viewfromleftfieldblog

The Marlins Rebuild Has Ended

After the trade deadline, the Miami Marlins have a major league roster that is almost identical to the pre-deadline roster. The only major leaguers traded were OF Jesus Sanchez and C Nick Fortes. Reactions from the most sophisticated analysts from Marlins social media accounts were a combination of surprise and mild disappointment that the front office did not do more to exchange relief pitchers, or veteran starters such as Cal Quantrill or even Edward Cabrera and/or Sandy Alcantara, for prospect capital at the deadline.

However, after time had passed, many of us agreed that the overall picture is quite positive and reassuring: the new front office in just a year and a half has built the foundations of a competitive team. The timetable for the Marlins to realistically compete for a playoff spot is 2026, but the front office is rewarding the players and the coaching staff at the major league level in 2025 for the sustained success the club has had over the past two months, when the Fish have been among the best teams in major league baseball.

What often gets overlooked in discussions of rebuilds is the interplay between acquiring enough foundational talent to compete long-term and rewarding the players and coaches on the field when they do start to turn things around. It’s fair to say that the Marlins front office has more “building” to do that will likely involve major trades of veteran talent in the offseason. At the same time, this is no longer a “rebuild” given that the goal will be creating a sustainable playoff caliber team in 2026 and beyond. The vision of the new front office under Peter Bendix was to get to the point where the entire major and minor league system was revamped through a unified player development system of over one hundred new hires that would help the organization identify, acquire and develop young players at all levels of the minors (and majors) via trades, waiver wire pickups, Rule V acquisitions and the annual MLB player draft.

These aspects of the rebuild are fast-advanced, though not complete. Marlins fans that wanted to see a lot of trades at the trade deadline to continue a “rebuild” through consecutive years felt that opportunities may have been lost to add more talent to the system. I certainly felt that more trades were necessary as recently as a few weeks ago, but my attitude shifted as the Marlins kept winning games and series, including nine of the last eleven series played, which included only one tied series and one lost series.

The calculation by the Bendix-led front office was to trade key players only if the returns were high enough to help the Marlins compete in 2026 and beyond. The offers for Edward Cabrera, Sandy Alcantara and even relief pitchers such as Anthony Bender did not meet this criteria. There was another factor that often goes overlooked: the front office hired the new coaching staffs at all levels of the system, including a brand new major league coaching staff entrusted with developing the youngest roster in baseball. When the players and the coaching staff had sustained success on the field, they earned the right to continue the momentum established.

The front office, including Bendix, has used the word “culture” more than any other word when talking about sustained success. Part of what that means is rewarding the players and coaches who have successfully adopted the new player development system and “culture” to win games for a sustained period of time. Rather than block that process, the front office wants to encourage this development success and to cultivate its further growth.

To me, this is a ratification of my high expectations of this new front office. They have put themselves in a position to build strategically for both the short- and long-term. That means the Marlins are no longer the type of team that sells valuable assets to the big revenue clubs at firesale prices. When you trade with the Marlins now, you have a front office with the evaluation tools to acquire fair value back to the team, and a development system far advanced from its predecessors. For avid and casual fans, the ballpark experience is already enriched. The upcoming Yankee series will be far more entertaining with the Marlins able to field a team that has surged over the past two months, rather than having to watch a shell of a previously good product stumble to the finish line for yet another season. The hope is not 3, 4 or 5 years away—it’s there in front of our eyes right now, waiting to be built up, not torn down.

The Miami Marlins and Baseball at the 2025 All Star Break

A lot has happened since my last post. Namely the Miami Marlins have been one of the hottest teams in baseball. The team set a club record with 11 straight road wins. The lineup has been bolstered ever since the switch of Otto Lopez from 2b to ss and Xavier Edwards from ss to 2b. The new front office has proven its ongoing ability to add lots of value from players released by other clubs. What many casual observers do not see are the ways that the entire infrastructure of the team is being rebuilt at every level of the system. The comments of big leaguers and top minor league prospects repeat a steady refrain: players are getting steady and sophisticated feedback that has helped them incorporate new tools to aid their own development as pitchers and hitters.

This does not mean that the team is ready to contend right now. What we are seeing is the adding of layers of good quality depth at every level of the minor league system. The major league team has a few quality starters that figure to play a long-term role in producing a winning roster for years to come. However, for that to happen, potential star players need to be added to the mix. This current system, from the majors to the minors, is producing good talent widely distributed. But the few potential stars or superstars has kept the rankings (and future ceiling) of big league competitiveness lower than it will take to challenge the top clubs in the NL East, namely the Phillies and Mets. The Braves are having a rare poor season, but I would expect them to pivot relatively quickly to a playoff caliber team again in seasons ahead. The Nationals are in a bit of chaos now, lagging behind the Marlins, especially in pitching development.

The building blocs for future Marlins playoff teams are readily identifiable: Eury Perez and Agustin Ramirez are foundational type players. These two potential stars or superstars will soon be complemented by catcher Joe Mack, who is back to dominating at AAA. Meanwhile, the good players poised to continue to produce value for the big league club: Kyle Stowers, Griffin Conine, Otto Lopez and Xavier Edwards. I love the rapid development of OF Jakob Marsee, one of the players acquired in the Luis Arraez trade, whose skills are elevating across the board at AAA Jacksonville with ongoing high on-base percentage bolstered by improved contact rates, more power, great baserunning and basestealing, and good defense at the corners. His emergence makes the trade of Jesus Sanchez even more likely–see the excellent work by the Fish on First team on this. Dane Myers remains valuable to the Fish–probably more valuable with the team rather than as a trade chip, with his ability to play CF and produce solid offensive numbers.

