THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD!

YOU THINK YOU KNOW................BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA..............JUST WHAT BUSH HAS IN STORE FOR.....YOU.....US.....THE WORLD.....OUR FUTURE!

Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages.

Those who compare Bush to Hitler are right! But, don’t be waiting for people wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism is coming differently, and its coming straight from the White House.

Staring at Christian Fascism

People say, "they couldn’t, no they just wouldn’t" strip away "classic" U.S. democracy and plunge us into fascism. But let’s see what they’ve done... and what they plan to do.

Bush believes that he is on a "mission from God," and so do his cronies. Army General William Boykin recently declared that the Iraqi people were the "face of Satan," that the Christian God was the only true and "real" god, and that "God himself" put Bush in the White House. He said all this publicly and in uniform, no less—and after people protested it, Boykin was promoted! Over the years these Christian Fascists have dug in at every level of the courts, the army and Congress. BUT NOW THEY PLAN TO GO FURTHER, moving more thoroughly into the highest levels of power. Supreme Court Justice Scalia and other highly placed Republicans want to wipe out the separation of church and state, and use government to support and enforce religious belief.

Bush has launched a worldwide "crusade." In the name of "good vs. evil," he’s killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq, and maybe more—and still the war rages. In the name of "fighting terror", he justifies torturing people in prisons like Guantanamo and murdering wounded prisoners in Iraq. This proven liar has rammed through a new "doctrine" that lets him wage war whenever and wherever he says he "sees a threat", and there is no telling where he’ll stop. The U.S. has long committed monstrous crimes around the world ... and NOW THEY PLAN TO GO FURTHER. The imperialists in power—all of them, with Bush at the core—want total global empire. Bush himself believes in Armageddon, that Islam is "evil", and that he is "fighting for God." How many people, halfway ’round the world or right down the block, will lose their lives to this lunacy? Lunacy backed up by, and serving, imperialism.

Bush’s gang suppresses science. They’ve taken control of scientific agencies. They promote "creationism" against evolution and they suppress scientific research on life-and-death issues like global warming, the AIDS epidemic, and stem-cell research. Unless they can use it to make money or make weapons, Bush’s people hate the scientific spirit of trying to figure out how the world really works. Science calls into question their dogmatic interpretation of the Bible that prepares people to sacrifice for "god and country"—and never ask why.

Bush is dismantling democratic rights. Tens of thousands of immigrants have been detained and deported for little, if any, reason and thousands more have been imprisoned with no charges—many for years. The Bush regime spies on political and religious groups. It suppresses ordinary protests with massive force, including even tanks in the streets. And it openly disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Black voters in the last election. All this, AND NOW THEY PLAN ON GOING FURTHER. Bush aims to pass more fascist laws, his flunkies threaten artists and intellectuals who dare to step outside the lines, they are invading all aspects of daily life—and it is an open question as to whether any rights at all will be left standing.... CONTINE THIS VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE HERE: http://rwor.org/future/

PRINTABLE LEAFLET HERE: http://rwor.org/future/future.pdf

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RCP
Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages.

Those who compare Bush to Hitler are right! But, don’t be waiting for people wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism is coming differently, and it's coming straight from the White House.

Ok, is this true?

Specifically, is it possible for an occupant of the White House (with the cooperation of Congress, the Supreme Court, etc.) to convert bourgeois "democracy" into a Christian fascist dictatorship?

What do the most powerful circles of the ruling class have to say about this? Do they favor it? Have they expressed their support for this transition?

The German ruling class in 1932 was in a state of crisis and genuinely feared communist revolution. The same was likewise true of the Italian ruling class in 1921.

Is the American ruling class in a state of crisis now? Or do they fear that one might be about to emerge...thus necessitating "drastic measures".

Then there are even more serious questions to be raised.

Assuming the RCP's analysis is a correct one, "what is to be done"?

The KPD in Germany in late 1932 prepared itself for fascism by going "deep underground". Party leaders moved to Switzerland. The "Karl Marx Haus" (the KPD headquarters) was abandoned. Public organizations associated with the KPD were dissolved. Funds were moved out of Germany. An underground network of the most trusted comrades was established.

As a consequence of these moves, the KPD was able to continue active resistance to the Nazis (on a limited scale) up through at least 1938. In that year, the Gestapo managed to smash the last large-scale underground ring...arresting over 3,000 communists (who were actually preparing large scale strikes against the Nazis, using the Nazi's own labor front as a cover).

So that's one option.

Another would be a strategy of direct confrontation with the Christian fascists -- every time one of them appears in public, he gets a "hot" reception from an angry demonstration...at least as long as demonstrations are still possible.

That's another option.

Finally, one could attempt to form a "united front" or even a "popular front" against fascism. That strategy would attempt to mobilize a large section of the population -- the "moderates" -- to resist the attempts to impose the fascist new order in whatever legal ways that remained in place. For example, "moderate Christians" could be organized to attend services at fundamentalist churches and "witness" against Christian fascism. This strategy implies, of course, that all propaganda and agitation for communist ideas comes to a halt -- stopping fascism is the only priority.

