, the 
understanding of issues related to the particular 
struggle (including such things as what forces are 
reliable--and what tactics are likely to be useful) 
would be enhanced with deeper discussion and debate from 
others who have experience in struggle.

(2) The bigger questions (such as what to do about 
global warming) would be helped also with, so to speak, a 
single page where an activist could easily find (and 
compare) articles on this topic from all sources which 
claim a revolutionary perspective.

For example, I have seen articles on global warming from my 
former comrades, who are part of the "Communist Voice 
Organization".  Their articles may (possibly) be amongst 
the best on the topic.  Or maybe not.  I would like to see 
what criticisms (if any) have been made of their articles 
by other leftists.  If articles from all revolutionary 
currents were aggregated into a common site--this would 
have the effect of increasing the discussion and 
debate on these articles--which would no longer only be 
accessible in their isolated silos.

(3) The deeper and more abstract questions--such as how 
the working class will create the independent and 
democratic organization it needs--or how things came to be 
the way they are--and what needs to happen for things to 
be better--would obviously also be helped with greater 
contact, common work, and collaboration from a larger 
mass of revolutionary forces.

I hope this at least begins to address your question.  
Please let me know if there is further clarification that 
may be helpful

8 - We need to put on our socks
before we put on our shoes

Let's continue:

     > As you say "[ending capitalism by a mass
     > movement] will be enabled by organization.
     > Organization will be greatly helped by a 
     > democratic social media platform" - but your
     > proposal is not to immediately establish a
     > social media platform, it's for the WSWS to
     > offer to host articles from any tendency 
     > who wants to address the audience it has
     > attracted.

It is true that my proposal is not to immediately establish 
a social media platform.

That is because I am constrained by reality.  What are the 
forces that would create such an independent and democratic 
platform?  What are the forces that would even understand 
what such a platform would look like and how it would 
function?

It appears to me that these forces do not (yet) exist.

What is possible at this moment is to undertake a project 
that is more modest.

I am claiming that humanity needs to build an immensely 
large ship.  But, at this time, I am only advocating for 
building a canoe, because we need to start somewhere so 
that we can learn.

    > A canoe is not a ship. But, in building canoes,
    > we may learn about things like buoyancy, balance,
    > stability, cargo load, ocean waves, currents,
    > wind and weather, propulsion, navigation and
    > sea-sickness. Much of this will be useful when
    > we scale up to the next step. And small-scale
    > projects will accumulate the experience around
    > which a community can organize itself.
    -- source: Node 4005 (section 6)

In my previous letter to you, I compared the project of 
creating an independent and democratic social media 
platform to the Manhattan Project -- in terms of its 
significance and power to transform the terrain of the 
class struggle, raise the consciousness of the proletariat 
and lead it to victory.

We need to realistically think about the likely stages in 
the development of such a project.

(1) I used the phrase "Trinity" to refer to the immense 
project of building an independent and democratic 
platform--at scale (ie: reaching millions, not thousands) 
and 

(2) I use the "Thread Manifesto" to refer to creating a 
common database of articles and comments from all trends 
which claim to be revolutionary.

Hence:

     Trinity           =       the ship we need

     Thread            =       plan for a canoe
     Manifesto                 that will help us
                                gain experience
                                and understand what
                                we are doing

The project of creating a common database would be 
invaluable in helping activists understand the fundamental 
idea that the project would be beyond the control of any 
self-selected group which intends to silence its critics.

So this would be the first step in the larger project of 
creating a democratic platform that will be under 
everyone's control because it will be beyond anyone's 
control.

9 - Word-twisting, time-wasting
cargo-cult trotbots

I hope that I have replied to your substantive comments.  I 
will now briefly touch on some of your complaints that I 
have not treated you (or your group) with sufficient 
respect.

First, I consider our correspondence to be important.  And 
you have done your best to reply to me in a principled way. 
 What is important to me is that you believe that you are 
here on this earth to fight for the proletariat.  If so, 
then everything else is details.

Yes, I have called your group a cargo cult.  And I was 
part of one myself.  This is nothing to be ashamed of.  
Groups like this emerge when the level of knowledge is 
too low for groups to emerge on a higher basis.

The term "cargo cult" is distinct from the term "cult".  
Yes, there is a shared etymology, but it does not mean the 
same thing.  In an analogous way, the term "wage slave" 
does not mean the same thing as the word "slave".

The term "cargo cult" describes a particular kind of 
religion that emerges as a blend of science and myth 
when the material basis for a fully scientific 
understanding of the forces which govern our lives simply 
does not exist.  All of early humanity's world-knowledge 
systems (ie: that developed before class society) were 
mixtures of science and religion--because science and 
religion had not yet split from one another.  As such, this 
represents a stage of knowledge that is transitional.

It is important, if we are to have a principled 
conversation, that we be honest (with ourselves, with one 
another, and with anyone who may wish to read it).  This 
means that we must have the right to say what we really 
think.  Yes, we may sometimes hear things that fail to 
flatter our self-image.  There are worse forms of 
hardship (read "Appendix B" about what Chuikov and the 
62nd Army went through).

I make a reasonable effort to engage with other comrades 
in a principled and honest way, and I do not actually go 
out of my way to insult people (although I am confident 
many feel otherwise).  Many people refuse to accept the 
hardships that come from engaging with me.  That is their 
right, but it is not my problem.

I want to talk to people who are not afraid of hardship.  
And I am much more afraid that I may fail to speak the 
truth--than I am afraid of being alone.  I am on this earth 
to fight and the truth (guided by humility) is my only 
weapon.

However, you really did twist my words in your previous 
letter.  It is ok with me if you have not yet reached the 
stage where you have the ability to recognize this.  But I 
do want you to have an opportunity to understand my 
feelings on this matter.  Here is a short excerpt of your 
reply:

    > You claim "I have never said that the work
    > to overthrow capitalism will only become
    > possible towards the middle of this century."
    > and that to suggest you did is "word twisting
    > and time wasting".

    > what is the reader to conclude other than
    > that a party capable of leading the overthrow
    > of capitalism cannot emerge until the middle of 
    > the century? It is not "word twisting" to put
    > 2 and 2 together from your writings.