The pitching staff of 2026 could be poised to elevate the club to greater heights: Eury Perez, the return of Ryan Weathers, the emergence of Janson Junk (signed to a minor league deal but now posting outstanding major league numbers), the eventual callup of Robby Snelling and the potential star-in-watiting Thomas White, alongside the return of Braxton Garrett, added depth with Adam Mazur, the return of Max Myer (though likely to be a bullpen arm going forward) and an entire corps of elite relievers being developed at high levels of the minors, to complement the excellent work of standout waiver acquisition Ronny Henriquez in the majors, gives the team plenty of room for maneuver at the trade deadline this year and going foward in the offseason and for 2026.

On less encouraging news, the fact that Sandy Alcantara has performed so poorly and that the best starting pitcher of 2025, Edward Cabrera, had to exit his last start with elbow fatigue, is very bad timing for getting good trade returns for these two….it will be interesting to see what the front office does at the dealine, given these circumstances.

Despite encouraging signs for the Fish, the warning cloud that hangs over MLB is the end of the current collective bargaining agreement at the conclusion of the 2026 season. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred is already doing battle with the Players Association in an attempt to divide the players from each other with the goal of pushing through a salary cap after 2026. That MLB owners never learn lessons from their past failures seems to be a given here. Manfred wants to convince the players that not having a salary cap has made them worse off in revenue distribution when compared to the revenues distributed to players in leagues that have salary caps. This is a false argument that conceals the extent to which the owners have taken advantage of the most restrictive reserve system in all of professional sports to drive down revenues distributed to the best young superstars. It is the 6-year waiting period for free agency and the caps on earnings through year 3 that has lowered the MLB players overall revenues in recent years, enabled by an ownership strategy of squeezing mid-level MLB free agents and relying on young, cheap, controllable players instead. I’ve written about this extensively for Just Baseball during the last owner lock out. I’m afraid my analysis will not be out of date at the end of the 2026 season, when another owner lockout looms:

https://www.justbaseball.com/author/ron-cox/

Who Will Bendix Trade?

Who is Peter Bendix most likely to trade before the trading deadline this year? What do I mean by a 2-3 year rebuild? And finally what outcome would indicate some level of success or failure? I’ll tackle each of these three angles below.

First, the players most likely to be dealt, based on whom is most likely to get a quality return, and I’m okay with all of these:

Anthony Bender

Ronny Henriquez

Jesus Sanchez

Edward Cabrera

Dane Myers

Liam Hicks

I am not opposed to listening on ANYONE, though as many have said: the untouchables would have to be Agustin Ramirez and Eury Perez. The key for me is to avoid a perpetual rebuild of a rebuild, the kind of churn where you fail to see much progress in wins and losses over the next two or three years. Even Bendix and Sherman made it clear, by their own admission, that another 100 loss season even this year would be disappointing—that was at this year’s fanfest, and was said outright by the owner and Bendix to kick things off.

If there is too much churn beyond the players I’m listing here, then the team is spinning its wheels. This list will already ensure another 100 loss season and that is okay as long as the return both deepens the depth in the farm system, adds a player or two that could be a star, and provides a mix of highly ranked lower level minor leaguers with major league ready pieces that complement what the Marlins have.

My definition of a short rebuild of 2 to 3 years is improvement in record and an identifiable core that we can envision as ready to be playoff competitive. I’m not being rigid or unrealistic here, just suggesting that in 2-3 years, let’s get past losing 100 games every season, or even 90-100 games.

And finally the owner needs to start spending more money in 2026. That means elevating payroll closer to what the Athletics did this year by bringing in free agents that were pricey but filled key needs. The Fish will have to do that for the starting rotation and will need to add a quality bat or two to make 2026 more interesting and productive for the club and the fan base.

State of the Marlins Update

A lot has happened since my last Miami Marlins post, so I wanted to provide some brief thoughts on aspects of the Marlins 2025 season, especially after the low point of losing to the historically awful Rockies twice, and before my wife and I take a road trip to see a Marlins game in Tampa on Saturday against the Rays.

My overall optimism about the new front office has not changed. I predicted 64 wins this year, and that looks about accurate, specially since there will be trades at the deadline. The Marlins should trade any and every bullpen arm that can command sufficient value—bullpen arms are the most volatile aspects of any team sport and therefore should face no restrictions in trade discussions—anyone should be available at the right price. I think that’s also true for Jesus Sanchez, whose value is as high as it’s ever going to be. These make sense as strategic trades.

However, the Marlins need to be very careful about how many of the remaining young core they part with. I’m not opposed to trading Edward Cabrera but the return for a pitcher who is controllable through 2029 would have to be very good, and would need to include major league ready talent. I’m not interested in trading young controllable major league talent for a bunch of great A ball prospects. The team’s timetable should not be 4 or 5 years, but instead 2-3 years.

