The Right Wing Populist Eruption: Yes, It Actually IS Racism [Archive]

redwinter

29th September 2009, 00:04

The Right Wing Populist Eruption:
Yes, It Actually IS Racism

On September 12, several tens of thousands of people demonstrated in Washington, D.C. ostensibly against the Democratic Party healthcare proposal in Congress. In fact, this march represented a major political statement by a fascist movement.

Read on here: http://www.revcom.us/a/178/populism-racism-en.html

This article from Revolution newspaper makes some references to an analysis made by Bob Avakian in a book called "The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Present Era." It expands on the conception and breakdown of the US power structure that has been put forward previously by Avakian and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA...with an all-around analysis of how the teabaggers, the anti-abortion murderers, and the "birthers" all fit into the ruling class's mass based fascist movement. The article itself presents a particularly direct challenge to its readers:

Think for a minute what it would unleash if Obama were to say what is obvious to almost every liberal—that yes, there is a huge and driving element of racism involved in this “tea bagger” movement, that as a Black person in America he’s known all along that this poison was going to surface, that this is part of and being folded into a whole fascist movement with support from the highest sections of the ruling class, and that anyone with a decent bone in their body should not only vociferously oppose this but put themselves on the line against it? And what would happen if some major figure in the Democratic Party were to then call people into the streets against these fascists? This is exactly the picture—the possibility of people actually getting into the streets to stand up to these reactionaries—that gives these Democratic politicians nightmares. Because once that genie is out of the bottle—once the oppressed people and the more enlightened people begin both to see and feel their potential strength and at the same time begin to investigate and debate why all this shit keeps happening and what can be done to really change it—then all kinds of possibilities for radical, and even revolutionary, change could open up and for every section of the ruling class this is a far worse nightmare than letting these fascists continue unimpeded.

Thoughts?

jake williams

29th September 2009, 18:23

I disagree, but it's very complex and I have to leave in a moment. I should be back here within a day or two - if I'm not, PM me.

NecroCommie

29th September 2009, 18:36

Putting the question of fascism aside, this "new" american right wing movement is almost as serious, if not equally serious than a rise of a fascist empire. This movement is not only large and powerful, but also racist, reactionary to the core and above all extremely capitalist. It also threatens to take over the single most biggest imperialist power in the world. Communist movement needs to stop biggering about what we call this phenomenon, and start opposing it to the last.

On the question why american left parties refuse to address this problem, I disagree. I belive it is not as if the democrats saw some threath in some new revolutionary left tide, but rather they are opportunists. They have no intention whatsoever to risk losing a portion of teir votes. Breaking status quo might be theoretically for democrat advantage, but always the party that breaks that status quo is the one to lose the first battle.

It remains a mystery how these tea-baggers succeeded in including blatant racism in political correctness.

The Douche

29th September 2009, 18:52

NecroCommie

29th September 2009, 19:00

Racists like this guy:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/08/19/alg_obama_gun.jpg

Thats the dude who brought the "assault rifle" to the Obama speech. Notice, he is black.

Are there racist elements? You bet. Are there racist elements in labor movement? Sure are. Are there racist elemnts in most mainstream mass movements? Yes.

Libertarians are not fascists, that doesn't mean they're not the enemy, but we need a correct analysis of the situation.
Where as I am open to your claim in the presence of more proof, anomalies prove nothing.

The Douche

29th September 2009, 19:29

Where as I am open to your claim in the presence of more proof, anomalies prove nothing.

I'm just saying libertarianism certainly does not condone institutionalized racism. And the tea party movement is libertarian at its base, though that is changing.

I think screaming "fascist!" at this movement denotes a lack of understanding what the movement really is. Because it is much more complex than "republicans" or "libertarians" or "racists".

I mean, even within the republican party, look at the differences between politicians like Ron Paul, and Rudy Guilliani.

NecroCommie

29th September 2009, 19:37

I understand that the root of the tea-bagging movement is libertarianism, extreme libertarianism at that, but what is dangerous to ignore is the seemingly wide-spread phenomenon of racists siding with that movement. It is not to be confused with some rise of neo-fascists, but taken as a certain sign of political polarization instead. Polarization which is dangerous to ignore for too long.