Readers would be correct to conclude that the independent 
and democratic organization (ie: party) we need is unlikely 
to fully emerge until a suffiently independent and 
democratic communications platform exists to connect 
activists with one another and with the working class.

But this does not mean that we cannot do work to 
overthrow capitalism today.  It only means that we are 
working in much less favorable conditions, in which our 
main weapon (ie: our party) does not exist.

The work that we do today (and also what we learn from 
this work) will form the foundation of the party that we 
build tomorrow.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

5 - The Proletarian Blockchain

It will be under everyone's control 
because it will be beyond anyone's control

    Note to readers:
    Two months ago I posted this image (see next column) 
    to facebook along with a note explaining that I was 
    thinking of writing an essay on this topic and wanted
    to know if anyone might be interested or have any
    questions.  There was little interest, and so I have 
    given up (for now) on the idea of writing an essay or 
    article on this.  I include (below) some of the
    comments that I wrote in reply to Art:

To my knowledge, no one has used the phrase "proletarian 
blockchain" before, so I am coining the term to represent a 
blockchain that is controlled by the proletariat and 
which serves the proletariat.

This also brings up other questions--such as what does it 
mean to be controlled by the proletariat?

A blockchain is simply a digital ledger that is 
"immutable" (ie: impossible for anyone to erase or to 
forge) because a great many copies are kept all over the 
world, and the authenticity of the ledger can always be 
proven by a simple mathematical code called a "hash". If 
the CIA (or any other agency) attempted to counterfeit the 
ledger--they would be defeated by the hash, because 
mathematics is more powerful than all the computers they 
could ever build or buy. Napoleon supposedly said that "god 
is on the side of those who have the big battalions". To 
revise that today, we can substitute mathematics for big 
battalions.

The digital money people (ie: the bitcoin enthusiasts) use 
their digital ledger to record transactions of various 
kinds. The proletariat will use its ledger to create a 
kind of public library that will contain public 
contributions (ie: text, graphics, memes, video, etc) to a 
public and democratic social media platform.

So the blockchain is simply a common and secure form of 
public memory that will provide the material foundation 
of the social media platform. The fact that it will be 
public and immutable will mean that everyone will be able 
to read it. Eventually everyone will also be able to 
write to it also. Neither corporations nor governments 
will be able to censor it other than by temporary (and 
doomed to fail) efforts to block internet access. 

By the same token, groups of self-interested careerists 
and opportunists will also gnash their teeth at their 
inability to fuck with (or control the gateway access to) 
the proletarian blockchain. It will be under everyone's 
control because it will be beyond anyone's control.

The subtitle of my proposed essay (ie: "the emergence of 
the proletarian mind") is simply a reference to a principle 
which is widely understood: greater, more powerful and more 
complex intelligence and consciousness can only emerge 
from the free and bottom-up interaction of many smaller, 
weaker and simpler forms of intelligence and 
consciousness. Your brain and mind is made possible by (ie: 
emerges from) the interaction of 100 billion neurons. The 
proletarian mind will emerge from the free interaction (ie: 
unrestricted by commodity friction) of the billions of 
workers and oppressed.

Reply to questions and comments
from a blockchain enthusiast

My facebook post led to some private questions and comments 
from people who have experience and knowledge of blockchain 
applications.

Question: Have you investigated the idea of smart 
contracts using blockchains such as Ethereum or Cardano?

Answer: No.  I have no interest in that.  All these 
things may have some use, in some situations, to some 
people, at some time.  What I am interested in is what can 
be done today to lay the needed foundation for the 
independent and democratic social media platform that we 
need.  Please see my reply to CB (above) for more on this.

Q: Does something like Bitcoin make it possible for 
working class people to find a little independence and/or 
improved economic position?

A: Not in a way that is significant.

It is possible that someone might find financial 
independence at the blackjack table in Las Vegas.  But 
that is not usually how the cards fall.

Q: To what extent will a socialist society require the 
use of blockchain, and cryptocurrency?

A: It is important to distinguish for readers that 
"blockchain" refers to technology that stores information 
in a distributed and tamper-proof way, while 
"cryptocurrency" refers to a specific use of the 
blockchain technology for the creation and trading of 
money-like tokens.

It is safe to assume that the transitional economic and 
political system which will replace the rule of capital 
will make use of money.  So it is possible that something 
like a cryptocurrency will be used.  I don't actually know. 
 Nor do I care.

However the blockchain technology, in the sense of creating 
tamper-proof storage, will have wide application.

Q: Is it fair to call cryptocurrency a classic pyramid 
scheme wrapped in a high tech package?

A: I don't know.  I never thought about that.  But, now 
that you mention it, it does remind me a bit of the classic 
"Wolf Of Wall Street" scene with Matthew McConaughey (see 
next column).

Bitcoin, in particular, is based on a clever algorithm that 
is actually designed to waste energy.  The people who 
mine the tokens are actually in competition with one 
another to waste the most energy.

Political activists and tech workers do need to assist one 
another.  And the most important fruit of this 
collaboration will be various pilot projects that 
experiment with independent and democratic social 
media.  And the independent social media projects will (in 
the long run) eventually merge--and eventually make use of 
blockchain storage.

However the blockchain application will come later--when 
the need for it emerges.  For now--there is a need, for 
everyone who knows the difference between a bit and a byte, 
to re-think what is possible in social media when all 
forms of money and commodity advertizing are removed from 
the equation entirely, and those who use the platform can 
create and use algorithms of their choice.  This will 
enable a whole new world.

For people who work in tech I would say this: As far as 
the potential for synergy between (1) how we might make a 
living in information technology, and (2) the application 
of tech to important political projects--my view is that, 
for the most part, for most people, and for most 
situations, it is best to simply keep these things 
separate.

Many who work in tech have little protection from 
retaliation from employers for our expression of radical 
political views (which may involve the need for the 
expropriation of these employers).  I write under the name 
"Ben Seattle".  But in my day job, I am known by another 
name.

