Tea-Party Convention

[Jimmie Higgins]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/

Does anyone have any more info about this - is it really only 600 or so people? I've always hated that left-wing demonstrations have tens or hundreds of thousands of people at them, but claiming "neutrality" the media gets a soundbite from one left-wing protester of tens of thousands and then gives equal time to one of a dozen right-wing counter-protesters.

But the coverage of the tea-party shit is taking this to a national level.

Seriously, the San Francisco ISO conference was 900 people over the summer - the National Equality March in DC was bigger than the Glen Beck Tea party protest and got hardly any television media coverage - anti-war conventions and labor conventions I've been to are bigger than this right-wing convention appears to be.

I don't really expect much from the US media, but this level of hypocrisy is pretty blatant and frustrating.

[Jimmie Higgins]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0205/Tea-party-movement-lessons-from-earlier-uprisings

Here's another article - where were these kinds of editorials when there was the anti-war movement? When the left protests, there is a huge amount of mainstream pressure for them to ally with the Democratic Party and "be reasonable", but when the far right protests, then the mainstream press says - watch out, don't get tied to the Republicans or else you will loose your political voice.:blink:

[LeninistKing]

Hello, indeed, and what i fear most is the rise of a far-right wing populist, National Socialism of the Tea Party as an option to the Democrats and Republicans, with the help and support of CNN and FOX news

.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/

Does anyone have any more info about this - is it really only 600 or so people? I've always hated that left-wing demonstrations have tens or hundreds of thousands of people at them, but claiming "neutrality" the media gets a soundbite from one left-wing protester of tens of thousands and then gives equal time to one of a dozen right-wing counter-protesters.

But the coverage of the tea-party shit is taking this to a national level.

Seriously, the San Francisco ISO conference was 900 people over the summer - the National Equality March in DC was bigger than the Glen Beck Tea party protest and got hardly any television media coverage - anti-war conventions and labor conventions I've been to are bigger than this right-wing convention appears to be.

I don't really expect much from the US media, but this level of hypocrisy is pretty blatant and frustrating.

[commyrebel]

you know what would be fun to crash one of the tea party conventions. like to get a group of Communist or socialist all deck out in harmer sickle and other similar wears get into one of them or to protest everything out in front of where there meeting. Hey also if the news in covering that convention then they will see us and they may have a story about us.

[RedSonRising]

While I don't exactly sympathize with the tea-party participants, I think instead of creating a dichotomy between leftists and the libertarian right, we should aim to create appeal by promotion of some principals under which we would agree; disagreeing along with them in practice over Obama's economic policies will allow the public to see us as coming from a different philosophical approach entirely- one that appreciates the individual and stresses popular input/control over the economic, not just the typical "big government" "welfare-state" reformists who are just "more left" than the democratic party with a thing for edgy symbols like hammers and sickles.

I'm not saying any workers' party should attempt to form a coalition with this joke of a movement or anything of that sort, but that when we find civil libertarians protesting against the (capitalist) state's policies, us pointing out similar discontent would allow allies from unlikely places to arise among a public that could give revolutionary politics more credit among the working masses, all the while draining from the resources of the right.

[Red Commissar]

Tea Party, they use the term "libertarian" like angry Republicans throw around blindly, but they are nothing more than right-wing populists like Leninist said.


...

It will be hard to get at that angle however. Words like "Socialism" have such a poor understanding in the public at large that they largely attribute what Obama is doing as "socialist". These guys talk so much about liberty and "free" market that they've been indoctrinated not to follow anything remotely resembling socialism. In short they like the "free" market and support it blindly, not knowing that it ultimately only benefits those in power in the end.

[RedSonRising]

It will be hard to get at that angle however. Words like "Socialism" have such a poor understanding in the public at large that they largely attribute what Obama is doing as "socialist". These guys talk so much about liberty and "free" market that they've been indoctrinated not to follow anything remotely resembling socialism. In short they like the "free" market and support it blindly, not knowing that it ultimately only benefits those in power in the end.

I agree completely- which is why I think that protesting some of the same things (Obama) and not letting the Right define our own titles/labels or monopolize the anti-government arena will allow us to pose an alternative people haven't seriously looked at before. Finding anything in common with a right-libertarian movement would perk interest due to their confusion at what seems a contradiction (since Obama is supposedly Lenin reborn)and would at least start a dialogue in some cases that could help people understand the principles of socialism and not the version propagandized in the capitalist education system and media.

[Red Commissar]

I agree completely- which is why I think that protesting some of the same things (Obama) and not letting the Right define our own titles/labels or monopolize the anti-government arena will allow us to pose an alternative people haven't seriously looked at before. Finding anything in common with a right-libertarian movement would perk interest due to their confusion at what seems a contradiction (since Obama is supposedly Lenin reborn)and would at least start a dialogue in some cases that could help people understand the principles of socialism and not the version propagandized in the capitalist education system and media.

I think in order to do that though, we would have to overcome a significant degree of of indoctrination. Not to mention they will care little for what "we" have to say. I find it doubtful they'll do a complete 180.

Mind you most of these Tea-baggers seem to be middle-aged or old. They're fairly set in their ways.

Maybe this could apply to more open minded, young libertarians who aren't objectivist. I think what would be easier is to get those on the fence. There is a lot of bad attitudes against capitalism currently, but most of that is simply populist rage and not so much a genuine care for the inherent flaws in a capitalist system.

[Devrim]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/

Does anyone have any more info about this - is it really only 600 or so people? I've always hated that left-wing demonstrations have tens or hundreds of thousands of people at them, but claiming "neutrality" the media gets a soundbite from one left-wing protester of tens of thousands and then gives equal time to one of a dozen right-wing counter-protesters.

But the coverage of the tea-party shit is taking this to a national level.

Seriously, the San Francisco ISO conference was 900 people over the summer - the National Equality March in DC was bigger than the Glen Beck Tea party protest and got hardly any television media coverage - anti-war conventions and labor conventions I've been to are bigger than this right-wing convention appears to be.

I don't really expect much from the US media, but this level of hypocrisy is pretty blatant and frustrating.

The worst example of this I saw was a year or so ago. It was the second day of nationalists protesting about a historical conference on the Armenian Genocide in Istanbul, which made the lead story on all of the national news programmes and the front page of all the papers. There were twenty people there (It had been considerably bigger on the first day). On the same day there was a health weorkers demonstration in Ankara with about 7,000 people, which passed with barely a mention in the news media.

Incidentally, you have no added to the phenomenon as people have already started to use this thread to discuss the 'Tea Party' as there is nothing that Revleft likes more than discussing right wing groups instead of the class struggle too.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Incidentally, you have no added to the phenomenon as people have already started to use this thread to discuss the 'Tea Party' as there is nothing that Revleft likes more than discussing right wing groups instead of the class struggle too.

Devrim

this is so true man. i think it happens because leftists see the whole socialism thing as something you defend in mainstream politics against these crazy rightwingers that dont agree with you. kindof like congress or some shit. we have the whole political order in opposition, but obviously "right wingers" sound worse than the average democrat.

[Raúl Duke]

Seriously, the San Francisco ISO conference was 900 people over the summer - the National Equality March in DC was bigger than the Glen Beck Tea party protest and got hardly any television media coverage - anti-war conventions and labor conventions I've been to are bigger than this right-wing convention appears to be.

One reason their conference didn't have much members attending stems from the fact that it's extremely expensive (like 500$) to attend while conferences like the one you mentioned probably rarely reach more than a 100$ to attend.

So, yes, less members did show up but the media was ok with doing a report about it than on other similar (but of different ideological bent) conferences...
The issue is to me is that in a sense the media creates an aspect of our reality.
By showing coverage of the tea party conference while ignoring the existence of other conferences, marches, protests, strikes with more members is to present a false (by omission) reality to people giving subtle impression that only the tea party movement is the grass-root opposition to the status quo when in reality this was never true.

[LeninistKing]

Dear folks: I would love a United-Front between tea party libertarians and the US left. However that is utopian, because Tea Party people are real fascists, hate black people, the poors, hate Chavez, hate China, hate taxes and hate every thing. Tea Partys main ideology is hatred and individualism.

[Red Commissar]

One reason their conference didn't have much members attending stems from the fact that it's extremely expensive (like 500$) to attend while conferences like the one you mentioned probably rarely reach more than a 100$ to attend.

Yea, and Palin was given 100,000 to speak too...


The issue is to me is that in a sense the media creates an aspect of our reality.
By showing coverage of the tea party conference while ignoring the existence of other conferences, marches, protests, strikes with more members is to present a false (by omission) reality to people giving subtle impression that only the tea party movement is the grass-root opposition to the status quo when in reality this was never true.

And I agree. Fox news even went as far as to make the TEA baggers look larger by using pictures of other protests.

[Martin Blank]

I thought Tom Tancredo's speech, and the teabaggers' subsequent defense of it, was rather interesting. Tancredo's de facto call for reinstituting "literacy tests" for voting (unconstitutional, incidentally) exposes the Nativist and fascistic character of (a wing, at least) the Tea Party movement. Palin's speech is tonight at 9 p.m. EST (MSNBC is showing it and doing commentary). That should give a better glimpse of what the "official" end of the Tea Party Nativists have in mind.


this is so true man. i think it happens because leftists see the whole socialism thing as something you defend in mainstream politics against these crazy rightwingers that dont agree with you. kindof like congress or some shit. we have the whole political order in opposition, but obviously "right wingers" sound worse than the average democrat.

Maybe it's that. Or maybe it's because rightwingers who bring automatic rifles to political protests are more of an issue for us than useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not saying any workers' party should attempt to form a coalition with this joke of a movement or anything of that sort, but that when we find civil libertarians protesting against the (capitalist) state's policies, us pointing out similar discontent would allow allies from unlikely places to arise among a public that could give revolutionary politics more credit among the working masses, all the while draining from the resources of the right.
Well I definately thing we should rally our side and appeal to the popular discontent of workers and oppressed groups - the tea-party people should not be appealed to in any way shape or form - unless you want to further alienate racial and sexual minorities, women, and immigrants from left-wing radical movements.

If we are going to make a dent into the right-wing popular discontent, it is going to be because we organize the people who already have more of a left-wing class-based bent to their popular discontent and this creates an atmosphere where people begin to be drawn to our ideas.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Incidentally, you have no added to the phenomenon as people have already started to use this thread to discuss the 'Tea Party' as there is nothing that Revleft likes more than discussing right wing groups instead of the class struggle too.



this is so true man. i think it happens because leftists see the whole socialism thing as something you defend in mainstream politics against these crazy rightwingers that dont agree with you. kindof like congress or some shit. we have the whole political order in opposition, but obviously "right wingers" sound worse than the average democrat.

I only started this thread to blow off some steam and express outrage about the hypocrisy in the way grassroots movements are covered by the press in the US. It's not a surprise to me - I don't expect any "fair" treatment from the press in any capitalist country. In the US, the LA Times and Oakland Tribune were just two among many papers who were owned by some of the most viscous and notorious strike breakers in US history - the LA Times building was even bombed by radicals* in the early 20th century.

