Socialism and the End of the American Dream

A day after the US gave tepid support for the establishment of Syrian safe zones to try to separate combatant forces and reduce the amount of fighting, they appear to have noticed that this might get in their way of their own attacks across the country, and are pledging to ignore the demilitarization of the zones.

Back when Turkey and the US were both super keen on the idea of safe zones, a big selling point was the imposition of no-fly zones over the areas, to keep the civilians within getting bombed. This was also a big obstacle, as the US wasn’t totally clear it could do this without declaring war on Russia. With Russia also on board now, that should’ve been easier. Instead, Russia announced that the safe zones, which went into effect overnight, are now officially closed to all warplanes, and US officials are livid at the idea, insisting they have no intention of respecting that. Largely this appears to be a case of the US just being deliberately difficult, as none of the safe zones are in areas US warplanes were operating in the first place. The reality, however, is that the zones are now being used in service of a ceasefire the US never really supported to begin with ,and with the US-backed rebels also objecting about the ceasefire getting in the way of their war, the US will be non-cooperative.

Russia’s lead negotiator at the Astana Peace Talks, Alexander Levrentyev has confirmed that US coalition planes will be banned from flying over the Syrian safe-zones established in a key Memorandum at the Astana Peace talks. READ MORE: 5 reasons the Astana ‘safe zone’ Memorandum is good for Russia and Syria As the Astana group which is comprised of delegations from Russia, Iran and Turkey prepare to discuss the particulars of setting up the safe-zones, Levrentyev said, “As for [the US led coalition] actions in the de-escalation zones, starting from now those zones are closed for their flights” He continued, “As guarantors we will be tracking all actions in that direction,” he remarked. “Absolutely no flights, especially by the international coalition, are allowed. With or without prior notification. The issue is closed”. This statement indicates that the Syrian led anti-terrorist coalition whose strongest member is Russia, is now in full control of Syria’s airspace. Any attempts by the US to try and use political blackmail to ground the jets of countries not in its increasingly ineffective coalition, is now realistically off the table. If America does want to fly over these zones, it would have to be done with the permission and coordination of Russia.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Aleksandr Fomin said that the safe-zones will become operation late on the 5th or May. He also said, “It was supported by all principal players, including the UN, the US administration, Saudi Arabia and other nations, so there is a certain degree of guarantee that the memorandum will be implemented”. This is potentially a big game changer in three ways. First of all, it is an historically important moment wherein Russia rather than the US has taken charge of international efforts to dictate not only the political but operational and military trajectory of a major conflict. Secondly, because Syria has approved the Astana memorandum and remains a close partner with Russia, it means that Syria now has de-facto regained control over its airspace, a control whose partial loss was always a violation of international law. Finally, because the UN has officially approved the Astana Memorandum, it means that any US disagreements would mean conflict with not only Syria, Russia and Iran but also with the United Nations and NATO member Turkey which is a formal signatory of the Memorandum. Thus far the US and even Saudi Arabia hve gone along with the agreement. If the US or its allies changed their minds, it would not only cause conflict, but would be extremely embarrassing to an all ready hyper-sensitive Trump administration. America got its no fly zones in all but name, but it is not in charge of them. America sought no fly-zones in order to try and ground Russian and Syrian jets. Now, something resembling the opposite of this is becoming the new reality. With all the frankly silly and totally unsubstantiated talk of Russia interfering in America’s domestic policy making, the truth is that Russia is now interfering in America’s foreign policy making. America’s typically extra-legal hegemonic foreign policy is under threat in Syria and it is Russia whose influence is making this so.

Two in five Americans back economic sanctions or more serious actions against Israel over its continued construction of settlements on occupied Palestinian land, a crime under international law, a new poll has found. Among Democrats, a clear majority – 56 percent – backs economic sanctions or tougher actions.