6 - Pragmatism and 
"The Marxist Line"

The leadership of the working class
cannot be separated from
where the working class needs to go

The Marxist Line, a video podcast, is my favorite show.  
Viewers can watch it every Sunday (at noon, Pacific time) 
or view videos of recent shows (see link in next column).

The Marxist Line has been running for about a year and a 
half, and basically reviews articles (and sometimes videos) 
from groups (and people) who call themselves marxist.  To 
my knowledge, there is nothing else like it.

For about two or three months I was part of the show, but I 
eventually felt uncomfortable being part of a program 
which--it became clear to me--lacked the necessary 
commitment to the theoretical integrity the working class 
needs.

This lack of commitment was particularly objectionable 
when it was part of a project which advertized itself by 
using the name of Karl Marx.  Plenty of groups and people 
in the movement prostitute Marx's name to sell shit.  
Particularly in light of my own history (as a former 
supporter of Stalin and Mao) I believe we need to be 
extremely careful about this kind of thing.  We must take 
responsibility for our own positions (and mistakes) rather 
than attempt to pin the blame on Marx or Lenin.

I believe that revolutionary activists must develop the 
habit of outlining, in clear, concise and public format, 
their criticisms of one another.  This is a necessary part 
of developing the collective understanding and consensus we 
need on the way forward.  For this reason I will outline 
here my perspective on the good, the bad, and the 
ugly about the Marxist Line, and about what can happen 
when fundamental principles get in the way of "success".

1 - The good

Art and Andrew, the hosts of the show, find many of the 
most interesting articles in newspapers (and blogs) from 
what they call "the marxist community".  (There is no such 
thing as a "marxist community", but that is a topic for 
another day.)  They give comments that are usually 
relatively well-informed.  They are not afraid to criticize 
groups for errors of commission or omission.  Their 
criticisms are usually on target.  

They are entertaining, and have worked out the kind of 
co-host chemistry that makes a show interesting.  Andrew 
usually sets up one or more good questions about whatever 
is being reviewed.  Often these are the kind of questions 
that a viewer might have.  Art, with more experience in the 
movement, usually gives an answer that cuts through a lot 
of the usual bullshit and gives insightful perspective.

Any viewer can ask them questions or post comments on the 
twitch interface.  In the screenshot (next column) I show 
the kinds of questions and comments that make a show 
interesting and informative.

By the way, I agree with the commentator, Phil, that the 
show in question (which discussed Trump's coup attempt a 
few days earlier) was one of their best.

Their platform -- and ours

As far as Phil's question regarding the emergence of an 
alternative social media platform for Trump--it would 
be good to keep an eye on Parler--as it is essentially 
owned by the Mercer family (which is Trump's biggest 
financial backer, and also the family that gave its name to 
the island in the middle of Lake Washington).  We will 
certainly see Parler emerge in some form (maybe with Trump 
having an ownership share since that possibility has been 
in the news).

The right wing certainly wants and needs its own platform, 
and they will eventually have it.

But we also need to be thinking about our movement (ie: 
the revolutionary movement of the working class) needing 
its own independent and democratic platform.  There is 
nothing to stop us from creating this platform today other 
than a general lack of recognition that we need it.  

Corporate interests invest millions and billions of dollars 
into creating their platforms.  We don't need that kind 
of money.  As a movement, we will have access to free 
labor from progressive tech workers--who only need from us 
a clear understanding of what tasks and what principles are 
most important.  The software we need is free (or can 
be created for free).  And the price of hardware, as they 
say, is approaching the price of sand.

Once we have our our own independent and democratic 
platform, this will be like the moment Spartacus and his 
group of fellow slaves escaped from their gladitorial 
school.  We will be in a position to capture the 
imagination of activists (and eventually workers) 
everywhere.

Tension can be positive

But--getting back to The Marxist Line--for some years, 
after we met at the local Occupy encampment, I was 
something of a mentor to Art.  Since that time, Art has 
matured and developed his own views and practice, and our 
relationship includes more tension.  However these 
interactions remains quite useful.  

For example: Art criticized the design layout of one of 
my web pages, and the result was that I put some effort 
into a (hopefully) better design.  

And (another example) I wrote the chapter on China in 
this report partly to respond to some comments that Art and 
Andrew made on their show.  So these are definitely 
positive things.

2 - The bad

The bad (or weak) side of The Marxist Line can be summed up 
in a single word: pragmatism.

Many people do not understand what pragmatism is or why it 
is a problem (ie: "What's wrong with being practical?", as 
if pragmatism simply means being practical).

Pragmatism, historically, has involved a relatively 
short-term focus on achievable goals to the exclusion of 
the principles that are decisive in the longer term.

The wikipedia excerpt (see next column) notes that 
pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is 
to describe, represent or mirror reality.

In other words--the only thing that matters is the 
success of your project.  If your project is 
successful--then you must have been doing the right thing.  
Or, in other words: "nothing succeeds like success".

Theory is just a bunch or words
to excite and attract the rubes

This gets to the heart of my disagreement with Art and 
Andrew about the need for a commitment to theoretical 
integrity.

If the words we use, such as "socialism", have no meaning 
apart from their usefulness, at the present time, in 
building whatever project we are working on--then it does 
not really make any difference what these words actually 
mean--because they are just words--and we can use them any 
fucking way we want.

This is the pragmatist view:  

     Theory is just a bunch of words we can use
     to excite people and attract them to our projects. 

Theory has no deeper meaning apart from that.

Theory is how we understand
our past, present and future

My work is based on the opposite view:

     Theory is the key to understanding where we are, 
     how we got here, and where we need to go.

Theory is how we understand that we are part of a class 
which has the mission and destiny of overthrowing the 
rule of capital and creating a world of peace, abundance 
and genuine community for everyone.

It is not enough to build successful projects.  At some 
point millions of people will need to dedicate their 
lives to creating a world that is not ruled by capital.

Millions of people will need to understand--not simply 
which "leaders" they should admire and follow--but how 
and why things are they way they are--and what needs to 
change.

Without reliable theory that accurately describes and 
reflects reality we will be led by charlatans, hucksters, 
fools, and the many careerist lackeys of our ruling class, 
who will keep us spinning in circles until we are 
exhausted.