To make the two to three year timetable workable, the Major League Baseball Players Association needs to keep the heat turned up on Marlins owner Bruce Sherman, who needs to spend a lot more starting in 2026. I understand not spending in 2025, because we needed to see which of these young players are part of the core over the next 2-3 years. To me, Stowers, Conine, Myers, Ramirez, Eury Perez qualify. Some are concerned with Stowers’ strikeout percentage, which is legitimate, and he will be prone to slumps, but he’s also shown an ability to make adjustments quickly and he will get better. He’s had a great year and should be a consistent 3 WAR player at least. I also like Otto Lopez at short, as early defensive metrics are good and if he can just hit close to league average, he’s good for 2 WAR a year. At the very least he’s young enough to be a capable asset for the team in a 2-3 year window, especially with the lack of SS options on the market. Xavier Edwards has been disappointing but I do like his overall value at 2B much better than at SS, and I think he will have strong second half. I wish the team would play Hicks more, but I can certainly understand trading him if the return is good, as the club has Joe Mack as the catcher of the future, and Ramirez has shown the ability to catch occasionally and be a productive DH otherwise.

The pitching staff of the next two years should include Weathers and Perez, but the rest is cloudy. Max Meyer has struggled mightily with his fastball, and that caught up to him dramatically in his last few starts. Given the thinness of Marlins pitching, even with promising Robby Snelling on the way, a struggling Alcantara is probably worth keeping rather than selling low, and Edward Cabrera may not be as easy to replace in the next two to three years as people assume. You can never have enough pitching, and most young pitchers fail. Thomas White is expected to be a front line starter but who knows and who knows when. So the team should be very cautious here when making more deals.

My criticisms:

The lineup choices and the handling of starting pitchers at times has been baffling. And the failure to trust Dane Myers against righties, even after proving himself as one of the best hitters, is frustrating. I like the bullpen management though.

Bendix needs to be more honest and upfront about direction of the team for fans. His interviews have to be among the worst I’ve seen from GMs, who are typically bad. He could learn something from how Dombrowski has always operated, even without resources.

Those are my thoughts for now, I’m always going to be a fan of this team in part because of the history of dysfunction which gives the Marlins an underdog status that will make it that much sweeter if this version of the team turns into a success story. There has been progress, but there needs to be more, and relatively soon….I’m a baseball fan, and the Marlins will always be on my radar but so will my other favorite teams like the Cardinals and Rays. I’ll end up focusing on the teams that are winning down the stretch if they are in the race….someday the Marlins need to join that group.

State of the Marlins Under Bendix

The clock starts this year on assessment of the new Miami Marlins front office, hired just a year and a half ago by Marlins owner Bruce Sherman. So far there are plenty of reasons to justify long-term optimism. The record this year is far less important than seeing if this first group of young players have a chance to stick with the team as it builds a solid core. The performance of position players are very encouraging.

Before he went down with a gruesome season-ending shoulder injury, Griffin Conine had picked up where he left off last year, providing perhaps the most balanced position player performance among Marlins starters: solid OBP, SLG, fielding, and baserunning. He will be ready in 2026 and should be an important part of the future. He’s proven he can hit lefties, which makes him an everyday player. The other standout is Kyle Stowers, who is mashing the ball consistently, is better at laying off the high fastball, and is drawing walks to supplement the extra base hits. He too looks to be a keeper and a solid every day starter. In addition, when Derek Hill was healthy, the outfield defense ranked near the top in all of baseball. Dane Myers is a solid contributor who has shown plus offensive skills and can play all three outfield positions.

On the infield, the situation is much more mixed. Connor Norby looks to be part of the core but still has work to do both at 3b and generating more consistent extra base production at the plate. However, at this point he’s an average MLB starter. Xavier Edwards has taken a step back and in my view is not a long-term SS. If he regains his hitting stroke, he could be viable at 2B. But it’s too early to give up on Otto Lopez, whose defense at 2B gives him value. 1B Matt Mervis is intriguing because of the power. The team needs to give him time to see if he can make adjustments to lower his high strikeout rate. It’s tended to be feast or famine for him.

Agustin Ramirez looks to be the real deal: the most exciting hitting prospect that the Marlins have on their roster in the Bruce Sherman era, and that includes Jazz, whom he was acquired for. Ramirez approach is exceptional in providing the full package of skills: good contact, on base and power—he hits the ball hard consistently. He most likely profiles as a DH/1B/part time catcher. AAA catcher Joe Mack appears to be the starting catcher of the future, as he excels in every facet of his game. Eric Wagaman was a good find, and has been a solid contributor as a 1b/3B and corner OF option, though he does have defensive limitations.

The starting pitching has been an unexpected disaster, with Sandy struggling mightily. However, reinforcements are going to help remake this rotation. Max Meyer has been stellar, mostly, and appears ready to be a top-of-the-rotation starter going forward. He will soon be complemented by Ryan Weathers and Eury Perez, both coming off injuries, and eventually Adam Mazur and high rising prospect Robby Snelling will be given their chances.

The bullpen has several high leverage relievers that have done well, paired with a group of poor performers who have tended to be used in games the Fish are losing. I have been very impressed with the way the manager and coaching staff have deployed the bullpen arms. This is a smart and very advanced group from both a coaching and analytic perspective.

Contrast how well the rebuild is going versus what is happening with the traded Marlins. With the exception of Jesus Luzardo and Tanner Scott, the rest of the former Fish have not been productive: Jake Burger is in the minors, Jazz is hurt again and is hitting below .200, Bryan de la Cruz is in the minors, Luis Arraez may have a good batting average but his overall production has not been very good, Josh Bell is hitting over 50% below league average. Yeah, the previous group was nothing to ever keep.