So I had no desire or intention to start a thread about the nature of this right wing movement, but since it's becoming that, I think we should be discussing this movement and other right-wing populist movements on this website. I'm not saying we should form anti-fascist coalitions against these right-wing populists or anything, but on the other hand I think this small but vocal part of the population is different than talking about differences between bourgeois political parties. Popular anger and reaction to (both 30 years of attacks from the ruling class and) the rescission has not been set right now and the minutemen and tea-party people among other groups are trying to pull some of that mass anger towards scapegoating and xenophobia (which would lead to - if not outright racist violence - the demoralization and further retreat of working class movements and movements against oppression).







*This was and is disputed - many people in the labor movement believed that it was an "inside job" (the LA Times Building Truth Movement:laugh:) designed to discredit the unions that were trying to organize in LA.

[Martin Blank]

I'm not saying we should form anti-fascist coalitions against these right-wing populists or anything, but on the other hand I think this small but vocal part of the population is different than talking about differences between bourgeois political parties.

Actually, I would say we should be organizing anti-teabagger coalitions akin to anti-fascist groups, and also encourage anti-fascist groups to take on anti-teabagger activity as its own (you hear me, ARA?!). These folks are more of an immediate threat to working people and their organizations than the NSM or KKK at the moment ... which is why the latter are working in the former, and so openly and freely. Let's not forget that the Tea Party Nativist movement has the John Birch Society and other neo-fascist groups at its organizing core. Organizing an anti-fascist response may be the only way to deal with them at this point.

[pierrotlefou]

One reason their conference didn't have much members attending stems from the fact that it's extremely expensive (like 500$) to attend while conferences like the one you mentioned probably rarely reach more than a 100$ to attend.

So, yes, less members did show up but the media was ok with doing a report about it than on other similar (but of different ideological bent) conferences...
The issue is to me is that in a sense the media creates an aspect of our reality.
By showing coverage of the tea party conference while ignoring the existence of other conferences, marches, protests, strikes with more members is to present a false (by omission) reality to people giving subtle impression that only the tea party movement is the grass-root opposition to the status quo when in reality this was never true.
The tea partiers have better corporate backing then any leftist movement or organization so they're always going to get better coverage even if only 20 people show up. It's funny to me they are saying they're a grassroots movement about the people when they charge so much fucking money just to hear their party heads speak. These people aren't hard to expose, we just have to yell it loud enough and make enough noise so they have to notice it.

[black magick hustla]

Maybe it's that. Or maybe it's because rightwingers who bring automatic rifles to political protests are more of an issue for us than useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers.
i am sure the liberal state dropping bombs, murdering children, and persecuting immigrants is a pretty damn big concern, and i would argue a bigger concern than the apocalyptical tales of leftist activists. :rolleyes:

[which doctor]

Here's a video of Palin's keynote speech. At first you lol, then you realize you're looking down the road towards fascism.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/02/palins_tea_party_ready_for_rev.html

[Martin Blank]

i am sure the liberal state dropping bombs, murdering children, and persecuting immigrants is a pretty damn big concern, and i would argue a bigger concern than the apocalyptical tales of leftist activists. :rolleyes:

Jesus, why do I feel like I just landed in the Third Period?

[Devrim]

this is so true man. i think it happens because leftists see the whole socialism thing as something you defend in mainstream politics against these crazy rightwingers that dont agree with you. kindof like congress or some shit. we have the whole political order in opposition, but obviously "right wingers" sound worse than the average democrat.

I think that this is a very important point. I think we see it in a very different way. For us the task is about intervening in workers struggles. An example could be the current TEKEL strike in Turkey. Many of the strikers used to be supporters of the ruling AKP (Islamicist Party). However, it is the struggle itself, which has turned them against the AKP.

The task of communists is to put forward a revolutionary perspective to those workers who are looking for it, and to argue for the best way to struggle. We have spent a lot of time there discussing how to struggle, working with militants who are trying to advance and take control of the struggle. The issue that comes up mostly is the union. The majority of workers see that Türk-İs, the 'yellow union' is not going to take the struggle forward. We have worked closely with people attempting to form independent strike committees, and argued that workers need to take initiative themselves.

Of course, I am being brief here, but we see our work as more along these lines than in entering into the general political arena of bourgeois politics and debate, in which there is no way that tiny revolutionary groups can compete with the sort of money that is being thrown around here.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Maybe it's that. Or maybe it's because rightwingers who bring automatic rifles to political protests are more of an issue for us than useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers.


Actually, I would say we should be organizing anti-teabagger coalitions akin to anti-fascist groups, and also encourage anti-fascist groups to take on anti-teabagger activity as its own (you hear me, ARA?!). These folks are more of an immediate threat to working people and their organizations than the NSM or KKK at the moment ... which is why the latter are working in the former, and so openly and freely. Let's not forget that the Tea Party Nativist movement has the John Birch Society and other neo-fascist groups at its organizing core. Organizing an anti-fascist response may be the only way to deal with them at this point.

The Teaparty movement is a politically irrelevant petit-bourgeois movement. It's influence is tiny:


April 15, 2009 was the date of the largest number of tea parties, with demonstrations reported to be occurring in more than 750 cities.[31] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-met-30) Estimates of numbers of protesters varied by location and source. The Christian Science Monitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor) reported on the difficulties of calculating a cumulative turnout and said some estimates state that over half a million Americans participated in the protests, noting, "experts say the counting itself often becomes politicized as authorities, organizers, and attendees often come up with dramatically different counts.".[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-csm-31)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-csm-31)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-nationwide-32) Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist), president of Americans for Tax Reform, estimated that at least 268,000 attended in over 200 cities.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-33) Statistician Nate Silver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver), manager of fivethirtyeight.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fivethirtyeight.com), has stated that the largest protests were in capitals and large cities while many others had little or no reliable media coverage and were thus not included in his estimate. He reported cumulative crowd size from credible sources to be an estimated 311,460 for 346 cities and on April 16, 2009 stated "essentially all major cities and state capitals should now be accounted for."[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-ns-34) The largest event, in Atlanta, Georgia, drew an estimated 7,000[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-ajc-35) to 15,000 people.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-ns-34)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-Thousands_Attend_Atlanta_Tea_Party-36) Some of the gatherings drew only dozens.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#cite_note-csm-31)

To give a comparison to where we live, a country with about a quarter of the population of the US, the number of demonstrators in the whole of the US is probably about a half of the number of demonstrators we get in our biggest city alone on Mayday, and their biggest demonstration, taking the lower figure, is about the same size as workers demonstrations everyday in our city.

Yes, it is hyped up by the media, but I don't think that there is anything at all to be getting excited about here.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Here's a video of Palin's keynote speech. At first you lol, then you realize you're looking down the road towards fascism.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/02/palins_tea_party_ready_for_rev.html

Fascism is a movement that grew on the backs of a defeated workers revolution. The situation in the US is in no way similar. I don't think there is any danger of facism at all today in the US.

Devrim

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Fascism is a movement that grew on the backs of a defeated workers revolution. The situation in the US is in no way similar. I don't think there is any danger of facism at all today in the US.
Fascism took power as a result of defeated workers' revolutions. But do not confuse the conditions necessary for a full-blown fascist takeover with the conditions necessary for the mere existence of a fascist movement. There is a fascist movement in the UK right now (the BNP), and they certainly did not arise out of a failed revolution!

The situation in the US is not in any way suitable for a fascist takeover. So there won't be one. But fascists can be pretty fucking dangerous even when they are not in power.

The "Tea Party" movement is fascist. It will not get anywhere near power, but that doesn't change the fact that we now have a fascist movement on the ground in the United States.

[Devrim]

The situation in the US is not in any way suitable for a fascist takeover. So there won't be one. But fascists can be pretty fucking dangerous even when they are not in power.

The "Tea Party" movement is fascist. It will not get anywhere near power, but that doesn't change the fact that we now have a fascist movement on the ground in the United States.

I don't think that the BNP or the Tea Party movement are fascist in any way that is at all meaningful. They are basically far right populists. Throwing the word fascism about at these sort of groups doesn't do anything except make you sound like the boy who cried wolf.


But fascists can be pretty fucking dangerous even when they are not in power.

Exactly how is the Teaparty movement going to be dangerous?

Devrim

[Qayin]

Exactly how is the Teaparty movement going to be dangerous?

More privatization,escalation of the war on terrorism,rejection of all climate science/war on evolution/stem cell ban/continuation of LGBT oppression/ban on abortion/war on unions/ect ect

Just look at the fuckers platform and what makes up the movement. This is the obamas a socialist crowd,and if they gained power..holy shit.

[Devrim]

More privatization,escalation of the war on terrorism,rejection of all climate science/war on evolution/stem cell ban/continuation of LGBT oppression/ban on abortion/war on unions/ect ect

Just look at the fuckers platform and what makes up the movement. This is the obamas a socialist crowd,and if they gained power..holy shit.

But they are not going to gain power, and all of the stuff you mention is put forward by the main parties and mainstream media anyway.

Devrim

[Qayin]

They already got that senator in Mass.

2012 election is going to be GOP dominated,the healthcare reform bills dead and the reich wing won the rhetoric war

[Martin Blank]

The Teaparty movement is a politically irrelevant petit-bourgeois movement. It's influence is tiny:

I know it's a bad basis to start the argument from, but the fact is that you're not here, you don't understand how things work here in terms of protests, so, to be blunt, you simply don't know what you're talking about.


To give a comparison to where we live, a country with about a quarter of the population of the US, the number of demonstrators in the whole of the US is probably about a half of the number of demonstrators we get in our biggest city alone on Mayday, and their biggest demonstration, taking the lower figure, is about the same size as workers demonstrations everyday in our city.

Your comparison is irrelevant. It's the proverbial apples and oranges.

A more proper comparison would be antiwar demonstrations to Tea Party demonstrations.

The largest single nationwide day of protest against the invasion of Iraq was on February 15, 2003. All told, we probably had a maximum total of 750,000 in the streets in over 200 cities on that day. That crowd was, for all intents and purposes, the active "left" in the U.S., including liberals and center-left opponents of the war. That's the watermark.

The numbers you cite for Tea Party protests have about 40 percent of that number in the streets in 50 percent more cities -- and this last little bit is important, now -- in the middle of a workweek. That means their numbers were, at the very least, cut in half, if not by two-thirds. Translation: If they had held their protest on the weekend, and not in the middle of the week, they could have equaled what came out at the height of the antiwar movement in the U.S., if not surpassed it.

Moreover, as xAMKx pointed out, the Tea Party Nativists were responsible for getting Scott Brown elected to the seat held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy. His seat was considered the second safest in the country. In Florida, gusano Marco Rubio, another Tea Party supporter, looks like he'll become the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, beating former Governor Charlie Crist. Other Tea Party Republicans are polling well against "moderates" in primaries.

