In 90% of the world's countries and historical situations, our critic is right, just not in the case of u.$. imperialism and imperialism today generally. In most countries, it makes no sense to insult the majority of the population or tell them to their face that they are today's equivalent of Nazis or other repugnant national or racial supremacists.
George W. Bush is repeatedly mentioning the word "appeasement" when speaking of those who oppose war on Iraq. The term "appeasement" referred to England's stance toward Nazi-leader Hitler in the 1930s. It arose when Neville Chamberlain made a deal to let Germany take over Czechoslovakia and turned down a Soviet offer to attack Germany in unison instead. It's a measure of poor high school education and the twisted nature of Amerikkkan "thinking" that this Bush tactic is even politically conceivable and not a source of embarrassment. Saddam Hussein is not occupying other countries right now. He is gone from Kuwait. It is George. W. Bush playing the role of today's Hitler by moving to occupy Iraq (Czechoslovakia). It is others who tolerate Bush who are "appeasers." It is the countries who oppose Bush but do not put their militaries on the line to stop him that take the role of appeasers in 2003.
Our critics would be right about not insulting the Amerikkkans, if what we needed today is to run a candidate for office. Many advise us to join the left-wing of the Democratic Party and then seek numbers to back that "left-wing" up. Obviously, one cannot insult the "Amerikkkans" and then win an election, at least not in the short-run.
The thinking behind elections is behind most of the questions MIM receives regarding organizing in the united $tates. The media focuses all attention on Congress and presidential candidates when it comes to politics. Much of the media cannot operate outside the few questions judged important in electoral politics today. That is one reason MIM insists on building independent media and other institutions as the best thing we can do right now.
Hence, the first scientific question is: can world peace come about by winning an electoral struggle inside the Democratic Party and other such parties globally? MIM says: "No, it is not concretely possible to achieve internationalist peace through the Democratic Party and winning elections as they exist now." People in the anti-war movement right now need to ask themselves over and over again: is their goal to elect someone or to obtain peace? These questions are not one and the same. We have to work on our ideas about power and power struggle. Ask the Spanish people: only 13% support the war on Iraq, but the government still managed to endorse Bush. That has to do with the power struggle by the other 87%. It is not just a question of getting numbers.
Over 90% of Germans supported Hitler to the bitter end. In such a circumstance, organizing for an election or to find more "moderate Nazis" misses the point. The Germans were going to have to go through a most difficult transformation even to support a non-Nazi party. That is the kind of situation we have in the united $tates, not for one party but for a system of imperialism. It would do no good not to call Germans "Nazis" to avoid insulting them and likewise it does no good to let Amerikkkans and similar European imperialist country populations avoid the truth about their ugly war-mongering nationalism.
Telling a country's majority to their face that they are politically ugly enemies of the world's people becomes especially necessary in some historical contexts. Ingratiating tactics can only help when they achieve a goal worth the cost of the tactics. In the case of the united $tates, England and I$rael, the truth is the key. It is impossible for the populations of these places to reform their thinking if no one tells them how far off it is from what is necessary for global peace and economic cooperation. The alleged "scientists" wishing to spare the feelings of the Amerikkkans, British and I$raeli$ do neither the world nor the imperialist country chauvinists themselves any favors. They only slow down what has to happen.
Most people in the world can raise their proletarian consciousness and say "I used to be a ready dupe of the imperialists and local reactionaries and then through political struggle and study, I overcame naivete and other kinds of false consciousness."
In the Western imperialist countries, the average Joe should face the socialist future more like this: "I used to be an enemy of the people. I am still working to overcome my tendencies to national chauvinism and violence toward the Third World people. I actively voted for imperialists and avoided countless chances at political education in the interests of peace, because I used to believe my country could escape the consequences of imperialism. I used to speak for throwing immigrants out of the country and I believed jobs were being sucked out of my country; even while the communists said their goal was to employ the whole world, I scorned them and wrapped myself up in a petty struggle to deprive others of jobs. I acted on economic fears instead of taking up the confidence the party advised me to have in economic matters both as a matter of truth and international peace. I vaguely knew that my government was killing people around the globe on a daily basis, but I happily preferred to watch "Married with Children" instead of raising my own political consciousness and figuring out how to oppose my government. In a word, I expressed my political and cultural contentment with a genocidal system headed for environmental disaster. Even though I had not been paying much attention to politics, I leaped up after 911 to call for war on Afghanistan. Again I quickly expressed fear and aggression but without much knowledge. The lives of people in Third World countries meant so little to me that I did not bother seriously investigating the claims of the politicians I elected. I do not want to say that I was just ignorant. I had a chance to know more, but I preferred to take the most comfortable way out." That's what a self-criticism of an enemy might look like. Self-criticism and transformation cannot succeed if revisionists take over and deny that Amerikkkans are enemies and no one asks that the Amerikkkans admit that they were enemies.
