Engels titled it The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. I’ll call it The Origin, for short.

The Origin is like Yuval Noah Harari’s blockbuster Sapiens (2014) but written by a 19th-century socialist: a sweeping take on the dawn of property, patriarchy, monogamy and materialism. Like many of its contemporaries, it arranged societies on an evolutionary ladder from savagery to barbarism to civilisation. Although wrong in most ways, The Origin was described by a recent historian as ‘among the more important and politically applicable texts in the Marxist canon’, shaping everything from feminist ideology to the divorce policies of Maoist China.

Of the text’s legacies, the most popular is primitive communism. The idea goes like this. Once upon a time, private property was unknown. Food went to those in need. Everyone was cared for. Then agriculture arose and, with it, ownership over land, labour and wild resources. The organic community splintered under the weight of competition. The story predates Marx and Engels. The patron saint of capitalism, Adam Smith, proposed something similar, as did the 19th-century American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan. Even ancient Buddhist texts described a pre-state society free of property. But The Origin is the idea’s most important codification. It argued for primitive communism, circulated it widely, and welded it to Marxist principles.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh

The centerpiece of shock and awe of the West’s economic response to Russia’s invasion and bombardment of Ukraine was the freezing of Russia’s central bank assets. In the March 7 edition of his Global Money Dispatch newsletter, the Credit Suisse investment strategist Zoltan Pozsar writes that the G7 seizure of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves marks a regime change in the global monetary system. Pozsar pronounces this new regime Bretton Woods III. He anticipates that Asian sovereigns, fearing that their dollar- and euro-denominated foreign reserves are at risk of expropriation in the event of future foreign policy disputes, will park their surplus funds outside of the reach of Western financial authorities. For Pozsar, this heralds the rise of “commodity-backed currencies in the East” and spells the denouement of dollar hegemony.

In a follow-up piece published on March 31, Pozsar speculates that recent developments will drive China to replace the West as the buyer of last resort of Russian oil. As a result, oil tankers will have to be rerouted from the quicker East-West route via the Suez to a longer passage (one requiring ship transfers) from Russia to China. Geopolitics will shape the reorganization of real infrastructure networks, slowing down supply chains and increasing the cost of credit. Pozsar predicts that this rearrangement of global commodity and money flows presage a new world economic order, one in which China will replace the US as the monetary hegemon. The petrodollar, he envisages, will be replaced by the petro-yuan. 

Pozsar’s analysis—as well as Adam Tooze’s response to it—appreciates the asymmetry in the world economy: between advanced economies that dominate global finance, and developing countries that produce the majority (about sixty percent) of world GDP. Asia may be the center of gravity of world manufacturing, but European and North American firms still command the bulk of the profits embedded in global supply chains. This tension in the global economy is unlikely to resolve anytime soon, but it has become increasingly fractious. The weaponization of trade policy by the previous Republican administration has only been reinforced by the current Democratic one. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s recent speech advocating “the friend-shoring of supply chains”—wherein the US strengthens trade ties with those it shares strategic interests and “core values,” while severing the rest—captures the new mood. (In her speech, Yellen also calls for revitalizing Bretton Woods based on her view that the dollar-based economic order “benefits us all.”)

Full Article

Politics has become about setting a narrative which can help one to win an election or achieve political goals. It matters little whether that narrative is true, a lie, factual or fake. The narrative is instilled in supporters in such a persistent and repeated way that the supporters become very convinced of it being the only truth. As supporters become vehicle, willingly or unconsciously, to propagate this narrative through whatever means necessary, especially social media, they feel that they have a personal stake in it and its failure or defeat becomes personal defeat or failure. It is not limited to volunteer supporters only, but general public supporters also feel the same way. Any contrary argument, fact, evidence, or truth has no meaning for them. Repeated contrary arguments further harden their position and accepting mistake or correcting the course becomes almost impossible.

It is more often a trait of a populist leader; whose rhetoric and rosy promises diverts the public attention away from scrutinizing false narratives.

Prime example is Trump’s “Stop the Steal” narrative. Despite no evidence of election fraud and many courts decisions of no fraud, more than 70% of Republicans, and even some Democrats believe Biden stole the election. Unfortunately, after Trump, some other world leaders are also shamelessly following Trump’s path.

F. Sheikh

Brief Thought

Everyone knows that IK got elected in 2018 with the help of establishment and many corrupt (electables) switched sides to join PTI. These “electables” continued their corruption under the supervision, immunity, and protection of their so called “honest” leader. IK was sending NAB after corrupt opposition leaders but conveniently looked the other way when their own members were involved. Even two ministers were on Pandora list, but he never asked for their resignation, or sent NAB after them. It is worth reading one of the e mail Pervez Hoodbhoy sent in response to an article critical of him and American conspiracy; “

“Naqi Sahib: Are you saying that I have opposed Imran Khan because America tells me that? Please understand that things happen in this world for reasons of their own and not only because of America. Pakistan has had many crazed leaders but none as disgusting as this man – a man who has assiduously pampered religious fanatics, ruined education, ruined the economy, and brought a new low to politics. We are thrilled that this insatiable womanizer who now preaches morality to everyone is gone. Why are you giving America the credit for this? The credit belongs to us, the people of Pakistan. Pervez Hoodbhoy”.

In my opinion, vote of no confidence was a mistake and opposition and establishment should have waited for general election in 18 months. But I think possibly the establishment did not want to wait till next year due to critical economic situation and dangerous direction the foreign policy was moving considering most of the trade is with the West and military hardware is also dependent on West.

Opposition was trying to pass vote of no confidence since long ago and failed, but announcement by establishment of “neutrality” was greenlight to many disenchanted and disappointed MNA’s to change the sides and that changed the whole dynamics. The same “establishment” which gave us IK, realized the disastrous mistake it made and try to correct it by becoming “neutral”.

 Establishment knew that by becoming neutral which leaders will become in power-same leaders who were strongly critical of establishment for its involvement in politics, but country’s situation may be so dire that establishment concluded that they may be a lesser evil.

In my opinion, the vote of no confidence, not a wise move, but was taken as per constitution of Pakistan. What is most disappointing is that IK’s supporters are not upset against establishment because the establishment is interfering in politics and democratic values, but are upset that establishment should not be neutral and continue its support of IK by interfering in politics and democratic values.

 Unfortunately, PTI, IK, and most of its supporters do not realize that main reason the Pakistan never progressed was that establishment continue to interfere in politics, did not let politicians and political institutes to grow and get stronger. What we see Pakistan today is Pakistan shaped mostly by the establishment not by politicians.

(I noted Mirza Sahib also has posted Hoodbhoy’s email)