Donald Trump and the American Working Class

The American elections are heating up, but I'm not going to talk about that here, instead I wish to talk about something that I feel is far more instructive to what we can expect from a Trump Presidency. Personally speaking I think the best measure of a politicians intentions real values, and leadership style and priorities is by their actions and not their rhetoric. To hell with "I'm _______ and I approve this message" and the obligatory "Paid for by a committee that's backing a rival to the politician we've just been attacking". Actions speak louder than words, or at least they should. Strangely politics is the one area where this isn't always true.

Now longtime readers will know I've opposed Donald Trump on principal for a number of years, I still think his actions in Scotland and Aberdeen in particular expose the man's priorities, ruining the lives of the local population so he can build another shrine to his own vanity. But today I have another example, Mr Trump is a businessman, and like all good capitalists he has a workforce. This workforce is organising because because Trump and his management haven't quite got around to making his own workforce great at all, never mind again.

I am a housekeeper at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. This past December, a majority of employees like me at Trump Las Vegas voted YES to a union. But Trump's company has refused listen to us and honor the results of our election.
Instead, they've blocked negotiations through legal challenges – which so far have gone nowhere. A federal officer recently recommended that the company’s list of objections be "overruled in their entirety" – and that the NLRB certify the union.Instead of sitting down to negotiate a fair contract, Trump company lawyers are still fighting to overturn the election.
If Donald Trump wants to “Make America Great Again,” he should start by negotiating a deal with his us – his Las Vegas hotel employees – just like his company did for workers at Trump Toronto in Canada.
Just last year, Trump workers in Canada voted for a union and have since negotiated their first contract – a deal that gives workers much like us a chance to provide for their families, keep their kids healthy, enjoy job protections and security, and one day retire with dignity.

Even the smallest slither of a concession from a businessman takes month's even years of organising and campaigning before it'll even come close to seeing the light of day. Toronto has organised successfully but the upper management stubbornly resist its spread.

This week Donald Trump’s hotel in Las Vegas is facing more heat for its labor record. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued another federal complaint against Trump Ruffin Commercial, LLC, alleging that the company unlawfully terminated one employee and discriminated against another based on their union support, and promised employees job opportunities if they abandoned the union.
Trump’s company has driven an aggressive anti-union campaign since workers began organizing at the Trump Las Vegas in 2014.  The complaint issued this week is the third one brought by federal government against Trump Las Vegas alleging unfair labor practices. In prior complaints, federal officials have alleged that Trump’s hotel company engaged in the following unlawful activities: 1) maintaining rules prohibiting workers from communicating with one another and the public; 2) interrogations and surveillance; 3) intimidation of employees by Trump management and security staff, including a manager physically pushing employees; and 4) suspensions and a threat to fire union supporters.

 Trump's company treats its own workforce like hostile children in need of control and harassment. The concessions made to the Canadian workforce are welcome, but I can't help noticing that the darling of American Nationalism treats foreign workers better than those from the Fatherland, but to be fair to the man cross class rhetoric combined with anti worker policies are standard practice with all major nationalist movements, so he's really just going along with the flow here.


I mean he's not been coy about demonising migrant workers and taking a patriotic guise to American Labor, which is probably why he's been attracting so much support from those white supremacists and ghosts, and yet his actions and the actions of his company say the opposite.

Reuters reports that in just the last month Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida applied for 70 visas for foreign workers because they could be paid lower wages than American workers, even as Trump hit the campaign trail denigrating Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers. Since 2000, Trump-affiliated companies have sought 1,100 temporary visas for foreign workers, and most of the requested vias were approved.

The Las Vegas workers took part in the protests in Chicago


If Trump is this callous and dismissive of his own workforce, the very people who made his fortune that he's now using to run a Presidential campaign, then how will he react towards American workers whom haven't done anything for him?

His workers already live under a Trump Presidency, as the capitalist he controls their means of existence and daily routines,  they know what his policies are like and most of them hate it, this should be very instructive to the entire American population, and yet I don't belief its received much coverage.

Oh and if your reading this and are American and don't like Donald Trump much, then I urge you to support the workers of Donald Trump's companies in their protests and organisation attempts, no matter what happened come election day a stronger more combative workforce in Trumps corporate empire will only be an improvement. Of course everyone should be doing this for all workers everywhere but given the situation giving extra support to Trump staff makes sense.

Far East Ostalgia: Thoughts on the bizarre love affair of hardliner “communists” with the Kim Dynasty

For a good few years now I’ve been annoyed by this bizarre phenomena that is the North Korean fan club. I couldn’t understand why a group that prides itself on being “Pure” and deeply committed to the revolution and the ideal of workers state would waste so much time defending the honour of the Kim dictatorship. Making dictators that oppose one or more Western power look like the best thing since sliced bread isn’t anything new for this sorry shower, but even for them the DPRK should be a bridge too far.

This is a “Democratic People’s Republic” that isn’t Democratic even in the liberal Bourgeois sense –though that hasn’t stop them before- hell it isn’t even a republic. It’s a monarchy founded with 20^th century baggage. While the Kings of old had court advisers they have a Politburo, instead of lesser nobles there’s Korean Workers Party chiefs, the knightly orders are replaced with the Special Operations Forces, and the role of the witch hunter is filled by the State Security Department that hunts down heretics from the Cult of Personality surrounding the Kim trinity, Kim Il Sung the Father, Kim Jong il the Son and now Kim Jong Un the holy ghost (he is everywhere after all). Now I’m being a little flippant, but only a little of all the parallels the comparison to the trinity is the biggest stretch but only because it’s a direct illusion to Christianity and so not really culturally appropriate. A Confucian comparison would be better, but my knowledge of Confucius begins with wall calenders, vaguely racist "Confucius say" jokes and that film released in 2010.

North Korea is so backward it lacks even the progressive tint that’s used as the foundation for the lines taken by so many “anti-imperialist” post 50’s tankies. I’ve seen dozens of documentaries on North Korea, many of which have interviews with members of the government and military, and all of their comments are filled with rampant nationalism, and bombastic militarism. On rare occasions one of them briefly mentions socialism, but it’s never expanded on and always came sandwiched between nationalist platitudes. I’ve also read a number of books on North Korea and even frequent the Korean Central News Agency website (the official English language site that reports from North Korean government)  I’ve never seen or heard them use any of the usual tropes and holy words all the other regimes did that these wannabe despots trip over themselves to praise. Hell by their own admission they rejected Karl Marx and the socialist concept of class, rejecting the two classes in conflict, in favour of national harmony between 55 class categories. Yes that’s right, North Korean society is based on total loyalty to the nation state, and has stratified its citizenry into 55 categories, based on occupation, family positions, and even ancestry is taken into account. 