The Douche

29th September 2009, 19:57

blake 3:17

29th September 2009, 20:10

The Ultra-Right Pot Boils Over

Gerry Foley (http://www.revleft.com/vb/spip.php?auteur559)
The appearance of right-wing mobs at town meetings organized by Democratic Party representatives to discuss the proposed health-care reform has set off alarm bells, in particular because of the blind fanaticism of the right-wing protesters and their threats of violence, including armed violence. These outbursts show many features of historic fascist developments—and on a scale as yet unseen in the United States.

The campaign of right-wing rallies against the town meetings organized by Democratic Party congressional representatives is a new phenomenon in American history, at least in living memory. Lynch mobs and witch hunts are, unfortunately, not unprecedented in American history. And the current right-wing rallies resemble both in the mentality they express. But never before have such mobs been mobilized by a major capitalist political party against the elected representatives of another, or associated so much with threats of armed violence against bourgeois democratic institutions.
These right-wing mobilizations against the town meetings are an extension of the so-called Tea Parties organized ostensibly against the threat that the Obama regime would increase taxes. On July 16, the Huffington Post reported: "Catherine Crabill, the Republican Party’s nominee for Virginia’s 99th District in the House of Delegates, gave a speech at a recent Tea Party event suggesting that Second Amendment rights could be used to defend the anti-tax movement. The strange assertion was picked up by Virginia political blogger Not Larry Sabato.
"’We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box,’ Crabill said. ’That’s the beauty of our Second Amendment rights ... Our Second Amendment rights were to guard against tyranny.’" Participants in the rightist mobs at the Democratic Party town meetings have also cited the Second Amendment as a resort if they were prevented from shouting down the speakers.
The Huffington Post reported Aug. 9: "An official with the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor organizations, passed on what he described as a ’pretty direct threat’ to those union hands who were showing up to balance out anti-Obama demonstrations being waged at local Democratic forums.
"‘I will be going to a local town hall this weekend, all you union members BEWARE!’ an emailer wrote at 9:40 Saturday morning. We will be waiting for you. better make sure you have arrangements with your local ER. today is the day when the goon meets the gun. see you there.’" This threat was traced to Georgia in the deep South, where a majority of the population, according to recent polls, either denies or disbelieves that the president of the United States is an American citizen.
This threat was not an isolated one. Union officials complained of being deluged with threats. The most brutal one came from Wisconsin: "An official with the SEIU said she had received 50 such emails, including the following one, which was edited to make suitable for publication. "’You socialist f---s have the nerve to say stop the violence at the town hall meetings when they weren’t violent until you p---ies showed up because your n----- leader obama said to?????? When we have ours in Racine, Wi, I want you there. I want one of your little b----- to put his hands on this Marine. I want one of you to look or talk to me wrong. I’ll be the last thing your ignorant faux bodyguards will remember for a very long time. You can f---ing guarantee that."

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1721

creepy

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

29th September 2009, 20:44

Racists like this guy:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/08/19/alg_obama_gun.jpg

Thats the dude who brought the "assault rifle" to the Obama speech. Notice, he is black.

Are there racist elements? You bet. Are there racist elements in labor movement? Sure are. Are there racist elemnts in most mainstream mass movements? Yes.

Libertarians are not fascists, that doesn't mean they're not the enemy, but we need a correct analysis of the situation.

Just to clarify (I'm not saying this to disprove you because I actually agree with you for the most part), the Black guy with the assault rifle was actually part of a radio show and it was a publicity stunt. Here's the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/right-wing-radio-host-sta_n_262559.html

The Douche

29th September 2009, 20:47

Just to clarify (I'm not saying this to disprove you because I actually agree with you for the most part), the Black guy with the assault rifle was actually part of a radio show and it was a publicity stunt. Here's the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/right-wing-radio-host-sta_n_262559.html

I'm aware, but the man is still a libertarian tea partier.

scarletghoul

29th September 2009, 21:03

Dimentio

29th September 2009, 21:26

I think the most embarassing thing is a Bob Avakian article claiming that another Bob Avakian article is something amazing.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

29th September 2009, 22:17

I'm aware, but the man is still a libertarian tea partier.