More than half – 54 percent – say the US should be even-handed, leaning neither towards the Israelis or Palestinians, a figure that shoots up to 72 percent among Democrats. Right now, 57 percent of respondents overall see the US leaning more towards Israel. Americans are also very open-minded towards a one-state solution encompassing all of present-day Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Overall, 37 percent of Americans favor a two-state solution, but 31 percent say they would prefer “a single democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs are full and equal citizens, covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories.” Only 9 percent prefer Israel annexing all of the occupied territories without giving Palestinians full rights, and another 15 percent say they favor the status quo of indefinite military occupation. When asked what they would prefer if their favored approach fails, almost two-thirds – 63 percent overall – said a one-state solution. This includes 70 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans. Just 10 percent overall would contemplate what appears to be the direction Israel is heading: annexation of the West Bank without giving Palestinians equal citizenship. According to Telhami, who summarized some of the poll’s findings in a Washington Post article, the survey results show strong polarization between Democrats and independents on the one hand, who tend to be more favorable to Palestinian rights, and supporters of President Donald Trump, on the other, who strongly back Israel.

rump recently pledged to continue the policy of his predecessor Barack Obama of maintaining military aid to Israel at record levels. But even among Republicans, the survey reveals little support for Israel entrenching its apartheid system in the long term. The poll also highlights how starkly out of step US political elites are with the public. Last week, all 100 members of the Senate signed a letter to the UN secretary-general demanding that Israel be given “equal treatment” – meaning in effect that it be exempted from scrutiny or accountability for its well-documented violations of Palestinian rights and international law. The poll is more bad news for Israel and leaders of its lobby groups, who recently acknowledged in a private report leaked to The Electronic Intifada that their efforts to thwart the “impressive growth” of the Palestine solidarity movement have failed despite vastly increasingly their spending. Similar polls in Canada and Australia in recent months have shown surging public support in those countries for actions to hold Israel accountable, including boycott, divestment and sanctions.

The US National Security Agency (NSA) collected more than 151 million records of Americans' phone calls last year, even after Congress limited its ability to collect bulk call records.  A report from the office of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats presented the first measure of the effects of the 2015 USA Freedom Act, which limited the NSA to collecting the phone records and contacts of people that the US and allied intelligence agencies suspect may have ties to "terrorism". NSA collected the 151 million records even though it had warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to spy on only 42 suspects in 2016, in addition to a handful identified the previous year, the report said.

The United States is not going to launch a preemptive attack on North Korea.  The risks far outweigh the rewards and, besides, the US has no intention of getting bogged down in a conflict that doesn’t advance its geopolitical objectives. The saber-rattling is just an attempt to divert attention from the Syria-Jordan border where the US and Jordan are massing troops and equipment for an invasion of Syria. That’s what’s really going on. The Korean fiasco is a smokescreen.

According to a new poll, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America. The Harvard-Harris survey, published first in The Hill, found almost 60 percent of Americans view the Vermont senator favorably. Among certain demographics, the progressive politician's ratings are even higher: 80 percent of Democratic voters, 73 percent of registered black voters, and 68 percent of registered Hispanic voters view Sanders favorably. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren also scored positively, with 38 percent approving of the liberal icon and only 32 percent disapproving. This isn't a marked change from prior polling. In late 2016, Sanders was also viewed as the lawmaker with the highest favorability ratings, earning  approval from more than 50 percent of the electorate.  The least popular political figure in America? Look to the White House, but not the Oval Office—though Donald Trump is 7 points underwater, 44/51. His beleaguered chief strategist, Steve Bannon, came in dead last in the survey. Only 16 percent give the former Breitbart publisher a thumbs-up, while a full 45 percent offer the opposite. "In losing to Hillary [Clinton], Bernie Sanders has floated above today's partisan politics while Bannon has, rightly or wrongly, taken the blame for the administration’s failures,” poll co-director Mark Penn from Harvard-Harris told The Hill. "Sanders is an asset to the Democrats while Bannon is a liability to the administration." Read the full findings of the poll here.

A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, Citizen's Income, unconditional basic income, universal basic income, or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere. An unconditional income transfer of less than the poverty line is sometimes referred to as a partial basic income. Basic income systems that are financed by the profits of publicly owned enterprises (often called social dividend, also known as citizen's dividend) are major components in many proposed models of market socialism.[4] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems, where they would be financed through various forms of taxation.[5] Similar proposals for "capital grants provided at the age of majority" date to Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice of 1795, there paired with asset-based egalitarianism. The phrase "social dividend" was commonly used as a synonym for basic income in the English-speaking world before 1986, after which the phrase "basic income" gained widespread currency.[6

