Clinton Hints at Neocon Platform for 2016

[Revolver]

The Atlantic has a very telling profile (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/) of the Democrats' favored 2016 nominee:



She said that the resilience, and expansion, of Islamist terrorism means that the U.S. must develop an “overarching” strategy to confront it, and she equated this struggle to the one the U.S. waged against Soviet-led communism.


There is much more, and much worse (i.e., Israel, Ukraine, to name a few). Bottom line: The two parties are likely to have hawkish nominees unless her campaign is contested by someone in the more rational part of the Democratic Party. I would also anticipate that the "overarching" strategy against "Islamist terrorism" will entail targeting of dissent at home, in line with the Cold War crackdown on the New Left and other dissidents. Somewhat ironic she is so critical of Obama; he built upon the security apparatus that she plans to use, after all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Where has she been critical of Obama's use of the security apparatus? Her family helped develop the current incarnation and put it into place. The military doesn't change regardless of who gets elected, so yeah expect more dead people.

[Revolver]

She was not critical of the security apparatus, she was critical of his tactical decisions with respect to Syria, Israel and other "hotspots." But I must disagree with the assessment that the military operations do not change based on who is in the CIC position; there's very little movement on overarching US strategy as a rule, but there are significant tactical differences among various candidates. My point was simply that she is hinting at a more bombastic foreign policy that is directly aimed at "Islamic terrorism" and would be more in line with Netanyahu's policy aims. Obviously, I do not expect any Democrat to inaugurate an era of socialist peace.

[DannyMorin]

The banality of evil.

[Five Year Plan]

A bourgeois politician makes clear she will continue imperialist foreign policy? Shocking.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

She was not critical of the security apparatus, she was critical of his tactical decisions with respect to Syria, Israel and other "hotspots." But I must disagree with the assessment that the military operations do not change based on who is in the CIC position; there's very little movement on overarching US strategy as a rule, but there are significant tactical differences among various candidates. My point was simply that she is hinting at a more bombastic foreign policy that is directly aimed at "Islamic terrorism" and would be more in line with Netanyahu's policy aims. Obviously, I do not expect any Democrat to inaugurate an era of socialist peace.

But what about the supposed 'tactical differences' merits comment on a communist website? The military plays the same role regardless of which party is in power. Your title seems to suggest that there were people here holding out hope that a Clinton administration would not be run according to the established norms of American foreign policy, but yes of course it will be. I guess I'm trying to figure out the point of this thread.

[Five Year Plan]

But what about the supposed 'tactical differences' merits comment on a communist website? The military plays the same role regardless of which party is in power. Your title seems to suggest that there were people here holding out hope that a Clinton administration would not be run according to the established norms of American foreign policy, but yes of course it will be. I guess I'm trying to figure out the point of this thread.

It makes a difference if you want to give counsel to various factions within the bourgeoisie, I suppose. It seems to be what a lot of "leftists" enjoy doing.

[Revolver]

How do you propose to counter establishment aims if you do not understand their tactics? It looks like you are gunning for a sectarian fight, and you are not going to get one. This is a political development in the United States, posted accordingly. I'm hardly proposing that the likely alternative will embrace revolution.

What's the point of your critique of news? And my title suggests no such thing, btw; obviously I expected her to run foreign policy according to existing American strategy. But she hints at a recalibration rightward as well, a point noted by Philip Weiss (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/dreadful-pictures-children.html) and others (http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/11/headlines/hillary_clinton_criticizes_obama_failure_on_syria) . Perhaps Amy Goodman is counseling the ruling class? If you don't think that her comments are insignificant and you think that the ruling class is monolithic, fine, but don't pretend that monitoring their internal developments is somehow wanting "to give counsel to various factions within the bourgeoisie."

Also: "The military plays the same role regardless of which party is in power."

But we are not discussing a divergence between the parties; I am discussing developments internal to the Democratic Party. And the military is not the only thing at issue in this discussion; it includes State Department, NSA, DHS, etcetera.

Anyway, as I said, I am not looking for a petty sectarian squabble. If that is what you want, you have plenty of others to tangle with.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No I'm not interested in any kind of sectarian argument either. I just disagree that the direction she is supposed to be moving towards is somehow different from the position she already held in the administration and that has been the norm for democrats since since I've been paying attention to politics. The piece in the op and the other two seem directed a community that deceives itself every 4 to 8 years about what democrats do in office, someone other than communists. The US has a long term strategy and it doesn't get voted out of office. It's acts one way when it's in a powerful position and another when it's weak, the parties aren't the key factor.

Anyhow, I actually do think Amy Goodman is something of a left gatekeeper. That seems like a different topic though.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is clear that the Clinton dynasty represents a more muscular model of imperialism. This has relevance for our interpretation of world events and American policy, even if not for our support or lack thereof of a particular candidate or party.

[Five Year Plan]

It is clear that the Clinton dynasty represents a more muscular model of imperialism. This has relevance for our interpretation of world events and American policy, even if not for our support or lack thereof of a particular candidate or party.

More muscular than, say, Bush's? Than Obama's? You're making rookie mistake #1 in bourgeois politics: basing your judgments off campaign rhetoric.

That reminds me. Anybody know when Obama is going to renegotiate NAFTA? He said he would in the 2008 primaries. Hmmm...

[Revolver]

More muscular than, say, Bush's? Than Obama's? You're making rookie mistake #1 in bourgeois politics: basing your judgments off campaign rhetoric.

That reminds me. Anybody know when Obama is going to renegotiate NAFTA? He said he would in the 2008 primaries. Hmmm...