Indeed.

Anyway, going back to the article, I think what the RCP was trying to do here was to distinguish their opposition of Obama from that of the right-wing. This may seem like some beginner shit, but there's a preconceived idea in the US that any opposition to the Obama comes from the right, so I think it is a very worthwhile topic to cover. As we all know, we have a fine line to walk of defending Obama as a person of color vs. defending his politics, and it's really easy to get inadvertently sucked into the latter while upholding the former. In spite of everything else, Revolution Newspaper does a very good job of NOT falling into that.

That being said, I think the main problem of this article was that it did not take a very nuanced approach to the situation. As some of my comrades have noted here, there is a serious libertarian tinge to these demonstrations, so calling them "fascist" is likely a purposeful oversimplification (I'd assume RCP cadre are smart enough to know the difference between libertarian and fascist ideologies). Obviously there is a fascistic element to the protests, but we can't generalize the entire movement as such.

On the issue of race, we have a similar problem of the RCP taking a very absolutist approach to the situation, wherein right-wing opposition to Obama is necessarily racist. This is problematic, for one, because it's not true, and two, because it makes us look like paranoid reactionists (not reactionaries) that have a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of people of color coming out of the power structure. Yes, I would venture to say that a majority of the people at these demonstrations are racist and xenophobic, and that these do inspire most of the vitriol, but I think it is reductionist to claim that the entire character of the right opposition here is likewise racist and xenophobic. Perhaps this is what the RCP is saying and I am misreading the article, in which case Redwinter or anybody please correct me.

I thought the analysis of populism and racism in the United States was great though, kudos for that.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

29th September 2009, 22:20

I think the most embarassing thing is a Bob Avakian article claiming that another Bob Avakian article is something amazing.

Dimentio, BA does reference himself quite often but a lot of times articles like this (and I'd imagine this one) are put together by a writing group of party members, not Avakian himself.

revolt4thewin

29th September 2009, 23:22

There is hardly a major right wing presence in America but the elites do pose as the far right to shift the blame on others but will when covenant pose as the left to keep the sheep distracted.

The Douche

30th September 2009, 00:40

Yeah there does seem to occasionally be a very confused and misguided black person at these events, but the general movement draws a lot of its rageful energy from racism. The vast majority of the people are white, and it's difficult to imagine this happening under a white president.

You are wrong.

How the fuck can you draw such conclusions? Do you know anybody who has been to a tea party? You don't even fucking live here.

pierrotlefou

30th September 2009, 05:58

You are wrong.

How the fuck can you draw such conclusions? Do you know anybody who has been to a tea party? You don't even fucking live here.
Wrong is a strong word. I'd say only slightly true instead. It is very hard to imagine this happening to a white male. Subtle racism is still very big in the south where a majority of the teabaggers are from.But, It's not the over all message of the movement, no. The politicians and their CEO friends only see green anyway. But this is a chance for the subtle racism deep rooted in the south to come out in an indirect way. It's no longer acceptable to be overtly racist but the mindset doesn't disappear with that. It stays very subtle. Like an old grandmother who's always says something racist but everyone excuses it because "that's how she was raised". It stays with those people and even though it becoming more and more socially unacceptable I think no one has told them why it has become that way. So they never learn why they're wrong, just that they're wrong. My family is from the south and I lived there up until just a few years ago so I have seen this first hand, not just with my family, but with racial tension in the community as well.

30th September 2009, 06:10

You are wrong.

How the fuck can you draw such conclusions? Do you know anybody who has been to a tea party? You don't even fucking live here.

He's wrong? So you're saying that the majority of the "teabaggers" aren't white?

jake williams

30th September 2009, 19:33

I think the basic understanding presented here of "the phenomenon" - and there is certainly a set of phenomena that we can all see - is really not so great.

I think first we need some humility and need to say, we don't really understand what all this is about, who it's appealing to, what the internal dynamics of it is, what things are motivating people to do this, etc. - this is especially true for those of us who don't live in the States, but it's true generally I think because none of us are involved at all in these protests etc. Moreover even if we were, there is CERTAINLY a grassroot component that would be hard to figure out even if you were directly involved.