Indeed, it started taking the works of Communist thinkers whose work contradicted and challenged the North Korean state out of wide circulation in the 60’s. “Books on Marx disappeared from library shelves about this time(1)as well. People could read Marx only in a few select libraries, and scholars had tio produce a reason for reading him.” 

Amusingly, the cult of Kim Il Sung also supplanted this crowds number one idle Stalin. “Three years after Stalin’s death, his cult of personality was officially denounced at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. This de-Stalinization influenced the DPRK as well: Stalin’s portraits were removed and the Soviet songs were to be performed in the new, edited variant. For example, if under Stalin North Koreans sang “Our toast is for the Motherland, our toast is for Stalin, our toast is for the banner of victories,” after 1956 the toast was supposed to be proclaimed not for Stalin, but for the party.

In the mid-1950s Kim Il Sung, who after Stalin death’s felt much more confident, started a campaign against Soviet influence, emphasizing the need for everything that is Korean and national. Since Stalin was neither Korean, nor national, his image began to wither away. It was not done very fast, and what is now Victory Street in Pyongyang kept its old name – Stalin Street – up to the 1970s. And in the late 1960s the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were removed from libraries and access to them was restricted: Kim Il Sung had no need for predecessors. After the DPRK became politically independent from the Soviet Union, Stalin still remained in the North Korean political discourse, but he occupied the place similar to that of Kim Il Sung in Stalin’s USSR: the leader of a friendly, but clearly a “junior” state, a positive figure which, as such, bowed to the world leader.”(2) 
And the regime has continued dropping bit by bit the old associations with any none Korean leftist.

Now would be the time were I bring up North Korea’s murderous regime and oppression of its population including its proletariat. But there isn’t any point because that’s true of every regime this crowd has championed. Of all the features of the North Korean system, its brutality towards its own citizen is by far its most typical feature.

It’s not really a surprise that these so called radical communists and militant socialists are nothing of the sort. Prick them on this and they’ll quickly pull up a North Korean state document maintaining that the DPRK is a socialist state, or Kim Jong Il’s speeches or books where he talks about the importance of “Socialist Construction” etc. But all that does is expose their own blatant ignorance of socialism. Poke them about authoritarianism and they’ll bring up the elections, rather hypocritically as many of these people will quickly denounce elections in western nations as shams, and in North Korea every eligible political party takes part in the same front with the Workers Party of Korea, meaning that elections in North Korea are even more pointless than usual. 

However the extensive lip service paid by the regimes of old to “socialism” international revolution and the working classes gave them enough jargon to camouflage themselves. North Korea doesn’t give them much room to do this, its isolationist instead of internationalist, and its preoccupation is reunification of Korea and building up its military industry at the expense of living standards for the average North Korean, both nationalist pursuits in place of workers liberation. These cheerleaders of the Dear Leader still try to paint North Korea as a model Socialist society, but the gulf between reality and their arguments is so vast and so noticeable that they don’t wash with anyone not already inducted, and makes them look callous and delusional.

But why this brutal cold war relic in particular? Why doesn’t China, Laos, Vietnam or Cuba command the affections of this crowd? Especially since they all make a much better show of continuity with the good old days? Well the answer may lie in the combination of militaristic posturing and state control of the economy.  Of all the other “Communist countries” left the one that could compete with North Korea for the affections of this crowd (though why they’d want to I don’t know) was Cuba. And what is Cuba famous for? A leadership clad in Olive green army fatigues shouting angrily at the US, state control of all production including sugar cane cultivators, and sponsoring revolts in Africa and Latin America. However since the 90’s Cuba has progressively followed a more market orientated economy, and conciliation with the USA. And it’s been years since Cuban soldiers have been seen carrying out nefarious schemes in the third world. Che Guevara still has some pull but overall the enthusiasm for the sunshine Stalinist state has dimmed amongst the ranks of the hard liners. 

Compare this to North Korea, a regime that repeated threatens its neighbours and the US with missile, nuclear missiles and maintains a stranglehold on the economy. When I first started visiting youtube the only “socialist” videos I found for years, were footage of Soviet mayday parades with thousands of soldiers, tanks and missiles. I have also seen many of these pro NK types take time out to specifically congratulate the North Koreans on nuclear weapons tests and rocket launches. This from the types who shrilly denounce NATO and the US armed forces. I have also seen these Kimchi jingo’s celebrate the execution of Jang sun-Taek because he was apparently a capitalist sell out.   So that covers the military fetishism, what about standing up to the markets?

Well like most things concerning North Korea reality shows the official line to be wishful thinking at best and outright lie at worst. The North Korean economy much like its claims to democracy and socialism only helps proves how out of touch the cheerleaders of the Great General are. I could launch into a lecture about the collapse of the ration system in the 90’s during the famine, privileges for heads of industrial and agricultural concerns, the existence of wage labour, the state taking surplus profit from economy to invest elsewhere, the state operating like a corporation, the establishment of state owned companies, and the thriving black market which tarnishing the ideal of a fully planned economy, but I don’t really need to. North Korea doesn’t really oppose market capitalism or private finance. It welcomes them provided the terms of the deals made benefit its overall aims. North Korea’s mobile phone network was built by an Egyptian company Orascom, which joint owns a public/private partnership company called Koryolink. A public private partnership was the key pillar to Tony Blair’s economic vision, and is usually seen by tankies as the first crack in the walls of a “socialist economy” when it occurs elsewhere. Nor is it the only example 

 In the past, China persuaded North Korea with various joint venture projects arguing that, “You have nothing to lose from these projects. Although it’s based on market principles, ultimately it’s beneficial for both parties.” North Korea on the other hand maintained the stance, “You (China) invest and we will manage,” holding on to management rights of these companies. However, for this very reason Chinese companies were reluctant to directly invest in North Korea. Even after contracts were signed, large -scale investment did not transpire due to poor management.