And the overall effect is pulling Democrats even further to the right, further into the corporatist consensus. The "liberal" Democrats are conceding political ground to the corporatists, who are in turn conceding ground to the Nativists. Even Dennis Kucinich, arguably the most "liberal" of the Democrats in Congress (on most things), has given up any pretense of posturing against them.

So, in the end, if anyone is going to mount a serious fight against the teabaggers, it's going to have to be the workers' movement -- even as weak as it is at the moment. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Either we organize and fight, or wait for them to haul us off (because, don't be fooled, if these people get their hands on the levers of the state, they'll use them in a heartbeat).


Yes, it is hyped up by the media, but I don't think that there is anything at all to be getting excited about here.

Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes.

[Devrim]

the fact is that you're not here, you don't understand how things work here in terms of protests, so, to be blunt, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

No, I just think we have absolutely different conceptions. Marmot sees things in the same way as I do, and he is 'there' and presumably has an idea of 'how things work in terms of protests'.


Your comparison is irrelevant. It's the proverbial apples and oranges.

A more proper comparison would be antiwar demonstrations to Tea Party demonstrations.

No, it's not at all. I really think you have no idea of what I am even talking about. Perhaps you should try to read my previous post again, which may help you to understand:



this is so true man. i think it happens because leftists see the whole socialism thing as something you defend in mainstream politics against these crazy rightwingers that dont agree with you. kindof like congress or some shit. we have the whole political order in opposition, but obviously "right wingers" sound worse than the average democrat.

I think that this is a very important point. I think we see it in a very different way. For us the task is about intervening in workers struggles. An example could be the current TEKEL strike in Turkey. Many of the strikers used to be supporters of the ruling AKP (Islamicist Party). However, it is the struggle itself, which has turned them against the AKP.

The task of communists is to put forward a revolutionary perspective to those workers who are looking for it, and to argue for the best way to struggle. We have spent a lot of time there discussing how to struggle, working with militants who are trying to advance and take control of the struggle. The issue that comes up mostly is the union. The majority of workers see that Türk-İs, the 'yellow union' is not going to take the struggle forward. We have worked closely with people attempting to form independent strike committees, and argued that workers need to take initiative themselves.

Of course, I am being brief here, but we see our work as more along these lines than in entering into the general political arena of bourgeois politics and debate, in which there is no way that tiny revolutionary groups can compete with the sort of money that is being thrown around here.

The anti-war demonstrations are leftist demonstrations. What I was trying to compare is that when the working class comes into struggle, its movement dwarves these sort of marginal political movements. The anti-war demonstrations are not a product of the working class as a class. Yes, there may be many workers there, but these sort of things are essentially cross class single issue movements.

You know this too:


The largest single nationwide day of protest against the invasion of Iraq was on February 15, 2003. All told, we probably had a maximum total of 750,000 in the streets in over 200 cities on that day. That crowd was, for all intents and purposes, the active "left" in the U.S., including liberals and center-left opponents of the war. That's the watermark.

Whist they may show a level of discontent with the system, and be fertile places for revolutionaries to make propaganda, I really don't think that there is that much to these sort of things.


Moreover, as xAMKx pointed out, the Tea Party Nativists were responsible for getting Scott Brown elected to the seat held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy. His seat was considered the second safest in the country. In Florida, gusano Marco Rubio, another Tea Party supporter, looks like he'll become the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, beating former Governor Charlie Crist. Other Tea Party Republicans are polling well against "moderates" in primaries.

So there is a bit of a turn to the libertarian right in the Republican party, which has always had those elements in it. So what?


And the overall effect is pulling Democrats even further to the right, further into the corporatist consensus. The "liberal" Democrats are conceding political ground to the corporatists, who are in turn conceding ground to the Nativists. Even Dennis Kucinich, arguably the most "liberal" of the Democrats in Congress (on most things), has given up any pretense of posturing against them.

And the Democrat Party, which has the sort of politics which would see it classified as a right-wing party in most countries anyway, is moving a bit further to the right. Again, so what?


So, in the end, if anyone is going to mount a serious fight against the teabaggers, it's going to have to be the workers' movement -- even as weak as it is at the moment. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Either we organize and fight, or wait for them to haul us off (because, don't be fooled, if these people get their hands on the levers of the state, they'll use them in a heartbeat).

These people are not going to 'get their hands on the levers of the state'. There is absolutely no possibility that the Tea Party will come to power. What is happening is that there is a move to the right in US politics. I don't think it is of any real relevance that the bourgeois parties are shifting a little to the right, because they were always completely anti-working class anyway, just as the so-called 'left-wing' bourgeois parties are.

Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

LOL Tea Party Covention. These people complain about being taxed too heavily because it hurts them financially, but yet have 500 bucks (an extra 10 if you want to see Palin) to spend for a ticket to a tea party convention.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both Miles and Devrim raise good points.


I don't think that the BNP or the Tea Party movement are fascist in any way that is at all meaningful. They are basically far right populists. Throwing the word fascism about at these sort of groups doesn't do anything except make you sound like the boy who cried wolf.

I would argue that one is potentially a fascist movement, and the other not so.


Maybe it's that. Or maybe it's because rightwingers who bring automatic rifles to political protests are more of an issue for us than useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers.

Devrim, does the BNP or EDL bring such weapons to political protests like the Teabaggers or Nazis did?

The implication, of course, is that Devrim is bang on with respect only to the BNP as far-right populists, but ones capable of gaining knowledgeable working-class protest votes (http://www.iwca.info/?p=10147#comments)! The teabaggers, however, are in the same lot as the right-wing domestic terrorists like McVeigh.


The numbers you cite for Tea Party protests have about 40 percent of that number in the streets in 50 percent more cities -- and this last little bit is important, now -- in the middle of a workweek. That means their numbers were, at the very least, cut in half, if not by two-thirds. Translation: If they had held their protest on the weekend, and not in the middle of the week, they could have equaled what came out at the height of the antiwar movement in the U.S., if not surpassed it.

Actually, such midweek protests only confirm that they're indeed movements of that one reactionary mass of mainly self-employed jocks. Even most small-business owners don't have the time for prioritizing this kind of crap over taking care of their shops or offices.

On the other hand, consider the anti-HST (harmonized sales tax) protests held on weekends in BC, Canada. I myself almost attended one!

[LeninistKing]

beware of Sara Palin and her FOX news show, she is waking up the KKK far-right in USA, we are doomed with a Nazi far-right wing populist like Sara Palin in 2012 for president. Jump out of the US Titanic before it sinks completely

.




Actually, I would say we should be organizing anti-teabagger coalitions akin to anti-fascist groups, and also encourage anti-fascist groups to take on anti-teabagger activity as its own (you hear me, ARA?!). These folks are more of an immediate threat to working people and their organizations than the NSM or KKK at the moment ... which is why the latter are working in the former, and so openly and freely. Let's not forget that the Tea Party Nativist movement has the John Birch Society and other neo-fascist groups at its organizing core. Organizing an anti-fascist response may be the only way to deal with them at this point.

[ls]

Actually, I would say we should be organizing anti-teabagger coalitions akin to anti-fascist groups, and also encourage anti-fascist groups to take on anti-teabagger activity as its own (you hear me, ARA?!). These folks are more of an immediate threat to working people and their organizations than the NSM or KKK at the moment ... which is why the latter are working in the former, and so openly and freely. Let's not forget that the Tea Party Nativist movement has the John Birch Society and other neo-fascist groups at its organizing core. Organizing an anti-fascist response may be the only way to deal with them at this point.

This will have the exact effect Devrim pointed out: "the boy who cried wolf", not in the eyes of the bourgeois but in those of the workers.

The constant, tedious crap about the BNP/tea party on this board, is really boring in honesty, also Kwisatz's comparison is the TYPICAL WRONG STUFF about the BNP we see ALL THE TIME on here. The TEA party is much more like UKIP, you would find that very few anti-fascists would bother opposing the UKIP on the streets in the UK and rightly so, they are not a mass movement on the streets, the UKIP, but they have all the same positions as the TEA party (plus they have a MASSIVE number of people in the European parliament so consider that!). Incidentally, I disagree with Devrim blanketly saying that the BNP "aren't fascist" as they do count a lot of fascists in their ranks, but they definitely do less damage than the main parliamentary parties and that's a fact.

"the best revenge is success" and I mean success of the working-class movement, that's the only thing that will beat this "tea party", the BNP, UKIP and all the main parliamentary and sub parties.

[Kesha]

Of course the Tea Party protests and meetings are gaining lots of media coverage- everything I've seen of them points to them being driven by some higher-ups in the industry who keep quiet about it so the Tea Party can still be considered some sort of "grass roots" organization. I've heard the Tea Party be called an "astroturf" organization, and it fits, haha.

[U.S.S.A]

The corprations are using these people to maintain their power. Most of the people at these events don't even know what socialism is. These people broke up and interupted many town hall meetings often times carrying weapons. Much like the how S.A. broke up oppostion meetings in Germany.

[Martin Blank]

No, I just think we have absolutely different conceptions. Marmot sees things in the same way as I do, and he is 'there' and presumably has an idea of 'how things work in terms of protests'.

I would be inclined to say you presume too much, but I think that's really not the point. The point here is not seeing these events as we would like to see them, but seeing them as they are.


The anti-war demonstrations are leftist demonstrations. What I was trying to compare is that when the working class comes into struggle, its movement dwarves these sort of marginal political movements. The anti-war demonstrations are not a product of the working class as a class. Yes, there may be many workers there, but these sort of things are essentially cross class single issue movements.

I find it fascinating that you see a political movement as "marginal", even if it is something that is a "cross class single issue movement" -- and especially given that it has been a focal point for political struggle against both the Bush and Obama regimes over the last period. Your use of the term "marginal" betrays a rank economism that permeates your entire method, and explains not only why you minimize the role of rightwing political movements like the Tea Party Nativists and the BNP, but also why you overemphasize the importance of the TEKEL protests, which are based around defensive and relatively narrow economic demands.

The class struggle is a political struggle. This means not only a "final battle" contest of strength with the capitalist state, but also a series of ongoing skirmishes and "battles of maneuver" that are meant to keep the capitalist state weaker than it could be, less organized than it could be, less belligerent than it could be -- in short, in a position that gives workers a relatively greater advantage than it would have otherwise. It's not about strengthening capitalist rule, but undermining it. It's not about putting capitalism on a more solid footing, but putting it in quicksand. That is why communists engage in political battles, even if they are partial and limited; that is also the criterion for participating in those battles.

Such political battles do not rise spontaneously. They require a level of organization to sustain them, otherwise they remain little more than social upheavals, riots and rebellions ... or "marginal" political protests under the leadership of non-revolutionary, non-proletarian elements. Elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie have learned from a century of political protests they have led "on behalf of" the working class; now they are using those lessons and skills for their own overt benefit. And yet, we still hear the same worn-out arguments about not engaging in "marginal" political struggles except to "make propaganda".