How to channel activists
into reformism

Let's consider how our movement becomes a plaything when 
charlatans are in command.

Nearly all the self-proclaimed marxist groups claim to be 
working for something they call "socialism".  If you look 
at the fine print, however, 80 percent of them are really 
working for social democracy (ie: a less-bad version of 
capitalist rule).

But how about the rest of these groups?  Most of them 
define "socialism" as a party-state (ie: where a ruling 
party suppresses organized criticism and opposition).

The result of this is that activists end up either:

   (1) working to make capitalism less bad, or

   (2) advocating for the creation of a police state

The first path (above) gives up on ending the rule of 
capital.  

And the second path ends up in the same place via a 
slightly different path--since it results in confusion, 
demoralizion, passivity and an eventual collapse into 
liberalism--because arguments for a police state don't 
tend to do well against arguments that people need to have 
democratic rights to express their views and organize.

If "socialism" requires that we give up our democratic 
rights--then most people will naturally conclude that it 
is better to attempt to reform capitalism.

The myth of the Party-State

The proponents of the "Party-State" usually claim that such 
a thing was advocated by Lenin, and in common usage (inside 
and outside the left) the term "Leninism" is considered 
synonomous with a belief in the need for a party-state.

But this is untrue.  It is nothing but a huge distortion of 
history.

As a temporary emergency measure, in the most extreme 
circumstances possible, Lenin recognized that combining the 
party and state would give the Soviet government a chance 
to survive long enough to make things right later.

But today, we have those who advocate the party-state as a 
permanent solution to the problems of capitalism.  

Luna Oi (a video blogger from Vietnam) is an example of 
this.  Her views about the party-state in Vietnam being a 
possible example of "socialism" were promoted on The 
Marxist Line.

Neither Art nor Andrew were able to see the need to take a 
clear stand against this kind of nonsense.

That is their choice, of course.  But that is not what the 
working class needs.  The working class needs clarity on 
the road forward.

And, by the way, I have never argued that Luna should not 
be allowed to be part of the show.  I think it is fine to 
cover her on the show.  Rather I have argued that her views 
need to be effectively refuted.  Sometimes the best way 
for people to learn about wrong views--is to see them 
being confronted by views which reflect reality.

3 - The ugly -
Stalin and Mao as pragmatists

We have to ask, at some point, where pragmatism can lead.

The most well-known pragmatists associated with marxism are 
Stalin and Mao.  Both were quite successful on their 
own terms: they were lauded as revolutionary heroes while 
they lived, and mourned by millions when they died.  Stalin 
defeated Hitler in europe, and Mao stood up to both US 
imperialist and Russian threats.  Isn't that "success"?

But then we have to ask--where are the Soviet Union and 
revolutionary China today?  They are capitalist, 
class-divided countries, based on exploitation, with 
imperialist ambitions and behavior.

Defenders of Stalin and Mao claim that capitalism "was 
restored" in Russia and China because Stalin and Mao died 
and there was no one to prevent restoration.  But, in that 
case, this is a vision of "socialism" in which the working 
class is ignorant, passive and powerless.

Millions of people, today, need to understand that there is 
an alternative to the rule of capital that is not 
bullshit.

Should it really be necessary for me to say that we need to 
take this seriously?  That is not my role.  I will not 
attempt to be a baby-sitter for comrades who appear to be 
intoxicated with what (at the moment) may be fashionable.

Instead, I take solace from "Ben's Law of Sanity" (see 
images next column) that we need to have a relaxed attitude 
towards the mistakes of our comrades.  I am a reporter.  I 
report the facts and I tell the truth.  Then I can relax.  
So, to tell the truth, I have issued the following "report 
card" (next column) on the so-called "Marxist Line".

Potential future collaboration

The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have 
one.  I have made my views clear.  I would like to see Art 
and Andrew make a decisive break from pragmatism and 
recognize the need to make a commitment to theoretical 
integrity.  Whether I will live long enough to see this 
happen is unknown.  Other than this, I am washing my hands 
of the matter.

I do intend to assist The Marxist Line in the form of 
digital infrastructure: software that would (hopefully) be 
easier to use and have more useful features than the google 
docs spreadsheet they use to organize their review process.

I had hoped to have a prototype for them to play with 
before the end of last year.  My estimates, unfortunately, 
are rarely even close to realistic.

7. The Coming War between 
the U.S. and China


A war between the U.S. and China is not
inevitable, but it is becoming increasingly
difficult to see how it might be avoided

I was born during the first war between U.S. imperialism 
and China, which took place in Korea from 1950 to 1953.  I 
have a chance of living long enough to see at least the 
beginning of the second war, which will take place under 
quite different circumstances.

China is emerging as the manufacturing center of the world, 
with the largest economy and its own imperialist ambitions. 
 China has the determination and ability to retake Taiwan, 
and replace the U.S. as the dominant power in East Asia.

The era in which the United States has stood as the 
reigning economic and military power in the world is 
drawing to a close.  This era began around the time of the 
first world war, and will likely end sometime mid-century.

China will be the indisputable master of East Asia after it 
reunites with Taiwan.  This will take place either with or 
without war with the U.S., although war seems more likely.  
Either way, it will happen.

I have been watching this story unfold for a while.  My 
uncle was a colonel in the Marines and met Chiang Kai-shek. 
 I became a maoist around the time that Nixon went to 
China, in 1972.  I am no longer a maoist, but rather a 
student of Lenin.  But the story of China, its place in the 
world, and the role of the Chinese working class in the 
unfolding events of this century--which I believe will 
witness the overthrow of the rule of capital--has always 
held a fascination for me.  It is one of those topics 
that--the more we learn about it--the more we realize how 
little we know.

I can claim no special knowledge of any kind, but I know 
that, as China and the US move closer to war, the general 
interest in this topic is bound to grow.  Since so much 
that is written about this and related topics is shallow 
(for obvious reasons) I thought it would make sense for me 
to sketch out a few notes here.

