"Learned Considerations" on the Future of Capitalism "after" the End of the Current Crisis

The crisis of 2008 is still being discussed in the increasingly fragile bourgeois world. When the crisis broke out in August 2007 the response was "who could have expected it?" Today, more than ten years after that fateful beginning, we are treated to multiple, contradictory and very often false responses. The bourgeois analysts chaotically grope over the causes and duration of the crisis, compiling false, or at best, partial and misleading, statistics. They blabber on about the end of the crisis itself, turning their gaze away from the mess that still hangs over the world economy.

Half of Europe, including Italy, is in technical recession. Britain and Germany are not much better off, the former is struggling with an “escape” from the crisis, by leaving Europe, which will end up costing her more than expected. The latter, the European locomotive, has lost its momentum as regards its industrial apparatus (-5.2% compared to last year), exports and investments are falling, and the financial superiority of its bonds is in clear decline. According to the analysis of the Bundesbank, there was a decrease in GDP in the second quarter of this year of 0.1% and, if things carry on in this vein, in the third quarter there would be the risk of a technical recession. In this regard Bloomberg, citing the authoritative source of Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, reported the hypothesis of a desirable financial input of 55 billion euros to revive the German economy. On the financial level there is the worrying situation that the Bundesbank is forced to sell its Bonds at negative interest. In the entire Euro area, the average increase in production fluctuates between a pathetic 1.0% and 1.2%.

The USA, despite a false and politically motivated use of statistics that emphasise a recovery that does not exist, or if it does, is clearly inferior to the worst expectations, lives under a mountain of debts and deficits, where only the pirate-like role of the dollar and the arrogance of the USA military allow the most powerful imperialism to survive its enormous contradictions. American analysts fear a 12-month recession, meanwhile the Central Bank, in the wake of the German one, is preparing to sell 10-year treasury bonds at rates almost halved compared to last year and, as old man Greenspan claims, there is no reason to discount negative rates... In fact the rates have gone from 2.8% to the current 1.56%.

China trudges along a little better, but at reduced speed. The times of a 18-20% GDP growth passed by years ago and will never return; last year estimates gave an annual growth of 6.2%, today 4.8%, the lowest in the last twenty years, and for the most false of the regimes claiming to be communist, profits are evaporating. And let’s not forget Latin America. Argentina’s economic status was judged by rating agencies as on a par with the poorest African countries. Alongside that are Brazil, Venezuela, the increase in poverty in the world, the widening gap between rich and poor, not only in the peripheral countries, but also in what are considered the models of modern capitalism. In research by E. Maito (found in Michael Roberts' book The Long Depression), the rates of profit of the 14 largest producing countries in the world fell from 31-33% in the years of post-war economic reconstruction, to 17/18% in 2010, or a decrease of almost 50%. This was the basis of the subprime crisis, and everything suggests that there is no significant halt to the fall on the horizon.

The official contemporary economy has never taken into consideration the law of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall, even if it suffers the consequences and fights, in its own way, the effects. Stiglitz certainly does not recognise it but the law exists. It is inherent in the development of capitalist productive forces, to such an extent that Marx considered it the most devastating of the economic laws of capital to the point of dedicating many chapters of the third volume of Capital to it. It is at least from the early 1970s that the crises caused by the fall in the rate of profit make their effects felt severely, in the form of progressive and ever deeper depressions, of explosions of financial bubbles, of military interventions in strategic areas of the globe and, last but not least, in the erosion of the living conditions of the international proletariat.

In this regard, but without the Marxist analysis of the crises, in the bourgeois world there has been a debate about economic policy, on the economic and financial mechanisms of the markets, on the role of the State and what is the best recipe for it to get out of the crisis once and for all. The aim is to give life to a capitalist society that no longer creates the disasters of the past, that does not reproduce the current gap between wealth and poverty, but is a capitalist society with a human face. The standard-bearer of this reflection, which we take into consideration both for the topicality of the perspectives and for the authoritativeness of the character, is the former winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) Joseph Stiglitz, whom we mentioned earlier. Our choice of the "old guru" of the international economy is due to the fact that his positions, heavily critical of certain aspects of the capitalist economy, give us the pretext to broaden the discussion by placing them on a materialist and revolutionary footing, abandoning the "old guru’s” idealistic perspective of reforming bad capitalism, including all those positive potentials that, in reality, are impossible to implement within the framework in which capitalism moves. These concepts seem new because the authoritative source elaborating them is new, but in reality, they are as old as capitalism itself, and they make a timely appearance in half the world’s economic debates only when we are in the presence of an economic disaster, such as that produced by the last crisis.