However, North Korea finally yielded to China’s request, handing over major management rights to Chinese investors. This recent move is analyzed as an attempt to attract more foreign investment to actualize North Korea’s goal of building a “Strong and Prosperous Nation” by 2012. With large-scale management rights transferred to the Chinese companies for joint ventures, the DPRK-China economic cooperation volume is expected to grow.

There's also official commitments by the DPRK to protect foreign investment.

Indeed the DPRK is so eager to encourage investment in North Korea, that it set up the IKBC (The International Korean Business Centre) and advertises its services through the Korean Friendship Association the official mouthpiece of the North Korean fan club. 

The IKBC sales pitch includes the following:

Lowest labour cost in Asia.
Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.
Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.
No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies.
Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.
Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.
New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).
Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

So an official arm of the North Korean government is other monopoly capital schemes, corporate tax cuts, and guarantees the loyalty of its workforce? How's that for socialism?

So why the lack of alarm in this case? Well the North Korean state is still the main force in the North Korea’s economy and it’s not squeamish about taking severe action against those who failure to deliver, so this goes away to reassuring them. Several companies that do actually invest in North Korea have been alleging being ripped off. But realistically speaking, I  think they just don't want to see it. I know some of these fellows turned a blind eye to Fidel Castro’s early reforms or justified them as pragmatic, and ended up condemning his brother Raul for continuing the reform process. North Korea still lags behind the alternatives, especially China and Vietnam so it’s the last stop on the line. If North Korea goes “revisionist” or “capitalist roader” then that’s it. This is a loose coalition of people made up of those who for decades have deflected criticism by simply pointing to examples of “actually existing socialism” so without an actual example of “actually existing socialism” they have no more platform. The other big trend in this group are the extreme anti western “progressives/socialists/anti-imperialists” who also have few options else left now since all the other anti western “modernisers” have either capitulated to the western order or been overthrown. Well Assad’s still clinging on in Syria, and it’s possible a Conservative shift in Iran could reopen wounds.  There’s also Putin, but his brand of conservatism and capitalist economics will keep all but the most desperate from rallying around him now.  He's even increased his criticism of the Soviet Union so no one but those strange Russian nationalists whom dress like 1940's red army officers will stick around.

There is another question here, does any of this matter? I would say yes but admit this North Korean caucus is a minor problem. Compared to all the other obstacles and outright threats we face. Though Korean Friendship Association et al  have raised funds for North Korea and been used as an intermediary for business deals and who knows where that money goes? Their existence and visibility is also an embarrassment  for individuals and groups identified with socialism or communism from interacting with the public. Explicitly Anarchist groups don't have that problem, but that's mostly because in the mainstream anarchism is still associated with Individualistic Terror.   But the equation of socialism and workers power with Juche and the Workers Party of Korea is an issue, just like how it was when the Soviet Union was around. Now North Korea isn’t as imposing and omnipresent as the Soviet Union or China during Mao’s day, but it has and will pop up in places. There are parts of the world where North Korea is quite well known and where this problem will be more pronounced, South Korea and Japan spring to mind, but also parts of Africa where North Korea has some involvement via trade and aid. There are Kim Il Sung study groups and societies in countries like Nigeria and Tanzania(3). 

 Yes of course. There are so many North Koreans here. They are in Nigeria helping us, in our health care system, with our agriculture.  They also provide technical experience and there are also some joint ventures between Nigerians and North Koreans. These joint ventures are in chemicals, fertilizers, agricultures, furniture, marble, mostly from granite (the North Koreans are very good in this), hospitals in Yobe, Adamawa, Zamfara, Enugu, Nasarawa, Delta, Rivers and Borno as well as Lagos states.The three DPRK doctors that were killed were working in Yobe state, which is in the northeastern part of Nigeria. As you may aware, the northeastern part of Nigeria is the hot bed of the insurgency in Nigeria.

 

And here in the jolly old UK we have the Communist Party of Great Britain Marxist Leninist (CPGB-ML) a group that champions North Korea among other things. Again I must confess my ignorance, despite encountering them several times online, I've never had the pleasure of meeting these folks in the flesh, indeed I've can't recall seeing a banner or group participating in the TUC marches I used to go too. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're not a force in another region. Although to be fair to North Korea, the CPGB-ML has many other daft ideas, and still champions a few of the other progressive strongmen like Assad and Castro.

So I think that these embarrassing “comrades” can be considered an active problem, and added to the list. Unfortunately I don’t have much in the way of a practical solution; the one positive I can say about these people is their dedication to the cause. More the pity they’ve chosen such a rotten banner to fly. They’ll keep on banging the (war)drum until the regime itself goes away or is no longer to their liking. Public criticism of North Korea and other “progressive” dictatorships might help a little but making it a priority given the low level of trouble this lot have caused (unless of course you’re in an area where there’s a pro NK group of some size) would be a mistake. You may think that’s hypocritical of me having written all this, but it’s not a priority for me either, I wrote this at work during a break from my other projects, and felt compelled to because as a NK watcher I encounter these people regularly and get tired of their callous and ignorant bile.

 1: From Exit Emperor Kim Jong Il, “this time” refers to the March 25^th purge in 1967 of a “liberal” Kapsan faction of the party and the expansion of censorship and the positioning of Kim il Sung as the Supreme Leader.

2: From an article by Fyodor Tertitskiy on NKnews https://www.nknews.org/2016/01/the-image-of-stalin-in-north-korea/

3:In addition to material and military aid, North Korea has built a number of governmental buildings and national stadiums for various African countries.  

Revolutionary Ramblings and Doom Sayings

Warning the below post is a lengthy criticism of a Youtube Vlogger, if this doesn't interest you then I suggest skipping this post entirely.


I was blessed to receive a Youtube recommendation of a video from the #1 Marxist on Youtube. The eponymous Maoist Rebel, Canada's Chairman of internet agitprop, Jason Unruhe. There is dire news from the Revolutions cyber centre and angry commentator cadre are bombarding the head quarters. And I promise to knock off the Mao speak jokes.



