Trumps handelsoorlog en het ontstaan van een corporatieve fascistische staat

Door de economische aanval van Trump op China komt het neofascisme op in de politiek van de VS, waar noch het congres, noch de rechterlijke macht ook maar enige interesse tonen om de presidentiële macht in te perken. De schrijver van het CounterPunch artikel dat hieronder is opgenomen, Anthony Dimaggio, stelt dat 'Trumps unieke vorm van neofascisme eerst naar de voorgrond trad toen Trump de media onderuithaalde en beschuldigde van verraad...... Ben het wat dat betreft niet met Dimaggio eens, immers de VS was al onder Obama op weg om een politiestaat te worden en toonde wat dat betreft al kenmerken van fascisme, neem alleen al de militarisering van de politie en de inzet op totale controle van de burgers, iets dat zich hier overigens ook voltrekt al is het op een wat langzamer manier...... 

Wat betreft de massamedia in de VS (en elders in het westen) moet ik zeggen dat deze inderdaad onbetrouwbaar zijn, al is het op een andere manier dan Trump bedoelt, neem de berichtgeving voorafgaand en tijdens de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië en dan gaat het alleen over deze eeuw..... Toch moet ik toegeven dat veel stemmingmakerij tegen Trump niet echt van een geweldig niveau was, om het maar voorzichtig te stellen....

Uiteraard zijn de handelsoorlog en de woorden die Trump daarbij gebruikt van een uitgesproken fascistoïde karakter, zo noemt hij de Chinese leider Xi Jinping een vijand van de VS..... Eén van de middelen die hij gebruikt, of beter misbruikt is de International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) uit 1977, waarmee men drugssmokkelaars en terroristen te lijf kan gaan en in uitzonderlijke situaties een misdadig regime kan isoleren, echter niet om onenigheid over onderlinge handel te beslechten.....

Overigens laten de leugens van Trump over Latijns-Amerikaanse vluchtelingen niets aan de verbeelding over, ronduit fascistische leugens...... Gisteren liet Trump nog weten dat de 'US Space Force' de VS het machtigste land in de ruimte moet maken, waar hij zelfs stelde dat de VS zich het recht zal voorbehouden om satellieten van VS onwelgevallige landen te vernietigen..... (BBC World Service radio bracht dit bericht afgelopen nacht)

Trump doet in feite wat eerder fascistische regimes deden die uit waren op expansie* en meer macht: landen valselijk beschuldigen om daarna een poging te doen met behulp van de CIA een gewelddadige opstand op te starten in zo'n land, met de opzet het regime ten val te brengen...... Als dat niet lukt blijft altijd de mogelijkheid over een dergelijk land binnen te vallen en daarmee heeft de VS al een heel lange ervaring........ Nu hoeft de VS niet per se een land binnen te vallen om een VS gezind regime te installeren, zo heeft ook Trump bedacht: een handelsoorlog en economische oorlogvoering kunnen al veel in gang zetten (zelfs een roep om regime verandering uit ontevredenheid bij het volk), al lukt dat gelukkig niet altijd, zie Syrië,Venezuela en Iran. Helaas vallen door deze economische terreur wel veel mensenlevens, zo heeft de economische oorlog tegen Venezuela al aan meer dan 40.000 mensen het leven gekost, mensen die in feite zijn vermoord door de VS......

Dan nog dit: het neoliberalisme dat ook in de EU hoogtij viert, is niets anders dan een vorm van fascisme, dit nog naast het feit dat een aantal EU landen in feite al fascistisch worden geregeerd, neem Hongarije, Polen en Roemenië (gelukkig zijn de fascistische Oostenrijkse en Italiaanse regering gevallen).......

Dimaggio heeft verder een uitstekend artikel geschreven over wat ik de 'fascistische Trump doctrine' zou willen noemen. Wel verontrustend als je bedenkt dat de VS afgeladen is met kernwapens, waarover Trump zich afvroeg waarom ze niet gebruikt worden 'als we ze toch hebben......' 

AUGUST 28, 2019

Trump’s Trade War and the Emerging Corporatist-Fascist State

by ANTHONY DIMAGGIO

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

President Donald Trump’s fit over China speaks to the rise of neofascism in American politics, at a time when neither Congress nor the courts are showing any interest in rolling back presidential power. Trump’s unique brand of neofascism first emerged in the form of his attempt to crack down on journalistic critics for “treason,” and via the onset of his white ethno-nationalist, which he declared via a “state of emergency” that allowed him to criminalize immigrants in “concentration camp”-style detainment settings, and to confiscate taxpayer funds to build a wall with Mexico that was never authorized by Congress. This nascent fascism is quickly morphing into full-blown fascism, via Trump’s efforts to dictate the rules of investment to U.S. corporations, and in relation to his emerging trade war with China.