My "hunch" is that the RCP will go with some form of the third option...it's what Leninist parties in the west have done since 1935 or so -- only the KPD really used the first two options.

But we'll see.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Skeptic]

That's an insightful reply Redstar building on what was posted and not immediately being cynical or tearing it down. Thanks for the insights. It's a bold statement from the RCP saying that Fascism is coming. Your point about the USA not being in the same type of crisis is interesting, also another factor plays on the situation is that there has been a democratic history of protest in the USA since WWII, and during America's war against Vietnam and a lot of liberal rhetoric against 'authoritian' forms of government.

One impression I am immediately left with is that it's inspiring to see the RCP 'throwing down' with this analysis. This is not a time to get a close shave, put on a new suit, and blab to Jay Leno, that Bush won fairly and that its time to get in line and keep your head down, like Liberal Michael Moore did last week.

[NovelGentry]

I most certainly agree fascism is coming, but whether it is on the verge of being there all comes down to how loosely you're willing to define fascism (I'm willing to be fairly liberal with it - thus I see fascism possible within something like 8-10 years).


Specifically, is it possible for an occupant of the White House (with the cooperation of Congress, the Supreme Court, etc.) to convert bourgeois "democracy" into a Christian fascist dictatorship?

What if you equate the Republican Party to the Nazi Party. Bush has already shifted a number of people in his administration, and they have control of both houses of the congress. Do you not think a good amount of these Republicans have many of the same driving goals? I do. But maybe I just don't give them enough credit. Whether or not they will actually promote fascism is questionable, but I have little doubt that they will let it ride in.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's an insightful reply Redstar building on what was posted and not immediately being cynical or tearing it down.

Well, it's not a wildly implausible (that is "wacko") analysis. There are some strong arguments that can be made in favor of the RCP's scenario.

It's rather like raising on a strong hand in poker...you're not "guaranteed" to be "right" (win the pot) but you have a very good chance of being right.

My own view is that the U.S. will continue it's "drift" into fascism...something that's been taking place -- with ups and downs -- since 1945. There's no objective reason for the American ruling class to permit a "drive" towards fascism...yet.

Unlike the case in Germany, bourgeois "democracy" has served well for over 150 years as a useful tool -- providing the appearance of popular sovereignty while keeping real power in the hands of the American ruling class and its political agents.

It's not something that they will lightly throw away.

Remember that when a ruling class goes over to open fascism, all the class conflicts that were "hidden" are now revealed...the "carrots" are mostly taken away and the stick appears naked and unadorned.

Another serious drawback of open fascism is the self-reinforcing drive towards military expansion. It's all well and good to "conquer" defenseless third-world "countries"...although holding on to them seems to already have given the U.S. imperialists a good deal of trouble with more in the offering.

But how long would it take a fascist America to provoke a major war with China or the EU? Or both?

And what would be the consequences for the American capitalist class of losing such a war? Can you picture the American survivors, shivering in the rubble, hoping the occupation troops would give them something to eat?

Again, I don't think that the German ruling class (or Italy's or Japan's) anticipated the consequences of losing a major war. But the American ruling class knows what could happen...they learn from history just like we do.

Are they ready to gamble everything in order to rule the whole world?

I don't think so -- at least not yet. But the RCP does think so and this compels them to adopt an appropriate strategy. As they have noted themselves, it can't be "business as usual"...if they're right.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Skeptic]

Redstar what do you think of this (it's all over the web):

14 points of fascism under george bush in the united states

In "Fascism Anyone?," Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
and let's not forget the failed "Bring 'em on!"
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
House bill looks to legalize torture by foreign operatives
Ashcroft refuses to give Congress torture memo
July 1, 2003: U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries: The United States on Tuesday suspended military assistance to nearly 50 countries, because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.
Outsourcing Torture: Contractors act as interrogators: Defense Department turned to private sources to question prisoners for intelligence gathering.
US has at least 9000 prisoners in secret detention
al-Qaida Detainees 'Disappeared' : At least 11 al-Qaida suspects have "disappeared" in U.S. custody, and some may have been tortured, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Monday.
President Bush today distanced himself from his administration’s quiet effort to push through a law that would make it easier to send captured terror suspects to countries where torture is used.
Guantanamo Eyes Possible Execution Chamber
Bush Civil Rights report released: "...the administration has failed to exhibit leadership or define a clear focus, relegating civil rights to a low priority."

