• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal


We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.

Seeing Yellow

In a Facebook group I participate in, someone had posted a Newsweek.com article with the headline, “Financial experts predict a crash ‘worse than the Great Depression’ under Trump.”  In the discussion, I made the comment:

Could it be that this is a threat to carry out what Marx called a “capital strike,” where capital goes on strike? I hope that Trump, behind the scenes, is using every threat against this, including the nationalization of the top finance capital firms.

Someone responded as follows:

I think capital is fleeing the west because the return/risk ratio is perceived to be better elsewhere. I guess that amounts to a capital strike. I prefer to invest in companies that pay me a dividend so am I “striking” against those who don’t? Do they somehow deserve my investment just because they have shares on the market?

In my typical way, I responded at some length …

Hi ——–, I don’t think it’s useful to get into what your own “investment behavior” is, unless you are really a major finance capitalist, in which case cut it out.

A capital strike is not against those who invest differently, it’s against workers, the exploitation of whom creates the surplus value that becomes the “dividend.” In a capital strike, workers are shut out of employment and therefore a livelihood. There is no “market” in any traditional sense when the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the few, with the making of money through the manipulation of money on a global scale being the leading factor (that is, finance capital). For the ordinary working person, there is no “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in such a system; working people are simply at the mercy of investment decisions made at the highest levels of finance capital, decisions made with no concern or interest whatsoever in what happens to the ordinary people who are affected (or what they deserve). And, at the same time, capital flight from the U.S. is directed toward a more efficient exploitation of labor (of labor-power, the ability to labor). This can, and very often does, lead capital to “invest” in enterprises where the conditions of labor approximate outright slavery.

As for relatively small investments, most of us are caught up in that one way or another, often in ways that we can’t much control, like saving for retirement through some sort of plan (in my case, it was through TIAA-CREF). “Small investors” are at the mercy of finance capital, too, and many have been ruined because they depend on the gamblers at the big table. It’s worth noting that, in the 2008 meltdown, the only major player about whom a big deal was made–that is, he went to jail– was Bernie Madoff, and that’s because he was ripping off other really rich people.

I realize this goes a little further afield of what you were raising, which probably had more to do with how you might get a bit ahead of inflation in your personal finances, but we might also note that some of the really rich power players in politics have most of their money outside of the U.S. too. Dick Cheney, for instance, had the greater part of his fortune (which, if I’m not mistaken, was estimated to be upwards of 200 million dollars or more) in foreign currencies. In other words, he had placed himself as the true “decider” in the G.W. Bush administration, but he wasn’t even mainly “betting on ‘his own’ country”–and this is a case of the sort of people who actually do own the country.

This example is also important because: 1) the short-sighted liberals and leftists of the “anti-Trump movement” (or “Resistance,” Antifa, etc.) have completely forgotten what looked a lot more like fascism in the non-election of the Bush/Cheney administration, with Cheney placed as the main “minder” over Bush; 2) the New World Order declared by the recently-deceased and now fawned-over by liberals George H.W. Bush remained continuous through the Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations; this is the New World Order of globalist finance capital.

Trump represents a disruption to this and something of a clarification of the terms of things–how much of a disruption and clarification is an important issue here, but at the very least it’s clear that it’s not just business as usual for the ruling class. That’s a good thing.

Of course the left does not want to think about this, but, if there were a gillet jaune movement in the U.S., it would not be against Trump at this moment. In a way, the yellow jerseys of the U.S. are what elected Trump, and that’s also a disturbance to these outmoded terms, “left” and “right,” and a signal that both establishment parties are only standing in the way of where things need to go. Just as in France, our yellow jersey/severely distressed working people are rife with contradictions. If our yellow jerseys became a good deal more militant, these contradictions would come out in a bigger way. There’s no real change in the world without that sort of dynamic–but then, that’s where we see a disruption to all establishment “politics,” including that of the “Left.” Real change is not what this “politics” is about–they want a return to business as usual.

Unfortunately, there are hurdles to the emergence of a militant yellow jersey-type movement here, including geography. If something comes together in the next while, however, I would hope for not another “march on Washington,” but instead a march on New York City and especially the headquarters of Goldman-Sachs.

So, that’s what I’m thinking about, though of course I wish you well with your personal finances–again, unless you’re an actual major finance capitalist.

I think I’ve accidentally written my next CounterPunch article here; at the head of it, I’d like to see pictures of the Bush funeral, before and after Trump arrived.