Except it is not based on rhetoric alone, but on her past track record and her base of support within the Democratic Party's donor base. As for whether it will be more muscular than Bush's foreign policy, that remains to be seen. I think it significant that she conducted this interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, for example, whose own track record is well-documented (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/27/goldberg_7/).

[Five Year Plan]

Except it is not based on rhetoric alone, but on her past track record and her base of support within the Democratic Party's donor base. As for whether it will be more muscular than Bush's foreign policy, that remains to be seen. I think it significant that she conducted this interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, for example, whose own track record is well-documented (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/27/goldberg_7/).

Do you think Obama's foreign policy is in any sense less "muscular" than Clinton's was before him, or even Bush's?

[Revolver]

Do you think Obama's foreign policy is in any sense less "muscular" than Clinton's was before him, or even Bush's?

That depends on one's view of the Iraq War, to a large degree. Applying a counterfactual, do you think that President Obama would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if he had been president? Do you believe that the Obama administration is prepared to invade Iran? So yes, there are differences, even significant ones.

Now I think that there is more continuity than change. So for example I don't think that the response to the coup in Honduras would have been much different in a McCain administration or a Clinton one; I don't think that the support of the Egyptian coup regime would have been very different (I think that support of the military coup might have been more overt from the outset though). I suspect that there would have been more rhetorical differences in support of Netanyahu, but little policy difference. Ukraine, I am not sure.

[Five Year Plan]

That depends on one's view of the Iraq War, to a large degree. Applying a counterfactual, do you think that President Obama would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if he had been president? Do you believe that the Obama administration is prepared to invade Iran? So yes, there are differences, even significant ones.

Now I think that there is more continuity than change. So for example I don't think that the response to the coup in Honduras would have been much different in a McCain administration or a Clinton one; I don't think that the support of the Egyptian coup regime would have been very different (I think that support of the military coup might have been more overt from the outset though). I suspect that there would have been more rhetorical differences in support of Netanyahu, but little policy difference. Ukraine, I am not sure.

Oh boy. Another Chomskyite. Just what the site needed.

[Revolver]

Oh boy. Another Chomskyite. Just what the site needed.

My tendency is visible for all to see, and the LRNA may be many things, but "Chomskyite" is not a typical insult. Anyway, if you need someone to hurl insults at, I'm sure Rafiq is posting elsewhere.

[Five Year Plan]

My tendency is visible for all to see, and the LRNA may be many things, but "Chomskyite" is not a typical insult. Anyway, if you need someone to hurl insults at, I'm sure Rafiq is posting elsewhere.

It's not an insult. It's an observation about how the inordinate emphasis on how supposedly small ideological differences create large differences in outcomes is straight out of Chomsky's anarcho-liberal playbook.

[Deep Sea]

What will be interesting to watch will be who on the so-called Left starts propagandizing on her behalf. I have a bet with a few people whether or not FRSO (Fight Back!) will endorse her the same way they did Obama. CPUSA and CC-DS obviously will, but I don't know if they have started it yet.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

More muscular than, say, Bush's? Than Obama's? You're making rookie mistake #1 in bourgeois politics: basing your judgments off campaign rhetoric.


I'm basing it off the fact that sources aside from HRC herself attest to her being a hawk within the Obama administration. And yes, more muscular than Obama's, but not more than Bush's. Bush occupied two countries for most of his term and devoted substantial economic treasure to it without any significant chance of substantive gain.

You're making the #1 mistake in radical politics: assuming that the commonalities between bourgeois politicians make their policies identical.



That reminds me. Anybody know when Obama is going to renegotiate NAFTA? He said he would in the 2008 primaries. Hmmm...

Yes Obama didn't follow through on all of his promises, so what? Stop being so condescending, nobody here is ignorant of the fact that politicians trying to be elected in a capitalist state change their mind or lie depending on their interests or on the interests of various powerful institutions.

[DannyMorin]

Bush occupied two countries for most of his term and devoted substantial economic treasure to it without any significant chance of substantive gain.

With the support of Clinton, in case anyone has forgotten.

That's not a criticism of you, I'm just reminding people. She may not have done it herself if she was in the hot seat. Then again, she may have. Who knows? But I'd certainly say she's more willing to go to war than Obama.

We had it with Thatcher in the UK, often female politicians want to prove how tough they are by spilling the blood of others from the safety of their offices.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm basing it off the fact that sources aside from HRC herself attest to her being a hawk within the Obama administration. And yes, more muscular than Obama's, but not more than Bush's. Bush occupied two countries for most of his term and devoted substantial economic treasure to it without any significant chance of substantive gain.

You're making the #1 mistake in radical politics: assuming that the commonalities between bourgeois politicians make their policies identical.



Yes Obama didn't follow through on all of his promises, so what? Stop being so condescending, nobody here is ignorant of the fact that politicians trying to be elected in a capitalist state change their mind or lie depending on their interests or on the interests of various powerful institutions.

And what clear class lines are you drawing here? That's a serious question.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

With the support of Clinton, in case anyone has forgotten.

That's not a criticism of you, I'm just reminding people. She may not have done it herself if she was in the hot seat. Then again, she may have. Who knows? But I'd certainly say she's more willing to go to war than Obama.

We had it with Thatcher in the UK, often female politicians want to prove how tough they are by spilling the blood of others from the safety of their offices.

I don't think anyone needs reminding of Hillary Clinton's vote in 2003. While perhaps there might be something to the idea that female politicians have to challenge patriarchal assumptions by being "tough", I doubt that's really what's at play here - basically, she is pro-war because she claims to represent the interventionist branch of the Democratic party. That showed in policy debates regarding Libya, Syria and Iraq. The Democratic "Left" has always had its hawks, and if anything has always been dominated by these hawks. Its no surprise that most Democratic politicians, men and women alike, align with liberal intervention in other countries


And what clear class lines are you drawing here? That's a serious question.