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Cheney warns that if Kerry is elected, the USA will suffer a "devastating attack"
A scared populace is a compliant populace Terrorists are likely planning U.S. attacks, a U.S. Homeland Security official said Friday.
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
How U.S. Attorney-General, a Christian Evangelist With Anti-Islamic Views On Record, Is Waging War On American Muslims
Dr. James J. Zogby: A co-ordinated and bigoted assault The anti-Arab campaign being waged today in the U.S. is an organised multi-pronged effort targeting a variety of Arab leaders, institutions and Islam.
Congressman: Muslims 'enemy amongst us'

4.) Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Bush refuses to sign U.N proposal on women's "sexual" rights
Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 failed to provide any exception if a woman's health is at stake.
Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records
W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs. Hager believes that headaches, PMS and eating disorders can be cured by reading Scripture.
Bush Administration to Extend Health Coverage to Fetuses but Not to Pregnant Women
The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.
Bush calls for constitutional ban on same-sex marriages

6.) Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
In bed with the republicans and banning antiwar songs: Clear channel
The White House recently called the president of NBC News, to discourage that network from broadcasting interviews with author of book about the Bush family
Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time Nation's largest TV chain orders all 62 stations to show movie without commercials right before election
US seizes webservers from independent media sites
Fibbing It Up at Fox
If it's allowed to stand, an FCC ruling will feed media merger mania
Articles published by American outlets suppressed in their own country
Reporters in chains: Under Homeland Security orders, journalists from England, Sweden, Holland and other friendly countries are being detained at U.S. airports, strip-searched and deported.
Bush releases another fake news video

7.) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.


Bush Aides ADMIT 'stoking fear' for political gain

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Falwell says evangelical Christians now in control of Republican Party
Religious networks broadcasting Bush's White House prayer event
Thou shalt be like Bush: What makes this recently established, right-wing Christian college unique are the increasingly close - critics say alarmingly close - links it has with the Bush administration and the Republican establishment.
Presidential Prayer Team
US is 'battling Satan' says general
US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush
Park Service Continues to Push Creationist Theory at Grand Canyon and other nat'l parks

Redstar: I heard on DemocracyNow! today that the extreme, Supreme Court, just legalized the posting of the Bible's 10 Commandments on Federal Property.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Halliburton, Bechtel, and the Carlyle group: Why were lied into war
Bush's talent for cronyism: foxes guarding the henhouse
Bush Administration Exempts Oil Industry From Clean Water Act
Controversial drilling method may be protected Energy bill compromise would exempt 'hydraulic fracturing'

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Organized labor locks horns with White House Union leaders are working to displace GOP candidates

President Bush Attacks Organized Labor Bush attacked organized labor Saturday, issuing orders effectively reducing how much money unions can spend for political activities and opening up government contracts to non-union bidding.
March 2001: President Bush signed his name to four executive orders on organized labor last month, including one that cuts the money unions will have for political campaign spending.
Congress and the Department of Labor are trying to change the rules on overtime pay, eliminating the 40 hour work week, taking eligibility for overtime pay away from millions of workers, and replacing time and a half pay with comp days.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Bush's new economic plan cuts funding for arts, education
NEA vows to undo President Bush's education programs
Artists from all over the world are being refused entry to the US on security grounds.
In a highly unusual use of the USA Patriot Act, which its creators say was designed to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, The New York Times reports that three artists have been served subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury June 15

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
U.S. Patriot Act Summary of fascist parts
EFF Analysis of "Patriot II"

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Bush Cronyism: Foxes Guarding the henhouse
Iran-Contra Felons Get Good Jobs from Bush
Big Iraq Reconstruction Contracts Went To Big Donors
The companies making the most off the new Medicare contracts also donated the most to the GOP

14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
RNC funds voter suppression efforts in at least 5 states
Republican judge upholds RNC efforts to supress Democratic party voters
Bush campaign chairman quits over illegal phone jamming
the 2000 election
How To Rig An Election In The United States
Scoop: Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Election officials all over the country are erecting illegal barriers to keep young voters from casting ballots. From New Hampshire to California, officials have designed complex questionnaires that prevent college students from registering, hired high-powered attorneys to keep them off the rolls, shut down polling places on campuses and even threatened to arrest and imprison young voters
This picture is what stopped the ballot recounts in Florida shortly after it seemed that legitimate President Gore had a lead. The "citizens" started what was later called "the preppy riot". Screaming, yelling, pounding on the walls, these "outraged citizens" intimidated the polling officials to halt the court mandated recount. A closer look reveals who they really were. They were bussed and flown in at Republican lawmakers expense. Some even flew in on Tom Delay's private plane.


more election fraud information

If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" what does that make the Republican party?

Related Articles:

"Now and Then"- Part 1 A 3 part series by W David Jenkins III on the similarities between America now and Germany post Reichstag fire
click here to purchase this image on a shirt


"Now and Then"- Part II: The Propaganda Machine
Now and Then- Part III
Hitler's Playbook: Bush and the Abuse of Power
The Road to Fascism
Make that roads, and three great libertarians explained them, says Roderick T. Long.
Is America Becoming Fascist?
Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
The Danger of American Fascism:
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
Sheila Samples: Freedom To Fascism -- A Bumpy Ride: Republicans don't seem to realize that they are no longer individual members of a coherent "party," but are merely part of a mean-spirited and dangerous movement that is threatening to sweep away democracy as we know it.
Germany In 1933: The Easy Slide Into Fascism
The Brownshirting of America: Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US – truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports – as treasonous America-bashing.
Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
What is Fascism? Some General Ideological Features






This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

privacy policy

© 2003-2004 OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com

[redstar2000]

Redstar: I heard on DemocracyNow! today that the extreme, Supreme Court, just legalized the posting of the Bible's 10 Commandments on Federal Property.

I just checked that site and there's no mention of such a ruling.