My last article for CounterPunch was very long; in response to it, one person said of me that I “never met a meander [I] didn’t follow.”  Perhaps. Here, for once, I’ll restrain myself to just a few comments.

The term “investment behavior” was not meant as sarcasm—this is a field in economics now.

The stuff about a capital strike is of course Marx 101; it is a way that capital deals with overproduction, and therefore to under-consumption).  The capital strike leads to lay-offs when then lead to more under-consumption, and so a spiral toward a general crisis is opened. However, Marx 101 does not really address the world in which finance capital dominates.  Furthermore, the threat of the strike, even if it will of course hurt working people, seems aimed at Trump.  Given that Trump represents a disruption to every element of business-as-usual neoliberalism, it’s hard to not imagine that the threat of a “finance capital strike” (which I can’t claim to understand fully) is coming at the same time when other attempts to undermine Trump are in the works, such as the Mueller investigation.

Has there ever previously been a presidency where “something happens” pretty much every day, where the president is not only in the headlines, but often at the top of the headlines?  So, that’s hard to keep up with.  The Mueller investigation is clearly bogus, in that it was supposed to be about Russia, which itself is bogus, but instead it’s going after the little fish on anything whatsoever in order to go after the big fish on anything whatsoever.  No politician or political operative in the upper ranks of the system could survive such an investigation.

My hope is that, if the Mueller and the Democrats want to take this all the way to impeachment, that Trump will blow things wide open by getting every big of dirt on the Clintons, the Bushes, and everyone else out there.  A war of all against all, within the capitalist class of the U.S., would be a very dangerous thing, for everyone, but also probably the closest that this system is likely to find itself to a revolutionary situation.

Whether the political structure is so short-sighted as to allow things to get that far, is another question, but they can’t always control everything.  If they could, Trump wouldn’t be president in the first place. Most likely the powers behind the official powers would take other measures.  Unfortunately, liberals would think that was just fine, even preferable, and the Left (from the DSA to Amy Goodman, Cornell West, Refuse Fascism, Antifa, etc.) has put itself in a position to have no credible protest against this (even assuming they would protest).

I didn’t post “The Trump experiment” on my own Facebook page, but a career leftist (most likely well-known to CounterPunch readers) and an academic leftist did, so that people could go after me—and go after me they did.  I’ll talk about that in the next piece, which will most likely be titled “From Mao to Trump? Encountering today’s Left.”  Both the leftists who posted the article said that I had made this move, from Mao to Trump.  One interesting thing in the case of the career leftist is that he commented that he really did not want to think about where Alexander Cockburn would stand on the Trump situation.  I mention these things here in the context of the French uprising, where the question is whether the uprising can go from Macron to Mao.  Of course this is a broad characterization, and any real revolution will have to invent new things and not just attempt to copy the past.  But notice how the worry about Alexander Cockburn is also characteristic of how the left is looking at the Yellow Jerseys.

Like all real revolts, and all real revolutionary struggles (which the Yellow Jerseys could be on the edge of), the uprising in France is rife with contradictions.  Any force that hopes to give revolutionary shape and leadership to such a struggle has to reckon with this.  In France, as well as the United States, I don’t see how this can happen unless people get beyond the conventional thinking about “left” and “right.”

More articles by:

Bill Martin is professor of philosophy emeritus from DePaul University.  He is aiming to go from retired professor to renewed philosopher, and also to devote a good deal of time to making music.  After twenty-eight years in Chicago, he now lives full-time in Salina, Kansas.  His most recent book is Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation.  He is also a musician, and recently released two albums of experimental music, Gravitas (Avant-Bass 1) and Terre de Bas (Avant-Bass 2).

October 22, 2019
Gary Leupp
The Kurds as U.S. Sacrificial Lambs
Robert Fisk
Trump and the Retreat of the American Empire
John Feffer
Trump’s Endless Wars
Marshall Auerback
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Trump’s Fake Withdrawal From Endless War
Dean Baker
Trump Declares Victory in China Trade War
Patrick Bond
Bretton Woods Institutions’ Neoliberal Over-Reach Leaves Global Governance in the Gutter
Robert Hunziker
XR Co-Founder Discusses Climate Emergency
John W. Whitehead
Terrorized, Traumatized and Killed: The Police State’s Deadly Toll on America’s Children
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security
Binoy Kampmark
The Decent Protester: a Down Under Creation
Frances Madeson
Pro-Democracy Movement in Haiti Swells Despite Police Violence
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Challenges Logging and Burning Project in Methow Valley
Chelli Stanley
Change the Nation You Live In
Elliot Sperber
Humane War 
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)