| Theory |
|
Next: Christian Fascism? December 18, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
There's been a good deal of despair, not to say hysteria, in the aftermath of Bush's "re-election" among many "leftists" in the United States.
Some are now "predicting" the advent of open "Christian Fascism". This is an exchange on that possibility and what it would imply.
===========================================
quote:
I think we need to discuss/debate what comes next...
Well, one question we could begin with is: has anything really changed as a consequence of Bush's victory?
Granted that the folks who put their faith in bourgeois elections are especially demoralized at the moment -- within a few weeks or months, most of them will be at it again (I've already run across "Hillary in '08" feelers).
In my opinion, the Christian fascists are going to be disappointed in the second Bush term -- the ruling class has more important things on their agenda than catering to those wackos. They will hear lots of Christian words but nothing much in the way of what they want to see happen. (It's said that John Ashford is "on his way out" as U.S. Attorney-General.)
The main challenge facing the American ruling class is still winning the war against Iraq...a war which they appear to be losing. (Two more lackeys, Hungary and Poland, have already announced their withdrawal dates.)
If a substantial anti-war movement materializes over the next four years, Iraq could be "the issue" in 2008.
But such a movement would have to be local and on-going; as we learned back in the 1960s, ritualized national demonstrations once or twice a year just don't cut it.
Perhaps what's needed to "kick-start" such a movement is a wave of campus and neighborhood "teach-ins" on Iraq...they played a big role at the beginning of the anti-war movement in the 60s.
It will be important for us to attack the idea of "bringing in the UN" as a cover for U.S. imperialism -- which it is and would be in Iraq.
Our demand should be: U.S. GET OUT NOW!
In a period when the left, especially the revolutionary left, is extremely small, I think a struggle against U.S. imperialism is the best way to bring us "back from the grave".
Educating large numbers of people about U.S. imperialism cannot help but "open them" to all communist ideas.
I leave out, of course, "unanticipated events"...which could dramatically alter this projection. An "economic crash" (always a possibility under capitalism) could change the political landscape in ways we cannot now foresee.
Further aggressive wars are also possible...as are popular uprisings in countries that are presently quiescent.
But if I had to put my chips on the table, I'd put them on the struggle against U.S. imperialism as the main focus in the present and near-term future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 7, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
We are in the rapids of history. Huge and historic changes are in the works. And (as part of that) there is also a real potential for reaching a whole different scale of people with communist politics, and also fighting through for a radically different political polarization.
One of the "occupational hazards" of Leninist parties is the conviction that we are always "on the edge of huge and historic changes".
Once in a while that's true (although some of those changes are negative rather than positive).
Once in a while the 50-1 shot romps home a winner at the track.
But if you steadily bet the longshots, you will lose your ass.
If you are always "predicting" that something "huge and historic" is about to happen, you will lose all credibility.
To be sure, it's an "exciting" message and may temporarily generate some enthusiasm that otherwise might not exist.
But what do you tell those people when "the huge change" doesn't materialize?
Or do you want to be in the position of burning people out and recruiting a fresh crop every few years? Has not the RCP yet grown weary of being a "revolving door"?
Do you want to build for "the long march" or are you still searching for the "quick fix" or the "magic bullet" that will catapult you to power?
quote:
Thinking all this is just "business as usual" is exactly wrong.
Perhaps...it's something that only time will reveal. But if the United States turns out to be unable to impose its will on Iraq, that may have some very serious consequences for the plans of the imperialists.
More than that I will not "predict"...nor should you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 7, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
First of all, "Leninist parties" are not a thing, we are talking about a specific party.
You will note that I offered what I thought was a constructive response in my first reply in this thread.
This was not satisfactory to the questioner...who launched into an apocalyptic vision of "end times" for capitalism.
Only then did I point out from experience what happens when Leninist parties do that...they lose credibility.
quote:
The ruling class talks of permanent war.
So? They've always waged it!
quote:
They have suspended habeas corpus for the first time since [the] civil war.
Big deal. Did you think the Constitution or the "Bill of Rights" was ever anything but window dressing?
Come on! You want to overthrow the capitalist ruling class in the United States...and you also "want fries with that"?