Also, I seem to recall that the Supreme Court usually releases its rulings on Mondays.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[flyby]

I am inspired by the thread here. And think we need to get into it.

And I want to point out (to you) a sister thread on Another World Is Possible message board (awip) (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&num=1102559056&start=0)) -- so we don't need to repeat the different shit.

I'd like to dig into some of redstar's points. Which i considered a contribution to this whole debate, and which raise important issues.

Redstar asks: "is it possible for an occupant of the White House (with the cooperation of Congress, the Supreme Court, etc.) to convert bourgeois "democracy" into a Christian fascist dictatorship?"

My answer would be yes!

First, it is a deep illusion to believe (as many do) that the current legal and political norms (bourgeois democracy, rule of law, etc.) are somehow "imprinted on the DNA of America." America has always had a brutal, repressive, raw, even genocidal side (open and official terror towards native Americans, Black people, youth, gay people etc.) And these things have always been able to coexist well with all the babble about "American Democacy" and "liberty" and "freedom" or whatever. And it is quite possible for such fascist terror methods to be generalized.

Second, it is not necessary for fascism to come as a "coup from below or from without." Hitler's movement arose from "below" in one sense. And came from without traditional parties. (But even he ran for election, won office, and staged his coup in 1933 from his chancellory (as head of Germany.)

The main thing, however, is not to have a rigid, mechanical view of what fascism "has to look like."

Similarly as the RCP statement says: "Those who compare Bush to Hitler are right! But, don’t be waiting for people wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism is coming differently, and it's coming straight from the White House."


Redstar says: "What do the most powerful circles of the ruling class have to say about this? Do they favor it? Have they expressed their support for this transition?"

This is a great set of questions. And let me first say that the best and deepest place to get the answers is the 1999 work by Chairman Avakian on The Right-wing Conspiracy (http://rwor.org/a/1255/avakian_clinton_right_wing_conspiracy.htm) He describes exactly those trends, currents and forces that we are all now facing so directly. If you haven't dug into this, you need to.

More: The ruling class has supported this in many overt ways: by building up the extreme right systematically over three decades. By elevating a George Bush to power. And you can see that even in those who "oppose" Bush in the bourgeois arena (i.e. the Kerry types and Clinton Types) are themselves (in many ways) on the same path, upholding many of the same things (if sometimes with differences, amendments or whatever.) Look at the democrat response to the nomination of Albert "Torturer" Gonzales to be head of the Justice department!!

Or the decision of the Senate Democrats to pick a very conservative anti-abortion Mormon (!!) from Utah to be their Senate leadership.

There is a deep analysis of the ruling class support for this (and their deep and sharp conflicts over it! as expressed in the Clinton impeachment, and the "deep division" talk around the elections).

This is not a mechanical thing. It is not like the ruling class as unanimity. There is widespread concern over the course (and specific decisions) of the Bush crew -- but can you doubt there is not "mandate" (from the rulng class, if not from the people) for further leaps? And if you doubt it, then I encourage other people to post the evidence for such support.

Redstar writes: "The German ruling class in 1932 was in a state of crisis and genuinely feared communist revolution. The same was likewise true of the Italian ruling class in 1921. Is the American ruling class in a state of crisis now? Or do they fear that one might be about to emerge...thus necessitating "drastic measures"."

This is another great question. And my answer is "They are facing profound necessity, but it is a crisis that is not identical with the German situation of early 1930s."

The "crisis" and urgency facing the U.S. ruling class is (in many ways and many particulars) very different from the German ruling class in 1933. Once again, these are not identical or parallel situations. Life is complex.

However they do face intense and overwhelming necessity, and their solution (like the German ruling class) is to take a historic global gamble and offensive (and unleash a grim transformation of domestic life so that they can mobilize all their forces for that offensive.)

There are many components to this: the collapse of the soviet union, the rise of huge challenges economically, the danger of new rivals emerging in Europe and Japan/China, the current "window of opportunity" represented by unprecendented U.S. military supremacy, the changes and requirments of highly mobile modern capitalism, etc. etc. (Once again this is analyzed in detail in the "Right Wing Conspiracy" essay, and I won't try to cheapen it by turning it into a soundbite.)

Redstar writes: :Assuming the RCP's analysis is a correct one, "what is to be done"?"

Another excellent question.

Redstar's sense of what to do is (a) go underground and prepare for a secret struggle, and (b) jump out and challenge every manifestation of the CFs (christian fascists) -- the way people have historically done with the KKK etc.

In some ways, his idea of our options is limited by a reading of the German KPD.

First lets say: The KPD fought heroically, but their approaches were (in hindsight) deeply flawed. We can learn from them, but should not repeat what they did.

In particular the decisions of the communists (in about 1934 and after) to increasingly abandon revolution and seek strategic "democratic" alliances with (read: behind) the supposed "anti-fascist" sections of their imperialist bourgeoisies -- that road (associated with Dimitrov) is one we should NOT take.

And it is worth digging into why we shouldn't take it, why it was wrong, and where this line lead (clue: it wasn't to revolution and liberation in the imperialist countries!)