Stiglitz starts from the observation that forty years of neoliberalism have been a failure that led to the 2008 crisis, with all the nefarious corollaries involved. In a recent editorial that appeared in the New York Times and in the Guardian (May 2019), he wrestled fiercely with his colleague Milton Friedman's Chicago School, born in the 1970s but which produced its disastrous effects in the 1980s with the governments of Reagan in the US and of Thatcher in England, only to then continue in disguise, due to "accurate modifications", in the following decades up to the threshold of the greatest depression ever since the end of World War II. According to his analysis, in this precise case, leaving to the market the task of balancing all the economic components of capitalism was a very serious mistake. Not only has the market failed but the "freedom" it enjoyed has created the worst of capitalism. The pillars on which the doctrine of neoliberalism was formed are a sort of mixture of economic policies made up of the following elements: less taxes for the rich (entrepreneurs and speculators), deregulation of the labour market (containment of wages, less welfare, flexibility entering and exiting the labour market, conditioning the role of trade unions etc.), financialising the economy and, finally, globalisation (i.e. free movement of goods, capital and labour, even if for the latter, there is a little more limitation ...).

The consequences of such a policy have led, according to Stiglitz, to a growth in the world economy that is clearly lower than that in the twenty-five years following the end of the Second World War, to an ever-increasing inequality between rich and poor and to the production of those economic and financial crises that plagued the nineties until that fateful August 2007, which we assume as the official start date of the crisis still in progress. He concludes that the mother of all economic upheavals is neoliberalism, which must be fought with all possible forces so as not to repeat a failed experience like that caused by the economic policies of the Chicago School.

He then also emphasises that under the subsequent policies that, for the sake of Stiglitz's discourse define the centre-left (Blair in England, Clinton in the USA and later Renzi in Italy), neoliberalism has remained as an underground guide in the governments administered by the aforementioned leaders. It's the same story for the right and the left "sovereigntist" movements that, behind the instrumental fictions of popular politics, in the sense that they should have met the interests of the less well-off classes, in fact have followed, more or less slavishly, the same old neoliberal script. He concludes that Trump’s nationalist right also maintains some of the same characteristics. In addition to the declared and practiced racism and the fight against immigration, Trump has worked for the tax cuts for the richest, for a deregulation of the world of finance that has heavily reformed the Dodd Frank Act, a set of rules that arose on the need for regulation of financial assets during the great financial crisis of 2008, weakening it to the point of almost nullifying it. Moreover, it has favoured the contraction of social security programmes, such as the health reform launched by Barack Obama.

If this is the diagnosis of the economic policies that have dominated the international scene in the last forty years, what is the prognosis? Simple, Stiglitz rediscovers the indispensable role of the State. Certainly not an overly intrusive State, not a totalitarian State, but a State that knows how to put a halt to the "exuberance" of the market, both in terms of productive activities and in terms of financialisation and speculation. In short, an ethical State, above its parts (social classes), that renders good and sustainable all that it administers, in line with the common well-being. Thus:

  1. A State that opposes the self-regulation of the market in order to avoid all the damage previously listed.
  2. A State that proposes itself as a stimulator of economic growth.
  3. A State that regulates the entire world of finance by not allowing it a free hand in the production of fictitious capital and preventing it from giving life to activity more devoted to speculation than to financing investments in the real economy. That is, to prevent financial instability.
  4. A State that takes care of the environment and that does not disregard the atrocities, or even covers them up, of an economy that, by cutting expenses and in the search for the maximum possible profit, makes the environment a huge landfill and, at the same time, a business to exploit at any cost.
  5. Governments therefore have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational-safety, and other types of regulation.

“It is also the government’s job to do what the market cannot or will not do, like actively investing in basic research, technology, education, and the health of its constituents.”