Look, anyone who's been paying attention knows that the U.S. has been "drifting" (with ups and downs) towards a fascist state since 1945.
quote:
And are about to install three or four new supreme court judges.
Who will do what such judges have always done.
Bad things.
quote:
When we say the America we live in will be fundamentally different (one way or another) than in the past -- it is not hype, or invention, or more of the same.
I guess it depends on your point of view...I think it will be "more of the same"...barring a totally unexpected major crisis of capitalism itself.
History will reveal who was "right" and who was "wrong".
quote:
Why are you incapable of actually answering an argument? Why do you drag the discussion to no where, by making arguments based on vague generalities -- not the real arguments and facts raised by others?
What are you talking about? The questioner asked (in effect) "what is to be done?".
I offered an answer...and neither he nor you evidently "liked" it. But neither of you offered a rebuttal or a serious alternative answer.
Instead, you both started sounding like Christians predicting the "rapture" and the "kingdom of the anti-Christ".
Or like drunks!
Where is your sobriety? Where is your clear-minded and thoughtful consideration of possible strategies for the next period? Where is your "long-range" outlook?
I also take note of your accusation that I "drag discussions to nowhere".
From what I can see, there are very few people who want to even discuss things with you at all.
Judging by the common reactions to "MLM" on indymedia sites, at Che-Lives, and even on this board, most people don't even want to bother "wrangling" with you...they apparently think "MLM" is irrelevant.
If it wasn't for me, who would you "wrangle with" on this board?
quote:
No armchair shit, man! Snap out of it! The future is now.
The future is always "now". That answers no questions.
I offered you an answer: that militant and sustained anti-imperialist struggle on the local level would be the "best way" to proceed.
If that doesn't appeal to your sense of "drama", then what do you think should be done?
And why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 11, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Do you not think that things are getting worse than they have been in recent memory?
Do you not see the bourgeoisie discarding more and more of their "legal" window dressing (bourgeois democratic rights, due process etc.) as significant?
There have been "changes in fashions" of legal "window dressing". The overall trend is that things gradually get worse.
Or are you suggesting a "qualitative" change for the worse? A "full-fledged" police state?
If so, you could be right...but if you are, then the answer to the question of "what is to be done" is obvious!
You must prepare immediately to go deep underground and then, in a very short time, do it! I won't presume to offer you advice on the details...you've read the books. Your model should be the KPD's resistance to the Third Reich...when the DHS kicks the door in, you're not there.
Your first priority is to save as many members and as much of your resources as you can.
Knowing the importance of your leadership to you, they'd be well advised to go into exile now.
As I said earlier, this does not seem to be a reasonable scenario to me at this time...but if you think otherwise, then you must act immediately.
And one other point that you're probably already aware of but should be mentioned anyway.
Back during the McCarthy era, communists and other lefties had a line that went "we are patriotic Americans too and our civil liberties are being trampled, blah, blah, blah."
Don't do that!
It didn't fool anybody (they still went to prison) and it reeked of whiny hypocrisy. The best thing they could have done was forfeit their bail, escape from the United States altogether, and use their exile to denounce the fake "freedom" of the Empire in plain words.
quote:
It's not just hysteria, they really are declaring war on the world.
I don't deny that their imperial ambitions are "boundless"...but consider the difficulties they continue to suffer in Iraq alone. Even resistance in Afghanistan is "perking up". It looks to me like every aggressive step they take lands them deeper in the quagmire.
Let's say, for example, that they start one more war against a relatively defenseless opponent (Syria? Cuba? Venezuela?). Now they have to bring back conscription...and how will the kids react? Especially how will poor Blacks and Hispanics react -- the people they count on for cannon fodder?
Towards the end of the draft in the Nixon era, ethnic minorities didn't organize politically or ideologically against conscription, they just quit showing up in very large numbers. I can't resist adding that this was a spontaneous response by the masses...no one told them to do it; they did it on their own.
Does the American ruling class want to "risk that"?
We could speak of other possible scenarios, of course. But we should not forget where the real power in America is...and it's not in the Oval Office. The American ruling class is a very sophisticated one and I don't think they are ready to "risk everything" to rule the world at this point.
But I could be wrong, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 12, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
There is a sharp need for clarity, communist politics and a fierce sense of urgency.
This is not business as usual.