Contents  [hide]  1 Policy aspects 1.1 Transparency 1.2 Administrative efficiency 1.3 Poverty reduction 1.4 Basic income and growth 1.5 Freedom 1.6 Work incentives 1.7 Affordability 1.7.1 Key principles 1.7.2 Case studies 2 Pilot programs 3 Basic income and ideology 3.1 Economic perspectives 3.2 Georgist views 3.3 Right-wing views 3.4 Feminist views 3.5 Technological unemployment 4 Criticism 4.1 Economics research 4.2 Political debate 5 Worldwide 6 Advocates 6.1 Europe 6.2 The United States and Canada 6.3 Asia, Africa, Latin America, Oceania 7 Petitions and referendums 8 Public opinions 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading 12 External links

Technological unemployment[edit] Concerns about automation and other causes of technological unemployment have caused many in the high-tech industry to turn to basic income proposals as a necessary implication of their business models. Journalist Nathan Schneider first highlighted the turn of the "tech elite" to these ideas with an article in Vice magazine, which cited figures such as Marc Andreessen, Sam Altman, Peter Diamandis, and others.[47] The White House, in a report to Congress, has put the probability at 83% that a worker making less than $20 an hour in 2010 will eventually lose their job to a machine. Even workers making as much as $40 an hour face odds of 31 percent.[48] To better address both the funding concerns and concerns about government control, one alternative model is that the cost and control would be distributed across the private sector instead of the public sector. Companies across the economy would be required to employ humans, but the job descriptions would be left to private innovation, and individuals would have to compete to be hired and retained. This would be a for-profit sector analog of basic income, that is, a market-based form of basic income. It differs from a job guarantee in that the government is not the employer (rather, companies are) and there is no aspect of having employees who "cannot be fired", a problem that interferes with economic dynamism. The economic salvation in this model is not that every individual is guaranteed a job, but rather just that enough jobs exist that massive unemployment is avoided and employment is no longer solely the privilege of only the very smartest or highly trained 20% of the population. Another option for a market-based form of basic income has been proposed by the Center for Economic and Social Justice (CESJ) as part of "a Just Third Way" (a Third Way with greater justice) through widely distributed power and liberty. Called the Capital Homestead Act,[49] it is reminiscent of James S. Albus's Peoples' Capitalism[50][51] in that money creation and securities ownership are widely and directly distributed to individuals rather than flowing through, or being concentrated in, centralized or elite mechanisms.

Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky discuss the concept of a basic income guarantee also known as a universal basic income.

In this video, former finance minister of Greece, professor of economics, author, and founder of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), Yanis Varoufakis, argues why the Basic Income is a necessity today. His arguments take into account a macro socio-economic, psychological, philosophical and moral perspective. In addition to the speech, Varoufakis addresses a wide range of questions from the public. What is the social democratic tradition about? And how did influence Capitalism in the 20th century? Why is Social Democracy coming to an end? And how is the process of financialization & the rise of technology contributing to its demise? What is Bankruptocracy? What problems is it posing to our society? What is the current narrative on the relationship between the markets & state in terms of wealth generation? And how and why is a change required in this narrative in order to make the Basic Income a reality? What are the arguments are against a Basic Income? And how should they be confronted? How is a Basic Income aligned with the Libertarian philosophy? Will it promote freedom of choice and self-determination? How will a Basic Income promote creativity in our society? All of these questions and much more are addressed in the video:

The Pentagon’s plan for seizing and occupying territory in east Syria is beginning to take shape. According to a Fox News exclusive: “The Islamic State has essentially moved its so-called capital in Syria… ISIS is now centered in Deir ez-Zur, roughly 90 miles southeast of Raqqa, the officials said.” (“ISIS moves its capital in Syria”, FOX News ) The move by ISIS corresponds to the secretive massing of US troops and military equipment on the Syria-Jordan border. It creates the perfect pretext for a ground invasion followed by a long-term military occupation in an area that Washington has sought to control for the last 18 months.  Here’s more on the topic from South Front: “The US military is reportedly concentrating troops and military equipment at the Syrian-Jordanian border. Local sources said that about 20 US Army armoured vehicles (including battle tanks and artillery pieces) carried on trucks were spotted in Al-Mafraq. US troops were allegedly accompanied with the Jordanian Army’s 3rd Division.