In late August, Trump announced he would intensify the trade war against China, with the imposition of an additional 5 percent duty on $250 billion in Chinese goods, reaching a 30 percent tax by October 1st, coupled with a 15 percent tax – over his previous 10 percent planned rate – on another $300 billion of imports, to take effect on September 1st. The major controversy is not Trump’s saber rattling with China, but his attempt to unilaterally require that American corporations no longer do business in China. As Trump announcedon Twitter, “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing our companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” This “order” was political in motivation, in line with Trump’s “America First” agenda, and as reflected in his announcement that “We don’t need China and, frankly, would be far better off without them.”

For those who would defend the neofascist in chief for making merely “tongue and cheek” comments by “ordering” U.S. corporations around, the president was having none of it. He elaborated via Twitter that his mandate to American corporations was permissible under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a law the New York Times reports “has been used mainly to target terrorists” and “drug traffickers,” and “originally meant to enable a president to isolate criminal regimes, not sever economic ties with a major trading partner over a tariff dispute.” In a sign of just how much further Trump has come from the authoritarian politics of the Bush-“war on terror” years, George W. Bush’s former international economic advisor warned that “Any invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in these circumstances and for these purposes would be an abuse… The act is intended to address extraordinary national security threats and true national emergencies, not fits of presidential pique.” But Trump was not deterred. In relation to his “emergency” powers, he claimed: “For all the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc, try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!”

It should be no surprise that Trump sees this as a “case closed” issue of presidential authority, considering his longstanding contempt for the rule of law, and his routine dismissal of the courts and Congress, both of which he has shown little interest in consulting with regard to his presidential acts and orders. This president believes in ruling by decree, and he isn’t going to let inconvenient obstacles like Constitutionalism and judicial or Congressional oversight get in his way.

A closer look at the 1977 law that Trump cites reveals that it does, in fact, grant presidents the power to regulate foreign commerce in times of emergency. But the law is not what the president claims it to be. It allows the executive to “prohibit” the “importation or exportation” of goods and “any transactions in foreign exchange” “in which any foreign country or national thereof has any interest,” during periods of “unusual and extraordinary threat,” as related to national security and the economy.

The key point of emphasis here is that this power exists during periods of “unusual and extraordinary threat,” which would not under any rational interpretation include simple trade disputes between competing heads of state. Nor would it include trade disputes occurring under an economy which Trump himself heralded last week as “strong and good,” and commentedwithin the last month that it is the “best it has ever been.”

Trump would have his cake and eat it too, speaking out of both sides of his mouth by declaring a national economic emergency on the one hand, while celebrating the nation’s economic vitality and growth on the other. But make no mistake: he realizes there is a very real danger of an emerging recession as a result of his escalating trade war with China. The problem is that he is too arrogant and vain to ever admit that rising economic instability is a result of his own actions, and to reverse course to avoid a possible recession.

In his growing desperation and in response to a self-imposed “crisis,” Trump has taken to demonizing domestic political figures. Consider, for example, his attack the head of the Federal Reserve (FED), Jay Powell, after he refused to immediately lower interest rates to pull the economy back from further volatility, following numerous hits to the stock market due to the onset of Trump’s trade war. Trump hyper-ventilated on Twitter, asking: “who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?” following Powell’s announcement that the Federal Reserve was limited in its powers to stimulate the economy due to the uncertainty and volatility imposed by Trump’s trade war.

The risk of a declining economy to Trump’s political future shouldn’t be dismissed. A president with a 40 percent approval rating cannot afford to lose much by way of public support if he hopes to be re-elected in 2020. And a full-blown economic recession will almost certainly mean a significant decline in Trump’s already tenuous job approval, likely putting him out of reach of a second term if economic conditions continue to deteriorate in late 2019 and 2020. Despite Trump’s bloviating about enemies at home and abroad, the ultimate irony in this case is that he is his own worst enemy, and an emerging recession, if it does come, will be of his own making.

Recent political events do suggest that the United States is entering a state of emergency, although it is not one that’s driven by an economic downturn. Rather, the cancer that afflicts the nation is neofascism. By neofascism, I am referring specifically to a system of politics that is marked by extreme nationalism, racism and xenophobia, authoritarian contempt for the rule of law, and most recently, to active government efforts to impose new “rules of the game” on the capitalist economy, contrary to “free market” neoliberal principles. This final aspect of fascism – call it corporatist fascism, was popularized in Nazi Germany under the Third Reich, and places government at the helm in terms of making major investment decisions for private corporations.

U.S. capitalism has long been marked by an authoritarian organizational structure, via corporate hierarchies that exercise power at the expense of working Americans having a say in the workplace, while deterring unionism and democracy in the workplace. But corporatist neofascism, of the variety that Trump seeks to introduce, goes beyond anything we have seen in modern history. Government has historically been the junior partner in reinforcing the plutocratic power of the business class over politics. It is not, under “free market” capitalism, a legitimate guiding force when it comes to dictating the terms of investment to business and the private sector.

