|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ironically the ruling class formula shades into opposing religious fundamentalism, which includes Christian, Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism. In partisan politics, the formula leads to the legitimacy of the Democratic Party which has a small minority share of Christian fundamentalist voters.
As funding from the Soviet Union dried up, Gus Hall's "Communist Party" accepted new alliances. In the ground invasion of Iraq, the "CP-USA" covered for it with an elaborate opposition to the war combined with support to a fraternal party that took a seat in Bush's puppet regime.
At the moment, it is the turn of another fake communist party to prove its loyalty, yet again. The "Revolutionary Communist Party-USA" makes noises about opposing Bush and fascism and even war on Iran, while its sister party actually prepares defeat of Iran, with Amerikan zombies as a cover.
Both parties took the wrong line on the labor aristocracy; both parties changed their lines on Democrats and both parties are serving Uncle $am in neighboring Third World countries.
Branding strategy for imperialism
Just as a multinational corporation with a reputation with customers sometimes manufactures and sells products under a different name, the imperialists seek to control their opposition to the extent that opponents only attack the subsidiary brand, not the parent company. The imperialists seek to corral opposition into legitimate two-party channels.
Emphasis on Bush, the man plays into the imperialist branding strategy. When Bush is gone, all the opposition built to him will also be gone--effectively diffused. Now the political activists will have to start anew, with questions such as "who is that?" when a new president or congressional majority comes to power.
Appealing to the vanity and subjectivism of the tiny number of communists, the two-party system says that those communists are a good enough reason not to generalize about u.$. imperialism. In contrast, we in MIM organizations inside U.$. borders are anti-Amerikan; even though we are Amerikans. There is especially no Euro-Amerikan proletariat worth considering on the question of anti-Amerikkkanism. The generalization about anti-Amerikanism is far more accurate than not.
Defeating lackey fascists of imperialism and autocrats inside u.$. borders
The Democratic Party tolerates the Republican Party and it cannot do otherwise with its basis in the oppressor nation white middle classes. We do not consider it to be real anti-fascism to oppose fascism just inside u.$. borders. That leaves out support for fascist Third World lackeys by the Democrats, people such as Marcos, Arroyo, Pinochet and the like supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
True, inside u.$. borders, the Republican Party can claim part of Dimitrov's and Stalin's definition of fascism by being the "most reactionary segment of finance capital." There is a case to be made for that, but not for the idea that it has imposed its rule openly. There is a still a two-party system. It's still more like a "rule of both sections of finance capital." The problem with the focus on Bush and Republicans is that these complaints could be gone after the election in November. Had Bush thrown Democrats and large sections of the CIA and State Department in prison, we might have to see differently. That would be a good case for the open dictatorship of the most reactionary section of finance capital.
The united $tates and similar countries have petty-bourgeois political diffuseness and we can count on that. We need to saddle the imperialists with their petty-bourgeoisie while we oppose them both. The position that we should adopt the imperialist branding strategy is a failure in strategic confidence in the international proletariat. Whether an all-Democratic Party government or an all-Republican Party government, the united $tates is the principal enemy of the world's people. We must reason from that certainty. There are no parallels from the 1930s and 1940s in that sense, because the contradictions then and now are too different.
When Bush calls for military tribunals run by the united $tates for the rest of the world and also internally, he is creating the impression of Amerikans who have allowed themselves to slide to that point. Polls show that vast majorities of Amerikans do not believe so-called terrorism will ever be gone. We also agree with over 80% of Amerikans that it does not matter which party is in power, because the terrorism and weapons of mass destruction question will go on. Neither Democrats nor Republicans as parties of capitalism can admit that it is they who are for the privatization of the nuclear weapons industry, even moreso than the Kim Jong Ils of the world, so this problem looks set to go on as it is for the strategic future.
The reactionaries and their military tribunals, secret prisons and torture should have been impeached long ago. No one of importance that MIM has seen is saying the "war on terror" will be won on a quick basis like World War II. What the u.$. rulers are doing is a permanent suspension of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
The rulers should have been impeached before they reached this point--after the disclosure of surveillance on Amerikans for example. The fact that Bush and crew were not brought to justice legally before now proves something about the Amerikan population in general, not just Bush. For example, Democrats never ran on a platform of impeaching Bush and defending the Bill of Rights against permanent suspension in the "war on terror." Democrats are too afraid of alienating Bush voters and their own voters, just as social-democrats in the 1930s and even during World War II were afraid of working with communists or saying anything too direct about Hitler. That is the nature of electoral politics in imperialist countries today. If the voters were there to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights against permanent suspension in the "war on terror," the Democrats would have grabbed them.
In the Third World countries, we believe it is falling for the branding strategy and confusing our class to oppose Bush, fundamentalism and fascism as politically principal. We do not insist on this point, because each party must decide how to handle religious fundamentalism in its own country. In terms of preventing imperialism and setting it back, anti-Amerikkkanism is what does the job.
Our prisoners were willing to call the united $tates "fascist" back in the 1980s, from the beginning of MIM's existence. If they are right and our other critics are correct, then MIM is "right opportunist" for not launching the armed struggle against fascism. MIM sees no reason to turn the word "fascist" into a Democratic Party swear word with a new meaning. It's not even clear which party has a bigger wing opposing the "Patriot Act" for example, as Republicans often draw the libertarian votes. Again, had Democrats opposed the "Patriot Act" instead of co-sponsoring it and had they ended up with a rump thrown out of Congress, we would have to change our analysis.
If Republicans win the 2006 elections, there will be temptation to push on with a fascist agenda. The case for "fascism" would be that the Democratic Party wing of finance capital is comatose and does not have to be openly dictated to. There may be no reason to dictate to a corpse. That judgment has to be made at that time.
If Democrats in 2006 win, Bush may still try to rope them into his agenda or even impose it. Again that judgment has to be made then. We cannot spread divisive ideas about that before it happens.
There are those who believe the Democratic Party has a proletarian base to it. These people believe a proletariat of hundreds of millions could be an inert object. This is even worse than saying German Social Democrats in the 1930s had a working class base. Moreover, there is no socialist camp to defend or even a bourgeois-led Third World liberation army coming forward. Unless Bush represses the other sections of finance capital and even if he does, it will be hard to come up with a more effective strategy than anti-Amerikkkanism.
Most of the world knows what it thinks of 90% of Germans for not overthrowing their Nazi government in the 1940s. Sometimes it just happens that 90% of a country has to be condemned.