Full disclosure, I've followed Jason for many years on and off, usually several months will go by before I come across him again, and each time I'm surprised by how different he is. The man knows how to reinvent himself, its a shame each iteration is more odious than the last. So this rambling video about the dire state of "Marxism" rattling off a diverse group of misdeeds and guilty parties. Its starts off alright, he condemns the CPRF's homophobia but he tells his audience this news as if its a surprise, that a "Marxist-Leninist"(ML) party is homophobic, which means he's unaware that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union made homosexuality punishable by time in a Labour camp. Kinda of a worrying oversight for Youtubes No 1 Marxist hey?

Then he goes on to warn about a trend of ML parties turning to Fascism, and cites the use of antisemitism amongst the regions that broke away from the Ukraine. However annoyingly he doesn't give a specific example or a link to establish what exactly he's referring too. This is frustrating since the issue of antisemitism is rather confusing in this area. It's definitely being used by someone but both sides accuse the other and plead innocents, the infamous episode of anti Jewish leaflets shows how murky and prevalent `The Socialism of fools` is in the region.

And he offers no real substantiation for his claim that ML parties are trending towards Fascism. Though the evidence of some of them flirting with it isn't hard to find, in Eastern Europe they're known as Red-Brown alliances. Indeed the CPRF itself is part of such alliances,But again vague wording and a refusal to cite sources or give examples mean is impossible to tell how accurate Jason is. He also briefly states ML parties in the US are putting out Fash statements but he doesn't say which parties or which statements are Fascistic, meaning its impossible to tell if he's correct and nearly impossible to look up.

Then things get a bit weird, we go from ML's becoming Fash, to Maoists (in the first world mind) doing something with a gender bandwagon, which is bad because....? It just is. I honestly have no idea what he's talking about here, Maoists in the first world is somehow even vaguer then his previous statements. Talking about Gender apparently won't lead to Revolution, okay, I guess we have to take Jason's word for this since he doesn't elaborate at all. But taking Jason at his word, Maoism would also be bankrupt. The ideology of Maoism hasn't led to a successful Revolution since 1949 in China, and that was made possible thanks to the inherent instability of the Chinese state after the 1911 Revolution, and the weakness of the KMT. Everywhere else Maoist tendencies have tried to seize control through force of arms, what Mao called People's War they failed, Jason even brings up an example of this failure later in the video. The closest a Maoist group has come to a successful "revolution" was the downfall of the King of Nepal, but the King was defeated by a mass alliance of seven political parties and the new Maoist government has been vigoursly denounced by Maoist organisations throughout the world, from Afghanistan to the USA.

He then links these two seemingly completely separate trends (ML Fash, and Maoist Genderists) with a common cause, lack of relevance to the working classes. Here Jason is sorta correct, the Maoists and ML's and Trotskyists (whom Jason doesn't mention) are declining in influence and numbers. Well at least in Britain and Ireland and the USA from what I've heard from American friends. Jason tells his audience to look at the numbers, but doesn't show the numbers, apparently Jason wants his audience to do his work for him. But it is correct anecdotely speaking these groups used to be fairly prominent at Mayday demonstrations and Trade Union marches, but their presence has decreased at each march I attended, and several organisations have collapsed over the years. But I doubt this has much to do with gender fixation or Fascist leanings. For a start this Gender stuff is apparently a new trend but Maoism has never had a big presence in the British Labour movement, in America they were more noticeable, but they peaked in the 70's. Most of the Maoist groups shrunk and collapsed in the 80's and 90's which is before this Gender stuff became fashionable, I assume. I'm also not convinced that gender is alienating the working masses from embracing interpretations of 1940's era Chinese politics. But I can't be sure because I don't know what he's talking about*.

The closest we get to a piece of evidence actually seems to contradict his own assertion. Jason brings up the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, but then says they're small and marginal despite downplaying gender. This would suggest that the relative decline of Maoist parties would have little at all to do with Gender then would it not? Apparently not, it seems the Canadians flaws lay elsewhere. Now I'm going to give Jason the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows warfare pre-dates the existence of firearms and that what he meant to say was that its fraudulent for Canadian Maoists to claim to be fighting a People's War without some sort of armed wing. Seems reasonable, but looking up the RCPC program's section on People's War, it states that the RCPC is preparing for People's War and that it sees this war as being protracted and long and that it will first involve a lot of work, building their movement, boycotting elections, boycotting the state etc, and only engaging in insurrection when they believe the time is right. Apparently Jason must think the time is right for the insurrection and the establishment of the Toronto Commune, right now. Basically Jason is advocating that a small group of students get some guns and then get themselves killed. Unless Jason honestly believes a Guerilla army can topple the Canadian state -in which case he should be busy trying to start his own band of freedom fighters, surely?- right now, this complaint is petulant and potentially very dangerous. I have no love for Maoism but what Jason is (I hope accidentally) doing here is trying to shame a group of people into getting themselves and other people killed, in a fight they couldn't possibly win.

Now Jason isn't well known as a competent speaker, he's often incoherent and his seeming inability to cite his sources or back up his statements often kills what little sense you can scrape out of his more baffling statements. Here I can only surmise that he is advocating an insurrection this very second, since he doesn't criticise the doctrine just the RCPC's lack of progress in building their own Red Army. This is simply a shocking level of callousness, and I honestly hope the explanation for such a statement is his own intellectual laziness. It also raises another question, does Jason believe that an insurrection, by nature a clandestine affair waged primarily in the wilderness, led by students would be more appealing to the Canadian proletariat? Are Canadian workers really itching to live in wilds being hunted by Canadian security forces?

Actually there is a silver lining of a sort here, it seems clear that Jason a self described Maoist, doesn't actually understand what Protracted People's War means. Mao's lecture which were compiled in 1938 as On Protracted War, were about China's military situation resisting Japan, since the army of the Empire of Japan was superior to the Republic of China's armies and the Communist partisan units Mao argued against conventional large scale battles in favour of smaller skirmishes and ambushes. Which honestly strikes me as simple common sense really. If you don't regiments and a well supplied and coordinated logistical wing, don't plan to fight like a General with a battle line. He also argued against a weapon centric attitude to conflict in favour of a people centric view.