We need to prepare ground and organize forces for revolution -- while uniting broadly to oppose, expose and beat back the Bush agenda.
We need to develop a hard revolutionary core, and a broad set of alliances and relationships that go far beyond "the usual left" circles.
That is "splendid rhetoric"...but I'm just an "armchair pragmatist" and would be curious as to what it means.
With whom do you wish to "ally"? What makes you think they want to "ally" with you?
For example, there are still a few Democrats who would like to "beat back the Bush agenda"...want to "ally" with them?
There are a wide variety of professional reformist groups out there who have "single-issue" differences with Bush & Company; do they (or some of them) look to you like potential "allies"? How do you think they would feel about an alliance with you?
When you say "going far beyond the usual left circles", who are you speaking of and why would they entertain any invitations from you?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that your strategy might be feasible for a group with 1,000 times as many members as the RCP has now.
You are acting "as if" you are "a player" in American political life...that you have real "forces" at your disposal to "throw into battle".
But the fact is, you don't. I read the story about the RCYB in New York during the RNC...less than 100 kids in a city of 8 million.
I know what you mean by "a hard revolutionary core"...RCP members are not going to get much sleep over the next couple of years. You're going to do your best to whip them into a frenzy of "fierce" activity on the premise that "huge and historic changes are in the works".
You'll burn them out, of course. That is what usually happens...people who might have devoted a lifetime to sustained revolutionary activity will become exhausted and conclude that "they're not good enough" -- withdrawing from politics altogether at best or drifting into some reformist racket at worst.
That will be a shame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 13, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I am tempted to answer these arguments by imagining a pamphlet:
1001 Reasons for Communists to do Nothing
by Redstar
I really appreciate your volunteering to ghostwrite a pamphlet for me...but I'd really prefer to express my views in my own words.
I'm sure you understand.
quote:
Revolutions just happen when the times are ready, he says. You can't really influence or change anything. So why try?
Karl Marx disagreed; he said that communists could act as "midwives" of the revolution, "easing the birth-pangs" of the new society.
He never suggested that communists were going to "have the baby".
quote:
The pessimism and defeatism of this is rather glaring...
SDS jumped from a few organizers to a vast mass organization overnight. And a few PLP members raised a huge interest and debate over marxism within the organization.
Yes, I remember those days fairly well...and the explosive growth in SDS surprised all of us.
So you are predicting "explosive growth" and I am "pessimistic" when I suggest that I see no evidence for this at this time.
Well, in a fundamental sense, you're "right"...if it happens. SDS didn't "make" the anti-war movement "happen" though it became an "attractant" for those who wanted to resist imperialism.
What you're really saying is that a united front led by you will serve the same function that SDS did.
My point is that you're taking a dangerous risk...the people who find your message appealing are going to be really demoralized if you're wrong. They will burn out.
If you raise people's expectations and hopes around a series of "imminent" developments that don't materialize...then you have really fucked them up.
They will become far more cynical than I "am".
quote:
I'm not going to answer every word, except to point out that redstar always ASSUMES that the struggle is going NOWHERE -- and so the only issue is how it is defeated and crushed and demoralized.
The translation of this is "redstar always assumes that things are going to take a lot longer than I do".
That's true...I think it will be 40 or 50 years (or more!) before there is a successful proletarian revolution in the United States.
Sure, you could be right and I could be wrong...but you've never offered credible evidence for your optimism. Just asserting that it will "happen soon" is, as I indicated earlier, equivalent to the Christians talking about the "rapture" and the "emergence of the anti-Christ".
I know that there are those who argue that people "wouldn't do anything" unless they were motivated by a strong psychological optimism and a sense of "imminent victory". Probably you can't understand why a "pessimist" like me is even interested in communist ideas...since I clearly won't live to see the revolution myself, why should I bother?
Perhaps as a consequence of my age, I realize that great historical changes really do take a long time.
If you're really serious about a life of communist work, then you must develop a "long-range view".
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 14, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (Bob Avakian):
But a crucial point to emphasize here again is the imperialists have set things in motion that can't be easily reversed, and may not be easily controlled. And we can say with a great deal of certainty that at the end of all this--whenever and however what has been set in motion is finally resolved--things are bound to be and will be vastly different, not only internationally, but also within what has been the United States. Whether in a very terrible way, or in a very positive way in terms of the advance of the proletarian revolution worldwide, and perhaps even getting to the point where power is seized by the masses of the people in the U.S. itself--things will be radically different and the America we have known will not exist in the same way anymore.
