CEIMSA/Bulletin 1000: Discussions on the twentieth anniversary of ‘Dystopia USA.’

Bulletin N° 1000

Subject: Discussions on the twentieth anniversary of ‘Dystopia USA.’

Grenoble, France

09/11/2021

Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

On this grim twentieth anniversary of the event that ushered in the totalitarian takeover of global capitalism, we present eight items which offer historical analysis and contemporary testimony of the devolution of social relationships within late capitalism and class-stratified society.

Writing about “social and cultural trends in Germany before 1914,” Berrington Moore, Jr. asserts that, “Like their comrades in France and England at the outbreak of the First World War, German workers marched off to the carnival of slaughter in perfect order.”

Up to the last moment there were doubts that this would happen: fears that it might not in upper-class circles, hopes that it might not in working-class circles. The event itself created a shock whose tremors still reverberate beyond the circle of professional historians. To some the event proves that workers were giving up revolutionary illusions and rhetoric. Under the influence of advancing industrialism they were learning the virtues and imperatives of political bargaining to the point where they were becoming good liberal democrats. For moderates the tragedy lies in the fact that this process of democratic integration could not be carried through in time to prevent a second and even worse tragedy: the rise of Adolf Hitler. For those with revolutionary sympathies, on the other hand, it was precisely this integrative process that first of all allowed the First World War to happen and then prevented the possibility of any effective resistance to Hitler.

Despite their differences intelligent moderates and intelligent revolutionaries tell essentially the same story of the taming of the proletariat. Behind both versions there is the implicit assumption that a large industrial proletariat existed, and that at some point this proletariat represented, at least potentially, a serious revolutionary threat.

But do we really know for sure that there was a proletariat to be tamed? More specifically, was modern industry creating at any time before 1914 a larger and larger mass of workers with sufficiently similar life conditions and sufficiently acute grievances to push them in the direction of becoming revolutionary tinder? Or, from a different viewpoint, was the industrial working class getting big enough so that it threatened to overwhelm the propertied classes by sheer force of numbers if it demanded and obtained the vote? Clearly it would be a mistake to accept either leftist boasts or conservative complaints as very good evidence on this issue. Both sides have too obvious an axe to grind. Occupational and other statistics, for all their limitations, ought to reveal more accurately the basic contours of the situation.

Whatever the statistics to be discussed in a moment show, at this stage of the inquiry it will be wiser to drop or at least bracket the term and concept ‘proletariat’ with its overtones of potential revolution. The conception is one to be proved, not assumed. Furthermore, preoccupation with this conception can prevent us from seeing and asking more interesting questions. We ought not to spend all our time trying to decide whether or not the workers had revolutionary inclinations. To do that would be to force the workers’ feelings and behavior into predetermined categories that may have little to do with their real lives and concerns. Instead we ought to try to discover what these concerns were. They may have had very little to do with politics and revolution. So far as possible we need to learn how they viewed their own lives, what they saw and felt as misfortune and good fortune, justice and injustice, and in what terms they explained these matters to themselves. In searching for answers to these questions it is important to remember that the history of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) is not the history of the German industrial workers.

Among their concerns we especially want to learn their hopes and fears about the future, including the historically created stereotypes and cultural lenses through which these images of the future were refracted. Obviously it would be a mistake to assume that all industrial workers were alike in the experiences they underwent and the feelings they shared, though it is reasonable to expect that some experiences and feelings were very widely shared. Even to speak of a working class in any sense beyond that of a gross statistical aggregate based on a certain type of employment requires evidence about shared experiences. The differences may be just as important or more important than the similarities. Hence one of the major tasks well be to locate and account for the principal lines of cleavage.(pp173-174)

Here, Moore plunges into a statistical profile of the “size and composition of the German industrial work force” base on data from an Imperial census carried out in 1907 and published in the Statistisches Jahrbuch, Vol. 35 of 1914. In 1907, the total population of Germany was recorded at around 62 million, about half of which could not be counted as part of the labor force (including the old and infirm, the young, unemployed wives, etc.). The Prussian report of 1907 breaks down the different categories of employment - such as agriculture and forestry (9.8 million); industry and mining (11.3 million); commerce and transportation (3.5 million); miscellaneous wage earners, including servants (472 thousand); free professions (1.1 million). To this total of 26,176,000,000 the 1907 census adds the categories: “no occupation reported” (3.4 million); and rentiers (1.8 million), making the grand total of the German labor force, 31,373,000,000. Of those engaged in the largest category, industry and mining, the occupational breakdown was: independent proprietors (1.977 million); office workers (686 thousand); and workers and helpers (8.593 million).(p.175)

Without going into more detail, we can see where Moore is heading. The objective conditions of German workers differed with different occupations, and the subjective experiences in the same occupations were not identical. He explicitly states this in footnote n°3, where he critics Marxist revolutionary doctrine:

One can search out all the references to the term proletariat in the three volumes of Das Kapital without coming upon a concise definition. The closest Marx comes to such a definition is in n.70, v.I, p.645. . . . ‘Economically speaking, a proletarian means nothing more than a wage laborer who generates capital and is thrown out on his ear as soon as he has served these purposes and is superfluous for Monsieur Capital, as Pecqueur calls this person. According to the relevant articles in the Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia (2^nd edition) proletarian describes any wage laborer who through his labor power creates surplus value for capitalists or bourgeoisie. . . . But in its more extensive discussion of ‘working class under capitalism,’ vol. 35, 437, in a reference to the enormous increase of the proletariat during the nineteenth century in several countries, only workers in industry and transport are included. If the definitions as such are not very helpful, one can hardly expect them to include what was supposed to happen as capitalism matured. For that one has to consider Marxist theory as a whole. On the other hand, it is precisely on this point that there has been the greatest controversy. Since I am not writing intellectual history, and since our present task is to find out what happened and not what Marx or his followers and critics thought was happening, I have cut the Gordian knot by working out my own conceptions of what the term could mean. . . . .(p.176, fn3)

Moore concludes one section of his discussion of the 1907 census, with a word of caution:

To sum up the statistical evidence, the more on looks for modern industrial proletariat and the more carefully one defines the term, the smaller the species becomes. German industry before the First World War was still mainly a provincial and small-town affair. The world of the artisan lived on in many areas alongside, and even inside, the factory. Still that is not quite the whole story. There are a good many signs in the figures that the cutting edge of industrial advance was creating a modern industrial proletariat, by any reasonable definition. If it was an infant rather than a threatening giant, it was a rapidly growing infant. And just how the infant was going to act as it grew up was a matter about which only doctrinaires could be really sure. On balance then the weight of the evidence falls heavily on the side of skepticism about the existence of any massive reservoir of potentially revolutionary sentiment, either in the form of a pre-industrial proletariat or modern industrial one. I have no intention of doing a statistical juggling act in order to make a supposedly significant historical actor disappear from the stage. It will be necessary to take another look for this actor in the coal mines and blast furnaces of the Ruhr, where, if ever, such a collective appearance should be visible. But, to repeat, the task is to find out what sort of workers felt angry and in what situations – not what they were supposed to feel according to some theory. The basic situation for the workers was of course the wage relationship.(p.184)

Moore goes on to warn us against misinterpretations of revolutionary potential due to the stratification within of the working class.

After a relatively brief immersion in the autobiographies and prewar sociological investigations of German working-class life, an investigator will notice the existence of an intellectual elite among the working class with a somewhat patronizing stance toward what it regards as the mass of the workers. In modern times this is often the case with subordinate and oppressed groups, whose leaders are often unsure whether the masses will be up to carrying the burden that historical destiny has purposely laid upon their shoulders. In Germany at this time the distinction was mainly between an articulate upper stratum of workers and a much larger stratum of inarticulate or possibly deliberately silent ones. Most though not all of the information that is available about the inarticulate comes from the articulate. To learn what we can about the mentality of the inarticulate it is necessary to have as clear a conception as possible of the biases and predilections of the articulate. Otherwise the investigator runs the risk, well known to anthropological and sociological field workers, of swallowing the half-baked interpretations of professional ‘good’ informants, anxious to let the social scientist in on the hidden secrets and laws of motion that govern their part of the social order. Nevertheless this group’s relations with and attitudes toward the rest of the workers tell us a great deal indirectly about the character of the industrial working class as a whole.(p.191)

Later the author will turn to other means of investigating indirectly the level of consciousness of German works before the First World War, in order to seek the inhibiting mechanism at work that prevented the development of full-blown revolutionary sentiments and moral outrage at the unjust system they were asked to sustain with their alienated labor.

The 8 items below speak to similar conditions of alienation and levels of consciousness which have been socially engineered today, more than a century after WW I, in the context of a series of multiple crises in post-9/11 America.

Sincerely,

Francis McCollum Feeley

Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
(CEIMSA-in-Exile)
The University of California-San Diego
http://www.ceimsa.org

“Propaganda in the Covid Era”

https://soundcloud.com/unlimited-hangout/propaganda-in-the-covid-era-with-mark-crispin-miller/s-23nj2UfKSg9

with Whitney Webb and Mark Crispin Miller

(audio, 2:05:21)

Published September 3, 2021

===========

“Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19”

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/

from Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCC)

This article was published with the following disclaimers:

Disclaimer: The safety of Ivermectin in pregnancy has not been established. Particularly the use in the 1st trimester should be discussed with your doctor beforehand
DISCLAIMER: ©2020–2021 All Rights Reserved FLCCC Alliance. The information contained or presented on this website is for educational purposes only. Information on this site is NOT intended to serve as a substitute for diagnosis, treatment, or advice from a qualified, licensed medical professional. The facts presented are offered as information only in order to empower you – our protocol is not medical advice – and in no way should anyone infer that we, even though we are physicians, or anyone appearing in any content on this website are practicing medicine, it is for educational purposes only. Any treatment protocol you undertake should be discussed with your physician or other licensed medical professional. Seek the advice of a medical professional for proper application of ANY material on this site or our program to your specific situation. NEVER stop or change your medications without consulting your physician. If you are having an emergency contact your emergency services: in the USA that’s 911. Please read our Complete disclaimers.