A serious question ... with an obvious answer. We are looking at different factions of the same ruling class - the bourgeoisie. They are hardly a united force. Clearly, there are different strategies and tactics for projecting American economic, military and political power, and some of them call for more force than others. The fact that they are all from one class does not trivialize their differences. This isn't a call to vote for one or the other, it's a call to understand how they take different approaches to foreign policy issues.

There was a historical difference, for instance, between the Isolationists in the US and the pro-war figures in the 30s. This doesn't make one side more or less bourgeois than the other, it just means that they think different policies are in the interests of major American political and economic institutions.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So if I understand you correctly, Hillary represents the 'hawk faction', so that makes Obama what exactly? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had weakened the American military when he took office, the fact that his foreign policy has been relatively light on large scale ground invasions is a result of that weakness, not a fundamental difference in long term strategy. You're not even taking into account the role stronger opponents like Russia and China have played in his decisions, problems Bush didn't have to deal with until later in his administration. He has been very muscular in areas where the US is still strong; air power, special forces and espionage. He's expanded every offensive capability that the US is still capable of expanding while in office. There is no hawk or dove faction in the Democratic party, just Democratic party members in general. The only difference I've ever noticed regarding foreign police is the language used to justify interventions to the domestic population. Democrats favor humanitarian justifications, Republicans favor existential threats, the results are always the same though.

Any perceived difference is a delusion on the part of the one seeing the difference. The US was weaker globally in 2008 than it was in 2002, that's the difference between Bush and Obama. If the US is strong in 2016, Clinton or whatever bureaucrat gets the vote will act accordingly.

[Revolver]

A serious question ... with an obvious answer. We are looking at different factions of the same ruling class - the bourgeoisie. They are hardly a united force. Clearly, there are different strategies and tactics for projecting American economic, military and political power, and some of them call for more force than others. The fact that they are all from one class does not trivialize their differences. This isn't a call to vote for one or the other, it's a call to understand how they take different approaches to foreign policy issues.

There was a historical difference, for instance, between the Isolationists in the US and the pro-war figures in the 30s. This doesn't make one side more or less bourgeois than the other, it just means that they think different policies are in the interests of major American political and economic institutions.

Thank you very well said. And this is precisely the problem with ignoring differences within factions. Keynesians and neoliberals are a perfect example: Both are capitalists, and both have very different approaches to management of the capitalist economy. There are even times that the divisions between these factions can turn acerbic and bitter, even violent. But they are still working in the interests of their class.

Iraq is actually a good demonstration of this. The Iraq sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq) are now forgotten, but the sanctions, and US law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998#Contemplation_of_post-Hussein_Iraq), were more or less explicit calls for "regime change" in Iraq (more in the case of The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, somewhat less in the case of the UNSC resolutions). This had the full support of both political parties, while the 2002 war authorization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_use_of_Military_Force_Against_Ir aq) represented a far more hawkish acceleration of stated US policy.

Israel presents a similar case. Both parties have nurtured the "special relationship" with the state, but there are significant differences in implementation, and those differences are matters of life and death for Palestinians. Within Israel, the incremental genocide in Gaza is a clear consensus issue for any viable ruling coalition, but the hawkish calls for extermination campaigns or expulsions are muzzled whenever they surface because the present course enjoys much broader support. There are significant differences between the neoconservative factions in the US, however, and the Oslo-era concession bargaining faction.

This is also reflected in their approach to "Islamic terrorism." There is no real disruption in the special relationship under President Obama, for example, but he has refused to embrace the "War on Terror" characterization of political Islam, even as he has embraced indefinite detention, the security state and drone intervention in order to combat "terrorists." And he is unprepared to repeal the 2001 AUMF. Clinton, by contrast, seems prepared for perpetual war footing, much like Obama, but is also interested in expanding the scope of that "clear and present danger" to bourgeois democracy, "jihadism."

The other significant takeaway from this interview is that by reaching out to neoconservatives wary of the Tea Party/Randian/Tenther craziness, Clinton provides a welcome respite for an establishment faction that was never comfortable with right wing social policies, as well as more far sighted members of the ruling class who see the need for a stronger social welfare state. That's simply not something that the Koch brothers and related interests within the Republican Party are going to support at the moment, although they are being pressed to moderate by more pragmatic elements within the conservative movement.

There are also implications for organizing that I will not get into here. But it is clear enough that these trends matter.

[Five Year Plan]

A serious question ... with an obvious answer. We are looking at different factions of the same ruling class - the bourgeoisie. They are hardly a united force. Clearly, there are different strategies and tactics for projecting American economic, military and political power, and some of them call for more force than others. The fact that they are all from one class does not trivialize their differences. This isn't a call to vote for one or the other, it's a call to understand how they take different approaches to foreign policy issues.

There was a historical difference, for instance, between the Isolationists in the US and the pro-war figures in the 30s. This doesn't make one side more or less bourgeois than the other, it just means that they think different policies are in the interests of major American political and economic institutions.

Ok, so your obvious answer is that you aren't drawing clear class lines here, since we're talking about supposed disagreements (I am still skeptical about their substance in this instance) within the ruling class. You didn't even mention factions within the ruling class, or class at all for that matter, until I brought up drawing clear class lines.