So?
If it's going to be open fascism, then we're screwed. There's nothing even remotely on the scene in the U.S. that's comparable to the resistance of the KPD to the Nazis.
Can you picture the members of the RCYB beating up Christian fascists in the streets?
The streets of Dallas, that is.
On the other hand, if it's just "more of the same" (a "drift" towards fascism rather than a "drive" towards it), then it is, at least in principle, reversible (to some unknown degree).
Frankly, I don't think that clerical fascism is a viable option for the ruling class...however temporarily useful they might find its rhetoric.
In a fundamental sense, capitalism is secular...the maximization of profit trumps all other motives.
An openly "imperial ideology" is something that the American ruling class has yet to develop -- though they've been working on it. And it remains to be seen who will salute it when they run it up the flagpole...what kind of mass social base can they find which will enthusiastically support it.
Could we discredit such an ideology before it has a chance to really get off the ground?
Are the Iraqis discrediting it on the ground already?
Meanwhile, what is needed from groups that claim the "vanguard role" is more clarity. If something "urgently needs to be done", what is it?
It's no use asking people to feel "a sense of urgency" unless you have urgent proposals to put forward.
To say that "big things are about to happen" is not very helpful...or even interesting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 18, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
They need science, but they also need dogmatic and fascistic religion. They are clearly promoting, mobilizing and financing these religious fanatics, and hoisting prominent ones to power (including the white house itself).
In fact, if you think these Christian fascists are not getting a powerful wind from the system, its ruling class, and if you think they are not "proving useful" (more than in a short-term tactical sense, but in a way that went from the margins to the the centers of power) I repeat what others have said: "you are just not paying attention."
Hitler was also not a "perfect" fit for capitalism's many needs. He too was accused of "promoted irrationality," in a war effort that needed both hype, singlemindedness but also careful planning. Do you want to claim that Hitlerian Fascism also was not compatible with capitalism?
No one would argue that the Nazi variant of fascism was not briefly "compatible" with capitalism. Nevertheless, it was, in fact, "too irrational" to be useful for any extended period of time. The Reich was running into economic difficulties by the late 1930s; had there been no war, I think it would have been "reformed" by the 1950s or so.
In any event, we've seen that no other capitalist ruling class has seen any benefit to following that particular variant of fascism.
One could argue that the American ruling class is choosing to "pump up" Christian fascism because "it's the only game in town"...much as German capitalists picked Nazism.
Perhaps that's the "correct analysis".
Nevertheless, there are capitalist ideologues attempting to develop an "imperial ideology" that is entirely secular and "rational".
For example, you might want to have a look at Colossus: The Price of America's Empire by Niall Ferguson.
Ferguson, a newly-minted professor at Harvard, is evidently tabbed for "intellectual stardom" -- he's even had his picture on the front cover of Time as "one of the world's most influential figures".
Ferguson's thesis is a simple one: all human progress is a product of empire.
Thus American business and political leaders should not be "shame-faced" over imperialism but "proud of it" -- America has been chosen by history to be the torch-bearer of human progress in the centuries to come. Americans should openly embrace a mission to govern the world in the name of all that's "civilized".
He also thinks that America's rhetoric about "democracy" is both wrong and counter-productive; the rule of markets and corporations is what is really "worthwhile".
And so on. In my opinion, this is the kind of fascism that the American ruling class would find really useful -- if they could win a mass base for it.
And that, of course, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, you still think that Christian fascism is the main danger.
Ok, that suggests two possible frameworks in which opposition might be focused.
1. A furious attack on religion itself...especially Christianity. The "line" would be that it's all reactionary bullshit. Prominent Christian fascists would not be able to make a public appearance without being greeted with noisy, hostile, and at least moderately violent demonstrations. Rocks and bottles would be thrown, etc.
