MIM Notes No. 197	 December 1, 1999

Buchanan reveals fissure in ruling class

by MC5

On October 25th, Patrick Buchanan quit the Republican Party. Buchanan 
has served in the presidencies of three different Republican Presidents. 
He is best known as a press corps spokespersyn and has had jobs as news 
and opinion commentators on the major television networks of the United 
$tates. His leaving the Republican Party conforms to MIM's analysis of 
the dynamics of intra-ruling class struggle. The fact that he was so 
important in Nixon and Reagan administrations only exposes the U.S. 
Government as well.

On his way out the Republican door, Buchanan got himself embroiled in a 
controversy over World War II. According to Buchanan, England should 
have stuck with its Chamberlain policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1938 
and not sided with Poland in 1939. Then Hitler would have attacked the 
Soviet Union next and Amerikan soldiers would not have died fighting for 
Stalin--he says in his new book called "A Republic, Not an Empire." He 
wants U.$. soldiers only to fight for Amerika, he says.

In MIM Notes 96, January 1995, MIM explained, "Meanwhile, billionaire 
Ross Perot had said he would form a third party for sure as threatened 
if GATT passes. Hence, Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan, who ran 
television commercials opposing GATT--these two are fighting for a 
ruling class realignment in which a settler/Amerika-first bourgeoisie is 
the pivot and the internationalist bourgeoisie gets left as the junior 
partner."

The fact that Buchanan left his party to join up with Perot has proved 
MIM correct about one of the major forces really going on underneath the 
major parties' politics. The distinction between the Amerika-first and 
internationalist bourgeoisie is one of the few of interest to us. What 
we must understand is that Buchanan and Perot seek to represent the 
faction of the capitalist class that cannot compete internationally and 
is therefore unhappy with the post-World War II consensus of the U.$. 
ruling class for bourgeois internationalism. Their partners are the so-
called workers who want the U.$. ruling class to have an exclusive or 
monogamous relationship with them. Buchanan and Perot represent the most 
chauvinist section of U.$. workers that believe they could maintain 
their living standard without importing the cheap goods of Third World 
countries where workers average 50 cents an hour. These chauvinists 
Amerikans believe they are so much more productive than Third World 
workers that they will do fine without trading with them.

In April, 1996, we explained that Buchanan's ideology was national 
socialist--fascist. He won the New Hampshire primary in the Republican 
Party by singing the labor aristocracy song: "You cannot force American 
workers, who make 10 bucks an hour, 15 bucks an hour, 20 bucks an hour, 
to go into head-to-head competition with people who make a dollar an 
hour and 25 cents an hour. If you do, you will lose your working class 
jobs, and we've been losing them; if you do, your real wages will fall, 
and they're falling; if you do, your middle-class standard of income 
will begin to decline."(1)

With regard to our strategy in dealing with the same issues, MIM said in 
issue 130, of January 15, 1997: "1. WHY DON'T YOU OPPOSE GATT /NAFTA/ 
EEC/ APEC? Answer: At this time, MIM cannot lead a revolutionary class 
alliance on the basis of this demand in the imperialist countries. Quite 
the contrary, the KKK, AFL-CIO bureaucrats--and even more significantly-
-Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan and Strom Thurmond all oppose free trade. 
They represent the Amerika-first bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy 
afraid of losing jobs. The proletariat by definition is the class with 
nothing to lose and it is not threatened by the treaties between ruling 
classes. Capitalism was bad for the proletariat before any of these 
treaties existed."

Spade work for fascism

Buchanan stole the song of the social-democrats crying about free trade 
and the labor aristocracy in the dying industries. The capitalists and 
so-called workers from the distressed industries shared a common 
interest in protectionism and economic nationalism.

When Buchanan stole their song, the democratic socialists and social-
democrats did not change their song. They kept singing it louder than 
before and some wrote influential columns praising Buchanan. Some people 
such as Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman of the defunct New Alliance Party 
have joined up with him in the Reform Party and meet with Buchanan over 
lunch.(2)

MIM warned about this in MIM Notes 111: "The social-democrats, phony 
communists and other labor aristocracy representatives would like to 
deny that they have anything in common with Buchanan. They don't want to 
admit their responsibility for unleashing his movement because they see 
that the strongest movement against NAFTA and GATT and for 'American 
jobs' is also against immigrants, gays/lesbians, women and internal 
oppressed nations."

Once again, MIM is here to tell the Amerikan "Left" that it has not 
learned its lesson of history on fighting fascism. Rather than listen, 
the Amerikan "Left" goes on stoking up Buchanan's social base, so that 
he may reap the rewards of their work.

Holocaust denial

In October, in an ad campaign in the New York Times, the American Jewish 
Congress has renewed its condemnation of Buchanan and rightly so. 
Buchanan is part of Holocaust revisionism, the idea that the Holocaust 
of Jews never happened. Such revisionism is a favorite hobby of former 
and wannabe Nazis.