But I think we can certainly try to make some general claims. First, there is very clear direction "from the top" that we all know about - the Murdoch empire, whatever big right wing groups are funding either the actual protests, or sort of a political-informational infrastructure around it... my point is it's certainly not just spontaneous, and we all know that.

But we really have to ask ourselves, why is this appealing to people? I think there's a general recognition on the left, if you push people, that people are driven toward right-wing populism by shitty conditions - precisely the sort of conditions that Left wants to ameliorate. But this isn't taken very far or understood very deeply.

Moreover, the radical left, which tends to be (very broadly speaking) at least connected to university campuses, if not based there. There's a lot of petty bourgeoisie, and educated liberal urban working class. And basically they hate a huge part of the US working class. When Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly tells these people, the liberal elite in New York and Washington and San Fransisco and Hollywood, the liberal elite hates you - they're basically correct. Obviously I don't agree with where she would go from there, or even that she means it sincerely - but she's talking about a real phenomenon, about how a large part of the U.S. working class and even petty bourgeoisie is particularly powerless, both for material reasons and for political reasons. They're speaking about something that really appeals to a lot of people, not because those people are idiots, but because WE don't give a fuck about them because they're not sophisticated or cultured or politically correct.

Is there racism? Certainly there's racism, but it's really only an epiphenomenon. There was plenty of right-wing fantaticism under Clinton - and under Clinton, there was no economic crisis, which makes the objective situations that lead people to, failing a viable left alternative because we don't want to talk to them because they're "fascists" or "reactionaries" or whatever , right wing populism.

But yeah, there's racism. This is poor white people, or even not-so-poor white people who still have pretty shitty lives. They've been told this story, both from the "right" and the liberal "left", American capitalism is going to work for you, if you work really hard. Well, it doesn't - especially during an economic crisis - but it did work for Barack Obama. Liberals are exactly the people who care about racism (which I certainly do too), but who don't give a fuck about class and don't give a fuck about poor white people (whom we need to start caring about, not just pretending to care about, or we're fucked).

And poor white people tend to sense that, although they do end up with the pretty ludicrous belief that the Republicans and the U.S. right-wing, which really does, without exaggerating, have kind of a proto-fascist element, does care about them. They get the belief that the US right cares about them because they're the only people even pretending to care about them.

I think, basically, as long as this is the situation, "right wing populism" doesn't only make a lot of sense - it has very little to do with, effectively, a huge part of the US (and believe me, Canadian and I'd guess British) working class just being defective fascists who are somehow intrinsically racist.

redwinter

30th September 2009, 19:38

There seems to be a whole ensemble of different forces at play here: paleoconservatives, right-wing militia types, newly-mobilized "teabaggers" who were previously congealed around the McCain/Palin program, anti-abortion murderers, and the Republican Party's associated para-state cadre formations, as well as openly klan/neo-nazi forces who are not currently at the forefront but definitely have been organizing "behind the scenes" for years, including within the military, the prisons, and certain strata of white working class and lumpen youth (nazi skinheads, aryan brotherhood, etc).

One of the points this article from Revolution newspaper is making is that there IS a section of the ruling class who is opposed to some of the Obama program, and has already been helping to lead these forces with a common program and to create a situation where they feel comfortable and even welcome. Add to that a whole channel, Fox News, which even moreso than the other ruling class media essentially has taken up the mantle as the mouthpiece for this movement with some of its leading demagogues like Glenn Beck. CNN, the "liberal" alternative, is competing with this with Lou Dobbs and his reactionary anti-immigrant lies.

Imagine if, during the Bush administration, anti-war protesters were to have walked into a town hall meeting on the Iraq war with assault rifles and t-shirts with radical slogans: what do you think the reaction would have been? I'm not advocating this by any means. But just look at this fascist movement and how some elements within the ruling class have been going overtime to build up this "grassroots" fascist movement among certain classes and have already unleashed it in certain ways we haven't seen yet this century.

And for those who are waffling on this issue, let me just state the obvious:
Yes, this fascist movement is fundamentally based on racism. There is no way, in the context of the history of the US and the Black oppressed nation within the country, that a "populist" movement backed by the ruling class of this type could not have a racist component to it. This is the same line being run out by the mainstream ruling class media.

