therealnews--2020-01-28--Brexit Won’t Deliver What Conservatives Promised

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s The Real News Network and I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
About three and a half years after Britain voted in a referendum , by a margin of 52 to 48 % , to leave the European Union , it will finally happen at midnight Central European Time on January 31st .
This would conclude Britain ’ s 47-year membership in the European Union .
At first , not much will change , because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangement that will last for the next 11 months until the end of 2020 .
By that time , the two sides are supposed to negotiate policies that would have to do with trade , security , foreign affairs , data , fisheries , cultural educational ties , and much more .
Also , for now , free movement of EU and British citizens into and out of the EU remain the same with no changes at the border crossings .
For a while , it was uncertain whether there would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , for a long time , Britain ’ s Parliament could not come to an agreement over the modalities of the Brexit .
If no agreement with the EU had been reached , Britain ’ s exit from the EU would have been harsh and uncoordinated .
However , when Prime Minister Boris Johnson managed to call a new parliamentary election for December 12th , which his Conservative Party won with an 80-seat majority , Johnson was finally able to move forward on Brexit .
Parliament then passed the EU Withdrawal Agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed .
Joining me now to discuss what Brexit means is John Weeks .
He ’ s Professor Emeritus at the University of London , and his most recent book is “ The Debt Delusion : Living Within Our Means and Other Fallacies.
” Thanks for joining us again , John .
Greg Wilpert : One of the big issues in Brexit has always been whether the UK would recover its national sovereignty , that is , independence from the EU , and thus be able to pass more legislation that would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain presumably want .
Now , here , for example , is the Brexit Secretary , Stephen Barclay , speaking about this issue last Sunday .
Stephen Barclay : The key issue is that we will , have control of our rules .
We will not be a rule taker , we will not diverge for the sake of diverging .
We start from a position of alignment .
But the key opportunity is that we will be able to set our standards , high standards on workers ’ rights , on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that trade policy .
Greg Wilpert : So John , what do you think ?
Is that really what the Conservatives will do , set their own high standards for workers ’ rights and environmental policy ?
John Weeks : Well , of course he ’ s right to say they could , but he won ’ t .
Boris Johnson may or may not .
It ’ s hard to know what Boris Johnson thinks .
He ’ s not ideologic .
He ’ s a complete opportunist .
But given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfy them , and he has a very right wing group in his party .
The likelihood of substantial workers ’ rights passing Parliament with a Conservative majority is very slight .
On the environmental side , we know pretty much what their position is , and it is , at best , been neutral .
They have not been enthusiastic about things like Extinction Rebellion and other work by activists , so I think it is extremely unlikely that they would do that .
They could , but they won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wilpert : Let ’ s turn to what the current trajectory of Brexit might mean for Britain ’ s economy .
The British pound has already lost in value , which reflects some of the anxieties around Brexit .
The lower currency means more expensive imported goods , but it also means British goods and services are cheaper for export .
The government itself has estimated that a hard Brexit , which is still theoretically possible by the end of 2020 , would mean that Britain ’ s economy would grow 9 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it otherwise would have , because of higher tariffs and hampered production processes .
What do you expect to happen now , economically speaking , in the coming year ?
John Weeks : First , I would say that your audience should realize , and you have a sophisticated audience , that these estimates of the growth impact are pure guesswork and should not be taken seriously .
That is particularly the case because they are estimates dug from a neoliberal free trade globalization point of view .
So , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic output [ inaudible 00:04:44 ] is very much a part of neoliberal mainstream economics ideology .
Having said that , if you think about it practically , there ’ s bound to be some impact .
The Brexit , particularly while negotiations are going on , creates a world of uncertainty .
Just moving out into new rules creates uncertainty .
Now , capital speculators , of course , love uncertainty .
That ’ s where they make their money .
But investors , which build factories and software and things like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty .
And so I think we can often at least say that the investment levels , private investment levels in particular , are likely to stagnate .
I ’ ve just been looking at some statistics , and since the referendum , that referendum , as you mentioned , back in June 2016 , there has been a leveling off .
Or if you wanted to use a value judgment , it ’ s a stagnation of both manufacturing and non-manufacturing investment .
So I think that we can say that investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a catastrophic decline , I think no one can say , but I think the conclusion is that the British economy grows slower and overall economic conditions will deteriorate .
Greg Wilpert : Now , one of the big unresolved issues is that of the British border between Ireland and Northern Ireland .
That is , Ireland is part of the EU and there were no border controls into and out of Northern Ireland as a result .
Now that the UK is leaving the EU , there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK .
But Boris Johnson actually just recently backtracked on this tentative agreement without really saying what the alternative is .
Now , what do you think this Brexit agreement would mean for Northern Ireland going forward ?
John Weeks : Well , I would say that this must be put into context with the European Union wants an arrangement .
I think the German government is very keen to have a agreement .
We mustn ’ t romanticize the European Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the European Union .
The German government very much represents German capital , and the German capital has a large trade surplus with Britain .
And German economy is stagnating at the moment .
So German [ inaudible 00:07:40 ] is very keen to have an agreement .
So it ’ s a mistake to think that the EU is going to drive a hard bargain and Britain will just have to take it .
However , having said that , it ’ s hard to see any solution to the circle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain joining the Common Market European Union .
That was the only way not to have a hard border with Ireland is between Ireland and Northern Ireland .
The only way to do that is to eliminate tariffs and a custom check .
The only way to do that is to , going into customs you can part with the European Union .