In the New York Post, Buchanan denied that Ivan the Terrible gassed Jews 
to death. His supposed weapon was too weak Buchanan said: "Diesel 
engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."(3)

This is not to mention Buchanan's other fascist social attributes 
including wanting to put a stop to immigration and not wanting to let 
homosexuals serve in his administration. In 1996, he won his campaign 
victory in Louisiana with the endorsement of David Duke, the former Klu 
Klux Klan leader still running a web page pointing to Nazi 
organizations.(4) His top campaign aid Larry Pratt attended neo-Nazi 
rallies and meetings.(5)

The Nazis seek to deflect all criticism of the white nations' parasitism 
onto the Jews. In this way, they can maintain white nation dominance 
while still admitting flaws in a portion of it. That's why Jews are 
accused of being "nigger-lovers." For this reason, we counter with 
Lenin's thesis that whole nations are imperialist parasites, not just 
sections.

Bourgeois internationalism

Leaving the Republicans, Buchanan slammed the two-party system. The fact 
that bourgeois internationalists dominate both parties irks Buchanan. 
Foolish middle-class activists correctly believe MIM is alienating the 
middle-class by using the word "imperialism." Yet in this day of open 
ruling class conflict, "imperialism" is not just a word for proletarians 
anymore.

The capitalist class is now openly and consciously aware of what is 
happening. On October 8, Investor's Business Daily reported as its lead 
headline "Is It Isolationist or Imperialist? GOP Debate Over Foreign 
Policy Opens Party Rift." Spokespersyn Mark Pfeifle of the Republican 
National Committee admitted Republicans are not "all on the same page" 
in foreign policy at the moment.

No doubt the Amerikan "Left" will be fooled by Buchanan's new-found 
anti-imperialism. Speaking for the bourgeois internationalists against 
Buchanan, conservative magazine editor Irving Kristol said U.S. policy 
should be "'Benevolent global hegemony.'"(6) Speaking of Buchanan, 
Kristol said honestly, "'He wants the old pre-imperium Republic 
restored, which is not going to happen. . . We are not going to return 
to the pre-imperium state.'"(6)

At this time, Clinton has also stepped up the conflict on the question 
by making a major speech accusing Republicans of "isolationism" after 
they rejected an international treaty on atomic weapons testing. It is 
rare for bourgeois internationalists to be partisan on foreign policy, 
but the vote against the test ban was partisan and Clinton has now 
reached out to seize the entirety of the bourgeois internationalist 
faction, with some encouragement from its leading members. The bourgeois 
internationalists are not happy with the Republicans when it comes to UN 
dues owed by Congress, the test ban treaty and the Congressional 
Republican majority opposition to intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. 
Kosovo seems to have been the last straw for many Republicans in 
Congress who probably thought they were bourgeois internationalists 
before. They do not like the soft, "peace-keeping" side of bourgeois 
internationalism. At the same time, the peace-keeping role is in keeping 
with some Pentagon interests, interests that wish to find something to 
do to justify its expenditures.

We deem it unlikely that Clinton will manage to seize the whole 
bourgeois internationalist faction for the Democratic Party. Especially 
with the ejection of Buchanan from the party, it's likely that the 
Republicans will find some way back into the fold, even if it means some 
Republicans lose their seats in Congress to be replaced by other 
bourgeois internationalists. At the same time, if Buchanan succeeds in 
the Reform Party, we cannot rule out that other Amerika-first Congress 
members will follow Buchanan into the Reform Party.

Anyone who reads Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" will remember that Hitler 
too started in the 1920s by saying Germany should focus on its own 
republic and not pursue empire like England. He designed his party to 
appeal to elements of the German "Left." Three or four out of five of 
his platform planks would seem unobjectionable to the chauvinist 
Amerikan "Left." 1) End corruption. Support campaign finance reform. 2) 
"Protecting American jobs." 3) "Keeping our sons & daughters out of 
war." 4) "Protecting our borders."

Buchanan cannot deliver on his anti-interventionist foreign policy 
anymore than Hitler could. Buchanan would come to power with capitalist 
and labor aristocracy backing and would adopt a more aggressive and 
chauvinist policy in order to bail out the industries and workers he 
represents.

Only a proletarian-led united front has the proper self-interest to 
bring down U.$. imperialism, end interventionism and create solid 
conditions for world peace. Proletarians have nothing to lose but their 
chains and do not have jobs in imperialist war industries or make profit 
selling bombs. Those that tolerate the competition of the monopoly 
capitalists as part of a "free market" cannot hold back imperialism. As 
an interest group, the imperialists must be abolished or there will 
always be war. It is the proletariat that does the dying and paying for 
war while the imperialists profit. Since Buchanan is an imperialist 
politician trying to cover for his class, he will never admit this.

Notes: 1. Patrick Buchanan, spokesperson for the labor aristocracy as 
quoted in New York Times Feb. 20, 1996, p. A15. Readers can see our 
article on the subject at http://www. 
etext.org/archive/etext/mn/mn.php?issue=111 2. USA Today 27Sept99, p. 2a. 
3. New York Post, 17Nov90. http://www.realchange.org/ holocaus.htm 
diesel 4. MIM Notes 110, 
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn.php?issue=110 5. 
http://www.realchange.org/ buchanan.htm staff 6. Investor's Business 
Daily 8Oct99, p. a26. 7. 
http://www.gopatgo2000.org/library/issues/issue4.htm