The failure of communists to intercede in these movements and build a revolutionary pole of attraction leaves a vacuum that is inevitably filled by liberals, populists and, yes, Nativists. The issue here is not simply that the teabaggers have support among the petty bourgeoisie; one should expect that the collective neurosis of that class is a fertile ground for the Nativists. No, the issue is that they are drawing in disaffected elements from the working class, providing them with a political direction in a time when the established capitalist parties are publicly discredited.

To put it another way: The failure of the revolutionary workers' movement to mount a sufficient challenge to the actions of the Tea Party Nativists is putting a knife to our throats. Even if they were to fail to attain state power, the success they have already had in winning over sections of the working class disoriented and disaffected by the economic crisis has been enough to set our work back for years. Continuing to play ostrich politics -- to bury our heads in the sand and pretend nothing has developed or changed over the last generation -- is tantamount to political suicide.

And this gets into dada's point:


i am sure the liberal state dropping bombs, murdering children, and persecuting immigrants is a pretty damn big concern, and i would argue a bigger concern than the apocalyptical tales of leftist activists.

All well and good, but how do you intend to deal with this politically? You can argue what amounts to the flip-side of a "social-fascist" line -- i.e., that there's no fundamental difference between Obama's liberal corporatists and the Tea Party Nativists -- but it does not bring you one whit closer to building a political movement against either.

We already know that no wing of the Democrats (or Greens) has any real interest in putting down the Nativist movement. For that matter, we also know that large sections of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois left have no interest in doing that, either (perhaps because they are "leftists that time forgot" or because of an innate sense of class solidarity -- you be the judge). In any event, it is up to working people alone to address the rise of this rightwing political movement.

We can do this using the method proposed by Devrim and dada -- we ignore the "marginal", "irrelevant" Tea Party movement, do little more than "make propaganda" in other existing political movements, and ... latch on to economic struggles, trying to give them a political tinge but not at all dealing with overall political consciousness. Or we can do this using our method -- we understand the role and character of the Tea Party Nativists while seeking to organize a movement that has the potential to grow to the point of being able to crush it, intercede in existing political movements to win those workers who have become politicized to a communist perspective, and ... draw working people in motion around economic struggles into the political arena in order to advance the consciousness of both the politicized and economic-militant workers.

The former method leaves all the old leaderships and political programs in place. There is no challenge to either of the existing political or economic arrangements (including the labor union officials, which are the only ones they challenge directly). The "marginal" movements are given the breathing space to become mainstream, while the established agencies of capitalist rule are, at once, influenced by an antagonistic relationship with the "marginal" movements and also united with them against a common enemy.

The latter method, on the other hand, has the potential to draw together workers from both political and economic struggles into a single movement that can challenge the basis of the "marginal" political movements on its own terms, including the rightwing movements like the Tea Party Nativists. Moreover, a successful challenge to the influence and existence of the Nativists not only strengthens the workers' movement, but also weakens the position of the exploiting and oppressing classes, since sweeping them off the political field removes a weapon from the arsenal of our class enemy.

Neutralizing, if not crushing, the Tea Party Nativists also weakens the liberal corporatist regime in power by not only weakening the position of the state forces (a section of whom identify with them), but also the dominance of the exploiting and oppressing classes in society. The vacuum created by the fall of the Nativists can potentially be filled by an insurgent workers' movement, fresh from its victory and feeling a renewed confidence in its ability and potential to change the world. That would fundamentally weaken the ability of the capitalist state to "drop bombs, murder children, and persecute immigrants" with relative impunity, as they do now (and as they would if we subscribed to the former method writ large).

Now, you might scoff at the idea of such a potential developing in either the short or medium term, or even at all using this method. Obviously, I disagree. My response is that whatever you might think of the method I've put forward, I can almost guarantee that the alternative method presented here -- a method that has been practiced for nearly 90 years without even a minor success in the class struggle -- will not bring us one step closer to the defeat or overthrow of capitalist rule.

In fact, it might only make matters worse for the working class. Case in point:

These people are not going to 'get their hands on the levers of the state'. There is absolutely no possibility that the Tea Party will come to power. What is happening is that there is a move to the right in US politics. I don't think it is of any real relevance that the bourgeois parties are shifting a little to the right, because they were always completely anti-working class anyway, just as the so-called 'left-wing' bourgeois parties are.

I was going to say originally that I feel like, when I read things like this, I am in Germany in 1930. But that's not really fair. A more appropriate and contemporary analogy would be the U.S. in the late 1990s. "There is absolutely no possibility that George W. Bush would become president. There is no way anyone will let that happen here. And even if they do, he'll be as ineffectual as his father was." Eleven years ago, this was the refrain we heard from both liberal and leftist alike. And we all know what happened.

Even after Bush was installed in 2000, some liberals and most leftists downplayed it. Ralph Nader called the events of November 2000 "a tempest in a teacup", and most leftists went right along with him.

Few, if any, self-described socialists and communists recognized the significance or potential of that wing of the exploiting and oppressing classes at that time. In the late 1990s, most said the same things you're saying now: they (the neoconservatives) are politically irrelevant; they have no real influence; they won't get their hands on the state; at most it's just a quantitative shift to the right; the main parties echo what they're saying anyway; the neoliberals are the real issue.

It was the method of "Nach Bush, uns", as our German comrades might say.

I would like to think that we have learned from this experience, that we are no longer going to wait until it has already happened before we decide to act. Working people made a mistake listening to people like you in the late 1990s. It led many of them to turn to the Democrats in the last decade, because the self-described socialists and communists falsely told them everything would be status quo ... and it wasn't.

Will the Tea Party Nativists actually gain state power? Maybe, maybe not. But it would be a capital mistake to just sit back and watch, as if the effect of them succeeding would be negligible on the working class. We should know better than that. Indeed, some of us do.

[Martin Blank]

This will have the exact effect Devrim pointed out: "the boy who cried wolf", not in the eyes of the bourgeois but in those of the workers.

And if one was calling every rightwing movement or current coming down the pike "fascist", or every conservative group an immediate threat, you might have a point. But I don't think that's what's happening here. Rather, I think we are seeing something that is historically unique for the U.S. And if history is any judge, such historically unique movements often succeed in achieving their goals.


"the best revenge is success" and I mean success of the working-class movement, that's the only thing that will beat this "tea party", the BNP, UKIP and all the main parliamentary and sub parties.

While the axiom has a profundity all its own, I don't think it relevant. This is not about revenge; this is about defense -- of the working class, its organizations and its movement. And, to use an axiom more appropriate to the subject, the best defense is a good offense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's your opinion on the small business owners' lack of time to protest, and also on the similar anti-tax protest I mentioned?

[LeninistKing]

Hey my friend, if americans were less individualists, more open-minded, and less argumentative The Tea Party people, the progressives and the US left, would unite into a United-Front against the 2% US Imperialist Oligarchy (The head of the snake of American Corporate Power), in order to truely Democratize USA, and spread the wealth created in USA to all US citizens thru a system of nationalization of key resources, workers cooperatives, community councils, and workers control. Because i bet that most Tea Party supporters are victims of oligarchic, neoliberal capitalism, just like most of us. Who are facing this reality of increased food prices, increased gas prices, unemployment and hopelessness.

But you know how argumentative american people are, how skeptics, pessimists americans are. The excess of skepticism, sectarianism and pessimism will destroy USA

.


I would be inclined to say you presume too much, but I think that's really not the point. The point here is not seeing these events as we would like to see them, but seeing them as they are.



I find it fascinating that you see a political movement as "marginal", even if it is something that is a "cross class single issue movement" -- and especially given that it has been a focal point for political struggle against both the Bush and Obama regimes over the last period. Your use of the term "marginal" betrays a rank economism that permeates your entire method, and explains not only why you minimize the role of rightwing political movements like the Tea Party Nativists and the BNP, but also why you overemphasize the importance of the TEKEL protests, which are based around defensive and relatively narrow economic demands.

The class struggle is a political struggle. This means not only a "final battle" contest of strength with the capitalist state, but also a series of ongoing skirmishes and "battles of maneuver" that are meant to keep the capitalist state weaker than it could be, less organized than it could be, less belligerent than it could be -- in short, in a position that gives workers a relatively greater advantage than it would have otherwise. It's not about strengthening capitalist rule, but undermining it. It's not about putting capitalism on a more solid footing, but putting it in quicksand. That is why communists engage in political battles, even if they are partial and limited; that is also the criterion for participating in those battles.

Such political battles do not rise spontaneously. They require a level of organization to sustain them, otherwise they remain little more than social upheavals, riots and rebellions ... or "marginal" political protests under the leadership of non-revolutionary, non-proletarian elements. Elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie have learned from a century of political protests they have led "on behalf of" the working class; now they are using those lessons and skills for their own overt benefit. And yet, we still hear the same worn-out arguments about not engaging in "marginal" political struggles except to "make propaganda".

The failure of communists to intercede in these movements and build a revolutionary pole of attraction leaves a vacuum that is inevitably filled by liberals, populists and, yes, Nativists. The issue here is not simply that the teabaggers have support among the petty bourgeoisie; one should expect that the collective neurosis of that class is a fertile ground for the Nativists. No, the issue is that they are drawing in disaffected elements from the working class, providing them with a political direction in a time when the established capitalist parties are publicly discredited.

To put it another way: The failure of the revolutionary workers' movement to mount a sufficient challenge to the actions of the Tea Party Nativists is putting a knife to our throats. Even if they were to fail to attain state power, the success they have already had in winning over sections of the working class disoriented and disaffected by the economic crisis has been enough to set our work back for years. Continuing to play ostrich politics -- to bury our heads in the sand and pretend nothing has developed or changed over the last generation -- is tantamount to political suicide.

And this gets into dada's point:



All well and good, but how do you intend to deal with this politically? You can argue what amounts to the flip-side of a "social-fascist" line -- i.e., that there's no fundamental difference between Obama's liberal corporatists and the Tea Party Nativists -- but it does not bring you one whit closer to building a political movement against either.

We already know that no wing of the Democrats (or Greens) has any real interest in putting down the Nativist movement. For that matter, we also know that large sections of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois left have no interest in doing that, either (perhaps because they are "leftists that time forgot" or because of an innate sense of class solidarity -- you be the judge). In any event, it is up to working people alone to address the rise of this rightwing political movement.

We can do this using the method proposed by Devrim and dada -- we ignore the "marginal", "irrelevant" Tea Party movement, do little more than "make propaganda" in other existing political movements, and ... latch on to economic struggles, trying to give them a political tinge but not at all dealing with overall political consciousness. Or we can do this using our method -- we understand the role and character of the Tea Party Nativists while seeking to organize a movement that has the potential to grow to the point of being able to crush it, intercede in existing political movements to win those workers who have become politicized to a communist perspective, and ... draw working people in motion around economic struggles into the political arena in order to advance the consciousness of both the politicized and economic-militant workers.