2. A "united front" with "moderate" and "liberal" Christians. The "line" would be that Christian fascism is "a deadly attack on Christianity itself". Nonviolent civil disobedience involving very large numbers of people would be the tactic that would most appeal to those folks...you could even conduct "sit-ins" at right-wing church services and directly "witness" against Christian fascism. If they set their goons on you, so much the better...their own following would get to see their "un-Christian behavior".
Don't imagine, by the way, that you can use both of those frameworks...you would quickly be "busted".
Now, I've offered you two constructive alternatives...two strategic frameworks in which to construct a resistance movement against Christian fascism.
What do you offer?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 19, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (RCP):
Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages.
Those who compare Bush to Hitler are right! But, don’t be waiting for people wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism is coming differently, and it's coming straight from the White House.
Ok, is this true?
Specifically, is it possible for an occupant of the White House (with the cooperation of Congress, the Supreme Court, etc.) to convert bourgeois "democracy" into a Christian fascist dictatorship?
What do the most powerful circles of the ruling class have to say about this? Do they favor it? Have they expressed their support for this transition?
The German ruling class in 1932 was in a state of crisis and genuinely feared communist revolution. The same was likewise true of the Italian ruling class in 1921.
Is the American ruling class in a state of crisis now? Or do they fear that one might be about to emerge...thus necessitating "drastic measures".
Then there are even more serious questions to be raised.
Assuming the RCP's analysis is a correct one, "what is to be done"?
The KPD in Germany in late 1932 prepared itself for fascism by going "deep underground". Party leaders moved to Switzerland. The "Karl Marx Haus" (the KPD headquarters) was abandoned. Public organizations associated with the KPD were dissolved. Funds were moved out of Germany. An underground network of the most trusted comrades was established.
As a consequence of these moves, the KPD was able to continue active resistance to the Nazis (on a limited scale) up through at least 1938. In that year, the Gestapo managed to smash the last large-scale underground ring...arresting over 3,000 communists (who were actually preparing large scale strikes against the Nazis, using the Nazi's own labor front as a cover).
So that's one option.
Another would be a strategy of direct confrontation with the Christian fascists -- every time one of them appears in public, he gets a "hot" reception from an angry demonstration...at least as long as demonstrations are still possible.
That's another option.
Finally, one could attempt to form a "united front" or even a "popular front" against fascism. That strategy would attempt to mobilize a large section of the population -- the "moderates" -- to resist the attempts to impose the fascist new order in whatever legal ways that remained in place. For example, "moderate Christians" could be organized to attend services at fundamentalist churches and "witness" against Christian fascism. This strategy implies, of course, that all propaganda and agitation for communist ideas comes to a halt -- stopping fascism is the only priority.
My "hunch" is that the RCP will go with some form of the third option...it's what Leninist parties in the west have done since 1935 or so -- only the KPD really used the first two options.
But we'll see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 9, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
That's an insightful reply Redstar building on what was posted and not immediately being cynical or tearing it down.
Well, it's not a wildly implausible (that is "wacko") analysis. There are some strong arguments that can be made in favor of the RCP's scenario.
It's rather like raising on a strong hand in poker...you're not "guaranteed" to be "right" (win the pot) but you have a very good chance of being right.
My own view is that the U.S. will continue it's "drift" into fascism...something that's been taking place -- with ups and downs -- since 1945. There's no objective reason for the American ruling class to permit a "drive" towards fascism...yet.
Unlike the case in Germany, bourgeois "democracy" has served well for over 150 years as a useful tool -- providing the appearance of popular sovereignty while keeping real power in the hands of the American ruling class and its political agents.
It's not something that they will lightly throw away.
Remember that when a ruling class goes over to open fascism, all the class conflicts that were "hidden" are now revealed...the "carrots" are mostly taken away and the stick appears naked and unadorned.
Another serious drawback of open fascism is the self-reinforcing drive towards military expansion. It's all well and good to "conquer" defenseless third-world "countries"...although holding on to them seems to already have given the U.S. imperialists a good deal of trouble with more in the offering.
But how long would it take a fascist America to provoke a major war with China or the EU? Or both?
And what would be the consequences for the American capitalist class of losing such a war? Can you picture the American survivors, shivering in the rubble, hoping the occupation troops would give them something to eat?
Again, I don't think that the German ruling class (or Italy's or Japan's) anticipated the consequences of losing a major war. But the American ruling class knows what could happen...they learn from history just like we do.