Overall the record for the first full year of the rebuild has been close to expectations, but the progress is evident when looking at how extensively the entire major and minor league system has been transformed. The front office should have a much better idea of what needs to be added in 2026 to make the team better and more competitive. That means Sherman needs to start spending money. It was fine to have a transition year to assess young talent, but the goal after this year should be measurable improvement of the on-field product.

I do expect things to start to take an upswing in 2026 and hopefully go higher in 2027, if the owners don’t lock out the players that year, which would be the season after the collective bargaining agreement ends after the conclusion of the 2026 season.

The Globalization of the Military-Industrial Complex

The U.S. military-industrial complex has grown over time, both domestically as a powerful lobby in U.S. politics, and globally, as a conduit for U.S. imperial expansion that has occurred in lockstep with the transnationalization of capital. I define the U.S. military-industrial complex as a constellation of powerful domestic interests within U.S. politics that includes military contractors, U.S. national security bureaucracies, and a bipartisan political establishment in both the U.S. executive branch and Congress that enables its systematic and long-term expansion. The growth of transnational capitalist investment, production and trade during the decades of neoliberal capitalism have increasingly linked the U.S. military-industrial complex toward global expansion, often supported by transnational capital—inside and outside the U.S., fusing the expansion of U.S. empire with the broader interests of transnational capitalist firms that benefit from U.S. imperial expansion.

Global networks of U.S. defense contractors, transnational capitalist investors and political elites have defined the terms of the expansion of U.S. empire. The U.S. military-industrial complex incorporates U.S.-based corporations that produce military weapons within a broader ecosystem of domestic and international alliance networks. Domestically, the complex includes a wide range of political bureaucracies, think tanks, domestic lobbies and bipartisan political support from the U.S. executive branch and Congress. Globally, the complex connects the interests of this U.S. domestic political network to transnational investment blocs that directly benefit from global militarization and the expansion of U.S. empire. As the most powerful sectors of capital have transnationalized their investment and production over the decades, the global expansion of the U.S. military-industrial complex has often functioned as a political, economic and ideological vehicle to advance the profit-making interests of transnational capitalist investment blocs.

Investment blocs refer to the political-economic networks of transnational capitalist firms, political actors, interest groups and ideologues that form across state borders in support of transnational capitalist expansion. The growth of U.S. empire is therefore intertwined with both global militarization and the transnationalization of global capital, which is enabled and promoted by the global expansion of the U.S. military-industrial complex, providing both structural and instrumental benefits to a range of global capitalist investors.

Structurally, the expansion of the military-industrial complex protects access to foreign markets within a system of transnational capitalist accumulation. Instrumentally, the global expansion of the military-industrial complex offers profit-making opportunities that include military production but also the inputs linked to military production through global supply chains and production networks. Transnational investment blocs have been central to a global expansion of the military-industrial complex as a vehicle linking the U.S. domestic interests comprising the military-industrial complex to a broader set of transnational interests that benefit from the expansion of U.S. empire.

Throughout the history of global capitalism, there have been rivalries between global capitalist firms over access to foreign markets, trade and investment. The trends of the past several decades are not a departure from the history of capitalist globalization, but instead are a specific manifestation of a long-term neoliberal reorganization of global capitalism that has its own iterations, tendencies and expressions. Corporate power within the capitalist state and through transnational organizations has been used to expand the opportunities for capitalist accumulation and profit-making.

The imperatives of global capitalist accumulation have led to a more intensive and structured system of globalized production, defined by political, economic and geostrategic competition between transnational investment blocs. Transnational investment blocs have battled over the terms of globalized production, specifically over which capitalist firms and investment blocs will be in the best position to profit from newly established and negotiated economic, political and geostrategic arrangements. Corporations have organized within transnational investment blocs to lower the costs of global accumulation and increase profits. By expanding globalized production, transnational capital has sought to reverse tendencies of the rate of protit to fall by securing more favorable global conditions for the transnationalization of capitalist production.

The U.S. military-industrial complex has been at the center of defining the geopolitics of global military, political and economic alliances between the U.S. and foreign governments, from the expansion of NATO to the U.S. militarization of the Persian Gulf to the militarization of U.S.-China relations. In each of these cases, military contractors within the U.S. military-industrial complex and transnational capitalist investors coalesced within transnational investment blocs to lobby for an expansion of global military spending. These transnational investment blocs advocated an expansion of militarization in Europe, the Persian Gulf and Asia to protect and advance the profit-making interests of sectors of transnational capital against threats from rival capitalist competitors and/or states that were perceived to be sources of instability.

Two recent articles highlight aspects of this complex. Ken Silverstein examines the expansion of the corporate intelligence firm WestExec Advisors that provides a revolving door connecting global corporate profit-making opportunities to positions within the national security bureaucracy:

https://www.washingtonbabylondc.com/p/recent-hiring-spree-westexec-advisors

Another article from the New York Times covers the staggering costs, $1.7 trillion over 30 years that the U.S. national security bureaucracy began planning in 2010, and is rapidly implementing to pay for a new fleet of bomber jets, land-based missiles, submarines, and thermonuclear warheads:

The Left and the U.S. Presidential Election

Every four years, those of us on the left are faced with the choice of deciding which wing of the capitalist party will do less harm to working people in the United States. For some, the answer is “none of the above” and third party or abstention is the response, though the fraction of the left that abstains or votes third party is very small—about 1-3% of the voting eligible population in most Presidential election years. Most of the left holds their collective noses and votes for the Democratic candidate, without much enthusiasm.