In fact, as the article lucidly points out: "Mainstream media analysts have argued this eruption is a rebirth of populism, and not about race. In a column entitled “No, It’s Not About Race,” conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that the furor erupting at the healthcare hearings was driven by populism, not racism. He insisted that the roots of this movement lay in the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and how could that be racist?"

And how do we turn this around? Let's learn the lessons from the Communist Party of Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, from the Weimar Republic up to Nazi rule: for this reason (and others) I think Avakian's critique of Dimitrov's "United Front Against Fascism" line is so important for revolutionaries and communists to take up.

Dimentio

30th September 2009, 19:55

GPDP

30th September 2009, 21:59

The thing is that Obama until now have played too nice. Either he could sacrifice his reforms, or the support of the right-wing which he doesn't have anyway. It is time he starts to play confrontational soon.

Right, and who exactly is going to push him in that direction?

Many of the biggest "liberal" and progressive organizations, such as MoveOn.org, have essentially dipped into the Obama kool-aid down to the last drop, with no plans to pressure him into enacting needed reforms. They back him nigh unconditionally, while the far-right continues its assault on Obama's efforts, however mild they may be.

It's clear Obama does not have the spine to confront the right, and if his supporters, many of whom are to the left of Obama, don't grow one as well, then it'll be up to us on the real left, and we just don't have the numbers or influence to make that happen.

It's a fucked up situation here, to say the least.

Decommissioner

1st October 2009, 08:32

Dimentio

1st October 2009, 10:18

Clearly libertarianism and fascism are quite different strands of right wing ideology, but perhaps there may be a class connection between the two? If we are to accept trotsky's analysis of fascism as a petit-bourgeois movement, and contrast it with the seemingly* petit-bourgeois roots of libertarianism, perhaps it would be more than logical for fascism to rear it's head in the midst of these rallies.

*I admit, I only know the basics of libertarianism, and only assume it's class base is petit-bourgeois. Most of the ones I have met, aside from confused kids, are small shopkeepers and the like, and they all seem to vehemently oppose corporate monopolies and corporate structure in general.

Fascism was the product of a beleaguered petite bourgeoisie in Europe of the early 20th century. Libertarianism is the product of a beleaguered petite bourgeoisie in America of the late 20th century and early 21th century.

I would say that in practice, libertarianism is fascism as it aims to empower the same groups as fascism, only with different means. The reason why libertarianism is finding such a popularity is because it would prevent redistribution of wealth from the white petite bourgeoisie to black and Mexican workers - at least in the fantasies of the subject.

There is actually one movement with similar aims in Europe, the neoliberal and fascist Lega Nord, an Italian former secessionist party which aims to reduce taxes to lower redistribution to the poorer southern half of Italy.

redwinter

4th October 2009, 01:20

I think that in a country with such a legacy of racism and white supremacism as the United States, that any enshrining of Jeffersonian democracy can come off as "libertarianism" when in actuality it has a lot more in common with what has historically been described as fascism, and is still a horror for the masses of oppressed people (in particular the oppressed nations and nationalities, but the proletariat and other classes as well in general).

And I think the point that the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, has been hammering at is absolutely correct: this whole dream of a "New New Deal" of broad sections of even the self-proclaimed "radical left" in this country is a hollow myth that needs to be confronted and deconstructed. Just look at the harmful effects Michael Moore's new movie might have, even with all the good exposure, by channeling people into fulfilling "FDR's lost dream" of socialized healthcare and other welfare benefits for "legal residents" of the USA (but leaving power in the hands of the capitalist-imperialist ruling class).

Also would point people to an article, in this regard:

(http://www.revcom.us/a/162/collapse-en.html)In the Era of Obama: The Collapse of “The Movement”; the Resistance and the Revolutionary Movement We Need (http://www.revcom.us/a/162/collapse-en.html) by Andy Zee

Jimmie Higgins

4th October 2009, 02:06

What will the RCP do when there really is a organized fascist movement in the US? Will anyone believe them or will it be like the boy who cried wolf?