The former method leaves all the old leaderships and political programs in place. There is no challenge to either of the existing political or economic arrangements (including the labor union officials, which are the only ones they challenge directly). The "marginal" movements are given the breathing space to become mainstream, while the established agencies of capitalist rule are, at once, influenced by an antagonistic relationship with the "marginal" movements and also united with them against a common enemy.

The latter method, on the other hand, has the potential to draw together workers from both political and economic struggles into a single movement that can challenge the basis of the "marginal" political movements on its own terms, including the rightwing movements like the Tea Party Nativists. Moreover, a successful challenge to the influence and existence of the Nativists not only strengthens the workers' movement, but also weakens the position of the exploiting and oppressing classes, since sweeping them off the political field removes a weapon from the arsenal of our class enemy.

Neutralizing, if not crushing, the Tea Party Nativists also weakens the liberal corporatist regime in power by not only weakening the position of the state forces (a section of whom identify with them), but also the dominance of the exploiting and oppressing classes in society. The vacuum created by the fall of the Nativists can potentially be filled by an insurgent workers' movement, fresh from its victory and feeling a renewed confidence in its ability and potential to change the world. That would fundamentally weaken the ability of the capitalist state to "drop bombs, murder children, and persecute immigrants" with relative impunity, as they do now (and as they would if we subscribed to the former method writ large).

Now, you might scoff at the idea of such a potential developing in either the short or medium term, or even at all using this method. Obviously, I disagree. My response is that whatever you might think of the method I've put forward, I can almost guarantee that the alternative method presented here -- a method that has been practiced for nearly 90 years without even a minor success in the class struggle -- will not bring us one step closer to the defeat or overthrow of capitalist rule.

In fact, it might only make matters worse for the working class. Case in point:


I was going to say originally that I feel like, when I read things like this, I am in Germany in 1930. But that's not really fair. A more appropriate and contemporary analogy would be the U.S. in the late 1990s. "There is absolutely no possibility that George W. Bush would become president. There is no way anyone will let that happen here. And even if they do, he'll be as ineffectual as his father was." Eleven years ago, this was the refrain we heard from both liberal and leftist alike. And we all know what happened.

Even after Bush was installed in 2000, some liberals and most leftists downplayed it. Ralph Nader called the events of November 2000 "a tempest in a teacup", and most leftists went right along with him.

Few, if any, self-described socialists and communists recognized the significance or potential of that wing of the exploiting and oppressing classes at that time. In the late 1990s, most said the same things you're saying now: they (the neoconservatives) are politically irrelevant; they have no real influence; they won't get their hands on the state; at most it's just a quantitative shift to the right; the main parties echo what they're saying anyway; the neoliberals are the real issue.

It was the method of "Nach Bush, uns", as our German comrades might say.

I would like to think that we have learned from this experience, that we are no longer going to wait until it has already happened before we decide to act. Working people made a mistake listening to people like you in the late 1990s. It led many of them to turn to the Democrats in the last decade, because the self-described socialists and communists falsely told them everything would be status quo ... and it wasn't.

Will the Tea Party Nativists actually gain state power? Maybe, maybe not. But it would be a capital mistake to just sit back and watch, as if the effect of them succeeding would be negligible on the working class. We should know better than that. Indeed, some of us do.

[black magick hustla]

I would be inclined to say you presume too much, but I think that's really not the point. The point here is not seeing these events as we would like to see them, but seeing them as they are.


hm, i think i know a bit about it. i would presume not as much as you. however, i am in college and ive been part (before i stopped doing it) of what you term the "worthless petit bourgeois socialists" which are a staple of college activism.





I find it fascinating that you see a political movement as "marginal", even if it is something that is a "cross class single issue movement" -- and especially given that it has been a focal point for political struggle against both the Bush and Obama regimes over the last period. Your use of the term "marginal" betrays a rank economism that permeates your entire method, and explains not only why you minimize the role of rightwing political movements like the Tea Party Nativists and the BNP, but also why you overemphasize the importance of the TEKEL protests, which are based around defensive and relatively narrow economic demands.
i don't think anybody is overemphasizing anything. i presume devrim doesnt think it will lead to revolution, or whatever. however, it is a struggle in the "class camp" and it is in this types of things a lot of working class consciousness is raised. i dont think communist organizations gain anything out of tailing leftist campaigns, like "struggling against the right wing",




The class struggle is a political struggle. This means not only a "final battle" contest of strength with the capitalist state, but also a series of ongoing skirmishes and "battles of maneuver" that are meant to keep the capitalist state weaker than it could be, less organized than it could be, less belligerent than it could be -- in short, in a position that gives workers a relatively greater advantage than it would have otherwise. It's not about strengthening capitalist rule, but undermining it. It's not about putting capitalism on a more solid footing, but putting it in quicksand. That is why communists engage in political battles, even if they are partial and limited; that is also the criterion for participating in those battles.

so what does forming "anti-fascist coalitions" against the scrotum baggers has anything to do with "weakening the state"? if anything, i would imagine it would give the state a reason to use its muscle.



Such political battles do not rise spontaneously. They require a level of organization to sustain them, otherwise they remain little more than social upheavals, riots and rebellions ... or "marginal" political protests under the leadership of non-revolutionary, non-proletarian elements. Elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie have learned from a century of political protests they have led "on behalf of" the working class; now they are using those lessons and skills for their own overt benefit. And yet, we still hear the same worn-out arguments about not engaging in "marginal" political struggles except to "make propaganda".
{/quote}
i dont think it is just a matter of the "petit bourgeoisie" and the haute bourgeosie learning to "lead them". i think a lot of this political protests are already petit bourgeois in nature, i.e. they are leftist, instead of communist.


[quote]
The failure of communists to intercede in these movements and build a revolutionary pole of attraction leaves a vacuum that is inevitably filled by liberals, populists and, yes, Nativists. The issue here is not simply that the teabaggers have support among the petty bourgeoisie; one should expect that the collective neurosis of that class is a fertile ground for the Nativists. No, the issue is that they are drawing in disaffected elements from the working class, providing them with a political direction in a time when the established capitalist parties are publicly discredited.
i think all political windbags, from left to right, draw "dissafected members from the working class." i dont see how this is fundamnetally different than "dissafected members of the working class" tailing obama and the murderious democrats though.



To put it another way: The failure of the revolutionary workers' movement to mount a sufficient challenge to the actions of the Tea Party Nativists is putting a knife to our throats. Even if they were to fail to attain state power, the success they have already had in winning over sections of the working class disoriented and disaffected by the economic crisis has been enough to set our work back for years. Continuing to play ostrich politics -- to bury our heads in the sand and pretend nothing has developed or changed over the last generation -- is tantamount to political suicide.

what political suicide? i dont think communists are in a position of talking now about "political suicide". that would imply there is a big communist movement with a lot of cred to "commit suicide" about.
And this gets into dada's point:




All well and good, but how do you intend to deal with this politically? You can argue what amounts to the flip-side of a "social-fascist" line -- i.e., that there's no fundamental difference between Obama's liberal corporatists and the Tea Party Nativists -- but it does not bring you one whit closer to building a political movement against either.
i think the reason why we are having this discussion is that your methodology is completely different. you think a guy, his best friend and their dog can proclaim some sort of communist mass movement. you think the class can be won by mere act of evangelization.




We already know that no wing of the Democrats (or Greens) has any real interest in putting down the Nativist movement. For that matter, we also know that large sections of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois left have no interest in doing that, either (perhaps because they are "leftists that time forgot" or because of an innate sense of class solidarity -- you be the judge). In any event, it is up to working people alone to address the rise of this rightwing political movement.
this sounds dangerously close to the silly like the rcp has to "christian fascism". its a mystification man.



We can do this using the method proposed by Devrim and dada -- we ignore the "marginal", "irrelevant" Tea Party movement, do little more than "make propaganda" in other existing political movements, and ... latch on to economic struggles, trying to give them a political tinge but not at all dealing with overall political consciousness. Or we can do this using our method -- we understand the role and character of the Tea Party Nativists while seeking to organize a movement that has the potential to grow to the point of being able to crush it, intercede in existing political movements to win those workers who have become politicized to a communist perspective, and ... draw working people in motion around economic struggles into the political arena in order to advance the consciousness of both the politicized and economic-militant workers.

good luck with that. it has already tried a ton of times before. what was the outcome of the "muscle politics" of antifas against griffin?




Now, you might scoff at the idea of such a potential developing in either the short or medium term, or even at all using this method. Obviously, I disagree. My response is that whatever you might think of the method I've put forward, I can almost guarantee that the alternative method presented here -- a method that has been practiced for nearly 90 years without even a minor success in the class struggle -- will not bring us one step closer to the defeat or overthrow of capitalist rule.

the method you put forward is the one that has been tried, and been showed as a failure. At worst, it has led millions of workers to slit each other's throat in defense of democratic rights. you are not proposing anything new. you are proposing a formula tried by generations of self avowed marxists.

[Martin Blank]

What's your opinion on the small business owners' lack of time to protest, and also on the similar anti-tax protest I mentioned?

I think they're both actually important points.

Actually, small business owners as a whole are divided over which faction of the exploiting classes to support. However, the momentum of gathering support is on the side of the Tea Party movement, where they form a layer of passive political support that extends well beyond the numbers seen on the streets. They will support through other means, including donations and "word-of-mouth" propagandizing.

As for anti-tax protests, they can often be a swirl of political views, drawing in both left and right populists. They also represent an area that, at least here in the U.S., is relatively untapped by self-described socialists and communists in recent memory. We have been promoting the idea of anti-tax protests around the proposed excise tax in Obama's health care "reform" plan. If that plan is signed, then workers will be forced to either get private insurance or pay an excise tax -- and if they cannot or will not pay the tax, they could go to jail for tax evasion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, small business owners as a whole are divided over which faction of the exploiting classes to support. However, the momentum of gathering support is on the side of the Tea Party movement, where they form a layer of passive political support that extends well beyond the numbers seen on the streets. They will support through other means, including donations and "word-of-mouth" propagandizing.

I guess the hidden question in my question is: How strong is this "passive political support"? That they aren't gung-ho about about sacrificing a day's worth of sales or office work like the jocks are is quite something. The "word of mouth" agitation may just be the usual rants about less taxes and "small government" but without the Teabagging hysteria, while continuing memberships and donations to the Tax Foundation (cited in my work) and other American equivalents of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation - as opposed to loony outfits along the lines of the Fraser Institute.

Meanwhile, I myself would like to see the left in the US "agitate" around opposition to state-based sales taxes, just like the cross-political opposition to the HST shit, before any thought of a national sales tax is taken seriously by Congress.

[Martin Blank]

hm, i think i know a bit about it. i would presume not as much as you. however, i am in college and ive been part (before i stopped doing it) of what you term the "worthless petit bourgeois socialists" which are a staple of college activism.