48. This is the so-called theory that "weapons decide everything", which constitutes a mechanical approach to the question of war and a subjective and one-sided view. Our view is opposed to this; we see not only weapons but also people. Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive factor; it is people, not things, that are decisive. The contest of strength is not only a contest of military and economic power, but also a contest of human power and morale. Military and economic power is necessarily wielded by people. If the great majority of the Chinese, of the Japanese and of the people of other countries are on the side of our War of Resistance Against Japan, how can Japan's military and economic power, wielded as it is by a small minority through coercion, count as superiority?

Basically what he's getting at is that a war involves more than a clash of arms, and requires political and economic actions. I'll say this for the RCPC their statement on Protracted War is far closer to Mao's speeches when stripped of their references to the Chinese resistance to Japan.

Moving on Jason claims that Marxism globally is weak and laments that we don't live in the area of Soviet tanks and Maoist Guerrilla's, showing how little Youtube's number one Marxist understands Marxism, and basic history. Not only were the regimes of Eastern Europe not Marxist, they differed from Social Democracy and the Paris Commune both movements Karl Marx did endorse, but they also failed, that's probably the most important thing to remember, the Soviet Union was a global superpower, and it failed utterly in all of its aims. It didn't manage to transition to Communism, it didn't hold back Western Imperialism, it didn't a free and open society for its citizenry and it didn't survive as a political system. Maoism did not sweep Asia in the 60's it failed outside China, the only successful "Communist" movements in Asia, (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) owed their success to the collapse of America and France in the region, and massive handouts from the Soviet Union and the PRC. Laos and Vietnam were very close to the Soviet Union, and Cambodia remained tied to China for support against its neighbour Vietnam, none of these regimes were Maoist in a sense that means anything. Same was true of Latin America, the only successful resistance movements of note, the Sandinista's and Castro's 26th of July Movement weren't Maoists, neither were most of the other groups that grew powerful enough to worry their governments. The only exception were the Peruvian Shining Path, and they failed. And probably a good thing that they did too, given how brutal they were in their `Revolutionary base areas`

And as for Europe, the Soviet Union et alls brutal repression of its own working classes  ensured a collapse in support for the Communist parties in the East and a mass Exodus in the West. Hungary 56, and Czechoslovakia 1968 where the most obvious examples but there was no shortage of them. It also didn't help that the populations of Europe were on the receiving end of Soviet military posturing. It's hard to recruit amongst the workers when your best example is pointing missiles at their families.

Moving on again, we now get a list of reformist movements that didn't lead to an uprising, despite the claims of some. Mixed in with some admissions that third world Guerilla armies haven't toppled the pyramid of imperialism and are actually exhausting themselves. I guess that means grabbing guns and going off into the wilderness to fight the running dogs of the bourgeoisie isn't so effective hey? He continues to equate revolution with fighting in the bush and lamenting the decline of it. The revolution is not the army, historically People's armies have a very poor record in military terms, and the few revolutionary regimes they manage to put in power turn out to be not very revolutionary at all.

If this is Marxism (and for the record it isn't) I say let it die. Thankfully it isn't, and the class struggle continues to be waged and will continue to ebb and flow until its finally solved once and for all.

Jason is quite welcome to waste his time "updating" things, I just hope that when he's doing crafting his Unruhist party program he'll stop referring to himself as a Marxist and a Communist. He should also stop calling himself a Maoist but I won't lose any sleep if he doesn't. 


Oh and I find it very amusing that his patreon link flashed on the screen when he was castigating his viewers for not doing anything, accident or well timed plug?


*A bit of an aside, at around 02:30 in his video lamentation about Maoism, Jason mentions that in addition to not being able to reach "the workers" (tm) these groups also can't reach the "black masses". This is a bizarre remark, surely the black masses, like the masses and the people include non proletarian black people, like black businessmen, so why on earth would any Revolutionary group even try to appeal to a group to initiate a Revolution when it includes non revolutionary classes and sections of society?

Is This Memes yet?

I realise the USA hasn't had to come to grips with a large Socialist movement since the time of Eugene Debs and the first generation of Wobblies, but still this is really embarrassing. Below is a political "meme" that's neither politically informative or funny. So just like 90% of them. An American friend shared the below image, and, well the phrase give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves comes to mind.

The entire image and every word on it stems from the -rather common in America-

 socialism=government/state fallacy.  If you're curious the definition of socialism is the control of the means of production by the workers themselves. If Socialism meant the state/government, then this would make every world leader a Socialist, because they all used government institutions. Thatcher's Poll tax was still a tax and the money was being spent on things like the police and military, so I guess she counts as a Socialist.

Emperor Hirohito must of been a Socialist too, given that his nations brief prosperity was built by that bastion of workers rights the Imperial army, whom bravely brought socialist government control to the fringes of China and Korea. And lets not forget the Mujahedeen coalition whom ousted the rival Socialist Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan, and then engaged in a four year (1992-96) factional fight over which group was the most Socialistic of the bunch. They were of course out Socialised by the Taliban.

They all used government services and paid for them with taxes and tithes so the group Socialists for Bernie Sanders should be very happy regardless of who becomes the next President since to my knowledge no ones running on an abolition of the state and make America disappear platform.

But to get more specific I'll address a few of the more egregious examples.

1. Call the Police: This is just bizarre, the modern police force was invented to protect property aka capital, from the majority of the population that had none. To quote that well known Marxist Adam Smith (he might as well be considering what's being listed above)
   
   “Laws and government may be considered in this and indeed in every case as a combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence.”
   
   

   

   The famous Cop Riot of Chicago 68

2. Support the military, CIA or FBI: Okay, when I first saw this meme this was the part that stood out to me. I honestly believed this was a joke, but they seem to be a genuine supporters group. I hope they were joking and I just didn't get it because this is just absurd. You cannot be a Socialist and support a national military (any nation's military) because by supporting an army you are supporting the divisions of the working class, as well as aiding in the misery and destruction of other "foreign" sections of it. And usually they can be deployed against the natives too. To quote Mother Jones
   
   
   The above image depicts American troops with bayonets bared at members of the Industrial Workers of the World during the Lawrence textile strike of 1912. Mother Jones herself was no stranger to being menaced by soldiers in her struggles to help the Miners of America (Immigrants and citizens) organise for a better life. Any "Socialist" who supports an army (any army) is a fool whom supports his own executioners.
   