I think that the RCP is being alarmist in this case and often calls anything that the right-wing of capitalism does: "fascist". I definitely agree that racism is the underpinning to the right-wing populist movement, and that the militia and white supremacist movements are proto-fascist, to call this altogether fascist is wrong and just dangerous.

It's the same with calling Bush "christian-fascist" - it's alarmist and counterproductive. We should be pointing out how their arguments are racist and how the ruling class uses racism to scapegoat during economic crisis and as a justification for cutting social programs the rest of the time (welfare-queens, universal health care as "reparations" and so on).

US society is highly polarized, but the right-wing is more organized and willing to push its agenda. Radicals should be organizing our side hard right now, not fear mongering.

As I see it, with the economic crisis, the ruling class was convinced that drastic change was needed and backed Obama and started to consider Keynesian alternatives. But when it seemed like they could get away with limited reforms and bailouts, they wanted to pull the breaks on working class expectations for change for them too - so this is why they supported these right-wing populist attempts to stop more reform.

I don't think the US ruling class really feels the need to back fascism at this point - if the economy worsens again or if there are real left-populist challenges, they may decide to back the minutemen or more fascist elements.

Jimmie Higgins

4th October 2009, 02:15

Just look at the harmful effects Michael Moore's new movie might have, even with all the good exposure, by channeling people into fulfilling "FDR's lost dream" of socialized healthcare and other welfare benefits for "legal residents" of the USA (but leaving power in the hands of the capitalist-imperialist ruling class). As opposed to channeling people into - what?

I don't know if you noticed, but socialism hardly has a high profile in the US. If Michael Moore's movie came out in the middle of a strike-wave, then yes, this mechanical argument would be correct. In the face of standard liberalism in the US where most workers are being convinced to that accepting concessions is the only option other than being fired, calls for real socialized healthcare or Michael Moore's half-apologetic democratic-socialism/reformism (that's still critical of the whole system as it is) is not dangerous or misleading workers.

If workers were out demanding a "new new deal" in a serious way, that would be a great opening for the organized left to argue for the true revolutionary politics that will be necessary to actually win a world where workers call the shots and don't have to worry about loosing their jobs or not having health coverage and so on. If people were calling for a "new new deal" when a radical alternative was seriously being considered by workers, then, yes, it would probably be an attempt by pro-capitalist reformists to reign-in the worker's movement.

The point about undocumented workers being explicitly excluded from all the proposed plans is a very good one though and radicals should argue that health care needs to be for all - no questions asked. I'm pretty sure that in the UK, the NHS doesn't ask for your documentation in the ambulance ride to the hospital.

4th October 2009, 04:11

Just look at the harmful effects Michael Moore's new movie might have, even with all the good exposure, by channeling people into fulfilling "FDR's lost dream" of socialized healthcare

I don't know where you live or who pays for your medical insurance, but I am drowning in debt and medical bills I can't afford and so are many, many other workers in the US. So any "revolutionary" party campaigning against universal healthcare is, as far as I'm concerned, a traitor to the working class.
Which isn't to say that a revolutionary party, by its very nature, has any business campaigning for universal healthcare. But attacking the notion of socialized healthcare for workers is fucking disgusting.

redwinter

4th October 2009, 23:30

As opposed to channeling people into - what?

I don't know if you noticed, but socialism hardly has a high profile in the US. If Michael Moore's movie came out in the middle of a strike-wave, then yes, this mechanical argument would be correct. In the face of standard liberalism in the US where most workers are being convinced to that accepting concessions is the only option other than being fired, calls for real socialized healthcare or Michael Moore's half-apologetic democratic-socialism/reformism (that's still critical of the whole system as it is) is not dangerous or misleading workers.

If workers were out demanding a "new new deal" in a serious way, that would be a great opening for the organized left to argue for the true revolutionary politics that will be necessary to actually win a world where workers call the shots and don't have to worry about loosing their jobs or not having health coverage and so on. If people were calling for a "new new deal" when a radical alternative was seriously being considered by workers, then, yes, it would probably be an attempt by pro-capitalist reformists to reign-in the worker's movement.

The point about undocumented workers being explicitly excluded from all the proposed plans is a very good one though and radicals should argue that health care needs to be for all - no questions asked. I'm pretty sure that in the UK, the NHS doesn't ask for your documentation in the ambulance ride to the hospital.