Most Americans are reluctant to apply the term “fascism” to Trump’s politics because of longstanding aversion to the notion that the U.S. could ever become a fascist nation.

The “It Can’t Happen Here” ethos was well understood more than 80 years ago by novelist Sinclair Lewis, meaning that Americans have historically been blind to the neofascistic elements of politics unfolding before their very eyes. But ultimately, the “fascism-not-fascism” dichotomy is extremely problematic, dangerous, and self-defeating for those who still value principles of democracy and limited government. If Americans wait to discuss the “is it fascism?” question until after a neofascist state has been fully institutionalized, that debate will be merely academic, and utterly meaningless. The time to discuss a fascist threat is as it is emerging, not after it has been implemented.

Time is growing short for those who would reel in Trump’s runaway neofascistic policies, and in terms of reestablishing the rule of law. Congress has it within its authority to countermand Trump’s efforts to impose corporatist-neofascism on the U.S. economy. The very emergency law that Trump cites states that “the president, in every possible instance, shall consult with the Congress before exercising any of the authorities granted” in the emergency law, and that he must “consult regularly with the Congress so long as such authorities are exercised.” He must provide regular updates to the legislative branch on how such emergency powers are being used. Which means that Congress is at liberty to reverse the “state of emergency” Trump has declared by determining that he has abused his political powers by pursuing an authoritarian, self-aggrandizing policy that grants the president unprecedented authority to impose a corporatist-neofascist regime.

Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceedings, under the grounds that Trump is unfit to be commander in chief, following his recent claim that he is God’s “chosen one” with regard to dictating trade policy, and his efforts to claim dictatorial emergency powers in relation to managing his trade war with China. Since, Trump’s neofascist politics have received little pushback thus far, there is growing concern that his recent trade actions will only further empower the president moving forward. There is little standing in this president’s way, short of legislative or judicial action, as he seeks to destroy what remains of the “checks and balances” system under the U.S. Constitution. Short of impeachment or a national strike and mass protests across the country, Trump’s neofascist politics are likely to intensify in the future.

Join the debate on Facebook

More articles by: ANTHONY DIMAGGIO

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

======================================

* Over expansie gesproken: het psychopathische beest Trump bood Denemarken onlangs aan om Groenland te kopen, te belachelijk voor woorden, echter deze mafkloot was zo pissig over de afwijzing door Denemarken, dat hij een gepland bezoek heeft afgezegd........

De VS moet stoppen met het demoniseren van vluchtelingen en de noodtoestand uitroepen over de klimaatverandering

In plaats van vluchtelingen te demoniseren, die NB op de vlucht zijn geslagen door VS bemoeienissen met Latijns-America, zou de regering van de VS de noodtoestand moeten afroepen over de klimaatverandering!

De democratische politici Earl Blumenauer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez en Bernie Sanders wijzen de Trump administratie op de vreselijke gevolgen van de klimaatverandering, gevolgen waar de VS nu al mee te maken heeft, gezien de steeds vaker optredende bosbranden en de steeds heviger en vaker optredende verwoestende orkanen. Niet vreemd dus dat de voornoemde politici aan de bel trekken, waar zij stellen dat Trump de vluchtelingen die de VS willen bereiken, wel heeft uitgeroepen tot noodtoestand (waarbij hij hen afschildert als misdadigers...) en de ogen sluit voor de klimaatramp die zich voor zijn ogen (en de rest van zijn administratie) voltrekt. 

Uiteraard is het afroepen van de noodtoestand over vluchtelingenstromen door Trump te belachelijk voor woorden*, waar Trump en zijn administratie keer op keer durven te stellen dat de klimaatverandering een leugen is van linkse krachten..... Dit terwijl zoals gezegd de gevolgen van de klimaatverandering al velen in de VS in diepe ellende hebben gestort en deze verhevigde natuurrampen het volk van de VS al honderden miljarden dollars aan belastinggeld hebben gekost.....

De VS wordt in feite deels bestuurd door het bedrijfsleven, inclusief de oliemaffia, waar de grote bedrijven op z'n zachtst gezegd grote moeite hebben met maatregelen die de klimaatverandering nog enigszins kunnen afremmen, daar hun winsten daar onder zullen leiden en zelfs zouden kunnen leiden tot het sluiten van hele bedrijfstakken die niet anders doen dan de klimaatverandering aanjagen.......

Lees het volgende artikel van Meagan Day, gepubliceerd op JACOBIN:

The US Government Should Declare Climate Emergency

By Meagan Day

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks during a rally at Howard University May 13, 2019 in Washington, DC, for the Green New Deal. Alex Wong / Getty Images

The havoc that will soon be wrought by climate change is unfathomable. It's a crisis — one which Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Sen. Bernie Sanders demanded yesterday the US government recognize. It's a needed step towards winning a Green New Deal.