A safer, more effective alternative exists: early treatment. Early treatment protocols, such as the Fareed-Tyson protocol

have more than a 99% relative risk reduction, work for all variants, and have negligible side effects making them safer and more effective than any vaccine. The NIH and FDA ignore these early treatments.

===========

"There is a 3000% increase in cases of adolescent male myocarditis after

‘vaccination’: What logic lessons does that teach us

(we who can still think)?”

https://archives.simplelists.com/nfu/msg/17556132/

by Mark Crispin Miller

Reply to list

From Kathy Dopp:

"There is a 3000% increase in expected cases of adolescent male myocarditis after “vaccination.” Sept. 5, 2021

a record number of injuries and deaths in people young and previously healthy,

after receiving any of the COVID-19 injections

Article includes data from Israel, the U.K., and the United States. 12,249 cases of 12 to 17 year olds injured by K0 B1T injection in the United States.

-------------------------------------------------

LOGIC LESSON ONE:

(1) The COVID vaccines do NOT protect anyone from being infected with the Delta variant, as shown in the UK and Israel data that appeared as a result of the COVID vaccine rollouts;

(2) The COVID vaccines tend to only cause the body to make temporary antibodies lasting about 6 months of the type that protect internal organs, but no antibodies of the type that prevent viral growth in the nasal and oral cavities;

(3) The CDC has NOT been collecting accurate data on breakthrough cases and cited earlier pre-vaccination data to falsely declare there is "a pandemic of the unvaccinated"

(4) 99.1% of ALL CASES are NOW the DELTA variant

Which is the Logically Correct Conclusion?

CDC's CONCLUSION: Everyone needs to get the initial 2 shots plus booster shots of exactly the same COVID vaccines that do NOT protect from the Delta Variant and do not prevent high viral loads of any variant in the nasal and oral cavities !!!

THINK!! Do the CDC's recommendations make logical sense? Is the CDC's goal to protect high-risk people from the Delta variant or to boost the profit of the vaccine makers by selling their remaining stocks of ineffective vaccines?

ANOTHER CONCLUSION: Vaccinated or not, everyone who is high risk of getting a serious case of COVID (those with other morbidities or who have not had COVID and recovered) could follow over-the-counter supplement protocols to avoid getting serious COVID cases.

----------------------------------

LOGIC LESSON TWO:

(1) Young People have very absolute LOW risk of getting a serious COVID case.

(2) The COVID vaccines do not prevent anyone from getting or spreading COVID but, instead, increase the rate of spread, as many scientists warned would happen and the data shows is happening;

(3) Young People have very HIGH (60%) absolute risk of permanent bodily injury caused by clotting or death from taking the COVID vaccines

Which is the Logically Correct Conclusion?

CDC's CONCLUSION: Young people should all be vaccinated. Do the CDC's recommendations make sense? Is the CDC's goal to protect young people from serious COVID cases or to boost the profit of the vaccine makers by selling their dangerous and ineffective vaccines?

THINK!! Do the CDC's recommendations make logical sense? Is the CDC's goal to protect young people from the Delta variant or to boost the profit of the vaccine makers by selling their remaining stocks of ineffective vaccines that cause the disease to spread faster?

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Young persons should NOT take the COVID vaccine which has in just a few months, killed and permanently damaged the health of more young persons than SARS-COV-2 infections did in 1.5 years.

-------------------------------------

LOGIC LESSON THREE:

(1) There has never been a case of any person getting a serious COVID case who previously contracted a well-documented SARS-COV-2 infection and recovered;

(2) There have been thousands of well-documented cases of persons getting serious COVID cases after having received two doses of COVID vaccines;

(3) People who previously recovered from SARS-COV-2 infections have much higher rates of post-COVID-vaccine adverse events, injuries and deaths.

What is the Logically Correct Conclusion?

CDC's CONCLUSION: All people, including everyone who previously recovered from SARS-COV-2 infections must be vaccinated or given a booster show now with COVID vaccines that do not prevent infections or the spread of the disease, but seem to be causing immune escape variants and increasing the spread.

THINK!! Do the CDC's recommendations make logical sense? Is the CDC's goal to protect recovered COVID patients and others who were already infected and have robust lifelong immunity from the Delta and other SARS-COV-2 variants or is the CDC's goal to boost the profit of the vaccine makers by selling their remaining stocks of ineffective and dangerous vaccines?

ANOTHER CONCLUSION: Previously infected persons should NOT take the COVID vaccine which has in just a few months, killed and permanently damaged the health of more young persons and persons who recovered earlier than SARS-COV-2 infections did in 1.5 years.

-----------------------

All these facts given above are supported by the data and studies posted here:

http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo

Kathy Dopp, Natick, Mass., MS mathematics

http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051
Science is my passion, politics my duty (Thomas Jefferson, paraphrased)

===========

“A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Systemic Collapse and Pandemic

Simulation, Follow the Money”

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-self-fulfilling-prophecy-systemic-collapse-and-pandemic-simulation/

by Fabio Vighi

Published August 16 , 2021