1 - The Century of Humiliation

Chinese civilization goes back to before the time of 
ancient Greece, Rome and Persia--before the time of the 
Bronze Age and the Trojan War--all the way back to the 
Stone Age and the emergence of agriculture.  For much of 
history, China was the center of the world economy.  But 
capitalism developed first in Europe, and the European 
countries became colonial powers which were able to use 
modern weapons and technology to rape and enslave the rest 
of the world.

China was not spared, and its century of humiliation is 
often regarded as beginning in the 1830's, when Britain 
ransacked whatever they could reach when the Chinese 
government attempted to ban the sale of British narcotics 
(ie: the "Opium Wars").  After this, China was carved up 
like a melon.

The century of humiliation is regarded as ending when Mao's 
armies chased the US imperialist puppet, Chiang Kai-shek, 
to Taiwan in 1949, where he was protected by the US 7th 
fleet.  Taiwan, today, remains as "unfinished business".

2 - A bloody nose

China and the US went to war with one another in 1950, in 
Korea.  In many ways it was a battle between rifles and 
jets, but US imperialism got a bloody nose, and learned 
that it was unwise to underestimate China.

3 - Between 20 and 40 million 
die in Mao's famine

The alliance between China and the Soviet Union 
disintegrated in the 1950's, and under Mao's leadership, 
the biggest famine in history led to between 20 and 40 
million deaths between 1959 and 1961.

4 - "Hide your strength, bide your time"

The U.S. and China established a defacto alliance in the 
1970's against their mutual enemy, the Soviet Union.  After 
the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990, the ruling 
class in the U.S. saw China as a source of cheap labor and 
as a big future market, while in China the philosophy was 
"hide your strength, and bide your time".

5 - The Thucydides Trap

             "It was the rise of Athens and
             the fear that this instilled in
             Sparta that made war inevitable"

             -- Thucydides, 
             "History of the Peloponnesian War"

China's economy grew and, around the time of the 2008 
financial crisis, as the U.S. and European economies grew 
unsteady, China saw that it was time to stop hiding and 
biding, and became more assertive.  Soon both the U.S. and 
China began to openly talk about and prepare for an 
eventual war.

As China asserted itself in the East and South China Seas, 
Graham Allison, a Harvard professor, used the phrase 
"Thucydides Trap", in a 2012 magazine article, to describe 
a tendency towards war when a rising power (such Athens) 
challenges the dominant status of an existing power (such 
as Sparta).  Allison followed up with a 2017 book "Destined 
for War", which made clear that the US and China were on a 
collision course.  Allison did a survey that showed 
that--12 out of 16 similar situations in the last 500 
years--resulted in war.

You can find all kinds of shallow articles or videos on the 
internet about a possible war with China.  But deeper, and 
more sober sources are also available.

6 - "Worse that the world wars 
that ruined European civilization"

The first question many people want to know is whether, in 
the event of war, the US and China would use nuclear 
weapons.  The answer is probably not--although no one 
really knows.  The problem with war is that, once it 
begins, it tends to have a logic of its own in which 
sometimes the only way to avoid immediate defeat is to 
gamble on escalation.

In talking about a war between the US and China, Henry 
Kissinger (who is both an insightful historian as well as a 
war criminal who deserves to be hung) noted that not one of 
the leaders who entered the first world war would have done 
so if he had known what the outcome would be like.

Last November, Kissinger warned that such a war could 
easily escalate (in particular because modern technology 
tends to strongly advantage the side which escalates most 
quickly) and slip entirely out of the control of those who 
initiate it.  The result could be a "catastrophic" war 
that "will be worse that the world wars that ruined 
European civilization".

If Kissinger's views were representative of the influential 
strategic thinkers who guide U.S. policy--then this might 
indicate that U.S. imperialism would be determined to avoid 
war with China.  But Kissinger and those who share his view 
appear to no longer have influence.

7 - Accommodation vs. Containment

Strategic thinkers in the U.S. are commonly said to fall 
into one of two camps: (1) those who favor the 
accomodation of China, and (2) those who favor 
containment.

The first camp recognizes, for example, that the U.S. 
cannot stop China from taking Taiwan (and would be foolish 
to try).  I think of these camps as "realpolitik" vs. 
"fantasypolitik" -- because it is a fantasy to think that 
the U.S. will be able to contain China's ambitions over the 
long term.

But when I look at journals (such as Foreign Affairs or 
Foreign Policy) which represent the opinions of those who 
have access to strategic experts, it seems clear that it is 
the containment camp which has influence.  Those who argue 
against war with China appear to be aware that they are 
considered naive.

8 - China's economy will be bigger

Worth reading are the view of Ray Dalio.  I include a link 
to the free online version of his book "The Changing World 
Order" and show two of his charts, which make clear that, 
in terms of relative power, the decline of the U.S. and the 
rise of China appear to be unstoppable.

China's economy is already larger than that of the U.S. 
when measured in terms of Purchasing Power Party (ie: one 
of the ways in which national wealth is calculated).  
Within ten years it will also be larger when measured in 
terms of Market Exchange Rates (ie: the other way of 
measuring).

9 - A naval blockade would fail

Studies and policy papers by various think tanks, and the 
Naval War College, that I have looked at were much more 
optimistic about the outcome of war with China ten years 
ago than they are now.  

One idea that used to be popular was that the U.S. could 
win a "stand-off war" by simply staying out of range of 
China's ship-killer missles and instead blockade China's 
oil imports, and if necessary also China's trade.

But in more recent years it has become clear that this 
would not work.  China is prepared, and might be able to 
withstand an oil blockade for years (by means of rationing, 
substitutions, overland pipeline routes, and its strategic 
stockpile).

And China's role in the world economy means that a U.S. 
blockade against China's trade would amount to an act of 
war against the economy of most of the countries on earth.  
This would plunge the world into a depression and have 
severe consequences in terms of damaging U.S. relationships 
everywhere--and lead many countries to retaliate in various 
ways against the U.S.  This means that it would probably 
not be realistic for the U.S. to maintain a blockade long 
enough to win its objectives.