Yes, there are factions within the ruling class. Focusing on those differences to the exclusion of their shared class interests or the opposing interests of the working class, creates the illusion that the working class might have more of an interest in backing one faction of the ruling class over another faction. It smacks of lesser evilism. Don't get pissy with me just because I'm pointing it out.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So if I understand you correctly, Hillary represents the 'hawk faction', so that makes Obama what exactly? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had weakened the American military when he took office, the fact that his foreign policy has been relatively light on large scale ground invasions is a result of that weakness, not a fundamental difference in long term strategy. You're not even taking into account the role stronger opponents like Russia and China have played in his decisions, problems Bush didn't have to deal with until later in his administration. He has been very muscular in areas where the US is still strong; air power, special forces and espionage. He's expanded every offensive capability that the US is still capable of expanding while in office. There is no hawk or dove faction in the Democratic party, just Democratic party members in general. The only difference I've ever noticed regarding foreign police is the language used to justify interventions to the domestic population. Democrats favor humanitarian justifications, Republicans favor existential threats, the results are always the same though.

Any perceived difference is a delusion on the part of the one seeing the difference. The US was weaker globally in 2008 than it was in 2002, that's the difference between Bush and Obama. If the US is strong in 2016, Clinton or whatever bureaucrat gets the vote will act accordingly.

The point is that Obama was elected after America was sick of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars because he did not support projecting American power through multi-trillion dollar invasions with thousands of casualties. So we got drone strikes and special forces ops instead. I think the fact that the US was in a weak point in 2008 can explain why less militaristic figures get elected. Jimmy Carter was also elected at the heels of the Vietnam war. Of course, both he and Obama used military force, but they did so more reluctantly, seeing it as something which was riskier and less likely to pay off for the United States.

You can say "there's no hawk or dove faction" but if you look at the policy debates between Washington political advisers etc, it's clear that there are some who are generally more reluctant to commit large scale American military force the way Bush did in 2003, or the way the other Bush did in 1991. This doesn't mean that they won't fight wars at all, and it doesn't mean that they won't utilize methods like drone strikes and special operations. Of course these terms "hawk" and "dove" are relative. Within the logic of Washington, there are those who are more militaristic and who think that military power is necessary to ensure American strength (they range from Cheney on the right to Clinton on the *cough* "left") and those who are less militaristic and think that aggressive military actions should be as limited as possible and only done cautiously. The Iraq debacle made the hawks look as ridiculous as they were, giving the "smart power" faction of the Democrats the opportunity to show their model of imperialism (with its air/drone strikes, arming of 3rd parties and special forces ops).

You saw these debates playing out on the leadup to the Libya bombing, and also in the attempt to arm Syrian rebels, with the hawks saying military action wasn't happening soon enough or was not large enough.


Ok, so your obvious answer is that you aren't drawing clear class lines here, since we're talking about supposed disagreements (I am still skeptical about their substance in this instance) within the ruling class. You didn't even mention factions within the ruling class, or class at all for that matter, until I brought up drawing clear class lines.


I made it pretty clear that they're both "bourgeois", maybe I didn't describe them as "factions" but I figured that was implicit.

We know there are and have always been huge disagreements within the bourgeoisie, I don't think this is a new thing. Consider how many civil wars have been fought between factions of the bourgeoisie in world history. Supposing that there's no real disagreement between factions of the ruling class seems to assume that the bourgeoisie have some kind of consistent idea of what's in their interests.



Yes, there are factions within the ruling class. Focusing on those differences to the exclusion of their shared class interests or the opposing interests of the working class, creates the illusion that the working class might have more of an interest in backing one faction of the ruling class over another faction. It smacks of lesser evilism. Don't get pissy with me just because I'm pointing it out.

It's pretty annoying when you are trying to describe the different policies of bourgeois politicians only to have some Trotskyist jump down your throat and criticize you for making a "lesser evil" argument you're not actually making. In fact it's not even possible that I'm making a "lesser evil" argument considering Obama cannot even run in 2016!

[Five Year Plan]

I made it pretty clear that they're both "bourgeois", maybe I didn't describe them as "factions" but I figured that was implicit.

We know there are and have always been huge disagreements within the bourgeoisie, I don't think this is a new thing. Consider how many civil wars have been fought between factions of the bourgeoisie in world history. Supposing that there's no real disagreement between factions of the ruling class seems to assume that the bourgeoisie have some kind of consistent idea of what's in their interests.

I still don't think you're getting the point. Why focus on divisions within the bourgeoisie to the exclusion of how those divisions relate to working-class political independence and strategy for revolution? Somebody, I think it was earlier in this thread, mentioned that such strategizing is a possible reason to analyze factional divisions within the bourgeoisie, but so far, nobody in this thread has tied such divisions to working-class strategy.

In the absence of one, it all reads like an implicit call for supporting one supposedly less-odious bourgeois faction in their struggle with the more-odious bourgeois faction. You can deny that this is what you're intending, but in a world where pressure to collaborate with the bourgeois state and its representatives is so prevalent, this is the unavoidable result of this sort of so-called analysis. It all seems so very MSNBC-ish. And boring to boot.


It's pretty annoying when you are trying to describe the different policies of bourgeois politicians only to have some Trotskyist jump down your throat and criticize you for making a "lesser evil" argument you're not actually making. In fact it's not even possible that I'm making a "lesser evil" argument considering Obama cannot even run in 2016!Cry me a river.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I still don't think you're getting the point. Why focus on divisions within the bourgeoisie to the exclusion of how those divisions relate to working-class political independence and strategy for revolution? Somebody, I think it was earlier in this thread, mentioned that such strategizing is a possible reason to analyze factional divisions within the bourgeoisie, but so far, nobody in this thread has tied such divisions to working-class strategy.