Now , [ inaudible 00:08:36 ] says he will not do that .
I think that ’ s more or less what labor [ inaudible 00:08:42 ] when it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So I would say that there will , the UK will have to enter into a customs agreement or the relationship with Northern Ireland will become unguarded and intractable .
Greg Wilpert : Now finally , the Labor Party actually lost quite badly in the last election , and many attributed this to its unwillingness to take a strong position either in favor of or against Brexit .
Now , how do you see the Labor Party strategy unfolding , or what do you think it ought to be in the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negotiations that are going to be going on with regard to the final Brexit agreement ?
John Weeks : So , first let me say , yes , it was a terrible result .
There ’ s no question about that .
I was providing some advice to the [ inaudible 00:09:43 ] chancellor in the months , about a year and a half before the election .
And as John McDonnel , [ inaudible 00:09:53 ] chancellor said , it was a very disappointing result .
Which I would say it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So what is the Labor Party going to do ?
It is extremely unfortunate that Labor Party is in the process of choosing a new leader .
Not because they don ’ t need a new leader .
They do need a new leader .
What is unfortunate is , the process is going to last until April .
So , in effect , we ’ ll have a lame duck leadership Labor Party for three months .
And , as a result , Labor will have very little input into its fate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 00:10:37 ] tend to say , “ Well , we could ignore labor , anyway , ” but it will be very hard for Labor opposition to put together any type of effective blockage what the Boris Johnson , Prime Minister , is going to do .
It would be very difficult , hard to block anything when into the throes of a leadership [ inaudible 00:11:00 ] Now , after April , there will be a new leader .
I would predict , if I can stick my neck out , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Keir Starmer .
[ inaudible 00:11:13 ] out that sometime .
He was known for being pro-EU , but he has said now that is behind them .
But what position you think we can sort of predict ?
What position he will take once he becomes a speaker .
His position will be to try to make Great Britain in the what ’ s called a single market .
It ’ s now an official term in Singapore , European Union .
And , while allowing for some flexibility and independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called state aid , which is basically allowing each government gives subsidies to industry .
So the short answer to your question is , I think that Labor will be able to do nothing until April and after that , they ’ ll push for so-called [ inaudible 00:12:11 ] .
Greg Wilpert : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now , but of course we ’ ll definitely come back to you also with regard to how the labor leadership vote turns out .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
I was speaking to John Weeks , Professor Emeritus of the University of London .
Thanks again , John , for having joined us today .
John Weeks : Thank you for having me .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

The Johnson government said leaving the EU would allow the UK to regain its sovereignty so it can apply higher labor and environmental standards, but that was an empty promise, says University of London economist John Weeks.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network and I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. About three and a half years after Britain voted in a referendum, by a margin of 52 to 48%, to leave the European Union, it will finally happen at midnight Central European Time on January 31st. This would conclude Britain’s 47-year membership in the European Union. At first, not much will change, because the EU and the UK negotiated a transition arrangement that will last for the next 11 months until the end of 2020. By that time, the two sides are supposed to negotiate policies that would have to do with trade, security, foreign affairs, data, fisheries, cultural educational ties, and much more. Also, for now, free movement of EU and British citizens into and out of the EU remain the same with no changes at the border crossings.
For a while, it was uncertain whether there would be a so-called hard or soft Brexit. That is, for a long time, Britain’s Parliament could not come to an agreement over the modalities of the Brexit. If no agreement with the EU had been reached, Britain’s exit from the EU would have been harsh and uncoordinated. However, when Prime Minister Boris Johnson managed to call a new parliamentary election for December 12th, which his Conservative Party won with an 80-seat majority, Johnson was finally able to move forward on Brexit. Parliament then passed the EU Withdrawal Agreement on January 23rd, which Johnson eagerly signed. Joining me now to discuss what Brexit means is John Weeks. He’s Professor Emeritus at the University of London, and his most recent book is “The Debt Delusion: Living Within Our Means and Other Fallacies.” Thanks for joining us again, John.
John Weeks: Thank you.
Greg Wilpert: One of the big issues in Brexit has always been whether the UK would recover its national sovereignty, that is, independence from the EU, and thus be able to pass more legislation that would be in alignment with what the people of Britain presumably want. Now, here, for example, is the Brexit Secretary, Stephen Barclay, speaking about this issue last Sunday.
Stephen Barclay: The key issue is that we will, have control of our rules. We will not be a rule taker, we will not diverge for the sake of diverging. We start from a position of alignment. But the key opportunity is that we will be able to set our standards, high standards on workers’ rights, on the environment and state aid as part of that trade policy.
Greg Wilpert: So John, what do you think? Is that really what the Conservatives will do, set their own high standards for workers’ rights and environmental policy?
John Weeks: Well, of course he’s right to say they could, but he won’t. Boris Johnson may or may not. It’s hard to know what Boris Johnson thinks. He’s not ideologic. He’s a complete opportunist. But given the members of his party and he must satisfy them, and he has a very right wing group in his party. The likelihood of substantial workers’ rights passing Parliament with a Conservative majority is very slight. On the environmental side, we know pretty much what their position is, and it is, at best, been neutral. They have not been enthusiastic about things like Extinction Rebellion and other work by activists, so I think it is extremely unlikely that they would do that. They could, but they won’t, is the big picture.