This type of programme not only wants to confront and overcome the damage caused by neoliberalism, but it is proposed as "the solution to the problem" of the future of humanity. Enough of the failures of a fierce and aggressive capitalism, characterised by the domination of financial capital and the large corporations. Enough of the illusions of a communist society, given the fate of the Soviet Union or Mao's China. For Stiglitz the time has come to give life to the economic and political experiment of "market socialism", a hybrid and contradictory definition, where the term market refers to a capitalist economy in which all the economic categories of capitalism operate, but also "socialist" thanks to the regulatory intervention of the State, which would force the underlying economic form to behave "well", or to work for the well-being of all. It should be added that the winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics is not alone on this terrain. In the USA the currents in favour of a progressive capitalism with a human face have already enlisted many left-wing bourgeois “luminaries” of the calibre of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are preparing for the 2020 presidential election on this programme.

But let us return to the programmatic points of this utopian, as well as conservative, project, born from the intellect of a bourgeois economist wholly absorbed within capitalist mechanisms with the declared aim of saving humanity from disaster and simultaneously saving capitalism, considering it the only possible productive form, by enhancing its "positive" aspects and eliminating the negative ones. Let us not waste time dismantling piece by piece his conception of the State as a body “standing above all”, when even the dullest student of Political Science can see that the State, whatever it is, is and remains the political instrument of the ruling class and that, as such, it serves solely and exclusively the interests of capital and its managers in terms of legislation, regulation of the labour market, in terms of social security (that of the rich) and conditioning of the judiciary.

But let us move on to the contents of this "new" social policy which, as we have already said, is not new, for the simple reason that State intervention re-emerges whenever the economic system hits one of its many crises.

As the first point of his programme we absolutely need to eliminate, or at least limit, the gap between rich and poor. How this is to happen we are not told, but it is easy to think that the manoeuvre is based on higher wages, more welfare in health, in the pension sector, in education, etc. Well said, but Stiglitz forgets that in the capitalist regime the poverty of many is the condition of the wealth of a few. Translated in terms of economic categories, capital has to be invested on the sole condition of obtaining a profit which comes from the part of work the worker is not paid for. This relationship between capital and labour is at the base of the system, and what is more, capital tends to maximise profits, by increasing the exploitation of the labour force. It is therefore intrinsic to the dynamics of capitalism that the distribution of social wealth is as unfair as the relationship that links capital to the labour force. Therefore, the distribution of wealth in the form of profits, rents, etc., of wages can only depend on the unfair relationship that underlies it.

Of course, the State could intervene in economic relations by mitigating, regulating the relationship itself, but only taking into account two essential conditions. The first is that relatively high wages and "decent" welfare for workers are only possible if there are sufficient margins for capital, which "grants" them exclusively under the pressure of the class struggle. Moreover, these margins have been in rapid decline for years, to such an extent that the workers must beware of the attacks that capital in crisis is organising against them with even more determination than before. The second is that the State, however democratic it may be, is the political instrument of the ruling class, so all the policies of its governments are inevitably linked to the valorisation of capital, which entails exactly the opposite. The lower the wages, the more welfare is eroded, the more the capital enhancement mechanisms run at full speed. Today, then, as we have said, in the continuing crisis due to ever lower rates of profit, it is the bourgeoisie that attacks the economic and social conditions of the proletariat with the blows of welfare cuts (pensions, health, education) and wage containment, otherwise investments go abroad, where costs are much lower, the risks to investment are lower and, in perspective, the rate of capital appreciation is more guaranteed.

So, a different redistribution of income that does not take these factors into account is a pious illusion or an economic policy destined to fail. Is it possible that a Nobel Prize in Economics can get it wrong? The answer is yes. Not because Stiglitz is incompetent, but because, while reasoning with the best intentions of this world, he uses capitalist economic categories, beyond which he does not venture except with Pindaric flights, with idealistic scenarios that place him more on the terrain of "I would like to but I cannot” than on the terrain of a correct analysis of the capitalist production processes and their inevitable consequences as regards the distribution of the social wealth produced.

Still, in the dimension of pious illusions, he posits points 2 and 3 which concern the behaviour of the State from a macroeconomic point of view as a stimulator of economic growth and regulator of the world of finance. In the meantime, it must be emphasised that the demands arising from the economic and financial base are stronger than those emanating from administrative bodies. Indeed, usually the former condition the latter, based on an economic determinism that leaves little room for the progressive impulses of a capitalism in deep crisis. Having said this, if a bourgeois State fully fulfilled its role as a facilitator of economic development, it should implement all those laws, those regulations and related executive provisions, capable of aiding capital in its search for the best possible enhancement. In other words, in a phase of crisis like this, it should lead to the extreme consequences of labour market reform (freedom of dismissal and containment of wages), the dismantling of welfare, pension reform and less taxes for entrepreneurs, in other words, all the more or less violent baggage of necessary conservative practice, which takes an opposite trajectory to that desired by Stiglitz.