Redstar writes: one could attempt to form a "united front" or even a "popular front" against fascism. That strategy would attempt to mobilize a large section of the population -- the "moderates" -- to resist the attempts to impose the fascist new order in whatever legal ways that remained in place. For example, "moderate Christians" could be organized to attend services at fundamentalist churches and "witness" against Christian fascism. This strategy implies, of course, that all propaganda and agitation for communist ideas comes to a halt -- stopping fascism is the only priority. My "hunch" is that the RCP will go with some form of the third option...it's what Leninist parties in the west have done since 1935 or so."

There are levels of response:

a) Yes, we need to unite broadly -- while maintaining a solid, oppen and aggressive revolutionary core.

b) We need a united front -- in the sense that the many forces who fight together on common ground (including the important broad sentiment of "Nooooo to the Bush Agenda") will not agree on many other things (including, obviously, on the need for proletarian revolution and a socialist transition to communism, with all that this implies).

c) we must not form a dimitrov style "popular front" (of the kind I discussed above) which is essentially abandoning revolutinary communism in an effort to ally with (follow, serve, appeal to) sections of the ruling class and the exsiting "establishment." Though we must try to reach, and win over, many people who voted for Bush (and who live in RED states or whatever.)

d) We are not confined to "what leninist parties in the West have done since 1935" -- and , in fact, what they have done has been basically wrong on fundamental points. We need to sum up those histories, critically, as part of doing something radically different.

e) We need to do all this, in the context of, as part of, our larger revolutionary work of "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution" -- training, extending, and increasing the revolutionary core that gives all this its leadership and backbone. We need to accelerate the work of creating a "revolutinary people" -- among those who see the connection of this madness to the very nature of this system, and who (as a result) can be won to seeing the need for revolutino. And we need to build, promote, the vanguard and its leadership, in particular its Chairman Bob Avakian. What Avakian is "bringing to the table" of this struggle, is unique and precious, and we all need to dig deep into it, cuz that will make a huge difference in whether we succeed or fail.

[cormacobear]

I would suggest the U.S. is in a crises situation. Bush's deficits at current taxation levels would take more than half a century to pay back. They must either advance or retreat as the current situation will lead only to further attacks on their country.

How would a war on the U.S. be fought? Clearly a conventional ground and air war is not an option as it would oviously give the U.S. easily targeted military forces.

Any military act against the U.S. would have to include plain clothes insurgents attacking and seizing military istallations on foriegn soil.

Also a requirement would be a massive global endeavor by the worlds intelligence agencies and Canadian and central American forces to infiltrate into the United states to perform direct attacks on American governmental, and military targets.

Curiously I wonder what extraordinary action the U.S. would haver to commit before even one nation openly declared war on the States?

[cubalibra]

Bush has already caused the country much harm by playing into the hands of HIS 'enemies' by sending troops to fight in a guerilla war that they will NOT be able to win no matter how great their firepower is and how many depleted uranium bombs they drop.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but I feel it's my duty to question anything questionable. If nobody did, we'd all be easily dominated mindless drones. All I ask is you read that article again carefully and think for yourself. ( http://rwor.org/future/ )

The article seems to throw out a bunch of buzz words such as "opression", "revolution", "leadership", "imperialism", "fascists", "racism". These words look great, but the context of the article is lacking. It fails to explain how this revolution will occour.

The words are fine, but there is little meaning behind them. It has been a classic trick of the ruling party for some time to use such words (think of how many times you've heard Bush say "freedom", yet fail to back it up with anything.)

I enjoy the idea of a world without prejudice or borders and food for everybody as much as the next person, but HOW? We already know what we want, but how do we get it?

Secondly, rather then truly concentrating on the future, the article takes too much to convince the reader how bad the world is today. Anybody can claim that they can make the world a better place, but who can really prove it?

Yet another trick of the ruling class, pursuade to public that the reign before them was horrible, and claim that they will make it better in the future. (think of mudslinging tactics followed up by campaign promises.)

What disturbed me most of all was that the article promoted "Bob Avakian" rather then the ideals. Even more disturbing was how it waited until the end, after the reader was already hooked in the article. Take the following:

"Well, just to be up front, there IS a leader, the likes of which this country has never seen before, that can lead a mighty struggle to make revolution and remake society. That leader is Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party."

Does this not sound like a strive for power? Anybody here ever read "1984" by George Orwell? This reminds me how historicly the "proles" were used by the party to oust the ruling class so they party can take the place of the ruling class, all the while the proles were left behind. What I read this man seems to be recruiting popular support so he can seize power himself.

If he were to promote himself less, to promote the ideas more, and to give a solid plan rather then a sheet full of pretty words that look good, but mean little, I'd be more trusting.

I may be very wrong, and I kind of hope so, but I am not going to trust this man. He seems very dangerous.

[flyby]

KRS wrote: "I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but I feel it's my duty to question anything questionable. If nobody did, we'd all be easily dominated mindless drones."

I completely agree. We need to speak out, analyze, question, and dig into things. And I welcome your questions (and even disagreements) with what I wrote -- since i think you raise important and thoughtful questions that deserve to be looked at and discussed.