The United States is deploying armored vehicles and a small number of troops along the Syrian – Turkish border after recent airstrikes killed about 20 Syrian – Kurdish fighters of the People’s Protection Unit (YPG). The YPG is a key member organization of the U.S. backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The troops and armored vehicles were deployed on Friday amidst increased tensions between the YPG and Turkey, as well as increased tensions between Turkey and Turkey’s Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK). Footage posted by Syrian activists online showed a convoy of U.S. armored vehicles driving on a rural road in the village of Darbasiyah in the Kurdish region of northern Syria, a few hundred meters from the Turkish border. Clashes in the area were reported Wednesday a day after the Turkish airstrike which also destroyed a Kurdish command headquarters. The YPG reported that a series of air strikes and attacks between April 25 and April 28 resulted in the death of at least 20 of their fighters. Both Russia, Syria and the United States expressed grave concerns about Turkey’s military actions against the YPG. All three stressed that Turkey should rather focus on fighting the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh). The Turkish AKP government, for its part, considers the YPG as a terrorist organization on par and allied with the PKK. Moreover, Turkey strongly opposes the creation of a Kurdish state construct or a federal, predominantly Kurdish construct in northern Syria, fearing it would strengthen the PKK. Turkey is therefore counting on its cooperation with Islamist insurgents, often with links to Al-Qaeda affiliates, under the euphemism Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Pentagon Spokesman, U.S. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, did not dispute that U.S. troops are operating with elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) along the Turkish border, but he would not get into specifics. The SDF is a Kurdish-dominated alliance fighting IS that includes Kurdish and Arab fighters as well as fighters from other local ethnic and other militia. Deserted Free Syrian Army officers and fighters are also part of the SDF. Davis commented “We have U.S. forces that are there throughout the entirety of northern Syria that operate with our Syrian Democratic Force partners,” Davis said. “The border is among the areas where they operate.” He said the U.S. wants the SDF to focus on liberating the IS-held town of Tabqa and the extremist group’s de facto capital, Raqqa, “and not be drawn into conflicts elsewhere.” In March 2016, about 200 Marines were deployed to Syrian Kurdistan backed with howitzers, significantly widening the U.S. support for the SDF, especially in the highly complex battlefield around Raqqa.

As the latest installment of it’s ‘Vault 7’ series, WikiLeaks has just dropped a user manual describing a CIA project known as ‘Scribbles’ (a.k.a. the “Snowden Stopper”), a piece of software purportedly designed to allow the embedding of ‘web beacon’ tags into documents “likely to be stolen.” The web beacon tags are apparently able to collect information about an end user of a document and relay that information back to the beacon’s creator without being detected. Per WikiLeaks’ press release:

Today, April 28th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes the documentation and source code for CIA’s “Scribbles” project, a document-watermarking preprocessing system to embed “Web beacon”-style tags into documents that are likely to be copied by Insiders, Whistleblowers, Journalists or others. The released version (v1.0 RC1) is dated March, 1st 2016 and classified SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN until 2066. Scribbles is intended for off-line preprocessing of Microsoft Office documents. For reasons of operational security the user guide demands that “[t]he Scribbles executable, parameter files, receipts and log files should not be installed on a target machine, nor left in a location where it might be collected by an adversary.”

The ‘Scribbles’ User Guide explains how the tool generates a random watermark for each document, inserts that watermark into the document, saves all such processed documents in an output directory, and creates a log file which identifies the watermarks inserted into each document. Scribbles can watermark multiple documents in one batch and is designed to watermark several groups of documents.

The province of Ontario will start its pilot project testing universal basic income in three Canadian cities this summer, premier Kathleen Wynne announced on Monday. About 4,000 residents of Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay will be randomly selected to take part in the three-year program. One group will start receiving funds this summer—as much as $12,570 annually for individuals—while the other will be part of the control group, and not receive any money. Researchers will track the program’s impact on the economy, public health, education, and housing.

“It’s not an extravagant sum by any means,” Wynne said. “But our goal is clear. We want to find out whether a basic income makes a positive difference in people’s lives. Whether this new approach gives them the ability to begin to achieve their potential.” Participants will be screened to ensure that they are between 18 and 64 years old and living on a low income. “This is a new world with new challenges,” Wynne said. “From technology to [President Donald] Trump, it is a time of greater uncertainty and change.” Universal basic income, a form of social security that provides unconditional financial support from the government to all residents of a country or region, has recently gained traction as a solution to poverty, homelessness, and low quality of life. Similar pilot programs are on the way around the world, from Finland to Kenya. According to the Globe and Mail, a separate basic income plan for First Nations communities will be introduced later this year.