To justify his administration’s barbaric actions at the Southern border, Donald Trump is using the language of crisis. In May 2019, a scaremongering statement from the White House declared that the United States “has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico.” This “sustained influx of illegal aliens” is “overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime,” the administration said.

This, of course, is bullshit.

The United States is currently seeing a net outflow of undocumented immigrants. And even if we weren’t, these people have a right to migrate in order to create a life free from wanton violence and economic devastation — chaos largely created by the United States.

Immigrants do not “overwhelm” us; they are us, and their presence in this country does not constitute a crisis. Their abuse at the hands of our government, however, absolutely does.

The Trump administration recently invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify its inhumane treatment of immigrants on US soil. This struck Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon as unjustifiably hypocritical. What if we used the language of crisis to instead describe an actual mass emergency: the looming threat of climate disaster, which the Trump administration categorically neglects and which, unlike the presence of undocumented immigrants, requires drastic and immediate political action in order to ensure public safety?

Blumenauer has teamed up with Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to propose legislation declaring global warming a national and international emergency.

The resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives on Tuesday. In order to address the crisis at hand, it calls for “a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale to halt, reverse, mitigate, and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency and to restore the climate for future generations.”

The legislation may have been inspired by Trump’s duplicity, but the idea did not spring fully formed from Blumenauer’s mind. It is a response to climate activists, who have been increasingly demanding that national, state, and local governments around the world declare the climate crisis an emergency.

In April, the new group Extinction Rebellion occupied central London for ten days. “The science is clear: It is understood that we are facing an unprecedented global emergency,” says the group. “We are in a life or death situation of our own making. We must act now.” Extinction Rebellion’s first demand is that governments “must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.”

Declarations of emergency are also the most urgent demand of The Climate Mobilization, a US-based climate activist group waging a campaign to pressure governments to sign on. The group states that “declaring Climate Emergency is the critical first step to launching the comprehensive mobilization solution required to rescue and rebuild civilization.”

In response to the Extinction Rebellion protests, the United Kingdom House of Commons declared emergency in May. Similar declarations around the world are pouring in. To date, climate emergency has been declared by 740 jurisdictions globally, one of which is New York City, which declared emergency in June. Los Angeles appears set to follow suit. The joint resolution proposed by Blumenauer, Ocasio-Cortez, and Sanders would make the United States the seventeenth and largest nation to heed the crisis declaration call from climate activists.

It remains to be seen whether the US federal climate emergency resolution has the support needed to pass into law. The United States government sustains intimate ties with the fossil fuel industry, ties that have so far prevented political representatives from touching anything that opens the door, as this resolution does, to a national mobilization to cease fossil fuel extraction and transition to a zero-emissions economy. Even though the resolution is nonbinding, it clearly gestures toward the implementation of a Green New Deal (GND) which, as envisioned by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, would spell the end of the fossil fuel era.

There’s another reason legislators may be hesitant, despite clear evidence that we are indeed facing a climate emergency, to vote for a bill that paves the way for a Green New Deal. The GND isn’t just about saving the planet: it’s about doing so in a way that builds the power of working people and erodes inequality, on the basis that the current capitalist system brought us to the brink of destruction to begin with.

To this end, the GND would create millions of green jobs, and insists that they come with “a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

American politicians aren’t just beholden to the fossil fuel industry; they’re beholden to the capitalist class writ large. Reducing unemployment and building worker power — including providing universal healthcare, education, and housing, also outlined in the GND — makes exploitation harder, which means profits for the few will sink even as living standards for the many improve. There’s no doubt that the GND will face tremendous pushback in the halls of power, and that pushback may begin with shooting down this declaration.

The best shot we have at muscling this bill through is to raise hell in the streets. It’s sound politics: when the people in power don’t want to budge, the majority must create pressure from the outside to force their hand. It’s no easy task. But if people fight hard enough, we might be able to get the United States — the biggest carbon polluter in world history — to formally acknowledge the real crisis at hand.

=================================
Zie ook:
'Extinction Rebellion richt zich teveel op de toekomst' (en zie de links in dat bericht, anders dan de hier getoonde)

'Boeren vs Extinction Rebellion: 'zoek de verschillen''

'Extinction Rebellion blokkeert de vuilste straat van Nederland en GL burgemeester Halsema stuurt in haar plaats de ME'

* Waarmee Trump ook nog eens haatzaait tegen vluchtelingen en dat in een land dat bomvol zit met bewapende psychopaten...... Intussen vertrekken er veel mensen de VS, die eerder vluchtten uit Latijns-Amerika (waaronder een aantal met een verblijfsvergunning), daar men in de VS steeds vijandiger wordt tegen deze minderheden.....