It's all fine to wish that 70, 80 or 90% of the people in every country opposed the war with Iraq. We could wish that the proletariat were evenly distributed globally. It is not--and that is a matter of not wishing away dialectical development. Life would be simpler if the exploited constituted the majority in every country and merely had to come to some way of stopping their war-mongering rulers. The path to global unity would be much simpler, but since the time of Lenin we have had to adjust to the fact that a country can become a majority of enemies to the world's people.
We love all people active in the anti-war movement, as long as they are studying and working on the problem. However, we must say that there is no major organization other than MIM and possibly one other that recognizes anti-Amerikkkanism as necessary for global progress. The various liberals whether they are in the Democratic Party or parties calling themselves communist believe that it is OK to criticize Bush and the pro-war Democrats, but not the voters who tolerate or elect these scum.
The French are being pretty belligerent to Amerikan tourists these days, and that's an excellent thing. However, a survey shows that most French still stick with the tired old formula of blaming Amerika's "leaders" and not the "American people." The New York Times reported a typical and insightful poll this way: "Most noticeably anti-Bush were the French, three-fourths of whom said the problems created by America were 'mostly Bush,' while only a fraction 15 percent faulted America in general. Russia and Turkey were the only nations that were inclined to blame America in general rather than the president."(1)
This poll reinforces the results of countless other polls and the investigation of serious proletarian investigators. In the countries where a labor aristocracy predominates because that country partakes in global exploitation, the majority actively supports or covers for imperialism. The oh-so tough French still see this "just" as a Bush thing; even though at the very least we have to point out that a sizable minority voted for Bush, and one would think the Europeans could conclude something about a country with a sizable minority like that and an even larger super-majority that tolerates what Bush does.
In contrast, Turkey and Russia are two countries with more super-exploited and exploited people than the other seven countries in the poll mentioned by the New York Times. These two countries correctly blame "America in general" more than their Western imperialist counterparts. Only 15 percent of the French blamed the Amerikkkans in general. It will be impossible to build socialism with active imperialist country participants if the imperialist country populations continue believing such things about themselves.
The source of difference, the reason why most countries are more than 80% opposed to the war while some countries are more evenly divided is that some countries have large middle classes that benefit from imperialist exploitation. Newsweek admitted that anti-Amerikkkanism has spread very far since 911. "In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning."(2)
Coincidentally, as MIM has pointed out before, I$rael is another imperialist country with a "settler" base like the united $tates. However, in England, support for Amerikkkan war has ranged in the high 30s to the 40s. Meanwhile, in countries like Hungary, opposition is in the 80% range, even if the UN endorses the war.
Recently, I received a letter from a young Khmer (Cambodian) from a U.$.-lackey family who was seeking someone to stand in for the Khmer Rouge, so he started criticizing MIM as if we were the Khmer Rouge. He told us that people could be punished under the Khmer Rouge for having a Disney book. We can see that the aim is to create some kind of strange arbitrary image of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yet, there is a real question here. MIM does not think the world should oppose rock music just because Amerikkkans and British are the main or original producers. Rock music is a form that any country can adopt and actually using electricity in music to its full effect is an important aspect of modernization for any country. On the other hand, a boycott of all Amerikkkan and British music may be entirely appropriate. I have to scratch my head: Amerikkkans are bombing your country (Kampuchea) and you expect your parents to be trusted when they give you (as a child) Disney books to read in the midst of that. Where there is no war, there is no big deal, but where there is war, a child may want a Disney book, but parents should know better as a matter of an adult and realistic sense of priorities. Scoring points against MIM over a Disney book while not rebutting that the united $tates cut off food aid to Kampuchea in 1975 shows a twisted sense of priorities befitting only of lackeys.
The Third World is in the underdog position. For the Third World to correct Amerikkkan imperialism at the source, some "excesses" are going to happen. We should not dampen anti-Amerikkkanism, but instead fan it until decisive change comes about. In San Francisco, activists are talking about shutting down 70 buildings and institutions when war with Iraq starts. Yet, in Indonesia, the masses are talking about shutting down U.$. business operations.
The Indonesian proletariat should shut down Freeport and Exxon-Mobil(3) without fear that declining profits or merely shuttered business will cost Amerikkkan "workers" their jobs. The bourgeoisie constantly seeks to dull the struggle against u.$. imperialism by painting some sympathetic picture of the average Amerikan, but it's just more war propaganda: there is no Amerikkkan proletariat. Amerika is one large exploiter mass.
The rising tide of anti-Amerikanism (and not just anti-Bushism) is a correct and just expression of the global proletariat. Increasingly that expression leaves behind the politically hobbled calling themselves "Marxist." Anti-Amerikanism is a vague but broadly correct sentiment based in the precise economic reality that Amerikans and their closest allies benefit from exploiting the rest of the world and that the Amerikkkans are the main prop of that international order of exploitation.
Notes:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/politics/19CND-POLL.html
2. http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KB10
3. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-070053-4046r