Greg Wilpert: Let’s turn to what the current trajectory of Brexit might mean for Britain’s economy. The British pound has already lost in value, which reflects some of the anxieties around Brexit. The lower currency means more expensive imported goods, but it also means British goods and services are cheaper for export. The government itself has estimated that a hard Brexit, which is still theoretically possible by the end of 2020, would mean that Britain’s economy would grow 9% less over the next 15 years than it otherwise would have, because of higher tariffs and hampered production processes. What do you expect to happen now, economically speaking, in the coming year?
John Weeks: First, I would say that your audience should realize, and you have a sophisticated audience, that these estimates of the growth impact are pure guesswork and should not be taken seriously. That is particularly the case because they are estimates dug from a neoliberal free trade globalization point of view. So, for example, the argument that raising tariffs will produce economic output [inaudible 00:04:44] is very much a part of neoliberal mainstream economics ideology. Having said that, if you think about it practically, there’s bound to be some impact. The Brexit, particularly while negotiations are going on, creates a world of uncertainty. Just moving out into new rules creates uncertainty.
Now, capital speculators, of course, love uncertainty. That’s where they make their money. But investors, which build factories and software and things like that, they are very unsettled by uncertainty. And so I think we can often at least say that the investment levels, private investment levels in particular, are likely to stagnate. I’ve just been looking at some statistics, and since the referendum, that referendum, as you mentioned, back in June 2016, there has been a leveling off. Or if you wanted to use a value judgment, it’s a stagnation of both manufacturing and non-manufacturing investment. So I think that we can say that investment is likely to decline. Whether it will be a catastrophic decline, I think no one can say, but I think the conclusion is that the British economy grows slower and overall economic conditions will deteriorate.
Greg Wilpert: Now, one of the big unresolved issues is that of the British border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is, Ireland is part of the EU and there were no border controls into and out of Northern Ireland as a result. Now that the UK is leaving the EU, there’s a tentative agreement to have controls for crossing the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. But Boris Johnson actually just recently backtracked on this tentative agreement without really saying what the alternative is. Now, what do you think this Brexit agreement would mean for Northern Ireland going forward?
John Weeks: Well, I would say that this must be put into context with the European Union wants an arrangement. I think the German government is very keen to have a agreement. We mustn’t romanticize the European Union, though I was a strong supporter of the European Union. The German government very much represents German capital, and the German capital has a large trade surplus with Britain. And German economy is stagnating at the moment. So German [inaudible 00:07:40] is very keen to have an agreement. So it’s a mistake to think that the EU is going to drive a hard bargain and Britain will just have to take it.
However, having said that, it’s hard to see any solution to the circle Northern Ireland problem that does not involve Britain joining the Common Market European Union. That was the only way not to have a hard border with Ireland is between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The only way to do that is to eliminate tariffs and a custom check. The only way to do that is to, going into customs you can part with the European Union. Now, [inaudible 00:08:36] says he will not do that. I think that’s more or less what labor [inaudible 00:08:42] when it was the ill-fated [inaudible 00:08:49] reelection. So I would say that there will, the UK will have to enter into a customs agreement or the relationship with Northern Ireland will become unguarded and intractable.
Greg Wilpert: Now finally, the Labor Party actually lost quite badly in the last election, and many attributed this to its unwillingness to take a strong position either in favor of or against Brexit. Now, how do you see the Labor Party strategy unfolding, or what do you think it ought to be in the coming period with regard to the 11 months negotiations that are going to be going on with regard to the final Brexit agreement?
John Weeks: So, first let me say, yes, it was a terrible result. There’s no question about that. I was providing some advice to the [inaudible 00:09:43] chancellor in the months, about a year and a half before the election. And as John McDonnel, [inaudible 00:09:53] chancellor said, it was a very disappointing result. Which I would say it’s the understatement of the century. So what is the Labor Party going to do? It is extremely unfortunate that Labor Party is in the process of choosing a new leader. Not because they don’t need a new leader. They do need a new leader. What is unfortunate is, the process is going to last until April. So, in effect, we’ll have a lame duck leadership Labor Party for three months. And, as a result, Labor will have very little input into its fate. Now, Boris Johnson [inaudible 00:10:37] tend to say, “Well, we could ignore labor, anyway,” but it will be very hard for Labor opposition to put together any type of effective blockage what the Boris Johnson, Prime Minister, is going to do.
It would be very difficult, hard to block anything when into the throes of a leadership [inaudible 00:11:00] Now, after April, there will be a new leader. I would predict, if I can stick my neck out, the new leader will be actually my MP, Keir Starmer. [inaudible 00:11:13] out that sometime. He was known for being pro-EU, but he has said now that is behind them. But what position you think we can sort of predict? What position he will take once he becomes a speaker. His position will be to try to make Great Britain in the what’s called a single market. It’s now an official term in Singapore, European Union. And, while allowing for some flexibility and independent of [inaudible 00:11:53] being something called state aid, which is basically allowing each government gives subsidies to industry. So the short answer to your question is, I think that Labor will be able to do nothing until April and after that, they’ll push for so-called [inaudible 00:12:11].
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but of course we’ll definitely come back to you also with regard to how the labor leadership vote turns out. But we’ll leave it there for now. I was speaking to John Weeks, Professor Emeritus of the University of London. Thanks again, John, for having joined us today.
John Weeks: Thank you for having me.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden, Adam Coley
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Adam Coley, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-29--Corporate Democrats Target Sanders as his Popularity Rises

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Jaisal is currently the Democracy Initiative Manager at the Solutions Journalism Network and is a former TRNN host, producer, and reporter. He mainly grew up in the Baltimore area and studied modern history at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining TRNN, he contributed print, radio, and TV reports to Free Speech Radio News, Democracy Now! and The Indypendent. Jaisal's mother has taught in the Baltimore City Public School system for the past 25 years. Follow him on Twitter @jaisalnoor.