If something seems wrong or unclear, we need to bring that out -- and wrangle together over what is true and necessary.

Now let's get into the meat.

KRS writes: All I ask is you read that article again carefully and think for yourself. ( http://rwor.org/future/ )

I agree.

Of course on one level, we ALL think with our own brains, we can ONLY "think for ourselves" in a very real, and biological sense.

And then on another level, our thoughts are all social -- and get their meaning from others. We humans share ideas, we formulate and debate. And we learn from each other. Studying the insights, proposals, analyses of others isn't wrong...
and in many ways we NEED to learn from those who have the most advanced analyses. And whole movements of people adopt the most analysis they can find.

That is not wrong, and in that sense we "think together." And we need to in order to get liberated.

KRS writes: "The article seems to throw out a bunch of buzz words such as "opression", "revolution", "leadership", "imperialism", "fascists", "racism". These words look great, but the context of the article is lacking. It fails to explain how this revolution will occour."

Well, first, I think these words are important, if they are used carefully and correctly. They describe important concepts of the revolutionary process and analysis -- and need to be promoted and shared.

You raise the important question of HOW the revolution will occur. And you are right, in one sense, that this leaflet doesn't discuss that in detail.

And (of course) one leaflet can't discuss EVERYTHING (and not even all important and necessary things.) However the RCP (who wrote the leaflet) has disucssed in great detail SOMEWHERE ELSE how the revolution will occur -- what alliances, repolarizations are necessary, what kind of crisis can produce a revolution, how the people must fight, and who they must fight, what kind of government will need to be set up and so on.

I can post many places..... but here is a good beginning essay: Is Revolution Possible in the U.S.A.? (http://rwor.org/a/chair/ask1e.htm)

Here is a more detailed and indepth analysis: from the RCP Draft Programme (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-pw.htm)

KRS writes: "Secondly, rather then truly concentrating on the future, the article takes too much to convince the reader how bad the world is today. Anybody can claim that they can make the world a better place, but who can really prove it?"

Interesting questions. First, the approach of Bob Avakian is to link the present to the future -- to make sure that we grasp what is so wrong about the present, and build a movement that can really go to another place.

Second, there are many things about the present world that NEED analysis -- because there are rapid changes, including the rather shocking and little-understood changes in the nature of the u.S. government. So for those reasons analysis of the present (and not just "how bad it is") are needed -- and many many more people need to investigate and debate what it all means.

Finally, how DO we "prove" we can make the world a better place? Communists are not bourgeois politicians who make a long list of promises and then say 'trust me' -- and if communists did that, people would be very justified in not trusting them!

Marxism says "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself." The communist International (the anthem of our movement) says "we need no condescending saviors to rule us from the judgement halls, we workers ask not for their favors."

In other words, it is not a matter of just handing over the future to someone with a good rap -- it is a matter of us together building a movement where the people (the oppressed, the masses, and especially the most class conscious sections) wrench the future from the hands of the oppressors and transform human society. For that we need leadership -- communist leadership -- but the proof and guarantee that it will work will come from the way conscusness is spread among the people.

KRS writes: What disturbed me most of all was that the article promoted "Bob Avakian" rather then the ideals. Even more disturbing was how it waited until the end, after the reader was already hooked in the article. Take the following: "Well, just to be up front, there IS a leader, the likes of which this country has never seen before, that can lead a mighty struggle to make revolution and remake society. That leader is Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party."

Well, the fact is that this is true. First of all, there has never been a visionary revolutionary leader in U.S. history. And for that reason, the key problems of how to make such a revolution have never really been solved. For example, the Panthers (who were revolutionary, heroic, pathbreaking, and self-sacrificing) never solved the key questions of HOW (the very questions you yourself were asking and which are so important.)

It is not disturbing to have such a leader, it is necessary. And it is also rare.

So in one sense we are lucky. Manhy parties and movements don't have such theoretical developments and communist leadership. And ithas a deep impact on things (look at how the weaknesses of Ho Chi Minh's analysis and line impacted what happened in the Vietnamese revolution, which was also historic, heroic, progracted, and even victorious in some ways!)

KRS writes: "Does this not sound like a strive for power?"

Well yeah, it does. We need power. Lenin writes "without power all is illusion"

If the revolution doesn't seize and wield state power -- how can the masses be liberated? without power (including the instruments of power like peoples armed forces etc.) how can the oppressive forces be defeated? And how can real changes happen in the environment, or education, or the oppression of black people etc.?

The point of politics, class struggle and revolution is to seize power to change the world.

The central task defined by the RCP is "create public oppinion, seize power."

If you have a vision of revolutionary change that is somehow WITHOUT POWER please share it with me.

KRS wrote: "Anybody here ever read "1984" by George Orwell?"

Yes i read it. And i guess most of us have.

But does this nightmarish vision of a revisionist country, a police state, mean that we don't need leaders? That we can be liberated and the world can be changed without leaders? And don't we need leaders who have real vision, and who build on Marxism to solve the new problems facing the world revolution? And don't we all need to be engaged on those questions and problems at the highest possible level?

And for us to be engaged on that high level, doesn't that involve studying those who have made pathbreaking analyses?