This November 5 I will check the box for the Democratic nominee for President Kamala Harris, with no illusions that her corporate-dominated party aligns with me in any fundamental way. There is only one purpose to my vote: to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. Dan Skidmore-Hess and I co-authored an article in 2022 that provided an assessment of the threat represented by Trump and his allies around the world. The article, titled “How Neofascism Emerges from Neoliberal Capitalism,” published in New Political Science, identified a global neofascist current that occupies similar terrain to 1930s fascism but is also different.

Like 1930s fascism, Trump poses an extreme threat to the working class in the U.S., with policies already being implemented by Republican governors to dismantle the political and legal architecture that enables the existence of labor unions. Trump also identifies immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals as specific threats to the “U.S. way of life,” invoking a nostalgia for the days of Jim Crow segregation—the real meaning of “Make America Great Again.” To the extent that there is a clear antecedent and inspiration for Hitler’s 1930s fascism, it was the Jim Crow segregation in the U.S., cited by Hitler himself as a model for part of the fascist program he implemented in the 1930s. These reactionary currents in American politics have roots that are deeply anchored in institutional racism, xenophobia, misogyny and homophobia, with the most recent manifestations being an all-out ideological war by the far right to censor educators who speak honestly about any of these issues. These are not simply Trumpian policies, but are anchored in the long history of conservative politics in the U.S., often aided and abetted by liberals. On immigration, both parties have practiced exclusionary and punitive policies toward immigrants who are systematically denied rights to asylum requests, in violation of domestic and international laws. Trump wants to take this further and create an expanded internal surveillance and detention apparatus to jail and deport undocumented immigrants inside the U.S.

Trump does not yet have the full-blown machinery to implement Hitler-style fascism, but if elected a second time he would have the potential to create such an apparatus—those on the left that reject characterizations of Trump as a fascist would be wise not to test their thesis by aiding and abetting a Trump re-election by refusing to acknowledge the very real differences between Trump and Harris. Also, there is evidence of a fascist support base among Trump’s most ardent supporters: mobilization for an attack on the U.S. capitol, encouraged by Trump, as part of an effort to illegally maintain power and to deny the results of an election; fascist-like networks and organizations whose members threaten poll workers and intimidate voters; Republican governors such as in the state of Texas who are using the police to intimidate and harass immigrant and voting rights groups as part of a sustained effort to eviscerate any democratic accountability and to focus hostility against minorities as opposed to sections of the capitalist class that they represent; and a well-mobilized effort to contest the 2024 election and try to reverse the results if Trump gets defeated.

The prison and border industrial complex gives money to both parties, but the biggest jump in the stock market after Trump’s 2016 election victory was registered in the stocks of private prisons and border security corporations. In addition, the oil and gas sector, despite being given more land for drilling by President Biden, is enthusiastically funding Trump just as readily as they engage in climate denial. According to the work of Andreas Malm, the oil and gas sector and more broadly the extractive sector, has aggressively supported a neofascist current in global politics, since their profits rest with unfettered accumulation of finite resources dependent on never-ending destruction of the environment, a set of policies enabled by a neofascist political current that traffics in climate denial, myth and lies. Hedge fund speculative capital has also gravitated toward Trump, especially those sectors of financial capital who want to weaken all existing financial regulations and restrictions (this sector of speculative finance supported Brexit as well). Neofascism, then, incorporates sections of capitalist interests that combine aggressive domestic militarization, policing and accelerated detention of immigrants, minorities and the poor (admittedly bipartisan but with explicit plans to create new and more extreme institutional capacity and enforcement under Trump), weakening or eliminating existing environmental regulations, loosening regulations and taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and cooperating with a neofascist group of religious organizations to sever barriers between the state and organized religion: the outlines of a neofascist theocracy are apparent.

This neofascism is not to be confused with the big state capitalism of the 1930s, where fascists like Hitler built a militarized machinery into an ever-expanding state that sought total victory over its opponents at home and abroad. Instead, this neofascism is indebted to neoliberal capitalism, whose global corporate-funded think tanks have long supported many of the policies being advanced by Trump. These include a radical expansion of “free enterprise zones,” tax havens, increased corporate subsidies, and replacing public infrastructure with for-profit corporate infrastructure, funded at considerable taxpayer and working-class expense. In the words of neofascist ideologue and Trump advisor Steve Bannon, the goal is the “deconstruction” of the capitalist state to enable more unfettered profiteering, crony capitalism and unaccountable acceleration of climate destruction and targeting of already disenfranchised poor communities underscored by a war on immigrants and minorities, alongside a frontal assault on reproductive rights. These are not “culture war” issues. They are class issues that are connected to a set of policies that would further weaken the capacity of the working class to mobilize, organize and defend their existing rights, let alone advance toward more ambitious working-class organization that is urgently needed to advance radical reforms capable of challenging the system of capitalism that gave us Trump.