therealnews--2020-01-29--Breaking: Cop Charged for Shooting Handcuffed Man 7 Times

While waiting handcuffed in a police car after a traffic stop , a man was shot 7 times by Cpl @ @ @ @ @ County , MD .
The officer was not wearing his body camera at the time @ @ @ @ @ Police department has already been placed under a consent decree for unconstitutional policing and excessive @ @ @ @ @ .

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.


therealnews--2020-02-05--In 2000 We Had Hanging Chads, Now We Have Hanging Apps

Host, The Marc Steiner Show
Marc Steiner is the host of "The Marc Steiner Show" on TRNN. He is a Peabody Award-winning journalist who has spent his life working on social justice issues. He walked his first picket line at age 13, and at age 16 became the youngest person in Maryland arrested at a civil rights protest during the Freedom Rides through Cambridge. As part of the Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, Marc helped organize poor white communities with the Young Patriots, the white Appalachian counterpart to the Black Panthers. Early in his career he counseled at-risk youth in therapeutic settings and founded a theater program in the Maryland State prison system. He also taught theater for 10 years at the Baltimore School for the Arts. From 1993-2018 Marc's signature “Marc Steiner Show” aired on Baltimore’s public radio airwaves, both WYPR—which Marc co-founded—and Morgan State University’s WEAA.
marc@therealnews.com
@marcsteiner


therealnews--2020-02-05--Democrats Must Bring Optimism and Truth to Counter Trump’s Message of Lies and Distortions

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-02-05--Is Trump’s Impeachment Merely a Fight Within the US Ruling Class?

This is part two of our interview with William I. Robinson , professor of sociology at the University of California Santa Barbara where he works on critical globalization studies .
Also , he ’ s author of the forthcoming book , The Global Police State , to be published by Pluto Press in May .
In part one of this interview , we discussed the rise of 21st century fascism around the world and the extent to which Donald Trump is a part of this phenomenon .
In this second part , we look at the impeachment of Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are witnessing in Congress is actually a battle within the US elite .
In his article , “ Global Capitalist Crisis and 21st Century Fascism , Trump Beyond the Hype , ” Robinson suggest that the US elite or ruling class is engaged in a battle over how to resolve the structural and ideological crisis of our global capitalism .
In part one we already discussed what this crisis consists of .
Now we turn to how the two sides , as represented by Republicans and by corporate Democrats , propose to resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right-wing approach , we focus on the corporate Democratic response .
That is , how and why are these Democrats , specifically the wing of the Democratic party that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton represent , different from Trump and the Republicans ?
William I. Robinson : Whether we ’ re talking about impeachment in the United States , or headlines from anywhere around the world , the backdrop to that is the crisis of global capitalism .
We have the structural dimension and the other dimension of that crisis is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do have this sharp polarization worldwide between an insurgent fascist far-right and insurgent popular forces from below , rising up .
Let ’ s focus on this crisis of legitimacy because it hits head-on in the United States .
There is a poll showing that the majority of millennials prefer socialism over capitalism .
This crisis of legitimacy , of state legitimacy and capitalist hegemony , is worldwide and it ’ s particularly acute right now in the United States .
And so , global elites are deeply divided .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is why Trump ’ s now talking about socialism , saying , “ We ’ re never going to have a socialist United States , ” and you have Nancy Pelosi saying , “ We ’ re capitalists here , ” when she ’ s questioned by a millennial .
What they ’ re not united around is how to respond to that crisis , how to resolve that crisis .
And we are seeing a breakdown of the ruling order .
And the ruling groups are asking , “ How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we stabilize this system ?
How do we sustain the system ?
How do we stave off revolution or this radical rebellion from below ?
” There have been three responses worldwide , and it holds for the US case as well .
A number of transnational elites , including some within the Democratic party and including capitalists elites that don ’ t necessarily identify with either party , are trying to save the system from itself through mild reformism , from a little bit of redistribution by taxing capital and corporations a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for social programs , and so forth , by some green capitalism .
And this has been gaining momentum .
But this is a minority among Democrats in the United States .
It ’ s zero among Republicans and it ’ s really a minority of elites worldwide .
Biden is the classical example , and now the former mayor of New York also , and Buttigieg , all of them are simply more of the same , more of what we got with Obama and much of what we got with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and massive financing for war and the military industrial complex , more neoliberal structural adjustments , a little more kinder , a little more friendlier than Trump ’ s neoliberal structural adjustment and austerity and so forth .
And then you have that far right response we analyzed in the first part of the interview .
This impeachment process is somewhat of a farce because Trump ’ s real crimes , the war crimes around the world , the crimes of separating children from their families and locking them up in concentration camps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also been committed by the Democrats .
They have no real division in that regard .
Both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the same transnational capitalist class , to the financial industry , to the military industrial complex , to oil and gas interests , and so on .
The Democrats are not impeaching Trump because he ’ s privatized even more the US economy and the global economy , that he ’ s deregulated any and everything , that he ’ s imposed taxes , which are unbelievably regressive , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s imposing austerity and cutting social benefits .
The Democrats might complain about that a little , but they ’ re not impeaching Trump for that .