The same goes for the world of finance, with a few added aggravating circumstances. At the outbreak of the 2007 crisis, first in the US and then in all the countries "infected" by toxic stocks, the States were busy trying to stop the bleeding that the bursting of the subprime bubble had produced. The cry of alarm was raised from many quarters: never again to pursue the "paper economy", it is absolutely necessary to return to the real economy, the one that produces value and not fictitious capital and speculation. And so the State tried to move. First, the US government saved the most important banks in the country (too big to fail) with a process of semi-nationalisation or temporary nationalisation. Then it put in place a financial New Deal plan (quantitative easing) that injected thousands of billions of dollars, immediately followed by Draghi's ECB, with the aim of getting the financial institutions back on their feet to restart their function to stimulate investments through credit to businesses, or to continue the flow of capital received towards the real economy. But despite this cascade of billions of dollars and euros that rained into the banks' coffers, the hoped-for recovery of corporate loans has remained at stake. Not that money has not moved, but the credit institutions, both in Europe and in the US, first alleviated their "suffering" due to credits no longer payable (due to bankruptcies in all sectors of the economy), then they filled their stomachs with more profitable government bonds, and finally turned to speculation as before the crisis began. Companies have been given little at high interest rates, after studying the investment plans of the companies themselves to be sure of the soundness of the investment. In practice, the virtuous circle of capital, as the prime mover of economic recovery, is not shared. The reason is very simple. With a crisis due to low rates of profit, capital has focused mainly on the speculative terrain, attempting to recover rates of profit which it found it difficult to obtain through entrepreneurial activity.

Remaining within the real economy, the only "solution" for capital would seem to be the further development of productive forces to increase the mass of profits, reducing costs and production times. The aforesaid development has arrived, in the "highly developed" countries, to produce a high rate of exploitation, on the basis of the relatively high surplus value but, at the same time, has pushed the organic composition of capital so high as to make the process of valorisation of capital itself increasingly difficult. In fact the high organic composition of capital (more machines and less labour), due to the objective of compressing, with advanced technologies, the labour time necessary to reproduce the means necessary for the survival of the workers, if on the one hand increases the rate of exploitation and the mass of profits, due to the greater number of goods produced and sold (perhaps), on the other decreases the number of workers, restricting the basis of the extortion of surplus labour and paving the way for the fall of the average rate of profit.

At this stage of development of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system, the process of capital appreciation becomes increasingly difficult and it is no wonder that a significant proportion of capital avoids being invested in the production of goods and services to chase after the mirage of extra profits from speculation on various markets, ranging from raw materials to gold or foreign exchange. This is the only way to explain the current stagnation of productive investments and the existence of a mass of capital (calculated at 12 times world GDP) that hovers in the limbo of non-investment, to seize the opportunity for speculative investments that compensate the poor profits deriving from productive activities. With the inevitable effect of diverting capital away from production and further weakening that already suffering productive base due to the operation of the law of the fall of the average rate of profit. This contradiction cannot be remedied by a targeted economic policy. There is no government or State able to intervene in the market to eliminate such a contradiction. It is capital, its immanent laws, which make the tumultuous river of capitalist contradictions flow. These, in turn, impose rescue policies on States that, despite their implementation, do not solve the problems but postpone them, only to find them magnified on the basis of the same contradictions that created the problems in the first case.

"The last resort" would be the massive destruction of capital value that only a war can put into effect, but "our" Nobel does not care about this, as for the problems of falling rate of profit and valorisation of capital, he does not even take them into consideration, because they do not exist in his mental schemes, so they are not part of his programme of capitalist remedies. The reality, however, which operates daily, outside the ideological ambitions of the "gurus" of finance, shows how the contradictory factors of capitalism operate quickly and how the preparation for the destruction of capital value through a general war risks, with every passing day, becoming a tragic reality.