On Tuesday, the U.S.-allied militias that have been encircling Raqqa – the de facto stronghold of Daesh – announced that they had formed a “civilian council” to govern Raqqa after its capture from Daesh militants. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a U.S.-backed militia that comprises a large number of Syrian Kurds, claim to have spent six months setting up the council, with a preparatory committee having met “with the people and important tribal figures of Raqqa city to find out their opinions on how to govern it,” Middle East Eye reported. SDF spokesman Talal Selo stated that some towns near Raqqa had already been turned over to the council following a successful operation to drive out Daesh forces. The U.S. military had previously hinted that power would be given to rebel groups following Raqqa’s “liberation” when the head of U.S. Central Command General Joseph Votel told the Senate in early March that military officials anticipated “that America’s allies will need assistance preventing their [Daesh’s] return and establishing Syrian-led peacekeeping efforts” after a successful operation. Considering that the Syrian government is far from being one of “America’s allies,” Votel’s statement implied that the U.S.-backed militias would be given control of Raqqa and the surrounding area, despite the implications this would have for Syrian sovereignty and further destabilization in the war-torn country. As MintPress previously reported, Votel also told senators that “conventional U.S. forces would be required to stabilize the region once ISIS fighters are flushed from Raqqa,” meaning that the current U.S. troop build-up around Raqqa is by no means a temporary deployment, but rather the foundation for creating a standing army.

Al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, As Sahab, released an audio message from Ayman al Zawahiri earlier today. The audio file, which was spliced together with images from the Sunni jihad in Syria, is just over six minutes long. It was released via social media, including on As Sahab’s Telegram channel. Zawahiri warns that the Syrian war shouldn’t be considered an exclusively “nationalist” effort, because this is what the Sunni jihadists’ enemies want. Instead, according to the al Qaeda emir, the Syrian conflict should be viewed as the “cause of the entire Ummah,” or worldwide community of Muslims. His comments are potentially interesting in light of Al Nusrah Front’s rebranding last year, and then the group’s merger with several others to form Hay’at Tahrir al Sham (“Assembly for the Liberation of the Levant”) in January. Various al Qaeda actors and other jihadists inside Syria have debated how to best portray themselves to the world. Al Nusrah’s relaunch in July 2016 was blessed beforehand by Zawahiri’s deputy, but some al Qaeda figures rejected it. Zawahiri does not specifically mention Hay’at Tahrir al Sham or any other group in Syria, so we can only speculate if he is commenting on some specific debate within jihadist circles. But that appears likely. Zawahiri does explicitly endorse the insurgency in Syria, saying that it is a “guerrilla” war and the jihadists should not focus on holding territory at this time. Instead, Zawahiri says, they must focus on weakening their enemies.

In its efforts to grapple with North Korea, the US might consider killing its leader Kin Jong-un or deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea, the National Security Council has reportedly suggested to President Donald Trump.

The NSC also presented Trump with the possibility of assassinating Kim, along with the option of infiltrating special forces into North Korea and then sabotaging key nuclear infrastructure. One option “is to target and kill North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and other senior leaders in charge of the country’s missiles and nuclear weapons and decision-making,” NBC news said. Such scenarios are part of an accelerated review of North Korea policy that were prepared in advance of Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping this week, NBC said, quoting multiple top-ranking intelligence and military officials.

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned. In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Friday that the Senate Intelligence Committee needs to review the evidence linking Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to a chemical-weapons attack that prompted Thursday night’s missile strike by the U.S. On the surface, Paul said, it makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons. He was winning the six-year-old civil war, had the support of Russian troops on the ground, and, just days earlier, received a public statement from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that regime change was not America’s goal.

“He’s either the dumbest dictator in the world, or it may be more confusing,” Paul said on “The Laura Ingraham Show.”

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela categorically rejects and protests the comments expressed by Admiral Kurt Tidd, commander of the United States Southern Command, which lay the groundwork for an attack on Venezuela under the aegis of the false doctrine of collective regional security.  On Thursday, April 6 2017, Admiral Kurt Tidd declared that: “…The growing humanitarian crisis in Venezuela could eventually compel a regional response”. This affirmation, aimed at creating uncertainty and instability in the country, is framed within the interventionist order of a group of governments that are harassing and relentlessly hounding Venezuela through the construction of false assumptions accompanied by operations in the media and fraudulent processes within the framework of the Organization of American States (OAS). 

Russia and Iran have warned the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria. Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”. “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well,” the group’s joint command centre said.