No, socialism and communism do not have a high profile in the United States -- the international communist movement itself is "hanging by a thread" as some might put it. This is all the more reason to be putting out the solution of communism rather than some reformist utopian pipe dreams of socialized healthcare in the imperialist citadel.

You as a trot might think "half-apologetic democratic-socialism/reformism (that's still critical of the whole system as it is) is not dangerous or misleading workers" -- but simply because that's the only solution you're providing to people.

We need to be telling people that humanity needs communist revolution, and that this and only this will lead to all of our emancipation. At the same time we do need to be "fighting the power" -- some of the clips from "Capitalism: A Love Story" were pretty powerful of people occupying foreclosed homes and confronting the armed enforcers of the state. We definitely need more of that!

However, without a vanguard leadership force that is showing how this whole system needs to go and we need to move towards communism, the movement and any so-called "gains" that are won are just mirages (Lenin's famous dictum: "Without state power, all is illusion..."). That's what fell flat in Moore's film: no real solution. At the end I was at the edge of my seat waiting for his one-word answer to what humanity needs: needless to say it was "democracy" and not "socialism" or "communism" -- and that is precisely the opposite of what we need today.

Jimmie Higgins

7th October 2009, 20:12

No, socialism and communism do not have a high profile in the United States -- the international communist movement itself is "hanging by a thread" as some might put it. This is all the more reason to be putting out the solution of communism rather than some reformist utopian pipe dreams of socialized healthcare in the imperialist citadel.I didn't say that we should hide our politics or argue for reforms as OPPOSED to revolution. Since we both want to see a worker's revolution, the real question is how do we get there? I believe only a mass revolution will be able to create socialism and so anything that puts the working class demands forward (this has been the major demand of unions) or defends working class interests (like opposing privatizations) helps move the class struggle in our direction. Winning real healtcare in the US would be a huge ideological defeat for the ruling class and show people that corporate interests (health insurance) are not only not the same as worker interests, but harmful to workers.

Again, if we were in the middle of a strike wave or mass movement that was making its own demands, then a call for full socialized healthcare probably would simply be a stunt by liberals to try and soothe class antagonisms. Things being as they are now, I think most unions and most workers would see socialized-healthcare in the US as a major victory and would build confidence to start making demands for other reforms or confidence in the ability to defeat the interests of big business.

You as a trot might think "half-apologetic democratic-socialism/reformism (that's still critical of the whole system as it is) is not dangerous or misleading workers" -- but simply because that's the only solution you're providing to people.Wha-ha! I, as a trot, fight for reforms because it helps build working class self-activity and confidence and creates the radicals who can organize into a vanguard party.

We need to be telling people that humanity needs communist revolution, and that this and only this will lead to all of our emancipation. At the same time we do need to be "fighting the power" -- some of the clips from "Capitalism: A Love Story" were pretty powerful of people occupying foreclosed homes and confronting the armed enforcers of the state. We definitely need more of that! No argument here.

However, without a vanguard leadership force that is showing how this whole system needs to go and we need to move towards communism, the movement and any so-called "gains" that are won are just mirages (Lenin's famous dictum: "Without state power, all is illusion..."). That's what fell flat in Moore's film: no real solution. At the end I was at the edge of my seat waiting for his one-word answer to what humanity needs: needless to say it was "democracy" and not "socialism" or "communism" -- and that is precisely the opposite of what we need today.No one movie or DVD or speech is going to win or loose the majority of workers to fighting for revolution.

Dimentio

7th October 2009, 20:24

What I think USA would need is a proportional voting system. That will give minorities the opportunities to voice themselves.

Jimmie Higgins

7th October 2009, 20:32

What I think USA would need is a proportional voting system. That will give minorities the opportunities to voice themselves.That would be a good reform - anything to break people away from the Dems and Republicans at this point would really help to open up serious political debate in the US.

Dimentio

7th October 2009, 21:34

http://rudyrummel.blogspot.com/2009/10/tyranny-in-view-not-so-stealth-obama.html

This is Rudolph Rummel at his prime. Apparently, he has turned into a teabagger

Stranger Than Paradise

7th October 2009, 21:43