The first partial conclusion is that, even with regard to the conditioning of the financial market by the State bodies, despite the attempts made (rescue of the major credit institutions and Q.E.) they have not solved anything. Capitalism marches forward in all its contradictions. The task of the State, if anything, is to follow this path even if it leads to crises and war; all the rest are utopias that cost more effort than they are worth, including those of Stiglitz.

For the environmental problem the same conditions also apply. We are in the presence of an epochal process against the environment. From acid rain to water pollution, from CO2 emissions to temperature rise. From the melting of glaciers to desertification, from deforestation to illegal landfills. For decades, industrially advanced countries have used poor and backward countries as landfills. The frantic search for oil and the return to coal for those who don't have oil, devastate the environment like never before. Governments are aware of this, especially those that do not even have a jar or a can of oil or gas, they allocate and incentivise alternative energies (wind, electricity and solar) with scarce economic resources but they can do nothing against the deadly laws of profit that, in order to be realised, consider care of the environment not as an asset to be protected, but as an obstacle that must be circumvented if not demolished, at least until renewable energies become a safe business, until those polluting energy sources become rare and expensive to extract.

The apparent paradox is that, from the distant Kyoto protocol (1997) to the Paris protocol (2015), on lowering emissions, not only has nothing been done about it, but the strongest resistance has come from the countries most responsible for global pollution, like China. Its polluting responsibility is 16% of the global total, even though it put its signature on the treaty in Paris . Like the USA (36%) who, first with Bush Jr. and then with Trump, considered that the greater costs imposed by anti-pollution regulations would have damaged the entire American economy, decreased the capacity for competition, and that therefore would have provoked heavy economic damage and a significant hindrance to the processes of valorisation of the capital of the most powerful world imperialism. From Kyoto to Paris not only has much been talked about the environment but little done, the most polluting countries have bought the "quotas" of the least polluting countries to continue on their path that provides for the satisfaction of the laws of profit at all costs and not those of nature conservation. This has led to a devastation that, for many scientists, risks reaching the point of no return.

Under the capitalist regime the dominant laws are those of dominant capital. In a situation of crisis due to profit rates, moreover, economic concentrations are magnified, capital is further centralised, competition is exacerbated and the laws that regulate the development of capital become more stringent. The good intentions of some governments either remain a dead letter or become a useless exercise of good intentions of which, as the preacher states, "the roads to hell are paved". Stiglitz should have nothing left to do but to join the Youth Climate Protest (YCP) of Greta Thunberg, who as a good young idealist thinks that it is possible to save the climate from the atrocities of capitalism without touching the causes that produce these atrocities. It would be like trying to save Christians in the arena (the proletariat) without killing the lion (capitalism) wanting to tear them apart.

The fifth point is the summary of the first four and states that "Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational-safety, and other types of regulation. It is also the government’s job to do what the market cannot or will not do, like actively investing in basic research, technology, education, and the health of its constituents.” We are at the apotheosis of radical bourgeois reformism. It is true that in the history of some States there has been a closer or even suffocating control of the market. But it is also true that in these cases, of relative recent experience, the centralist State has done nothing but try to make all those market mechanisms that regulate the usual, absolute, necessity of capital growth more functional. This is what happened in Russia after the failure of the October Revolution. This is what is happening in China where there has been no failed proletarian revolution but the construction of a Russian-style state capitalism. This is what happened in Italy during fascism where the State became the owner, through its financial institutions, of the most important national companies, either owning 51% of the shares or holding the relative majority part of the same. It is no coincidence that this occurred during the devastating consequences of the 1929 crisis.

Stiglitz has a nice saying that the capitalist market cannot manage itself on its own because it would create such disasters and economic crises that would continually jeopardise the living conditions of four fifths of humanity. And there is much to do in terms of injecting elements of "socialism" in the market that is the presence of the State in the economy and financial strategies. In this regard, the incongruous expression can make one smile, but in the American mentality, even in that of the Nobel Prize winners, it is sufficient to preach any presence of the State in the economy to be called socialist or to define a State as socialist that carries out a minimum of this presence.