Don't let anti-communist novels turn you off to the importance of communist leadership and organization. Our vision is not a nightmare, our movement is not 1984! And the reason they teach 1984 in every high school is (of course) to turn you off to the idea of socialism, right?

KRS writes: "He seems very dangerous."

Yes, he is extremely dangerous -- to this system, to the oppressors, to those who would strangle us and exploit us all over the world.

And that is all the more reason to dig deep into what he has to say.

bobavakian.net -- new talks (http://bobavakian.net)

and there is just a wealth of stuff here, including stuff on his life and experiences which i found fascinating: Bob Avakian's writings (http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm)

Anyway, i appreciated your questions, and I look forward to your response to these remarks.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
First of all, there has never been a visionary revolutionary leader in U.S. history. And for that reason, the key problems of how to make such a revolution have never really been solved.

This is an astounding proposition!

In order to "solve the key problems of how to make a revolution" (in each particular country?)...we require a "visionary revolutionary leader".

Otherwise, it "can't be done"?

This would suggest that a revolutionary proletariat is a "secondary factor"...and "cannot" win unless it has such a "leader".

And you consider me to be "pessimistic"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[YKTMX]

I think what's missing is revolutionary leadership as opposed to one "leader". A revolutionary party dedicated to the interests of the working class is undoubtedly needed to create or advance any situation where revolution seems possible. We need the piston for the steam - as one famous guy put it.

[redstar2000]

I want to return to the main topic of this thread...especially the question of "what is to be done" if the RCP's analysis is correct.


Originally posted by flyby
We can learn from [the KPD], but should not repeat what they did.


In particular the decisions of the communists (in about 1934 and after) to increasingly abandon revolution and seek strategic "democratic" alliances with (read: behind) the supposed "anti-fascist" sections of their imperialist bourgeoisies -- that road (associated with Dimitrov) is one we should NOT take.


We are not confined to "what Leninist parties in the West have done since 1935" -- and , in fact, what they have done has been basically wrong on fundamental points. We need to sum up those histories, critically, as part of doing something radically different.

Ok, this is all pretty clear and straight-forward.

But what is "something radically different" in this context?


We need a united front -- in the sense that the many forces who fight together on common ground (including the important broad sentiment of "Nooooo to the Bush Agenda") will not agree on many other things (including, obviously, on the need for proletarian revolution and a socialist transition to communism, with all that this implies)...

We need to do all this, in the context of, as part of, our larger revolutionary work of "prepare minds and organize forces for revolution" -- training, extending, and increasing the revolutionary core that gives all this its leadership and backbone. We need to accelerate the work of creating a "revolutionary people" -- among those who see the connection of this madness to the very nature of this system, and who (as a result) can be won to seeing the need for revolution. And we need to build, promote, the vanguard and its leadership, in particular its Chairman Bob Avakian. What Avakian is "bringing to the table" of this struggle, is unique and precious, and we all need to dig deep into it, cuz that will make a huge difference in whether we succeed or fail.

In summary...

1. Build a united front of people opposed (for whatever reason) to Christian fascism.

2. Build the RCP.

3. Promote Bob Avakian.

I fail to see anything "radically different" in these proposals.

The first "skirts the edge" of the Dimitrov strategy, depending on how it's implemented...that is, how "subdued" communist ideas are in the united front against Christian fascism.

It also directly conflicts with the second and third options; you can't "build the RCP and promote Bob Avakian" without talking about it/him -- but such talk is precisely what will tend to "scare off" the opponents of the Bush agenda and keep them from working with you.

I agree with you that we should not necessarily think of ourselves as "trapped" by the alternatives "KPD or Dimitrov" -- but it seems to me that your "something radically different" is nothing more than a "modified" Dimitrov strategy.

All you'd have to do is mute or even eliminate entirely Dimitrov's absurd rhetoric about "progressive sectors of the bourgeoisie" and you'd have it...Dimitrov-Lite.

But I don't see any reasonable way to work "build the RCP/promote Avakian" into that mix. As soon as you begin offering an anti-capitalist alternative in any kind of a clear way, then those (most of them) who oppose Bush's agenda will also oppose yours.

You see, there doesn't exist in the United States any significant "left opposition" to Christian fascism -- the opposition to Bush comes from those who are "opposed to extremism" and want to follow "a middle way". At best, I think they'd regard the RCP and Avakian as distractions. Most likely, they will just ignore the RCP altogether.


Redstar's sense of what to do is (a) go underground and prepare for a secret struggle, and (b) jump out and challenge every manifestation of the CFs (Christian fascists) -- the way people have historically done with the KKK etc.

That's quite perceptive of you. Yes, I do think Christian fascists should be confronted in an angry and hostile way. You know the old KPD slogan: Smash the Nazi Wherever You Find Him!

I realize the limitations of that approach; there's some question that there's enough of a "left" in the U.S. to even consider that a feasible alternative.

But I would "float the idea" and see if there's a positive response...even if the hypothesis of a transition to Christian fascism proved incorrect.

Confronting and, if possible, defeating reactionaries "in the streets" is a "good idea" in and of itself. It's one of those things that principled revolutionaries are supposed to do.