The mainstream of the Democratic party , the bigwigs who are so tied to the corporations are more upset with Trump for other reasons .
And one reason is that the US elite is always supposed to respect each other .
It ’ s okay that Trump kills other people abroad .
It ’ s okay that he attacks the working class in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay that he goes after his political rival in this illegal way , in this underhand way .
Let ’ s remember that Nixon was forced to resign in the eve of impeachment , because he broke into Democratic Party headquarters , not because of all of the crimes that he committed .
And Democrats that are so tied to the corporate elite have been deeply concerned about Trump ’ s reckless , buffoon-like conduct .
The Democrats have a different strategy for responding to the crisis of legitimacy .
If Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hitched on racism and rebuilding and reconstituting a white racist historic block and intensifying the war against immigrants and so forth , the Democrats have , among other things , this strategy of looking for the external enemy , which is Russia .
So , you have Hillary Clinton and so forth constantly talking about Russia .
But it ’ s not that Russia is a threat to transnational capitalist interest in the United States .
It ’ s because this is the way social anxiety and the crisis of legitimacy is channeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning the mainstream elites , are more scared of the Sanders ’ campaign and of this insurgency of the left and this rising popularity of socialism than they are of Trump .
They ’ re stuck between a rock and a hard place .
They have to oppose Trump and there ’ s mass sentiment against Trump in their own social base and they have to oppose the far left within the Democratic party and outside of the Democratic party .
They ’ re facing their own party crisis .
If Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to present a tremendous crisis for the Democratic party as a party .
Because if they side with Trump , that ’ s it , the Democratic party will dissolve .
Imagine , the Democratic party supporting not just any old Republican candidate , but a far-right fascist Republican candidate that the base of the Democratic party voters can not stand and is trying to get rid of .
And if they side with Bernie , they ’ re going to have to bring all of those resources , all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
There ’ s a couple scenarios I can imagine .
One is that they officially support Bernie .
That ’ s their nomination , their candidate , but they don ’ t do anything very enthusiastic to get him elected .
The other one of course is what ruling groups always do when they ’ re faced with this situation , is the politics of co-optation .
If Bernie becomes president , they will do everything possible to structurally contain anything Bernie can do .
We haven ’ t seen a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , in the 1930s we didn ’ t face the existential crisis of ecological collapse and we also didn ’ t face such incredible means of violence and destruction at a global level at a time of acute crisis .
Also , at this point of globalized capitalism , the structural power of transnational finance capital is really overwhelming , which has this enormous power to undermine the progressive elements of a Bernie Sanders administration .
Wall Street and the financial markets can withdraw massive amounts of capital from the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the global economy .
There ’ s no way out for US and transnational elites .
They ’ re not going to be able to get out of this crisis .
The key question is , will it be radical and left forces and popular forces from below that take advantage of this expanding crisis to push humanity and the United States in the direction we need to go for our own survival or will it be these far-right , militarized forces , and a World War III that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to this expanding crisis of global capitalism ?

Once we understand how Trump and Trumpism came about, as a reaction to capitalism’s global crisis, we can see how the impeachment battle is really a battle for dominance within the US ruling class, says globalization sociologist William I. Robinson.
Story Transcript
Abridged Transcript (Full transcript below)
This is part two of our interview with William I. Robinson, professor of sociology at the University of California Santa Barbara where he works on critical globalization studies. Also, he’s author of the forthcoming book, The Global Police State, to be published by Pluto Press in May.
In part one of this interview, we discussed the rise of 21st century fascism around the world and the extent to which Donald Trump is a part of this phenomenon. In this second part, we look at the impeachment of Donald Trump from the perspective that the conflict we are witnessing in Congress is actually a battle within the US elite.
In his article, “Global Capitalist Crisis and 21st Century Fascism, Trump Beyond the Hype,” Robinson suggest that the US elite or ruling class is engaged in a battle over how to resolve the structural and ideological crisis of our global capitalism. In part one we already discussed what this crisis consists of. Now we turn to how the two sides, as represented by Republicans and by corporate Democrats, propose to resolve this crisis. Since we already discovered the right-wing approach, we focus on the corporate Democratic response. That is, how and why are these Democrats, specifically the wing of the Democratic party that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton represent, different from Trump and the Republicans?
William I. Robinson: Whether we’re talking about impeachment in the United States, or headlines from anywhere around the world, the backdrop to that is the crisis of global capitalism. We have the structural dimension and the other dimension of that crisis is a crisis of state legitimacy. And we do have this sharp polarization worldwide between an insurgent fascist far-right and insurgent popular forces from below, rising up. Let’s focus on this crisis of legitimacy because it hits head-on in the United States.
There is a poll showing that the majority of millennials prefer socialism over capitalism. This crisis of legitimacy, of state legitimacy and capitalist hegemony, is worldwide and it’s particularly acute right now in the United States. And so, global elites are deeply divided. They’re deeply concerned about this crisis of legitimacy, which is why Trump’s now talking about socialism, saying, “We’re never going to have a socialist United States,” and you have Nancy Pelosi saying, “We’re capitalists here,” when she’s questioned by a millennial.
What they’re not united around is how to respond to that crisis, how to resolve that crisis. And we are seeing a breakdown of the ruling order. And the ruling groups are asking, “How do we reconstitute hegemony? How do we stabilize this system? How do we sustain the system? How do we stave off revolution or this radical rebellion from below?”