Efforts by the U.S to avoid or reduce the causalties and 
other damage of a shooting war by, instead, slowly 
strangling China from a distance with a naval blockade 
would likely have another effect also: it would look, to 
countries in the region that are caught between the U.S. 
and China, like U.S. imperialism is afraid of a real 
war--and is not truly committed to maintaining its power 
in the region.

10 - War in the realm of nanometers

China spends more money importing semiconductor chips than 
it does importing oil.  The worldwide semiconductor market 
is about a half trillion dollars per year, and is growing, 
as semiconductors become part of an increasing number of 
both consumer products (such as cars) and weapons such as 
planes, tanks and missles.

However, as semiconductor size has shrunk (and the 
associated technology has gotten more complex and 
expensive) the number of companies that actually 
manufacture semiconductors has also shrunk.  Today only 3 
companies make the most advanced (ie: smallest) 
semiconductors, and all are outside China.

China decided to end its dependency on critical technology 
from US imperialism (and US allies in Europe and Asia) but 
this will not be easy because they have united to embargo 
from China the sale of advanced semiconductors (and the 
equipment needed to make them).

This leaves China seriously behind "the West" (which at 
this point includes Japan, South Korea and Taiwan).  Taiwan 
is producing 5 nanometer chips, while China is 3 
generations behind, making 14 nanometer chips.  Chips 
become more powerful as the transitor size shrinks, because 
more transistors will fit on a chip.  Each generation of 
chips has transitors that are about a third smaller than 
before.  So a chip with 5 nanometer transistors will be 
nearly 10 times more powerful (or 10 times cheaper) than a 
chip based on 14 nanometer technology (see chart).

Even assuming a "Manhattan Project" level of commitment, it 
would likely take China at least 10 years to catch up to 
the level of where the US and its allies are now.  And, by 
then, Taiwan will be making 2 nanometer chips.

In comparison to modern semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment, nearly everything else is simple.  Manufacturing 
nuclear weapons?  Simple.  Creating missles to deliver 
those weapons with pinpoint accuracy to the other side of 
the earth?  Not a problem.  Sending a rocket to the moon 
and back with rock samples?  China has been there, done 
that.

But creating 5 nanometer chips?  The only thing more 
difficult would be sustained fusion energy (which humanity 
has never achieved).

The smallest features on a 5 namometer chip are about 10 
nanometers (the advertized size has gotten out of sync with 
actual size).  10 nanometers is about 50 atoms wide.  
Creating chips with features that size requires starting 
with a laser powerful enough to cut through 3 inches of 
steel.  That laser is used to zap microscopic droplets of 
tin, 50 thousand times a second, creating a plasma that 
radiates extreme ultraviolet photons, which are bounced off 
mirrors and onto a lithography system that helps to etch 
the silicon wafer.  All this is in equipment that is made 
by only one company in the world (in the Netherlands--see 
video) and must be adjusted daily, more by the use of black 
magic than technology.

11 - The only thing that scares them
more than the rise of China

The embargo on advanced semiconductors, associated 
manufacturing equipment, and the disruption of tech supply 
chains worldwide imposes a hefty tax on the entire world 
economy.  Foreign Affairs (Sept 11 2020, Adam Segal) cites 
a report from Deutsche Bank which estimates this cost as 
$3.5 trillion over the next five years.  Readers can 
understand what this means: a trillion here, a trillion 
there, pretty soon you are talking serious money.

In 1941, the US attempted to use an embargo on oil to 
cripple the economy of Japan.  Japan responded, 6 months 
later, by bombing Pearl Harbor.  It is probably safe to 
say that both sides have run war games to see how events 
would unfold if China responded, to the current embargo, by 
seizing the world's most advanced semiconductor 
manufacturing facility (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 
Company) barely more than 100 miles from its shore, in 
territory it considers its own.  But, if there is going to 
be a war, it is to the advantage of US imperialism that it 
be sooner, rather than later.  And it is to the advantage 
of China that the war take place later, when victory 
would be more certain.

Will China be able to catch up to "the West"?  I think it 
will.  I would like to think that, when it does so, US 
imperialism will recognize that it is "game over"; it 
simply does not have the ability to contain China.  That 
would help to avoid a war.

More important, in avoiding a war, would be the development 
of political movements here in the U.S. that make it clear 
to the representatives of capital that a war with China 
would likely lead to their revolutionary overthrow by the 
US working class.

That is the only thing that scares them more than the 
rise of China.

12 - U.S. imperialism 
is frightened by TikTok

There is also another dimension here that is often 
overlooked in the typically shallow articles and videos: a 
war by U.S. imperialism to contain China would be unpopular 
everywhere--even in the U.S. once the patriotic jingoism 
wears off and the sober realities of war sink in.

This later factor would be amplified by the reaction to war 
on social media.  U.S. imperialism is already frightened of 
TikTok precisely for reasons like this.  Here is Forbes:

     "TikTok is Chinese. ... It is now more viral
      than Instagram and YouTube ... social media
      is used to push propaganda out to users who
      tap those platforms as a primary source of
      news.  When TikTok is described as a national
      security risk, that is essentially what those
      governments mean. ... TikTok and other apps
      present a danger of mass manipulation and
      social control and disinformation. The danger
      may be minimal to the individual but serious
      for society and democracy."

That sums it up well, except that, in the quote above, we 
should substitute "the rule of capital" for the word 
"democracy", and "the exposure of hypocrisy and lies" for 
"mass manipulation and disinformation".

To understand how badly U.S. imperialism would get its butt 
kicked as a protracted war plays out on social media--we 
can consider the #ZhaoLiJian #Australia incident in 
November.

A four year investigation in Australia revealed that 
special forces killed 39 unarmed prisoners and civilians in 
Afghanistan, with senior commandos forcing junior soldiers 
to kill defenceless captives in order to “blood” them for 
combat.

In response, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian 
tweeted a photoshopped representation of an Australian 
soldier slitting the throat of a child holding a sheep.  
The Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, demanded 
Twitter remove the "doctored photo". 

Twitter, of course, told Morrison to take a hike, because 
the image was not a "doctored photo" but was simply an 
artistic representation, after the fact, of a real event, 
as was obvious to anyone who looked at it.