The Democratic Party is not an ally of the left or the working class. The box that I will check for Kamala Harris is one that is tactically designed to combat neofascism and the movement that Trump represents. If I were not in a state that is somewhat competitive, I would most likely vote for a left third party or abstain, if only to express my moral opposition to the genocide being funded and endorsed by the Biden Administration and by Congress (it would just be a “moral” vote, as the genocide policies are thoroughly bipartisan, and that vote will change nothing). My vote for Harris in the state of Florida is not an endorsement of a Democratic Party whose militarism, anti-immigrant policies, corporate support base, and all-out support for Israeli genocide should be rejected outright by anyone that considers themselves on the left politically.

Indeed, Trump is far from an aberration. His emergence has deep roots in capitalism as a system of accumulation and the rightward drift of the policies of capitalist parties. Transnational corporations as the dominant economic and political powerbrokers within this system have more power within and over more capitalist states around the world than they have ever had in the past, which is a function of the wealth that they have captured in a global capitalist system, as well as an intensification of capitalism as a thoroughly global system of integrated production and value chains. As a result of more unaccountable corporate power, capitalist governments face a legitimacy crisis due to their incapacity and unwillingness to develop policies that give ordinary people a voice. These voters have turned to Donald Trump due to a combination of misplaced economic grievances, racism, xenophobia and misogyny that is a combined response to the increasing illegitimacy of the capitalist state.

Corporations that give money to, and have influence with, the Democratic Party are okay with the Biden economic programs that provide expanded subsidies to capitalist manufacturing and high technology production as incentives to create jobs in the U.S. The Biden infrastructure and CHIPS bills were justified by invoking China and Russia as global security “threats” (manufactured by the military-industrial complex) that required massive increases in military spending, buttressed by bipartisan support for an aggressive U.S. empire and what Kamala Harris called “lethal force” in a chilling phrase invoked during her DNC nominee acceptance speech, amidst the unquestioning and choreographed chants of “USA, USA” while a genocide underwritten by her administration is being carried out. Justified as a “strategic necessity,” the Biden administration provided lavish subsidies to corporations to encourage domestic investment. Though there were some efforts to attach these subsidies to pro-union policies, mostly they were designed to accommodate the amount of government expenditures thought necessary to get the private sector to produce chips and semiconductors in the U.S., to manufacture more goods in the U.S. (especially in “red” states), and to provide aid to corporations deemed to be leaders in an increasingly militarized global competition with China.

Yes, there were differences in the design of these spending programs compared to what Trump has proposed: much more money given toward addressing climate change, whereas Trump is in complete denial and has offered only the opposite: full steam ahead on fossil fuels and gas, and a direct attack on any support for renewable energy. Biden also has emerged as a much more friendly President to U.S. labor unions, both in his appointees to the National Labor Relations Board and his inclusion of at least some pro union and pro working-class reforms in his signature legislation passed by Congress. The most progressive of such legislation, by far, was the American Rescue Plan, which at least for a short-time, provided substantial decreases in child poverty—but it did not get renewed or expanded.

What is the strategy, then, to defeat Trumpian-led neofascism? The answer is only partly in preventing Trump from taking office. The best way to defeat Trumpism, which is broader and more deeply entrenched than Trump himself, is to be part of an anti-Trump organizing campaign that calls both for his defeat and for an economic populism that is capable of bringing working class and oppressed people together in mass organized movements from below. For me, that means working with grassroots labor activists and organizers, immigrant rights advocates, reproductive rights advocates and LGBTQ+ advocates to deepen the base of movements from below as part of a broad anti-fascist coalition. In order to be effective in defeating Trumpism, we must take on the corporate oligarchy whose privileges are systemic and entrenched in a militarized capitalism that is unsustainable. We have to vote against Trump while also opposing the bipartisan militarism, the genocidal bipartisan policies in Gaza, and the oligarchic privilege that has been the hallmark of both parties. We have to continue to build mass movements that are capable of being independent of the Democratic Party, but right now the left does not have the movement base nor the luxury of time to simply allow the worst outcome to happen on Nov. 5: a Trump victory which would make it even more difficult to organize and develop a mass-based alternative to militarized capitalism.

On Israeli Genocide

The Israeli slaughtering of an entire population is one of the most monumental crimes of this century. The level of moral outrage that needs to be expressed now is beyond what US society is capable of. Our diseased culture, our broken institutions and our utter lack of capacity for caring for each other is being translated into government support for genocide. The student encampments are one of the few inspiring symbols of resistance and hope. The solidarity and determination being shown by students to a cause greater than themselves is an inspiration to the best of our humanity.

I would love to have the clarity of insight to talk about “effective” strategies for stopping this genocide. I could prattle on about fundamental causes of US and Israeli militarism and their rapacious appetites for destruction. No doubt this is connected to the illogic of global capitalism, the geostrategic manifestations of a global system built on exploitation, oppression and pillage. The Israeli expansion of illegal settlements and the walling off of the Gaza Strip like an open air prison is now coupled with genocide and future plans to recreate Gaza as a capitalist playground for an expanded Israel. The fact that Israeli real estate speculators are openly advertising the opportunities for luxury living in Gaza once an entire population has been exterminated is illustrative of what this is all about.