Actually, the term was "useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers", but there's not point in quibbling about that aspect of it.


i don't think anybody is overemphasizing anything. i presume devrim doesnt think it will lead to revolution, or whatever. however, it is a struggle in the "class camp" and it is in this types of things a lot of working class consciousness is raised. i dont think communist organizations gain anything out of tailing leftist campaigns, like "struggling against the right wing",

As with Devrim, I find it interesting that you find political action to be "tailing" (even though the whole analysis and method put forward emphasizes the fact that no one else other than the working class can do it). Again, it exposes a deep economism that marginalizes the class (political) struggle.


so what does forming "anti-fascist coalitions" against the scrotum baggers has anything to do with "weakening the state"? if anything, i would imagine it would give the state a reason to use its muscle.

Organizing any proper anti-fascist work -- as with the organization of proper picket-line defense and meeting security -- involves education on the principles of organized and regulated self-defense. These kinds of efforts advance the development of generalized workers' defense, which is the starting point for workers' defense against counterrevolution in a revolutionary period. Promoting that knowledge and those principles, and ultimately organizing those forces, weakens the state in relation to the balance of class forces. The capitalist state is no longer the only force out there defending the organization and agenda of its class(es).


i dont think it is just a matter of the "petit bourgeoisie" and the haute bourgeosie learning to "lead them". i think a lot of this political protests are already petit bourgeois in nature, i.e. they are leftist, instead of communist.

That's what I was saying. They did that in the Old and New Left, and now they are doing it for their own benefit.


i think all political windbags, from left to right, draw "dissafected members from the working class." i dont see how this is fundamnetally different than "dissafected members of the working class" tailing obama and the murderious democrats though.

It's not that disaffected workers are tailing or participating in these movements that constitutes the difference. It is their programs in relation to the working class that define the differences. We will settle accounts with "Bush's Third Term" in due course, but first we have a rightwing whackjob with an automatic rifle standing in front of us, locked and loaded. I tend to think that's more of an immediate concern.


what political suicide? i dont think communists are in a position of talking now about "political suicide". that would imply there is a big communist movement with a lot of cred to "commit suicide" about.

Actually, no, it doesn't. What it implies is that those of us who are not tainted by the betrayals of the last century don't intend to follow in their footsteps if we ever want to get to the point of being a "big communist movement with a lot of cred".


i think the reason why we are having this discussion is that your methodology is completely different. you think a guy, his best friend and their dog can proclaim some sort of communist mass movement. you think the class can be won by mere act of evangelization.

Actually, I think it takes a lot of hard work and relatively anonymous organizing to build a communist mass movement. It's your tendency that relies on "making propaganda" (i.e., evangelization) to build something. But, yes, our methods are fundamentally different. On that, we agree.


this sounds dangerously close to the silly like the rcp has to "christian fascism". its a mystification man.

If you're going to make a claim like that, you have to back it up. Where is the mystification? Is it mystification to say that the Democrats (and Greens) have no interest in opposing the Tea Party Nativists? Or is it mystification to say that it is up to the working class to oppose them? Where is the mystery, Scooby?


good luck with that. it has already tried a ton of times before. what was the outcome of the "muscle politics" of antifas against griffin?

Is that really all you got out of that? Really? You talk about mystification above, but what I see from you is a lot of obfuscation. Hell, I'll call it what it is: throwing mud in workers' eyes. You are intentionally confusing methods here, and it is a mark of political dishonesty on your part. Perhaps you spent too long among the "useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers" after all.


the method you put forward is the one that has been tried, and been showed as a failure. At worst, it has led millions of workers to slit each other's throat in defense of democratic rights. you are not proposing anything new. you are proposing a formula tried by generations of self avowed marxists.

Hic Rhodes, Hic Salta. Provide an example of where you think this method has been tried before. If you are right, then you've given me something to think about. If not, you will have again proven your willingness to be dishonest in an honest political debate.

[Martin Blank]

I guess the hidden question in my question is: How strong is this "passive political support"? That they aren't gung-ho about about sacrificing a day's worth of sales or office work like the jocks are is quite something. The "word of mouth" agitation may just be the usual rants about less taxes and "small government" but without the Teabagging hysteria, while continuing memberships and donations to the Tax Foundation (cited in my work) and other American equivalents of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation - as opposed to loony outfits along the lines of the Fraser Institute.

Often, it's more a question of can't than won't. These small business owners -- more like unsecure managers, since they work for an owner (usually a bank or manufacturer) -- often cannot afford to take the day off for anything, least of all political activity. It is, in fact, one of the things that compounds the frustration they express when they rant about taxes and "big government". The more these elements "clarify" their ranting, the more they self-identify with the Tea Party Nativists ... coming at it from the economic side.


Meanwhile, I myself would like to see the left in the US "agitate" around opposition to state-based sales taxes, just like the cross-political opposition to the HST shit, before any thought of a national sales tax is taken seriously by Congress.

A national sales tax has been brought up numerous times over the years, but it never seems to go very far. Instead, they usually resort to the more constitutionally-explicit use of excise taxes on consumption items -- i.e., "sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc.

[ls]

but also why you overemphasize the importance of the TEKEL protests, which are based around defensive and relatively narrow economic demands.

Your arguments seem out of touch with the real working-class movement and are also pretty US-centric.


And if one was calling every rightwing movement or current coming down the pike "fascist", or every conservative group an immediate threat, you might have a point. But I don't think that's what's happening here. Rather, I think we are seeing something that is historically unique for the U.S. And if history is any judge, such historically unique movements often succeed in achieving their goals.

What exactly is historically unique about American conservative protests?


This is not about revenge; this is about defense -- of the working class, its organizations and its movement. And, to use an axiom more appropriate to the subject, the best defense is a good offense.

Against capitalism, not a conservative movement which is nothing like the NSDAP whatsoever.

[Martin Blank]

Your arguments seem out of touch with the real working-class movement and are also pretty US-centric.

It can be argued that I'm speaking too much from the perspective of someone in the U.S. I'm willing to listen to that argument much more than I am someone attempting to tell me I'm out of touch with my own class -- especially someone who seems to just be entering the Brave New World of the class struggle.

Tell you what, when you've organized a union, a strike, a strike committee, an opposition caucus, an internal communist (or anarchist) fraction, fought off bureaucrats with words and fists, and had to carry a gun to work to protect yourself from both Mob-owned union officials and company thugs, then you can come and talk to me about how in-touch or out-of-touch I might be with my own class. Because then we'll be talking as equals with shared experiences.

(Oh, and if you're finding yourself incredulous at what I said above, just remember that you went there of your own free will.)


What exactly is historically unique about American conservative protests?

For starters, one on this scale hasn't been seen in decades. The closest thing to it in the 20th century was the second-generation Ku Klux Klan in the 1910s and 1920s. Even the anti-abortion movement in the 1980s and 1990s isn't the same; that was mass but mainly single-issue, while this is more comprehensive in its political platform.


Against capitalism, not a conservative movement which is nothing like the NSDAP whatsoever.

I'm invoking Godwin's Law.

I never said that the Tea Party Nativists were Nazis, so the comparison is invalid. What I have said is that they represent a variety of Nativist populist fascism -- in a sense, a very American fascism, fully in accordance with Sinclair Lewis' admonition: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

[ls]

It can be argued that I'm speaking too much from the perspective of someone in the U.S. I'm willing to listen to that argument much more than I am someone attempting to tell me I'm out of touch with my own class -- especially someone who seems to just be entering the Brave New World of the class struggle.

And your point is what? Having been a revolutionary for just over a year now and worked out my positions on key issues of class-struggle, I think I'm doing quite well, I've joined some decent organisations and plan on getting into the class-struggle very much so over the next few years.


Tell you what, when you've organized a union, a strike, a strike committee, an opposition caucus, an internal communist (or anarchist) fraction, fought off bureaucrats with words and fists, and had to carry a gun to work to protect yourself from both Mob-owned union officials and company thugs, then you can come and talk to me about how in-touch or out-of-touch I might be with my own class. Because then we'll be talking as equals with shared experiences.


(Oh, and if you're finding yourself incredulous at what I said above, just remember that you went there of your own free will.)

I'm not sure incredulous is the right word. I've heard plenty about the WPA and CL and to be honest, I wasn't impressed. The more interesting organisation around where you are is something like detroit worker's voice.


For starters, one on this scale hasn't been seen in decades. The closest thing to it in the 20th century was the second-generation Ku Klux Klan in the 1910s and 1920s. Even the anti-abortion movement in the 1980s and 1990s isn't the same; that was mass but mainly single-issue, while this is more comprehensive in its political platform.

It is right-wing conservative in its platform, it isn't neo-fascism.


I never said that the Tea Party Nativists were Nazis, so the comparison is invalid.

Nope, you tried to subtly imply that you could be headed towards a situation like that very soon though.


What I have said is that they represent a variety of Nativist populist fascism -- in a sense, a very American fascism, fully in accordance with Sinclair Lewis' admonition: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Fascism is wrapped in the flag here too, as well as in pretty much every other country I've seen fascist symbolism from so I don't get what's so special about American fascism. Most conservatives lean very close to being fascists in all countries, but it doesn't automatically make them so.

[bcbm]

miles, how do you think the tea party movement compares to the militia movement of the 90's?

[black magick hustla]

As with Devrim, I find it interesting that you find political action to be "tailing" (even though the whole analysis and method put forward emphasizes the fact that no one else other than the working class can do it). Again, it exposes a deep economism that marginalizes the class (political) struggle.

i dont think it "marginalizes" political struggle. in the contrary, due to the lack of capital and means that tiny revolutionary groups have, participating in leftist campaigns and "the politics of the state" ends up diffusing this groups into little more than support groups or at worst, integrates them completely to the state like what happened to the militant. (who made calls for national defense)



{quote}Organizing any proper anti-fascist work -- as with the organization of proper picket-line defense and meeting security -- involves education on the principles of organized and regulated self-defense. These kinds of efforts advance the development of generalized workers' defense, which is the starting point for workers' defense against counterrevolution in a revolutionary period. Promoting that knowledge and those principles, and ultimately organizing those forces, weakens the state in relation to the balance of class forces. The capitalist state is no longer the only force out there defending the organization and agenda of its class(es). [/quote]

i think communist organizations should know how to defend themselves. the italian left communists had armed patrols in their congresses in case fascist gangsters came to fuck up their shit. the group around bilan in the US guarded with arms some meetings of the trotskyists around cannon.
'
i dont think this is what you are proposing though. you are proposing "anti-fasicsm, and not even real antifascism because the dick baggers are not real fascists. you are proposing muscle politics.







It's not that disaffected workers are tailing or participating in these movements that constitutes the difference. It is their programs in relation to the working class that define the differences. We will settle accounts with "Bush's Third Term" in due course, but first we have a rightwing whackjob with an automatic rifle standing in front of us, locked and loaded. I tend to think that's more of an immediate concern.

:shrugs: this is not an american pecularity. i imagine the turkish left communists have to deal with real street fascists that do actually commit political murders. i think you are being terribly hyperbolic. i cant think of a particular situation in the US where these right wing cowboys committed the type of apocalypse you are speaking of. we are communists, a lot of people are going to hate us. . the only event i can think about is when in the 60s, some maoists got massacred by the KKK.