You're not getting the point. I'm challenging the idea that all bourgeois politicians are "the same" because that was what some here were suggesting, and I want to push back against that. I'm not making any claims as to how this relates or doesn't relate to particular strategic political responses. Nor does it matter that folks haven't tied it to certain strategic responses - perhaps we don't have any good strategic solutions yet. Perhaps we need to come to a better analysis of the differences between these bourgeois politicians before we can form those solutions. Marxists are constantly proposing a slew of shitty, impractical and highly ineffective solutions to problems they don't understand, then squabbling amongst themselves as to which solution is the least shitty, impractical and ineffective - perhaps it might be good to work on building a view of contemporary Capitalist society as nuanced as the one Marx held of his own Capitalist society.

You are reading too much into this when you accuse people of playing "lesser evil" politics and whatnot. Start that when someone says "this is why we should vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary" or something like that - it would actually be a real debate, and not just you casting weird aspersions.


In the absence of one, it all reads like an implicit call for supporting one supposedly less-odious bourgeois faction in their struggle with the more-odious bourgeois faction. You can deny that this is what you're intending, but in a world where pressure to collaborate with the bourgeois state and its representatives is so prevalent, this is the unavoidable result of this sort of so-called analysis. It all seems so very MSNBC-ish. And boring to boot.It reads that way to you maybe, but I've said nothing to imply what you're saying. And no, it's not the "unavoidable result of this so-called analysis". Marx himself talked about the particularities of Bonapartists, liberals, protectionists and so on, often disparaging one, yet did not do so to endorse the other Capitalist ideologies so much as to show how these programs emerge, the conditions which shape them, how they will shape Capitalism, and often, how they are ultimately self-defeating.



Cry me a river.you're so mature. :glare:

[Five Year Plan]

You're not getting the point. I'm challenging the idea that all bourgeois politicians are "the same" because that was what some here were suggesting, and I want to push back against that.

I don't see anybody here suggesting they are the same in every respect. They are the same in the most important respect: they are servants to capital and its interests. To what revolutionary aim are you pushing back against this notion, in order to elucidate all the nuanced distinctions between various factions, if not to imply the need to align behind one of the factions? I asked earlier how this relates to a working-class strategy that is politically independent of the bourgeoisie, and the answer I got that was:


I'm not making any claims as to how this relates or doesn't relate to particular strategic political responses. Nor does it matter that folks haven't tied it to certain strategic responses - perhaps we don't have any good strategic solutions yet.

Yeah, it sort of does matter because in a world saturated by bourgeois propaganda emphasizing all the smallest details of the differences between this bourgeois party and that bourgeois party, between this bourgeois candidate and that bourgeois candidate, simply adding to that chorus of minute particulars without clearly connecting it to working-class strategy is mirroring bourgeois propaganda, reinforcing the same strategic objective of attempting to convince workers that elections really do present them with meaningful choices, and to entice them to support one of the bourgeois parties or candidates.


Perhaps we need to come to a better analysis of the differences between these bourgeois politicians before we can form those solutions. Marxists are constantly proposing a slew of shitty, impractical and highly ineffective solutions to problems they don't understand, then squabbling amongst themselves as to which solution is the least shitty, impractical and ineffective - perhaps it might be good to work on building a view of contemporary Capitalist society as nuanced as the one Marx held of his own Capitalist society.

Oh, I see. So the working-class analysis will come later, while the carrying water for bourgeois-propagandistic rhetoric about huge differences between factions of the bourgeoisie comes now. Social democratic stageism with a twist.


You are reading too much into this when you accuse people of playing "lesser evil" politics and whatnot. Start that when someone says "this is why we should vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary" or something like that - it would actually be a real debate, and not just you casting weird aspersions.

Neither Bush nor any mainstream media outlet ever said Saddam was behind 9/11, yet somehow they managed to persuade 3/4 of the American population to believe it was so. Persuasion isn't just about what is said. It's also very much about what is not said and what is not allowed to be said. When you starting droning on about neocons and large policy outcome differences on the basis of which bourgeois party or politician is in power, I think it's time to start asking whether you're making a post appropriate for revleft, or one appropriate for Daily Kos.


It reads that way to you maybe, but I've said nothing to imply what you're saying. And no, it's not the "unavoidable result of this so-called analysis". Marx himself talked about the particularities of Bonapartists, liberals, protectionists and so on, often disparaging one, yet did not do so to endorse the other Capitalist ideologies so much as to show how these programs emerge, the conditions which shape them, how they will shape Capitalism, and often, how they are ultimately self-defeating.

Yes, Marx talked in his historical works about shades of difference within classes...as a part of drawing clear class lines and formulating revolutionary conclusions about what the working class should have or could have done (or actually did). He didn't wait until a second stage before incorporating the working class.

[Revolver]

Since you are the expert, please explain your alternative vision for inaugurating the revolution by ignoring these distinctions, and specifically how your proposed veil of ignorance will aid revolutionaries in a practical way? Propose a program related to this collapse of distinctions, "clearly connecting it to working-class strategy."

You have the answers I suspect, since you are chastising anyone who proposes even discussing distinctions unless they have a comprehensive programme for incorporating those distinctions into revolutionary strategy. We await your insight.

[Five Year Plan]

Since you are the expert, please explain your alternative vision for inaugurating the revolution by ignoring these distinctions, and specifically how your proposed veil of ignorance will aid revolutionaries in a practical way? Propose a program related to this collapse of distinctions, "clearly connecting it to working-class strategy."

You have the answers I suspect, since you are chastising anyone who proposes even discussing distinctions unless they have a comprehensive programme for incorporating those distinctions into revolutionary strategy. We await your insight.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a bullshit deflection.