There have been three responses worldwide, and it holds for the US case as well. A number of transnational elites, including some within the Democratic party and including capitalists elites that don’t necessarily identify with either party, are trying to save the system from itself through mild reformism, from a little bit of redistribution by taxing capital and corporations a little more, by re-introducing the funding for social programs, and so forth, by some green capitalism. And this has been gaining momentum. But this is a minority among Democrats in the United States. It’s zero among Republicans and it’s really a minority of elites worldwide.
Biden is the classical example, and now the former mayor of New York also, and Buttigieg, all of them are simply more of the same, more of what we got with Obama and much of what we got with Trump, which is a continued war mobilization and massive financing for war and the military industrial complex, more neoliberal structural adjustments, a little more kinder, a little more friendlier than Trump’s neoliberal structural adjustment and austerity and so forth. And then you have that far right response we analyzed in the first part of the interview.
This impeachment process is somewhat of a farce because Trump’s real crimes, the war crimes around the world, the crimes of separating children from their families and locking them up in concentration camps, all of these real crimes have also been committed by the Democrats. They have no real division in that regard. Both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the same transnational capitalist class, to the financial industry, to the military industrial complex, to oil and gas interests, and so on. The Democrats are not impeaching Trump because he’s privatized even more the US economy and the global economy, that he’s deregulated any and everything, that he’s imposed taxes, which are unbelievably regressive, that he’s busting unions, there he’s imposing austerity and cutting social benefits. The Democrats might complain about that a little, but they’re not impeaching Trump for that.
The mainstream of the Democratic party, the bigwigs who are so tied to the corporations are more upset with Trump for other reasons. And one reason is that the US elite is always supposed to respect each other. It’s okay that Trump kills other people abroad. It’s okay that he attacks the working class in the United States, but it is not okay that he goes after his political rival in this illegal way, in this underhand way.
Let’s remember that Nixon was forced to resign in the eve of impeachment, because he broke into Democratic Party headquarters, not because of all of the crimes that he committed. And Democrats that are so tied to the corporate elite have been deeply concerned about Trump’s reckless, buffoon-like conduct.
The Democrats have a different strategy for responding to the crisis of legitimacy. If Trump’s strategy is a fascist mobilization, hitched on racism and rebuilding and reconstituting a white racist historic block and intensifying the war against immigrants and so forth, the Democrats have, among other things, this strategy of looking for the external enemy, which is Russia. So, you have Hillary Clinton and so forth constantly talking about Russia.
But it’s not that Russia is a threat to transnational capitalist interest in the United States. It’s because this is the way social anxiety and the crisis of legitimacy is channeled towards some external enemy. The Democrats, meaning the mainstream elites, are more scared of the Sanders’ campaign and of this insurgency of the left and this rising popularity of socialism than they are of Trump. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to oppose Trump and there’s mass sentiment against Trump in their own social base and they have to oppose the far left within the Democratic party and outside of the Democratic party. They’re facing their own party crisis.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, this is going to present a tremendous crisis for the Democratic party as a party. Because if they side with Trump, that’s it, the Democratic party will dissolve. Imagine, the Democratic party supporting not just any old Republican candidate, but a far-right fascist Republican candidate that the base of the Democratic party voters cannot stand and is trying to get rid of.
And if they side with Bernie, they’re going to have to bring all of those resources, all of the party’s resources into the Sanders campaign. There’s a couple scenarios I can imagine. One is that they officially support Bernie. That’s their nomination, their candidate, but they don’t do anything very enthusiastic to get him elected.
The other one of course is what ruling groups always do when they’re faced with this situation, is the politics of co-optation. If Bernie becomes president, they will do everything possible to structurally contain anything Bernie can do.
We haven’t seen a conjunction like this since the 1930s. Of course, in the 1930s we didn’t face the existential crisis of ecological collapse and we also didn’t face such incredible means of violence and destruction at a global level at a time of acute crisis.
Also, at this point of globalized capitalism, the structural power of transnational finance capital is really overwhelming, which has this enormous power to undermine the progressive elements of a Bernie Sanders administration. Wall Street and the financial markets can withdraw massive amounts of capital from the United States and transfer them to other parts of the global economy.
There’s no way out for US and transnational elites. They’re not going to be able to get out of this crisis. The key question is, will it be radical and left forces and popular forces from below that take advantage of this expanding crisis to push humanity and the United States in the direction we need to go for our own survival or will it be these far-right, militarized forces, and a World War III that we’re facing, which gains the upper hand in response to this expanding crisis of global capitalism?
Full Transcript:
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
This is part two of my interview with William I. Robinson, professor of sociology at the University of California Santa Barbara where he works on critical globalization studies. Also, he’s author of the forthcoming book The Global Police State, published by Pluto Press in May. Thanks again, Bill, for being here today.
WILLIAM I ROBINSON: It’s a pleasure. Thank you for having me on.
GREG WILPERT: So in part one of this interview, we discussed the rise of 21st century fascism around the world and the extent to which Donald Trump is a part of this phenomenon. Now in the second part, I want to look at the impeachment of Donald Trump from the perspective that the conflict we are witnessing in Congress is actually a battle within the US elite.
Now, as I mentioned in part one of our interview, I highly recommend the article that you wrote last year for the Journal Science and Society titled Global Capitalist Crisis and 21st Century Socialism, Trump Beyond the Hype. Now, in this article, you suggest that the US elite or ruling class is engaged in a battle over how to resolve the structural and ideological crisis of our global capitalism.