If you're going to make a claim like that, you have to back it up. Where is the mystification? Is it mystification to say that the Democrats (and Greens) have no interest in opposing the Tea Party Nativists? Or is it mystification to say that it is up to the working class to oppose them? Where is the mystery, Scooby?

its the mystification of bourgeois politics. you see everything in terms of "left" and "right". the liberal mass murderers are obviously not that bad because they are milldly leftist. while a bunch of cowboys, soccer moms, and small shop owners are scarier than the cops and the state.



Is that really all you got out of that? Really? You talk about mystification above, but what I see from you is a lot of obfuscation. Hell, I'll call it what it is: throwing mud in workers' eyes. You are intentionally confusing methods here, and it is a mark of political dishonesty on your part. Perhaps you spent too long among the "worthless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers" after all.


what "confusion". you explicitly talk about crushing the tea baggers and skirmishing with anti fascist units. there is no dishonesty here.



Hic Rhodes, Hic Salta. Provide an example of where you think this method has been tried before. If you are right, then you've given me something to think about. If not, you will have again proven your willingness to be dishonest in an honest political debate.
Did a mass movement come out of the british antifascists? What is so different about your method?

[Martin Blank]

And your point is what? Having been a revolutionary for just over a year now and worked out my positions on key issues of class-struggle, I think I'm doing quite well, I've joined some decent organisations and plan on getting into the class-struggle very much so over the next few years.

My point is that if you want to argue that I'm being too U.S.-centric here, that's a more valid and legitimate line of argument to make than to blithely accuse me of being "out of touch" with my own class. I disagree with that assertion, but it certainly has more bearing than the false argument you coupled with it.


I'm not sure incredulous is the right word. I've heard plenty about the WPA and CL and to be honest, I wasn't impressed. The more interesting organisation around where you are is something like detroit worker's voice.

I'm actually friends with some of the DWV/CVO folks on a personal level, and we always talk in a friendly and comradely way when we see each other at events (Green and I have had some really good discussions on the differences between Marx's "revolution in permanence" and Trotsky's "permanent revolution" that I found very insightful, even if I didn't agree with everything he said).

There's a lot I like about what they do and say, but I have problems with their doctrinaire approach (they are very much a sect, and seem to make no bones about it -- I can, at least, respect them for their honesty), so things don't go very far.


It is right-wing conservative in its platform, it isn't neo-fascism.

Perhaps it would be good at this point if we started talking about definitions of fascism, so that we can clarify what it is we're talking about.


Nope, you tried to subtly imply that you could be headed towards a situation like that very soon though.

I implied nothing. I said explicitly that these Nativist fascists could take power if they are not stopped. What I did not say is that they would be like the Nazis; that is where I invoked Godwin's Law. Most fascist movements or parties don't wear brown shirts, carry a swastika or even attack Jews.


Fascism is wrapped in the flag here too, as well as in pretty much every other country I've seen fascist symbolism from so I don't get what's so special about American fascism. Most conservatives lean very close to being fascists in all countries, but it doesn't automatically make them so.

No, it doesn't. I agree with you on that. A lot of people knee-jerked about George W. Bush in 2000, but we resisted calling him and his regime fascist, opting instead to explore the question of corporatism deeper. His regime certainly had plenty of fascistic tendencies, though. But it's one thing to have the tendencies (as you say, most rightwing movements lean very close to fascism, which means they mimic many of its elements); it's another thing entirely to pass a point of fundamental transformation and be classified as fascist.

Initially, the Tea Party Nativists began as little more than rightwing populists. But over the last year, a process of transformation has taken place. As the movement developed from a semi-spontaneous to an organized political current, as organizations like the John Birch Society, the National Socialist Movement and the Council of Conservative Citizens (formerly the White Citizen's Councils) became the practical leadership, buttressed by money from the fascist Koch family via their "astroturf" fronts, the character of the protests -- the political platform and outlook -- began to fundamentally change. It stopped being a nominally "loyal" conservative opposition and took on a more militant and belligerent posture.

Today's Tea Party Nativist movement qualifies as fascist -- as a specific means of mobilizing and organizing the petty bourgeoisie, permeated with a specific hatred of the working class, around a program of anti-worker social reaction and demagogy in the interests of maintaining the stable rule of (corporatist) finance capitalism. Yes, such a movement also draws in sections of the working class that see in fascism an opportunity to improve their situation and enter into, at the very least, the labor aristocracy, if not the petty bourgeoisie itself (as a manager or official). It seeks to restore "pride" and "traditional values" that have been lost or thrown out by those they see as "undermining" society (liberals, labor unions, socialists, communists, non-Christians, etc.). It is violently xenophobic, seeing all those who they do not consider a part of their "nation" as the enemy. Most of all, it kneels before the altar of private property, seeing anything that challenges its omnipresent supremacy and unfettered development as needing to be destroyed.


miles, how do you think the tea party movement compares to the militia movement of the 90's?

First, I don't think there was any one specific militia movement. The most well-known of them, the semi-fascist "Patriot Movement" around the Militia of Montana and such, was only one of three. The Michigan Militia, for example, was in a more moderate wing -- conservative, but not fascist. (I know people who are in the Michigan Militia; we talk occasionally about hardware and what they're doing these days -- he likes to talk, I like to listen, if you get my drift.) There was also a third group that was fairly small in comparison to the others, but also more contradictory: the "urban militia" groups. For a while in the 1990s, some of us worked with the "urban militia" organization here in Detroit (don't know if it still exists these days).

I don't think it's fair to make a direct comparison between the Tea Party people and the militias. The latter was far more fractured politically than the former is today, even with all of the latter's attempts at military discipline. The militias were (and are) a hodge-podge of various rightwing and conspiracy theories, all wrapped up in a camouflage package. Generally, it was conservative populism that dominated the militia movements, but the contours of that populism varied from group to group and individual to individual; some were strict Constitutionalists, others were communalists, and still others just believed in the right to defend themselves and their communities against any threat ... including the capitalist state.

P.S.: I see dada's post. I'll deal with it shortly.

[black magick hustla]

the michigan militia are my homeboys

[Martin Blank]

i dont think it "marginalizes" political struggle. in the contrary, due to the lack of capital and means that tiny revolutionary groups have, participating in leftist campaigns and "the politics of the state" ends up diffusing this groups into little more than support groups or at worst, integrates them completely to the state like what happened to the militant. (who made calls for national defense)

I disagree strongly with this. In fact, it strikes me as sheer political cowardice. If you think the pressure from capitalist society is strong now, wait until you're dealing with a mass movement of millions, where the pressures will be multiplied almost exponentially. I also think your position reflects a great deal of the opportunism in your own current, as it reveals what you see happening to yourselves if you were to engage in those political struggles -- even with the relatively small amount of pressure you'd experience today.


i think communist organizations should know how to defend themselves. the italian left communists had armed patrols in their congresses in case fascist gangsters came to fuck up their shit. the group around bilan in the US guarded with arms some meetings of the trotskyists around cannon.

i don't think this is what you are proposing though. you are proposing "anti-fascism", and not even real anti-fascism because the dick baggers are not real fascists. you are proposing muscle politics.

I am really beginning to get amused by the whole line about "muscle politics". I am especially amused because I'm hearing it from self-described revolutionaries.

"Muscle politics", as I understand the history of the phrase, refers to generally apolitical "anti-fascism" -- what we used to call "'clean the scene' anti-fascism", practiced by some SHARPskins and other adventurers. We've always rejected this kind of method in favor of organized mass action. I've seen where the adventurism of the squadist-style anti-fascism leads; years ago, I was in an organization where some of its members carried out a squadist act, resulting in the near death of a neo-Nazi. One of the people who carried out the act spent several years in jail, and all the others had to scatter to the four winds to keep from being arrested. And the neo-Nazis were able to garner a measure of sympathy, resulting in their growth.

So, no, those kinds of actions we explicitly reject in advance. If someone wants to go that route, they can do it themselves; they will get no support from us, even if they hold a membership card in the WPA, because it explicitly goes against our principles. (And you can hold me to this for the future.)

I'll deal more with our method below.


:shrugs: this is not an american pecularity. i imagine the turkish left communists have to deal with real street fascists that do actually commit political murders. i think you are being terribly hyperbolic. i cant think of a particular situation in the US where these right wing cowboys committed the type of apocalypse you are speaking of. we are communists, a lot of people are going to hate us. the only event i can think about is when in the 60s, some maoists got massacred by the KKK.

First, for the record, it was 1979, in Greensboro, N. Carolina. Also, for the record, one of our members there was a witness to the massacre.

Second, I never suggested something like this was unique to the United States. What I said was that is was unique for the United States -- as in, we don't see movements like this here very much in history.

Third, fascists in this country do commit political murders. And, in fact, one can argue that the Tea Party elements have committed murderous acts in the last year. Scott Roeder, the assassin of Dr. Tiller, was a supporter of the Tea Party Nativists, as was the fascist who shot up the National Holocaust Museum. You also have the incident in Kentucky (or was it Tennessee?), where a rightwing terrorist went into a Unitarian Universalist church and started firing at congregants, because he thought "liberals and socialists" were taking over America. While that was slightly before the Tea Party movement actually formed, the same political views are present.


its the mystification of bourgeois politics. you see everything in terms of "left" and "right". the liberal mass murderers are obviously not that bad because they are milldly leftist. while a bunch of cowboys, soccer moms, and small shop owners are scarier than the cops and the state.

I suppose you need something to distract from your falsification of what I wrote, but petty moralism and cowardice don't work very well for that. I never put this issue in a "left-right" context; on the contrary, I've said explicitly that neither the "left" nor the "right" are willing or able to challenge this Nativist movement. By their inaction, they enable the Nativists, shifting closer to their views in a series of acts of appeasement. In my view, this includes leftists like you; your cowardice and unwillingness to do anything to deal with this problem allows them to grow unchallenged.

Wishful thinking is no substitute for concrete organizing, and all your wishful thinking that these teabaggers will never get into a position of power doesn't do a damn thing to hold them back. If you want to argue that Obama and the corporatist Democrats are social-fascists and no different from the Tea Party Nativists, we can argue that point. But if that's where you want to go, then do so explicitly.

Really, this just reminds me of that silly-shit argument about "good" and "bad" cops. You're trying to sit there and justify your view that all cops are "bad" cops, and therefore it doesn't matter if one of them is threatening to beat the shit out of your best friend, because they'd all do it eventually. I'm arguing that it doesn't really matter if they're all "good" or "bad" since they are have a specific role to play in society, but if there is a way to stop this cop from beating the shit out of your friend, then perhaps we should do it.

Perhaps, to put it another way, and in recognition of the fact that Godwin's Law has seemingly been repealed for this discussion, it's worthwhile to reprint ... a fable:


A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the butcher came nigh with his sharp knife.

“Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns,” suggested one of the bulls.

“If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove us hither with his cudgel?” replied the bulls, who had received their political education in Manuilsky’s institute.