Sometimes movements for change that are serious and long-term and facing seemingly insurmountable odds have to be morally centered. The expression of moral outrage is a crucial aspect of what fuels protest and why people are motivated by protest. That being said, this boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is also connected to a broader politics of anti-militarization that is focused on highlighting those who are complicit in this massive global crime. By demanding that universities divest from Israel, students are raising awareness of the genocide that is taking place. Students are also pressing universities to open their books to show us how deeply they are connected to a broader system of militarization, one whose tentacles extend so deep into US society that they tie us to a global system of violence that eviscerates more humane solutions for solving problems that are existential for human survival. The fact that BDS has grown in purpose, intentionality and linkages to domestic and global networks of anti-militaristic solidarity should inspire hope.

Critics of the student encampments are led by those who want to justify and perpetuate the genocide that is taking place. The fact that our ruling class is so united in providing daily support for a genocide is deeply revealing about the depths of depravity in our capitalist system. The use of McCarthyist tactics to accuse anyone who protests as being a Hamas supporter is the kind of lowest common denominator tactic that has long been used to prop up bipartisan political support for a never-ending warfare machine, also endorsed by both political parties. Joe Biden’s supply side liberalism, somehow labeled as “progressive” by clueless liberals, has mainly been a massive giveaway to corporations to beg them to invest in needed social infrastructure, including to some extent green energy technology. The political exchange for getting this legislation passed: guaranteeing an expansion of oil exploration as a quid pro quo for getting political support for massive corporate subsidies.

The attempt to leverage the interests of capital in spending taxpayer money to get them to do some of what is needed to address the climate crisis expresses the utter lunacy of the system. Of course, as part of the expanded bipartisan spending bills championed by Democrats and supported by some Republicans is another central justification: they tell us we have to spend as part of a broader militarization of U.S. society necessary to prepare for war against China. This is a return of military Keynesianism on a massive scale. Corporations because they are profit-making machines cannot solve humanity’s problems. Instead, we prop them up with corporate welfare that is then linked to scenarios of World War III.

The U.S. and other global capitalist states that have disproportionate power within an increasingly militarized and destructive political and economic system have no real answers for the crises that they have created and that they perpetuate. As corporations fail to invest in what societies need, because that is fundamentally at odds with their purpose, we shower them with money and use militarization and policing and “security” as our justifications. The hollowness of this system is being perceived by young people setting up encampments. On this day, I am grateful for at least some expressions of disgust, opposition and moral outrage at a bipartisan capitalist system that has long ceased to work for the vast majority of us, and is now openly embracing genocidal crimes.

Favorite Films of 2023

There were some great political films released last year, including my top two: Killers of the Flower Moon and The Old Oak. Killers is one of the classics of Martin Scorsese’s prodigious career, and Old Oak may be the last film in the career of Marxist director Ken Loach, whose work with screenwriter Paul Laverty has produced some of the great political films of all time, including his latest.

Scorsese’s film has an unrelenting intensity that closes in on the viewer. The conspirators, led by rich landowner William King Hale, played with chilling calculated brutality by Robert DeNiro, orchestrate a series of grisly murders to capture the wealth of targeted Osage families. The focus of the conspiracy is the marriage of Hale’s nephew, Ernest Burkhardt, played wonderfully by Leonardo DiCaprio, to an Osage woman, Mollie, played brilliantly by Lily Gladstone. Their marriage and relationship intersects the mass killing spree undertaken by whites to seize the wealth of the Osage. Powerfully developed to maximize the feeling of being witness to a slow-motion horror show.

Old Oak is set in a village in northern England inhabited by former miners whose lives were decimated by the defeat in the miners strike in Britain during the 1980s. The residue of that defeat gets translated in different ways by the villagers, as they encounter Syrian immigrants who arrive in town. One former mine worker, played beautifully by a non-professional actor, Dave Turner, who has had smaller roles in previous Loach films, decides to befriend the Syrians, only to suffer the blowback from his old friends, who want to blame immigrants for their problems. The ending is powerfully optimistic regarding the potential for forgiveness and solidarity.

The third film on my list, Tar, is by director and screenwriter Todd Field, who crafts a story about a famous musical conductor, Lydia Tar, that manages to tackle the relationship between power, fame and artistic achievement through a profile of the conductor herself. Cate Blanchett is brilliant in the lead role, showing the psychological depth and breadth of Tar’s rise and fall.

My fourth film, Anatomy of a Fall, is one of the most exceptional and psychologically complex explorations of a decaying marriage through the depiction of the aftermath of either a murder or suicide of the husband (the viewer is left to figure out which, in part through the mind and words of the couple’s son and through the riveting courtroom proceedings). The director and writer, Justine Triet, has a profound talent for writing realistic, complex and gripping dialogue, coupled with the skill of framing scenes to maximum effect, that produces a roller coaster ride of emotions that are well-earned. A true masterpiece.

The fifth and last film I rated a perfect five stars is Aftersun, directed and written by Charlotte Wells about the memories of a woman who recounts a bittersweet weekend spent with her dad, through photographs and moments that capture their special bond but also traces an emotional distance that would widen with a tragic end. This is a poignant, complex and deeply moving personal story that I’m still thinking about long after seeing the movie.

A Thousand and One is a well-crafted, emotionally intense narrative of a woman released from prison who takes a child that she claims as her own from foster care. The film has a depth and nuance which avoids cliches and stereotypical Hollywood endings. Teyana Taylor is amazing in the lead role, surrounded by a stellar cast and direction that succeeds in capturing the political economy of Harlem through the decade of the 1990s and early 2000s, when gentrification and stop and frisk policing operate as a stranglehold on impoverished communities. Brilliantly directed and written by A.V. Rockwell, whose perceptive, evocative sense of character and place is evident is the way she frames scenes between the main characters, allowing them to develop organically so that you get a real sense of the passage of time.