   Now onto the CIA, if the American military is the club that smashes American workers, the CIA is the blade that terrorises the International working class. To quote former CIA officer John Stockwell
   
   "It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable. And to propagandise and teach the American people to hate. So we will let the establishment spend any amount of money on arms."
   
   There is no excuse here, the CIA is infamous for its bloody intrigues and campaigns against any an all attempts for working class organisations whether tied to a Communist party or not. I guess Chile's socialists should of rallied round Pinochet and his comrades from the CIA?
   
   And how can I forget that beacon of Socialism the Shah of Iran? Or the support given to oppressed Nicaraguan socialists during the Sandinista period? I could go on all day, but what's the point?
   
   Now for the FBI, again, this must be a joke, the FBI and its predecessor the Bureau of Investigation were directly responsible for breaking up and suppressing the original Socialist Party and the early Wobblies. The Federal raids of  October 1917 targeted the headquarters and power bases of both organisations. Eugene Debs was later imprisoned for calling for resistance to the ongoing war and militarisation of American society. Over a 165 key organisers for the IWW were also imprisoned.
   
   And of course in 1920 there occurred the Palmer Raids, named after the head of the Bureau of Investigation and spearheaded by a young J.Edgar Hoover, whom made membership of the Communist Party or the rival Communist Labor Party grounds for arrest. Over 10,000 activists for various organisations were arrested, and over 500 were deported.
3. Send your children to public school/ visit a state or city zoo/ visit a museum/ use a public library/ use public beaches: I've lumped these together because they're all the same, access to something. The problem here is it mistakes public use for public ownership. A public park is not owned by the public nor is it run by the public, they're owned by the local government, and it is the local government that determines who can and can't access it.
   
   For example in racist societies members of the public from minority communities often found there access to public utilities heavily restricted. This was the whole purpose of the Jim Crow legislation, denying sections of the population (the black population) access to state and municipal amenities.
   
   

For "public ownership" to really mean publicly owned it's administration has to be accountable to the population as a whole. Palming off responsibility to a lower rung of the governmental apparatus (city and local councils) doesn't count even if they manage to make a few decisions that are genuinely popular.

What about Social security and Medicare then? That's an insurance policy provided by the state instead of a private insurance or medical company. In the UK we the bulk of our welfare provisions are paid for through a system that's called National Insurance, because that's what it is insurance through the government. There's no fundamental difference between the two, its just that the US government has access to more revenue streams then a typical insurance company and so has little or no desire to maximise profitable investment and is better insulated from market fluctuation. A corporate monopoly could afford to operate in much the same way, though it probably wouldn't.

So in conclusion, we have a self described socialist being championed by a group of self described socialists with a meme list about socialism that contains no socialism. Lovely.

Feeling the Bern?

With a 2:1 dislike to like ratio its clear the Real News audience doesn't like this video.Its not hard to see why, Social Democratic reformers seem to be in vogue again all over the world. Jeremy Corbyn has made waves with supporters and opponents falling over themselves to trot out absurd accusations and comments. And the reception SYRIZA in Greece received when it first formed a government in Leftist circles in Europe was so enthusiastic you'd think they'd formed the Athenian Soviet.

Hell I can remember people getting worked up over Francois Hollande's Presidential victory, (that seems so long ago now doesn't it.) The problem is that this all stems from a lack of understanding of how political systems work. Even in Presidential systems the individual personality isn't as important as its media coverage would suggest. The video makes some good points about the role of political party leaderships in determining the `candidate/leader`and I know from my own personal experience that much of what he says is accurate.

A few years ago I and some friends went to Liverpool for the Labour Party conference, it was a sham. If you've watched news coverage of a party conference (there really all the same once you look past the placards and colour schemes) you'll have seen enthusiastic applause, and a lot of people fighting over the chance to ask a question or make a suggestion to the leadership. I saw the delegates in the front rows jumping up and down, waving their arms and walking sticks, it was all very dramatic and it was all a farce. The conference staffers had already selected who would be picked and called out ahead of time. That was just a show to make it look open and fair. The side meetings as well weren't much better. They were generally interesting but nothing of importance went on, you just turned up to listen to a bunch of experts and media personalities give some speeches and lectures on a topic. They aren't even effective canvassers for support. All that decision making stuff was done behind closed doors and by networking.

There was an example of this in Britain not long ago. During the Labour party conference they were due to discuss Trident and Nuclear weapons in general, the party leader Jeremy Corbyn is against them but quite a few polls suggested a majority of the membership is for them. This meant that if there was a discussion then it was likely that the leader would be on the losing side, so the party heads panicked and killed the discussion.

But the real issue goes beyond parties, it involves the entire political and economic system. In Britain for the past few decades much of the discussion surrounding the Labour party has been about the infestation of the Blairites, a group of pro market, pro war, types who've helped shift Britain into a right wing political climate.

But here's the problem, even when we had left wing Labour governments they were also quite willing to chuck principal out the window in the name of the "national interest". Labour governments have actively opposed strikes (like the 1966 Seamen's strike), and gone to war (the war in Malaya in 1948 to keep control of a British colony. And of course the Korean War 1950, and Harold Wilson's government deployed the British Army in Northern Ireland in 1969), and generally did their utmost to maintain control of the Empire. Ramsay Macdonald's second Labour government 1929-35 once tried to get the Indian National Congress to accept limited autonomy in exchange for renouncing the desire for independence. In WWI Labour party politicians like their comrades in the German Social Democractic Party and the French Section of the Workers International (AKA The French Socialist Party) turned their collective backs on decades of hard work supporting each other and trying to prevent war, by joining National Unity Governments, taking positions in those governments and helping to slaughter millions of working men, all in the name of the national interest.

SYRIZA also went through this process, they were elected on an anti-austerity platform and opposition to the EU troika and ended up capitulating because it couldn't stomach any of the alternatives. Just like how European Social Democrats in the era of Empire had no alternative but to keep business as usual in the few times they rose to power and influence. They couldn't stop war and colonies because the system they lived and operated in depended upon them both. This is why the Imperial system had to wait until after WWII to collapse. Europe was devastated and exhausted and could no longer suppress the nationalist aspirations of its colonised peoples, and so had to make concessions and bit by bit let go, or risk losing everything. The European powers didn't like this which is why they tried to cling onto as much as they could salvage, hence Britain's conflict in Malaya, Frances war in Algeria, and Britain and Frances war on Egypt to maintain control of the Suez, or the Belgians intervention in the Congo. It didn't make much difference whether the party in control of Presidencies and parliaments were left wing or right wing.