Now, in part one, we already discussed what this crisis consists of. I want to turn now to how two sides as probably represented by Republicans and by corporate Democrats propose to resolve this crisis. Now, since we already discovered the right wing approach earlier, I want to focus on the corporate Democratic response. That is how and why these Democrats… I’m thinking specifically about the wing of the Democratic Party, of course, that Joe Biden represents and Hillary Clinton; how are they different from Trump and the Republicans?
WILLIAM I ROBINSON: Not very different. Not very different. It’s a short answer, but let me break this down a bit. Let me remind the listeners if you hadn’t heard the details of part one that I had pointed out that the current moment, whether we’re talking about impeachment in the United States, whether we’re talking about headlines from anywhere around the world, the backdrop to that is the crisis of global capitalism. And I had mentioned that we have the structural dimension and we spoke about that in part one, but more significantly when we talk about the US lead and its divisions is the other dimension of that crisis, which is a crisis of state legitimacy in a capitalist hegemony. And we do have this sharp polarization worldwide between an insurgent fascist, alt right and insurgent forces from below, popular forces from below, rising up. Let’s focus on this crisis of legitimacy because it hits head on in the United States.
And I had mentioned also in the first part of the interview that the most recent poll showed that the majority of women in the United States now support socialism over capitalism, but not just women. Previously there were a poll showing that the majority of millennials, now young people prefer socialism over capitalism. This crisis of legitimacy, of state legitimacy and capitalist hegemony, is worldwide and it’s particularly acute right now in the United States. And so, global elites–but here we’re going to talk about US elites–are deeply divided. They’re deeply concerned about this crisis of legitimacy. They are aware of it. They are aware of it, which is why you see, not just Trump says… Trump’s now talking about socialism. Trump’s saying, “We’re never going to have a socialist United States.”
But you have Democratic candidates saying, “I’m capitalist to the bone.” And you have Nancy Pelosi saying, “We’re capitalists here,” when she’s questioned by a millennial, “If the majority of us want socialism, why are you insisting on capitalism?” Elites in the United States, both Democrats and Republicans, and again, this goes worldwide, but we’re talking about the United States, are deeply aware of this crisis of legitimacy and of capitalist hegemony. What they’re not united around is how to respond to that crisis, how to resolve that crisis. And we are seeing a breakdown of the ruling order. And the ruling groups are asking, “How do we reconstitute hegemony? How do we stabilize this system? How do we sustain the system? How do we stave off revolution or this radical rebellion from below?”
And there have been three responses that I identify, and again this is worldwide, but we’re talking about the US case and it holds for the US case as well. A number of transnational elites including some within the Democratic party and including capitalists elites that don’t necessarily identify with either party, are trying to save the system from itself through mild reformism, from a little bit of redistribution by taxing capital and corporations a little more, by re-introducing the funding for social programs, and so forth, by some green capitalism. And this has been gaining momentum. This reformist attempt to reform the system and resolve this crisis by mild reform, but they want to resolve the crisis by mild reform, but they want to undercut radical transformation also by mild reform. But this is a minority among Democrats in the United States. It’s zero among Republicans and it’s really a minority of elites worldwide.
The World Economic Forum just had its summit, its annual summit in Davos, and there we saw the voices of this transnational reformist elite, but they’re minority. Then you have within the US elite, putting aside those reformers, you have the Democrats representing more of the same. You mentioned Biden, and Biden is the classical example, and now the former mayor of New York also, and Buttigieg, all of them are simply more of the same, more of what we got with Obama and much of what we got with Trump, which is a continued war mobilization and massive financing for war and the military industrial complex, more neoliberal structural adjustments, a little more kinder, a little more friendlier than Trump’s neoliberal structural adjustment and austerity and so forth. And then you have that far right response we analyzed in the first part of the interview.
The US elite reflecting the larger transnational elite is deeply divided. Now, let me analyze this by looking a moment at this impeachment process, and I understand that today as this interview is being conducted, it might all be over in that Trump’s acquainted by the Republicans. But on the one hand, this impeachment process is somewhat of a force because Trump’s real crimes, the war crimes around the world, the crimes of separating children from their families and locking them up in concentration camps, all of these real crimes have also been committed by the Democrats. They have no real division in that regard. And let’s remember that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the same transnational capitalist class, to the financial industry, to the military industrial complex, to oil and gas interests, and so on. Basically to the agenda of the transnational capitalist class.
The Democrats are not impeaching Trump because he’s privatized even more the US economy and the global economy, that he’s deregulated any and everything, that he’s imposed taxes, which are unbelievably regressive, that he’s busting unions, there he’s imposing austerity and cutting social buzzers. The Democrats might complain about that a little, but they’re not impeaching Trump for that. I think the Democrats who are leading this impeachment, the mainstream of the Democratic party, the big wigs who are so tied to the corporations are more upset with Trump for other reasons. And one reason is that the US elite is always supposed to respect each other. It’s okay that Trump kills other people abroad. It’s okay that he attacks the working class in the United States, but it is not okay that he goes after his political rival in this illegal way, in this underhand way.
And let’s remember that Watergate, if we want to go a little back in the history, Nixon was forced to resign in the eve of impeachment, because he broke into Democratic Party headquarters, not because of all of the crimes that he committed. And Democrats are also… and here, the Democrats I’m talking about the actual political elites that are so tied to the corporate elite. They have been deeply concerned about Trump’s reckless, buffoon-like conduct. The Democrats have a different strategy for responding to the crisis of legitimacy. If Trump’s strategy is a fascist mobilization, inched on racism and rebuilding and reconstituting a white racist historic block and intensifying the war against immigrants and so forth, the Democrats have, among other things, this strategy of looking for the external enemy, which is Russia. So, you have Hillary Clinton and so forth constantly talking about Russia.