Here is a complete list, which includes some films made in 2022 which I saw this past year:

Favorite Books of 2023

This past year was rich in scholarship. A few of these books were published in 2022, but I read them this year and felt they had to be on this list since they were so compelling. That includes the first two, The Long Land War by Jo Guldi and Internet for the People by Ben Tarnoff. Guldi’s book is a magisterial account of the history of social, political and economic battles over ownership of land.

Guldi provides a sweeping overview of how colonial power structures, militaries, police forces and laws imposed from above, worked to expand control of land for the few, but in turn have been consistently challenged by social movements and revolutions from below, which have attempted, sometimes successfully, but often not, to redistribute landholding from the few to the many. Guldi is meticulous in identifying the historical patterns that have helped determine the winners and losers in the “Long Land War,” and as such, produces the first book of its kind to be written on such a large and inclusive historical and geographical canvas.

Ben Tarnoff also examines structures of power and domination within the history of the Internet, focusing on how public funding was used in the U.S. to develop the architecture of the Internet, only to transfer that architecture to private sector corporations for profit. Tarnoff offers compelling examples of efforts to fight back and create public alternatives to private sector domination of the Internet.

Michael Zweig, an economist and long-time organizer and activist, has written a gem of a book: one of the best introductions on how to think about the relationship between theory, practice, and building successful social movements. Instead of getting caught up in the counterproductive exercise of separating class from race and gender, Zweig articulates what should be a common sense notion for people on the left: advancements toward greater equality in each and all of these areas: class, race and gender, should be applauded. Zweig provides a useful roadmap of how to conceptualize the fight for social justice in a way that should be of use for a wide range of social justice movements.

Quinn Slobodian, whose previous book The Globalists tracked the origins of neoliberal ideology from the 1920s and 1930s to the present, examines how libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, have championed special economic zones as areas of uber-privilege for capitalist owners—free of any public accountability or democratic control. Within these zones, which have proliferated under neoliberal global capitalism, capitalist ownership enclaves determine winners and losers through monetary exchange, which then sorts out the successful from the unsuccessful based on private capitalist accumulation, absent intermediaries, other than—and this is an important caveat: a militarized and authoritarian state structure that serves to protect wealth from democratic politics. It’s an eye-opening account of the marriage between libertarian ideology and authoritarianism.

The other books on my list cover a wide range of provocative topics in a thoughtful and informed way. Christina Gerhardt offers a compelling account of the impact of climate change from the bottom up, profiling the islands that are slowly and steadily disappearing through the eyes and minds of islanders themselves. Malcom Harris examines the historical evolution of Silicon Valley, especially its connections to systemic racism and eugenics, the military-industrial complex, corporate welfare and corporate power blocs that have used their privilege to monopolize their positions in contemporary capitalism. Antony Loewenstein traces the history of the Israeli state from a militarized domestic apartheid to a global seller of weapons to dictatorships around the world. Gary Anderson has edited an important collection of articles showing how the creation and expansion of NATO has always been firmly grounded in the interests of dominant corporations and states, not so much in the interests of the public.

Jack Schneider and Jennifer Berkshire have written a must-read account of the corporate forces that have engaged in a decades long push to privatize public schools in the U.S. and the consequences of these policies, as well as the efforts to fight back. Will Bunch identifies the corporatization of universities, with less public funding, rising tuition and dependence on large-scale student debt, as systemic drivers of inequality in the U.S.

Kerry Howley in Bottoms Up examines the growing infrastructure of the U.S. surveillance state, especially its lack of accountability and its treatment of whistleblowers. Joe Posnanski is a beautiful writer of baseball history and his new book captures many of the joys of fandom.

Victor Lavalle’s Lone Women is a wonderful narrative that combines science fiction with social history in its story of an African-American woman homesteading from California to Montana in the early 20th century in search of a new beginning, but also in possession of both a curse and a revenge for wrongs committed in the past. Ayesha Manazir Siddiqi wrote a science fiction novel about The Centre, a language institute that is capable of training individuals to speak any foreign language fluently within just a couple of weeks, but at a significant price.

Steven Conn’s Lies of the Land is a much-needed corrective to simplistic tropes about rural America. Conn argues that the same corporations that have dominated urban areas also prevail in rural America, from military-industrial corporations, retail chains, extractive industries, and manufacturing plants. There is a class structure here from which the politics follow, rather than just a disgruntled angry base that votes for Donald Trump. Naomi Klein has written one of her best books that captures the larger socioeconomic and political implications of identity creation, re-creation and marketing through social media, led by Klein’s own experience of being confused for Naomi Wolf, a deep state conspiracist of the far right. Gilbert Achcar has published a collection of his excellent and perceptive essays on the ways that the U.S. has used the post-Cold War period to entrench a set of expansive, militaristic policies in search of new enemies. Costas Lapavitsas has edited a book, The State of Capitalism, that has several worthwhile contributions useful for understanding trends in global corporate power. Evan Drellich examines the ethical bankruptcy of major league baseball’s Houston Astros by locating their cheating scandal within a larger use of baseball analytics in which winning becomes the justification for scrapping morality, not that this is terribly new or novel, but a compelling read.