In response to this, another user tweeted an image of 
Picasso's Guernica (regarded by many as the most powerful 
anti-war painting in history) side-by-side with Zhao 
Lijian's image, with the following words:

     Q: What is the difference between Fascists
        and Australians?

     A: Hitler did not demand Picasso to apologize
        for his painting. 

13 - Which side will you take?  

One of the most important questions related to a war 
between a declining U.S. imperialism and a rising Chinese 
imperialism is simple: Which side will you take?

But this does not mean that we must choose the "lesser 
evil" of the imperialists.  Marx taught us that the 
proletariat has no country.  A war between the U.S. and 
China would fundamentally be a war between two competing 
groups of capital (which is ultimately organized and 
regulated on a national basis) represented by two competing 
groups of capitalists.

The answer to this question is therefore that we must take 
the side of the proletariat: the workers of the U.S., the 
workers of China, and the workers of all the countries that 
would be involved in this terrible war.  All of these 
workers are our class brothers and sisters and all of us 
share a common interest in getting rid of the rule of 
capital which makes these kinds of wars inevitable.

14 - Taiwan and self-determination

See also Appendix C (below):

     Taiwan, self-determination, and 
     the struggle against imperialist war

8 - Let me hear from you

I need your questions, comments
and thoughtful criticisms

I'll get to the point.  I need to hear from you.

I need thoughtful and considered comments, questions and 
criticisms.

You can contact me by posting on Reddit (see link in next 
column) or via facebook (where I am "Ben Stevens") or by 
email.

I need feedback from serious thinkers and activists (and 
even from less serious thinkers and activists).  

I would like to know:

     (1) what parts of this report you read
         and found of interest--or thought
         was full of shit

     (2) what you liked (or didn't like) about
         the layout and page navigation (and 
         what you would like to see improved)

     (3) anything else that might be important
         to you

In the meantime, for anyone interrested in my views on "the 
big picture", I recommend my lengthy essay "We need a 
proletarian party for the information age" (see link next 
column).

Also, for something a bit lighter, I created a video (see 
next column) "Our Brains are divided because the Universe 
is divided".

-- Appendix A --
Letter from Comrade CB

Letter from Comrade CB
(a supporter of WSWS/SEP)

December 6, 2020

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply Ben, but it really doesn't respond to 
my issues with your perspective. It may be my fault for 
failing to emphasise it sufficiently, but what I had hoped 
to see was an explanation of how your proposal would 
advance any of the struggles the working class currently 
faces, which I don't feel you have done. As you say 
"[ending capitalism by a mass movement] will be enabled 
by organization.  Organization will be greatly helped by a 
democratic social media platform" - but your proposal is 
not to immediately establish a social media platform, it's 
for the WSWS to offer to host articles from any tendency 
who wants to address the audience it has attracted. You 
accuse the ICFI of believing ourselves to be "infallible" 
and of simply telling workers "who to clap for and who to 
boo", but I don't recall our ever having done this (yes, we 
criticise the pseudo-left harshly, but since we do that to 
convince workers of our analysis of the role of these 
groups, there would hardly be any point in doing it without 
providing an actual basis), and your insistence that we are 
guilty of (among your many accusations) "substitutionism" 
has precisely this character -- whether a group which says 
it aims to build itself as the leadership of the working 
class is "subtitutionist" is a matter of judgement, so to 
be anything other than a sectarian attack you ought to 
justify your accusation with some genuine details of why a 
force other than the ICFI should be built as that 
leadership. If we say to "boo" someone, we point to some 
concrete failing, not merely denounce them as a "cult", as 
"gullible", "in denial"... And yes, we do recognise in a 
principled way the contribution of others -- off the top of 
my head you should check out our interviews with a BRTUS 
founder about that parents' group, our campaign against 
internet censorship has collaborated with multiple 
non-Trotskyists (even recognising the principled stand 
taken by a faction of the DSA), we have recognised the work 
of the "International Marxist Tendency" in producing an 
excellent new edition of Trotsky's biography of Stalin. 
Perhaps you think we've failed to recognise the 
contribution some other group has played - please tell me 
which.

I'll keep my main response short so as to only cover that 
one point.

A few minor points:

- I do see why you've had negative experiences of your 
previous interactions with WSWS supporters: it's very 
tiresome to engage in a civil manner while being called a 
cultist, "gullible", a "mindless trotbot" [and before you 
deny that one applied to me, it's no better if you were 
only describing my comrades] and a "rape apologist". I can 
stand to set that aside to reply to the substance, but 
that's a matter of personal preference, not principle. If 
comrades choose to spend their time in some other way than 
being insulted by an ex-Stalinist I don't blame them.
- The WSWS comments section is a forum for discussion and 
even disagreement, but we do moderate it to ensure 
discussions are on-topic and productive. You can view the 
policy here: [see link next column]

The comment you have sent to me seems to fall foul of the 
"stay on topic" requirement. Disagree with the notion of 
moderating comments if you like, but our policy contains 
none of r/socialism's censorship based on political 
disagreement.

- The banning of the WSWS from r/socialism is over 
opposition to the "law and order" campaign supported by 
much of the "left" in the Brock Turner case, and the 
development of this into the current MeToo movement. Thank 
you for linking to your response again; I agree that 
readers ought to judge for themselves whether there is 
anything wrong with your response to that ban.

- Yes, "objectivist" is a word -- take it up with Lenin (or 
his translator) [link 1] quoted in [link 2] . You claim 
"I have never said that the work to overthrow capitalism 
will only become possible towards the middle of this 
century." and that to suggest you did is "word twisting and 
time wasting". If I may quote from Spartacus Ex Machina, in 
which you lay out your perspective in detail, "It also 
appears likely to me that the core of activists which 
comes together to create this machine--will also be the 
core that creates the class independent party of the 
international working class--because I believe this party 
can only emerge in connection with this machine." Taken 
together with your insistence that the machine will emerge 
"towards the middle of the century", what is the reader to 
conclude other than that a party capable of leading the 
overthrow of capitalism cannot emerge until the middle of 
the century? It is not "word twisting" to put 2 and 2 
together from your writings.