[Revolver]

Is it? You have suggested that there is no value to discussing the distinctions, although you have not denied that there are tactical distinctions. If that is the case, what is your theoretical support for it? And how does collapsing the distinctions serve the broad strategy of organizing the working class?

It is a fair question.

[Five Year Plan]

Is it? You have suggested that there is no value to discussing the distinctions, although you have not denied that there are tactical distinctions. If that is the case, what is your theoretical support for it? And how does collapsing the distinctions serve the broad strategy of organizing the working class?

It is a fair question.

Please try to pay attention. I didn't say there is no value in discussing distinctions among bourgeois factions. I said that discussing them without drawing clear class lines or parlaying those distinctions into an analysis of working-class strategy reinforces bourgeois propaganda. The first step would be to make absolutely clear that distinctions among representatives of the bourgeoisie are absolutely minor compared to the similarities, and can only be viewed in the context of how they envision strengthening capital.

Your response of, "what would you say in this case?" is the equivalent of saying, "Oh, yeah! If you criticize that quarterback's performance, then I'd like to see you play football!" It's just what I said it was: a deflection.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't see anybody here suggesting they are the same in every respect. They are the same in the most important respect: they are servants to capital and its interests. To what revolutionary aim are you pushing back against this notion, in order to elucidate all the nuanced distinctions between various factions, if not to imply the need to align behind one of the factions?



I'm pushing back against the notion that all factions of capital are the same regarding the relationship between imperialism and military aggression, not that all politicians are controlled by capital. The view that all bourgeois politicians are similarly militaristic overlooks the possibility of bourgeois peaceniks, and the whole spectrum in between that and outright militarists.



Yeah, it sort of does matter because in a world saturated by bourgeois propaganda emphasizing all the smallest details of the differences between this bourgeois party and that bourgeois party, between this bourgeois candidate and that bourgeois candidate, simply adding to that chorus of minute particulars without clearly connecting it to working-class strategy is mirroring bourgeois propaganda, reinforcing the same strategic objective of attempting to convince workers that elections really do present them with meaningful choices, and to entice them to support one of the bourgeois parties or candidates.
I don't think we should ignore facts simply because those facts might be highlighted, misinterpreted or distorted by bourgeois propaganda.



Oh, I see. So the working-class analysis will come later, while the carrying water for bourgeois-propagandistic rhetoric about huge differences between factions of the bourgeoisie comes now. Social democratic stageism with a twist.
Who is "carrying the water"? Capitalist cable networks are doing a fine job, they don't need us. Working class analysis will come when we know what we are analyzing, and we are debating what we are analyzing here. I take it as an assumption that few here (if any) would vote for any faction of the Democrats, etc, so I don't see how I am "carrying the water" of anyone.



Neither Bush nor any mainstream media outlet ever said Saddam was behind 9/11, yet somehow they managed to persuade 3/4 of the American population to believe it was so. Persuasion isn't just about what is said. It's also very much about what is not said and what is not allowed to be said. When you starting droning on about neocons and large policy outcome differences on the basis of which bourgeois party or politician is in power, I think it's time to start asking whether you're making a post appropriate for revleft, or one appropriate for Daily Kos.
Are you really drawing an analogy between implying Iraq was behind September 11th and drawing distinctions between bourgeois politicians?



Yes, Marx talked in his historical works about shades of difference within classes...as a part of drawing clear class lines and formulating revolutionary conclusions about what the working class should have or could have done (or actually did). He didn't wait until a second stage before incorporating the working class.Is it particularly bad that I am humble enough not to consider myself so arrogant as to think I can provide the kind of in depth analysis of these issues Marx presented in his texts?

Also, in Das Kapital, Marx explains, in detail, the different Capitalist ideologies and critiques them without going into detail about particular strategic responses for those trying to organize the working class. He contrasts free trade advocates with protectionists, and so on. He focuses on critiquing the fundamental logic of Capitalist society, in the hope to understand its inner workings. An analysis of capital and political power does not necessarily come with a fully fledged strategic response.

Edit - just to clarify, I don't think any faction in American politics is any less imperialistic, but I do think they are prone to view the best course of action to realize American Imperialism in different ways. For instance, a "dove" is no less imperialistic, but instead of deploying American soldiers directly, they will seek to arm and influence other actors to realize American ends. They may also work with foreign governments. For instance, hawks criticized Obama for not intervening directly in Syria, but he nonetheless did threaten to and intervened in other ways. I think talking about these tactical and strategic differences doesn't mean that we endorse one faction over the other. It just means that we will be looking at different kinds of policies, and probably organizing against different kinds of actions. So instead of organizing against an occupation of Iraq, we must organize against drone strikes in Yemen, etc.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm pushing back against the notion that all factions of capital are the same regarding the relationship between imperialism and military aggression, not that all politicians are controlled by capital. The view that all bourgeois politicians are similarly militaristic overlooks the possibility of bourgeois peaceniks, and the whole spectrum in between that and outright militarists.

Your pushing back against a notion nobody here holds, in order to reinforce a staple of bourgeois propaganda. This is hardly an accomplishment or something worth defending here.


I don't think we should ignore facts simply because those facts might be highlighted, misinterpreted or distorted by bourgeois propaganda.

Who is "carrying the water"? Capitalist cable networks are doing a fine job, they don't need us. Working class analysis will come when we know what we are analyzing, and we are debating what we are analyzing here. I take it as an assumption that few here (if any) would vote for any faction of the Democrats, etc, so I don't see how I am "carrying the water" of anyone.You're exactly right. Bourgeois propaganda networks are doing a fine job a pushing the inordinate focus on small differences angle. We don't need supposed revolutionaries on the forum to help them out. But apparently that's the best we can hope for.