Bernie even if he does get the nomination and does win the subsequent election(both big if's) will be no different, he'll talk a good game but will not alter the United States in any fundamental way. Maybe he'll expand welfare programs and strengthen environmental regulation, and maybe he'll resist the temptation to intervene in one regional conflict or another, but fundamentally it'll be the same.

Hate America Month came early this year

Years it appears that once again I'm late to the party, the month long struggle against American imperialism party, I assume my invitation was lost in the post. The gala was once again graciuolsy hosted for the thirtieth time in Pyongyang by the Kim family. Still fortunately we have the Real News to give us some highlights, with a new guest commentator Brian Becker.

I'm a supporter of the Real News, but I have some criticisms, they seem internet illiterate, they don't really know how to use youtube, they frequently have a series of interviews and reports but no easy way to find individual parts. And they're over reliant on academics, and frequently don't have much to say to follow up or counter what these academics say even if its factually disputed or even contradictory. This interview with Becker is an excellent example of the latter problem.

Note: For some daft reason, the Real News has decided to disable video embedding on its youtube channel, effectively limiting its ability to reach a wider audience. Hence my uploading via blogger, to see the original video click here.

Minor note: The host and most people talking about inter Korean relations mentions that the Korean war `ended` with a temporary ceasefire.  The ceasefire has lasted over fifty years now can it really still be said to be temporary?

Well  that was certainly something. I'll give Becker credit for downplaying the significance of that naval dispute and for pointing out that sporadic outbreaks of tension and brief fire fights between Northern and Southern forces happen fairly often. Every other media outlet not focussed on the Korean Peninsula either ignores them or acts like World War III has just been declared. As happened recently in the last days of August. But it all goes downhill from there.

Becker shows his bias immediately by singling out the US for criticism even when he's acknowledged that other nations were culpable in the things he condemns. For starters its a myth that the US split Korea alone. The partition of Korea was decided at Potsdam between the US, UK and USSR, Becker admits this but apparently struggles to follow through. This means that Korea was split by three nation states not just mean old Uncle Sam. Just days after partition was agreed the Soviet Union  had troops in the Korean peninsula having smashed the Japanese army in Manchuria. So really they ample opportunity to continue south but didn't because Uncle Joe favoured good relations with the Western powers. And of course Britain wouldn't lose sleep over arbitrary drawing of lines all over oriental lands.  They were more occupied trying to keep control of the bits of the world map they coloured in.

Soviet and American military personnel meet in Seoul in 1945

So really the blame should be shared between the three. But that's just a starter, the main course starts at 05:03 when the host brings up the North Korea is a Dictatorship, allowing Becker to respond in a way that's all too familiar.

Well to be fair again he starts off well, bringing up the surprisingly obscure fact that South Korea was Dictatorship (and quite a brutal one at that) until the 1980's when the regime collapsed. But here's the problem though the regime did collapse despite heavy US backing, and the US had to accept it. That's not really a strong case for continued occupation, at least not after the collapse of the dictatorship in the 80's. Yes there are a large number of US military and intelligence officials in South Korea (approximately 30,000 plus troops in neighbouring nations like Japan) but that's true of many nations around the world including the UK. And yet we don't often see claims that Western Europe is occupied by America, except perhaps from the extreme fringe of the Anti-Nato crowd. The presence of foreign troops on national soil in peace time is not an indication of an occupation regardless of size. To occupy something means to maintain control of it via force, and is the United States currently doing this in South Korea? The answer is no, could the US start doing this? Yes it could, but that's speculation not fact.

Speaking of facts, yes the South Korean dictatorship was very reliant on the United States when it was founded, but the same was true of the North Korean dictatorship and its patron the Soviet Union. And yes the United States (with the backing of the UN including combat troops from many nations in large numbers) bombed and invaded North Korea... after North Korea bombed and invaded South Korea.  Why is one ok and not the other?

Then he blathers on about North Korea being a "socialist government" which is odd since that's impossible. Socialism is the working class controlling the means of production, how does that apply to governance? He doesn't explain but then he goes on about one party rule which is just hilarious, since A) That has no bearing on Socialism or the lack of socialism, B) Isn't officially true the Korean Workers Party works with two other parties the Social Democratic Party, and the Chondoist chongdu party a religious group. They also have representatives from the Korean residences in Japan. So he's going off message here.

But apparently that doesn't matter because North Korea has free education, free housing, free health care,  guaranteed employment and no income taxes! wait what? Actually to be fair the Becker this is technically true North Korea officially abolished income taxes in 1974. Unfortunately its not actually true in the sense that taxes were genuinely abolished. All that changed was the method of collection. Here's an account of how taxation works in North Korea (made be pay walled) by a former North Korean. Basically they replaced income deductions with an obligation for free labour and payment in kind. Now to really stick the needle in Becker, this is the point where even a sympathetic listener should wake up and ignore him. Not only is what he said not true, it doesn't even tally with what he just said microseconds before. If North Korea genuinely has no taxation system in any shape or form then how on earth does it pay for that free housing? how do the schools and hospitals run? Even if the staff work for free they'll still use resources which need replenishing. And how can the State guarantee employment when it apparently has no financial reserves?

How does it pay for the Japanese website that hosts the Korean Central News Agency? Does the association of Korean residents of Japan foot the bill? And what about those embassies in other countries?

Property in London isn't cheap you know

There are really only two options here, either the North Korean government was using semantics to make itself more popular and impressive looking, what we call spin and PR in the west, and does have a taxation system of some sort, and as an alleged expert on North Korea Becker should be aware of this.

Or North Korea has made the transition from a capitalist economy  into one based on needs, and everyone works to fulfil collective needs in the knowledge that the rest of the community will reciprocate with their own strengths and skills. But that can't be the case since North Korea has a currency system and a powerful state that employs everyone and is in charge of allocating resources for the benefit of the nation state, with little or no autonomy or decision making power available to the local populations. Oh and it allows private business to work and operate within its borders.