Best wishes,
CB

-- Appendix B --
What would Chuikov do?

Dedication -- the memory of Vasily Chuikov

Every day, for 60 days in a row, 5 thousand men were 
ferried across the burning Volga river.  Their mission was 
to die as expensively as they could in the fight that broke 
the back of Hitler's army.

Every day, for 60 days in a row, was more than the 
equivalent of D-Day at Normandy beach.  Life expectancy, 
for those who survived the ferry trip, averaged less than 
24 hours.

Chuikov was the guy in charge.  When given his orders, he 
replied: "We shall hold the city or die there."

His HQ was a tunnel dug into the steep embankment on the 
Volga shore.  The Germans, only hundreds of meters away, 
shelled the refinery at the top of the embankment, and 
flaming oil poured down over the entrance to his tunnel.  
Chuikov and his staff could hardly see through the hot, 
acrid smoke, and had to breath it for hours.  

The worst part of it was that every few minutes the phone 
would ring.  Stavka was calling.  They wanted to know if he 
was still alive.  Two months later, Chuikov was told that 
he would not be getting his usual reinforcements the next 
day, as no further German offensive operations were 
anticipated.  He understood what this meant: the 
long-awaited Soviet counteroffensive was about to begin.

The software I am creating (a note-taking and content 
creation app) is dedicated to the memory of Vasily Chuikov. 
 What we can learn from Chuikov is not to underestimate 
what people can do when they have a clear and compelling 
purpose.

-- Appendix C --
Taiwan, self-determination 
and imperialist war

Taiwan, self-determination and 
the struggle against imperialist war

(This appendix added February 12)

When Nixon and Kissinger talked to Mao and Zhou Enlai in 
1972, they all understood that US imperialism would 
(eventually) have to give up Taiwan (the transcripts have 
all been declassified).  They agreed to "kick the can down 
the road".  But the road does not go on forever, and the 
probability of a war between the US and China exists in the 
context of several factors which are complicated, and may 
be confusing:

(1) Taiwan, an independent nation of 24 million people, 
is being used as the lid, by US imperialism, for its 
efforts to contain China.  It is doing this in two main 
ways:

    (a) militarily: Taiwan has a strategic location
        that would be useful in a naval blockade
        of China's access to the sea

    (b) economically: Taiwan is the world leader in
        advanced semiconductor manufacturing at a time
        when advanced semiconductors (and the equipment
        needed to make them) is being embargoed from China

(2) The Chinese ruling class has a history of brutal
    repression of protest movements.  The most famous
    example, of course, is the suppression on June 4, 1989
    of the Tiananmen protest movement.  Some people have
    reported that hundreds were killed in Tiananmen square
    that day--but this is mistaken on two counts:

    (1) thousands (not hundreds) were killed and

    (2) the deaths were not in the square itself, but
    along the streets and avenues leading to the square
    where army reinforcements fought against residents
    who had obtained weapons from the first wave of 
    military units who had surrendered them.
    
(3) China has imprisoned (by most estimates) one or two
    million Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and is attempting
    to suppress or destroy Uyghur cultural and religious
    traditions.  By some definitions, this amounts to
    genocide.  There have also been reports of
    systematic mass rapes.

(4) China has suppressed the protest movement in Hong Kong.

(5) China denies its citizens the right to voice their
    opinion about, or even know about, a whole host of
    sensitive topics (including points 2 - 4 above)
    and denies its citizens the right to collectively
    organize independently (ie: without permission).

    Even basic trade union rights (which may exist on
    paper) are often a fiction.
    
(6) US imperialism (which has its own list of current
    and former atrocities) makes use of the crimes of
    China's ruling class as (supposed) justification
    for its own preparations for imperialist war.

    For example: "human rights" is being used as an
    excuse for the current technology embargo against
    China.

In these circumstances, we must recognize the basic 
principles that can guide our perspective and our actions.

(1) We oppose imperialist war.  We oppose preparations
    for war.  We do not take the side of one
    imperialism against the other.

(2) We support the right of people in any territory
    to decide for themselves whether to be
    independent or to be part of a larger territory.
    (This right is called self-determination.)

(3) We recognize that activists in Taiwan and Hong Kong
    are in a difficult position, because, as they
    struggle for their rights, US imperialism is
    attempting to hijack their struggles and use
    these struggles for its own imperialist aims.

    US imperialism is not a friend of any of
    these movements: it is both unreliable and
    treacherous.

    Rather, activists must find ways to link up
    with and rely on activists in other struggles
    and the working class in every country.

(4) We are not afraid to speak the truth about any
    of these things, and we do not allow ourselves 
    to be intimidated by those who claim that 
    speaking the truth means support for either 
    US imperialism or the crimes of China's rulers.

None of the points I have listed above are likely to be new 
to activists who have been following this unfolding story.  
I don't have much to add beyond what is already well known.

We need to focus
on solutions

I will add one comment here: the revolution in 
communications, it appears to me, is destined to play a 
big role in the struggle of actvists and workers everywhere 
to (1) make connections with one another and (2) sort 
out the way forward and determine what forces are 
reliable (and what forces are treacherous) and develop 
organization, tactics and objectives on this basis.

There are three stories which I believe will dominate this 
century: 

    (1) the likely war between
        US imperialism and China, 

    (2) the continual development of
        the revolution in communications and
        the use of this by the working class
        to raise its consciousness and
        organize its efforts, and 

    (3) the overthrow of the rule of capital
        and the emergence of a transitional society
        that will lead humanity to an economic
        and political system that is not based on
        commodity production.  

These three stories appear to be bound up with one another.

At this time, most activists who attempt to engage in 
long-term thinking are focused more on things like (1) the 
likelyhood of economic crisis and repression or 
fascism, and (2) global warming and (3) other things, 
such as ecological destruction and more pandemics.  All 
of these things are real.  I will not live to see many of 
them.  But, as we create a movement that moves from 
object to subject, we will learn to focus, not simply 
on the problems--but on the solutions to these 
problems.