Are you really drawing an analogy between implying Iraq was behind September 11th and drawing distinctions between bourgeois politicians?I am making the point that both were forms of bourgeois propaganda that often don't rely on explicit contentions, but instead on other instruments of persuasion like innuendo, omission, and so on. I thought that this was pretty obvious in my initial phrasing, but you are dishonestly trying to twist what I am saying.


Is it particularly bad that I am humble enough not to consider myself so arrogant as to think I can provide the kind of in depth analysis of these issues Marx presented in his texts?Nobody is asking for his depth or brilliance of analysis. I'm asking that you at least try. You aren't.


Also, in Das Kapital, Marx explains, in detail, the different Capitalist ideologies and critiques them without going into detail about particular strategic responses for those trying to organize the working class. He contrasts free trade advocates with protectionists, and so on. He focuses on critiquing the fundamental logic of Capitalist society, in the hope to understand its inner workings. An analysis of capital and political power does not necessarily come with a fully fledged strategic response.Really, which chapter of Capital is about capitalist ideologies? He does critique--CRITIQUE--different bourgeois economic theories in order to point out their weaknesses and strengths, so as to fashion an economics that is usable by the working class in the struggle against capitalism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Your pushing back against a notion nobody here holds, in order to reinforce a staple of bourgeois propaganda. This is hardly an accomplishment or something worth defending here.


(1) Ethics gradient was arguing that the military is used the same way by bourgeois administrations. I disagree with this.

(2) Who are you to say I am doing it in order to "reinforce bourgeois propaganda"? You are a presumptuous little person.



You're exactly right. Bourgeois propaganda networks are doing a fine job a pushing the inordinate focus on small differences angle. We don't need supposed revolutionaries on the forum to help them out. But apparently that's the best we can hope for.


These aren't "small differences", they can make the difference in lives of millions of people. A decision to invade a country or instigate a coup has huge consequences. The difference, say, between interventionists and isolationists in the leadup to ww2 probably had a significant impact on the timing and nature of America's entry into the conflict. Yet they were both groups bourgeois politicians who for the most part agreed with one another on most things. So it is important to discuss the finer details of the disagreements within liberal capitalist ideology.

Nor am I "helping them out", any more than Marx was "helping out" free trade advocates when he discussed the economic costs of protectionism. Anyone who goes and votes for a "peaceful" democrat because of what I wrote (1) is far too easily convinced of something and (2) is misconstruing what I said and why. As I've repeatedly asserted, they are all imperialists, and are all interested in American power and the success of American capitalism, which we oppose. The point is that they have different views regarding how to preserve and expand American power, and these can result in significantly different policies. Only in a conspiratorial mind does that mean I am advocating voting for one or another.



I am making the point that both were forms of bourgeois propaganda that often don't rely on explicit contentions, but instead on other instruments of persuasion like innuendo, omission, and so on. I thought that this was pretty obvious in my initial phrasing, but you are dishonestly trying to twist what I am saying.


Yet I am not relying on "innuendo and omission" except in your weird world where every Leftist who doesn't fit your assumptions of what a Leftist should say/do/argue is some kind of closet reformist social democrat.



Nobody is asking for his depth or brilliance of analysis. I'm asking that you at least try. You aren't.


Sorry, I just don't see myself beholden to your weird theoretical/moral expectations. This is the first place I've ever seen anyone assume that a leftist critiquing the differences within Capitalist ideology must provide a political strategy in response to prove their leftwing bona fides.



Really, which chapter of Capital is about capitalist ideologies? He does critique--CRITIQUE--different bourgeois economic theories in order to point out their weaknesses and strengths, so as to fashion an economics that is usable by the working class in the struggle against capitalism.

Well, Capital is about Capitalism as such. And yes, he discusses protectionism, Malthusian economics, various different bourgeois economists, and critiques them not only from the standpoint of the working class but from the internal logic of Capitalism. For instance, he often discusses how protectionism hurt business and trade, not to support free trade or protectionism but to analyze the historical development of economic forces.

And no Das Kapital does not discuss the strategic responses. It is an analysis and critique of capitalism, not a strategic programme. He worked on that in other works. We don't read Capital and complain that it is "bourgeois propaganda" or something so silly because he is just critiquing Capitalist ideologies.

[Revolver]

I will say that this thread is educational insofar as it is confirming every negative stereotype I have of Trotskyists. But beyond that I want to suggest one way in which this analysis of ruling class factions is useful for organizing: Namely, that it helps anticipate the likely cooptation of nascent leftists by the Democratic machine. So I would expect, for example, to see some attempt to create a "liberal alternative," or perhaps simply a "progressive alternative" to the Clinton candidacy. The campaign would likely be run along the lines of the 2008 Obama campaign, and will begin to absorb disparate elements using operatives in the style of Tom Matzzie, the MoveOn hack (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/). Who knows who their favored candidate will be, but I imagine that the likes of de Blasio and Warren (assuming that the latter is not the candidate) will line up behind this "insurgency" against Clinton by emphasizing domestic priorities and minimizing the foreign policy consensus. Clinton appears to anticipate this response, and has a kind of weird "I'm against the new Gilded Era!" populist message (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-has-a-new-problem-on-the-left--the-legacy-of-the-1990s-economy/2014/05/29/90527b94-db92-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html) that is presumably downplayed in the meetings with, say, Goldman Sachs (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem). But this is not a very interesting issue because she is a known quantity; far more interesting to me is the ability of the Democratic Party to repeat the 2008 primary campaign by running another sleek candidate with suggestive but ambiguous rhetoric. A campaign that successfully coopts any fermenting broader leftist movement against the ruling class.