And, let's face it. The Christian fascists in the U.S. have gone virtually unopposed except by professional liberals. We both know the spineless character of such "opposition".

Shouldn't we start to really go after those bastards?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[flyby]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 13 2004, 02:17 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 13 2004, 02:17 AM)
flyby
First of all, there has never been a visionary revolutionary leader in U.S. history. And for that reason, the key problems of how to make such a revolution have never really been solved.

This is an astounding proposition!

In order to "solve the key problems of how to make a revolution" (in each particular country?)...we require a "visionary revolutionary leader".

Otherwise, it "can't be done"?

This would suggest that a revolutionary proletariat is a "secondary factor"...and "cannot" win unless it has such a "leader".

And you consider me to be "pessimistic"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
let me be short for a change.

Redstar: this gets to the heart of key insights into revolutin.

Yes, without a revolutionary leadership, an organized revolutionary core, without a theoretically developed communist line and startegy -- there can be no revolution. Or, to put it anouther way, there can be uprisings and revolutions, but not SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONS THAT MOVE ALONG THE COMMUNIST ROAD.

We can fight, we can win here or there, but we cannot move toward communism -- without the "living link" represented by the approach, method and work of a leader like Avakian.

By themselves, spontaneously, the masses struggle, they strike, they revolt, they riot, they resist, they petition and they seek a way to win.

But "without revolutinary theory there cannot be revolutionary movement."

There is movement but not REVOLUTINARY movement -- i.e. no revolution.

It can't be done, without a visionary leadership. And not every party has a leader like avakian or mao, but they CAN apply the insights and developments created by the work of an Avakian or Mao.

You say: "This would suggest that a revolutionary proletariat is a "secondary factor"...and "cannot" win unless it has such a "leader"."

I didn't say the revolutionary masses are "secondary" -- they make history. But they can't make it unless their struggle and cause developed a leading core, and a leadership capable of fighting this complex process all the way through.

All the failures you like to point to (0ver and over) are, in fact, a proof of that.

There is nothing pessimistic about that. Especially because we actuall HAVE an Avakian! :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
Yes, without a revolutionary leadership, an organized revolutionary core, without a theoretically developed communist line and startegy -- there can be no revolution. Or, to put it anouther way, there can be uprisings and revolutions, but not SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONS THAT MOVE ALONG THE COMMUNIST ROAD.

We can fight, we can win here or there, but we cannot move toward communism -- without the "living link" represented by the approach, method and work of a leader like Avakian.

I hope people are paying attention as all the theoretical work of Marx and Engels fades into the background...as well as the masses themselves.

"We cannot move towards communism...without...a leader like Avakian."

Think about all the implications of such a statement!

If that doesn't cure you of any interest in Leninism-Maoism, you're terminal. :(

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Commie Rat]

i sent out much information on the Partiot act and thsi information out to many people that i know

they have all come bak with lame retorts about extremist 'proaganda' and how its not possible for something like that to happen

and i got a shit load of flak fo being a conformist from mi friends that buy all there clothes from billabong, ripcurl, globe, kustom ect ect ect

they have no idear about communsim and socialism and when i try to explain it they jus come with lame statementes like we deserve the money we make and the poor people deserve to be poor this jus disgusted me


do u have any more info to bak me up ?





b) We need a united front -- in the sense that the many forces who fight together on common ground (including the important broad sentiment of "Nooooo to the Bush Agenda") will not agree on many other things (including, obviously, on the need for proletarian revolution and a socialist transition to communism, with all that this implies).


Any one heard of Rock Agaist Bush

all the punks i know are agaist bush and are pollitically aware maybe we could team up with them

lol punks and commies

[NovelGentry]

Maybe next time they say "We deserve the money we make..." you should tell them that "you deserve more than the money you make, that's the point."

The working class as a whole should be able to afford with their salary all the products of the working class as a whole (aka: all the products). We cannot. We are paid far less than our labor is worth... so maybe you should point this out to him and explain how communism looks to free the working class of ruling class theft and finally return to them control over their lives.

[Rasta Sapian]

Interesting points.......

Bush represents both Freedom and Facism?

Depending on which side of the fence you are looking from ie. the right or left

A crusader maybe, a powerful man fueled with faith and glory, yes

his plans for his own people and the people around the world are still unclear

I have read evangelist journals that have defined G.W. Bush as a knight of the Templar, who carries the rightous blood of a Apocalyptic Knight, on a mission from God, however this could all be sheit, or maybe not?

I think he still has the ability to bounce back from his mistakes, to re-gain universal respect, and respect at home.

or yes, WW3 would be another option! thats my 2 cents, by the way who's picture is on the back of your 2 cents?

[Commie Rat]

Maybe next time they say "We deserve the money we make..." you should tell them that "you deserve more than the money you make, that's the point."

thanx gentry

[flyby]

i've been giving this statement to everyone....

including everyone who doesn't agree with us yet.

I am finding that it is quite useful in provoking (and also focusing) discussions...

so that they don't revolve around the nonsensical ("We are freeing Iraq") but actually starts to dig into reality.