He then goes onto to bring up Saudi Arabia and Israel and other nations that the US quite likes that are quite horrible, to drum up the old charge of hypocrisy. But here's the problem is it not equally valid to call Becker a hypocrite too, since he also condemns some nations with terrible records but supports others? One thing I noticed was that he never really refuted the question about North Korea's darkside, he just shifted the conversation onto other topics, the US, South Korea, the US again, and only returned to the North so he could sing the praises of the regime.

This chat encapsulates an endemic problem with alternative media, the dependence on talking heads who can be very shady. Just because someone offers an opposing view to the mainstream narrative does not automatically give them credibility. What annoys me is that Becker had some valid points (about 40 seconds) but this was either buried in his ode to the leader, or undermined by his rhetorical tricks.

Jackboots on Whitehall: AKA British Robot Chicken

 

Jackboots on Whitehall (henceforth known as Jackboots) is a really strange film. The quote on the poster compares it to Team America, but both its production method and style of humour owes more to the American show Robot Chicken. It's also a film that's been in production for years, it finally came out in 2010 and didn't exactly make a splash. Wikipedia tells me the film was released in cinema's, but I don't remember seeing any trailers or promotional posters. In fact, I only saw it because it was recommended as a Netflix algorithm.

Plot Synopsis:
It's World War II and the Nazi's invade, things look bleak for a bit until Churchill can rally the troops with a speech and a last minute rescue thanks to our plucky young hero. And that's about it.

Jackboots as the title makes abundantly clear is part of the WWII film subgenre, where Hitler actually invaded Blighty. A bit like Churchill the Hollywood years, similar premise, similar lack of impact. It's also a puppet show, though most of the puppets appear to be Barbies and action men, which means most of the `supporting cast` have the same dopey grins stuck to their faces regardless of situation or dialogue. It's also a comedy, supposedly. The jokes are what expose just how old the film really is because they've mostly disappeared nowadays because our society has realised they're no longer funny*. Take for example a very early joke about a WREN style group set up with the Acronym
 FANY. Which means we have plenty of lines from the Barbies talking about their FANY. It's like Mr Humphrey's and all the others from Are You Being Served are haunting us from the bleak never world of the 1970s. And the saddest part is that this isn't even an original joke, F.A.N.Y. is a real organisation. I shudder to think how they'd fill all that runtime if it didn't exist.

Translators note: In the UK Fanny is a euphemism for Vagina.

But it gets worse better, there's a very weird running gag about Nazi crossdressers. The first time this joke pops up is shortly after FANY graces us with its presence.  The Hindenburg shows up (always a good idea to use a lazy reference to a tragic event to kick off a wacky comedy) and starts bombing things, during the fire-fight one of the Nazi airmen dresses up as an old woman. At first, I thought this joke was going to be built on the old WWII myth that Nazi paratroopers had infiltrated Britain disguised as Nuns and the like, but no. It doesn't build on anything, he's just dressed as an old woman. Later on we see Hitler in Buckingham Palace (just like in Churchill the Hollywood Years) dressed as Queen Liz the 1st, now in context the senior Nazi's (you know the usual, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering etc.)  Are having a Fancy Dress party, so I thought `ok let's see where you're going with this`. That turned out to be nowhere, it's just Hitler in a dress, and then later after the party he's still wearing the dress, so the joke is just Hitler in a dress.

You know what's really sad? This still image is a lot more funny than the animated scene.

And of course, we have sexy Nazi SS women. I think I speak for most red-blooded males when I say that thinking about extreme racism and genocide gives me both a smile and an erection. Though to be fair this is a really common occurrence in these types of story. I've seen it in videogames, exploitation films and the like though the justification for their existence is that these women -since actually Nazi's pushed a traditional role for women underpinned by the three K's (no not Ku Klux Klan) Kinder(children) Kuche(kitchen) and Kirche(church)-  are that these women represent the elite. This is making it something of a meta joke, since they don't actually seem to do anything remotely elite in Jackboots. Though credit where credits due, I did find them funny since they are basically Barbie dolls in SS uniform.

More like the Phwoarth Reich, right lads?

Oh and before I forget these Nazi chicks are part of a rape joke, yes a rape joke in a film made (well released) in 2010. I guess since she's a Nazi we're supposed to think well (quite literally) `fuck her`. If you're wondering no Jackboots isn't one of those shock comedies, in fact its overall rather tame, the jokes about FANY is an innuendo gag which was done even more explicitly in the dusty old show Are You Being Served? And others.

There's two more running jokes that stick in my mind, ones about Scotland but its just very obvious stereotyping so y'know. The other joke is character related, now in comedy most characters have their own quirks, Chris are plucky farmboy hero -who I haven't mentioned before nor will again-
 character gimmick is that he's tormented by having giant hands, and by giant hands I mean they look slightly larger when the camera focuses on them. The character who stuck out most to me was one Billy Fiske, American hero. Billy is another joke that seems to pop up quite a bit in modern British World War II films, he's an obnoxious American action hero whose dialogue is dripping with self awareness. Again like in Churchill, the Hollywood Years.

Look at that, he's so self-aware he knows I'm writing about him right now.

Billy is a gun toting victory or death red bashing Cold Warrior, whose ten years premature. He hates the Commies and thinks the Nazi's are Communists and yes he brings this up every time a fire fights about to break out. This character is a bitter cynical response to the tendency of Hollywood films to paint America as the sole saviours of WWII, and as we all know every light-hearted wacky comedy could do with a big serving of mean spirited cynicism. The character type is wretched, and their existence is petty and childish, they need to go away. If you don't like the Americans, then don't make them characters in your film.

That's it for the running jokes, how about the one-offs? Well they mostly fall flat, to take just one example for brevity's sake, have you heard the one about the Polish Telephone pole repairman? No, well it goes like this, a Polish telephone repair man climbs up a telephone pole to repair it, he's so focussed on fixing this telephone pole that even though a battle breaks out in the street he's on, he stays up there to finish his job -badum tish-.

Production values were a bit up and down, some set pieces look really well done and others look like a child playing with his toys with his arms just out of shot. Some characters have articulation, others just rock back and forth with the same expression plastered onto their faces. There's a minor character whose a Vicar and I thought he was going to be a baddie  because he's default expression is an evil grin, but no he's just the father of the attractive love interest.

So yeah, that's Jackboots, a confusing mess of a film. 


*And there are good odds they never were.