How do you convince the potential recruits for that campaign that this merry go round is an illusory sideshow? How do you tap into the hunger for fundamental change? I do not think that they are likely to be convinced by the "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" argument made by Green Party candidates (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-assails-major-parties/), who are in any event just as beholden to electoral strategies. After all, it is plainly obvious that there are material and adverse consequences that arise from tactical differences within the ruling class factions, notwithstanding the insistence to the contrary. I am not suggesting a utilitarian calculus here, but rather a need to reach people with concerns that they will face a dire future in the event they do not endorse the "lesser evil." Because the reality is that the faux populist candidate is like to undermine any nascent class consciousness, much like the Obama candidacy coopted the anti-war movement.

If you deny that there are differences and refuse to talk about them because you claim that you do not want to feet into bourgeois propaganda, that's fine, but I suspect that the response will be hostile. And maybe if you just want to repeatedly engage in purification purges that's satisfactory. That's not really the trajectory that I see for building, if not a near term revolution, then at least the groundwork for a successful future revolution. And, to borrow this line of reasoning from the Trots, if you are functionally creating barriers to engagement with potential revolutionaries on the basis of sectarianism, you are functionally indistinguishable from reactionaries. That is to say, you are objectively reactionary, notwithstanding your subjective insistence to the contrary.

[Deep Sea]

What Would Lenin Do?



I shall not dwell on the concrete manner in which we must do that; that is dealt with in my published theses. My task consists in indicating the deep economic roots of this phenomenon. The disease is a protracted one; the cure takes longer than the optimists hoped it-would. Opportunism is our principal enemy. Opportunism in the upper ranks of the working-class movement is bourgeois socialism, not proletarian socialism. It has been shown in practice that working-class activists who follow the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeois themselves. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not remain in power. This has been proved, not only by the history of the Kerensky regime in Russia; it has also been proved by the democratic republic in Germany under its Social-Democratic government, as well as by Albert Thomas’s attitude towards his bourgeois government. It has been proved by similar experience in Britain and the United States. This is where our principal enemy is, an enemy we must overcome. We must leave this Congress firmly resolved to carry on this struggle to the very end, in all parties. That is our main task.

[Five Year Plan]

I will say that this thread is educational insofar as it is confirming every negative stereotype I have of Trotskyists. But beyond that I want to suggest one way in which this analysis of ruling class factions is useful for organizing: Namely, that it helps anticipate the likely cooptation of nascent leftists by the Democratic machine. So I would expect, for example, to see some attempt to create a "liberal alternative," or perhaps simply a "progressive alternative" to the Clinton candidacy. The campaign would likely be run along the lines of the 2008 Obama campaign, and will begin to absorb disparate elements using operatives in the style of Tom Matzzie, the MoveOn hack (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/). Who knows who their favored candidate will be, but I imagine that the likes of de Blasio and Warren (assuming that the latter is not the candidate) will line up behind this "insurgency" against Clinton by emphasizing domestic priorities and minimizing the foreign policy consensus. Clinton appears to anticipate this response, and has a kind of weird "I'm against the new Gilded Era!" populist message (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-has-a-new-problem-on-the-left--the-legacy-of-the-1990s-economy/2014/05/29/90527b94-db92-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html) that is presumably downplayed in the meetings with, say, Goldman Sachs (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem). But this is not a very interesting issue because she is a known quantity; far more interesting to me is the ability of the Democratic Party to repeat the 2008 primary campaign by running another sleek candidate with suggestive but ambiguous rhetoric. A campaign that successfully coopts any fermenting broader leftist movement against the ruling class.

How do you convince the potential recruits for that campaign that this merry go round is an illusory sideshow? How do you tap into the hunger for fundamental change? I do not think that they are likely to be convinced by the "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" argument made by Green Party candidates (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-assails-major-parties/), who are in any event just as beholden to electoral strategies. After all, it is plainly obvious that there are material and adverse consequences that arise from tactical differences within the ruling class factions, notwithstanding the insistence to the contrary. I am not suggesting a utilitarian calculus here, but rather a need to reach people with concerns that they will face a dire future in the event they do not endorse the "lesser evil." Because the reality is that the faux populist candidate is like to undermine any nascent class consciousness, much like the Obama candidacy coopted the anti-war movement.

If you deny that there are differences and refuse to talk about them because you claim that you do not want to feet into bourgeois propaganda, that's fine, but I suspect that the response will be hostile. And maybe if you just want to repeatedly engage in purification purges that's satisfactory. That's not really the trajectory that I see for building, if not a near term revolution, then at least the groundwork for a successful future revolution. And, to borrow this line of reasoning from the Trots, if you are functionally creating barriers to engagement with potential revolutionaries on the basis of sectarianism, you are functionally indistinguishable from reactionaries. That is to say, you are objectively reactionary, notwithstanding your subjective insistence to the contrary.

You're once again responding to the argument, made by nobody in this thread, that we shouldn't talk about differences among the bourgeoisie. The rest is you analyzing a hypothetical, rather than the actual content of the "news" in the OP.

[Prole]

Well isn't that interesting. The Corporate Party of America is slowly removing it's Blue "Lite" version. As for what this new boldness means for the ownership class' intentions, I believe it's a sign they are "coming out of the shadows" so to speak. Hopefully this is an ill-calculated move on their part, and their boldness manages to dissuade any of the remaining voters that are still unaware of the ruling Elites in America.

There is also the more likely possibility that the ownership class has become so ingrained in the politics of this country they no longer need to concern themselves with the opinions of the populace.

Oh, well lookie here...

thehill[.]com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america


A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States.

[cyu]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1&singlePage=true

as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the retailer waged a campaign against labor unions.

her campaign Web site omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its biography.