Are they ready to gamble everything in order to rule the whole world?
I don't think so -- at least not yet. But the RCP does think so and this compels them to adopt an appropriate strategy. As they have noted themselves, it can't be "business as usual"...if they're right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 9, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to return to the main topic of this thread...especially the question of "what is to be done" if the RCP's analysis is correct.
quote:
We can learn from [the KPD], but should not repeat what they did...
In particular the decisions of the communists (in about 1934 and after) to increasingly abandon revolution and seek strategic "democratic" alliances with (read: behind) the supposed "anti-fascist" sections of their imperialist bourgeoisies -- that road (associated with Dimitrov) is one we should NOT take...
We are not confined to "what Leninist parties in the West have done since 1935" -- and , in fact, what they have done has been basically wrong on fundamental points. We need to sum up those histories, critically, as part of doing something radically different.
Ok, this is all pretty clear and straight-forward.
But what is "something radically different" in this context?
quote:
We need a united front -- in the sense that the many forces who fight together on common ground (including the important broad sentiment of "Nooooo to the Bush Agenda") will not agree on many other things (including, obviously, on the need for proletarian revolution and a socialist transition to communism, with all that this implies)...
We need to do all this, in the context of, as part of, our larger revolutionary work of "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution" -- training, extending, and increasing the revolutionary core that gives all this its leadership and backbone. We need to accelerate the work of creating a "revolutionary people" -- among those who see the connection of this madness to the very nature of this system, and who (as a result) can be won to seeing the need for revolution. And we need to build, promote, the vanguard and its leadership, in particular its Chairman Bob Avakian. What Avakian is "bringing to the table" of this struggle, is unique and precious, and we all need to dig deep into it, because that will make a huge difference in whether we succeed or fail.
In summary...
1. Build a united front of people opposed (for whatever reason) to Christian fascism.
2. Build the RCP.
3. Promote Bob Avakian.
I fail to see anything "radically different" in these proposals.
The first "skirts the edge" of the Dimitrov strategy, depending on how it's implemented...that is, how "subdued" communist ideas are in the united front against Christian fascism.
It also directly conflicts with the second and third options; you can't "build the RCP and promote Bob Avakian" without talking about it/him -- but such talk is precisely what will tend to "scare off" the opponents of the Bush agenda and keep them from working with you.
I agree with you that we should not necessarily think of ourselves as "trapped" by the alternatives "KPD or Dimitrov" -- but it seems to me that your "something radically different" is nothing more than a "modified" Dimitrov strategy.
All you'd have to do is mute or even eliminate entirely Dimitrov's absurd rhetoric about "progressive sectors of the bourgeoisie" and you'd have it...Dimitrov-Lite.
But I don't see any reasonable way to work "build the RCP/promote Avakian" into that mix. As soon as you begin offering an anti-capitalist alternative in any kind of a clear way, then those (most of them) who oppose Bush's agenda will also oppose yours.
You see, there doesn't exist in the United States any significant "left opposition" to Christian fascism -- the opposition to Bush comes from those who are "opposed to extremism" and want to follow "a middle way". At best, I think they'd regard the RCP and Avakian as distractions. Most likely, they will just ignore the RCP altogether.
quote:
Redstar's sense of what to do is (a) go underground and prepare for a secret struggle, and (b) jump out and challenge every manifestation of the CFs (Christian fascists) -- the way people have historically done with the KKK etc.
That's quite perceptive of you. Yes, I do think Christian fascists should be confronted in an angry and hostile way. You know the old KPD slogan: Smash the Nazi Wherever You Find Him!
I realize the limitations of that approach; there's some question that there's enough of a "left" in the U.S. to even consider that a feasible alternative.
But I would "float the idea" and see if there's a positive response...even if the hypothesis of a transition to Christian fascism proved incorrect.
Confronting and, if possible, defeating reactionaries "in the streets" is a "good idea" in and of itself. It's one of those things that principled revolutionaries are supposed to do.
And, let's face it. The Christian fascists in the U.S. have gone virtually unopposed except by professional liberals. We both know the spineless character of such "opposition".
Shouldn't we start to really go after those bastards?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 13, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| Socialism is a class society; communism is a classless society.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