But it’s not that Russia is a threat to transactional capitalist interest in the United States. It’s because this is the way social mass, social anxiety and the crisis of legitimacy is channeled towards some external enemy. But I want to stress here, Greg, that the US elite is rudderless. They don’t have a strategy to confront this crisis of state legitimacy and of capitalist hegemony. I want to conclude responding to this part of your interview by saying that the Democrats, meaning the mainstream elites, are more scared of the Sanders’ campaign and of this insurgency of the left and this rising popularity of socialism than they are of Trump. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to oppose Trump and there’s mass sentiment against Trump as their own social base and they have to oppose the far left within the Democratic party and outside of the Democratic party. They’re facing their own party crisis.
GREG WILPERT: Yeah. That’s something actually I want to conclude with. I wanted to ask you about this polarization and the fragmentation of the political spectrum that you’re talking about. As you said, the left wing of the Democratic Party has gotten stronger now just as the right wing of the Republican party has gotten stronger. Actually, they dominate the Republican party now. But that’s not the case in the Democratic Party. That is, the left wing doesn’t dominate. And right now, with the primary campaign, we see this battle actually going on between the left wing and the center, for the heart of the Democratic Party. And that’s represented by Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
Now, if Sanders wins the nomination, it seems that the real question in this battle against Trump’s authoritarianism and fascism, if you want to call that, would be who will side with the corporate Democrat… Sorry, who will the corporate Democrats side with? Will they side with Trump or will they side with Sanders? As you said, they’re really opposed and afraid of Sanders. So, what do you think will happen?
WILLIAM I ROBINSON: If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, this is going to present a tremendous crisis for the Democratic Party as a party. Because if they side with Trump, that’s it, the Democratic Party will dissolve. Imagine, the Democratic Party supporting not just any old Republican candidate, but a far-right fascist Republican candidate that the base of the Democratic Party voters cannot stand and is trying to get rid of. And if they side with Bernie, they’re going to have to bring all of those resources, all of the party’s resources into the Sanders campaign. There’s a couple scenarios I can imagine. One is that they officially support Bernie. That’s their nomination. That’s their candidate, but they don’t do anything very enthusiastic to get him elected.
The other one of course is what ruling groups always do when they’re faced with this situation is the politics of co-optation, right? Let’s say hypothetically they have to mobilize around Bernie Sanders. They have no choice because, again, that would throw the Democratic party in such a crisis it might even dissolve if they backed Trump. So, they back Bernie, let’s say Bernie becomes president, but do everything possible to structurally contain anything Bernie can do. And to isolate Bernie and to force Bernie administration to be surrounded by generals in the Pentagon and corporate representatives and in the treasury and so forth. I mean, a massive politics of co-optation.
But I want to say that it’s at times of crisis where there’s tremendous amount of uncertainty and things can go in so many different directions. So, you’re asking a very important question: what the Democrats will do if Bernie wins the nomination. But we’re at times of crisis in which anything can happen and things change very rapidly and things are very, very, very unpredictable. These are not normal times, right? This is not even 2008 for instance, when Obama got the nomination and became president. We haven’t seen a conjunction like this, really I would dare to say since the 1930s. This way we were at, at this point. And of course, in the 1930s we didn’t face the existential crisis of ecological collapse and we also didn’t face in the 1930s such incredible means of violence and destruction at a global level at a time of acute crisis. So, we’ve got to fasten our seat belts.
GREG WILPERT: Yeah. I think also the comparison to the 1930s is interesting in the sense that of course the back then Franklin Roosevelt won the nomination and he was very clear that he is a capitalist even though he took the reform course in order to save capitalism. That’s something… Well, you could say that maybe that’s the course that Sanders will take, but it will be much more difficult for him given the continuing crisis of global capitalism that doesn’t seem to be resolvable in the short term. Whereas in the 1930s, it did seem to present a solution, right?
WILLIAM I ROBINSON: Right, right. I would add on that also that at this point of globalized capitalism, the structural power of transnational finance capital is really overwhelming. So, capital putting aside the Democrats, politically in Congress and so forth, capital has this enormous power to undermine any… the progressive elements of a Bernie Sanders administration, Wall Street and the financial markets can withdraw massive amounts of capital from the United States and transfer them to other parts of the global economy.
There are many different ways to either to fully sabotage a Sanders presidency or to keep it tightly under control. But all of those things might sabotage Bernie Sanders’ program and his most radical elements, but it will also aggravate the underlying structural crisis that we’ve been talking about in the crisis of legitimacy.
Here’s the thing: there’s no way out for US and transnational dates. They’re not going to be able to get out of this crisis. The key question is, will it be radical and left forces and popular forces from below that take advantage of this expanding crisis to push humanity, the United States, but humanity more generally in the direction we need to go for our own survival or will it be these far right forces, militarized forces and a World War III that we’re facing gains the upper hand in response to this expanding crisis of global capitalism?
GREG WILPERT: Okay, well, we’re going to have to leave it there for now. I was speaking to William I. Robinson, professor of sociology at UC Santa Barbara. Thanks again, Bill, for having joined us today and for this very interesting analysis.
WILLIAM I ROBINSON: Thank you so much for having me on.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Adam Coley, Will Arenas
Production: Genevieve Montinar
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.