“But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!”

“Nothing doing,” replied the bulls, firm in their principles, to the counselor. “You are trying to shield our enemies from the left; you are a social-butcher yourself.”

And they refused to close ranks.


what "confusion". you explicitly talk about crushing the tea baggers and skirmishing with anti fascist units. there is no dishonesty here.

Apparently, it's your confusion. Here is what I said:


The class struggle is a political struggle. This means not only a "final battle" contest of strength with the capitalist state, but also a series of ongoing skirmishes and "battles of maneuver" that are meant to keep the capitalist state weaker than it could be, less organized than it could be, less belligerent than it could be -- in short, in a position that gives workers a relatively greater advantage than it would have otherwise. It's not about strengthening capitalist rule, but undermining it. It's not about putting capitalism on a more solid footing, but putting it in quicksand. That is why communists engage in political battles, even if they are partial and limited; that is also the criterion for participating in those battles.

Apparently, you're either not paying much attention to what is being written, or you're just plucking individual words out and dropping them into a cookie-cutter argument ... ironically (or not), quite similar to how the teabaggers' mouthpieces argue.

What is a skirmish in the class struggle? In military language, a skirmish is a small clash between opposing sides that, at best, yields a tactical victory. In terms of the class struggle, a strike, street protest (or counter-protest), sit-in, etc., can be a skirmish. It can be non-violent or violent. It can involve dozens, hundreds or thousands. The determining factor is what the material conditions allow. But these small head-on conflicts take place from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year.

In terms of the Tea Party Nativists, what I would advocate would be organized mass "same-time-same-place" counter-protests that expose their real political agenda and the threat they pose to working people. Moreover, I would advocate using that platform to show not only the link between the Nativism of the Tea Party and the corporatism of the current political system, but also the need for working people to defend themselves against both.

The desired outcome would be drawing out thousands to drown out and overwhelm the teabaggers to the point where their utter failure to get their message out causes internal division and fracturing, and ultimately their neutralization. We call this the "Painesville Effect", after an anti-KKK rally some of us organized in 1994 that effectively destroyed the KKK in northeastern Ohio and kept it from reorganizing for years. Ideally, these would be non-violent protests and actions ... but whether they stay that way would be up to the Nativists.

Much of the work would be political education -- informing and educating people about the character of the Tea Party movement through the use of fact, analysis and a touch of humor. But it would not be just sterile propagandizing with no point to it. It would be a combination of organization and education. And while its immediate goal would be to neutralize the Tea Party Nativists, that would not be its ultimate goal. The ultimate goal would be the development of a higher level of organization for our class -- through revolutionary industrial unions, through political networks and organizations, through social and cultural groups and networks, and so on.

This is where your last questions come in.


Did a mass movement come out of the british antifascists? What is so different about your method?

While the anti-fascist work in Britain in the 1990s did yield some mass protests, it did not result in anything more than that, and managed to exhaust thousands of politicizing workers and young people. In my view, the failure of the ANL or YRE to move beyond "pure and simple" anti-fascism is that their goals were too narrow, they thought too little of those they were organizing, and there was no sense of continuations beyond this or that protest. In short, they did nothing to empower those who were attracted to their movements. All they had to offer them beyond showing up was ... nominal (meaningless) membership in their respective sponsoring political organizations.

Building a movement, if it is to be anything beyond a one-off thing, involves not only getting people together, but also building a sense of empowerment and what organizers call "membership ownership". That is, the people you're bringing in to the movement are not just warm bodies for meetings or events, but active participants and necessary to the success of the work. They are not objects for the sponsor group to utilize like tools, but first-person subjects that not only make the organization or movement what it is but also can make it more than it is.

If there is something that is different about the method we use, it is that we begin from the standpoint of building empowerment. Our goal as a communist organization is to help build up our brothers and sisters into a self-acting "class for itself" in order to overthrow capitalist rule and conquer political power through the formation of a workers' republic, so we begin all of our work by planning it out in such a way that, even if the work is ultimately a failure, those who participated come away from it with a better sense of what they can do as working people -- of the empowerment that comes with organization, education and collective action.

Movements are passing things. They come and go, travel a specific distance then stop. Hence, "movement", as opposed to something else. The movement is not everything; it is one thing, a specific thing used for specific reasons. It is not a principle or even a strategy; it is a tactic and a tool. It is the class that is everything. It is the class, its organization, its education, its collective action and its victory that is the principle and strategy -- that is the goal.

For us, a movement against the Tea Party Nativists would be a tactical means of organizing and mobilizing workers in the political arena, of reaching and discussing with them the relationships between the Nativists and the corporatists, of talking about the type of society they, our fellow workers, want and the type of society we want, of talking about the situation we face on the job and in our neighborhoods and, most importantly, what we can do about it if we work together. While it would start with counterprotesting the Nativists, it would not stop there; that would be a step toward organizing in workplaces and neighborhoods to address other issues that, at once, address immediate objective needs of working people and link the fight against the teabaggers to that of capitalism as a whole (including the "scary" capitalist state).

This isn't a "left-right" issue. This is a class issue. Capitalism's "left" (including those "useless petty-bourgeois socialist protest-mongers") and "right" are allowing the Nativists to develop into a mass movement. They might not want them to take power -- not yet -- but they do want them in ready reserve ... just in case. That fact makes this work bigger than just the Nativists themselves, but also makes them the focal point -- the fulcrum of the current crisis of capitalist rule.

Sterile propagandism is as much a dead-end when it comes to dealing with this as is blind activism. We reject both as opposite sides of the same coin.

[Guerrilla22]

Tell you what, when you've organized a union, a strike, a strike committee, an opposition caucus, an internal communist (or anarchist) fraction, fought off bureaucrats with words and fists, and had to carry a gun to work to protect yourself from both Mob-owned union officials and company thugs, then you can come and talk to me about how in-touch or out-of-touch I might be with my own class. Because then we'll be talking as equals with shared experiences.


When you have to go to work with 5 or 5 different firearms, engaged in a shoot out at work witht he national guard on your lunch break, then hold your boss at gun point then you might be able to hang with me Miles. :p

[Martin Blank]

When you have to go to work with 5 or 5 different firearms, engaged in a shoot out at work with the national guard on your lunch break, then hold your boss at gun point then you might be able to hang with me Miles. :p

Well, see, he didn't bring up anything about the National Guard, so I left all that out.

Also, did I mention that when I was younger, I had to walk 10 miles through eight feet of snow barefoot to get to school ... uphill ... both ways? :D It was a hard life, and we liked it!

[Devrim]

Devrim, does the BNP or EDL bring such weapons to political protests like the Teabaggers or Nazis did?

I don't see the point here. The people on these demos aren't using these guns, are they?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I find it fascinating that you see a political movement as "marginal", even if it is something that is a "cross class single issue movement" -- and especially given that it has been a focal point for political struggle against both the Bush and Obama regimes over the last period. Your use of the term "marginal" betrays a rank economism that permeates your entire method, and explains not only why you minimize the role of rightwing political movements like the Tea Party Nativists and the BNP, but also why you overemphasize the importance of the TEKEL protests, which are based around defensive and relatively narrow economic demands.

Just to be clear about what I meant as maybe I didn't express it well, I was referring to the Tea party movement as marginal, not the anti-war movement.


i don't think anybody is overemphasizing anything. i presume devrim doesnt think it will lead to revolution, or whatever. however, it is a struggle in the "class camp" and it is in this types of things a lot of working class consciousness is raised. i dont think communist organizations gain anything out of tailing leftist campaigns, like "struggling against the right wing",

No, I don't think it will lead to revolution. I think it is increasingly isolated, but as you say it is a workers struggle, not a leftist political campaign. There is a huge difference.


No, it doesn't. I agree with you on that. A lot of people knee-jerked about George W. Bush in 2000, but we resisted calling him and his regime fascist, opting instead to explore the question of corporatism deeper. His regime certainly had plenty of fascistic tendencies, though. But it's one thing to have the tendencies (as you say, most rightwing movements lean very close to fascism, which means they mimic many of its elements); it's another thing entirely to pass a point of fundamental transformation and be classified as fascist.

Initially, the Tea Party Nativists began as little more than rightwing populists. But over the last year, a process of transformation has taken place. As the movement developed from a semi-spontaneous to an organized political current, as organizations like the John Birch Society, the National Socialist Movement and the Council of Conservative Citizens (formerly the White Citizen's Councils) became the practical leadership, buttressed by money from the fascist Koch family via their "astroturf" fronts, the character of the protests -- the political platform and outlook -- began to fundamentally change. It stopped being a nominally "loyal" conservative opposition and took on a more militant and belligerent posture.

Today's Tea Party Nativist movement qualifies as fascist -- as a specific means of mobilizing and organizing the petty bourgeoisie, permeated with a specific hatred of the working class, around a program of anti-worker social reaction and demagogy in the interests of maintaining the stable rule of (corporatist) finance capitalism. Yes, such a movement also draws in sections of the working class that see in fascism an opportunity to improve their situation and enter into, at the very least, the labor aristocracy, if not the petty bourgeoisie itself (as a manager or official). It seeks to restore "pride" and "traditional values" that have been lost or thrown out by those they see as "undermining" society (liberals, labor unions, socialists, communists, non-Christians, etc.). It is violently xenophobic, seeing all those who they do not consider a part of their "nation" as the enemy. Most of all, it kneels before the altar of private property, seeing anything that challenges its omnipresent supremacy and unfettered development as needing to be destroyed.


The boy is crying wolf again.



Tell you what, when you've organized a union, a strike, a strike committee, an opposition caucus, an internal communist (or anarchist) fraction, fought off bureaucrats with words and fists, and had to carry a gun to work to protect yourself from both Mob-owned union officials and company thugs, then you can come and talk to me about how in-touch or out-of-touch I might be with my own class. Because then we'll be talking as equals with shared experiences.

This is a shocking argument for anyone who calls themselves a socialist to use.

Devrim

[Martin Blank]

I don't see the point here. The people on these demos aren't using these guns, are they?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/tea-party-sign-toter.jpg

If you wait until they start shooting, you're too late.

[Martin Blank]

Just to be clear about what I meant as maybe I didn't express it well, I was referring to the Tea party movement as marginal, not the anti-war movement.

If that is so, fair enough. Personally, I'd like to think you're right, because that makes dealing with them relatively easier. However, I think we're seeing now how this movement is being allowed to become a mass force.


The boy is crying wolf again.

This implies I've been incorrectly calling other parties and movements fascist. Would you care to back up your claim, or are you just going to leave this hanging in the air, like all your other unsubstantiated assertions?


This is a shocking argument for anyone who calls themselves a socialist to use.

Why? Because it's out of bounds for me to question how in touch someone else is through direct comparison? Or is this just more phony outrage meant to garner sympathy for your failed arguments?

[anticap]

Here's the highlight reel from Palin's speech, for those who missed it (be sure to enable subtitles as requested):

8YHWXVZnKiY

Courtesy of comrade Cooney (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/).