But obviously this is not the point. Stiglitz's correct examination of neoliberalism does not take into account an essential factor. The "atrocities" of capitalism are not attributable to this or that form of administration of capitalist production relations, but to the relations themselves. The economic crises, the attack on the wage conditions that ensue, the dismantling of welfare, the ever-widening social divergence, the permanent wars that imperialist powers fight, for the time being by proxy, are not illegitimate children of an economic system that if properly administered would take other routes and make other choices. It is in the nature of capitalism to produce these heinous effects. It is in its DNA to attack its labour force domestically and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat of other countries on the external market to solve its problems of exploitation and profit rates. Imperialism is not a cloak that capitalism wears to defend itself from external attacks, it is not a political choice that it practices in extreme cases or an attitude that, if it wanted, it could avoid by taking alternative solutions rather than war.

Imperialism is the consequence and at the same time the only way to try to contain all those contradictions that the system itself produces, and it does so in terms of violence. And the more devastating the violence, the higher the chances of survival for the winning imperialism. This has repeatedly happened with liberal and neoliberal regimes, with regimes that envisaged a "fair presence" of the State in the economy. It even happened with state capitalist regimes. It follows that working on superstructures of economic policy in an attempt to make the "system" better, on a human scale, only by tailoring the appropriate measures to the behaviour of the markets, when the markets lay down the law within the "system", is a sterile maintenance operation of the deck of a sinking ship, because the underlying hull is completely rotten. It is not possible to act on the effects if the causes that put them in place are left unchanged and remain operative.

If we go beyond the bourgeois framework of the problem, if we abandon the capitalist economic categories, if we do not find ourselves in the tunnel of impossible hopes and rely on a dialectical approach to all those problems that capitalism produces, then the road begins to be more visible and viable. In other words, a social revolution would be needed to complete one of the objectives of the "international salvation" programme, let alone all five. If we want to give birth to a society in which the development of productive forces is not the umpteenth chain that links the proletarian to a phase of greater exploitation, but is the creator of free time. If we want to erase exploitation, eliminate unemployment, which has now become an endemic condition within the world's capitalist production relations. If we do not want the poverty of many to be the condition for the wealth of the few. If we want to prevent proxy wars from breaking out and, in perspective, the conflagration of a global war where imperialisms collide with each other, staging what would be the greatest of human tragedies. If we want to avoid the umpteenth barbarity, of which the environmental catastrophe would be a component, the first point from which to start is the rupture of the relationship between capital and the labour force, or the founding system of the whole of economic production and distribution based on the exploitation of the workforce. Without this step every alternative solution to capitalism or, worse, within capitalism itself in a reformist sense, is only a tragic naivety, if not a stupid palliative that leaves things exactly as they are.

The unjust relationship between capital and the labour force is not only synonymous with exploitation, but the more the productive forces develop on the basis of the contraction of labour necessary to reproduce the conditions of existence of the workforce, the more the technical and organic composition of capital is raised. In simpler terms, we repeat, the development of productive forces on the basis of relative surplus value triggers, alongside an increase in exploitation, the modification of the organic composition of capital (more machines and less labour from which surplus labour and surplus value are extracted), favouring the triggering of the law of the tendential fall in the average rate of profit. In turn, the modification of the organic composition of capital by imposing the crisis as a decrease in the rate of profit, poses serious problems for the process of valorisation of capital which, in turn, exacerbates all the contradictions of the capitalist system, favouring the concentration of the means of production, the centralisation of capital, the crisis of "overproduction", financial crises, stimulating speculation, the creation of fictitious capital and, as a "last resort", the use of war for the survival of a now dying system, which must absolutely destroy to recreate the minimum conditions for its survival.

But for such a programme to take its first steps, in an economic and social framework of conservation and reaction, it is necessary for the world of wage slavery to move outside of union barriers, the illusory promises of radical reformism, of false leftist parties, to face the system of capital and the reactionary violence of its internal and external gendarmes in a definitive war. And precisely for this reason it is absolutely necessary that this world of disinherited proletarians, exploited as only modern capitalism is able to do, of perennial unemployed, of young people looking for any job, if they find it, have a tactical and strategic goal that only the revolutionary class party can give. Otherwise the demons of the apocalypse will repel the workers in the hell of wage slavery and then recruit them into their criminal armies of death, making them clash against each other in a sort of macabre rite, celebrated for the sole purpose of allowing imperialism to destroy as much as possible to reconstruct capitalistically yet more monuments to misery and exploitation.


August 2019

Tuesday, September 17, 2019